Law Enforcement Officers for the Constitution

[Plazoo]

New article posted under 'News'-Rep. Paul Broun warns of Dictatorship at Law Enforcement Officers for the Constitution.com

[Plazoo]

New video-"‘Regulatory Czar’: 2nd Amendment Based on ‘Fears,’ Not Founding Fathers" at Law Enforcement Officers for the Constitution.com

[Buzliteyear]

When you think about it, we all should be de facto members of this group. Everyone here took an oath to support the Constitutuion.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

There is a good majority of people that don't know what the Constitution says, nor what power is gives and restricts.

When I took my oath of enlistement as a puke civilian with the dream of becoming a United States Marine, I didn't fully understand the Constitution. I was willing to lay down my life for something I had very little comprehension of. I figured that, any orders I was given, unless they jumped right out at me as being illegel, would, in fact, be legal.

Now I know better. Plus, I realize some of the evil people who are in power seek to destroy the very spirit of that document. It is very unfortunate that this group should even exist in the first place.

[RoadKingTrooper]

The term "Living breathing document" and the US Constitution should NEVER be used in the same sentence:mad:

[Plazoo]

New articles posted in 'News' today at Law Enforcement Officers for the Constitution:

Science Czar Holdren says Constitution backs compulsory abortion"

Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar

Obama to Set Higher Bar For Keeping State Secrets

Government Blasted Over ‘Gag Order’ on Private Health Care Provider

[BeerBudget]

The term "Living breathing document" and the US Constitution should NEVER be used in the same sentence:mad:

RKT, I have to disagree there. The Constitution MUST be kept alive and breathing. If the citizens of this nation do not tend to it, surely it will wither and die under the tremendous weight and pressure of the offal heaped on it by those that think they know best.

Additional:
I am all for reasonable and intelligent debate about The Constitution. Times and methods change. The arguments for firearms today don't have the exact same context as when the Bill of Rights was drafted. There were no self-loading firearms (that I know of) 200 years ago. There was no way the internet was even conceivable when the Bill pf Rights was written. Internet blogs and personal web sites went through a bit of a debate (if my crappy memory serves) regarding their protection under the Constitution.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Disagree all you want. There are generally two sides to a discussion of Constitutional intent.

1.) The "living, breathing document" insinuates the Founding Fathers did not know what they wanted as they formed this country and that the Constitution should be changed to reflect any societal changes, adding and removing rights and responsibilities.

or;

2.) The Constitution as the supreme law of the land. As such, it enumerates particular rights and responsibilities afforded to us and is to be strictly adhered to. The Founding Fathers had seen much of "seat of your pants" government and they didn't care for it one bit. They wanted the Constitution to be a document that clearly outlined the balance of power while outlining certain things they felt were of absolute importance. These latter items became the Amendments.

[CityOfChicago]

The arguments for firearms today don't have the exact same context as when the Bill of Rights was drafted. There were no self-loading firearms (that I know of) 200 years ago.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the citzens had the ability to keep the gov in check. That is, should the gov attempt tpo become tyrannical or oppressive, the citizens had the ability to fight off such repressive governement. It's also why the next Amendment perscribes the manner in which soldiers may and may not be quartered with citizens. These two amendments were designed to work together to protect the people from an oppressive gov. If you want my opinion, things are actually worse today. Back then, citizens could arm themselves with the same weaponry as the military. That was the point. We certainly know that is not the case today. And while I actually am in favor of many gun laws and regulations - like not allowing felons and children to buy guns and citizens not owning tanks and howitzers, I see no problem with responsible Americans owning automatic weapons.

In 1775 Americans had had enough. They were unfairly taxed and treated as second-class citizens by their own nation. When the time came, they fought, and secured their independence. In this day, where gov has the ability to Patriot Act your personal life, where your taxes can be raised to take bread from your mouth and give it to another, where capitalism now has a czar who oversees what he and the gov believe is your fair wage - as this government continues to grow and creep its tendrils ever further into your personal life - what can you really do about it?

Dont get me wrong - I'm not advocating armed insurrection, or claiming that it is terribly close. What I'm saying is that the power and scope of gov has grown 1000 times beyond what our founders intended. And while many claim that the size and 'complexity' of modern society dictate this as necessary, the basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have not. What I'm saying is, should our government reach the same tipping point it did in 1775, we will find that we have no recourse. We will not be able to shake off the shackles of tyranny, we will not be able to provide for our own. If that day comes, we will have found that we are no longer citizens, but subjects, in every meaning of the word. We will be subjects of our Big Brother and provider, and we will be subjegated.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

**Coming back to this later to address the 'Additional' information.**

[BeerBudget]

CoC -
Don't get me wrong. I am entirely behind the right of every legal citizen to own firearms. On a personal level, I do worry about the mindset of modern society and it's members to be responsible gun owners. I see people every day who cannot properly operate a motor vehicle within the law or even the boundaries of safety. Do I REALLY think that individuals like that are capable of responsible firearms ownership? Nope. Heck, I look at some of my co-workers at the range, in the locker room, and even on duty and I see some questionable firearms awareness and safety practice. Do I want to get hit when some yahoo is showing off his shiny new 1911 in a irresponsible manner in public? Nope.
On the point of select-fire weapons, SBRs, and other weapons covered under the NFA, I really only find fault with the whole post 1986 no new weapons portion. Yes, you can maintain a weapon that old and keep it operably safe, but modern technology has moved on. Newer designs, materials, and testing make for a safer and more reliable weapon. That contributes to the responsible ownership of the weapon and the safety of the user and those who would share the lane next to them at the range.
Furthermore, don't mistake me for one of those folks that thinks the Constitution evolves with the times. Society and technology evolve and change. Written documents DO NOT. When a new "thing" comes along, the debate should be how it fits in to the existing framework. As it stands, one side calls for X to be unregulated as it should be wholly protected. The other side wants to ban X because they see it as not being covered under an "interpreted" document. I see room to discuss, to ensure a protection, with measures to provide responsible stewardship of the protected action. A pretty round-about way of saying every citizen has the right to own a firearm, but there should be a measure in place to ensure that every citizen who chooses to exercise that right has been educated in safe and responsible storage, carry, and general ownership of said firearm. Think of it as driver's education for firearms. Of course, seeing the abysmal state of modern driver's training, it would still fall short and be promptly ignored by most.