A Veteran Writes: Defend the Constitution!

1. Brilliant!

   • “A fire extinguisher in case I cook”
     Because a grease fire will be the assumed result when it’s your turn that week?

     • “A man has got to know his limitations.”

     • all my recipes turn out flambe. just not intentionally.

2. The Constitution is above men. It is above our political elite and it is above the men who lead our court system. Let no man overrule it or alter it. It is our sworn duty to protect the Constitution from men who seek to pervert it and ultimately destroy it.

   • How can a contract be above those that agree to it? How can my promise be above me? Don’t I have the ability to keep or break a promise?
     Why must it not be altered? There are provisions to alter the document within it, and the “bill of rights” are, themselves, alterations to the original document. Other alterations have outlawed slavery, conscription, and the sale alcohol only to legalize it again. The document is only ink on parchment. It gives us no protection. The only thing we have is adherence to an idea of liberty that is aided by the little restraint that the ruling class has in the lip service they pay to the sovereignty of people, not the People.

     • The Bill of Rights did not alter the Constitution, unless you consider “adding to” an alteration.

       The Constitution as it was originally ratified contained the outline of how the new government would be organized and what each branch was allowed to do as its function. The Bill of Rights was added post haste because many people felt it was necessary to also instruct the new government what it was forbidden to do.

       The additional amendments following the B of R, except for Prohibition and its repeal, did in fact alter parts of the Constitution under the very rules contained in the original document.

       Interesting point – Prohibition is the only amendment that tells the People what they may not do, rather than the government, and is the only amendment ever repealed.

     • Also, Jefferson said, regarding the Constitution and Congress (paraphrasing): “No document created by man may contract future generations against their will. A contract created by men can be abolished or altered by men.”

   • It is our sworn duty to protect the Constitution from men who seek to pervert it and ultimately destroy it.

     I would add that the men who seek to pervert and destroy the United States Constitution actually seek to exploit us and destroy anyone who gets in their way.

     The United States Constitution is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” that tells us when evil people are getting ready to unleash death and destruction upon us.

3. “Civilian ownership of firearms also serves a mission. That mission is to be prepared to form the Reserve Militia to back up the Federal and State government’s forces. “

   Apparently the military has brainwashed you. Or you’re a closet statist. Or, (most likely) you’re just another American citizen who knows jack-sh*t about the founding of this country and just repeats nonsense they’ve heard.

   The primary role of civilian firearm ownership is to keep you and your bosses in line, and serving the correct master. ‘Backing you up’ was the least of the considerations of The Founders. We’re armed to depose, not serve as your underlings.

   • Why can’t it be both?

     • I would agree that it is both. The original army was militia with trained professional officers.

       • Omer is on the right path. The original Army was the militia, which is where some confusion comes from. The Founders were not fond of standing armies.

         You have to have them up to a point, but there is also always a point where governments seem to go astray. At which point, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

         This is an individual right, not collective.

     • I’m not saying there aren’t scenarios when we may back them up, but that was NOT the intent of the 2A in any way, shape, or form.

       That’s and he’s writing an article an article on The Constitution. He (at most generous) has no clue what the 2A means.

       • 16V says; “I’m not saying there aren’t scenarios when we may back them up, but that was NOT the intent of the 2A in any way, shape, or form.”

         Those scenarios you propose is exactly what I reference. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So you disagree that a “well regulated militia” should be armed with military-style weapons to be ready to serve as a militia? Or are you opposed to the Militia working with the military to defend the country or a state, in general?

       • Ragnar, I didn’t miss a thing.

         So you disagree that a “well regulated militia” should be armed with military-style weapons to be ready to serve as a militia? Or are you opposed to the Militia working with the military to defend the country or a state, in general?

         How or when did I actually say that? The suggestion that the military may face some challenge that they will “work with a militia” to combat/solve is beyond laughable – it’s just pathetically fallacious. And fantastical.

         Once again, not a collective right. Just like all the others, an individual right. As such, the government is presumed to be the enemy, and the people are guaranteed their ability to keep the government in check.

   • The chinese army just landed invasion forces on the gulf coast. Grab your gear and join with your militia to help the regulars repel the invasion.

     I’m not your underling! My weapons are to keep you from giving me orders!

     • “President whoever has decreed martial law, and nullified the votes from the last election. All able-bodied citizens are to take their arms, and coordinate with Federal forces.”

       Sounds right, yes?

       Much more likely scenario – and what the Founders had in mind.

       • No, 16V, if you were from here you might have a better understanding.

         The Founding Fathers wrote it into the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

         “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

         “One people” it doesn’t say who “people” are or how many. Therefore it must (also) = 1.

         IN THE U.S., NO REGULATION OF ANYTHING, MUCH LESS GUNS, SURVIVES THE SUNSET OF THE CONSTITUTION. REGULATION OF FIREARMS IS PREEMPTED BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT. NO ONE CAN TELL YOU HOW LONG AMERICA WILL LAST. KEEP YOUR GUNS FOR THE END OF AMERICA, AND YOU MIGHT HAVE A SAY IN WHAT COMES NEXT.

       • Joe R. Apparently I need a /sarc tag with everything. That, and did you read any of the other stuff?

         Yes, the point of the 2A is that people are in charge of governments, not the other way around. Using the militia to support the government’s standing army was not the original intent – the militia was the army. Making sure everyone was armed when our little experiment starts to unwind so as to form the next thing is a bonus.

         Not from here? Are you related to the earlier migrants? Sorry, about my great-great-great-great…, it was the 1540s and we took it from you fair and square. Apparently you should have killed us, but for whatever reason you didn’t.

     • No worries, Holder has the local cartels better armed than the invasion force. As soon as they realize the invasion will be bad for business, they’ll take care of things.

   • 10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

     (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

     (b) The classes of the militia are—

     (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

     (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

     • Title 10 was part of the creeping movement to redefine “militia” as Natty Guard.

   • 16V, you are twisting my words. I said “As an American citizen; self-defense is a primary consideration.” That defense is from anyone that threatens you, even the government. I then go on to say “Civilian ownership of firearms also serves a mission. “ The Reserve or Unorganized Militia, depending on source, is a way to explain to those that believe civilians do not need “military-style weapons”.

     I can assure you I am nether brainwashed or a statist. You may have missed the point of the article.

     • Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but I felt like you were talking about civilians backing up state and government forces in the context of defending the nation from enemies either foreign or domestic. I read that defense as fluid, and were it ever to come to a point where civilians took up arms, it would be in the context of supporting servicemen and women loyal to the constitution, who are included within the “people” of the Second Amendment. I’m presuming I’m supporting those soldiers because, in this context, they are the pros and I’m just a fat middle-aged jamoke with an AR-15. 😉

       • I’m getting a little long in the tooth to be an active militia member under most circumstances, but should the need arise and the government turn to tyranny I will do what I can to assist the State forces and any federal forces who mutiny in order to restore the Constitution.

         I believe that’s what Ragnar meant, not that as a militia member you would be bound to support the federal troops even if they were complicite in the treason.

       • Yes Sir, that sums up the point well. Any military person or veteran that betrays the Constitution, is a traitor of the people.

       • “Civilian ownership of firearms also serves a mission. That mission is to be prepared to form the Reserve Militia to back up the Federal and State government’s forces. Without civilian ownership of military-type firearms in common use, their capability as a backup to the military is severely diminished”.

         Shocking that I didn’t ‘get your point’, since that wasn’t what your words actually said.

         Backing a military that’s involved in a revolution (or coup) has sweet FA to do with your stated premise.

         Once again, the whole point of “militias” is that they are to be formed to defend The Constitution, not be a force multiplier for whatever nonsense a standing army is set to enforce, in defense of their paychecks.

4. Beautifully stated. Im going yo steal the bit about being prepared and the fire extinguisher.

5. “…and a fire extinguisher in case I cook.”
   Can I steal this?

   • Screw it, I want to steal the whole article and post it at work.

6. Slow clap in…..2….1……bingo!

   Join Oath Keepers.

7. I agree, a former member of the Armed forces of the USA! we are not to offend nor fight back against this terrorism
   woe be us if our Insane Government doesn’t grow a pair instead of wimping out with PC crap, this is the goal of the Democratic Party! all this stuff is under their watch. I hate the Idea of using my rifle for destruction, if push comes to shove I will use it!
   They can kill me but against the law too eat me! Non Sibi Sed Patriae

8. “these Untitled States of America” ?

   • “These” is a plural adjective. Adjectives are modifiers of nouns. In this case the noun being modified is “states” (plural). Therefore, the use of the plural adjective is correct.

     “The United States of America” is also correct, when describing the nation that is formed by that collection of states.

     • You missed it too, as did almost everyone else. It says Untitled States of America, instead of United States of America. It’s a pretty big typo for the first line, somebody should probably fix it.

     • I believe he was questioning “Untitled” (i.e., no title) rather than the “these”

       You appear to have missed that entirely. Twice.

     • I checked the original document and it said “Untitled”. Apparently, Microsoft Word does not like the word “United” and auto-corrected it to “Untitled”.

       The blame is entirely on my shoulders for missing this critical misspelling of the word. Thank you for drawing attention to the error and to TTAG for correcting it here.

9. I can’t remember the entire U.S. Military Code of Conduct anymore, but I still remember the last line, and I think it sums up not just an active duty member’s responsibility, but that of the veteran as well.

   “I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God, and in the United States of America.”

   • Damn straight!

10. Great! Ragnar-love that name…

    • Ragnar Danneskjöl. If this man did not go into battle wielding a giant hammer while wearing a horned helmet then I don’t want to live anymore. There are fictional comic book characters that don’t have names that barbarically awesome.

      • Out of Atlas Shrugged, for anyone who didn’t know.

        • See, this is why I need to google search more and post less. Now everyone knows what an unread asshole I really am….

          Actually you all probably knew that already, nevermind.

        • In this particular case you really SHOULD fix the “unread” part of that. It’s a long book, and it does take some time to pick up the pace, but it’s absolutely loaded with good rants and food for thought along the way. Go into it expecting an epic movie rather than 90 minutes of non-stop special effects.

          There is a spot in the middle of the last of the three parts where one of the characters gives a long speech. It seems repetitive, but it’s not; he’s speaking in turn to three different demographics amongst his audience; his allies, his enemies, and the people in the middle he’s trying to edjumucate. I urge reading the speech, if not immediately on reading the book, then soon afterwards, as it outlines Ayn Rand’s entire philosophy.

        • This excerpt from atlas shrugged is what I think of every time “assault weapons” bans, magazine capacity restrictions, UBCs, and the like are proposed.

          Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be
          much easier to deal with. (‘Atlas Shrugged’ 1957) {WMail Issue #23}

      • That’s okay, Vhyrus. I read Atlas Shrugged twice and I missed the reference too.

        If I recall Ragnar was the pirate who raided ships to take their gold and give it back to the people, kind of a Robin Hood character, but a bit ruthless. Guess I’ll have to get the book out again.

        • give it back to the people

          Close but missing a very key point. He gave it back to the people who produced the wealth that the governments running the ships had stolen.

11. Why must “Robin Hood Die”?

    Robin Hood was the good guy who rescued stolen money from the government and gave it back to the citizens it was stolen from.

    • Because, unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent.

    • “It is said that [Robin Hood] fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, has demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures — the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich — whom men have come to regard as a moral ideal. And this has brought us to a world where the more a man produces, the closer he comes to the loss of all his rights, until, if his ability is great enough, he becomes a rightless creature delivered as prey to any claimant — while in order to be placed above rights, above principles, above morality, placed where anything is permitted to him, even plunder and murder, all a man has to do is be in need. Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting… Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”

      — Ragnar Danneskjöld in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Part II, Chapter VII

    • It’s a reference to Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.” In it, Robin Hood is viewed as the enemy because he is, inherently, a symbol of forceful redistribution of wealth. While ostensibly a “helper”, he is portrayed as a very a personification of “taxes”, the concept that men aren’t entitled to their money and that someone who forcefully takes it away at gunpoint and gives it to the poor is to be viewed as a “hero”. To Rand, Robin Hood glorifies the concept of the welfare state.

      • I don’t want to get too off topic since this post is only tangentially related to Robin Hood, but I see things differently. When I was a child, Disney’s Robin Hood is what I grew up on. I probably watched that movie 100 times before my 5th birthday. Thinking on it now, it’s very possible that it was what planted the seed of corrupt government in my mind. Some people may pervert the legend of Robin Hood in order to justify taking what they have not earned from those who have, but when I think of Robin Hood the person that I most closely associate in a modern context is V from V for Vendetta. V was single-handedly fighting against a corrupt government for nothing other than a love of his people and his country, just as the original Robin Hood was doing. In the Disney version, once the rightful, just, and fair king returned and deposed the usurper, Robin Hood went back to a law abiding citizen. So, I believe it is unfair to single out what most of us would call a freedom fighter and rather target the people who try to use this as justification to take whatever they want.

        Whew… that was a long rant.

        • Ayn Rand says as much about Robin Hood in Atlas Shrugged. The problem, in the story, it’s that most of society has forgotten the corrupt government part. All they see is someone who takes from the haves and gives to the have nots.

          It’s THAT Robin Hood that she, and by extension her characters, are out to destroy.

          Really, it’s not so different in our real world. Ask someone to summarize Robin Hood and 9 times out of 10 you’ll get “he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.” It’s not the right message, but it’s the one a lot of people associate.

        • Ayn Rand’s point was that whatever Robin Hood’s actual motivation, ostensibly to take back excess taxes from the government and return them to the people, he has come to represent the “Steal from the rich, give to the poor” welfare state/socialism/communism. That is the image of Robin Hood that Ragnar (Ayn Rand) is railing against.

        • Real life case in point: (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_plan)

          “The Robin Hood plan was a media nickname given to legislation enacted by the U.S. state of Texas in 1993 to provide court-mandated equitable school financing for all school districts in the state, in light of the state supreme court’s decision in Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby. The law “recaptured” property tax revenue from property-wealthy school districts and distributed those in property-poor districts, in an effort to equalize the financing of all school districts throughout Texas.”

12. Abraham Lincoln nullified each Staes ability to dissolve the political ties to the Federal Government with the War of Northern Aggression. We are now nothing but pawns slowly giving away what the Founding Fathers gave us, a Republic made up of separate smaller states that had self determination.

    The future of this country is set, absolute Federal control of the individual because we failed to protect the Constitution from it’s domestic enimies, power hungry politicians at the Federal Office level.

13. “I keep an umbrella in case it rains, a spare tire in case of a flat, a first aid kit in case I get hurt and a fire extinguisher in case I cook.”

    But, but, but…those items are not designed only to kill masses of people as fast as possible (/pajama boy).

14. The intent of 2A was to ensure the federal government doesn’t interfer with God given rights. It a limitation on the federal government, to enable a state’s ability to guarantee the right to bear arms to its citizens. However, states still restricted who could own firearms. For example in most colonies Catholics, free blacks, and indians could not own firearms.

    Given that the C9nstitution restricts the Federal goverment and is supposed to empower the states. This highlights a number of issues, and I can’t understand why the constitutionality of our modern military and any federal gun laws has not been challenged on the bases of violating 2A. I guess it goes back to the great statist Lincoln and his war.
    #lincolnkilledfederalism

15. Awesome more words. Just what we needed

    • You’re right. Come on, everybody! Let’s just start shooting the bastards!

      I am putting a /sarc on this one.

      • Even if every gun owner shot a hundred Democrats, it wouldn’t change anything: they’d still vote. 😉

        All kidding aside, the revolution didn’t get underway until normal people started dying. Then more people mobilized. If a state government announced door-to-door confiscations starting tomorrow, and enough people died resisting, that state would be looking at an armed rebellion.

16. Rand was an evil atheist.

17. “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,…” There is no expiration on this oath, it will define who I am for the rest of my life.

    Nailed it, brother. When we signed the blank check, there was no expiration date on that oath. And for anyone who wonders what the 2nd amendment meant to the foundeers, read the Declaration of Independence and find the only Duty mentioned in that document.

18. The :Marine Corps Motto says it simply: Semper Fidelis Always Faithful

    We are faithful to the oath, there is no expiration date.

    Someone who repudiates that oath is a traitor.

Comments are closed.