Gil223
Regular Member
The phrase "Open Carry" means nothing if the left has their way in Congress. Success for them means that eventually (if not immediately) there will be nothing for us to OC. This excerpt from an article on PoliticalOutcast caught my eye last night ("fair use" applies)
There was a Brit named John Emerich Edward Dalberg (elevated to "Lord Acton" 1869), who said in an 1887 letter, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." It's a quote with which most of us are familiar, as it is still in use today and remains as applicable today as it was 125 years ago. Any leader of any form of constitution-based government who tries to circumvent in any fashion that constitution is seeking "absolute power". We have such elected "leadership" in our country today - a man who wishes to rule the quaking hoi polloi rather than rationally govern a free society, with a demonstrated attitude of "If you do not love and accept me as your Emperor, you will learn to fear me!" Apparently he has cowed the Congress, thereby rendering them ineffectual. He has circumvented the Constitution numerous times without being "taken to task" for his actions by that same Congress. As an individual he is neither fearsome, nor worthy of our respect. Our fear is for the direction in which he is unabashedly, and without any Congressional constraints, taking our beloved Republic. Now there is a move afoot to remove the two-term limit restriction for the office of POTUS - unsurprisingly initiated by a Democrap. Should that happen, the "What's in it for me?" crowd will keep him in office, while those concerned about "How does it benefit the country?" will be ignored.
There is enough hypocrisy to go around though. There are those who swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Presdient and VP), and those who took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" (members of our military). The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." It appears that very few accepted their oath as binding... assuming that they even remember the words they mouthed to achieve their personal goals. Just some thoughts from my personal view of reality. Pax...
Granted, DHS is an enforcement agency, and as such must have the ability to participate effectively in armed confrontations. The question is, are they planning to be the aggressor or the defender? And against whom do they plan to act? Also, why do they require anything more than a bolt action rifle with a 5 round fixed magazine, since the government has determined that ability is adequate for the citizenry? There are simply too many government actions coming together now to ignore. Anyone who believes that there are no plans for a "gun grab" is either naive or not paying attention.
There was a Brit named John Emerich Edward Dalberg (elevated to "Lord Acton" 1869), who said in an 1887 letter, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." It's a quote with which most of us are familiar, as it is still in use today and remains as applicable today as it was 125 years ago. Any leader of any form of constitution-based government who tries to circumvent in any fashion that constitution is seeking "absolute power". We have such elected "leadership" in our country today - a man who wishes to rule the quaking hoi polloi rather than rationally govern a free society, with a demonstrated attitude of "If you do not love and accept me as your Emperor, you will learn to fear me!" Apparently he has cowed the Congress, thereby rendering them ineffectual. He has circumvented the Constitution numerous times without being "taken to task" for his actions by that same Congress. As an individual he is neither fearsome, nor worthy of our respect. Our fear is for the direction in which he is unabashedly, and without any Congressional constraints, taking our beloved Republic. Now there is a move afoot to remove the two-term limit restriction for the office of POTUS - unsurprisingly initiated by a Democrap. Should that happen, the "What's in it for me?" crowd will keep him in office, while those concerned about "How does it benefit the country?" will be ignored.
There is enough hypocrisy to go around though. There are those who swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Presdient and VP), and those who took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" (members of our military). The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." It appears that very few accepted their oath as binding... assuming that they even remember the words they mouthed to achieve their personal goals. Just some thoughts from my personal view of reality. Pax...
