Saturday, March 9, 2013

The War on Guns: Rules of Engagement

The War on Guns: Rules of Engagement

Click on the link and read what David Codrea has to say, then click through and read all that Stewart Rhodes has written on the subject.  Then return here for some commentary from me.

Stewart Rhodes is the founder of Oath Keepers.  He connects the dots to the fact that the President now claims the power to kill, by whatever means necessary, anybody he designates as an enemy combatant.  The definition of being a terrorist is so broad, that under that definition, anybody who wishes for a return to Constitutional governance as intended by the Founders (including all the Founders themselves) could be designated enemy combatants and summarily executed on sight.  As Rhodes points out, this is why they fought a revolution in the first place:

They (the Regime) are tracking almost identically with the long train of abuses our Forefathers suffered under King and Parliament that compelled them to fight a revolution, among which was the denial of jury trial, application of military courts, attempting to make the military power superior to the civil power and the waging of war against Americans.

Earlier in the week, Senator Rand Paul was lionized by conservatives for holding a 13 hour filibuster on the Senate floor to get an answer to whether the President had the powers claimed under the Constitution. He is said to have brought the regime to its knees. While I like Paul, and think he has a number of good ideas, the regime has not changed its mind one bit. I hope Senator Paul is protected by his status as a sitting U.S. Senator, but things happen. Right now, the Left is content with Sen. McCain and Sen. Grahamesty calling Paul a "whacko bird," but others will attempt to discredit him, even if it means making something up. Keep in mind that politicians, like other civilians, do not meet the requirements of being a "lawful combatant."

While you are at it, you should also read Anthony Martin's piece over at the Liberty Sphere entitled US Tyranny to Increase for Foreseeable Future. Martin's point here is that when the government begins to govern without the consent of the people, then the laws holding the people no longer are legitimate. For the laws that bind the people, also bind the government. When their diktats are no longer legitimate, then there is rule by man, not law. Claiming your rights under the law has no meaning if they can kill you on sight, without due process of law.  Claiming your rights has no meaning if they can make you a prohibited person on the word of a bureaucrat or a government paid psychologist.   Your rights are a dead letter, and the only reason anyone can claim them is as a vestigal memory.   

No comments:

Post a Comment