I pledge allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice FOR ALL.

Can anyone else remember reciting this every morning in school?

Can We Keep This Republic?

CNSNews.com Commentary by Michael Quinn Sullivan
November 22, 2000


Perhaps we are in need of a dictator; perhaps we are unfit to govern ourselves, as the King of England once declared. The folly of Florida is only the latest symptom of our ailing republic.

The day must have been a long one. These men had suffered hours of long and acrimonious debate, knowing crisis upon crisis threatened to implode the young nation.

War with England had successfully concluded, and now the fledging nation of 13 states had to go about the business of governing itself. Debts were mounting; factions accused each other of undermining the spirit of the revolution; the nation appeared poised on the verge of collapse.

And so delegations from the states had gathered to form what they hoped would be a lasting government based on the foundation of law, and not on the whims of men. They envisioned a society of simple laws with a minimum of compulsory rules or obligations. Their vision was for a land of freedom and personal responsibility.

Benjamin Franklin, an elderly man by this time, left the meeting hall and was asked what had been decided, what form of government had been created.

"A republic, if you can keep it," came the storied reply. He feared that the nature of human government, to devolve into dictatorship, resulted from our desire for security over liberty. He, and many of his compatriots, feared the population would not sustain a free society, eventually demanding the strong, yet secure, arm of government over the uncertain promise of freedom.

Some 213 years later, one must admit that Mr. Franklin's fears were well founded. Laws, rules and regulations dictating every facet of life are promulgated exponentially. Taxes are increased without hesitation, while freedom is restricted as a matter of political convenience.

usconservatives.about.com...

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
while freedom is restricted as a matter of political convenience.

Which freedom is it that you're concerned has been restricted?

I'll ask it again... which specific freedoms have been restricted?

In what SPECIFIC ways has Mr. Franklin's portent come true?

How have we LOST the Republic? I have answers do you?

PEACE...
m...

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice FOR ALL.

Can anyone else remember reciting this every morning in school?

I knew early on that freedom for all was a concept that would never happen. Freedoms are being taken away as we speak...they have been for years upon decades. I stopped reciting the pledge because I feel it should go as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. To the constitution, which shall never falter, and the bill of rights, to be adhered by ALL. To the REPUBLIC, for which they stand, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice FOR ALL

Originally posted by JamesLimelight
Freedoms are being taken away as we speak...they have been for years upon decades.

Again, which freedoms do you feel are being taken away?

What is it that you can't do, that you or your parents used to be able to do?

What is it that you want to do, but are not allowed because of restricted former freedoms?

On behalf of James...

He cannot take a legitimate protest out on the streets in view of the President and assembled media.

Simple one.

Maybe trivial, maybe not.

His parents sure could.

He cannot openly call for the boycott of Israeli products.
He has less choice about where to send his children to be educated.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice FOR ALL.

Can anyone else remember reciting this every morning in school?

Well yes...but without this phrase "under God", as to include it, would not be to recite the true pledge... But, that's a whole other debate, hehe....

MA: How do you feel that he is not able to do this...take a protest out onto the street. Surely he can. If you're trying to allude to some of the Iraqi war protests, many of them crossed the line, and became criminal acts, ONLY when they started infringing on the rights of others (shopkeepers, patrons, commuters, etc.). I think the point of Ben's fears starting to be realized can come true, but not that it has truly started yet....and I feel we will overcome this test as well, just as we have in the past.... Ben was truly a wise man....

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
He cannot take a legitimate protest out on the streets in view of the President and assembled media.

I suppose you don't understand the security concerns of allowing something like that during heightened alert?

I know what you're referencing... and it was a crock. The right of assembly does not imply a right to disruption.

Originally posted by Estragon
He cannot openly call for the boycott of Israeli products.
He has less choice about where to send his children to be educated.

Any private citizen can call for the boycott of whatever they like. However, licensed merchants have certain restrictions.

While there is no choice offered for "free" public education, there never has been... so no freedoms "lost" there.

Originally posted by William
Which freedom is it that you're concerned has been restricted?

Off the top of my head the Brady Bill comes to mind... here is just one of the things it changed:

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

Now it may be true that I really have no need to have a gun that holds over 10 rounds, but that isn't the point. The point is that my father had a rifle that would hold 15 rounds, as did his father, that I cannot have, Therefore it may be a minute detail but it is a restriction of rights.

_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

Originally posted by K_OSNow it may be true that I really have no need to have a gun that holds over 10 rounds, but that isn't the point. The point is that my father had a rifle that would hold 15 rounds, as did his father, that I cannot have, Therefore it may be a minute detail but it is a restriction of rights.

Is it really?

The right to bear arms was conceived by our inspired forefathers as a means to maintain an armed militia that could prevent a government from getting out of control and imposing military rule. In that era, leading technology was muskets and canons... and enough people with muskets could overpower canoniers reasonably quick.

Today, there's no way a private citizen can hope to maintain armament capable of maintaining the type of citizen militia as a preventative measure envisioned by Franklin and Jefferson.

So do then, does the number of bullets in your magazine really amount to a restriction of personal freedom? Is not the core reason for the "right to bear" arms outdated and archaic?

Originally posted by William


Is it really?

The right to bear arms was conceived by our inspired forefathers as a means to maintain an armed militia that could prevent a government from getting out of control and imposing military rule. In that era, leading technology was muskets and canons... and enough people with muskets could overpower canoniers reasonably quick.

Today, there's no way a private citizen can hope to maintain armament capable of maintaining the type of citizen militia as a preventative measure envisioned by Franklin and Jefferson.

So do then, does the number of bullets in your magazine really amount to a restriction of personal freedom? Is not the core reason for the "right to bear" arms outdated and archaic?

If the right to bear arms is so that we can keep the government in check, then our rights are lost.
Like you said we wouldn't stand a chance against the superior military force. So by those standards and the true intention of the second amendment, I should be able to own tanks, fighter planes and even nuclear weapons... but I am not.

So I guess we have to ask ourselves, why can't we own them. Could it be that we live in a government that is terrified by its own people.

Originally posted by William
Today, there's no way a private citizen can hope to maintain armament capable of maintaining the type of citizen militia as a preventative measure envisioned by Franklin and Jefferson.

Very true!

So do then, does the number of bullets in your magazine really amount to a restriction of personal freedom? Is not the core reason for the "right to bear" arms outdated and archaic?

If it came down to you, your house and your gun and a small battalion of militia, terrorists or gang members would you rather have 15 shots or 10 before reloading?
So yeah, it's an infringement on my right to life and protect myself.
We are granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness...

Originally posted by 29MV29If it came down to you, your house and your gun and a small battalion of militia, terrorists or gang members would you rather have 15 shots or 10 before reloading? So yeah, it's an infringement on my right to life and protect myself. We are granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness...

Unless this has happened to you, it's a strawman arguement. You can't theorize that your rights are restricted against some fictitious future event.

You still have your firearm.

You still have as many rounds as you would like.

You can still have as many magazines as you would like.

Why is it that many American's equate freedom with the rate-of-fire of your firearms?

Originally posted by K_OS I should be able to own tanks, fighter planes and even nuclear weapons... but I am not.

Sure, many private citizens own operational tanks... with the proper limits. There's even a person I met back in Buffaly, NY who own a 1960's reconditioned fully functioning fighter jet. But given the cost of such things... there are only a few who can consider having one or even two.

Nuclear weapons... now realy!

Again, why do Americans equate freedom with firepower?

Interesting that weaponry were the first two responses to "personal freedoms lost".

Well, then how about all the little laws that restrict our lives? Seatbelt laws, the entire DHS, innumerable anti-discrimination laws, etcetcetc. The entire point here is that the idea for this nation was one where the central government wa meant to be something that would be just enough to hold the nation together, while the individual states took care of what else neaded to be done in government. Most importantly of all, the people were considered responsible for their own lives and actions, and were free to act as they chose, as long as they did not break a limited number of laws. A man could have a farm whereever he wanted, run his own business wherever he wanted, own whatever he wanted without needing a license for everything. If he faltered, if he died, it was his life, and he had lived it in his own way, and paid the price for his choices. More importantly, he died a free man. Now tell me, when was the last time you had a say go by where you were entirely unrestricted by the law?

posted by William...Unless this has happened to you, it's a strawman arguement. You can't theorize that your rights are restricted against some fictitious future event.

Why not? The Gov't does it all the time, why not me?

You still have your firearm.

Yes, and I hope I never have to use it on a person

Why is it that many American's equate freedom with the rate-of-fire of your firearms?

I don't think this way. I'm just playing devils advocate, besides, I'd rather have a magazine that holds more rounds. Same with the gov't, right?

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Well, then how about all the little laws that restrict our lives? Seatbelt laws, the entire DHS, innumerable anti-discrimination laws, etcetcetc.

I'm still not sure how these restrict personal freedoms... perhaps you'd like to explain? Seatbelt laws... is that the best you've got?

However, you skirted some possibilities when you mentioned farms... care to take that further for our kind readers?


29MV29: This discussion should remain focused on what is happening to personal freedoms, not what might happen. Since we can only prove what is... not what might.

How about the legislation that is in the works in Illinois. The law that makes it illegal to smoke in your own home. (Granted it is if you have children).

I say if your going to smoke don't do it around others who do not smoke, but not to be able to smoke in your house. People can't smoke in a lot of different facilities now.

I do not smoke, but I don't think that I have any right to tell you that you can't. If I don't like it I can just go somewhere else.

Freedom of the press... There was a story about 4 months ago that was all over the headlines. A woman refused to give the judge a source to one of her stories so he put her in jail. There goes another amendment...

Sorry I'll actually have links to back up my points after while. Today is Thursday so its my BUSY day, we go to press in the morning and I have to have the paper finished.

_____________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS