Comments on: Why Do We Need Another “Statement” When We Have a Constitution?

By: Tanner Mautone

Tanner Mautone — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:41:17 +0000

@jake i am not sure that is true

By: Dave B

Dave B — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:15:08 +0000

Be careful. The Oathkeepers who are comprised of soldiers, veterans, law enforcement, and firemen as well as patriots in the civilian sector are being ridiculed for pledging to obey the oath they took and are now considered “extremists” because they don’t want to disarm law abiding citizens and violate their Constitutional rights under any circumstances or obey unlawful orders. An organization that asks us to be prepared to confront a possible circumstance like Katrina and Pittsburgh where citizen rights were violated by use of force, where soldiers and police were used as government thugs by politicians that took us off guard and counted on the notion that we are trained to obey orders, a group that wants to protect and not take away anyone’s rights… is considered extreme. Men and women that have actually shed blood for others, that march towards danger and not away from it, that only want the government to leave its law abiding citizens alone to live their lives with the freedom our Founding Fathers wanted them to have… is being mocked and ridiculed. We’re obligated NOT to obey an unlawful order and have a duty not to do so yet we’ll be the first ones a politician will sacrifice if we did such a thing if it involved somebody that had political connections. According to Bill O’Reilly (who I admire greatly) we should follow orders and wait for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether or not it was proper. That’s not even an option to those of us on the streets. Our lives will be ruined long before any Supreme Court rules on such a thing. If I’m ordered to disarm a law abiding citizen and he or she gets killed by some thug because I took away their rightful means of protecting themselves I couldn’t live with that nor would I allow that to happen. In essence, we’re extremists because we want to continue to do what we have always done regardless of the ruling body in power at any particular time.

By: Thatsright

Thatsright — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:45:28 +0000

Matt, in one of those rare moments where booze soothes the savage beast, let me say it this way:

If somebody, anybody, needs a “statement” other than the ones already made (or the ones, presumably, they have on their own) to remind them of what they believe, we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.

OTOH, if it’s to “pull people together for what is to come”…I still say ‘eh’, but I’m willing to embrace it in the same way I embrace Hannity.

IF-and this is a big ‘If’-this serves to do just that and make it more likely that we win, then I’m all for it.

I’m just a little skeptical that this resonates with the people I hung out with on 9/12. To me, it sounds like more of the same elitist nonsense.

But then again, I’m drunk. Time’s are tough. It was Fleischmann’s tonight.

http://www.bartonbrands.com/fleischwhiskey.html

A fifth for 10 bucks.

Can’t beat that with a bat.

By: marinemanny

marinemanny — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:57:03 +0000

@LD Jackson I think you hit the point along with T. What is the point? Why is there always an extra statement that we support the Constitution and its principles? Do we think we have to tell everyone what that means because they are too dumb to know for themselves? I’m not a doctor or a lawyer but I know enough to know that these people seem to want to feel important and wise or visionary in doing this. I do not like it. I would not sign this thing if you made me.

By: T. CHRISTOPHER

T. CHRISTOPHER — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:52:31 +0000

Should have also said thanks. I obv liked my language better but I appreciate you caught that. Even if I “loved” this statement or the idea of one, that line would have made lost me. Situational strict interpretation is the mother of all hypocrisies.

By: T. CHRISTOPHER

T. CHRISTOPHER — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:51:15 +0000

You know I hate these lists, decrees, statements, contracts, or whatever. A waste of time and a tool for dumbing down while appearing smart. The kind of thing that makes me want to hit a wall.

By: T. CHRISTOPHER

T. CHRISTOPHER — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:48:11 +0000

I can buy the wedding vows thing if it were about the vows. This just seems to be a picking and choosing which “vows” we like and which we don’t. I am all for conservatives reaffirming their commitment to the Constitution. Hell if I had a kid I’d make him say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and throw in my own line “to the Flag… and the Constitution …of the United States of America.” I just dont see this as that.

By: Thatsright

Thatsright — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:06:37 +0000

Sometimes…but sometimes they’re a way for elitists to assert their influence where it is neither warranted nor desired.

Personally, I see this is particular episode as heavy on the latter. I just don’t like this crap.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:04:28 +0000

I think you might be reading a bit too much into this. Statements like this have the tendency to remind people what they believe and/or pull people together for what is to come. In a sense, it’s like a couple renewing their wedding vows. They’re still married, and they always have been, but the renewing is a symbolic way for them to reaffirm that. Sometimes, symbolic acts can pull people together.

I do agree with you part about the language. I like yours much better.

By: Thatsright

Thatsright — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:59:24 +0000

Your title says it all. The answer is “we don’t”.