SHTF 2011 what do you do?

[arctictom]

I'm dead set against any sort of secession. You'd have a hard time coming up with a better Constitution than we have now. The problem is the politicians ignoring the Constitution. In the circumstances set forth above we should be demanding that our state assemblies pass nullification statutes, stating that certain federal laws are null and void in that state. Accuse Congress and the President of seceding from the US! If enough states follow suit Washington (and the Pentagon) will get the message.

We have one of those a State Sovereignty act ( 10th amendment line in the sand) , passed the house about a month ago, about 10 states now IIRC more getting on line, This guy Obama is really good for conservatives, not so much for the country though.

[Netpackrat]

I think we could do with a few amendments, though don't think we need the convention. First and foremost, we need to fix the second amendment. It should read something like

You could do more good getting rid of amendments than adding new ones. If you want to change the Second, going to something like how the AK constitution reads would be better:

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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

[D5CAV]

I think we could do with a few amendments, though don't think we need the convention. First and foremost, we need to fix the second amendment. It should read something like

The right of the People to Purchase, manufacture, keep and bear arms, any man portable arms, both concealed and carried openly in any and all location inside these United States, Territories, Protectorates or Allies for any purpose deemed appropriate by the person carrying said weapon shall not be infringed. Also, no law, statute, requirement or license shall be made to exercise this right save that the bearer must be a Citizen and have reached their majority age of 18 or be emancipated.

The Government of The United States of America shall have no authority or ability to levee taxes other than income on Citizens, residents and corporations in excess of 12.5%. The Government shall not be able to levee or collect any other taxes, fees or payments from the people or from corporations other than the afore mentioned 12.5% income tax. There shall be no deductions or exemptions save for those Men and Women who have been awarded the Medal of Honor.

How's that for a start.

I can't see any way to improve on the one that was written by Patrick Henry. It is clear, concise, too the point, and doesn't have any loopholes.

2. 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.

I can't think of any way to make this clearer. I want to ask a congresscritter "so what part of 'shall not be infringed' did you not understand?"

I embrace the 'miltia clause', I don't run from it. The 'militia clause' kills any 'sporting purposes' or 'hunting gun' argument. If hunting was outlawed tomorrow, there is nothing in the constitution to protect the sport of hunting.

The 'militia clause' means that the kinds of handheld weapons that citizens are allowed and expected to own to fulfill their 'militia' obligations are exactly the same kinds of weapons the Army and Navy have. This means full-automatic assault weapons, belt fed machine guns, pistols, shotguns, sniper rifles -- anything that the military uses.

About the only guns that could be outlawed under the 2nd Amendment are double rifles -- they clearly don't have any 'militia' use. They could be outlawed because they serve no 'military purpose' and are solely designed to be guns used in the eeevil sport of hunting.

If you read the Supreme Court ruling in the "Miller" case, which the anti-gun types like to invoke, the Supreme Court only allowed the prosecution of Miller under the Gun Control Act of 1934 because the ATF prosecutors (falsely) testified that the sawed-off shotgun had no military purpose! If Miller actually had a Thompson SMG instead of an old sawed-off shotgun, the case would have been thrown out as the Thompson was built specifically for the military!!

Note also that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "A well regulated Army being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of soldiers to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It says 'militia' and 'people'. The Constitution puts 'Militias' on equal footing with 'Army' and 'Navy'. Each State has its own definition for what constitutes a militia. Most States define 'militia' as every able bodied man between 18 and 65 year of age.

CCW permit? How about my copy of the Constitution? It says I'm permitted to carry right here!

[mekender]

If you read the Supreme Court ruling in the "Miller" case, which the anti-gun types like to invoke, the Supreme Court only allowed the prosecution of Miller under the Gun Control Act of 1934 because the ATF prosecutors (falsely) testified that the sawed-off shotgun had no military purpose! If Miller actually had a Thompson SMG instead of an old sawed-off shotgun, the case would have been thrown out as the Thompson was built specifically for the military!!

If i remember my reading correctly, there were indeed sawed off shotguns used by the military in the trenches of WWI... so that testimony was as you said false...

[Precision]

To answer my own question.

Assuming the scenario, I believe there would be a LOT of chaos initially with many misguided groups (military, police, criminal, citizen) that go a bit nuts at first. Much of that should die down within a week as either the feds or the state gains control. I live to far away from Tallahassee to navigate the fractured military / police hurdles without tripping somewhere along the way. So I hunker down for the first week or so and see how the illegal Presidential order vs. the legal governor's orders are carried out while assessing the "now that SHTF" attitudes of my local conservatives. Once things have settled down (or escalated) into an easily observable situation. I take my band (even if it only musters one) to the fight.

[martini]

D5CAV,
I would like to agree with you, but I can't. Patrick Henry was a far better word smith than I ever hope to be, however, clearly based on the laws that have been passed and continue to be passed (not to mention the "wisdom" of the Supremes) there seems to be plenty of room for the Congress-weasels to maneuver. I would like to see that taken away. I am sure that someone else can do a better job on the wording than I.

I also notice no one commenting on the tax amendment. I was very curious how that would be received.

[D5CAV]

D5CAV,
I would like to agree with you, but I can't. Patrick Henry was a far better word smith than I ever hope to be, however, clearly based on the laws that have been passed and continue to be passed (not to mention the "wisdom" of the Supremes) there seems to be plenty of room for the Congress-weasels to maneuver. I would like to see that taken away. I am sure that someone else can do a better job on the wording than I.

I also notice no one commenting on the tax amendment. I was very curious how that would be received.

Regarding the current gun laws -- Our government has not yet amended the Constitution with regard to the 2nd Amendment, so these laws are unconstitutional. Yes, there are many people who have, and are still, serving time in prison for unconstitutional laws, including gun laws. A judge could put you in jail for not mowing your lawn, and unless a higher court overturns his ruling, you are stuck. The Supreme court has studiously refused to handle any 2nd Amendment case except for "Miller" and "Heller", and they narrowly ruled on both. IMHO, the correct ruling on "Heller" should have been "what part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?"

By the way, this is a bit off the topic on this board, but the biggest group of prisoners in US prisons are serving time for clearly unconstitutional drug laws. At least Wilson was man-enough to get a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol (18th Amendment, repealed with the 21st Amendment). We have prohibition of drugs with no constitutional authority! Before we get into an argument on whether recreational drug use is good or not-good, I don't have a dog in this fight. All I'm saying is if you want to ban drugs federally, you need a constitutional amendment to do so. There is no authority for the DEA in the Constitution (nor the BATFE, but I already went into that).

Regarding taxes -- that was already taken care of by a Constitutional Amendment

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There is nothing in this amendment which puts any limits on the amount! What is interesting, if you go back and read the debates (they are in the congressional record from 1912 or so), you will read opponents arguing that eventually the tax rate could get to 10% and proponents telling them that they were raising ridiculous arguments -- they could never get that high!

There are many other places that .gov exceeds the authority given to them in the Constitution. We can start with the Federal Reserve banking system. This is clearly unconstitutional.

Article I. Section 10. No state shall ... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; ...

This language has not been changed by any amendment, yet we happily work for Federal Reserve Notes! Thankfully, the IRS still accepts Federal Reserve Notes in payment.

So who holds our congresscritters accountable for abrogating the US Constitution? Look in the mirror.

We get to fire these guys every 2 to 6 years, but we still keep re-hiring them!

[Termite]

Point of order:

Patrick Henry was not the author of the 2nd Amendment. James Madison was, and he was also the primary author of the entire US Constitution.

[D5CAV]

Point of order:

Patrick Henry was not the author of the 2nd Amendment. James Madison was, and he was also the primary author of the entire US Constitution.

James Madison was a Federalist and part of the cabal that wanted the US Constitution to give the federal government more power than it had under the Articles of Confederation.

Hamilton, also a Federalist, was adamantly against the Bill of Rights, arguing that they were superfluous, obvious, and unnecessary.

Patrick Henry was the leader of the Anti-federalists, who distrusted (rightly so, as it has turned out) the slope of centralizing power within the federal government.

James Madison may have penned the words, but it was Patrick Henry who spoke the ideas. Patrick Henry was the one who refused to allow Virginia's approval of the US Constitution without the addition of the Bill of Rights. It is his intent that is in the 2nd Amendment. I don't think Madison really gave a d###, except to get a consensus between Hamilton and Henry.

You can read the whole thing here: http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm

Oh yeah. One other lie that is taught in our schools is that George Washington was the first US President. This is false. John Hanson was the first US President. Under the Articles of Confederation, a President only served for one year. There were 7 US Presidents who served under the Articles of Confederation, including Richard H. Lee, Robert E. Lee's great-uncle. http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html

The Federalists didn't like this because one year is too little time to build-up a power base. Hence, the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

George Washington was the first President to serve a four year term under the new Constitution. Since the new Constitution didn't require rotation of the position (as under the Articles of Confederation), he was free to run again, which he did. The only thing that limited him to two terms was his health. There was nothing in the Constitution to limit a President to two terms until the 22nd Amendment.

[Aglifter]

A) I don't think there's a single FF who wasn't vastly more dedicated toward individual liberty than probably 99.9% of the populace, and every elected politician -- with that said, the stuff I've read, based on correspondance of the time, etc, Washington did not want to be President. He, at times, struggled w. his own ambition, but his letters seem to indicate that he had no desire to constantly be in the middle of the political firestorm that our nation was created in. (I imagine trying to create a new form of government, based on relatively new ideas about individual liberty, with many good, honorable, and brilliant men, has to be fairly stressful.)