13
13
0
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html
Our Constitution, that we swear to support and defend, is over 200 years old. It was, at that time, an entirely different world. There is ample evidence that the Founders did not expect, nor desire the nation to be governed by the same Constitution for as long as it has been. George Washington expected the Constitution to last between 20-25 years. Thomas Jefferson even wrote to Madison, "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Here, he clearly says that it's not enough to simply be able to repeal laws or amendments, but that every 19 years, the old laws (including the Constitution itself) should be washed clean and rewritten.
What do you all think about that?
Our Constitution, that we swear to support and defend, is over 200 years old. It was, at that time, an entirely different world. There is ample evidence that the Founders did not expect, nor desire the nation to be governed by the same Constitution for as long as it has been. George Washington expected the Constitution to last between 20-25 years. Thomas Jefferson even wrote to Madison, "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
Here, he clearly says that it's not enough to simply be able to repeal laws or amendments, but that every 19 years, the old laws (including the Constitution itself) should be washed clean and rewritten.
What do you all think about that?
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Government
Constitution Government
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 55
3
3
0
I agree it should be reviewed periodically but maybe we should review the way our government is working and change it so it conforms more to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. If changes are needed, they need to be scrutinized so they aren't being put in as knee jerk reactions to "temporary passions" as Capt Seid Waddell put it and will better our government and way of life for the long term outlook.
That being said I think some terms in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments need to be better clarified/defined as IMHO, they are open to very broad interpretation. Again just MHO, some examples would be: "well regulated militia" in 2A, "freedom of speech" which currently includes the overt "action" of burning the US flag, "equal protection of the laws" and it's application to children of non-citizens in 14A.
That being said I think some terms in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments need to be better clarified/defined as IMHO, they are open to very broad interpretation. Again just MHO, some examples would be: "well regulated militia" in 2A, "freedom of speech" which currently includes the overt "action" of burning the US flag, "equal protection of the laws" and it's application to children of non-citizens in 14A.
(3)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Sgt Richard Buckner, the document contains the method of its own modifications, and these are sufficient to meet the needs of the changing times.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
SSG Ray Strenkowski
I was going to down vote your condescending comments. Then I realized you can't help it.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
That wasn't a condescending comment. It was a serious comment. Being able to know why and articulate why is important for communication - especially when you're in a leadership position. Now, do I really think you "can't even" express your opinion? No, I think you're being sarcastic and don't think it's worth your time to develop a cognizant argument, so it's easier to say you "can't."
(1)
(0)
SSG Ray Strenkowski
Major - Your original question asks "Are We Overdue A Rewrite of the Constitution?". My response answers that simple question with a simple response - "No." I did not read in your question that simple answers which were alternate to your view would be met with a condescending response which highlights your superior intelligence.
I simply answered the question and did not have time to expand.
However, since you have asked. A few reasons why this is a bad idea come to mind. For the sake of readability I will bullitize a few.
1. The founders created a imperfect, beautiful, and balanced government which created a "balance through conflict." - decisions are bound in bureaucracy to impede the government on purpose.
2. My experience is that when individuals talk about rewriting the constitution it's usually because they are frustrated that some social agenda is not where they want it to be - or they just don't agree with something written in the constitution.
a. ex: gun control - The founders did not just create checks within the government, but the entire citizenry was a check in itself to the government.
3. I would not trust ANYONE to put the citizenry above agenda's in today's world. Everyone has one. It is a rare and extraordinary situation that brought the founders together and formed a government in which everyone worked toward the greater good instead of their own benefit.
4. Amendments can be taken up to address issues which change with the generations
5. Corrupt politicians are nothing new - and 'factions' were just as divided at times in the past as they are now. Rewriting the constitution will not change that.
I simply answered the question and did not have time to expand.
However, since you have asked. A few reasons why this is a bad idea come to mind. For the sake of readability I will bullitize a few.
1. The founders created a imperfect, beautiful, and balanced government which created a "balance through conflict." - decisions are bound in bureaucracy to impede the government on purpose.
2. My experience is that when individuals talk about rewriting the constitution it's usually because they are frustrated that some social agenda is not where they want it to be - or they just don't agree with something written in the constitution.
a. ex: gun control - The founders did not just create checks within the government, but the entire citizenry was a check in itself to the government.
3. I would not trust ANYONE to put the citizenry above agenda's in today's world. Everyone has one. It is a rare and extraordinary situation that brought the founders together and formed a government in which everyone worked toward the greater good instead of their own benefit.
4. Amendments can be taken up to address issues which change with the generations
5. Corrupt politicians are nothing new - and 'factions' were just as divided at times in the past as they are now. Rewriting the constitution will not change that.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSG Ray Strenkowski I'm not sure why you insist on making this a personal issue. I intended no disrespect and I had no intention of highlighting anything except the facts that, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago by people who did not intend it to be a document to govern the United States forever.
However, I appreciate your discussion points.
1. I agree with your first point - the government created by the founders was balanced and effective.
2. I'm certain that many people want to change the Constitution to suit their own desires, but I don't think that is always the case. Is it not possible that some people want to change things just to make them better for everyone and to bring all of what we have learned in the last 200 years into the process of creating a better form of government? Many Constitutions have been written in the last 200 years - and I'm certain that some of them have salient points that could be used to make our government a better one.
3. No offense to the Founders, but it really isn't such a rare and extraordinary situation when a nation rebels and creates a new nation. And they didn't really "work together" for the greater good all the time without having their own agendas involved - for example - slavery - they didn't write it out of the Constitution because it was a point of contention and would have stopped the progress of the document as a whole. Writing for the "greater good" would have addressed that issue and eliminated it at the time (and thereby avoiding a Civil War 100 years later).
4. The Founders wrote in the ability to amend the Constitution as a stop-gap between renewal and rewrites - not to be the only changes to the governing documents, ever.
5. I agree that corrupt politicians are nothing new. And while a rewrite won't stop corruption, it will at least reset it. Right now, our politicians have had 200 years to find and exploit the political loopholes - and they've done an excellent job of it. If we rewrite, we can close those holes and at least restart the clock on how long it'll take politicians to find out how best to exploit the new holes.
I think one of the reasons that I'm highlighting the issues of Constitutional change is because if we choose to let the country run as it has been running for the last 200 years without significant changes to bring it up to speed with modern knowledge, it will continue to decay - as we have been seeing over the last 100 years. As we get further and further from the origins of the Constitution, we get further and further from the ideals that the Founders envisioned for the Nation. Hell, we rewrite TACSOPs every few years, don't we? Why do we rewrite those? For the same reason that we should consider what a rewrite of our governing documents might look like.
However, I appreciate your discussion points.
1. I agree with your first point - the government created by the founders was balanced and effective.
2. I'm certain that many people want to change the Constitution to suit their own desires, but I don't think that is always the case. Is it not possible that some people want to change things just to make them better for everyone and to bring all of what we have learned in the last 200 years into the process of creating a better form of government? Many Constitutions have been written in the last 200 years - and I'm certain that some of them have salient points that could be used to make our government a better one.
3. No offense to the Founders, but it really isn't such a rare and extraordinary situation when a nation rebels and creates a new nation. And they didn't really "work together" for the greater good all the time without having their own agendas involved - for example - slavery - they didn't write it out of the Constitution because it was a point of contention and would have stopped the progress of the document as a whole. Writing for the "greater good" would have addressed that issue and eliminated it at the time (and thereby avoiding a Civil War 100 years later).
4. The Founders wrote in the ability to amend the Constitution as a stop-gap between renewal and rewrites - not to be the only changes to the governing documents, ever.
5. I agree that corrupt politicians are nothing new. And while a rewrite won't stop corruption, it will at least reset it. Right now, our politicians have had 200 years to find and exploit the political loopholes - and they've done an excellent job of it. If we rewrite, we can close those holes and at least restart the clock on how long it'll take politicians to find out how best to exploit the new holes.
I think one of the reasons that I'm highlighting the issues of Constitutional change is because if we choose to let the country run as it has been running for the last 200 years without significant changes to bring it up to speed with modern knowledge, it will continue to decay - as we have been seeing over the last 100 years. As we get further and further from the origins of the Constitution, we get further and further from the ideals that the Founders envisioned for the Nation. Hell, we rewrite TACSOPs every few years, don't we? Why do we rewrite those? For the same reason that we should consider what a rewrite of our governing documents might look like.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
We could use more amendments to the Constitution, but in no way is it time to rewrite it. Those same provisions that we want to change, brought everyone over here in the first place. Besides not even Donald Trump with all the talk and fluff he brings won't be able to rewrite the Constitution. Once people realize they've gone off floating in the deep water for too long, they'll find their way back to the shore.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Agree, the Constitution to make it a living Document should have been revised/updated at least every 50 years beginning in 1800. Incorporating the amendments into the Main Text and removing what was previously amended.
Unfortunately too many people believe that is some Sacred Document delivered by Celestials beings from Heaven in chariots of fire. So such a suggestion to them sounds sacrilegious.
I remember in the late 70's Pat Robertson or some other TV preacher, even went as far as to suggest the US Constitution was "Inspired" by the holy spirit. Now that to me at least, is the most sacrilegious thing to say, worst yet I think is Blasphemous.
Unfortunately too many people believe that is some Sacred Document delivered by Celestials beings from Heaven in chariots of fire. So such a suggestion to them sounds sacrilegious.
I remember in the late 70's Pat Robertson or some other TV preacher, even went as far as to suggest the US Constitution was "Inspired" by the holy spirit. Now that to me at least, is the most sacrilegious thing to say, worst yet I think is Blasphemous.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
What aspect of the Constitution is out of date and needs revision, replacement or deletion? Is there not provisions for modifying or adding amendments to the Constitution? Isn't there a means of subverting the Constitution now using Executive Actions? IMO, the Constitution is timeless and if the Founding Fathers (yes, Fathers) had intended for it to be totally rewritten, they would have made it easier to do so with a Constitutional Convention. Good reference for this subject can be found here, if interested.
http://www.nccs.net/will-the-great-american-experiment-succeed.php
Our political institutions have found a way to make a career of being "servants of the people" and that was not considered by the Founders. The problems of our nation is NOT the Constitution, but those that represent us, and they are controlled by oligarchies/plutocrats. If there was a single amendment I could drive through the process, it would be term limits as with the Presidency.
BTW, you guys make me proud with your support of the document we know and love.
http://www.nccs.net/will-the-great-american-experiment-succeed.php
Our political institutions have found a way to make a career of being "servants of the people" and that was not considered by the Founders. The problems of our nation is NOT the Constitution, but those that represent us, and they are controlled by oligarchies/plutocrats. If there was a single amendment I could drive through the process, it would be term limits as with the Presidency.
BTW, you guys make me proud with your support of the document we know and love.
Will The Great American Experiment Succeed?
The Founder's ideas have worked because they were based on enduring principles which recognized human imperfection and the need to structure a limited government of laws, dependent upon the consent of a people who, themselves, understood the principles.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
While I don't disagree with some of your assumptions and ideas, I do NOT believe our current society could put together a group of citizens to write a constitution that would be impartial and fair to ALL citizens.
Our country has become too divided. We have too many people that lean far to the left or far to the right. Just look at our ELECTED officials. They are elected because of what they promise. Promises that are seldom kept, but still what a large majority want from our government. Yes, special interest are heavily involved, but that happens on all sides, so people vote what they believe will be best for themselves instead of what is best for our country.
And, who would decide who is invited to sit on this panel of citizens that write the new constitution? To think special interest would not be involved is ludicrous. In the original drafting the states sent the delegates. While they were divided on issues, especially state rights vs federal powers, I believe we as a nation are even more divided today. The Republican led states would send heavy hitting conservatives and the Democrat led states would send heavy hitting liberals. Hmmm, I think we already have that mix. It is called Congress. And NOTHING gets done there. This country has forgotten how to compromise. I either get everything I want or WE don't get anything attitude. Both sides (Republican and Democrat) believe they have given up too much in the past, so they are set in their ways and refuse to compromise.
You say, "Honestly, I'd rather we put together a collective of scientists, philosophers, artists, military leaders, economists, humanitarians, and similar groups...". (Who are our "military leaders"?) Would these similar groups include lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. or even more controversial members of anti-government militias, or gun enthusiast, or individuals that whole-heartily believe in state rights over federal rights (power), or some other groups that don't believe that our current government is in their best interest. If your idea is NOT to include these groups, especially the controversial groups, then who is going to be looking out for their best interest?
You also state, "Since you ask for specifics about what is outdated:
1. There's no requirement for equality under the government for all people in the current Constitution.
2. The Second Amendment seems to essentially give the right to any type of weapon to anyone.
3. Elected office has become a career instead of a temporary duty - leading to vast amounts of corruption (and also, the exact reason we NEED a revamp).
4. Privacy - we have allowed ourselves to give us extreme amounts of privacy to the government for surveillance in the name of security.
5. Basic human rights - As in, let's be clear that torture is wrong and that we don't participate in it.
6. Military appropriations - should the Army still be an annual discussion? Or should have we crossed the threshold to needing a standing Army?
7. Tax structure..."
1. There will NEVER be equality under the government for ALL people under ANY constitution. Black Americans gained "equality" some time ago, the LGBT community recently. Whose next? People that believe in bestiality, people that believe it is ok to have more than one husband/wife? The list can go on and on.
2. I don't disagree there should be some limits on the arms that ordinary citizens can own, but who is going to decide what is right. Some people believe nobody should own guns and some people believe there should be no limits.
3. I whole-heartedly agree that Congress and Supreme Court Judges should have term limits just like the President.
4. We haven't given up our privacy rights, the Federal Government took them under the rues of National Interest. In my opinion, the use of National Interest is what needs to be defined and if ever invoked needs to put on a ballot for the American citizens to decide.
5. There is a whole lot more to Basic Human Rights. Torture is a very miniscule part and pales in comparison to fundamental freedoms (of rights, of speech, from fear, etc.), in my opinion.
6. I believe that the military should always be discussed. Our current military budget is ridiculous. We have way to much "fat" in the military budget. Do we actually need the size of the military we have. I can debate both sides, but I do believe we have too many redundant parts of the military. Why do we have an Army, Navy Marine, Air Force (and I'll even throw in the Coast Guard)? There are many good arguments to combine a few, if not all, of these components. And don't get me started on the blubber (too much to be called fat) in the civilian portion of the DOD.
7. Whose to say our tax structure is not currently fair? What is fair. In my opinion, a flat tax is fair. Everyone pays the same proportion of taxes compared to ALL income (e.g. 5% or 10%, etc) with zero (0) deductions. That is fair. But some would say that is too harsh on the low income and the higher income isn't paying enough. If we are all are eligible to apply and receive the services these taxes pay for, then in my opinion, we should all pay proportionately.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure many are saying to themselves (and even some out loud) that I've rambled on too long.
But one last thing :) In my humble opinion, until the American citizens wake up and truly realize that our country is in need of some serious leadership that will make decisions and compromises that are in the best interest of our country I don't ever see things changing and actually getting worse. The way I see it, the only way to do this is to replace ALL of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices.
Our country has become too divided. We have too many people that lean far to the left or far to the right. Just look at our ELECTED officials. They are elected because of what they promise. Promises that are seldom kept, but still what a large majority want from our government. Yes, special interest are heavily involved, but that happens on all sides, so people vote what they believe will be best for themselves instead of what is best for our country.
And, who would decide who is invited to sit on this panel of citizens that write the new constitution? To think special interest would not be involved is ludicrous. In the original drafting the states sent the delegates. While they were divided on issues, especially state rights vs federal powers, I believe we as a nation are even more divided today. The Republican led states would send heavy hitting conservatives and the Democrat led states would send heavy hitting liberals. Hmmm, I think we already have that mix. It is called Congress. And NOTHING gets done there. This country has forgotten how to compromise. I either get everything I want or WE don't get anything attitude. Both sides (Republican and Democrat) believe they have given up too much in the past, so they are set in their ways and refuse to compromise.
You say, "Honestly, I'd rather we put together a collective of scientists, philosophers, artists, military leaders, economists, humanitarians, and similar groups...". (Who are our "military leaders"?) Would these similar groups include lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. or even more controversial members of anti-government militias, or gun enthusiast, or individuals that whole-heartily believe in state rights over federal rights (power), or some other groups that don't believe that our current government is in their best interest. If your idea is NOT to include these groups, especially the controversial groups, then who is going to be looking out for their best interest?
You also state, "Since you ask for specifics about what is outdated:
1. There's no requirement for equality under the government for all people in the current Constitution.
2. The Second Amendment seems to essentially give the right to any type of weapon to anyone.
3. Elected office has become a career instead of a temporary duty - leading to vast amounts of corruption (and also, the exact reason we NEED a revamp).
4. Privacy - we have allowed ourselves to give us extreme amounts of privacy to the government for surveillance in the name of security.
5. Basic human rights - As in, let's be clear that torture is wrong and that we don't participate in it.
6. Military appropriations - should the Army still be an annual discussion? Or should have we crossed the threshold to needing a standing Army?
7. Tax structure..."
1. There will NEVER be equality under the government for ALL people under ANY constitution. Black Americans gained "equality" some time ago, the LGBT community recently. Whose next? People that believe in bestiality, people that believe it is ok to have more than one husband/wife? The list can go on and on.
2. I don't disagree there should be some limits on the arms that ordinary citizens can own, but who is going to decide what is right. Some people believe nobody should own guns and some people believe there should be no limits.
3. I whole-heartedly agree that Congress and Supreme Court Judges should have term limits just like the President.
4. We haven't given up our privacy rights, the Federal Government took them under the rues of National Interest. In my opinion, the use of National Interest is what needs to be defined and if ever invoked needs to put on a ballot for the American citizens to decide.
5. There is a whole lot more to Basic Human Rights. Torture is a very miniscule part and pales in comparison to fundamental freedoms (of rights, of speech, from fear, etc.), in my opinion.
6. I believe that the military should always be discussed. Our current military budget is ridiculous. We have way to much "fat" in the military budget. Do we actually need the size of the military we have. I can debate both sides, but I do believe we have too many redundant parts of the military. Why do we have an Army, Navy Marine, Air Force (and I'll even throw in the Coast Guard)? There are many good arguments to combine a few, if not all, of these components. And don't get me started on the blubber (too much to be called fat) in the civilian portion of the DOD.
7. Whose to say our tax structure is not currently fair? What is fair. In my opinion, a flat tax is fair. Everyone pays the same proportion of taxes compared to ALL income (e.g. 5% or 10%, etc) with zero (0) deductions. That is fair. But some would say that is too harsh on the low income and the higher income isn't paying enough. If we are all are eligible to apply and receive the services these taxes pay for, then in my opinion, we should all pay proportionately.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure many are saying to themselves (and even some out loud) that I've rambled on too long.
But one last thing :) In my humble opinion, until the American citizens wake up and truly realize that our country is in need of some serious leadership that will make decisions and compromises that are in the best interest of our country I don't ever see things changing and actually getting worse. The way I see it, the only way to do this is to replace ALL of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices.
1
1
0
MCPO Roger Collins
Very relevant! Would you want to trade the thoughts of a brilliant group of Patriots for those that have the IQ of a potted plant?
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MCPO Roger Collins - I'm always curious as to why we think that people 200 years ago were somehow inherently smarter, wiser, or more capable of objective thought than people are today. As a whole, the intelligence and knowledge of people has advanced exponentially since the late 1700s. Our Founder's, while wise and philosophical, also thought that diseases and illnesses could have been caused by evil spirits (common thought before germ theory was accepted by science). We've come a long way in 200 years.
SPC Sheila Lewis I agree that it's still relevant. But that doesn't mean it can't be made better, right? I mean, the Ford Model-T engine and powertrain designs are still relevant, but we've greatly improved them over the years.
SPC Sheila Lewis I agree that it's still relevant. But that doesn't mean it can't be made better, right? I mean, the Ford Model-T engine and powertrain designs are still relevant, but we've greatly improved them over the years.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Here is a better explanation than I could come up with, not to mention the durability continues.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/08/jon-huntsman/oldest-surviving-one-document-text/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/08/jon-huntsman/oldest-surviving-one-document-text/
Huntsman says the U.S. Constitution is the oldest
As he toured New Hampshire last week, Jon Huntsman wore his patriotism like a lapel pin. Even as he condemned President Barack Obama over what he labeled failed policies and leadership, Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, saluted the American work ethic and the United States Constitution, which he touted as the world’s oldest.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I disagree that it needs to be completely rewritten. I would be in favor of amending certain things like eliminating the electoral college, term limits for Congress, an amendment to ensure that interpretations are consistent with the intent of the founders, and maybe a few other things. The chances of an amendment passing now is pretty much nil because we are far to divided as a nation. Perhaps if we stop being offended by every little thing and start having a respect for each other and different viewpoints we might be able to change this collision course we seem to be on.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Sir, we've had the only form of government that has lasted mostly in the same manner it was formed. If we allowed the ability to change the constitution based upon a set number of years, we'd cheapen the document and we'd end up with politicians and presidents who's only purpose would be to jockey for position in the hopes of being the next to make their mark on it. This would be as distarous as the amendments that banned and then legalized alcohol. It would make the constitution much the same way as the SCOTUS is nominated; a political appointment to further one's own agenda; not nessicarily the publics at large. Leave it as is, but set laws around the framework of it, and allow those to be challenged after a certain number of years, or no years at all.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If we study the history of what the fathers went through, you will see the wisdom of the constitution. We have the bill of rights to protect us from overbearing governments. The first and second amendments assure that the government is more afraid of us than we are of the government. They help us protect the other rights and the constitution itself. Japan didn't attack our mainland because there was "a gun behind every blade of grass" The problem isn't with the laws. The problem is with the lawless.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SPC Nathan Freeman Do you think the government is really more afraid of us than we are of them?
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
Not all of them. Only the socialists who keep trying to ban guns and religion MAJ Bryan Zeski
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google