Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 19408" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>Re: John Titor</strong></p><p></p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"MutableTimeLine\")</div></p><p> </p><p>Whether or not you fight for your rights should not for a moment depend upon whether Titor was "real." If it comes to pass that citizens are to be called upon to take up arms against their own government, only some in the military would oppose the people, the majority recognizing the injustice of fighting their own kind-- fighting themselves, in their own home towns. </p><p> </p><p>But the real injustice lies in the fact that, should the government take it into combat in the way suggested, it will have committed the final illegal act against the Constitution and our system of rule of law, by compelling violence to enforce or protect rights.</p><p> </p><p>Violence as a means of effecting broad social change, as in an actual revolutionary war, is literally and legally contrary to the law of the land. If this was not established within the framework of the Constitution, it was painfully learned in the 1860s and 1960s, and is therefore the very spirit if not the letter of the law.</p><p> </p><p>Lincoln stated that the rights in the Bill of Rights pertaining to assembly and free speech were the actual American substitute for revolution. This means that the Framers must have intended a peaceful means of overthrowing the government, not just elections; they certainly didn't intend to enshrine in the law the expectation of civil war.</p><p> </p><p>But-- never forget the Second Amendment. It is the last resort. It guarantees the people the right to keep and take up arms to defend themselves and their freedom. If all else should fail, and this means if and when the <em>law</em> has failed, the makers of the law plainly stated where the power should be retained.</p><p> </p><p>To obey the law and to earn the right to force the government to, we must ourselves strictly comply with the procedure and spirit of it in the Constitution. Ironically, this means that we must disobey unconstitutional laws. We must do this to enforce the higher, root law of the Constitution. That is also the law-- that is, our legal obligation: to resist.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 19408, member: 42"] [b]Re: John Titor[/b] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"MutableTimeLine\")</div> Whether or not you fight for your rights should not for a moment depend upon whether Titor was "real." If it comes to pass that citizens are to be called upon to take up arms against their own government, only some in the military would oppose the people, the majority recognizing the injustice of fighting their own kind-- fighting themselves, in their own home towns. But the real injustice lies in the fact that, should the government take it into combat in the way suggested, it will have committed the final illegal act against the Constitution and our system of rule of law, by compelling violence to enforce or protect rights. Violence as a means of effecting broad social change, as in an actual revolutionary war, is literally and legally contrary to the law of the land. If this was not established within the framework of the Constitution, it was painfully learned in the 1860s and 1960s, and is therefore the very spirit if not the letter of the law. Lincoln stated that the rights in the Bill of Rights pertaining to assembly and free speech were the actual American substitute for revolution. This means that the Framers must have intended a peaceful means of overthrowing the government, not just elections; they certainly didn't intend to enshrine in the law the expectation of civil war. But-- never forget the Second Amendment. It is the last resort. It guarantees the people the right to keep and take up arms to defend themselves and their freedom. If all else should fail, and this means if and when the [i]law[/i] has failed, the makers of the law plainly stated where the power should be retained. To obey the law and to earn the right to force the government to, we must ourselves strictly comply with the procedure and spirit of it in the Constitution. Ironically, this means that we must disobey unconstitutional laws. We must do this to enforce the higher, root law of the Constitution. That is also the law-- that is, our legal obligation: to resist. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top