Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

[BEER980]

Here is a real nice thought.

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Newsmax has the whole article.

[streetsoldier]

Maybe that's what HE thinks, but "we, the people" think NOT.

That's why we HAVE a Second Amendment...the "fourth and ultimate check" on Federal power. It was always intended that "we, the people" be at least as well armed, if not better than the standing army; and the 70 million LEGAL firearms owners certainly outnumber them, lest some tyrant make any such attempt.

[stormchazer]

Thats why the Freedom to Bear Arms is so important. It will not and can not happen.

[coriolis]

Thanks for the heads up. In the event of a major attack, martial law would likely be imposed. That sure is a danger. Think about it. Even in a limited attack like 9-11, the police moved in and "secured" the immediate area. What about many attacks at many locations? This is not good.

[Derek Ortt]

Constitutional rights would likely be suspended for a period of time until the danger has passed, much like they were during WW1 with the Sedition Acts

[streetsoldier]

Let them come...if they want my firearm, I'll give it to them...one round at a time.

[azsnowman]

Let them come...if they want my firearm, I'll give it to them...one round at a time.

"AMEN!" Like the words of Charleton Heston...."They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand!"

Dennis

[Amanzi]

Let them come...if they want my firearm, I'll give it to them...one round at a time.

"AMEN!" Like the words of Charleton Heston...."They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand!"

Dennis

You guys are my heroes

Ive lived in a policed\milatary state country... its not fun!!!!!

[Stephanie]

I can see martial law or some Constitutional rights being taken away TEMPORARILY until, like Derek said, the inital danger has passed.

Let them try to make this country a military form of government!

[streetsoldier]

Yes. Stephanie,

But WHO will be the arbiter of what "temporary" means?

FI, much of the New Deal was to have been "temporary", yet today it is fixed as the "law of the land", since FDR didn't survive WW II to dismantle it...

I don't trust Washington ("Babylon on the Potomac") as far as I can throw it.

[Stephanie]

Yes. Stephanie,

But WHO will be the arbiter of what "temporary" means?

FI, much of the New Deal was to have been "temporary", yet today it is fixed as the "law of the land", since FDR didn't survive WW II to dismantle it...

I don't trust Washington ("Babylon on the Potomac") as far as I can throw it.

Same here.

[streetsoldier]

Besides, much would depend on who's in the Oval Office.

Let's say, FI, that the suspension of posse comitatus (banning military intervention in civil affairs) was still in effect when a rabid, anti-gun President and a "sympathetic" (read: same party) House and Senate were inaugurated...black uniformed ATF goons would be busting down doors across the fruited plain, taking LEGALLY owned firearms away by force; yet the criminals and terrorists (who don't obey the law anyway) will still have them, and USE them more frequently against a disarmed and fearful population.

Not while I'm still breathing!