Vermont Constitution

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Article 17. [Martial law restricted]

That no person in this state can in any case be subjected to law martial, or to any penalties or pains by virtue of that law except those employed in the army, and the militia in actual service.

I hope people read this very carefully and understand everything they read .(Vt Constitution)
Then take a few minutes and look at what is going on all around us in this country.
Its not a red or blue thing nor a democrat or republican thing.
Its about we the sheeple being herded by a huge mass of regulations ,mass hysteria,lies,sound bites,nimby,correctness all planned for further domination of a "thinkless population"
If your happy with your new paramilitary army disguised as as Police to "Protect and Serve" sleep well .
If not just ask yourself what happened to America?
When you come up with an answer let us know.
Ask this question on town meeting day....Do we really need a police state armed with tactical assault teams,tanks,drones cameras watching your every waking moment and most likely some well sleeping.
The gist of the section of Vt Constitution atricle16,17 are that THE PEOPLE CONTROL THE MILITARY NOT SELF INTEREST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS .Its not to be used as a way to take power from the citizens as it easily could do at anytime now if they so desired in a more direct way.
To bad schools didn't actually teach now instead of worrying about test scores and turned out people that can think instead of a majority of zommbies.

I commend both of the above posts!

The problems we face today stem directly from state (lower case "s") sponsored ignorance. Unlike in centuries past (when there was little to no state sponsored education), we as a nation today are (quite intentionally) highly ignorant of our history and of the motivations which led first to States, then to a United States (which originally were intended to be functionally united States, lower case "u", capital "S"). We are abominably taught (read that as: state indoctrinated in to firmly believing) that we are a democracy, and we are taught little to nothing else. We are a state sponsored nation of blank slates.

" Article 2. [Private property subject to public use; owner to be paid]

That private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it, nevertheless, whenever any person's property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money."

Who is the authority tht has the "right" to deem if something is a "necessity" and who says what the "equivalent" in money is? This type of eminent domain "stealing" is just wrong in my mind! if you own land or anything else for that matter, what gives ANYONE the right to "take" it from you unless YOU chose to sell it or give it to them?

cokehead wrote:http://youtu.be/9-tJZrz3VSM

We need more people like this guy.