Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

  1. #1
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen;

    I'm opening this thread and sticking it to the top for the time being.

    Every single person on this site who is a regular poster and most if not all of the regular readers and lurkers are interested in direct and accurate news, information, knowledge and one thing we pride ourselves on at the site is trying to keep our information real, accurate and as factual as possible.

    Over the course of the past few weeks the staff here have been having some private conversations in regards to information being passed on the site as "accurate".

    I'll discuss that more in detail shortly and probably in either another thread or as a separate post in this particular thread.

    The main thrust of this thread is to open an intelligent debate and discussion regarding the current administration, the constant alleged attacks on American freedoms, the Constitution and individual liberties.

    In the past few weeks there have been bills introduced regarding guns, ammo, letters and documents created that essentially make 'criminals' out of anyone who states clearly they are "Pro-Gun", or have bumper stickers saying they believe in Jesus. All that information can be found here on this site, and in the news on a DAILY basis.

    This is one American who is damned tired of being placed into a pigeonhole - as a middle-class, white male over the age of forty I'm "suspect" on many grounds. With that, I will make this statement clearly, publicly and as loudly and often as necessary.

    I believe in America.

    I believe in the American dream.

    I am a Veteran.

    I own guns - because it's my RIGHT to do so.

    I believe that the Constitution doesn't GRANT me anything, it GUARANTEES my rights and PREVENTS the Government (any government) from taking those rights from me as an individual.

    I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.

    I believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

    With that said, I want the world to know something - I don't CARE what the world thinks about that. I don't CARE what the government thinks. I don't care what the Obama administration, Obama himself or his so-called "cabinet".

    But they had better care that myself and millions of other Americans aren't going to sit on our asses and take the constant barrage of "let's ban guns", "Let's create a civilian force that is funded better than the military", "Let's make it illegal to make bullets, fart in your own home, smoke, or do anything our administration doesn't like".

    I'm sick and tired of it - and starting here and now I challenge each and every one of you to not just be indignant, not just read the news, not just sit and complain, not just sit and listen.

    I challenge EVERY ONE here to stand up for America, stand up for your individual rights, stand up for your beliefs, and DO something about it.

    This is a "Call to Arms". Not Arms as in weapons - folks, regardless of what some people might say out there, we're NOT there to the point where such things are required.

    What I say "To Arms" I mean Arm yourselves with KNOWLEDGE, intelligence, facts. Gather facts, know your subjects and then ACT.

    Start making phone calls to Congress members, to the White House, to local authorities, Mayor's offices, state and county offices. Pick and chose carefully your contacts and what your message is.

    Tell them "We're sick and tired of the Federal government" doing these things.

    I want you all to understand something. These "attacks" on our freedoms are an attempt to wear us down, scare us, to keep us off guard until the real issues come along.

    Right now, in a few days, there is going to be a "Global Warming" conference - from which will come MASSIVE increases in the cost of power.

    This Administration is trying to do many things at once.... CHANGE. one of those changes is to FORCE America to "Go Green" (whatever that truly means).

    It's my belief that forcing us back into an economic system of the 1800s or before is a sincerely belief that the Left has and it's their way of punishing Capitalism. If they can do it, they win. They force people to stop using electricity, stop using natural gas, stop driving cars. Force us all to start "growing gardens" and "living off the land"... but woe to those that kill for meat....

    Think about it.

    I'm not a Conspiracy Theorist. I believe that people who BELIEVE in Conspiracy Theories are misinformed people.

    However - the Left has consistently put forth Conspiracy theories for as long as I can remember - the better part of fifty years. And if anyone is GOOD at producing such theories - ideas and beliefs based on completely incorrect information, the Left are experts at this.

    Thus, who better to create and work a true conspiracy to shut down America as we know it, than the people who are currently in office.

    Look at the Cabinet members Obama chose. Most all of them have criminal records, cheat at their taxes or some other hidden skeletons. Look at who many of his 'advisers' and 'friends' were... criminals. TERRORISTS (Bill Ayers for instance), loud mouthed racists (Rev. Wright for instance).

    America... wake up.

    Americans... to Arms.

    Get on the phones and start telling them what you think, instead of simply complaining on the internet.

    You're not as anonymous as you seem to think you are. Complaining here isn't going to help.

    Making it known we're tired of listening to them and its time for them to GET OFF OUR FREEDOMS is the only thing we have left now.

    Do it - and do it today, or you will suffer the consequences of your anonymous silence.

    Rick Donaldson
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  2. #2
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Based on my statements above, I want you all to read something here.... I'm going to post a portion of a discussion regarding our Rights to keep and bear arms.

    This one being one of the MOST IMPORTANT Rights we have.

    Without it, we can't keep Freedom of speech, religion, freedom from search and seizure. Without the Right to keep and bear arms... the one right the left is scared of Americans keeping - we can not protect ourselves against a tyranny.

    And my opinion is that we have one developing in front of our faces.

    Next message contains the article.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  3. #3
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html


    [ Originally published as Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 83-109 (1982) ("Other Views"). Reproduced in the 1982 Senate Report, pg. 83-109.]
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
    Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms


    (By James J. Featherstone, Esquire, General Counsel, National Rifle Association of America and Richard E. Gardiner, Esquire, Robert Dowlut, Esquire, Office of the General Counsel)
    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 values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the Constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any other amendments. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969).
    a. common law development of the right to keep and bear arms

    The right to keep and bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment; rather, this basic individual right, developed in England before this continent was colonized, pre-dated the constitution and was part of the common law heritage of the thirteen original colonies.


    Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." Id. at 144.[1] Clearly evident in this statement is Blackstone's recognition that the exercise of an individual's absolute rights could be imperiled by a standing army as well as by private individuals, a view supported by his observation that "Nothing ... ought to be more guarded against in a free state than making the military power ... a body too distinct from the people." Id. at 414. To prevent such an occurrence, Blackstone not only believed in the individual's right to have and use arms, but further believed that for its defense a nation should rely not on a standing army, but the citizen soldier. Plainly, for such a concept to be a reality, it was necessary that all able-bodied males possess and be capable of using arms.
    Blackstone was not alone in his view that the common law recognized the individual's right to possess arms: in his Pleas of the (p.84)Crown, Hawkins noted that "every private person seems to be authorized by the Law to arm himself for [various] purposes." 1 William Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, ch. 28, Section 14, p. 171 (7th ed. 1795). In agreement with Blackstone was Sir Edward Coke who wrote that "the laws permit the taking up of arms against armed persons," 2 E. Coke Institutes of the Laws of England, 574 (Johnson & Warner, ed. 1812).


    It was within this legal tradition of the individual's right to have and use arms for his own defense and self-preservation as well as to enable him to contribute to the common defense, that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was struck. The British, by attempting to seize large stores of powder and shot, sought to deny the Massachusetts colonists the ability to protect their absolute rights. The colonists retaliated by exercising their common law right to keep and bear arms, using the very arms which the British wished to render ineffective.[2] It is beyond question that prior to the Second amendment the common law recognized a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms, subject only to a certain limited police power to regulate the bearing of arms so as not to terrify the good people of the land. 4 Blackstone Commentaries 149.
    b. the history of the second amendment

    The Second amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
    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 history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.


    One of the gravest decisions faced by the Framers of the Constitution was whether the federal government should be permitted to maintain a standing army. Because of their personal experiences in and prior to the Revolution, the Framers of the Constitution realized that although useful for national defense, a standing army was particularly inimical to the continued safe existence of those absolute rights recognized by Blackstone and generally inimical to personal freedom and liberty.


    Unwilling, however, to forego completely the national defense benefits of a standing army, the Framers developed a compromise position. The federal government was granted the authority to "raise and support" an army, subject to the restrictions that no appropriation of money for the army would be for more than two years and civilian control over the army would be maintained. U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. Furthermore, knowing (p.85)that the militiaman or citizen soldier had made possible the success of the American Revolution for Independence,[3] the Framers recognized that a militia would provide the final bulwark against both domestic tyranny and foreign invasion. Congress, however, was given only limited authority over the militia; it could "govern ... [only] such part of the [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States ...," leaving to the states "the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia ..." (emphasis added) U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.


    It is evident from the underscored language of Clause 16 that, in addition to that part of the militia over which the Constitution granted Congress authority, there exists a residual, unorganized militia that is not subject to congressional control. The United States Code, in Title 10, Section 311, continues to recognize the distinction between the organized and unorganized militia:
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are: (1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) The unorganized militia which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
    This distinction, recognized by the Framers in the Constitution, was first codified in the Militia Act of 1792, which defined both an "organized" militia, and an "enrolled" militia.[4] The unorganized or enrolled militia were not actually in service, but were nonetheless available to assist in the common defense should conditions necessitate either support of the organized militia or possibly defense against internal oppression. As fully explained later, the members of the unorganized militia were expected to be familiar with the use of firearms and to appear bearing their own arms. Obviously, they could be so prepared only if all individuals were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.


    In his comments on the rights protected by the Constitution, a leading constitutional commentator, in discussing the right protected by the Second Amendment, wrote:
    The Right is General. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those (p.86)enrolled, the purpose of this guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies a right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order. (Emphasis added.) Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, 298-299 (3rd ed. 1898).
    When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification, several states, chief among them Virginia, were concerned that in spite of the restrictions written into the main body of the Constitution, a federal standing army might still threaten the hard-won liberties of the people. In Federalist No. 46, written prior to the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison discussed how a federal standing army, which he estimated in 1788 would consist of "one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms," might be checked or controlled:
    To these [the standing army troops] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [state] governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British Arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. The existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, ... the governments [of Europe] are afraid to trust the people with arms. (Emphasis added.)
    Alexander Hamilton, too, although more favorably inclined toward a strong central government, feared the detrimental effects on individual liberty that might result from the existence of a federal standing army. He explained in Federalist No. 29 how, under the proposed constitution, a federal standing army could be avoided or at least restrainedp.87)
    The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it if it should exist.
    Hamilton evidently felt that the militia composed of the body of the people would provide a deterrent to a federal standing army or the organized militia, only because the people had the right to keep and bear arms. The states, however, wanted this right to be guaranteed explicitly. A number of them, therefore, proposed amending the Constitution to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.


    Consonant with the request of the states, the Congress proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution, one of which concerned the right to keep and bear arms.[5] In its original form, as proposed by James Madison of Virginia, the Second Amendment (the fourth proposed amendment) read:
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    Congressman Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts opposed the amendment in this form because the provision exempting persons with religious scruples from bearing arms might be used by the federal government arbitrarily to declare an individual religiously scrupulous, thereby denying him the right to bear arms. Gerry offered an amendment modifying the religious exemption to apply only to religious sects and not to individuals. In the course of the floor debate, Gerry discussed the Second Amendment and the purpose of the militia:
    This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government, if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.(p.88)
    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was done actually by Great Britain at the commencement of the late Revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the Eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to devest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of a militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown. [Interruption.]
    No attempts they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, [I wish] the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms. 1 Annals of Congress 749-750 (August 17, 1789).
    Gerry plainly understood in making his proposal that one purpose of the amendment was to ensure the existence of the militia composed of the body of the people since the organized militia was subject to federal service; therefore it was necessary to protect the right of all people, that is, each individual, to keep and bear arms.[6] Gerry recognized that only if all individuals, those whose liberties were to be protected, were capable of using arms, could the militia truly serve as the final bulwark against a foreign invader or domestic tyrant. Following Gerry's discussion, the proposed amendment was revised to eliminate any reference to a religious exemption from keeping and bearing arms.


    Supporting Gerry's view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right is that the Senate, while also considering the proposed amendments, soundly rejected a proposal to insert the phrase "for the common defense" after the words "bear arms," (1 History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 450 (J. Goebel, Jr. ed. 1971), 2 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1153-54 (1971)), thereby emphasizing that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not merely to provide for the common defense, but also to protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms for his own defense and self-preservation.


    Not removed from the originally proposed version, however, was the term "well-regulated." Contrary to modern usage, wherein "regulated" is generally understood to mean "controlled" or "governed by rule", in its obsolete form pertaining to troops, "regulated" is defined as "properly disciplined." II Compact Edition, Oxford English Dictionary 2473 (1971). In the Oxford English Dictionary, moreover, the verb "discipline," in its earlier usage, is defined as (p.89)"to instruct, educate, train." I Compact Edition, Oxford English Dictionary 741 (1971). Furthermore, as a noun, "discipline," which is etymologically "concerned ... with practice or exercises," refers to a field of "learning or knowledge" or the "training effect of experience" that, in relation to arms, is defined as "training in the practice of arms ..." Ibid. Plainly then, by using the term "well-regulated," the Framers had in mind not only the individual ownership and possession of firearms but also the voluntary undertaking of practice and training with such firearms so that each person could become experienced with and competent in the use of firearms and thereby be prepared, should the need arise, to carry out his militia obligation. This conclusion is in complete accord with the comment of Thomas M. Cooley, supra, p. 7.


    Consistent with this view is a plan drafted by George Mason, the Framer of the Virginia Declaration of Rights and one of the Framers of the Constitution for the inhabitants of Fairfax County, Virginia, in February, 1775, whereby "all the able-bodied Freemen from eighteen to fifty Years of Age" were to "embody [them]selves into a Militia for th[e] County." I Papers of George Mason 215 (U. of N.C. Press, 1970). They did so because they were "thoroughly convinced that a well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen, is the natural Strength and only safe & stable security of a free Government, & that such Militia will relieve our Mother Country from any Expense in our Protection and Defense, will obviate the Pretence of a necessity for taxing us on that account, and render it unnecessary to keep any standing Army (ever dangerous to liberty) in this Colony ..." Ibid.


    Thus, each subscriber agreed, "... we do Each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good Firelock in proper Order, & to furnish Ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one Pound of Gunpowder, four Pounds of Lead, one Dozen Gun-Flints, & a pair of Bullet-Moulds, with a Cartouch Box, or powder-horn, and Bag for Balls. That we will use our best Endeavours to perfect ourselves in the Military Exercise & Discipine ..." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 216.
    Finally, the state ratifying conventions provide an excellent insight into the perception of the Framers that the Second Amendment guaranteed to each individual the right to keep and bear arms.


    In New Hampshire the ratifying convention advanced a proposal which provided that "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion." (Emphasis added.) Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 as Reported by James Madison, 658 (Hunt & Scott ed. 1920).


    Pennsylvania proposed a provision stating that "the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, their state, or the United States, and for killing game, and no law shall be enacted for disarming the people except for crimes committed or in a case of real danger of public injury from individuals ... " (Emphasis added.) E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 12 (1957).


    And in Massachusetts, Samuel Adams proposed an amendment requiring that the "Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to ... prevent the people of the United States, who are (p.90)peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Emphasis added.) Pierce & Hale, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 86-87.


    The significance of the foregoing history is that the joining of "a well regulated militia" with "the right to keep and bear arms" was a natural and logical result of the experience of the men who had led the Revolution. Only if individuals had the right to keep and bear arms could the people provide for their own defense and self-preservation as well as in their capacity as members of the militia, provide for the common defense from a foreign invader or as a check against the internal usurpation of liberty by a standing army of the central government.


    The Bill of Rights must be read in conjunction with the Constitution as an integrated whole. The seven articles comprising the main body of the Constitution establish a form of government and grant that government certain powers to effectuate governance of the United States. The first ten amendments, however, recognize the possibility of abuses against individuals by the government the Constitution established; thus, certain individual rights are guaranteed and protected. The fact that one of those protected and guaranteed rights, the right to keep and bear arms, is joined with language expressing one of its purposes or goals, in no way permits a construction which limits or confines the exercise of that right. To hold otherwise is to violate the principle that the guarantees and protections of the Bill of Rights must be interpreted to give liberty the broadest possible scope and further to turn a blind eye toward the common law and history of the adoption of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court of Oregon recently recognized this principle by stating:
    We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision, is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment.
    State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, 95 (1980).
    c. judicial interpretation

    A conclusion that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right is not supported by United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), or other cases which the Supreme Court and other courts have considered.


    In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, the court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms existed prior to the Constitution by stating that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution ... [n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." 92 U.S. at 552. The indictment charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent and hinder blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for (p.91)lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that the Second Amendment guaranteed that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress and hence did not apply to the instant case since the violation alleged was by fellow-citizens, not the federal government.


    In Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank, i.e. that the Second Amendment applied only to action by the federal government, it apparently found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, stating at 265:
    It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. (Emphasis added.)
    The idea of the armed people maintaining "public security" mentioned in this passage from Presser, was based on the common law concept that loyal individuals had the right and duty to resist malefactors and the disloyal, such as robbers and burglars, and to use deadly force, if necessary, to do so. The Second Amendment thus also contemplates the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to be continuously able to maintain the "security of a free State" by aiding in the enforcement of criminal laws such as by making citizens' arrests and aiding peace officers in arresting malefactors. Joyce Lee Malcolm, Disarmed: The Loss of the Right to Bear Arms in Restoration England, p. 5 (Cambridge: The Mary Ingraham Bunting Institute of Radcliffe College, 1980). Rex v. Compton, 22 Liber Assisarum (Book of Assizes 1347) placitum 55, trans. in J.H. Beale, Jr., A Selection of Cases and other Authorities Upon Criminal Law, p. 501 (2d ed. 1907). E. Coke Institutes of the Laws of England at 56 (1648). Bohlen and Shulman, Arrest With and Without A Warrant, 75 U.Pa.L.Rev. 485, 497 (1927).


    In United States v. Miller, supra, decided in 1939, the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute, the Court carefully avoided making an unconditional finding of the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a standard by which federal statutes relating to firearms are to be judged. The holding of the Court in Miller, however, should be viewed as only a partial guide to the meaning of the Second Amendment[7] primarily because neither defense counsel nor defendants appeared before the Supreme Court, nor was any brief filed on their behalf giving the Court the benefit of argument supporting the trial court's holding that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. As a result of the absence of the normal adversarial process, the Court was presented with only the prosecution's view of the Second Amendment, a view which, needless to say, was in favor of the constitutionality of Section 11 of the National Firearms Act. In (p.92)spite of this severe and critical limitation on its decision-making process, the Court's decision in some degree took account of the common law view of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the historical background of the Second Amendment.


    The heart of the Court's ruling is found at the beginning of the opinion; it states:
    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrell of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. (Emphasis added.) 307 U.S. at 178.
    Two independent thoughts are expressed here: one, that for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, that firearm's possession or use must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia; and two, that in this case, the Court would not take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun met such a test. It remanded the case to the trial court for the taking of evidence on that question.[8] The Court's first point, that the right to keep and bear an arm is dependent on the firearm's military value, is faulty, however, because the Court failed to consider fully the common law (see section B above), and misinterpreted cited authorities. Rather, the Court only briefly discussed the common law and, moreover, did not consider the history of the adoption of the Second Amendment, both of which support the proposition that the Second Amendment guarantees and protects a fundamental individual right. As to the misinterpretation of cited authorities, a result undoubtedly of the one-sided argument, one important example should suffice.


    In support of its position that the Second Amendment's protection and guarantee was limited to "ordinary military equipment" or weapons whose use "could contribute to the common defense," the Court cited one case, Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 2 Humph. 154 (1840). In Aymette, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court was construing not the Second Amendment but the provision of Tennessee's constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, a provision which, unlike the Second Amendment, spoke of each citizen's right to keep and bear arms only as it related to the common defense. The Tennessee court thus reasoned that not all objects which could conceivably be used as weapons were protected by the Tennessee Constitution, but only those weapons "such as usually employed in civilized warfare." Id. at 158. This limitation is not, however, applicable to the Second Amendment since the First Congress, while debating what ultimately became the Second Amendment, emphatically rejected the "common defense" language upon which the Aymette decision turned. It is plain, therefore, that the interpretation of the Second Amendment in Miller is more limited than it should be and that the Second Amendment protects the keeping and bearing of all types of arms which could (p.93)be carried by individuals. Moreover, the rejection of the "common defense" limitation signified the Framers' intention that the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was not inextricably tied to a militia nexus, but existed independently of it. Even accepting, however, that a militia or common defense nexus was necessary, Aymette went on to say that, "The citizens have an unqualified right to keep the weapon." Id. at 160.


    One other comment should be made about Aymette. What Judge Green was discussing when he said that the legislature could pass laws concerning arms was that laws could be enacted which would punish the misuse of such arms. As an example, Judge Green noted that the legislature could punish a set of ruffians for entering a theatre or a church with drawn swords, guns, and fixed bayonets to the terror of the audience; he went on to observe, moreover, that "the citizens have an unqualified right to keep the weapon" and to bear it except to "terrify the people, or for purposes of private assassination." Id. at 160.


    One of the chief values of the Miller opinion is its discussion of the development and structure of the militia which, the Court pointed out, consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." (Emphasis added.) 307 U.S. at 179. The other significant value of Miller is its implicit rejection of the view that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court reviewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" it would certainly have discussed whether Miller met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia as it did with regard to the military value of a short-barrelled shotgun. That it did not signifies the Court's acceptance of the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to each individual without regard to his relationship with the militia.


    The Miller Court examined in detail, at pages 179-182, not only the duty to assist in the common defense but indeed the legal obligation each individual then had to possess the arms necessary to undertake that common defense. For example, in Massachusetts there were laws which levied fines and penalties against adult males who failed to possess arms and ammunition. In Virginia and New York all males of certain ages were required to own and possess their own firearms at their own expense, and to appear bearing said arms when so notified.


    It is clear that Miller, for all its shortcomings and limitations, supports the view that the Second Amendment protects and guarantees a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to the restriction that only a certain category or categories of arms may, of right, be individually owned and possessed, i.e. those arms whose possession or use are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. As aptly put by Mr. Justice Black, in discussing Miller and the Second Amendment, "although the Supreme Court has held this amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed its (p.94)prohibition is absolute." Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 865, 873 (1960).[9]


    In United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), the Third Circuit cited Miller in upholding the conviction under the Federal Firearms Act of a felon for possessing a pistol which had traveled in interstate commerce.[10]


    The Third Circuit did not deny that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms; it merely stated, in dicta, its view that the Second Amendment was adopted as a protection for the states in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power. The heart of the Third Circuit's holding is that it was entirely reasonable for Congress to prohibit the receipt of weapons from interstate transactions by persons who have previously by due process of law been shown to be aggressors against society and that this classification did not infringe upon the preservation of the well-regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment.


    The Court could have gone on to point out that the maintenance of the militias of the states is dependent upon the right of individuals, who may be called upon to serve in the militias, to keep and bear arms.


    In Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), the First Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. In so doing it observed that apparently under Miller although the federal government could limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a certain type of individual, it could not
    ... prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. (emphasis added) 131 F.2d at 922,
    a distinction arising from Miller's holding that the protections of the Second Amendment are limited to those firearms with a militia nexus. The Court indicated its unwillingness to accept the broad reach of Miller when it reasoned that it was already outdated because in "commando units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern, lethal weapon. If this were true, concluded the court, the protection of the Second Amendment as set forth in Miller would be absolute except for antique weapons which have no modern military use since, as the court accurately observed, "... almost any other [weapon] might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day ..." Id. at 922.


    The First Circuit failed to consider the unambiguous wording of the Second Amendment in reaching its conclusion. The Second Amendment speaks not only of the right to keep arms, but to bear them as well, implying that the category of arms, the possession of which is protected, is limited to those arms that an ordinary individual can bear and does not extend to weapons such as cannons, trench mortars, and antitank guns, which cannot be carried by an ordinary individual. Also not protected are instrumentalities such as bombs which, although conceivably they could be carried by a single individual, are not arms in the sense used in the Second Amendment; rather, the historically and constitutionally protected (p.95)arms are those such as muskets, shotguns, rifles and pistols, which are ordinarily possessed by private individuals. To argue, ad absurdum, as the Cases court did, that all weapons are protected by the Second Amendment overlooks the fact that the Framers of the Bill of Rights were fully aware of the existence of heavier, horse-drawn and crew served arms which the individual was physically incapable of bearing. Had framers of the Bill of Rights intended to protect all weapons, they would not have linked the right to bear arms with the right to keep arms.[11]


    Since, however, the Supreme Court did not review the Cases decision, Miller persists as that Court's guidance to the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
    It is clear, therefore, based on analysis of the decided cases, the common law, and the history of the Second Amendment that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
    d. the right to self-defense

    The right to keep and bear arms is inextricably connected to the individual's absolute and inalienable right of self-defense which is, of course, derived from the Natural Law.
    As referred to earlier, Blackstone clearly recognized as a natural right that of keeping and using arms for "resistance and self-preservation." I Blackstone Commentaries 144. The basic right to defend one's person with deadly force has, moreover, been recognized by the Supreme Court, Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895) and every state in the union. For example, in State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.2d, 1, 9 and 11 (1968), the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in interpreting a provision of that state's constitution which tracked the language of the Second Amendment, held that the individual right of self-defense was assumed by the Framers, and that any statute or construction of a common law rule which would amount to a destruction of the right to bear arms would be unconstitutional. Also, the State v. Kessler, supra, the court noted that "the necessity of self protection in a frontier society also was a factor" in guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms.


    The right to defend one's person is so fundamental that it was not set forth in the constitution but certainly exists as one of those rights included in the penumbra of unwritten rights surrounding the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. It is manifestly an inalienable right, incapable of surrender to the central government and encompassed by the Ninth Amendment as retained by the people.
    II. Antebellum judicial construction

    In the period from the adoption of the constitution to the War Between the States, keeping and bearing arms was treated as a virtually unquestioned right of each individual. The fundamental right to have arms was based in part on the political lessons of the Revolutionary experience. "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army," Jefferson wrote in 1803. "To keep ours armed and disciplined, is therefore at all times important." The (p.96)Jefferson Cyclopedia 553 (1900). In 1814, Jefferson further observed that "we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies." Id. at 551. In addition to the prevention of aggression from domestic tyranny or foreign invasion, individual possession of arms functioned to provide a basic means of self-defense, as well as of subsistence for hunters.


    That the Second Amendment secured an individual right to keep and bear arms was not an issue for partisan politics, and the courts fairly consistently so held. The major exception to this rule appeared in the context of slavery. Specifically, to disarm slaves as well as black freemen, certain courts originated the views that the guarantee was limited to citizens rather than to all people and that the Second Amendment did not restrain the states. The exceptions were aberrations to prevent black freedom, as most courts which analyzed the Second Amendment regarded all individuals as having the right and construed it as a restraint on state infringement.
    a. judicial commentaries

    Although Federalist and Republican differences in interpretation of the Constitution appeared early in judicial thought on subjects as diverse as the general welfare clause and the right of free speech, these points of divergence did not arise with respect to the Second Amendment. William Rawle, one of the first commentators on the Second Amendment, analyzed its two basic clauses in some detail:
    In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government....


    The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
    W. Rawle, A view of the Constitution, 125-56 (1829).
    Rawle's analysis stresses the significance of the first clause of the Second Amendment as an imperative for a militia system as opposed to a standing army. Clause two is then treated both in its linkage to clause one in that the individual right to keep and bear arms encourages a militia system, and independently as recognition of a fundamental right to have arms unrestrained by state no less than federal legislation. In negative remarks on English policy, (p.97)Rawle also clarified that the right to have arms is deemed more absolute in America than Britian, and that the Second Amendment protects individual use of arms for non-militia purposes such as hunting.
    St. George Tucker, a veteran of the Revolutionary War and an early Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, followed Blackstone closely in regard to the common law right to have arms, at the same time stressing the more absolute character of the right under American law:
    The right of bearing arms--which with us is not limited and restrained by an arbitrary system of game laws as in England; but, is practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of resisting as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation.... I St. Geo. Tucker, Commentaries on the Laws of Virginia, 43 (1831).
    In addition to his explicit characterization of keeping and bearing arms as an individual right, elsewhere Justice Tucker distinguished the language of the English Bill of Rights that subjects may have arms for their defense, "suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law," from the Second Amendment, wherein the right to have arms exists "without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as in the case of the British government." I Blackstone Commentaries *144 n. 40 (St. Geo. Tucker, ed. 1803).
    b. state cases

    A provision of the Kentucky Constitution, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned," provided the occasion for perhaps the first state judicial opinion on the nature and source of the right to bear arms. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822). Defendant appealed his conviction for having worn a sword cane by asserting the unconstitutionality of an act prohibiting concealed weapons. The court held, "Whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution." Id. at 91-92. Observing that wearing concealed weapons was considered a legitimate practice when the constitutional provision was adopted, the court reasoned:
    The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right, and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear when the constitution was adopted. Id. at 92.[12]
    Whether carrying and wearing dangerous weapons constituted an affray at common law was the issue in the Tennessee case of Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. Reports (5 Yerg.) 56 (1833). The Court (p.98)answered in the negative, citing Blackstone for the proposition that violence which terrifies the people must also be present. The government cited Serjeant Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, Bk. 1, ch. 28, sec. 4, regarding the Statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. 3, c.3(1328), that an affray could exist where one is armed with unusual weapons which naturally cause terror to the people, but the court rejected those "ancient English statutes, enacted in favour of the king, his ministers, and other servants" which provided that "no man ... except the king's servants, & c. shall go or ride armed by night or by day." 13 Tenn. Reports (5 Yerg.) 358 (1833). The court seemed resentful of royal privilege in noting that the same source adds "persons of quality are in no danger of offending against this statute by wearing their common weapons" and, while rejecting the existence of a common law abridgement of the right to bear arms (Id. at 359), argued in the alternative that any such abridgement would be abrogated by the state constitution, which provided "that the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."
    By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defense, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature.... Id. at 360.
    The classic antebellum opinion which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right from both state and federal infringement, but that the manner in which arms could be borne was a proper subject for regulation, was Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846). An ambiguous Georgia statute proscribed breast pistols, but not horseman's pistols, which were not worn openly. While upholding the proscription of concealed weapons, the court said that the state constitutions "confer no new rights on the people which did not belong to them before," that no legislative body in the Union could deny citizens the privilege of being armed to defend self and country, and that the colonial ancestors had this right which "is one of the fundamental principles, upon which rests the great fabric of civil liberty...." Id. at 249.


    Anticipating twentieth century selective incorporation by referring to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as binding on both state and federal governments, the court reasoned:
    The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and state government--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning.... Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Id. at 250.
    The Georgia court explained the relation between individual arms possession and the militia by reference to the fact that "in order to train properly that militia, the unlimited right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired," (Id. at 251), (p.99)and added that both constitutional and natural rights were at stake. Contending that the state governments were prohibited from violating the rights to assembly and petition, against unreasonable searches and seizures, to an impartial jury in criminal prosecutions, and to assistance of counsel, the court continued:
    Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.... Id. at 251.
    In the Texas case of Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859), the Court explained that the object of the Second Amendment was that "the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed." Id. at 401, and added:
    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. Id. at 401-402.
    c. slavery and the dred scott dilemma

    Despite the general rule in the antebellum courts that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms free from both federal and state infringement, to disarm blacks a few courts took the view that only citizens could have arms and that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. In some states, free and slave blacks were disarmed by law to maintain their servile condition. State legislation which prohibited arms bearing by blacks was held to be constitutional owing to the lack of status of African Americans as citizens, despite the fact that the United States Constitution and most state constitutions referred to arms bearing as a right of "the people" rather than "the citizen."


    In State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. 203 (1844), the Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld "an act to prevent free persons of color from carrying fire arms" on the ground that "the free people of color cannot be considered as citizens." Id. at 204. The court also stated: "in the second article of the amended Constitution, the States are neither mentioned nor referred to. It is therefore only restrictive of the powers of the Federal Government." Id. at 207. In Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 72 (1848), Georgia found its similar provision constitutional on the following logic: "Free persons of (p.100)color have never been recognized here as citizens, they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office." Id. at 72.


    The practical hardships suffered by individual blacks due to restrictive legislation is exemplified in State v. Hannibal, 51 N.C. (6 Jones) 57 (1859), which indicates that in the eighteenth century it was not illegal for a black to carry guns, but he was required to obtain a court certificate to hunt. An enactment in 1854 provided that "no slave shall go armed with a gun, or shall keep such weapons," with a penalty of up to 39 lashes. Id. at 57. In this instance, a master had given two slaves guns to guard his store at night, and the slaves were sentenced to twenty lashes each. Id. at 57.


    Just as virtually the only antebellum state cases which limited the right to have arms functioned to disarm blacks, the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857), conceded that if members of the African race were "citizens," they would be "entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens" and would be exempt from special "police regulations" applicable to them.
    It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies ...; and it would give them full liberty of speech ...; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. (emphasis added) 60 U.S. at 417.
    It is clear, therefore, that the Supreme Court included among the rights of every citizen the right to have arms wherever he goes; it is equally evident that in granting citizenship to African Americans by Amendments XIII and XIV, blacks were later guaranteed the fundamental rights of citizens. The Court's language also suggests that the right to have and carry arms anywhere is a right of national citizenship which the states cannot infringe any more than can the federal government--that the Second Amendment applies to the states.
    Explaining further the rights of citizens, Chief Justice Taney observed that:
    The Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property, beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully, deny any right which it has reserved.... Nor can Congress deny the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. 60 U.S. at 450.
    III. The Framers of the fourteenth amendment intended that the guarantees of the second amendment would be applied to the States

    After the War Between the States, judicial commentators continued to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right from both state and federal infringement. The right to keep and bear arms and other Bill of Rights freedoms were viewed (p.101)as common law rights explicitly protected by the Constitution. T. Farrar, Manual of the Constitution, 59, 145 (1867). Joel P. Bishop wrote in 1865:
    The constitution of the United States provides, that, "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." This provision is found among the amendments; and; though most of the amendments are restrictions on the General Government alone, not on the States, this one seems to be of a nature to bind both the State and National legislatures. II J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal Law, Section 124 (1865).
    Yet Bishop's references to "statutes relating to the carrying of arms by negroes and slaves" (II J. Bishop, supra, n. 2, at 120, n. 6), and to an "act to prevent free people of color from carrying firearms" (Id. at 125, n. 2) exemplified the need for further constitutional guarantees to clarify and protect the rights of all individuals.
    a. firearms and the abolition of slavery

    Having won their national independence from England through armed struggle, post-Revolutionary War Americans were acutely aware that the sword and sovereignty go hand-in-hand, and that distribution of firearms among the oppressed ushered in a new epoch in the human struggle for freedom. Furthermore, both proponents and opponents of slavery were cognizant that an armed black population meant the abolition of slavery, although some blacks were trusted with arms to guard property, for self defense, and for hunting. This sociological fact explained not only the legal disarming of blacks, but also the advocacy of a weapons culture by abolitionists. Having employed the instruments for self-defense against his pro-slavery attackers, abolitionist and Republican Party founder Cassius Marcellus Clay wrote that "'the pistol and the Bowie knife' are to us as sacred as the gown and the pulpit." 7 The Writings of Cassius Marcellus Clay, 257 (H. Greeley ed. 1848).
    b. the civil rights act of 1866

    After the Civil War, the slave codes, which limited access of blacks to land, to arms, and to the courts, began to reappear in the form of black codes, (W. DuBois, Black Reconstruction in America, 167, 172, and 223 (1962); E. Coulter, The South During Reconstruction 40 (1947)) and United States legislators turned their attention to the protection of the freedmen. In support of Senate Bill No. 9, which declared as void all laws in the rebel states which recognized inequality of rights based on race, Sen. Henry Wilson (R., Mass.) explained in part: "In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages on them...." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 40 (Dec. 13, 1865).


    When Congress took up Senate Bill No. 61, which became the Civil Rights Act of 1866, (14 Stat. 27 (1866)) Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R., Ill.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated (p.102)that the bill was intended to prohibit inequalities embodied in the black codes, including those provisions which "prohibit any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 474 (Jan. 29, 1866). In abolishing the badges of slavery, the bill would enforce fundamental rights against racial discrimination in respect to civil rights, the rights to contract, sue and engage in commerce, and equal criminal penalties. Sen. William Saulsbury (D., Delaware) added:
    In my State for many years, and I presume there are similar laws in most of the southern states, there has existed a law of the State based upon and founded in its police power, which declares that free negroes shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition. This bill proposes to take away from the States this police power...." Id. at 474.
    The Delaware Democrat opposed the bill on this basis, anticipating a time when "a numerous body of dangerous persons belonging to any distinct race" endangered the state, for "the State shall not have the power to disarm them without disarming the whole population." Id. at 478. Thus, the bill would have prohibited legislative schemes which in effect disarmed blacks, but not whites. Still, supporters of the bill were soon to contend that arms bearing was a basic right of citizenship or personhood.


    In the meantime, the legislators turned their attention to the Freedman's Bureau Bill.
    Rep. Thomas D. Eloit (R., Mass.) attacked an Opelousas, Louisiana ordinance which deprived blacks of various civil rights, including the following provision: "No freedman who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry firearms, or any kind of weapons, within the limits of the town of Opelousas without the special permission of his employer ... and approved by the mayor or president of the board of police." Id. at 517 (Jan. 30, 1866). And Rep. Josiah B. Grinnell (R., Iowa) complained: "A white man in Kentucky may keep a gun; if a black man buys a gun he forfeits it and pays a fine of five dollars, if presuming to keep in his possession a musket which he has carried through the war." Id. at 651 (Feb. 5, 1866).


    As debate returned to the Civil Rights Bill, Rep. Henry J. Raymond (R., N.Y.) explained of the rights of citizenship: "Make the colored man a citizen of the United States and he has every right which you or I have as citizens of the United States under the laws and Constitution of the United States.... He has a defined status; he has a country and a home; a right to defend himself and his wife and children; a right to bear arms...." Id., pt. 2, 1266 (Mar. 8, 1866). Rep. Roswell Hart (R., N.Y.) concluded that it was the duty of the United States to guarantee that the states have a republican form of government, "A government ... where 'no law shall be made prohibiting a free exercise of religion;' where 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;' ..." Id. at 1629 (Mar. 24, 1866).


    Rep. Sidney Clarke (R., Kansas) objected to an1866 Alabama law providing: "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, mulatto, or free person of color in this State to own firearms, or carry about his person a pistol or other deadly weapon." Id. at 1838 (April 7, (p.103)1866). Clarke also attacked Mississippi, "whose rebel militia, upon the seizure of the arms of black Union soldiers, appropriated the same to their own use." Id. at 1838.
    Sir, I find in the Constitution of the United States an article which declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For myself, I shall insist that the reconstructed rebels of Mississippi respect the Constitution in their local laws.... Id. at 1838.
    c. the fourteenth amendment

    The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal--the Fourteenth Amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), referred to the "personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; ....the right to keep and to bear arms...." [emphasis added] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pt. 3, 2765 (May 23, 1866). Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because these rights were not then effectively guaranteed against state legislation. "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees." Id. at 2766.


    The Fourteenth Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rep. George W. Julian (R., Ind.) noted that the act
    Is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South. Florida makes it a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons without a license to do so from a probate judge, and the punishment of the offense is whipping and the pillory. South Carolina has the same enactments.... Cunning legislative devices are being invented in most of the States to restore slavery in fact. Id. at pt. 4, 3210 (June 15, 1866.)
    d. the anti-kkk act

    Within three years of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, Congress was considering enforcement legislation to suppress the Ku Klux Klan. The famous report by Rep. Benjamin F. Bulter (R., Mass.) on violence in the South assumed that the right to keep arms was necessary for protection not only against the militia, but also against local law enforcement agencies. Noting instances of "armed confederates" terrorizing the negro, the report stated that "in many counties they have preceded their outrages upon him by disarming him, in violation of his right as a citizen to 'keep and bear arms,' which the Constitution expressly says shall never by infringed," 1464 H.R. Rep. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. 3 (Feb. 20, 1871). The congressional power based on the Fourteenth Amendment to legislate to prevent states from depriving any U.S. citizen of life, liberty, or property accounted for the following provision of the committee's anti-KKK bill.(p.104)
    That whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 174 (Mar. 20, 1871).
    Rep. Butler explained the purpose of this provision in these words:
    Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known constitutional provision guaranteeing the right in the citizen to 'keep and bear arms,' and provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same. This provision seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed that, before these midnight marauders made attacks upon peaceful citizens there were very many instances in the South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims. This was specially noticeable in Union County, where all the negro population were disarmed by the sheriff only a few months ago under the order of the judge....; and then, the sheriff having disarmed the citizens, the five hundred masked men rode at night and murdered and otherwise maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county. H.R. Rep. No. 37, supra, note 38, at 7-8.
    The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and when later reported as H.R. No. 320 the above section was deleted--undoubtedly because its proscription extended to simple individual larceny over which Congress had no constitutional authority, and because state or conspiratorial action involving the disarming of blacks would be covered by more general provisions of the bill. Supporters of the rewritten anti-KKK bill continued to show the same concern over the disarming of freedmen as they had prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sen. John Sherman (R., Ohio) stated the Republican position: "Wherever the negro population preponderates, there they [the KKK] hold their sway, for a few determined men ... can carry terror among ignorant negroes ... without arms, equipment, or discipline." Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong. 1st Sess., pt. 1, 154 (Mar. 18, 1871).


    Further comments clarified that the right to arms was a necessary condition for the right of free speech. Sen. Adelbert Ames (R., Miss.) averred: "In some counties it was impossible to advocate Republican principles, those attempting it being hunted like wild beasts; in others, the speakers had to be armed and supported by not a few friends." Id. at 196. (Mar. 21, 1871). Rep. William L. Stoughton (R., Mich.) added: "If political opponents can be marked for slaughter by secret bands of cowardly assassins who ride forth with impunity to execute the decrees upon the unarmed and defenseless, (p.105)it will be fatal alike to the Republican party and civil liberty." [Emphasis added] Id. at 321 (Mar. 28, 1871).


    Section 1 of the bill, which was taken partly from Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and survives today as 42 U.S.C. 1983 was meant to enforce Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment by establishing a remedy for deprivation under color of state law of federal constitutional rights of all people, not only former slaves. This portion of the bill provided:
    That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which ... he is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall ... be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other propoer proceeding for redress ... Id. pt. 2. Appendix, 68. 17 Stat. 13 (1871).
    Rep. Washington C. Whitthorne (D., Tenn.), who complained that "in having organized a negro militia in having disarmed the white man," the Republicans had "plundered and robbed" the whites of South Carolina through "unequal laws," objected to Section 1 of the anti-KKK bill on these grounds.
    It will be noted that by the first section suits may be instituted without regard to amount or character of claim by any person within the limits of the United States who conceives that he has been deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured him by the Constitution of the United States, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State. This is to say, that if a police officer of the city of Richmond or New York should find a drunken negro or white man upon the streets with a loaded pistol flourishing it, &c., and by virtue of any ordinance, law or usage, either of city or State, he takes it right away, the officer may be sued, because the right to bear arms is secured by the Constitution, and such suit brought in distant and expensive tribunals. [Emphasis added] Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 337 (Mar. 29, 1871).
    The Tennessee Democrat assumed that the right to bear arms was absolute, deprivation of which created a cause of action against state agents under Section 1 of the anti-KKK bill. In the minds of the bill's supporters, however, the Second Amendment as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment recognized a right to keep and bear arms safe from state infringement, not a right to commit assault or otherwise engage in criminal conduct with arms by pointing them at people or brandishing them so as to endanger others. Contrary to the congressman's exaggerations, the proponents of the bill had the justified fear that the opposite development would occur, i.e. that a black or white man for political reasons would be unconstitutionally deprived of his right to possess arms by state action. Significantly, none of the representative's colleagues disputed his statement that state agents could be sued (p.106)under the predecessor to Section 1983 for deprivation of the right to keep arms.
    Debate over the anti-KKK bill naturally required exposition of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and none was better qualified to explain that section than its draftsman, Rep. John A. Bingham (R., Ohio):
    Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States ....


    These eight articles ... never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union .... Id. at pt. 2, Appendix 84 (Mar. 31, 1871).
    This is a most explicit statement of the incorporation thesis by the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although he based the incorporation on the Privileges and Immunities Clause and not the Due Process Clause as have subsequent courts of selective incorporation, Rep. Bingham could hardly have anticipated the judicial metaphysics of the twentieth century in this respect. In any case, whether based on the Due Process Clause or on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the legislative history supports the view that the incorporation of Amendments I-VIII was clear and unmistakable in the minds of the legislators attempting to effectuate the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.


    Rep. Henry L. Dawes (R. Mass.) also asserted the incorporation thesis when he argued:
    The rights, privileges and immunities of the American citizen, secured to him under the Constitution of the United States, are the subject-matter of this bill...


    In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of amendments he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and freedom of speech and of the press. Then again he has secured to him the right to keep and bear arms in his defense.... [Dawes then summarizes the remainder of the first eight amendments.]


    And still later, sir, after the bloody sacrifice of our four years' war, we gave the most grand of all these rights, privileges, and immunities, by one single amendment to the Constitution, to four millions of American citizens.
    [I]t is to protect and secure to him in these rights, privileges, and immunities this bill is before the House. [emphasis added] Cong Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st. Sess., pt. 1, 475-476 (April 5, 1871).(p.107)
    e. the civil rights act of 1875

    After passage of the anti-KKK bill, discussion concerning arms persisted as interest developed toward what became the Civil Rights Act of 1875, now 42 U.S.C. 1984. A report on affairs in the South by Sen. John Scott (R., Penn.) indicated the need for further enforcement legislation: "negroes who were whipped testified that those who beat them told them they did so because they had voted the radical ticket, and in many cases made them promise that they would not do so again, and wherever they had guns took them from them." 1484 S. Rep. No. 41, 42nd Cong., 2nd Sess., pt. 1, 35 (Feb. 19, 1872).


    Following the introduction of the Civil Rights Bill the debate over the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause returned. Sen. Matthew H. Carpenter (R., Wisc.) cited Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 321 (1866) a case contrasting the French legal system, which allowed deprivation of civil rights, "and among these of the right of voting, ... of bearing arms," with the American legal system, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment prevented states from taking away the privileges of the American citizen. Cong. Globe, 2nd Sess., pt. 1, 762 (Feb. 1, 1872).


    Sen. Allen G. Thurman (D., Ohio) argued that the "rights, privileges, and immunities of a citizen of the United States" were included in Amendments I-VIII. Reading and commenting on each of these amendments, he said of the Second: "Here is another right of a citizen of the United States, expressly declared to be his right--the right to bear arms; and this right, says the Constitution, shall not be infringed." Id. at pt. 6, Appendix, 25-26 (Feb. 6, 1872).


    The incorporationist thesis was stated succinctly by Senator Thomas M. Norwood (D., Ga.) in one of the final debates over the Civil Rights Bill. Referring to a U.S. citizen residing in a Territory, Senator Norwood stated:
    His right to bear arms, to freedom of religious opinion, freedom of speech, and all others enumerated in the Constitution would still remain indefeasibly his, whether he remained in the Territory or removed to a State.
    And those and certain others are the privileges and immunities which belong to him in common with every citizen of the United States, and which no State can take away or abridge, and they are given and protected by the Constitution.
    The following are most, if not all, the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States:
    The right to the writ of habeas corpus; of peaceable assembly and of petition; ... to keep and bear arms; ... from being deprived of the right to vote on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. [emphasis added] Cong. Rec., 43rd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 6, Appendix 241-242 (May 4, 1874).
    Arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment created no new rights but declared that "certain existing rights should not be abridged by States," the Georgia Democrat explainedp.108)
    Before its [Fourteenth Amendment] adoption any State might have established a particular religion, or restricted freedom of speech and of the press, or the right to bear arms.... A State could have deprived its citizens of any of the privileges and immunities contained in those eight articles, but the Federal Government could not...
    ...And the instant the fourteenth amendment became a part of the Constitution, every State was at that moment disabled from making or enforcing any law which would deprive any citizen of a State of the benefits enjoyed by citizens of the United States under the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution. (emphasis added) Id. at 242.
    In sum, in the understanding of Southern Democrats and Radical Republicans alike, the right to keep and bear arms, like other Bill of Rights freedoms, was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
    references

    [1] Although the common law in effect in the colonies did not develop any limitation on the absolute right of individuals to keep arms, it did recognize certain restrictions on the manner in which individuals could use arms.


    [2] Individual colonists, of course, kept their own firearms, with powder and shot, in their residences.


    [3] Justice Story wrote in 1833: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample on the rights of the people. The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (emphasis added.) 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Section 1890, pp. 746-747 (1833).


    [4] Actually, the militia embraces a larger class of persons than today's statutory unorganized militia since it consists of at least all persons "physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939). The Virginia Constitution, upon which the Bill of Rights was modeled, provides that the militia is "composed of the body of the people." Article I, Section 13.


    [5] Of the twelve proposed amendments, all but the first two dealt with the protection of the rights of individuals; all but the first two were ratified. Since, of the ten remaining, Amendments 1 and 3 through 10 have repeatedly been held to secure fundamental individual rights, it is logical that the Second Amendment also secures a fundamental individual right.


    [6] The word "people" as used in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments has consistently been construed to mean individual.


    [7] This view is supported by the Congressional Research Office of the Library of Congress which has observed, "At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the [Second] Amendment, whether there would be a conflict, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward answering." The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, Senate Document No. 92-82.


    [8] Applying this test, the defendant would have little difficulty today in demonstrating that possession of such a shotgun is protected by the Second Amendment, since shotguns were military issue in both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam.


    [9] Numerous cases have held that a handgun is an arm for constitutional purposes, for example, in State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, 224 (1921), the Court observed that the "historical use of pistols as 'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy...." Similar holdings are found in In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 P. 609 (1902) and State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610 (1903). Moreover, in colonial times pistols saw considerable service as a personal weapon. As a noted historian observed,
    It was considered normal for civilians to carry pocket pistols for protection while traveling ... Among eighteenth century civilians who traveled or lived in large cities, pistols were common weapons. Usually they were made to fit into pockets, and many of these small arms were also carried by military officers. George C. Neumann, The History of Weapons of the American Revolution, pp. 150-151 (Bonanza Books, N.Y. 1967).
    [10] Although Tot was appealed to the Supreme court, the Second Amendment issue was not addressed by that Court.


    [11] This view, moreover, is consistent with the common law which prohibited the bearing of arms when carried in such a manner as would terrify the people. 4 Blackstone Commentaries 149. Furthermore it is consistent with the concept of the militia as a body of persons who maintained firearms in their homes for self-defense and to be ready to contribute to the common defense.


    [12] But see State v. Reid, 1 Ala. Reports 612, 616-7 (1840), while holding that a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons was not incompatible with the right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and state, added: "A statute which, under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional."
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #4
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    President Obama has announced today that he is "open to prosecuting former Bush administration personnel" in regards to things like "Water Boarding".

    Wow. Really?

    Clean your own house first, Obama. Prosecute current Cabinet members who cheated on their taxes FIRST.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  5. #5
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,980
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Democrats are all political. Right and wrong don't matter as long as you can score political points.

    I guess that's why the death counts start to rise when a D is in office.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  6. #6
    Postman vector7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where it's quiet, peaceful and everyone owns guns
    Posts
    21,069
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Well there's so many Dot's swirling around this topic now it could blot out the sun!

    Stepping back and looking at all the information together, depending who arranges the puzzle pieces, is making a mosaic ranging from concern to a down right terrifying all out power grab from the Left heading toward a revolution.

    Since the election this subject is bigger and gathering more puzzle pieces than any event or conflict I can remember. It has multiple facets with tentacles going into many areas of constitutional rights/litigation, sovereignty, politics, finance, military and now foreign policy.

    This administration is on a march to somewhere fast and don't know exactly where the destination is on the first leg of their long march into Socialism/Fascism; and now war on conservatives. I was hoping things would have slowed down but it has picked up pace with the first 100 day mark just a few days away.

    The Left is on a mission and we're getting hit with news updated everyday on many issues we care about that's difficult to follow, let alone post it all in the right threads.

    Everyone here has had a slightly different perspective on where we're headed and the next out come. There has been information emerging that seems questionable when first released but then over a period of time becomes main stream. This period of time is where reality of the news gets vetted out and either becomes a relevant fact or rumor. This is where our perspectives align and we agree on the reality approaching.

    Lately enough draconian information has turned out to be fact that our perspectives are virtually the same and we see the trouble ahead and are all very concerned about the future of this nation.

    You are wanting to keep this thread factual and on task. To get it moving you could re-post a mosaic outline picture of what has happened leading to present.

    Then summarize what you see is coming and outline topic areas of concern.

    We can follow up with articles on those topics to support the thread.
    Last edited by vector7; April 23rd, 2009 at 21:14.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Nikita Khrushchev: "We will bury you"
    "Your grandchildren will live under communism."
    “You Americans are so gullible.
    No, you won’t accept
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    ."
    We’ll so weaken your
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    until you’ll
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    like overripe fruit into our hands."



  7. #7
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    You are wanting to keep this thread factual and on task. To get it moving you could re-post a mosaic outline picture of what has happened leading to present.

    Then summarize what you see is coming and outline topic areas of concern.

    We can follow up with articles on those topics to support the thread.
    Certainly a great idea. Sounds like you da man Vector.

    How about you get that together and lay it out for us?

    I am not going to have much time for the next few days to do more than read a couple more times. I don't have the time tonight through Sunday night to get a list together myself. I've got prior commitments and will be out sailing this weekend.

    Sailing takes precedence over EVERYTHING else, including examining priorities...

    Seriously though, sounds like something you can tackle since you have ready access to this site, most of the news articles (and many more than I found of late) - so laying this out should be pretty simple, right?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  8. #8
    Senior Member Beetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hillbilly
    Posts
    1,131
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Thanks Rick for posting this. I needed this in a lot of ways.

    The only thing that I didn't agree with your first post was your statement about conspiracies. Well, I am one who believes that there are theories and then there are facts. For instance, there are many theories on the death of JFK. All or 90% of these theories are wrong. They all can't be right, so that proves to me that there are wacky conspiracies out there. On the other hand, I feel that if you do not think that there are people out there who are conspirering in some form or another then you may be a bit naive. So, I feel that there may be a wacky conspiracy to two that may have some truth to it. For instance, I happen to believe in the ideological subversion that Yuri Bezmanov talks about. And people call me a conspiracy nut because I believe that commies are undermining the American Way. Well, as we watch the Obozo Administration the next four years, I say we should keep in mind what Yuri and other defectors had warned us about.

    I have been ringing the alarm bell for some time that Socialism is on the way. I needed your post because after my fellow Americans voted in Obozo, I decided that my efforts were futile and there is nothing I can do about it. So, I decided to go fishin'. To hell with the world, I aint going to worry about it anymore. I am going fishin' is my attitude. Well, I still want to shake Tom Jefferson's hand, Tom Paine's hand, and Pat Henry's hand when I finally go home. The reason I felt like going out on the limb to warn people is so I could shake the hands of our founders without embarrassment. If I don't arm myself with knowledge and contact my reps when the American Way needs me most, then I may be embarrassed because of my selfishness to go fishin' instead. It don't take long to place a phone call or write an email. I will still have plenty of time to go fishin'.

    So, I am going to put the helmet of knowledge and wisdom on, I am going to put the breastplate of God given Rights on, and I am going to pull the sword of action and I am going to let my reps know how I feel. This is for a Country that I adore. I have been blessed to live in this land. I want to sacrifice for her, stand up for her, and love her like I have never loved her before. Then I will be able to go home a free man and I can shake the hands of our forefathers with pride, honor, and dignity.

    Thanks for inspiring me Rick. Please allow me to end with a word from William Wallace:

    FREEDOM!
    Beetle - Give me liberty or give me something to aim at.


    A monster lies in wait for me
    A stew of pain and misery
    But feircer still in life and limb
    the me that lays in wait for him


    Hey liberal!

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

    You can't handle the truth!

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  9. #9
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Awesome Beetle.

    I've been making some very specific phone calls over the past couple of weeks, and am targeting some specific items and people.

    When I talk about Conspiracy Theory you have to understand my position on it from my point of view.

    Most, if not all conspiracy theory inthe past has been about the "US Government" and "shadow government", what this administration or that one is doing.

    99% of all of is BUNK. Absolute made-up, unadulterated bullshit.

    97% of it comes from Leftists and you can see all the evidence thereof you like over on Anomalies. You will find that most of it comes from someone who thinks socialism is great, that capitalists are people who are doing nothing but abusing their workers for a buck and that all of them need to be punished. Those same people will defend Jimmy Carter and FDR. Those very same people will say how evil the Right is and Intolerant, and yet they are the same ones that create idiotic "Home Owners Associations" and then tell their neighbors to pull the weeds "or Else".

    Same people, same shit, different day.

    That they have all these conspiracy theories that never pan out is certainly true. That the conspiracies are true is certainly false.

    Now - over TIME because they have had and supported, puzzled out, and created so many theories and feel themselves to have been "cheated" by Reagan, Bush, Bush etc they are INDEED creating their OWN conspiracies and FOLLOWING THROUGH/

    It's not naiveté on my part to disbelieve in the theories... and I certainly think that NOW that the Left is in power there are indeed conspiracies going on. I don't have a "theory" about that either. I think it's a fact, and you can see it in the daily news even today.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A key Democrat who reportedly was overheard on a National Security Agency wiretap discussing a deal with a suspected Israeli agent has called the wiretap an "abuse of power."
    Rep. Jane Harman called on the Obama administration to release transcripts of the alleged conversations.

    Rep. Jane Harman called on the Obama administration to release transcripts of the alleged conversations.

    Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, called on the Obama administration to release transcripts of the alleged conversations to her, saying she would make them public.

    "I never had any idea that my government was wiretapping me at all," Harman said on CNN's "The Situation Room." "Three anonymous sources have told various media that this happened. And they are quoting snippets of allegedly taped conversations. So I don't know what these snippets mean. I don't know whether these intercepts were legal. And that's why I asked [Attorney General] Eric Holder to put it all out there in public."

    Harman denied any wrongdoing and said she was outraged by news the National Security Agency had intercepted one of her conversations in 2005 or 2006.

    "Many members of Congress talk to advocacy groups," she said. "My phone is ringing off the hook from worried members who think it could have happened to them. I think this is an abuse of power."

    Allegations that Harman had made an inappropriate deal with a lobbyist for the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, first surfaced several years ago, but they were given fresh currency Sunday night when the Congressional Quarterly published new details on its Web site.

    Sources told CNN this week the National Security Agency intercepted a conversation that Harman was participating in, but said Harman was not the intended target of the wiretap. The wiretap was lawful, the sources said.

    CQ.com reported Harman was overheard on a National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two AIPAC officials. In exchange for Harman's help, CQ.com reported, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections.

    According to one unnamed official cited by CQ.com, Harman hung up after saying, "This conversation doesn't exist."

    On CNN, Harman said that alleged "conversation doesn't exist."

    Pelosi has denied any lobbying for Harman took place. Harman did not get the committee chairmanship, and the trial of the AIPAC officials is to begin within weeks.

    Harman denied that she attempted to enlist the aid of the pro-Israeli group.
    Don't Miss

    * Intelligence chief adds safeguards
    * Spanish court to decide over Bush officials trial

    "I don't need to persuade members of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee that I am a friend of theirs," she told CNN. "Why would I do some kind of deal? And anyway, let's have the transcripts out. Let's see what I said and to whom."

    CQ.com also reported that after the intercept, the FBI tried to open an investigation of Harman, but then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pulled the plug because he wanted Harman's help defending the controversial domestic warrantless wiretapping program, which she supported.

    Gonzales had no comment.

    Harman told CNN the allegations that she behaved improperly were "old" and stale" and had been leaked before and discredited.

    "I, frankly, think my name is clear," she said. "My conscience is certainly clear. And I think the question is about ... did our government abuse the rights of American citizens, including members of Congress, with legal or illegal wiretappings about things that were not appropriate and then selective leaking of the product of those wiretaps."

    The Department of Justice did not respond to questions Monday about the allegations in the CQ.com article. On Tuesday, a Justice spokesman said the department is reviewing her letter and will have no further comment at this time.

    On Tuesday, after The New York Times also published a front-page article about the wiretaps, similarly quoting unnamed sources, Harman wrote to Holder. Video Watch Harman's interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer »

    "I am outraged to learn from reports leaked to the media over the last several days that the FBI or NSA secretly wiretapped my conversations in 2005 or 2006 while I was ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee," she wrote.

    "This abuse of power is outrageous and I call on your department to release all transcripts and other investigative material involving me in an unredacted form. It is my intention to make this material available to the public," she wrote.

    Harman defended her conversations with advocacy groups, calling them "entirely appropriate," but said she never contacted anyone to seek favorable treatment regarding national security cases.
    advertisement

    According to the Congressional Quarterly article, the suspected Israeli agent was seeking Harman's help in persuading the Justice Department not to prosecute two AIPAC officials -- Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman -- on espionage charges for allegedly giving classified Pentagon documents to Israeli officials. Rosen and Weissman are scheduled to stand trial in June.

    The Harman wiretap story is taking place as prosecutors in that case continue an unrelated discussion regarding whether to proceed with the case and, if so, how to do it. An adverse Circuit Court ruling in February prompted the review by prosecutors, who are concerned about the amount of classified information they would be required to share.
    (I'll get more information on this one shortly)
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  10. #10
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&ei=J83x...fp=Q9hKAq0-8-0

    Check that search. So yeah, there are conspiracies all the time.

    What I'm refering to are the so-called "Conspiracy Theories" that are created to make the government look bad by mending together various, disconnected items across the internet and trying to puzzle it together as if there were a neat, seamless conspiracy.

    I work for the government, have for over thirty years.

    In all honesty, the government can't knit a conspiracy. Conspiracies can ONLY come from one or two people and while people can be manipulated, they can't and WON'T keep secrets that involve themselves or their livelihood - especially if the secret will put them in jail or get them killed.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  11. #11
    Senior Member Beetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hillbilly
    Posts
    1,131
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Thanks for the clarification Rick.

    I concur with everything you just said.

    I was taking as if you were calling all conspiracies out. I am tired of the left conspiracies too. When I was younger I bit into a theory of theirs (Military Industrial Complex). After I put time and effort in, I realized they were making crap up. The bad thing was, I was writting a term paper on their therory and I was punching holes in it. What a waste of time that paper was and may I add that Seymore Mellman is a jackass. I got an F on it anyhow. Advise for the younguns, don't write a paper on something the left beleives in and punch holes in their theory. It will hurt your GPA.

    Anyhow, I concur with what you say. I think the left puts so many crazy ideas out there so you have to wade through a mountain of BS, to find a grain of truth.

    Thanks again for this thread. It put a fire under my keyster and I needed that.
    Beetle - Give me liberty or give me something to aim at.


    A monster lies in wait for me
    A stew of pain and misery
    But feircer still in life and limb
    the me that lays in wait for him


    Hey liberal!

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

    You can't handle the truth!

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  12. #12
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Well.... Stop and think about it a minute.

    When you see a "theory" that calls the government into question, Left OR Right - don't you have to stop and think about it?

    I don't care if the conspiracy theory is from the left or right. If it is based on nonsense - it doesn't matter, so for the most part though, I'll say that those on the Left are the most outlandish and they've had years of practice since Kennedy.

    Since those days they have continued to make these "connect-the-dots", out of context connections which if you sound them out sound interesting. But start digging - like I did on Anomalies for YEARS and you begin to discover that when you see the same story scattered all over the internet that they ALL point to the SAME source, usually some paper or short article written by some Leftist, Anti-Capitalism bullshit artist.

    I question them all.

    To that end, we've created a list on the Announcements forum from some of the sites we will NOT accept as valid news sources. Everyone needs to check their sources against those links.

    The list is far from complete too, and I will be removing anything I see linked to those sites, or sources quoting those sites. Further - there are only three people listed there, but they are blogger types or run sites that are completely unreliable as we have discovered over the years.

    It's time the conspiracy CRAP stopped and FACTS got out.

    I challenge each and every person on this site to quadruple check their source information and back track the exact sources of data.

    When you post an article from anything other than a known, reliable news source, please find out who the person you're quoting is and where they are getting their information.

    If it's editorial type stuff - which is fine to post, make sure you know who you're quoting.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  13. #13
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Beetle View Post
    Thanks for the clarification Rick.

    I concur with everything you just said.

    I was taking as if you were calling all conspiracies out. I am tired of the left conspiracies too. When I was younger I bit into a theory of theirs (Military Industrial Complex). After I put time and effort in, I realized they were making crap up. The bad thing was, I was writting a term paper on their therory and I was punching holes in it. What a waste of time that paper was and may I add that Seymore Mellman is a jackass. I got an F on it anyhow. Advise for the younguns, don't write a paper on something the left beleives in and punch holes in their theory. It will hurt your GPA.

    Anyhow, I concur with what you say. I think the left puts so many crazy ideas out there so you have to wade through a mountain of BS, to find a grain of truth.

    Thanks again for this thread. It put a fire under my keyster and I needed that.
    I need to reiterate something. I technically AM calling out most conspiracy theories as BS. Now - that someone is trying to make the current Obama-Anti-gun stuff into a conspiracy is just as ludicrous as anything else. A "Conspiracy Theory" by definition is as follows:

    Main Entry: conspiracy theory Function:noun Date:1909 : a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
    — conspiracy theorist noun


    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...iracy%20theory


    Understand now that I'm not saying there isn't a CONSPIRACY, but that making it into a "Conspiracy Theory" is the issue. It's not a secret the Obama administration wants to do away with guns.

    Global Warming isn't a conspiracy theory. It's bad SCIENCE.

    Controlling the US population isn't a theory, it's something that some people on the left want to put into practice.

    We all lump things into pigeonholes and categories for convenience-sake but in reality many things are easily recognized for what they are.

    Someone here told me "in your world it's all black and white" - and the truth is, it IS black and white. Certainly there are "gray areas" but there is RIGHT and WRONG, Right and Left, Good and Evil. There is "torture" and there is "water boarding".

    Planes hit the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and a field in Pennsylvania.

    We went to the Moon, and NASA made it happen. NASA has nothing to do with ancient Egyptian gods, the Illuminati nor 32.6 degrees (or whatever the hell, so-called "hyper-dimensional physics BS Hoagland is spouting these days).

    The point is, there are FACTS surrounding all things that happen and sometimes people want to believe in paranoia rather than factual representation of the events that occurred. It's SO easy to take something and spin it with non-related material, then "connect" it into a large "puzzle" thereby obfuscating or hiding the real facts deep in a slimy systems of lies that we all get caught up in the nonsense and fake crap.

    OUR job here is to point out FACTS.

    Is there possible building of "tyranny" in the US? Yes. Is it important to show it? Yes.

    Shall we lie about it or make it sound WORSE than it truly is for the sake of waking people up to our way of thinking? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Absolutely NOT. We tell it LIKE it is, leave the emotion at home. Leave the guns at home, leave the violence, the propaganda and all the other things we don't need, at home.

    We need FACTS, not fiction.

    Truth, not LIES and certainly not "puzzle pieces". The facts speak for themselves.

    When all is said and done - and arguments abound about "What is truth" there is only FACTS. I don't see "Your truth and my truth".... there is NO such thing. There is only facts and fiction, there is no "gray". You're either being factual on a subject, or you ain't.

    That's where the Conspiracy Theorists digress from us all.

    They have their idea of facts - and they can quote many facts, usually wholly unrelated, unconnected and unreal when it comes right down to the brass tacks of it all.

    This includes ANY "conspiracy theorist" on the Left and just as much includes those on the RIGHT.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  14. #14
    Senior Member Beetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hillbilly
    Posts
    1,131
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Great post Rick.

    I understand exactly what you are saying. Like I said about the Kennedy conspiracies, all the theroies that go with the assanation can not be true. There is only one truth. And truth is what we need and we do not need to mold our 'facts' to make our point. The truth should do that for us.

    And I will still go out on this limb, because it is just what I believe, but I still feel that there are forces at work that are bringing our ideals to a dead end. I don't know if you call it a conspiracy or a form of warfare. I mean, why would defectors tell us the things that they do? Maybe, there is some truth to what they say. And take a look around. Since the time of McCarthy a lot has changed in our Country. From Hollywood, to judges on the bench, to college professors, to our media, to our political parties, something has changed and not for the better. To me that is truth and I want to know why so many areas of our culture is rotting from within. But that is me and the limb that I will go out on.

    You are a good man, Rick. Thank you once again for this thread. Ever see the Outlaw Josey Wales? If so, then you may recognize the next line:

    It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life and death.

    Man, I love that movie.
    Beetle - Give me liberty or give me something to aim at.


    A monster lies in wait for me
    A stew of pain and misery
    But feircer still in life and limb
    the me that lays in wait for him


    Hey liberal!

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

    You can't handle the truth!

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  15. #15
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Alright.... the other day I made contact with a company in regards to doing a "Bareboat charter".... Basically this entails me flying to someplace, an island (BVI for instance) or Florida, and presenting myself and my sailing resume to them.

    They examine my information and determine my qualifications to sail a particular boat type.

    Then I pay for the charter.

    If I attempt to pay with cash, they will REFUSE it. They want a credit card.

    They claim this is because people have stolen boats in the past.

    I find this freaky.

    I can write them a CHECK - a personal check, that people had pretty much STOPPED taking anywhere in the past few years, or I can provide a debit card or a credit card.

    Thoughts?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  16. #16
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    24,420
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 61 Times in 60 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    I'd give 'em the CC. Doesn't sound much different than what is expected renting a car.

  17. #17
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    That's not what bugs me.

    I see this as one more invasion of privacy. Sure, they require a credit card for a car. Or a boat.

    That isn't the problem. The problem is, whatever happened to being ABLE to use cash? I was at the RenFest last weekend. Several of the shops won't take cash. A couple wouldn't take credit cards. Not that I was buying any of that expensive crap, but the point is, some people would take a check even though 99% of the others won't and only accept credit cards. Some simply said "We don't deal in cash".

    I don't get it? Why don't we trade for chickens then?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  18. #18
    Super Moderator and PHILanthropist Extraordinaire Phil Fiord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,496
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    It's simple. Whether right or wrong, CC's provide an immediate non-physical method of (virtual) cash transfer reducing issues of a vendors being robbed for cash or in the case of rental items, a recourse beyond a final amount of cash. If their property is stolen or abused, they can potentially be reimbursed by CC companies.

    That all said, I prefer cash, but don't use it much. In fact, while having CC cards, I rarely use them. I tend to gravitate to direct debit as a CC as it holds a similar standard of cash on hand rather than extended debt.
    Last edited by Phil Fiord; June 25th, 2009 at 14:59. Reason: typo fixes

  19. #19
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2009...eper-movement/

    Read this.

    This is the "Red State" trying to make the Oath Keepers look bad.

    Gonna point one thing out... they state if you're in the military you take an oath. Then they say "there is no Obama" exception.

    That's not true. If you read the two oaths carefully, there IS exceptions to the oath about following the orders of the President.

    The Enlisted version stated "according to the uniform code of military justice" which STATES "following LAWFUL ORDERS" many times throughout the document.

    What constitutes a Lawful Order might be interpreted in many ways.... but a lawful order given by a superior is NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. If I'm ordered to open fire on American Citizens who are in their own homes, under the United States, that's an UNLAWFUL ORDER. Period.

    I don't think these moronic fools on the Left understand that, until they are the ones being fired on by the military.... one day, they will get it, but it will be too late.

    They are too busy thinking they are on the "Side of Might and Right".

    Well, they aren't.

    =================

    Truly malignant ideas crop up in a democracy with the frequency of toadstools after a summer rain storm. Most of these ideas are dismissed by the great majority of citizens after public debate in one fashion or another. Some of the ideas hang on despite evidence to the contrary (sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union and the Income Tax was ratified by the requisite number of states) but attract no real following.

    Truly pernicious ideas, however, seem benign at first glance but in truth strike at the heart of our system of government. The “Oath Keeper” movement is one of those ideas.

    At first blush, who can object to the 10 orders they say they will not obey. Until you start examining each of them in detail (we’ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans).
    1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
    2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
    3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
    4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
    5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.
    6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
    7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
    8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
    9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.
    10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
    In the case of a smallpox, or similar, outbreak it would not be unreasonable for any government to direct that a municipality or geographic area be put under quarantine. I would think most everyone would agree that would be a good thing. If there was an armed insurrection in some area of the country, I’d find it hard to object to warrantless searches of homes and the disarming of persons in the area of operations. We need look no farther than the actions of Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see the utter imbecility of the federal government waiting for a state governor to declare an emergency before intervening. The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession and, more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.
    These principles, if they deserve to be called that, are nonsense and against the American tradition of government as it has been understood since the Whiskey Rebellion was suppressed by George Washington.
    Were flogging bad history the only issue at hand, I wouldn’t be writing this. I’d be encouraging them to get a degree in education and teach civics in junior high. But it isn’t. On one hand the oath these people take is meaningless as they seem to be people who aren’t currently bound by an oath anyway. But as a career infantry officer I am gravely offended that they could be encouraging some number of military members to break rather than keep their oath of office. As a conservative I am offended that anyone on my side of the political spectrum would support such un-American nonsense.
    When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.
    As a commissioned officer you are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate (yes, this is true for even second lieutenants), and you serve at the pleasure of the President.
    Your oath reads:
    “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
    Read the oath carefully. There is not an Obama Exception to the oath. There isn’t a proviso that this oath is subsidiary to some grander more important oath you’ve taken. You agree to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” To men of honor and integrity — which, in an ideal world, should be the minimum requirement to hold a commission — your word is your bond, if you’ve taken this oath with mental reservations about the intentions of the President, you’ve already violated your oath. So you aren’t an “oath keeper” but an “oath breaker.”
    For enlisted men the rules are even more clear.
    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
    Read it again, slowly and carefully:
    I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me
    You’ll note there aren’t ten exceptions here. The Uniform Code of Military Justice places a significant burden off proof on anyone who disobeys an order on the grounds that the order wasn’t lawful. And once you’ve made the effort, the system doesn’t treat full-time soldiers and part-time constitutional scholars like Michael New with great deal of respect.
    As a conservative I’m truly offended by this nonsense. This type organization, seemingly equal parts Walter Mitty and the black helicopter crowd, enables the left to lump all opponents of Obama together into a lunatic fringe that will then be studiously ignored. The Tea Parties were taken seriously by lots of members of Congress precisely because they were not lunatics. Polls show we are winning people over to our ideas. Why would anyone opposed to the Obama regime think this organization is a good idea?
    In 1783, we were at a critical point in our struggle for nationhood. We had won independence but the form of government which would succeed the British monarchy was clearly up for grabs. There were calls for General George Washington to lead the nation either as a monarch or military dictator. In response, Washington went before the Continental Congress on December 23, 1783 and resigned his commission. That action, captured in a painting by John Turnbull on display in the Capitol Rotunda, paved the way for our republican system of government and our tradition of the civil supremacy in civil-military relations.
    My advice to the “oath keepers” is just that. Keep your oath. If you want to make political decisions about how the military and police are used in this country, resign your position and agitate to your heart’s content. If you remain in uniform your oath binds you to the government and absent clear reason to the contrary, and none of the ten reasons set forward by the Oath Keeper organization meet that standard, you have a legal and moral obligation to faithfully carry out the duties given to you.
    We are in a tough fight with this administration for very high stakes. The stakes, however, do not justify us checking our brain and our sanity at the door and signing onto truly bizarre and un-American ideas like those set out by the Oath Keepers.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  20. #20
    Repeatedly Redundant...Again
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,118
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Progressive Tyranny - Open discussion Thread

    Here's that author's Twitter place:

    http://twitter.com/streiffredstate/

    Don't ask me what else is there because I don't know or care how Twitter and the Twits work.

    All I'm gonna say is I'm sure glad I never served under that asshat.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •