Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 72

Thread: Let's embrace the whole Second Amendment folks...

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850

    Let's embrace the whole Second Amendment folks...

    Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results."

    Um, do your really want to keep beating your head against that senator's door? As if they are listening or even care if you are even alive. Quit acting as if your were insane. You're wasting your life energy fighting this way which is exactly what those in power want to see: Well meaning fools yelling into the ether about issues of life and death until they are exhausted and cannot muster any real resistance.

    Time to start looking into the entirety of the Second Amendment: "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 is the only use of the word necessary in (EDIT) the Bill of Rights.

    Not that owning and carrying a gun is necessary, but the existence of the MILITIA is that which is necessary. What is the militia? It's an ancient tradition, brought over to the Colonies from centuries of practice in England and effective in preventing death, mayhem and tyranny. It's only since the local militia was rendered "unnecessary" by the formation of the National Guards that the tyrants have been truly free to move against us and our Freedom.

    Today's militia is founded on the Constitutions of both the State and the Nation. This is not the media's presentation of a racist bunch of hicks, instead many are veterans, police and firemen, Tea and Constitution Party members with families, jobs, mortgages, a Constitution in their pocket and a sincere desire to see the Rule of Law returned to the seats of power in this country. Insane trust or faith in this broken political system will never accomplish this goal. We must, as a people, choose a different path.

    One man, well intentioned and standing fully in the Founder's plan will easily be killed for his stand and his memory disgraced. Fifty men are another matter entirely. They cannot be erased and their blood will cry out against their killers. There is no further way being left to us by those in power. We must stand and be counted as friends to Liberty or cower as slaves.

    Open Carry is at it's heart a rebellious action in this nation today. You men and women have been stretching your wings of Freedom to the ire of those in power. But our efforts are too little. The rulers are unimpressed. The acts of a few openly armed people, though well intentioned and educated in the law and their Rights, are unable to turn this ship of state from her tyrannical path.

    These men and women in power were spoken of by Daniel Webster, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” This has not changed. These people still exist and they are drawn to the highest positions of power. The only thing they fear is the loss of that power and they will kill to keep it. Ask the men at Lexington. The challenged these people and eight of their number paid the ultimate cost in blood that April morning. But look what grew from that sacrifice...

    So, the question is, "What should an honest and law-abiding man or woman do in the face of tyranny?" Simple. You must choose to resist or choose to submit. Resistance may start a battle which may cost you your life but "is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery?"

    Next step? Modern Militia Movement

    Thanks for reading. Freedom First, 5th Battalion, Southeast Washington State Light Foot Miltita
    Last edited by Freedom First; 02-26-2013 at 08:23 PM. Reason: Dumb guy attack.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  2. #2
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    Let's embrace the whole Second Amendment folks...

    Great post.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Hey OP ,


    When does the battle start? Before a law is passed, after?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Golden Valley, AZ
    Posts
    40
    Freedom First,

    The word ‘necessary’ actually appears nine (9) times in the Constitution. Not a big error, but an error nonetheless.

    Here is one for you. How many times does the word ‘arms’ appear in the Constitution, and/or the word ‘firearms’?

    I’m researching the rest of your post before further comment.

    Chris

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543

    Let's embrace the whole Second Amendment folks...

    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    Freedom First,

    The word ‘necessary’ actually appears nine (9) times in the Constitution. Not a big error, but an error nonetheless.

    Here is one for you. How many times does the word ‘arms’ appear in the Constitution, and/or the word ‘firearms’?

    I’m researching the rest of your post before further comment.

    Chris
    I think perhaps he meant the original Bill of Rights, where the word necessary does indeed appear one time, but maybe not?

    Overall a good post.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 02-26-2013 at 03:57 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Golden Valley, AZ
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    I think perhaps he meant the original Bill of Rights, where the word necessary does indeed appear one time, but maybe not?

    Overall a good post.
    What prompted my post is the OP said "This is the only use of the word 'necessary' in the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

    Still researching.

    Chris
    Last edited by Varmiter; 02-26-2013 at 04:20 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    Freedom First,

    The word ‘necessary’ actually appears nine (9) times in the Constitution. Not a big error, but an error nonetheless.

    Here is one for you. How many times does the word ‘arms’ appear in the Constitution, and/or the word ‘firearms’?

    I’m researching the rest of your post before further comment.

    Chris
    Aw crap, someone let the air out of my post... My bad, you are right. It's in the Bill of Rights once. I was on a roll and I didn't do the proper research on a cite. Forgive? BTW, did you read the rest?
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Golden Valley, AZ
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    Aw crap, someone let the air out of my post... My bad, you are right. It's in the Bill of Rights once. I was on a roll and I didn't do the proper research on a cite. Forgive? BTW, did you read the rest?
    No Problem. In all, we are on the same page. Apart from some minor differences on how we got to the same page, the bottom line, we got there.

    Over all, a good post.

    Oh, for the benefit of OTHERS, the question still stands to THEM.....not you. How many times do the words 'arms' or 'firearms' appear in the Constitution?
    Additionally, for those who may like research, which Federalist Paper(s) address firearms?

    The answer to both of those questions can be a real surprise.

    Chris

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    No Problem. In all, we are on the same page. Apart from some minor differences on how we got to the same page, the bottom line, we got there.

    Over all, a good post.

    Oh, for the benefit of OTHERS, the question still stands to THEM.....not you. How many times do the words 'arms' or 'firearms' appear in the Constitution?
    Additionally, for those who may like research, which Federalist Paper(s) address firearms?

    The answer to both of those questions can be a real surprise.

    Chris
    constitution

    arms = 2
    firearms = 0

    federalist papers
    28
    29
    46

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by imalurker View Post
    constitution

    arms = 2
    firearms = 0

    federalist papers
    28
    29
    46
    if i had to say which single paper to read .. its 46

  11. #11
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    Does that not already exhist here in the state of washington?

    http://washingtonguard.org/wsg/
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Nice.

    Read the anti Federalist papers, they are the reason we have a Bill of rights.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    The Militia Law of the United States

    Every one of us between the ages of 17 - 45 IS in the militia, according to the law. Those of us that are retired military get the age extended a bit, because we are expected to train the rabble...

    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.t


    10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)


    TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
    Subtitle A - General Military Law
    PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
    CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA


    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

    -STATUTE-
    (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 members 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.

    For those of you that are interested, in US v Miller, the Supreme Court said: "...the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, 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."

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...7_0174_ZO.html


    Therefore, following the law and logic of the Supreme Court of the United States, each and everyone of us SHOULD have an AR styled rifle in our homes...

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlepnier View Post
    Does that not already exhist here in the state of washington?

    http://washingtonguard.org/wsg/
    In a word, No. The WSG is a remnant, an empty shell of what should be in place: the LOCAL militia. Where men in your community gather to support the Rule of Law in their own town. The WSG functions as a ceremonial group, doing flag duties at ball games, etc.. Not the same by a long shot.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850

    This topic has been interesting...

    This thread has been posted on another forum as well. It was immediately locked and I was threatened with banning but true to nature, OCDO is willing to look at and discuss these sort of things openly. Good for you guys.

    This whole process of moving from being an ignorant, gun fearing, Rush Limbaugh Republican to a member in a Constitutional Militia has been very interesting. Not bad, just interesting and very enlightening. Life is like the movie, The Matrix. Shockingly similar. So many are just too inert, too entrenched in the system and far too comfortable to ever consider doing something, anything, that would move them closer to Freedom. Sad but true.

    Let me say that I embrace the entirety of the American Vision that the Framers left us. Not this simpleminded "one nation, under God" statist thing we have today, but the squirrely federation of a group of sovereign States served by an Agent that they created with the Constitution. I swore an Oath to that Constitution and it's vision and I stand by that Oath today. Here's what is truly important: I never swore an Oath to the government. Any government. Few understand that difference but it is HUGE.

    As our nation, led by those in a government who claims to serve us, heads us blindly to our collective destruction, I hope to be able to stand for my family and for the Rule of Law in those dark days. We cannot prevent what is coming. We cannot blunt the unceasing attacks on our Rights and Freedom. We cannot be heard over the roar of the mob. But we can stand. Alone if need be. It's the only choice a Free man can make. Standing for the principles of personal responsibility from a moral center founded on Someone greater than myself, standing for our future generation's Freedom to choose their own course, standing for the right in a world bent on doing wrong for it's own sake, but standing nonetheless. This is a fool's quest but one I have willingly chosen.

    I am not here to start trouble with the machine. She will do it soon enough. There will be another Waco. The machine, for all it's power and information, is not wise or moral. She simply has more physical power.

    I would suggest that even if the militia concept is too much for you today, take some time to read and study the days leading up to April 19, 1775. Why were there Committee's of Safety in nearly every town? Who did the Militia serve? What were the people doing? Why was it acceptable to drive the Crown's officers from your community? What really happened on the Lexington Common? Until you can converse on these subjects, you are missing an important part of your heritage. And that part will lead you and your family to Freedom.
    Last edited by Freedom First; 02-27-2013 at 01:32 PM.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Restricted certain firearm types, and configurations is not an infringement.

    The State has the Authority to Power to restrict certain firearm types, and configurations; and it is Constitutional; it is in-line with the Second Amendment.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Restricted certain firearm types, and configurations is not an infringement.

    The State has the Authority to Power to restrict certain firearm types, and configurations; and it is Constitutional; it is in-line with the Second Amendment.
    Um, sure. Maybe in Chicago.

    I'm clearly a simpleton but I have found that words mean what they say. "...shall not be infringed." To me that means leave it alone, don't touch, etc.. So, for the entity created by the Constitution to change and nullify it willy-nilly is plainly wrong at best, criminal at worst.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Restricted certain firearm types, and configurations is not an infringement.

    The State has the Authority to Power to restrict certain firearm types, and configurations; and it is Constitutional; it is in-line with the Second Amendment.
    You need to go read the declaration of independence, specifically the pre-amble. After you're done reading that, get a dictionary and look up liberty.

    Man cannot (should not) write any law that supersedes the rights granted you by your creator (whomever you believe the creator to be).

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by imalurker View Post
    You need to go read the declaration of independence, specifically the pre-amble. After you're done reading that, get a dictionary and look up liberty.

    Man cannot (should not) write any law that supersedes the rights granted you by your creator (whomever you believe the creator to be).
    I see; so I'm to presume I have Rights granted me, by my creator?--No thanks.

    I have stated this numberous times, on other threads, neither Liberty, nor Freedom, are Absolute; and neither is the RKBA. Heller is example one, verifying what I have asserted in my previous post.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #20
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    Um, sure. Maybe in Chicago.

    I'm clearly a simpleton but I have found that words mean what they say. "...shall not be infringed." To me that means leave it alone, don't touch, etc.. So, for the entity created by the Constitution to change and nullify it willy-nilly is plainly wrong at best, criminal at worst.
    If you are barred from purchasing a Remington 870, but are not barred from purchasing a coach side-by-side (examples), there is no Second Amendment infringement.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    If you are barred from purchasing a Remington 870, but are not barred from purchasing a coach side-by-side (examples), there is no Second Amendment infringement.
    Except that the Supremes ruled, in US v Miller (see link above) that those persons reporting for the militia should have a weapon "of the type in general usage." Since the US military "type" of shotgun is a pump shotgun, it would follow that a pump shotgun would be covered under the Second Amendment.

    Every adult male between 17 and 45 IS a member of the militia, so.....
    Last edited by oneeyeross; 02-27-2013 at 09:15 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Restricted certain firearm types, and configurations is not an infringement.

    The State has the Authority to Power to restrict certain firearm types, and configurations; and it is Constitutional; it is in-line with the Second Amendment.
    100% ..... wrong.
    - The reason we have "commissioned" and "Non Commissioned" officers is because families used to own equipment, like ships, that could be converted to fight in battles, or have resources that contributed to the efforts of the militia and military. All others that were "hired" by the government were non-commission, and expected to bring their own small arms (but did not contribute finatially to the war effort) of a type usable in combat, or be issued one of similar style. Many times the civilian weapon were vastly superior to the issue weapons, kinda like civilians owning machine guns, and military using bolt actions (an example equivalent to the era).

    - Stop apologizing and making excuses why it is OK to be oppressed - jeezuz krist.
    Last edited by Batousaii; 02-27-2013 at 09:32 PM.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by oneeyeross View Post
    Except that the Supremes ruled, in US v Miller (see link above) that those persons reporting for the militia should have a weapon "of the type in general usage." Since the US military "type" of shotgun is a pump shotgun, it would follow that a pump shotgun would be covered under the Second Amendment.

    Every adult male between 17 and 45 IS a member of the militia, so.....
    First, the Militia then (not organized), and the Militia now (organized).

    I suppose, one could argue then, there is now organized Militia, the Second Amendment is outdated. Do we do away with the entirety of the the Second Amendment? Or, are the two clauses within the Second Amendment, mutually exclusive?--Is one necessary to the other?

    Either, Militia is not a reference to the Corp--which is now organized--or the Militia is reference to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, sitting at home--currently--, on their couch, stuffing potato chips into their face, while watching reruns of Dukes Of Hazzard.

    "Every adult male..." then, speaks nothing to every adult male, now, and their Constitutional duty to join the organized Corps.

    Issue


    • What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?

    Holding and Rule (Scalia)


    • The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
    Second Amendment banning certain types, and configurations of firearms, as I stated, are not infringements.

    The first clause of the Second Amendment is not necessarily connected to the second clause.

    Please, people, I beg you: Read, read, read.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 02-27-2013 at 09:33 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Batousaii View Post
    100% ..... wrong.
    - The reason we have "commissioned" and "Non Commissioned" officers is because families used to own equipment, like ships, that could be converted to fight in battles, or have resources that contributed to the efforts of the militia and military. All others that were "hired" by the government were non-commission, and expected to bring their own small arms (but did not contribute finatially to the war effort) of a type usable in combat, or be issued one of similar style. Many times the civilian weapon were vastly superior to the issue weapons, kinda like civilians owning machine guns, and military using bolt actions (an example equivalent to the era).

    - Stop apologizing and making excuses why it is OK to be oppressed - jeezuz krist.
    Restricting firearm types, or configurations, is not oppression.

    As I stated above: The two clauses within the Second Amendment referring to Militia, and People, are not necessarily connected.

    I didn't come here to piss on your party, but I disagree; and apparently, even the Conservative 5 on the Bench, agree with me; the other 4 depart even further Left.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329

    Let's embrace the whole Second Amendment folks...

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Restricting firearm types, or configurations, is not oppression.

    As I stated above: The two clauses within the Second Amendment referring to Militia, and People, are not necessarily connected.

    I didn't come here to piss on your party, but I disagree; and apparently, even the Conservative 5 on the Bench, agree with me; the other 4 depart even further Left.
    So you think that a judges opinion makes it so? I think it means what the people who wrote it wanted it to mean. I don't give a damn about the opinion of a judge.

    Oh and the militia is made up of people. I don't know what else it could be made of so they kind of are connected by necessity.
    Last edited by tombrewster421; 02-27-2013 at 10:21 PM.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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