Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Increase Your Understanding of RKBA and The Term "Militia" - DARE CALL IT TREASON

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

    Increase Your Understanding of RKBA and The Term "Militia" - DARE CALL IT TREASON

    Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For over thirty-six years he has been a practicing attorney, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law. Vieira regularly practices before the Supreme Court of the United States. He has a definite understanding of our founding documents, and a superior knowledge of 2A as it was intended "back in the day". A free PDF download is available at:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/133196382/...n-March29-2013

    Holding degrees from anywhere is not necessarily a sign of manifest brilliance, and Harvard is no exception to that rule. However, Harvard Law graduates are the most sought after lawyers in the country, and are recruited by the most prestigious of law firms. Holding four degrees from Harvard certainly implies an above average intellect, and the motivation to apply that intellect.

    IMHO, this is the most understandable, comprehensive, in-depth explanation of what was intended by the authors of Amendment II at the time of it's writing. But, that's just my 2˘ worth. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    *snippers*

    Holding degrees from anywhere is not necessarily a sign of manifest brilliance, and Harvard is no exception to that rule. However, Harvard Law graduates are the most sought after lawyers in the country, and are recruited by the most prestigious of law firms. Holding four degrees from Harvard certainly implies an above average intellect, and the motivation to apply that intellect.

    *snippers*
    President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate as well. And I'm positive they don't agree on anything outside the Spirit of the Second Amendment.

    While I appreciate your appeal to Authority, it's irrelevant. The Second Amendment states something, there is a Spirit to it. Let's form a consensus on what the Second Amendment states, and not be held hostage by the Founding Fathers view on the matter.
    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...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    We are dealing with a law here (2nd amendment), and laws do not bow to consensus. The law is to be interpreted by the courts as written. If the manner in which it is written is unclear then various other factors may come into play, one of which is the intent of those who made the law. But consensus? No, that is irrelevant and unnecessary.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate as well.
    Which only validates my point that, "Holding degrees from anywhere is not necessarily a sign of manifest brilliance, and Harvard is no exception to that rule." However, Obama's problem is not so much one of intelligence, but rather a problem of intent. He's bright enough, but he stands against every positive characteristic of our national culture.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The Second Amendment states something, there is a Spirit to it. Let's form a consensus on what the Second Amendment states, and not be held hostage by the Founding Fathers view on the matter.
    We, as a group, would have little difficulty forming "a consensus" on what 2A states - although it would not be unanimous, because some contributors here seem to be "true believers" in Obama's philosophy of greater control of the masses through government dependency. Regardless, our consensus - or lack thereof - is totally irrelevant, because our voices fall upon deaf ears. Laws are not based upon public consensus, they are based upon the consensus of those we elected to "represent" us in our governance. It's their job, whether they choose to do it or not. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate as well. And I'm positive they don't agree on anything outside the Spirit of the Second Amendment.

    While I appreciate your appeal to Authority, it's irrelevant. The Second Amendment states something, there is a Spirit to it. Let's form a consensus on what the Second Amendment states, and not be held hostage by the Founding Fathers view on the matter.
    Everything in the article was perfectly relevant to the 2A. Saying the 2A states something and then allude that it is not a clear statement is a perfect example of willful ignorance. I know you're probably implying that the meaning of the 2A has been "found" not to mean what it says by the SCOTUS, but if we deny the clear wording then we can never recover our Republic. We are doomed to the fate of democracy.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 04-03-2013 at 05:22 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Everything in the article was perfectly relevant to the 2A. Saying the 2A states something and then allude that it is not a clear statement is a perfect example of willful ignorance. I know you're probably implying that the meaning of the 2A has been "found" not to mean what it says by the SCOTUS, but if we deny the clear wording then we can never recover our Republic. We are doomed to the fate of democracy.
    Slow down there, friend.

    Yes, the Second Amendment states something; no, it's not clear what it means...hell, it's not clear what it meant, then.

    Deny clear wording?--I suppose, if you accept there is clear wording.

    We aren't doomed. Life's a garden, dig it!
    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...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    There is already a consensus. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." Very simple and to the point, anyone with a basic understanding of the English language would be able to grasp the meaning.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    We are dealing with a law here (2nd amendment), and laws do not bow to consensus. The law is to be interpreted by the courts as written. If the manner in which it is written is unclear then various other factors may come into play, one of which is the intent of those who made the law. But consensus? No, that is irrelevant and unnecessary.
    Constitutional Amendments are not laws. I don't mean to quibble with you. Constitutional Amendments are details outlines in the social contract...the tyranny of the Founding Fathers.
    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...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Constitutional Amendments are not laws. I don't mean to quibble with you. Constitutional Amendments are details outlines in the social contract...the tyranny of the Founding Fathers.
    The US Constitution and any amendment thereof is the LAW of the land. It is the law that authorizes other law. It is the law that sets the bounds in which other law can be made and how that law is made.

    It is not a social contract. It is law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    The US Constitution and any amendment thereof is the LAW of the land. It is the law that authorizes other law. It is the law that sets the bounds in which other law can be made and how that law is made.

    It is not a social contract. It is law.
    It's a social contract.
    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...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    It's a social contract.
    I see. You make a statement about the US Const., I correct you by stating the obvious and you retort without support.

    The Constitution says it's law...

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    I've never heard anyone make such a silly statement as "Constitutional Amendments are not laws". I'm gonna have to cross out the names of my Constitutional law books and write "social contract... thing".

    Now, perhaps you might say that there has been a successful attempt to twist the Const. into a perceived "social contract" such that laws can be made that are in direct conflict. That would be... well... illegal.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 04-03-2013 at 08:17 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I see. You make a statement about the US Const., I correct you by stating the obvious and you retort without support.

    The Constitution says it's law...

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    I've never heard anyone make such a silly statement as "Constitutional Amendments are not laws". I'm gonna have to cross out the name of my Constituional law books and write "social contract... thing".

    Now, perhaps you might say that there has been a successful attempt to twist the Const. into a perceived "social contract" such that laws can be made that are in direct conflict. That would be... well... illegal.
    I will bend, just a little bit.


    Nevermind: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Thank you for the quote. As I stated previously: The Amendments to the Constitution are not Laws. The Constitution is a social contract.
    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...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I will bend, just a little bit.


    Nevermind: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Thank you for the quote. As I stated previously: The Amendments to the Constitution are not Laws. The Constitution is a social contract.
    Jeezz... I see the problem. You put the color code around the wrong words.

    any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State

    See... the two things.

    1) The Constitution
    2) Laws of any State

    The Constitution is obviously not "Laws of any State". Though it is, as I've shown, law.

    Perhaps you'd like to explain your "social contract" hypothesis.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Jeezz... I see the problem. You put the color code around the wrong words.

    any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State

    See... the two things.

    1) The Constitution
    2) Laws of any State

    The Constitution is obviously not "Laws of any State". Though it is, as I've shown, law.

    Perhaps you'd like to explain your "social contract" hypothesis.

    The second highlight I did wasn't necessary. It doesn't change what I stated.

    Laws of State, are Laws. Funny thing though, State Constitution is not law.

    A social contract can be explicit, say, the Constitution, and implicit, say, you and me are to lunch, and we don't eat from the plate of the other without asking, and getting the go ahead. Another implicit contract is you and me are at a OC BBQ, laughing, shooting the ****, neither of us just takes the firearm from the others holster.
    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...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The second highlight I did wasn't necessary. It doesn't change what I stated.

    Laws of State, are Laws. Funny thing though, State Constitution is not law.

    A social contract can be explicit, say, the Constitution, and implicit, say, you and me are to lunch, and we don't eat from the plate of the other without asking, and getting the go ahead. Another implicit contract is you and me are at a OC BBQ, laughing, shooting the ****, neither of us just takes the firearm from the others holster.
    You're not making any sense. That's the funny thing.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    You're not making any sense. That's the funny thing.
    I will let my posts stand.

    You can conclude, well, whatever your little heart desires.
    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 rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    After reading the cited essay - I find myself in total agreement that what we have been witnessing since the GCA of 1968 to the present excesses exploiting horrible tragedies is nothing less than TREASON of the highest order.

    Sandy Hook could have been prevented by the "common sense" assignment of at least one armed security person at the entrance.

    The Aurora theater tragedy could have been prevented by the assignment of one usher posted at the emergency door.

    Instead the architects of revolution exploit such events to further their treasonous intentions while eagerly awaiting the next needless tragedy.

    There no longer remains any doubt in my mind that the ultimate goal of Maobama, Herr Bloomberg, Herr Schumer, and Frau Feinstein is that last remaining .410 shell, and .22 short somewhere out there in middle America.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 04-03-2013 at 10:53 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate as well. And I'm positive they don't agree on anything outside the Spirit of the Second Amendment.

    While I appreciate your appeal to Authority, it's irrelevant. The Second Amendment states something, there is a Spirit to it. Let's form a consensus on what the Second Amendment states, and not be held hostage by the Founding Fathers view on the matter.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of

    servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go

    home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.

    Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains

    set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were

    our countrymen.”

    ― Samuel Adams

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by idea(l)s View Post
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of

    servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go

    home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.

    Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains

    set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were

    our countrymen.”

    ― Samuel Adams

    Thank you for the quote. Adams views on the matter are duly noted.

    Now lets get to our ideas, before our bones turn to dust.
    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
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    73
    Beretta92FSLady:


    "Thank you for the quote. Adams views on the matter are duly noted.


    Now lets get to our ideas, before our bones turn to dust."


    I am afraid it went over your head and really: "our ideas"...?

    There are only two kinds of ideas here: yours and not mine, yours are of the latter variety.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by idea(l)s View Post
    Beretta92FSLady:


    "Thank you for the quote. Adams views on the matter are duly noted.


    Now lets get to our ideas, before our bones turn to dust."


    I am afraid it went over your head and really: "our ideas"...?

    There are only two kinds of ideas here: yours and not mine, yours are of the latter variety.

    *yawn* Been there, done that. The least you could do is come up with something original. I tend to set the bar high in the expectation that a newbie would bring something new to the table.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 04-08-2013 at 10:37 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...

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Thank you for the quote. Adams views on the matter are duly noted.

    Now lets get to our ideas, before our bones turn to dust.
    It has nothing to do with being Adams viewpoint.

    There is much broader implications. He articulates my viewpoint very well , so I quote him. I am thinking the other poster who quoted him feels the same too.

    Also he was of those evil guys who rebelled against his rulers, and helped found the federation we have today. I find that when many people want to dismiss, quotes from folks like Samuel Adams they are actually trying to dismiss, the principles the country was found upon.
    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)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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