• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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/Edwin-Vieira-Dare-Call-It-Treason-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... :cool:
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
*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.
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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.
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...
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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!
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
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:

idea(l)s

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
73
Location
, , USA
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
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“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.
 

idea(l)s

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
73
Location
, , USA
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.
 
Top