Posted on 01/11/2013 8:39:36 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Though it’s doubtful anyone will hear much about it, neither lawmakers, judges or even a president has the constitutional authority to infringe upon the inalienable right of the American people to keep and bear arms.
One hundred thirty eight years ago, the Supreme Court wrote that the right to keep and bear arms “…is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” (1)
The case was the United States v Cruikshank and the Court made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, God-given and independent of any mandatory approbation by men or their laws for its force and legitimacy
The Founders were so certain as to the absolute nature of these inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights that Alexander Hamilton suggested in Federalist No. 84 that it was unnecessary even to make them a part of the written Constitution. “For why declare that...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
“It’s like owning ocean-front property and having the sea eat away at your beach”
Here’s a more littoral analogy: “Gun control is a tide that is always coming in.”
Similar to Islam.
CMP has the .30 Carbine stuff available, but you must have a current membership in a local affiliated club.
Even if we started right now we would still be overwhelmed with a superior trained force that will follow orders to the letter.
Aren't you the same doom and gloomer who's been talking about running away to Australia?
Even though the odds in this fight stand at Citizens 100 / Federals 1, you continue to drone on and on about how Big Brother is an all-powerful, irresistible force, which cannot be beaten.
Even if only one in ten Americans stood their ground in the ultimate defiance scenario, they would comprise an army 10 million strong, which is larger than any armed force that Obama and the Commies in the U.N. could ever hope to cobble together.
Less than 15 thousand committed jihadists tied up our entire war machine in Iraq for nearly ten years!
Add to that, the fact that you're slandering the vast majority of American armed forces personnel, who would NOT obey an executive order to disarm the American public, and I'm beginning to believe that you're a hopeless paranoid, or some sort of disinformation agent.
KNOCK OFF THE DOOM AND GLOOM!
BOOYAH!
I'm right there with you, friend. Never give up. Never surrender.
Heh, heh, I’ve been watching that tide come in since 1967 when I was 18 & made my first gun purchase. GCA-68, AK import ban(s), AWB 94, & now this. Every one of those was tragedy exploitation.
And every one was either watered down or bypassed. That ol’ U.S. Constitution is an annoying pesky thing to the gungrabbers, & its harshest media critics are all mostly furriners. Our guns aren’t registered and this isn’t the Soviet Union, heck’s fire now even the Russkies are telling us not to give up our guns.
The Brits are another matter. Our war of Independence began when the redcoats tried to seize weapons, & the Piers Morgan crowd doesn’t like it a bit that we won over just that issue.
“..shall not be infringed.” Take heart, FRiend.
;^)
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
On Ghandihttp://www.markshep.com/peace/Myths.html
“The second form of mass Satyagraha was noncooperation.
This is just what it sounds like. Noncooperation meant refusing to cooperate with the opponent, refusing to submit to the injustice being fought. It took such forms as strikes, economic boycotts, and tax refusals.
Of course, noncooperation and civil disobedience overlapped. Noncooperation too was to be carried out in a “civil” manner. Here too, Gandhi’s followers had to cheerfully face beating, imprisonment, confiscation of their property—and it was hoped that this willing suffering would cause a “change of heart.”
But noncooperation also had a dynamic of its own, a dynamic that didn’t at all depend on converting the opponent or even molding public opinion. It was a dynamic based not on appeals but on the power of the people themselves.
Gandhi saw that the power of any tyrant depends entirely on people being willing to obey. The tyrant may get people to obey by threatening to throw them in prison, or by holding guns to their heads. But the power still resides in the obedience, not in the prison or the guns.
Now, what happens if those people begin to say, “We’re not afraid of prison. We’re even willing to die. But we’re not willing to obey you any longer.”
It’s very simple. The tyrant has no power. He may rant and scream and hurt and destroy—but if the people hold to it, he’s finished.
Gandhi said, “I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill.”
“That was Gandhi’s concept of power—the one he’s accused of not having. It’s a hard one to grasp, for those used to seeing power in the barrel of a gun. Their filters do not pass it. And so they call Gandhi idealistic, impractical.”
sfl
>> “I don’t think this fight will ever be over, once & for all, until the communists are completely purged from the United States of America.” <<
.
Purged?
They have taken complete control of the presidency, the congress, the judiciary, and the schools; what do they lack?
.
I see these kinds of comments often Unk and perhaps you can tell me...
How many military have you talked to in your life that say they will attack and kill their fellow Americans? I genuinely want to know.
Because with a family and many friends both current and former military I have yet to encounter one of them who would. Further, when this subject comes up (often in today’s climate) none of them seem to know any of their fellows who would either.
Now Like every part of society, the Military has it’s undesirables that would. But they are so much the minority and their potential actions so vile that they would be quickly fragged should try try.
So please. enlighten us. And when you cant, please deliver the message to others who say likewise without anything to back it up.
You think the mil would follow orders to shoot us. The many and diverse members/ranks of the mil I know from around the country, who have served in multiple wars and theaters, say they would not. Either they are lying or not representative of the military as a whole. Which do you think is more likely?
Alexander Hamilton was a globalist, big central government tyrant; that’s why he didn’t want any rights ennumerated in the constitution.
It’s true they have all but completely taken control of the federal government.
What do they lack?
What they lack is the support of the American people. If you believe the hype- that they have 51% support for this president & for their freebies & *their* privileges, look around on some forums that aren’t primarily political.
“Crossed the line” isn’t just a figure of speech & it isn’t just about the 2A. This has been building up for a long time.
By “purge”, I mean every communist in the country. We knew the thief was in the house & we gave him his own house key.
I understand that Obama and his cohorts were not legitimately elected, but they do control the election process due to their control of federal prosecution, and the compliance of the very like minded zombies of the MSM.
Part of the problem in the general complacency of our poorly educated population. Government schools effectively reduce the cognition of the masses.
Exactly. That’s why I said they all need to be run out of the country. They’re so dedicated, I’m sure they’d be welcome in China or North Korea, like Frank Marshall Davis’ buddies were in the USSR. They can’t control anything if they’re not here. Maybe “purged” was the wrong word. Exiled with no possibility of return.
I agree with you 100% about government schools.
Do you mean that we have to rely on the Congress & the courts so it can’t happen? Because then I see your point. But they need to go, too. We need to just clean house. By all appearances, people- non political people, are very, very angry. Nobody is holding back on the communism aspect.
51% of the American people didn’t support the democrats. Supposedly, 51% of *the people who voted* did. Those people who didn’t show up weren’t all apathetic. Some of them were ticked off & cynical.
How are you going to make it happen?
What I've been posting over the past few weeks (and over the years) is this: it's time to turn the regulating of the militia into a weekend convention for gun enthusiasts, sanctioned by state national guards.
In Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton writes:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Hamilton expected that the "militia" gather once or twice a year for inspection by officers of the state, or they cannot consider themselves to be "well-regulated." Inspection would include demonstrating that their arms are kept in good working order, and that they are proficient in its use.
One way for gun owners to turn the debate would be to suggest that the states offer "militia inspections" once or twice a year. If a state were serious about doing this, it could be practical to have a unit of a state's national guard travel from region to region and hold weekend "boot-camps" at a reserve army base for volunteers to attend.
I'm sure there are many bitter-clingers who would love to sign up for a weekend getaway to practice being a militia once or twice a year.
This would be a way to make the "militia" argument real and practical, not some archaic term-of-art from a time-gone-by.
-PJ
>> “•Make it a program that someone has to register and pay for.” <<
.
So that the thugs will have the ownership data with which to proceed with confiscation?
I seriously thought about that point. Here are my conclusions.
1. If the movement is large enough, the feds can't get away with it.
2. If people paid for it themselves, then it would be like a trade show or convention, not a government-controlled freebie. That would endorse the idea that it is a citizen-militia under state jurisdiction, and not an extension of a federal standing army.
3. If the states controlled it per Hamilton's writings that the militia officers be under state appointment, then federal confiscation of a legal state militia exercise would be outright tyranny that all the other states would be forced to recognize. It would be Hamilton's worst fears come true, which would prove the Framers' hypthesis for all to see.
Sure, I see the danger, and the optics, of gathering lawful gun owners in one place under the pretext of a militia assembly, only to be rounded up like the Japanese in WWII. That's a stunt that Obama could only pull once. There are many counties in a single state, and 49 other states if he should pull a stunt like that in one place.
Do you really think that's a serious possibility that could sweep the nation?
-PJ
I would say that the next step is to go to our state legislators & governors. I am, personally, a proponent of secession/ partition. If the left wants to have their socialist utopia, fine- but they will not be our neighbors & we will not foot the bill any longer. What I’ve seen discussed there isn’t “round them up & throw them out” but strongly encourage them to self deport by removing the entitlements that allow them to stay- public assistance, affirmative action, the right of free association to name 3. Socially conservative, traditional values based on the Constitution & the free market would be the law, period. No illegal immigration, period. No discussion, no lawsuit nonsense, nothing. Don’t like it- there’s the door. Maybe help (literally- funds & services) them relocate if someone couldn’t move otherwise because it would save money & peace in the long run.
I read a post on another forum earlier that conservatives should “form their own union” & adopt union tactics, like a strike/ boycott. They were being kinda facetious, but refusing to comply/ participate & being visibly in dissent is about all we have left before the proverbial pitchforks & torches. Violence is *not* necessary (defense might be, if they attacked us with violence first)
I guess a simpler way of putting it is shunning & passive resistance. At least until we can come up with a better plan.
You’re not implying that we should just keep rolling over & go along, are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.