Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Procedural Tactic to Assure 2nd Amendment [Vanity]
Facebook ^ | 6/22/14 | Tobie P

Posted on 06/22/2014 8:21:46 PM PDT by DBCJR

I have an idea about clearing up confusion about interpreting the 2nd amendment. Suppose some state (like Texas, for example) created a group called "the militia". Anyone could join for free from any state. There would be no duties, just a database proving membership. Members would then be protected from onerous gun control laws.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; guncontrol; gunlaws

1 posted on 06/22/2014 8:21:46 PM PDT by DBCJR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

As long as it’s “well regulated”.


2 posted on 06/22/2014 8:24:57 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Why does it have to involve government? Here is a much better idea: Form a militia like you describe, but keep government’s hands off of it. Whether it be federal or state.


3 posted on 06/22/2014 8:25:57 PM PDT by sipow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

That database might come in handy someday ... when they start rounding up “domestic terrorists”


4 posted on 06/22/2014 8:29:24 PM PDT by ZOOKER (Until further notice the /s is implied...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Completely unnecessary

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


5 posted on 06/22/2014 8:29:33 PM PDT by porter_knorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

We have an individual right to KBA now. The problem is with the term “infringement.”


6 posted on 06/22/2014 8:31:00 PM PDT by umgud (I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR
Make it the NRAAM National Rifle Association and Militia

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

7 posted on 06/22/2014 8:32:15 PM PDT by Varmint Al
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

In common law, the county Sheriff is the de facto leader of the posse or militia. And this has a potentially useful legal angle.

If state law permits, which it does in some states, the Sheriff could announce that all adult residents “of good character” in the county were members of the reserve posse, and thus were *required* to own some type or types of firearms and ammunition. With no records, and no penalty for not owning a firearm or ammunition. Like Kennesaw, GA, but at the county level.

However, this means that if the feds wanted to confiscate the arms of the citizenry of that county, they could only do so if they confiscated all firearms of all LEOs in that state.

Lots of wrinkles to be ironed out in this, but it might work at least in theory.


8 posted on 06/22/2014 8:34:33 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Your theory/concept disproves unalienable rights and at a minimum marginalizes the phrase “The Right of the People” ie “.. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Next time don’t be fooled by asinine articles promulgating such fool hardiness.

We have state national guards. That doesn’t pre-empt the right of the people to throw off an oppressive government, which I am not advocating.


9 posted on 06/22/2014 8:36:47 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

sounds great but when has this administration been concerned for what is can do legally?


10 posted on 06/22/2014 8:37:15 PM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

I’ve got a better idea: Molon labe.


11 posted on 06/22/2014 8:40:53 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Please read the Dick Act.


12 posted on 06/22/2014 8:44:12 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Well-regulated means ready for war.


13 posted on 06/22/2014 8:45:25 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

The militia already exists. There is no need to take any step to make “them” understand. Educate them on what is, do not make it more complicated than it has to be.


14 posted on 06/22/2014 8:46:02 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

There’s no confusion. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled.


15 posted on 06/22/2014 8:52:59 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

You bet. At the time the Constitution was written “well regulated” meant “hitting the target with monotonous regularity”.


16 posted on 06/22/2014 9:11:20 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Which in modern parlance means well practiced. So everyone sends in vouchers for their range time?


17 posted on 06/22/2014 9:14:43 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

Is that like the Tom Act or the Harry Act?


18 posted on 06/22/2014 9:15:31 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Telling the truth to ourselves, no matter how unpleasant it is. Speech in Big Spring, Howard County TX, 21 June 2014

Not too bad for a speech I wrote on about

two and a half hours sleep.
I’d like to open my speech today with two

shout outs, one to my most devoted

sponsors, the One Hundred Heads Life and

Casualty Company and the other to the

twice-elected President of the United

States, Barack Hussein Obama, on the

singular milestone in his career, or indeed

of anyone who has ever sat in the Oval

Office. Sometime later this month, if my

estimate is correct, Mr. Obama will have

presided over the ONE HUNDRED MILLIONTH

FBI FIREARM SALES BACKGROUND CHECK.

Now, more a guy who’s only been in office

for a term and a half, that’d quite an

accomplishment as a firearm salesma

n representing the Unintended Consequences

Armaments Corporation, he has managed to

put even Bill Clinton in the deep shade.
Barack, you’re the biggest and best firearm

salesman in world history and THAT’S some

kind of legacy, so I would like to thank you

from the bottom of my heart on behalf of

the armed citizenry of the United States.

And we won’t even mention what you’ve

done for ammunition sales. But thanks for

everything, Barack. You may go down in

history as this country’s worst President

ever, but you are ONE HELL OF AN

ARMAMENTS SALESMAN.
You know, in doing my research before

coming here today, I noted with interest

that one of the major employers in Big

Spring these days is the Federal Correcti

onal Institution. This interested me because

I have so many people recently who are

interested in putting me inside of one those

places for what they imagine is my sedition

or even incitement to insurrection, not to

mention their irritation at my violation of

some newly oppressive citizen disarmament

state laws. To those who have been worried

in the past about the present administration

closing Guantanamo Bay, I always reassure

them, “Don’t worry. The Obama

administration will cease trying

to close Guantanamo the moment they

figure out that they can imprison US th

ere.” So, for those of you who work at the

Big Spring FCI, maybe I’ll see you through

the bars one day. Or not.
Folks, I am honored to be here today to

speak on the subject of “Restoring the

Constitution,” if for no other reason than

that task is what I have devoted the past

two decades of my life trying to accompli

sh. This is a subject that consumes the

attention of many Americans these days all

over the country. Yesterday I stood outside

town in the dust of the Old Comanche Trail

. Last weekend I gave a speech on the same

subject in Massachusetts almost literally in

the shadow of the famous Springfield

Armory where the men of Shay’s Rebellion

contended for their vision of what they

believed they had fought the Revolution for.

On Patriots Day, I was out in the Nevada

desert, speaking on the same subject on the

Bundy Ranch. In the last year I have given

speeches and talks at the Alamo, the steps

of the Connecticut state house in Hartford

and other places from Alabama to New York

state to Temple Texas. Next month I’m

going to Colorado and the month after that

I’ll be smuggling myself and some thirty

round magazines into New York just to

twist Governor Cuomo’s tail a bit. In each

place comes the question, “How can we

restore the Constitution?” How can we

return to the Founders’ vision of a

government of limited powers, which

preserves liberty and property while

upholding the rule of law and most

importantly operating within it? For this

administration, this regime, seems to

operate ever more increasingly as a lawless

gang bent not on the rule of law, but rather

the rule of man, which is to say the law of

the jungle enforced by the iron fist of

government power.
But how DO we restore the Constitution?

I think first and foremost we must tell the

truth, not only to those who we are trying

to convince to join us but, as well, to those

who are trying to defeat us However, and

most importantly, we must first tell the

truth to ourselves, no matter how

unpleasant it is.

As Patrick Henry said in his immortal speech

to the Virginia Convention on March 23,

1775:
“It is natural to man to indulge in

the illusions of hope. We are apt to

shut our eyes against a painful

truth, and listen to the song of that

siren, till she transforms us into

beasts. Is this the part of wise men,

engaged in a great and arduous

struggle for liberty? Are we

disposed to be of the number of

those who, having eyes, see not,

and having ears, hear not, the

things which so nearly concern

their temporal salvation? For my

part, whatever anguish of spirit it

may cost, I am willing to know the

whole truth — to know the worst

and to provide for it. I have but

one lamp by which my feet are

guided; and that is the lamp of

experience. I know of no way of

judging of the future but by the

past.”

And what, I ask you, have been our

experiences of the recent past? I will be

bluntly honest for I know of no other way to

say what is on my heart. We are at present

two peoples, two countries really, living

within a common border and sharing

(mostly) a common language but divided

upon the answer to this question: does the

government serve the people or do the

people serve the government? This is not a

question that the answer can be finessed

, negotiated or ignored. It is one or the

other, That of individual liberty as the

Founders intended or of collectivist power

in service to a few. Every smaller question

we struggle wit is merely a subset of this

larger question, every answer a component,

for good or ill, of the ultimate answer upon

which hinges the fates of our liberty, our

property, our lives and those of our children

and their children. Many of you will admit

that, in your heart of hearts, you know this

to be true. Yet we shrink from the honest

conclusion.
And that conclusion is that such mutually

exclusive worldviews cannot long coexist

without one or the other winning out.

History tells us — the Founders would tell us

themselves were they here — that neither

side of such a divide will surrender without

a fight, which means there WILL be a fight.

To think otherwise is to whistle past the

graveyard of our own history and that of

republics dead, gone and turned to blood

-stained dust when they could not overcome

similar corruption and collectivist rot from

within combined with barbaric attack from

without.
We like to think that all our fellow

Americans — even those who plainly state

that they are committed to stealing our

liberty and our property and attempting

to control our very lives — are merely

suffering from differences of opinion that

can be overcome by the right mix of

persuasion or electoral politics. Yet how

many of us have tried such methods with

every fiber of our being and fallen short, not

because we were wrong, but because those

of the other side were impervious to such

arguments, such tactics, for they believe

completely in their right to their appetites

for our liberty, our property and our lives

with all the religious fervor of a pagan

worship of naked power wrapped in a

catechism of lies. They believe that the

people serve the government, their vision of

government, and you’d better do what they

say or else.
The Founders had a name for people with

such appetites, and it is honest to call them

by it. If as the Bible says that by their fruits

ye shall know them then let us call them

what they are — domestic enemies of the

Constitution. The fact that many of them

took an oath to defend the same Founders’

Republic that they daily attack should be

proof enough for an honest observer to

admit that the term fits such people. And if

no oath, no law, no court restrains such

appetites then what will? The Founders had

an answer, and you know it too, today, in

your hearts, if you are honest enough to

admit it.
Let us be honest enough to admit first to

ourselves, and then to proclaim to those

domestic enemies of liberty and thence to

the world, that failing all other appeals to

peaceful means that the Founders’ solution

to such tyranny is still available, still

potent, still waiting. FOR WHEN

DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY THE

ARMED CITIZENRY STILL GETS TO VOTE. This

is the promise, the warning, the threat

embodied by the Gadsden flag of our

Founders — “Don’t tread on me.” Don’t tread

on us.
This does not mean that the time for

politics, for moral suasion is over.

It is not. In many ways and many places we

are winning those battles, which is why

those domestic enemies of the Constitution

continue to seek to disarm us with

arguments less and less cloaked in their

alleged good intentions and more and more

in plain naked power. Such cries are in fact

maneuvers of, and evidence of, increasing

desperation. I told you that last weekend I

was in the Northeast, speaking to firearm

owners who in a very real sense now live

behind enemy lines. In the aftermath of the

Newtown massacre, their states passed laws

— Intolerable Acts, the Founders would have

called them — demanding firearm

registration and confiscation and making

resistance to those “common sense gun

laws” a felony. And do you know what

happened? Fully eighty five percent of

Connecticut citizens, threatened with arrest

by their new law, have not complied but

resisted. Eighty five percent. In New York

the number likely approaches NINETY FIVE

percent. Yet the politicians, having

declared their appetites, their desires to

work their tyrannical will upon their own

fellow citizens, are hesitating to take a bite

. In fact, they don’t know whether to

defecate or go blind. They are scared

spitless — and yes, I said sPit less —

by the thought that enforcing such laws on

an uncowed, armed people might have

personal consequences for them. They are

beginning to realize too late that the rule of

law as crafted by the Founders protects

THEM from us far more than it protects US

from them.
These men and women — these practitioners

of a godless secular religion which worships

government so that they may increase their

own power — these tyrant wannabes who

know of no argument of law, or history, or

logic, or even common sense that could

blunt their appetites, are now sitting at the

feast table that they so carefully made AND

THEY DARE NOT TAKE A BITE FOR FEAR OF

THEIR INTENDED MEAL BITING THEM BACK.
THAT is the Founders’ argument. That is

what we must be honest enough to admit to

ourselves, and then to proclaim to those

domestic enemies of the Constitution and to

the world. Forget all the arguments, all the

emotion, all the wasted effort we have

spent trying to convince people who will

not, cannot, be convinced contrary to their

own tyrant’s religion and the rumbling of

their own appetites for other people’s

liberty and property and lives. Forget that,

but remember this, in all honesty, that in

the end, our liberty is defended by the cold

calculation that every criminal, whether of

the common class or the Constitutional

class, makes when he sizes up a victim

, whether that victim be a person walking

down the street or a nation at a crossroads

— will my victim resist? Do they have the

means to resist? Do they have the WILL to

resist? Can I con my victim into putting

down what weapons he possesses? If you

convince the criminal that he will personally

lose more than he gains from such a

transaction, he will resign himself to finding

another victim, or, the case of the wannabe

tyrant, to retiring to play golf in Hawaii.

And that’s the honest truth about how to

defend and restore the Constitution.
So if you wish to stay free, prepare to resist,

defy, evade and smuggle. The Founders did.

The enemies of liberty will certainly never

be convinced by anything less.
Thank you.
Posted by Dutchman6 at 6:28 AM http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/ You may email Mike Vanderboegh at GeorgeMason1776ATaol DOT com.


19 posted on 06/22/2014 9:16:18 PM PDT by DavidLSpud ("Go and sin no more"-Rejoice always, pray continually...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

ya....DHS would love to have an excuse to raid your home.


20 posted on 06/22/2014 9:25:15 PM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR
Already covered by the 1903 Militia Act:

The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code

State Militias a. k. a. State Defense Forces have already been formed in 23 states and Puerto Rico (Click here)

A couple of examples are Virginia:

http://www.virginiacitizenmilitia.org/

And Arizona:

http://arizonastatemilitia.com/

21 posted on 06/22/2014 10:20:10 PM PDT by imardmd1 (Fiat Lux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

The Dick Act spells out the various forms in which the militia manifests itself. Basically all able-bodied males are automatically in the militia, even the looniest left coast fruitcakes.


22 posted on 06/22/2014 10:55:55 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
There’s no confusion. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled.

Of course there's confusion.

The Supreme Court can never be the final word, if a subsequent Court can nullify previous "final words."

The SC cannot claim final infallibility about anything.
"Clearly ruled" is in the same category as "depends on what the definition of 'is' is..." ' is...

23 posted on 06/22/2014 11:19:30 PM PDT by publius911 ( Politicians come and go... but the (union) bureaucracy lives and grows forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
You bet. At the time the Constitution was written “well regulated” meant “hitting the target with monotonous regularity”.

And I always thought it meant "trained" and practiced to the point of competence and effectiveness for the purpose of civilian and personal defense; as opposed to a trained standing army.

24 posted on 06/22/2014 11:22:55 PM PDT by publius911 ( Politicians come and go... but the (union) bureaucracy lives and grows forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Many, if not most, states already have Such a legally defined status, called the “unorganized Militia” in Maryland. MD does not keep a list, ‘tho’; that would be called an “Enrolled Militia”, and there hasn’t been one here since the Civil War.

Alas, membership in the militia, unorganized or organized (MDARNG, MDANG, MDNaval Militia, or MDDF) does not confer any
exemption to Maryland’s onerous anti-gun laws.

But I agree, creation of an enrolled militia force, with full exemption from ‘Gun-control Laws’, including the 1937 NFA, the 1969 GCA, and so on, would be a good thing for the Country, which is why we shall never see it.


25 posted on 06/23/2014 12:50:44 AM PDT by VietVet (I am old enough to know who I am and what I believe, and I 'm not inclined to apologize for any of)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Oh good. Another *database* in which to be included.

What could possibly go wrong?


26 posted on 06/23/2014 4:00:45 AM PDT by Daffynition ("We Are Not Descended From Fearful Men")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

agreed - who is behind this? really? and are they using this to collect info on gun owners so target them for something? like confiscation and/or roundup?
IMHO you don’t want your name on any central or distributed list of gun owners.


27 posted on 06/23/2014 4:53:20 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway

There is an interesting twist to the constitution. In past, the SCOTUS has found that congress is superior to state legislatures, and that federal judges are superior to state judges. But it has never found that the POTUS is superior to state governors.

This means, that when the POTUS and a governor are in contention, the only way the POTUS can enforce his will is with military force of arms. The last time this happened was when Bill Clinton’s mentor, governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, rejected integration of Little Rock High School, and Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to force it.

W. Bush refused to do so just when faced with inaction by the governor of Louisiana, after hurricane Katrina. Bush wanted to send in FEMA, but the governor refused to allow it.

The independence of governors also devolves somewhat to county Sheriffs, depending on the state. In many states, the governor cannot force compliance by Sheriffs. Yet at the same time, the governor acts as a buffer against direct action by the POTUS against Sheriffs.

A great example of this is the inability of Obama to force compliance from Joe Arpaio. The worst he has been able to do is to order Holder to investigate Arpaio over alleged civil rights abuses, though Obama would like nothing better than to arrest Arpaio and throw him into a federal prison for the rest of his life.


28 posted on 06/23/2014 6:21:58 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: publius911
That too.

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

29 posted on 06/23/2014 7:34:30 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VietVet

It would via the 2nd Amendment.


30 posted on 06/23/2014 1:58:37 PM PDT by DBCJR (What would you expect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: porter_knorr

I think you missed the point, “about clearing up confusion about interpreting the 2nd amendment”. You and I know what the 2nd Amendment says. This makes it pain to everyone.


31 posted on 06/23/2014 2:00:34 PM PDT by DBCJR (What would you expect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

I think you missed the point, “about clearing up confusion about interpreting the 2nd amendment”. You and I know what the 2nd Amendment says. This makes it pain to everyone.


32 posted on 06/23/2014 2:02:04 PM PDT by DBCJR (What would you expect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sipow

It has to involve a state-defined militia that automatically triggers the 2nd Amendment.


33 posted on 06/23/2014 2:03:09 PM PDT by DBCJR (What would you expect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

That is where the confusion exists, to put it politely.


34 posted on 06/23/2014 2:04:22 PM PDT by DBCJR (What would you expect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Apparently Democrats did not get the memo.


35 posted on 06/23/2014 2:04:59 PM PDT by DBCJR (What would you expect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Wasn’t trying to be contentious.

Was just my quick response and looks like a few others saw it the same way.

we’ve been this road before and your 10 year old or 65 year old won’t be in a militia.

The original militia called to arms on The Green at Concord were comprised of farmers, frontiers men and other types.

when the regulars meet the militia on the green, to disarm them, they had enough sense to range the militia by 400 yrds, the outermost of effectiveness for Kentucky & Pennsylvania rifles.

The regulars Knew better than to engage closer, as their arms were, at best, effective to a mere 50 yards.

You know the story but, when that skirmish over most those guys went home and that fight was over.

But, for the Red Coats, it was “Game On” or war, to put down the rebellion.

once they had lost more men than they were sending over, the British sued for peace.

I guess to bide time, as they marched again in 1812.

Once again, the farmer, the frontiersman and sport shooters rained down on the British.

yeah, good for us. They wore red twice making them easy targets but, even during the Civil/Great War our best sharpshooters came from the private sector.

much like today, when I go to the range, by far the worst shooters are cops.

I sometimes wonder if they are just acting stupid . There’s enough you charge them with conspiracy.

There was a town in the 1920’s, Texas I believe, where the sheriff and his deputized henchmen were running a town for their own nefarious enterprise.

One day the town showed up armed to the teeth. They arrested the Sheriff and his chump deputies, tossed em the town jail and eventually charged them with various crimes.

after it was done, they elected a new sheriff and went home.

the point is, the power and rights are spelled out in the Constitution. They are personal and unalienable.

if the requirement to impair prosecution, was membership in an armed service, it would be impaired for failure to serve.


36 posted on 06/23/2014 3:57:48 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Yes but adding another step to the process is dangerous. It is fine the way it is.


37 posted on 06/23/2014 8:05:49 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

I didn’t miss the point.

It doesn’t work under federal or state’s rights to require me to sign up while a California resident, to a Texas militia to protect my Federal Constitutional rights or in some places, federal and state Consitutional rights. It’s not what the 2nd amendment is about.

We’re free to resist tyranny wherever we live - without any restriction.


38 posted on 06/24/2014 1:49:01 AM PDT by porter_knorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“There was a town in the 1920’s, Texas I believe, “

Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946, returning war vets.


39 posted on 06/24/2014 8:43:44 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR

Show me where in the 2nd amendment that is says the militia has to be operated. Here is a clue - it ain’t in there. And for good reason.


40 posted on 06/26/2014 7:22:48 AM PDT by sipow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson