Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

3 Neutral

1 Follower

About TheShootist

  • Rank
    NJGF Member

Profile Information

  • Home Range
    Don't have one

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's not my logic. That is the logic that is being pushed by some.
  2. Is the subject the 2nd amendment, or the current argument of the individual right trying to be tied to restriction placed on the government, and how Scalia saved the case? Here are some articles by a man who has written more about the 2nd than the Selective Service Bureau. https://newswithviews.com/author/edwinvieira/ Here is one that will answer your questions much better than I explained it. https://newswithviews.com/the-irrelevant-second-amendment/
  3. BTW, you'll see that he uses the term unorganized militia in the articles. There is a reason for that, and it is part of the strategy I've been working on.
  4. George Mason was co-author of the Bill of Rights. During the ratification debates he rhetorically asked, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." I think Scalia made the case under that doctrine. The right of the People to have a Militia is the basic foundation of all the principles of this nation; right to keep and bear arms, right to execute the laws of the Union, right to sovereignty, and so on. Justice Scalia tied the case for the petitioners. I didn't agree with his logic, but he put it together so that he could rule in favor of the petitioners. As a note, if you don't have a Militia, you don't have to have armed populace, nor does the populace need to own "weapons of war". If the people have an individual right, as is being argued, why does it have to be an AR or AK? I'm not sure if I explained that adequately as your question requires quite a bit more understanding of the entire complex. Here is a link, the last few articles contain answers. https://newswithviews.com/author/edwinvieira/
  5. First, let me apologize. I thought you were making a statement since I did not see a question mark after talking about the states disbanding militia. If it is a question then your individual rights comes from the basic principles or this nation, "[we] are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights". You don't lose your right to keep and bear arms because you are no longer in Militia. If you have Militia to begin with "to execute the Laws of the Union", who is going to remove the individual right? It comes down to who enforces the law. Do we enforce it, or do we allow tools of the government to do so. BTW, the word unorganized does not appear in the organic act. The word is reserve used. I'm not quite sure where the confusion comes in. Heller has been around for almost a decade with plenty of time to read and digest. The decision of the Court is coming to fruition now, as there have been a number of states trying to regulate firearms out of existence. BTW, the individual rights theory comes from the NRA. The courts typically held the 2nd in the same light as the Founders defined it. If you bring a 2nd amendment case, you have to bring it in the context of the Constitutional mandates. How can you bring it on an individual rights theory when the people who wrote it said it was to make sure the Congress could not disarm Militia, and the states are required to have Militia to uphold their oath to the "Supreme Laws of the Land"?
  6. How did you draw these conclusions? Your individual right comes from the fact that you "are endowed by [your] Creator with certain unalienable rights". The State cannot remove the Militia because it is also a function of their duty to uphold the Constitution; Article 1, Section 8, and Article 2. As far as the "unorganized militia", I suggest you re-read the Dick Act. All able-bodied men 17-45 are the Militia. All others are members of an "unorganized militia" since they are no longer required to train, or perform a task other than those of able-bodied men. As for the National Guard, it is "troops *** of war" that the Congress allows the States to keep under Article 1, Section 10, Cls. 3. Just keep shooting the messenger so you don't actually have to do anything more than give homage to the NRA and through good money after bad.
  7. What I quoted from Heller was done so for a specific reason. I suggest you re-read Heller because the conclusion you've drawn is incorrect. The supposed pro-2nd community keeps going back to a decision that did not take place they way the look at it through rose colored glasses.
  8. I wonder why it is that the so-called pro-2nd community is so docile? If you want action, and you want to stop the tyranny, you adhere to the law as the Founders instituted. You don't run from it, but rather you ban together ask the pertinent questions, and point to questionable acts. For anyone who hasn't noticed, there is a new war cry coming from the anti-gun crowd about weapons of war, along with the standard of why do you need an AR. My answer to the question that the anti-2nd crowd asks "Why do you need an AR"? The simple fact that you're here attempting to coerce those who have sworn an oath to "secure these rights" means that I must be prepared for a government that will be populated with little tyrants such as yourself. You've declared a war on my right to self-defense against anyone, agency, or group who claims that they have some sort of authority over me. The fact that the same actions of the genocidal maniacs of the last century are alive and well in people like you are all the reasons I need to own a weapon of war.
  9. The 2nd was indeed put in place to prevent the central government from disarming Militia. Militia is a State institution that is controlled by the People themselves. If you read some of the documentation around the subject, you'll find that Militia is beholding only to the rule of law. So, if either the federal or state governments create an unconstitutional act, such as disarming Militia, there is no vehicle for it to be enforced, and in truth, the Militia can take it upon itself to arrest "upon probable cause" anyone who has engaged in the violation of the oath of office. There is NO IMMUNITY from the authority of Militia. The Founders hoped that the People would not become ambivalent, or I'm sorry to say completely ignorant of the rule of law. At the time, even dirt farmers understood that this was a nation of popular sovereignty. Sadly, today there are very, very few who understand the basic foundation of this Republic, so much so, that even those who should know better use the word democracy to denigrate our principles, and act as if the State has any authority that cannot be removed by the People.
  10. Limits on any type of weapon that would be used to fulfill the Duty recognized in Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15&16, and the State statutes are unconstitutional. All those regulations need to be removed immediately, but they will not be if we cling to the 'individual rights theory', and ignore the myriad of documentation as to why we have Militia, and what its proper Constitutional definition is. That is what I'm working towards, but when someone says "I don’t know how anyone could read Scalia’s opinion on Heller and not conclude that things like Mag limits and AWB are not unconstitutional..." I can see that there will be absolutely no help coming from the so-called pro-2nd community.
  11. I’ve seen the email alerts, but had no interest in commenting. I’ve been working on a strategy with a couple of others to actually bring a Second Amendment case. However, the community in general doesn’t want to hear it. So, the reason I’ve not bothered to say a word can best be answered by Carl Sagan: “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” As the saying goes, the hour grows late, and the Republic is in grave danger. However, since I was specifically mentioned as the target of a snide remark, I thought I would say something. This post started when an Amicus Brief for the Kolbe case was posted. There were 6 other petitioners whose claims were dismissed because they had no underlying strategy in place. The court could not deny Kolbe’s suit because he took the steps necessary for the court to be handcuffed on the matter of hearing the suit. I see no one moving away from the arguments that groups such as the NRA and GOA promote in order to fill their coffers. The overriding question to the Second community is one that I’ve posed many times with but one person able to answer. The question is how do you enforce the law when you’ve abdicated your Constitutional duty to do so? As a follow-up, do you even have a right when you refuse to enforce it in the long-standing lawful manner? Do you expect those who want you disarmed to relinquish their power when you show no interest in your enumerated authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”? The general issue is that when the Second is discussed in detail, you find out how many people actually want nothing at all to do with serving the community. They’d much rather argue every conceivable which way to avoid the duty imposed in the statutes. There is a general lack of understanding as to what was said in Heller. Justice Scalia quoting Thomas Cooley; “Among the other defences to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms. . . . The alternative to a standing army is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.” When I read this, I realized, just minutes after reading the decision, that this would be interpreted as a means of regulating firearms out of existence. The mere discussion of regulating not only a right, but also a basic principle of a government of the People is outlandish and dangerous. The notion comes from a misquote of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater”. What Justice Holmes actually wrote was “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. Obviously, you can’t claim a right to cause indiscriminate danger to the lives of others. This regulating a right, a completely false doctrine, is something that even those who profess to be patriots cling to. However, Justice Scalia also noted that the purpose of the Second was to make sure that Militia could not be disarmed. “The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus describes an overriding concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the means by which to guard against that danger. But state militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal standing army so long as Congress retained the power to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament was needed. As we explained in Miller: “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” 307 U. S., at 178. The Second means nothing at all if the public does not adhere to the law, which is imbedded in the body of the Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15&16, and Article 2. You cannot change the meaning of the words in the Constitution without an amendment, and the words on this are all able-bodied men, not volunteers. On the subject of the words and meanings, the Court has stated it so many times that it is not disputable. “that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers is to repeat what has been already said more at large and is all that can be necessary.” Ogden v. Saunders As noted by George Mason, co-author of the Bill of Rights, Militia is “the whole people”, organized, and armed. Here in lies the real argument that so-called pro-second people fall down on. Once they comprehend the fact that the intent of the Founders was to have “A well regulated Militia” that required the participation of all members of the community, the denials start. There is no dichotomy between the duty of the People to participate in their exercise of Sovereignty, and the right that the Founders enumerated in order to make it impossible for the State to disarm the People. However, the very people who claim to be supporters of the amendment are the most vocal in opposition to its true meaning. They’ll scream about the ‘unorganized militia’, which requires nothing at all from the general public but an excuse. Or they’ll defer to the National Guard, which is a branch of the Army that the Congress granted to the States under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, and in no way meets the Constitutional mandates under Section 8, or conforms to the Militia Act. Revocation of a fundamental aspect of law in order to take power from all the People, and placing it solely in the hands of a select few in tantamount to sedition. The fundamental aspect of which I speak is noted as “necessary to the security of a free State”, and meant to be in the hands of We the People, not some agency of government. Why deny it? So, instead of reading the words that our Forefathers debated, and then ratified, today’s pretend patriots would much rather shoot the messenger.
  12. I've been at this a lot longer than most. I spent a lot of time here putting laws and history on the table. How many do you think made the effort to read any of it before they commented? I asked you a question. Answer it. The issue is not whether I need to be here for any reason. It is whether or not people will take the time to research before they make snarky comments, and that is the reason for my avoidance. I could have been spending time on an Amicus brief today instead of giving out information to people who are not taking the time to read.
  13. No I don't like to argue. When I post, its typically with law and history attached. Patrick Henry was a student of human nature and that is why we have a Bill of Rights today. He understood that there would be those who looked to dismantle what was being created, and he understood that many would turn their heads when the going got tough. So with all the information I've posted, how many here would you think even went to take a look at the pertinent sections of the Constitution rather than just coming back with contrary comments? I'll leave you with the number 0.006, which actually has to be divided by 16 years for a more accurate picture. I recently listened to a real gentleman on the topic of being a gentleman. He said stop this ridiculous notion of taking the higher ground or being polite. You're in a battle for your freedom, your life, and the future of this nation. Wake up! There is no reason for me to come back here.
  14. I'll start with your last statement. I had asked a few friends to post an article referring to a film that James Jaeger is putting together, and one did on this forum. The response was not kind, as a matter of fact I found the comment on Dr. Vieira to be at best unkind, which is when I decided to join. All the friend did was post an article, and point to Dr. Edwin Vieira who has written more on the topic than anyone I've ever come across. I had no intention of posting here, but I saw the same comments you get from people who know only what they're told of the topic. I will note that there have been a few on here that were able to digest what I wrote. "Sorry, but these statements are a tad difficult for me to believe." As difficult as they may seem to you, they are nonetheless true. Would you like to go on other forums and explain the entirety of the DUTY to keep and bear arms, along with the right that the smallest and simplest part of the rubric created by the Founders? Let me put it to you this way. Since 911, there have been 2 MILLION people who have served in the armed forces out of a nation of over 300 MILLION, or about 0.006%. You would think that having been attacked there would be more zeal for able-bodied men to enlist. Well when you tell people who believe that they support the 2nd amendment that it actually requires you to get out and train a few times a year, the dissent begins. I happen to be a veteran, but even at my age, which is past the age required, I'm willing to go out and train, and help train others. I'd like to add a segment from an article on Militia to make a point. "Samuel Whittemore was born in England and came to the colonies as an officer in His Majesty’s Dragoons. After his time in the military he decided to stay here where he bought a farm, and was living out his life as the fighting broke out on the Nineteenth of April. On that day, at nearly Eighty years of age, he mustered with the Militia. As the battle unfolded and others retreated to reload and fire again Samuel stood his ground. He rose and fired his musket, killing one of the soldiers. He drew his two pistols and at point blank range fired. Two more soldiers fell. Samuel did not have the time to reload, but instead drew his saber and began fighting off the bayonet attacks from the regulars. Shot twice and stabbed more than a dozen times, Samuel’s courageous stand was followed by Eighteen more years of life, and the proud claim that if he had to do it again he most certainly would." Whittemore had joined every able-bodied man in the community, compare that to 0.006%. "I don't know. It's a fair question. Perhaps because it better aligns with the American culture of rugged individualism? Coupled with the fact that governments (even - or particularly? - one created by revolutionaries) are necessarily nervous at the thought of armed insurrection and have been happy to bury that element over the years. Again, I don't know." Militia is, or at least if we didn't allow government to bury the element, was mandatory on the entire community. Individualism is a mindset, but when this country started and prospered, community was what mattered. We were a Christian nation wherein if a neighbor was in need the community helped. I'm not sure about your thoughts on a nervous government since our first law, and the doctrine under which this nation started clearly states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." The men who incorporated Militia into the Constitution simply recognized the body, it did not create it, but rather wrote into the Constitution the means of making the discipline uniform, and the ability "to alter or to abolish" a fixture that was defined with the Magna Carta.
  15. I've been making the argument to people in the 2nd community for about 20 years. I was kicked off of those forums when I was nice, and when we had plenty of time to win the battle. I explained the entirety of the right to keep and bear arms, but the fact of the matter is that propaganda on the subject is so embedded in the American mindset that some of the participants became apoplectic at the mere mention of Militia. We are loosing ground on a theory that should be obvious does not cut it. Am I impatient? Absolutely! Do I "cast shade"? Again absolutely! I've contacted a few people I know who have been working along this line for years, and they all face the same problems. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why the Individual Rights theory is openly accepted when it has little historical or lawful documentation to support it? When the battle is for all the marbles, and it is, because our children will have to live with our failures, I want to know why it isn't obvious to those who have a vested interest in this very subject to open their minds, and step out of a box that the SC just put another nail in with their decision to decline Kolbe?
  • Create New...