Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 12/31/2003 7:53:14 AM EDT
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
 
Not a word about hunting, anywhere....
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 8:07:22 AM EDT
[img]http://flymeaway.net/images/Lib2nd.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 8:10:44 AM EDT
Use it or Lose it?


As Patriots and Sovereigns are we losing our rights, because we neglect or refuse to exercise our rights?

Have we allowed the federal government the upper hand, in as much, as we have failed to use the GOD given rights, enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

There is a saying, "Use it or Lose it."

I propose that in not exercising our rights, we have lost them.

Let me give you an example;

When we were setting up the Christmas tree this year, I was suprised to find an Angel, to put in the top of the tree. I did not remember having one, as it has been at least 3 years since we had a tree. Now, not remembering the Angel, in no way diminished the fact that I had that Angel. But I couldn't use it if I didn't know it were there. If we had used it last year, I would have known it was there, and would have been looking forward to using it.


The government has, in making it difficult to exercise our GOD given rights, effectively weakened them to the point of "reasonable restrictions". And because We The People, have not regularly exercised our GOD given rights, we go along with it.

If we had been exercising our GOD given rights, each and every day, would we see the infringements we have today? I think not, people would have not so easily forgotten them, if they were in action every day.

We have 'reasonable restrictions' on the freedom of speech, it started with laws against yelling fire in a crowded theatre, now we cannot talk about political cannidates the last 60 days before an election.

We have 'reasonable restrictions' on the right to keep and bear arms. At the least, having to get government approval for the purchase of a new firearm.

We have 'reasonable restrictions' on searches and seizures. No knock warrants, 'drug' money seizures, etc... Just refuse to let an officer search your car, and all of a sudden, you have become a suspect.

We have 'reasonable restrictions' on the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Just look at the Jose Padilla case.

We have 'reasonable restrictions' on the right to a speedy trial. Once again look at the Jose Padilla case.

In fact, in direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments, the government has denied us rights that we have, outside of the scope of the BoR.

All because we have gotten lazy.


We buy into the mantra of a civilized nation doesn't need guns. Or because of special circumstances, this person doesn't need a speedy trial. Or the drug trafficers get away with it because our hands would be tied if we could not search their cars.

On and on, as good people, we refuse to see the evil, in what is portrayed as 'resonable restrictions'.

We are sold on 'reasonable restrictions' because "reasonable people would not object to these" or "Why would a reasonable, law abiding person, have anything to hide?" and on and on....


My question is "Why would reasonable people, put up with this?"


What are you gonna do? Use it or Lose it?





dave





Link Posted: 12/31/2003 8:12:27 AM EDT
America’s Revolutionary War did not begin over taxation without representation, high tariffs, corrupt British judges, or even quartering troops among the colonists. Although all of these (and more) are enumerated in our Declaration of Independence among the many grievances against the British Crown, it was not these abuses that triggered that “shot heard ‘round the world.” The Revolutionary War began when British troops were sent to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the Americans’ firearms. Gun confiscation was the match that lit our War for Independence.

Do our representatives in Washington DC think that the same people who fought in the freezing cold mountains of Korea, the steaming hot rice patties of Viet Nam or the burning desert tundra of Desert Storm will not react as they did some 230 years ago? Maybe not. The American people have sat by as the Clinton administration led us though the theft of hundreds of FBI files, sexual scandals in the White House, fund raising violations, lost nuclear secrets, sold missile secrets to the Chinese and blatant outright infringements on the people’s Second Amendment rights. The Republicans virtually sat on their hands as the Clinton administration was brought to impeachment. These politicians may be right in thinking that they can do whatever they feel is best, Constitution be damned, the people’s will be damned too. Or they may be wrong.

Are we so ignorant not to know that in every instance where gun registration has been enacted, gun confiscation soon followed? Will we peacefully surrender that which our forefathers sacrificed their lives and fortunes to secure? These questions nag at the patriotic feelings inside of thousands of good honest, law abiding and hardworking men and women in this country. People vilified by the popular media as right wing wackos, patriots and extremist. I suppose an earlier press was saying the same thing about that small minority rich white land and slave owners - men like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin who were discontent with similar issues to those we face today from a government. A morally corrupt government which fails to be “of the people, for the people and by the people”.

I am convinced that the fundamental freedoms that we now enjoy the last tastes of will have disappeared within the next American generation. Do children raised by the state even know of or have read the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Words mean something. What to the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” mean to you? If you’re Congresswoman Diane Finestein (D) from California it means that she is free to “well regulate” your rights. She fails to even complete the whole sentence to read the final clause “shall not be infringed”. They are her rights and she is free to meter them out to you subjects as she feels free to do so at the time.

These are not stupid people. They read well. They have read both the Constitution and Bill of Rights yet they continuously and actively conspire against our freedoms and liberties. They mask their true intentions behind feelings and cries that “it’s for the children”. Our children deserve the rights guaranteed in our Constitution more than life itself. To paraphrase the patriot Patrick Henry “Give them liberty or you are surely giving them death.”

Paul
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 8:17:19 AM EDT
From an American’s First Freedom article: [i]“Strap an electric collar onto a dog. Shock him when he doesn’t obey, then shock him again when he does obey. If you teach him that the rules are ever-changing and that punishment comes without cause, you’ll get one of two outcomes: Either he’ll surrender to punishment as the inescapable outcome, with downturned head and withers trembling – or he’ll rebel against that authority, hackles raises and snarling and disobey every rule.”[/i]

The state of California has been for more than ten years constantly changing the rules obviously in outright violation of the Constitution’s Bill of Right’s Second Amendment which clearly prohibits States from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those rights in the US Constitution are reserved for the federal government; those not enunciated are free for the states to populate. If the state of California passed a law that suddenly allowed the US Army to quarter it’s troops in your home this would be declared un-Constitutional and overthrown by the US Supreme Court. Yet in California handguns are banned because they are too small, not expensive enough, or have their magazine in the politically incorrect position. Purchases of handguns are rationed to one per month. Rifles are banned by looks, use of detachable magazines, pistol grips, muzzle devices and a dozen other bizarre and seemingly random characteristics. Even toy guns are now regulated by color. The US Supreme Court will step in and overturn these Constitutional violations sooner or later, I just hope it occurs before firearms owners have their forearms tattooed.

I have been shooting and collecting various firearms for many years and at the same time have been studying the recent movement to prohibit law-abiding citizens from ownership of them. The politicians who press though each knee-jerk restriction to the latest workplace or schoolyard shooting know perfectly well that the additional regulation will have no effect on the criminal behavior. What bigger taboo is there in today’s society than the taking of another’s life? Very few indeed. So they are trying to legislate a behavior to someone who has already decided to murder one or more humans. Do you honestly think that the killer is going to be slowed down for one second by a regulation prohibiting the use of a rifle with a pistol grip that protrudes below the trigger? It has been long said that you cannot legislate morality yet this is exactly what the liberals are attempting to do.

Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a clear deterrent against crime. When criminals are polled in prison they state that residents with firearms are a bigger crime deterrent than the police. Also according to statistics, police shoot the wrong person more often than the common citizen with a firearm. If you haven’t sat down and figured it out yet the police respond to crime rather than actively prevent crime. They will come to your home after the murder, rape or robbery to attempt to find the criminal afterwards. I don’t plan on waiting to be murdered, have my wife raped or get robbed too many times without taking my own protection into my own hands. And that’s what the politicians want to prevent. When three large men are beating at your door threatening to do harm to your family would you rather have a telephone or a rifle in your hand? A murder takes place in seconds, police response time in measured in tens of minutes. Certainly call the police but until they arrive your protection is in your hands.

The same politicians that pass laws that make it impossible to legally carry a concealed weapon have their own tax dollar paid for armed security guards and sleep in a state guarded mansion with a comprehensive security system. What makes them think for one tiny slice of a single second that their life is anymore valuable that mine or yours? They may think that their elected office makes them special but the laws apply to them as well, or does it? Have they made themselves a secret handshake society above us lowly subjects? Why are they taking the proven best tool for our own protection away from us?

Remember that the armed criminal is bothered less with getting arrested killing, raping or in an armed robbery then running into an armed victim. Then why are politicians so busy making us into victims? This bothered me for years and years, what was the motive? Not being of the victim mindset I found it nearly impossible to think like one. Until just recently I couldn’t find insight into the thinking of the liberal right-restricting politicians. Until I looked at what makes politicians into politicians: the use of other people’s money and the power it brings them. By catering to the “sheep”, those citizens who choose to be victims, the politicians gain their votes and with it the power to tax and take our life energy for their own use. Those ”sheep” have an irrational rage against those who choose not to be victims.

The “sheep” feel that they are too weak to survive without assistance from an all-knowing, all-powerful central government. They raise the professional politician to the level of a flawless king who can do no harm – look at what former President Clinton got away with as an example of a man that is worshiped by the “sheep”. Clinton was a man with hypocrisy seemingly without limit. The “sheep” raise their chosen leader to a God-like status and worship him or her asking them for protection, prosperity and wisdom to solve their mere human problems. Sorry, if you haven’t noticed the Savior hasn’t made himself visible to us yet and I doubt that he’ll choose to do it as a womanizing lying politician when he does.

The “sheep” need to wake up and take responsibility for their own lives. They need to make their own decisions and live with the self-esteem that comes from making success from standing up on their own two feet rather than supported and coddled from the cradle to the grave. I am afraid that the independent spirit that gave our forefathers the strength to throw off the burden of the King of England is gone. Rather they actually seek the comfort of an all giving government. Those people in this republic of states that want a strong central federal government are in the majority. The “sheep” are actively are seeking to overthrow our Constitutional form of government by centralizing all power into the Administrative branch and therefore removing the effective system of checks and balances that had been the law as set down in the US Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights. Key to seizing this power is the disarming of the population as a whole. Our Founding Fathers knew of the danger of a strong central government and gave us citizens the means to equalize the equation. Look at their writings yourself if you doubt me.
Link Posted: 12/31/2003 8:18:58 AM EDT
(continued)

Removing firearms using the “death by a hundred cuts method” will allow the central federal government to seize unlimited power. For a people without the means to protect themselves both from the government and from each other will have to seek protection from those with the means. Unarmed people are always the victims. It’s has happened time and time in this world where a powerful government as killed off some portion of it’s unarmed population. Rather than a power that is derived from the consent of the governed we will have to trust that the absolute power given to the government’s Administrative branch will not corrupt absolutely. I am not a very trusting person and refuse to surrender my responsibilities for any reason, let alone an un-Constitutional law to an out-of-control State government. Words mean something and despite the best efforts of some the meaning of the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” has not changed.  These old words still mean that we, as law-abiding citizens, have a God given right and responsibility to own firearms – firearms with detachable magazines, pistol grips, bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. I am one dog who is rebelling against the authority and will continue to snarl and keep my hackle raised. My spirit will not be soon broken.

Paul
Top Top