The Gun Thing: The Militia and Hunting

Via Don

 

Stand Firm In Faith

The Militia

I’ve warned my fellow conservatives in America that over the next few months we’re going to be hearing a lot of exquisitely ignorant nonsense regarding private gun ownership and the Second Amendment.

I’ve broken the nonsense down into easily-digestible bits and will be posting them here over the next several days.

The first one concerns the matter of the word “militia” in the wording of the Second Amendment. It states:

“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.”

First, what is a militia? It is *not* the same as the army of the government. A militia is composed of armed citizens; not draftees, not soldiers fighting under orders from the state.

Militias are ad-hoc by definition: They are formed at a particular time, to do a particular task. Militias have been mustered at various times throughout American history to meet a number of threats and pursue a number of missions.

The wording of 2A in no way requires every person who owns a gun to be part of a militia. Indeed, the very notion makes no sense, because again, militias are not standing armies. You can’t wake up any day of the year and just go sign up for a militia, like you can go volunteer for the US Army. Militias are mustered in response to specific threats or needs, and they disperse once the threat or need is gone.

Do not confuse “militia” as intended by 2A, with the scattered bands of armed wackos who call themselves “militias” but are really just scattered bands of armed wackos. Just because there are outlaw motorcycle gangs doesn’t mean you’re an outlaw simply because you ride a motorcycle.
Also, the phrase “well-regulated” has nothing to do with “government supervision.”

The first thing to remember is that liberals love them some government supervision of everything, down to how much soda you can buy and what kind of light bulbs you can put in your lamps, so it should come as no surprise that they read “well-regulated” and think, “Aha! This means your little militia has to be overseen and approved of by the state!”

It’s not used in this context that often nowadays, but at the time the Bill of Rights was written, “well-regulated” was used to describe something that was “functioning smoothly” or “properly functioning.” If you know what a regulator in a car engine does… that’s what they meant.

Now, read the amendment again with synonymous, modern language in place, and its meaning becomes perfectly clear to our modern ears:

“A [properly functioning] militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 Hunting

---

‘Most Horrendous’ Media Bias of 2012 Cited

 Newsmax

The envelopes, please.

The “Damn Those Conservatives Award” goes to two Newsweek/Daily Beast staffers who discussed former Vice President Dick Cheney’s heart transplant in March. Senior writer Ramin Setoodeh said, “I would never give my heart to Dick Cheney. It would freeze over.” Assignment editor Allison Yarrow chimed in: “He may be one of the most evil people in the world.”

The “Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste Award” went to ABC’s Brian Ross and his coverage of the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre by accused shooter James Holmes in July. Ross proclaimed that James Holmes of Aurora had joined the tea party a year earlier, only to admit later that the tea party member was a different James Holmes.

NewsBusters gave its “Audacity of Dopes Award” to CNN’s Piers Morgan for fawning over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In September Morgan asked him, “How many times in your life have you been properly in love?” Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, responded, “I’m in love with all humanity. I love all human beings.” To which Morgan commented: “That might be the best answer I’ve ever heard to that question.”

But the “Quote of the Year” citation for 2012 went to MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry and what she called her “footnote for the Fourth of July.”

She stated: “The land on which [the Founders] formed the Union was stolen. The hands with which they built this nation were enslaved. The women who birthed the citizens of the nation are second class.

“This is the imperfect fabric of our nation. . . It’s ours, all of it. The imperialism, the genocide, the slavery.”

The Brady "bunch" are at it again

Via Zombie Rush

HP ENVY x2 11t-g000

The new HP ENVY x2 PC gives you the power of two devices in one. A Windows 8 laptop with a bright, vivid HD Touch display.[1,2] And a tablet that slides off for those times when you want to carry even less.

                                                                      More @ HP

Magazines and gunfights

Via Daughter Dixie

Braids

Fiscal Cliff Tax Hike to Hit $30,000 Worker Harder Than $500,000 Earner

Breitbart 

VERBATIM

 

Last week, President Barack Obama said that under his fiscal cliff deal “more than 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up.”

But according to new figures from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, that’s not so—by a long shot. 
In fact, the income taxes of 70% of Americans will rise. Middle-class workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will pay up to $1,784 more, a larger percentage increase than for those earning between $200,000 and $500,000.

Tax Policy Center co-director William G. Gale explains:

Under the agreement, taxes will go up in 2013 relative to 2012 - not only on high-income households, as widely discussed, but also on every working man and woman in the country, via the end of the payroll tax cut. For most households, the payroll tax takes a far bigger bite than the income tax does.

Throughout the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, Mr. Obama promised to cut taxes for middle class voters. But the Tax Policy Center says the average American’s tax bill, regardless of income, will climb $1,257.

The President says he has more tax hikes in store beyond the fiscal cliff bill’s rate raises. Just prior to the passage of the fiscal cliff bill, Mr. Obama promised he would raise taxes on upper income earners again at a later date: “The deal we are about to strike will raise taxes on the rich. But, the fiscal imbalances we face remain unsatisfactorily large. So, I will ask for more tax increases on the rich later.”

According to Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), Obama’s fiscal cliff rate hike on the rich will cover just eight days of federal spending.

Abraham Lincoln, The Treasonous Tyrant: Judge Napolitano

Via Cousin John

Forward!

Via Cousin John

What’s More Important: the 2nd Amendment or Sacred Honor?

NC Renegade

VERBATIM

 

With all of the attention concerning gun control legislation, now is a good time to consider some of the following points:

1. What good is an AR-15 if you are not willing to use it to defend the second amendment as your duty requires?

If you are willing to turn in your AR-15 (or any other firearm that may be outlawed) to comply with the law, I have to ask why did you buy it initially? You obviously have no intention of defending the Constitution, the country or our founding principles. I suggest that you sell it now to someone who has Sacred honor since the following applies to you:

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

– Samuel Adams

2. Why would you register your AR-15  (or any other firearm that may become regulated) to comply with the law?

Assuming that gun control legislation passes and AR-15′s must be registered, why would you comply with an unConstitutional law?

3. What will you do if law enforcement comes to seize an illegal firearm from you?
After you stop pounding your chest and say “I’ll never give up my firearms”, apply some critical thinking skills. Preparing for this situation will allow you to hide or cache your supposedly “illegal” weapons beforehand. Is a firefight and possibly your life worth the confiscation of your firearms? In some situations, it is better to lose a battle and win the war. Living to fight tyranny another day is not cowardly or dishonorable.

4. What will you do to defend yourself against tyranny?
This is the crux of the matter and it is not only applicable to gun control legislation: it is a definition of all law. I recommend everyone read Bastiat’s “The Law” in its entirety but here is a good start:

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

If you understand what the law really is, you have the right (and duty) to fight for your defense, Liberty and property as a natural right from God. Conversely, let’s look at what the government is trying to do. Existing and new firearm legislation is meant to minimize your ability to defend yourself from the government. Once you are defenseless, history has shown that Liberty is replaced by oppression (at a minimum) and personal property is confiscated. After all the indeterminate “fair share” means the confiscation of the fruits of your labor without qualification.

Our government in Washington passes legislation that does not protect us from criminals but makes us criminals. It is illegal to buy an incandescent light bulb according to federal law but Congress (which originated this law) refuses to fund its enforcement. This allows us to buy incandescent bulbs even though they are not legal. Is this a test to see how the people will react to frivolous laws? Toilets must be the proper size, illegal health care legislation is upheld as a tax and the Senate instead of the House now originates bills for raising Revenue which violates the Constitution:

Article I, Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

At some point, we must understand that our federal government is no longer a representative republic operating under the rule of law. The rule of man now reigns supreme in Washington and men of good conscience must decide their fate: Liberty or Tyranny. Gun control legislation may be the line in the stone which forces us to confront reality. Give up or register my AR-15? This really means give up my Liberty and probably my life.

So what is more important: the 2nd amendment or Sacred honor? Both are important but in the case of gun control legislation, there is no difference between them.

--David DeGerolamo

=================================

I wholeheartedly agree with Bastiat, one of my heroes. A few more from him:

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”

“See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

The Law is read in the seventh grade in the Robinson Homeschool Self- Teaching Curriculum.