Additional Pages

Friday, January 11, 2013

The NRA Does Not Speak For Me

One thing must be made perfectly clear: there is no law restricting gun rights that is constitutional. None. An American citizen, typically males, but in today's society it does not exclude females, are a bona fide part of the militia required of the citizens to guard their own liberties against an oppressive and tyrannical government operating outside of the charter of the United States Constitution.

When the Constitution is spoken of it seems like just a word, a sort of formal part of the government, of the nation we live in. It is generally seen as a framework from which our government has sprung and it offers a lot of out-dated ideas of oaths and loyalties and the suggestion is that somehow, in the most extreme cases there is the option to impeach our representatives should they get out of hand.

It is not.

The Constitution of the United States of America is an agreement between the people and the government. Should the government act in lawful ways, the American people will abide by the laws it passes. However, when the government steps outside of the Constitution, it is no longer legal and should not be obeyed. Period. They have violated the agreement to civil society and do so at the danger of themselves and the offices they represent.

Our rights, given such little regard in today's government, are not up for consideration as to validity or degree of coverage. They are absolute.

The NRA does not speak for me. Gun Owners of America does not speak for me. No one, not our representatives, not our president, nor any other person or organization, is in a position to bargain for my rights. We alone have allowed our rights to be diluted by our inaction and they might only be reinvigorated by our action. Simple.

When the government has decided that our rights should be limited (and I don't care which right it is, choose from the Bill of Rights which one you prefer to champion, but understand that they all are enforced or forfeited by the same action or inaction) they have turned their backs on the Constitution, violated their oaths and have become an enemy of the people.

When the Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is a powerful declaration and further defines the position of the founders, of those who declared their independence from Britain. It means that there is no purpose of the government if it does not serve those ends, i.e., "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." When it spoke of "liberty" it could not have known of the coming Bill of Rights, though the spirit of those rights was echoed by individual state constitutions up and down the seaboard.

The Second Amendment is special, however. It speaks to the solution for when the government has eroded other rights, knowing that there is no way to force the government to give one a fair trial before one's peers; there is no way to force government to give one free voice in the public square (the Internet today); there is no way to force the government to refrain from posting soldiers in one's home (drones, listening devices and the implementation of X-ray, infrared devices and etc.); there is no way to force the government to abide by any of these other rights than the right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical force willing to violate every other right.

This is why the individual free citizen of the United States is empowered with the ability to resist such governmental action through the concept of a well-regulated militia (the people). Well regulated suggests that we should have always been more active in our community-wide training against such governmental abuses than we have. Yet, that does not dilute the absolute requirement that the right to bear arms is individual and required in order to secure a free state.

With that as background, I ask the patriot, the American citizen, to look past what agreements the NRA or GOA, or any other organization is willing to agree to. They do not speak for us and we are not bound by their agreements with the government. Our legitimacy is already established by the Constitution, we do not need their input, though if they are to categorically deny any further erosion of our rights and stand at this point in time to declare all other laws passed to erode those rights as oppressive and illegal, I will support them. Not otherwise.

The federal government has made itself plain through legislation that they do not respect the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment. When they suggest, even the mere suggestion, that somehow an Executive Order might be put forth to deny our Constitutional rights on ANY topic, they have tipped their hand that they do not consider themselves bound in any way to the Constitution and will actively work in opposition to it, appealing only to the majority of the people to agree with them.

This is anti-republic, it is unconstitutional, it is a complete repudiation of our system of government. It exposes them as dictators and rulers rather than guardians of the rights the government was created to protect. The offices created by the Constitution were designed to guarantee our rights by being close to the people, intimate with the needs of the states, representing them, not to be close to the federal trough through which rights might be bargained away so that a highway project might pass through their jurisdiction or state, ensuring their re-election.

Those actions are why I consider the government corrupt.

So, I ask of the patriots, the citizens, not to let this arrogance go unchallenged. Any further assault on the right to keep and bear arms should rightfully be met with outrage and action. Once the government attempts to further erode what little rights we have left, we should respond not by voting down the next infringement, but by standing for all the rights that have lately been bargained away. If they will come for the weapons of our resistance, they should be met with the hostility asked of us by our founders, who ensured our action by the rights they acknowledged so long ago.

If they force us to raise our weapons, do not put them down until a new recognition of these-everlasting rights has been acknowledged and infringing legislation repealed. If we allow them to retain their seats at all.

28 comments:

  1. I agree. If and when the shooting starts, we do not stop until the whole corrupt mess is burned to the ground.

    I am willing, my only question is "who's car we gonna take" -55six

    ReplyDelete
  2. TL, I agree it is not a question of will there be an arbitration between unrecognized representation. There is NO brotherhood, fellowship or legal acknowledgement by the people between any organization to negotiate our rights away.

    Certainly, as past evidence of both illegitimate party's histories, We the People will be abused(fucked) by both entities again. Neither group will ever be loyal to its beginnings but only to greed.

    I have the same contempt for the corrupt criminals that they obviously have for me. So FUCK THEM, FUCK EVERY ONE OF THEM AND THE ONES THAT WOULD ENFORCE SUCH BLATANT DISRESPECT FOR MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Did I say Fuck them?

    I love my life but you sure as Hell don't love yours if you come for my weapons!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said Sir, permission to repost please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SFMEDIC, if you are referring to me, if I should be so bold, by all means.

      Delete
    2. LOL, Just realized the mistake I made...Sorry TL,SFMEDIC.

      Delete
    3. Yea you too 33P, especially those last three sentences.
      The delivery style reminds me of Sam Kinison. Wonder what he would say about all this?

      Delete
    4. Ha ha, Kinison being a previous Pentecostal preacher and in the end a stand up, he would have managed to find humor in our idiocy no matter what he believed about our situation.

      Thanks for being gracious in your style.

      Delete
  4. Bravo, TL. You made quick dispatch of the legality of the matter. Gee, what does the Constitution say about this stuff? Tough one, huh? But for me, this line is the crux of the matter...

    "No one, not our representatives, not our president, nor any other person or organization, is in a position to bargain for my rights."

    That's the whole thing right there and until people start to get that, none of this means anything anyway. I STILL can't figure it out---why in the world would ANYONE want someone else to take over their own lives?

    I guess it comes with the abstracting ability. We get to be rational and create wonderful things, but we sure 'nuff get to be awfully stupid too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one, anywhere, has any business at all discussing my natural rights.
      --gs, 2013

      Delete
    2. Plainly true gs, and the part I can't get is this---why would anyone want to? Who the hell cares how the next guy lives, as long as he doesn't physically interfere with anyone else? I know I'm simple-minded but for the life of me, I can't figure that one out.

      Wars are never good, but this has got to be the stupidest one in history. Near as I can tell, a bunch of looters are gearing up because they actually believe that my life is theirs to live. How insane is THAT?

      Delete
  5. News item for inyone in central NC.

    On January 16th, the Moccasin Creek Minutemen will meet with Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison. He will be outlining his position on the 2nd amendment and any infringements of our rights by the federal government.
    Fargo Cattle Co Steakhouse
    1007 Shepard School Road
    Zebulon, NC 27597
    Wednesday, January 16th, 2013
    7:00 PM

    Visit the Moccasin Creek Minutemen site for more information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On this same line SF, are you or anyone else aware of any similar quality organization in SC? Looking to add to my local contacts with some additional trustworthy people.

      I don't trust easily though which is why I specified quality.

      Delete
    2. We had some great guys from SC at the last NC PATCON.
      http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2012/10/spring-2013-nc-patcon-thursday-may-2nd.html
      Will send your contact info to them and see what happens.

      Delete
    3. The MCM meeting on the 16th looks like it will be standing room only - get there early.

      http://www.moccasincreekminutemen.com/

      I will be filming all speakers and posting them. But that is not the point. This should be the template across the country. Anyone (and everyone) should be doing the same thing to see where their sheriffs stand and to help people meet other people in their communities - now. This meeting will have two and hopefully three different sheriffs speaking.
      http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/a-template-for-a-tea-party912-meeting/

      Delete
  6. I don't trust the NRA to speak for me ever since I recieved and Email about their Wine store. I joined and have gotten so many renewal notices since I signed up that I called to let then know their money would be better spent in other places.
    I don't trust the Tea Party ever since I went to one meeting and a rep from the Republican party was there saying "we are your friends, vote for us".
    I am warry of some of these blogs and the people on them as they count our guns when we answer the question as which ones are your favorite.
    I sure am, as sure as Hell is hot, don't trust any lying politician (which includes all of them)to watch my back. They all say it's just the way politics is. If you catch them in a lie then their reply is, "Oh, I miss spoke"! Like that lying bastard in Conn that said he was a vet, (Blumenthall ?)
    They all are believing they are above the law, Corzine as an example. The laws don't apply to them and they get special treatment.
    I say get rid of them all. How many have our government killed for big business?
    Your right TL THEY DON"T SPEAK FOR ME.
    Let the shoes drop, let the war begin, let the reveloution begin, let it be what it will be. We are all tired of the lemings that follow and believe their lies. Let's audit the Fed, welfare state, gold reserves, and all the other government agencies and eliminate the fat. OR hand in out guns, shut up, roll over, scrwer free speach and just die.
    God, Country, Family

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey you guys!

    Thing is, what we all have to wrap our heads around is, we don't need permission. We don't need anyone to speak for us.
    It is really that simple.
    How has it worked out in that regards anyways?

    Maybe what TL is trying to convey is this:

    Hey, natural law, Liberty, it is already yours. It has always been yours.
    What you have to do is decide what YOU are going to do about that.
    If you understand all that in it's pure profound sense, no one CAN speak for you.

    That the attempt to gently lay the noose around our necks before enough catch on to the final act of imposing tyranny via dis-arming us precipitates live free or die time.

    Rightfully so.

    For me it isn't if I will fight tyranny.
    I have no doubts on that score.
    It is only the time and manner in which I will defend my Liberty in the conflict to come.
    This time around it ain't give me liberty or give me death.
    It is leave my liberty alone or I will kill in defense of it if needs be those who attempt to take it from me.

    Not much else to it.

    It is for each of us to decide.
    Nothing is more personal than that.
    When we begin to make peace with that, it is the paradigm that creates the brotherhood of Liberty we yearn for.
    It is this sea change in understanding the inherent nature of the Liberty we naturally posses, in a race against becoming helpless to righteously posses the physical might, our arms, to defend against those who are determined we are to be unable to equal, or better their means of subjugating us to their power and will.

    For isn't that the essence of the solidarity of those who stood together in the war of Liberty to begin with?

    This Republic has been down this path before.
    We benefit from that past.
    All the tools and ideas of Liberty have been passed down to us from that generation who never gave up, who never said die, who prevailed against every conceivable odds imaginable.
    People who had to create everything we enjoy today in regards Liberty from scratch.

    And all we have to do is protect that legacy.
    Our legacy.
    Our time has come.
    May we acquit ourselves with but a fraction of the resolve, will, honor, valiance and sacrifice our founders possessed.

    It is not much to ask of ourselves.
    What we stand to lose if we do not, is far more terrible than what we loose if we die defending what already belongs to us.
    What has been passed down to us to defend.






    ReplyDelete
  8. "Well-regulated" refers to Article 1, Section 8, with the Congress having the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA."

    The Militia refers to a Swiss-model citizen-soldier defense force.

    “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a MILITIA, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.” ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791

    The 2A was written so that a MILITIA that would prevent the establishment of a Standing Army.

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty...”~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a standing army is the bane of liberty, as Gerry suggests, what do you consider the military or the modern militarized police force? Are you suggesting that what they hoped to avoid has happened and so there is no need of a militia to ensure our rights?

      Again, by liberals, faulty logic. The fact that there is a military and a police force of a government that has turned against its people is not reason to form and bolster the ranks of the militia?

      I guess you did not read all of Article 1, Section 8, or just chose to cherry pick. Article 1, Section 8 also provides "to raise and support armies, but no appropriate of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." When was the last budget passed?

      "To promote and maintain a navy" nowhere does it allow for the appropriation of money for this cause, only for armies.

      "To provide for the calling forth of the militia, execute laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"

      An internal insurrection is underway.

      Does this not suggest that the militia is indeed seperate from the armies and navy? And nowhere does it define "well-regulated" so you have imposed that definition on this statement: "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia and for governing such part of them that that may be employed in the service of the United States (again, obviously not part of the regular services)"reserving to the states respectively the appointments of officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress"

      When was the last time that happened?

      And all of this would be in a land where oaths are abided, where rights were held inviolable, where the government of the United States was not actively seeking to alienate the unalienable rights of its citizens. When they get that right there will be no need of a militia at all, nor the willingness of the average citizen to be involved.

      This is a nation divided between its government and its people. The government's charter has been violated by the decision of the members of congress to pass laws in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.

      They cannot nullify the Constitution, then beg for it to save them from us.

      Delete
    2. Hmm. I actually interpret this exactly the opposite as you. "to raise and support armies, but no appropriate of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."

      This is the no *standing* Army. The Congress can appropriate money to put the Army in the field for two years, but at the end of that they either re-appropriate or it's expired and the Army deconstructs itself back into 'the militia'.

      Whereas the Navy is under no such time constraints, because the founders understood that a navy is a more costly and demanding and permanent institution. You can't have a navy without ships, and you can't have ships whistled up out of the citizens ships because war ships and commercial ships, even in the Revolutionary era, are quite different.

      One of the most serious weaknesses of the proto-American nation was the lack of a real Navy to compete with the British Navy. Britania rules the seas was more than a song title, and had it not been for France it might have cost us the country.

      This is how I (and others, because I learned this somewhere but don't remember where) have interpreted the Constitution as being against a standing Army.

      Delete
    3. TL: "To promote and maintain a navy"

      The Constitution doesn't say that. It does in fact say:

      "To provide and maintain a Navy"

      Provide means to "supply and equip."

      You're as bad as Diane Feinstein. Hell, even she doesn't change out words like a slick shyster.

      Delete
    4. A slick shyster would take a typo and make an issue out of it, while not answering any of the other issues.

      Provide or promote is irrelevant to a document that has been disregarded, over-stepped and twisted into rags by the government over the past several decades.

      Either honor it in total, or disregard it, do not pick and choose to the result of tyranny.

      Delete
  9. If the NRA is to represent the perfect natural law of God, the right to defend oneself. What would God have the NRA negotiate from perfection?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let me tell you about the NRA I know. I won't name names, but I could.(Mainly because I don't want to look them back up in my records, and it's been so long ago I forget their names off the top of my head.)

    I was a member of the NRA when Clinton was selected president. We know what happened during his presidency. During that time people became angered over the 2nd Amendment debate and the NRA along with other pro gun groups grew, similar as they are doing today.

    In North Carolina as well as every state I know of, the NRA has state organizations called affiliates. In North Carolina it is known as the North Carolina Rifle and Pistol Association. I joined this group after the NRA in efforts to offset Clinton's gun control policies. I became a regional director for the NCR&PA. But this was just the beginning of a learning process that surprised me to the point I resigned from both.

    During my time at these two orgs. I made trips to NRA headquarters in Fairfax and state meetings in different areas of the state. I will admit the one positive from this, I was able to get to know the right politicians with whom I worked in drafting together the NC concealed carry laws. However I cannot give any of this credit to the two orgs, as it was by personal associations and political campaigning that helped make the above possible.

    Anywho, during our meeting I began noticing a strange thing. The state president would issue proclamations and give handouts outlining our goals, including what to expect, who to target for different political agendas concerning the 2nd Amendment as well as anything related to firearms. Voting history of politicians, past votes and problem areas..etc.. But I also noticed in different places the two orgs were willing to compromise on certain issues. They actually, in reality, didn't stand up properly against the original "Assault Rifles" ban under Clinton. They actually bargained for and caved in on part of that bill/law. Their reasoning being, it was gonna pass anyways.

    After noticing these areas of compromise on the state level I started questioning the state NC&PA president, a retired Navy Captain who was actually captain of a destroyer, I think. After several times mentioning this to him, details about certain issues being negotiable, he stated the 2nd Amendment was not set in stone and it was negotiable. Well things went downhill from there as I vehemently disagreed, citing many reasons contrary to his every one.

    Finally he just got fed up with my badgering him and said, that was his orders from NRA headquarters and he agreed. Then he said I was nothing but a trouble maker and "purist". That they didn't need such people in their orgs. Fine I said, and added, it looked to me as if they didn't want the 2nd Amendment settled because then it would cost many people their jobs, specifically lawyers. The way I saw it, the whole thing (their orgs) were nothing but a money making racket, mooching off the unsuspecting average person who just wanted to protect his 2nd Amendment Rights, which you now claim is not a right, but negotiable. Needless to say, I was shown the door.

    I resigned my memberships at both orgs, vowing to never be a member of any other org again. I didn't care about my lost years of service or all the years remaining. And I have NEVER joined anything since and don't have the 1st intention too now! (That goes for the LoS too! Even though they seem to be an ok group.)

    There is more to this than what I wrote, but it is a good quick over-view. I hope this is a lesson for everyone to at least be very careful of any org you join. Even the ones appearing to be the very best can be deceiving. I would tend to think not much has changed in the NRA and their state affiliates since I was a member there.

    Michael-- Deo Vindicabamur

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct that is why lapopo makes about 1 mil a year.

      Delete
  11. Thank you, my thoughts exactly.
    Damn, you have a way with words. I'm envious.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "If they force us to raise our weapons, do not put them down until a new recognition of these-everlasting rights has been acknowledged and infringing legislation repealed."

    This is the grim commitment we must make. As citizens as countrymen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need no recognition but to follow the Declaration to do our duty, remove the Corrupt Government. Then we can institute new and better Hopefully when we are a moral folk again.

      I live in NY let us see what that madman Giny boy does.
      I know what I am doing and it is reloading.

      Delete
  13. Outstanding post! Far too many armchair patriots have deemed it easier for a proxy, like NRA, to do their bidding with disasterous results, like we now find ourselves immersed. Well, guess what dumbasses? Liberty and freedom are INDIVIDUAL responsibilities that MUST be worked for and maintained at an INDIVIDUAL level. Forget the proxy organizations, they're all leeches/money grubbers w/o true wisdom of what Liberty is all about! By their very nature/composition they cannot represent us as FREE MEN! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!

    ReplyDelete