No products in the cart.


‘Standing Army’ Oath-Breakers Attack Civilian RKBA

Spoken like a true talking point parrot and oath-breaking tool. (Americans for Responsible Solutions/Facebook)

“Veterans Are Key Allies in the Fight to Reduce Gun Violence,” retired U.S. Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli writes in Time.

“While our gun-violence crisis is complex, there is no doubt that our weak, gap-ridden gun laws help fuel the violence by making it too easy for dangerous people to access firearms,” he explains. “Right now under federal law, felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill have the option of buying a gun without a background check and with no questions asked. Even people who are considered by the the [sic] Federal Bureau of Investigation to be a known or suspected terrorist can pass a background check and legally buy a gun.”

Chiarelli is, of course, an agenda-motivated liar, which is disgraceful. Anyone convicted of the crimes he cites is a “prohibited person,” barred by federal law from gun possession.

“Extremist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS have long urged their followers to use our country’s weak gun laws to acquire deadly weapons and commit active shooter terrorism here in America,” Chiarelli elaborates, playing the terror card to spook the herd. Why the hell such savages are in this country in the first place – not just “allowed,” but whose presence is part of a “fundamental transformation” plot by subversives in positions of power – is a question deflected by shifting public focus to guns (and calling people who question it “Islamophobes”). The “progressive” establishment media is, of course, enthusiastic to play along, and to help smear anyone who objects as an isolationist xenophobe and worse.

Besides, it’s not like anyone but us “rightwing extremist anti-government haters” is much interested in looking more closely at that “rigorous security screening” those same subversives assure us keeps such terrorists out. That’s not the kind of talk the wannabe rulers, their lackeys and their useful idiots want to hear.

What Chiarelli actually objects to is a pesky impediment to totalitarianism known as “due process.” He’s already proven disdain for the Bill of Rights with his gun nonsense, so subverting the rest of the Constitution should come as no surprise.

Naturally, he blames “the gun lobby.” The controllers find it useful to direct their “two minutes hate” at a monolith, meaning it does not serve their purposes to acknowledge that “lobby” includes every one of us who believe without apology in our right to keep and bear arms.

And Chiarelli’s “solution”?

Team up with Mark Kelly and Gungrabby Gabby to pose as supporters of “common sense” in what we’re being told is a “Veteran’s Coalition.”  There appear to be a lot of high-ranking veteran names on that “team,” many of them prominent generals and admirals, and many of them with careers that reflect achievements and distinction, making their participation all the more insidious.

We’ve talked about oath-breaking veterans before, several times, including some with distinguished service records. But it’s not what they did, in the past; it’s what they’re doing now that we need to concern ourselves with. Sadly, and in the more ambitious cases unforgivably, giving aid and comfort to domestic enemies and working against their oaths and the rights of their countrymen is what’s relevant here.

Whether motivations for supporting incremental civilian disarmament steps are sincere or self-serving hardly matters, and many would no doubt maintain they “support the second Amendment BUT.” The long game agenda of those pushing a “monopoly of violence” is exactly that, and anything that allows their efforts to move closer to that goal establishes a beachhead from which to launch the next incursion.

For now, the cards the “Veteran’s Coalition” is willing to show are meant to seem “reasonable,” at least to anyone who doesn’t inspect them too closely:

  • Urging our elected leaders to close the loopholes in our background check laws that let felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill buy guns without a criminal background check.
  • Strengthening existing laws and ensuring lawmakers and stakeholders have the resources and training they need to prevent gun tragedies.
  • Partnering with other groups in the veterans community on suicide prevention and mental health.

In other words:

  • Lie about what’s lawful and eliminate private sales in a scheme that the National Institute of Justice admits won’t work without gun registration, something which all convicted criminals are exempted from being required to do.
  • Throw in a nebulous statement that says nothing but allows everything in order to promise something that can’t be delivered.
  • Further screw over and disarm veterans while ignoring true due process that affords the same protections against rights being stripped as a jury trial.

It’s curious to note that the first goal  — the so-called “universal background check” being pushed by Bloomberg money in the states because there’s no belly for it (yet) in Congress  — is something the government and military “leaders” have totally dropped the ball on when it comes to America’s most dangerous enemies, the very ones they exist to protect against.

“Pentagon admits ‘lapses in accountability’ led to loss of hundreds of thousands of us guns in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Zero Hedge reports. “This is a stunning admission by the DoD of the lack of accountability in tracking assets that could ultimately be used by terrorists to fight our own troops.”

That would be the same Department of Defense that can’t account for $6.5 trillion, a situation that’s only grown significantly worse since $2.3 trillion was reported unaccounted for in 2001.

These are some of the people now demanding accountability for our guns?

We know the Founders feared a standing army, and that the military is supposed to be subordinate to civilian authority. We also know the attitudes of Chiarelli and some of his partners in civilian disarmament like Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus and Wesley Clark give cause to still hold those fears.  It’s fair to ask what directives those now in charge won’t execute when so ordered by an administration sharing their disdain for an armed citizenry, and the non-optional mandate “shall not be infringed.”

It brings home the urgency of rededicating ourselves to spreading the word about “orders we will not obey.” It also stands as a stark reminder that at one time, one of our most respected military leaders was a guy named Arnold.


UPDATE: The Captain’s Journal has more.



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



    1. They have a $6.5T discrepancy over 20 years. So if the army lost a tank in 2004 and found it in 2005, twice the price of that tank could be included in the $6.5T figure even though nothing horrible happened except somebody messed up an inventory count near year end and they fixed it a month later in the new year. That finding extra stuff ticks up the discrepancy is generally not covered well.

  1. The general knows history so he knows what will happen should we give up our guns. My answer to the general —– STICK IT.

  2. I wish I knew the author of the following quote so I could provide proper attribution: “When a person rises to the top ranks of an inherently authoritarian and tyrannical organization, why are we so surprised to learn that the person exhibits authoritarian and tyrannical tendencies?”

    I spent 12 years in the Army in the combat arms and as a military attorney. Do not ever let yourself be lured into pinning your hopes for the Republic’s salvation on the military’s senior ranks. They have spent 30+ years devoted to an authoritarian and totalitarian institution. This does not make them bad people; military service is a noble profession and a proud calling. But, it does tend to cloud their judgment on whether any given matter should be either regulated or left alone.

    1. I tend to agree. I spent 21 years on active duty. It seemed to me that most senior officers (and some even senior NCOs) were intolerably out of touch. They get used to yes men agreeing with them even when they know they are wrong. So much so that they start believing their own garbage. I really don’t know how most of them survive when they retire. Wait, civil service! DOH!!

      1. Right you are John. I spent 20 years in the NCO ranks, which meant either I agreed with tose who outranked me, or I was considered a trouble maker. This is even worst in command and general officer level . Once one reaches that level it is more politics than military. So will the military the government against the people in case of an uprising? in two words “HELL YES” , they have done it before, they will do it again.

      2. nighthawk….I fear you are correct as to where the “new military” will stand in the event of a confrontation with the government. There are, however, several million of the older vets and good Americans that still honor their Oath and country that will go down swinging before they would allow any foreign punk to walk over us. I also can assure you that Soetoro Sobarkah is depositing UN personnel in cities all around the nation in a program called the SCN (Strong Cities Network). This is already a Sovereignty violation being conducted without any resistance from Congress, the Senate or the citizens. There should be a two hundred million man march on Washington as we speak. These are UN personnel that are to be his New UN One World Order Police Force. Most of our citizens no nothing about this and the media is saying nothing because they have been silenced. I can assure you that the UN and Soetoro Sobarkah are starting to “circle the wagons”. I’m not sure exactly when, but can assure you that it “is coming” !!

    2. Right on. The only comment with which I would would disagree is the “might not make them bad people” remark. If they are admittedly authoritarian and “tyrannical,” I don’t see them being a very good person either. And, unfortunately, with a few notable exceptions, one of which is General Boykin, I think authoritarian at a minimum and possibly tyrannical describe a great many senior officers. I also believe they think, as many liberals do, that when the SHTF, they will be one of the anointed few who is deemed sufficiently educated, indoctrinated, and obedient enough to be in a position of authority. So, why wouldn’t they support gun control when they believe they’ll still maintain their position of influence over the unwashed masses who actually still believe the Constitution should be the law of the land?

    3. If you haven’t already, read David Hackworth’s book, “About Face”. Colonel Hackworth was a highly decorated combat veteran Army officer who loved the military, until he realized it changed from preparing to fight and win wars to become a toady organization where charts, masters degrees, and office meetings meant more to advance one’s careers than combat performance in the field.

      1. LTC Anthony Herbert also wrote some books recognizing the politicization and pussification of the U.S. military. All in the name of PC. Hackworth and Herbert stand beside Patton in their observations and beliefs.

    4. General MacArthur had No Qualms in violently routing his former WWI Comrades & Veterans of the Bonus Army out of DC, and the “troops” had no problem “following his orders”.
      If there is no cost for Tyranny then Tyranny knows No Bounds. The last resistance to Feral Gov. Tyranny was furled at Appomattox long ago. The American Empire began at that point when the Republic was buried and forgotten.
      The massacre of American Indians by remnants of the “Union” Army ensued, then the Empire of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Philippine “Insurrection” led to further “conquests” as outlined by Gen. Smedley Butler.
      Fighting WWI & WWII are called “good wars” but the Set Up for these wars is glossed over in history. Then comes the UN-NWO Wars from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,Syria, Libya, Ukraine…..
      with the exception of a “tie” in Korea, all are lost on purpose by the USSA politicians.
      We need to honestly look and see what we have become in this country, and it isn’t pretty. The Traitors are infested in DC, We have been betrayed and due to our on willful blindness much too often.

    5. Spartacus : Your firsthand experience with people like Chiarelli has underwritten my own thoughts, and I think we are on the right track in trying to understand their mindset. The old question returns – does the Govt serve us ? or do we serve the Govt ? In the case of career military, Govt. officials and bureaucrats, the latter is literally true : they have spent their lives serving the Govt. Their first loyalty goes to their own Govt. organization, they have been indoctrinated into a set of people apart from the general public, Have “Made their bones” at some point in their career by choosing to go along to get along rather than standing on principle and making trouble, and of course have that Govt. paycheck and bennies at stake. They are motivated by values in direct contradiction to “The Govt serves the people”, and it’s not surprising that they would come down on the side of authority. They could not be relied upon to make the hard moral decision. I’ll draw a contrast here between the Chiarelli type and another career US Army officer with 30 years service – one who was 4 times the man as Chiarelli – R E Lee. Lee was faced with losing everything if he sided with the Confederacy, or with the job of leading an invading Union army into his home state if he “Went along to get along”. For a man of steriling moral character such as Lee , there really was no choice……..

  3. Nightclubs, schools, and theaters have one thing in common; They are “Gun Free Zones.” I agree, we can do better. Arm Everyone! Allow Carry everywhere!

  4. The general and those of his ilk need to be reminded that; “Once a hero,always a hero.” isn’t necessarily true. The name Hermann Wilhelm Göring comes to mind.

  5. He’s just an old retired fart kissing the regimes ass for some attention,and a few dollars, just ignore him and keep buying ammo!

  6. Actually the broader question which is even more important then these oathless old farts getting involved in the gun debate, is why haven’t any of you brave souls stepped up and organized the patriots, who have been waiting for a leader to take this scumbag Obama and the other treasonous pos in Congress down. That is their job, they swore an oath to it as I and all the other Oathkeepers did. But if you want to talk about gun laws, perhaps if the FBI did their job when background checks are performed, a good part of the problem would be fixed. According to the background check law, when a person if refused the ability to purchase a weapon at a gun store, the local police are supposed to be notified immediately, and said person is supposed to be detained and arrested if he warrants it. There is either a lack of communication between the FBI screeners because of something broken in the system, or it is done purposely. The laws on books would work just fine, if done the way they were meant to be done.

  7. “Chiarelli is, of course, an agenda-motivated liar, which is disgraceful. Anyone convicted of the crimes he cites is a “prohibited person,” barred by federal law from gun possession.”

    The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of THIS land, and all that serve within our governments and military are Oath Bound to support and defend IT, before all else – including orders of superiors, and the duties of a position one occupies.

    All should know, and Chiarelli in particular should know – since he served and rose through the ranks of the military – that THE ONLY CRIMES ASSIGNED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE US CONSTITUTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ARE TREASON (but that list is huge and will require the Militia to get them prosecuted), PIRACY, COUNTERFEITING, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS. Everything else they try to put under their jurisdiction is usurpation.

    Gun control does not fall within the federal or the states delegated in writing governmental authority. This was/is one of the NATURAL RIGHTS retained by the people and no one who serves in any position within our governments have any authority over the people and weapons – what kind, how many, how they are carried.

    So it is not ” disgraceful”, it is treasonous. He is willingly and openly stating that he is working from within AGAINST our legitimate government – the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it, and each state’s Constitution.

    Winston Churchill: “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
    “There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

    Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican (lower case “r”) principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”

    Daniel Webster: “We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. That chart is the Constitution.”

    U.S. Supreme Court CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211: “Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are NO PART of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters DO NOT extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”

    1. Richard Henry Lee & his brother Francis Lightfoot Lee were ancestors of mine – it’s always a pleasure & privilege to see someone cite one of the “forgotten founders” – especially where our clear-cut rights to self governance and self-defense are at the forefront! It is time to find our “chart snd our compass”, and begin “removing the corruption…restoring lost principles”, so that we no longer engage in “new evils”. This article highlights how disturbingly broad the corruption has spread and how much it has entrenched itself, masquerading as reasoned argument…

  8. The general is a living example of why the founders feared a standing army and he should keep his opinions to himself. Unlike the people that he outranks and surrounds himself with, the vast majority of us don’t care what his opinions are. The very last thing we need is to allow the military to have any influence on our government. I appreciate his military service, but when it comes to recommending laws he needs to remember that he’s no better, no smarter than any other citizen. As a matter of fact, after reading what he wrote I’m thinking that he, like most hoplophobes, is quite a bit less intelligent than the average person. Either he doesn’t know anything about the gun laws that he has deigned to lecture us about or he’s a liar – or both.

    1. So right HRColey, as a military, Chiarelli should Heep his opinions to himself. It has been a long-standing principle and perogative for military men to avoid political involvement, and to always defer to elected superiors. That son of Light horse Harry I referred to earlier – – R E Lee – always maintained the deferential protocol in his dealings with Jeff Davis, even though it was apparent to all that Lee was the better man.

  9. what a warped individual… ISIS and the like get arms from …FAST N FURIOUS and other criminal activities within our own govt is more like the truth… this man is not a tool but sadly a FOOL a fool for the evil to continue in our nation and world… WE THE PEOPLE… is the rule not some agenda driven greedy, self serving lost soul who thinks his words matter to educated/informed genuine Americans… take his medals, strip his uniform from him and jail him…

  10. Besides always having a pocket rocket with two back up mags…I now have the Kel-Tec Sub 2000 in a innocuous small hand bag leaving me ready willing and able to defend the innocent or back up the police anywhere my car is.

    Blather mouth soft tyranny nanny State statements from a retired blather-mouth are meaningless.

    When you say: :”Not on my watch!”…you need to be prepared to back it up 24/7 – 365.

  11. I choose to follow the wise counsel of a true patriot;

    This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. ~ Abraham Lincoln

    1. I, for one, am not willing to toss our Constitutional Republic, but instead believe that we should enforce it at all levels, and both T. Jefferson and A. Lincoln back me up with these statements (though would it really be backing up since they said it first? Sorry, not enough coffee).

      Thomas Jefferson: “When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”

      Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

  12. I believe that the fed and state constitutions and all the codes and statutes fed and state are in harmony and protect the rights of the people. The thought that the people would create a government(in the Constitution 1787) designed to usurp the creator endowed rights of the people seems totally absurd.

    California government code sections 11120 and 54950 support the above when these sections say “………… The people of this state (California) do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. …………………..”. I would guess most states have similar codes/statutes.

    It is a maxim of their own law(Fed and state?) that the creation(government) is never greater than its creator(people)! So, will/can you explain exactly how a creation(the government) obtains jurisdiction over its creator(the people)?

    According to the Declaration of Independence “……..all men are created equal ….”. Please, can/will you explain how I can vote on the disposition of my neighbors property! Or when I vote is it actually on rules that apply to our public servants to help them protect the rights of the people and not as rules that apply to my neighbors?

    Maybe we should be asking the legislators to explain these things and to provide facts and/or evidence to prove their dictates apply to other than their own administrations and the people that work for them. And, how are their dictates in harmony with CA Gov. Codes 11120 and 54950(Please read entire sections).and the fed constitution as stated below? Again, how does a creation obtain jurisdiction over its creator????

    Title 28 USC Section 3002 states that United States means federal corporation. Who do corporations make rules for other than those who work for the corporation?

    The Federal Constitution, Article 1, section 8, powers of congress clearly states in clause 14 that congress has the power to make rules for the government… Where does the constitution say congress has the power to make rules for the people? In a conversation with Tom McClintock R House of Representatives federal congress, he agreed with me that there is no place that says “congress can make rules for the people” in the Federal Constitution. This includes all the USCs including Title 26, the “Internal” Revenue Code.

    In President Obamas statement about the production of oil in N. ans S. Dakota he said that nothing could be done because it was on private property. If through his own admission the gov has no jurisdiction over oil on private property how can they have jurisdiction over anything else on private property??

    Is the above not all in harmony with protecting the individual rights of the people? Would it not be better to ask proponents of the dictates to prove their authority(not by force/gun) over the people than to waste time on petitions that could prompt the proponents to rename their dictates or put them in another bill so as to disguise them and sneak it through elsewhere, leaving the question of their authority unanswered?

    When politicians say that they do not care what the constitution says, are they not denying the very document that allows for them to be in the position they claim they “occupy”? Have they violated their OATH, Title 18 USC?

    1. The problem we have with the legislators, as with the non existent president (obama is a presidential impersonator – cannot be/have been elected), and judges who practice every law on this planet EXCEPT for the only place they get any lawful authority; is that none are doing their jpbs as they contracted to do, and no one is holding the accountable for their actions.

      But to get a better idea of just how off track we are here concerning our lawful government take a few and watch this video. He is much nicer then I am, which I believe is wrong… but the information is good.

      tells about how all that “color of law” is put into place; and how those who make up those “laws”, also are the judge, jury and executioner. They are their own “experts”, and they decide how much power they have.. Sound like anything that should be here in the USA? Not to me!!!!

      1. Please comment on how the creation gains jurisdiction over its creator.

        Obama Is the president of the federal corporation called the United States by congresses own codes and definitions. Therefore the corporate rules made by congress, the USCs titles 1-50 apply the the paid workers of the corporation. There is no evidence or facts that they apply to the American people just because they are present in America. IBM, APPLE nor Intel rules apply to me or anyone unless we have an employment agreement saying so.

        As you said it is all color of law.
        If the laws(codes, statutes, regs etc.) did not exist could one violate them? yes no

        Since they do exist on paper, are they not an element of the violation? Do not all elements have to be proven to convict someone? Can people violate a laws that does not apply to those people? Then we must first have facts/evidence proving the body of law apply to someone simply because they are present in America before jurisdiction can be established, Without jurisdiction nothing else matters. Color of law, prima faciae. Absolutely, None of their rules are mandatory otherwise they could not be changed.

        Their only power is the gun. That is why they want us disarmed.

        Did you read CA Gov Codes 11120 and 54950? These codes say it all. The people can not yield sovereignty if they are not sovereign. The State of California clearly admits the people are the highest power, political or otherwise when the statute says they do not yield their sovereignty. Their words,not mine.

        Cal, thank you for the comment.

  13. The military has become far too politicized, particularly in the last twenty-five years. Appointment to prestigious commands and higher ranks has more to do with political ideology, accepting (and applauding) the crackpot ideas of whatever administration is in power, and sucking-up to superiors (both uniforms and suits), than knowledge, ability, or performance.

    The present administration is more interested in indoctrination in global warming, Islam, accepting every sort of sexual perversion, and putting women in positions where they are a detriment to both order and performance, than in having an effective fighting force. We will pay a high price for this, probably in the near future. If these policies are not reversed, we will soon be at a disadvantage to our major adversaries.

    1. “The military has become far too politicized,…”

      They had to, because if they did not go against the US Constitution they would not exist. We are FORBIDDEN by the US Constitution to have a “standing” (permanent) military; we are FORBIDDEN to instigate wars; we are forbidden to have alliances with foreign nations, just to trade with them; etc. If the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex went along and KEPT their Oaths they would be ranking officers within the Militias of the several states. They would not that wonderful Military compound in Wash. DC. There would be NO DARPA – which would be great for our planet and most life on it. ETC

      George Washington, “Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”

      Why a Militia with every able-bodied American trained as the US Military is required to be trained? Makes it a bit more intimidating for those who might want to invade; or for those that want to destroy our nation from inside. Less crime; and though a politer society occurs, there would be more discussion and no or very little politispeech.

      There would be no SWAT teams, or cops, just militia who is NOT under those that serve within our governments but directly under the written words within our US Constitution, and within their own state’s Constitution. Etc.

      President Andrew Johnson: “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”

      Instead of those traitors and domestic enemies of the USA spying on the American people without warrants or just cause, there would be this

      John Adams, from A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765): “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right… and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, and indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.”

      That is correct, no one who serves within our governments is allowed to hide their own lives from the people. Sheesh, what an idea. The idea is that when they go to serve, they accept the conditions that go with the position – they meet all requirements of the position; they TAKE and KEEP an Oath and do the duties as assigned to the branch or office they are serving within; They hide nothing from the people for whom they work and for whom what they do and say represents. ETC.

      US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

      Because declaring War is assigned to the Congress, it is forbidden to any other branch, person, office, etc.

      Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a military is raised from the trained ranks of the Militia: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

      Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….”

      Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

      Patrick Henry: “When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade.“ And “A standing army we shall have, also to execute the execrable commands of tyranny.” And “The power of the federal courts would swell the patronage of the president. And “The president will lead in the treason.”

      James Madison: “The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

      George Washington: “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

      James Madison: “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

      James Madison: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

      Look at us today, impoverished, traitors and domestic enemies serving within our governments, the general (federal) government acts as if it is the center of all USA, when it is LAWFULLY the state’s representative in dealing with FOREIGN nations, not here.

      Let’s tray actually following the US Constitution for a bit before we throw it away. I think you will be surprised at how quickly things within our nation can turn around when we place a LEGITIMATE government within our nations borders – state and federal.

      Patrick Henry: “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.”

      George Washington, Farewell Address: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.”

  14. The traitor general does not were a Vietnam service medal. He graduated and was commissioned in ’72. He is not a proud Vietnam Era vet, He ran…he hid. He is just another John Kerry clone. He deserves a rope for his rants on disarming his fellow soldiers and vets.

  15. The only crisis that we here in America have is traitors in Gov like this General that overlooks his oath and makes comment against the very founding of this our Country.

  16. This is the fruit of ill defining the appropriate discussion. The appropriate discussion is security, not guns. A large part of the answer to making our people secure is civilian owned firearms, carried lawfully in public but that’s a means, not an end. 10USC311 defines two military forces, the organized and unorganized militia. General Chiarelli should be able to define both of their missions. I bet you nobody has ever asked him. I’d give it a coin toss if he could even give a well thought out answer if he were asked. Once you’ve defined a security mission for that force, no reasonable mission is going to omit the use of firearms to accomplish that mission.

    A lot of people are not, per se, interested in guns. Nobody is not interested in security. Shift the conversation to that and the gun grabbers are disadvantaged.

  17. Can someone explain the difference between the Militia and the National Guard ? My understanding is that the National Guard can be called to active duty in the Army and deployed over seas, whereas, the Militia is governed by the States and the governors of the states can refuse its Militia to be called to active duty !

Comments are closed.