No products in the cart.

News

2A Talk – Justice Neil Gorsuch To Face Off With California


While the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch has created a political storm, perhaps he can help protect the Second Amendment and support common sense legislation?

Before we get to what Justice Gorsuch will face, we need a small amount of background. Back in 2014, U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of Fresno ruled that gun owners, who wish to purchase another firearm, should not be subject to the 10 day waiting period.  The rational, according to politicians, is that we must wait for 10 days as a cooling off period for our safety.  CBS Sacramento reported Ishii as stating:

“There is no evidence that a ‘cooling off period,’ such as that provided by the 10-day waiting period, prevents impulsive acts of violence by individuals who already possess a firearm.  A waiting period for a newly purchased firearm will not deter an individual from committing impulsive acts of violence with a separate firearm that is already in his or her possession.”

Kamala Harris is not one to take such a loss sitting down, and the case was taken to the 9th circuit court of appeals.  There, a 3 judge panel determined that it was perfectly acceptable to make people wait, because there was no Internet when the Second Amendment was written.  The entire opinion can be read here.  The rational driving the opinion is deeply flawed.  Prior to 1968, there were no licensed firearms dealers, and prior to 1993, there were no laws concerning background checks for gun buyers.  In the “old days”, if you had the money, you walked in and purchased the firearm.  You could then take it home on the spot.  If you didn’t mind the wait, you could order a firearm through Sears Roebuck, and have it mailed right to your front door.

The majority of states perform instant background checks.  This requires no waiting period, even for new gun owners.  Since the decisions are not written on parchment anymore, and mail isn’t delivered by horseback, I don’t feel this is a sound basis.  It is much along the lines of people saying there were only muskets when the Second Amendment was written.  That is also a common myth, and the rational is flawed.  We don’t say that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Internet based news, or other electronic forms of communication, such as television or radio, none of which existed.

[snip]

What Gorsuch, Thomas, Kennedy, do have in their favor is an administration across the board that leans right.  Some more right than others, but right none the less.  In fact this leaning can go down to the state level as well.  We have seen 14 states go constitutional carry, and many more are headed in that direction.  People wanting to push anti-gun agendas are finding it harder and harder in most states to do so.  The financial cost for a vote against guns is astronomically high, and the political fallout can be massive.  My wish list for SCOTUS is as follows.  Shall issue concealed carry.  This does not address the draconian and insane laws and requirements in California, but it does make it clear, that unless there is reason to deny, you are approved, period.  Next would be to rule that semi-automatic rifles and normal capacity magazines are in fact protected under the second amendment.  If we apply common use, and strict scrutiny, this is an open and shut case. Lastly, I would like the 10 day wait period addressed.  We have the technology, and ability to facilitate instant checks.  Unless there is overwhelming evidence that allowing an individual to be denied a right under the guise of safety, it should be null and void.  Gorsuch and the rest of the justices will have their hands full, however these questions must be addressed.


Read more at PRACTICAL POLITICKING


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution
against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

0

nancy.larned

Oath Keepers Merchandise

9 comments

    1. The Second Amendment says “keep and bear”, so I guess if you can find a cannon that you can “bear,” then go for it.

      Seriously, there was a lot of debate by the Founders about what kinds of arms could be kept by individuals. Do a little research so the next time you don’t look so ignorant. Start out by Googling “Tench Coxe + cannon.”

    2. As the TRAINED and KNOWLEDGEABLE Militia member, yes, you can own any weapon of war that soldiers use, as many weapons that you want and can afford; as you are REQUIRED to be trained and ready to use them in the defense of our nation; BUT you cannot use them in an unlawful manner or face the consequences of YOUR own actions (not the tools you might use). Also it might be better that they are stored in a Militia weapons storage until needed, but wiser souls then mine must figure that part out. You are the Militia, as are the rest of us, though I am sure some are not trained and educated as is required of them YET.

      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.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

      Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; AND ALL THIS FOR THE IMPORTANT END TO BE ATTAINED: THE REARING UP AND QUALIFYING A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

      Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

      “It has been well established that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to enable the people to defend against tyranny which invariably comes in the form of an overbearing and oppressive government. This right to defense is not special to Americans and is a natural right of all peoples.

      In the 70s and 80’s the Afghani militia (the mujahideen) was engaged against tyranny (Soviets). In order to aid them in their fight against their oppressors, the USA sent Stinger shoulder mounted rocket launchers so they could wage an asymmetrical battle against the much better equipped Soviet forces.

      Therefore our own federal government established the precedent that, in the age of a modern military, rocket launchers (Bazookas) fall within the scope of weapons necessary for citizen militias fighting against tyranny – inadvertently making the case that they should be covered under the 2nd amendment.” http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin800.htm (end quote)

      Gun control is supposed to be on those who serve within our governments, NOT on the American people. What am I talking about? Starting with constitutionally forbidden to have and keep a “standing military” (permanent one) because history has shown us that they are ALWAYS used against the people. Congress calls up the military into service.

      Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? … A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men”.

      The “draft” is also unlawful, that makes a slave of the people drafted.

      Consider that the “law enforcement” community is UNLAWFULLY militarized, including military grade weapons and vehicles. Remember that it is forbidden for any state LE to be armed and used by the feds. Why? They are ALWAYS used against the people throughout history; and because the US Constitution requires that those military arms and vehicles, etc all go to the Militias of the several states (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16), NOT to the law enforcement community, nor to foreign nations, nor to terrorist groups, etc. IF the majority our LE’s and serving military ever learn what their Oath means, what the US Constitution requires of them, and the word “NO”, here in the USA there would be much less a problem then what we have before us today, but at this time most still have not.

      Tench Coxe: “The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. … Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. THEIR SWORDS AND EVERY TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF OF THE SOLDIER ARE THE BIRTHRIGHT OF AMERICANS. THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, WHERE I TRUST IN GOD IT WILL EVER REMAIN, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.” (Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787)

      Since we are also forbidden to go attack other nations, no permanent military is needed here in the USA, just the Militia (EVERY single able-bodied citizen in America armed and trained as the military is trained, used in the domestic positions that the military is used for today EXCEPT for being used to invade foreign nations). BUT, the Militia is constitutionally REQUIRED to be trained as the Congress requires the military to train, so that IF a military is needed to DEFEND our nation from aggressors, the best and most trained, etc becomes the military, the rest train harder in case they are needed as military, and assist as the Militia; until then the Militia of the several states should be able to deal with most problems we are having even today.

      Tench Coxe, on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it’s the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and AS THE MILITARY FORCES WHICH MUST BE OCCASIONALLY RAISED TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY, MIGHT PERVERT THEIR POWER TO THE INJURY OF THEIR FELLOW-CITIZNES, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”. (‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)

      Remember we have been in UNLAWFUL and non congressionally declared wars of aggression against other nations for decades now, that having no more undeclared wars would be strange to us. Though the heads of all the military would lose money, prestige, positions, power; probably no Pentagon; and the “defense” (read offense) contractors, banking, etc would not be so rich.

      George Washington: “It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war.“ (notice that he says “THEY” are nations of eternal war, not that we are a nation of eternal war)

      John Quincy Adams: “America does NOT go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”

      Henry Clay: “Far better is it for ourselves, for Hungary, and for the cause of liberty, that … avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on the western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction among the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe.”

      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 (US President). 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.”

      WHO is constitutionally REQUIRED to be used by those that serve within our state and federal governments to
      — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
      — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
      — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
      — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”

      if not the military or governmental law enforcement agencies? That would be the people as the trained and educated (US and their own state’s Constitutions) Militia. No worries about them forgetting to say “No”, or not enforcing the US Constitution or their own state’s Constitution. No worry about them going off to war invading a foreign nation. Nor would they enforce color of law requiring that the American people not give food and drink to others; or remove the homeless and destroy the last things they had; or try to take someone’s property (asset forfeiture anyone – that IS theft under color of law, pretend law). Nor would they stop a person from doing what that person wants on their own property in the way they wish to do it EXCEPT if it would cause actual harm or damage to another or another persons property. Nor would anyone be breaking and entering into anyone’s home without a warrant and (real) probable cause. If they did, backed by LAW, they could be shot – that is exactly how it used to be.

      Plummer vs. State: “You may go to the extreme of taking an officers life if he is committing an unlawful arrest.”

      This decision was upheld (Plummer vs. State) by the Supreme Court in: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 where the Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

      It was a very rare thing for any governmental person of any type of agency to break into a persons home or property because that was/and still is a crime being committed on their part.

      THAT is why the US Constitution REQUIRES that all able-bodied Americans be trained as the military is trained, because THEY are the Militia. Instead of governmental law enforcement it would be the people who live in that area and know it best, trained in the proper use of arms and in knowledge of the US and their own state’s Constitutions.

      So what would current lawful LE’s and those currently serving military do? There are a lot of people that need training as Congress requires the military to be trained, so that is one position all over the USA that would be full time, paid people. There will need to be officers, but they must be constitutional and held to that requirement by the people who will serve under them, rotated in & out or no rotation. People will need to teach the US Constitution, the Oath and its responsibilities, etc. Then there will also need to be law enforcement training which is different from military training where anywhere you go the people there might e an enemy, as to dealing with the people of your neighborhood, cities, counties, state, etc. Some people will be needed to schedule, etc. There will need to be people who will be the point person for each state’s Militia so that if needed as a group, or for governmental – state and federal that is recorded, and implemented. Etc. For most who get trained it will NOT be a FT job, but a rotation which might be more then once in smaller communities, and once only if ever in larger communities. Someone must be assigned to deal with the federal government; and who will be informed that parts of the Militia is now military because the Congress declares war. Etc.

      The biggest change for both those that serve/d as LE or in the military will be that those documents will be their highest commander of supreme rank nationwide where constitutionally applicable and of highest rank statewide (above the US President, Congress; Governor, state legislative branch, etc).

      An editorial on Gage’s proclamation stressed that an armed populace must keep government
      in check: “The opposing an arbitrary measure, or resisting an illegal force, is no more
      rebellion than to refuse obedience to a highway-man who demands your purse, or to fight a
      wild beast, that came to devour you. It is morally lawful, in all limited governments, to resist
      that force that wants political power, from the petty constable to the king…. They are rebels
      who arm against the constitution, not they who defend it by arms.” “A Freeman,” PA. EVENING POST, June 27, 1775, at 2. [Vol. 7:2]

      Here in America your money cannot just be taken (IRS, etc) lawfully; your home and property taken or broken into by anyone – governmental or not- not LAWFULLY; nor can anyone search you or stop you while traveling (TSA, etc); You cannot be required to buy a permit for ANY natural right (weapon, fishing, hunting, etc); you cannot be lawfully forced to donate money to anything that the government or anyone else wants to spend it on; etc. Oh, and those that serve within our governments at all levels are NOT allowed to lie to the people, have secrets, etc. There would be NO NSA because the Militia would dismantle every building that is used against the American people, arrest and charge those that serve within those buildings down to those that sweep the floors BECAUSE every person who works within government in every position – elected, hire, contracted, etc – is REQUIRED to take and KEEP that Oath.

      Sorry, forgot governmental immunities – the US Constitution allows (I believe it was) three, might be another – read Dr. Vieira on this or the US Constitution itself. So when you work within the government – state or federal – you are required to obey the LAWS exactly as citizens do or face the EXACT same consequences as the general public does.

      America would NOT be in the position she is currently in if ALL Oath takers had said “NO” to unlawful orders – military, LE’s, agency. She can be greatly improved quickly if they did so starting today – military and LE particularly because those injustices can not happen except that YOU enforce them. That we have, many of us, made errors through ignorance that at this time is costing us our country, our legitimate government, maybe our lives and the lives of those we love. But LEARNING what is allowed and forbidden by the US Constitution, and your state’s Constitution then enforcing them and KEEPING your Oath is what can stop this. It can stop wars of aggression. It can stop Nuclear wars IF we also remove those who are willing to cause such a war before their orders are followed. None of this is up to Trump, it is up to the American people – including those Americans who serve within our governments.

      During the ratification debates, Archibald Maclaine of North Carolina not only said that we “should disregard” unconstitutional acts, but that we should “punish them for the attempt.”
      His quote: “If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.’”

      Thomas Jefferson: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

      Samuel Adams, using sarcasm to make a point on May 15, 1764 (Understand that all that he lists is PROTECTED from those who serve within our governments – state and federal – by the US Constitution): “But if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands and every thing we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern and tax ourselves… are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary slaves?”

      George Washington: ““I think the Parliament of Great Britain hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket, without my consent, than I have to put my hands into your’s, for money…”

      Thomas Jefferson to Lord North 1775: “That this privilege of giving or of withholding our monies, is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative, which if left altogether without control, may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shews how efficacious is its intercession from redress of grievances, and re-establishment of rights, and how improvident it would be to part with so powerful a mediator.”

      “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

      “Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

      “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

      “Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

      “Traveling is passing from place to place — act of performing journey; and traveler is person who travels.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

      “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356

      “As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C.
      502.

      “To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

      “There is no common law judicial immunity.” Pulliam v. Allen, 104S.Ct. 1970; cited in Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.

      “The constitution of a state is the fundamental law of the State.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199.

      “What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established.” Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304.

      “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

      “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a two-fold aspect, first securing [not granting] to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined spheres.” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A 724.

      “The constitution of a state is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon the temper of the times, not to rise and fall with the tide of events. Notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immoveable, as a mountain amidst the strife and storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” Vanhorne v. Dorrance, supra.

      “Constitutional guarantee securing to every person right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property refers to right to possess absolutely and unqualifiedly every species of property recognized by law and all rights incidental thereto, including right to dispose of such property in such manner as he pleases.” People v. Davenport (1937), 21 C.A. 292, 69 P.2d 396.

      Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)

      Basically, what this all boils down to is to keep your Oath at times, maybe many times ,to say “NO”. When you (generic “you”) took that position and took that Oath as is required, it meant that you take PERSONAL responsibility for your actions while serving. Today many get by with terrible crimes against the people and our nation, but the people are starting to value freedom and the US Constitution again. That makes it dangerous for those who are willing to commit a felony and Perjury every time they do not keep their Oath and use the position they occupy unlawfully against the people. Read the Declaration of Independence. Understand what is going on to day is the same, only worse. All Americans can lawfully own any weapon, and as many as they can afford.

      North Carolina Supreme Court decision, given prior to the culmination of the Constitutional Convention: “But that it was clear that no act they could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.” Bayard v. Singleton [1 N.C. 42] 1787

      Dr. Vieira basically said this also when he said; “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.”

      God Bless and Stay Safe All

      Cal
      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

  1. Something has to be done, just don’t know where to start. I’m a hundred percent disabled veteran and I don’t have a lot of money. So what can I do to help.

    1. Hast,
      I’m in pretty much the same condition as you. What I do is; anything I can to further the cause of liberty.
      Mostly, I teach. I pass out pocket constitutions, I pass out FIJA information, I pass out Oath Keepers tri-folds. For free.
      Yes, I have to buy most of the materials, but if you do it by only buying what you can afford, when you can afford it, you can acquire more than you might think possible.
      By passing out this free literature to people, sooner or later I get asked if I would be willing to talk to a group and teach them about the constitution and their rights. (It happened today actually.)
      So, in the near future, (once they get it scheduled and find/ secure a suitable location), I will be teaching the folks in a small town about 30 miles from me.
      Reach, Teach. and Inspire. Be the one that people look to for information and assistance, no matter what happens to occur. Set the standard.
      Good luck to you brother.
      Semper Fi.
      FtR,
      David

  2. Second Amendment Quotes
     
    “The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”   Hubert Humphrey, Democrat, U.S Senator and Vice President
     
    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”  Thomas Jefferson
     
    “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”  Mahatma Gandhi
     
    “The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” – George Orwell
     
    “Clearly, there remains to this day a horrible, condescending attitude toward armed American citizens. Haven’t the British yet gotten over the fact that a ragtag, often disorganized force of American colonials, wielding their own arms, was able to defeat what at the time was the most powerful armed force in the world? Our forefathers, armed with their own flintlock rifles and pistols, and an assortment of muskets—the ‘assault weapons’ of their era—threw off the yoke of oppression under which they were forced to live. When British broadcasters today demand to know just what it is about gun ownership that Americans defend so vigorously, the answer is too simple for them to comprehend. Simply put, we defend this individual civil right because without our own guns two centuries ago, we would still… likely be British subjects…” – Alan Gottlieb
     
    “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, 1833
     
    “In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous…revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.” – Jeffrey Snyder, A Nation of Cowards
     
     
    “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms? – James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
     
    “We ran into a pleasant interlude up in Vermont which emphasized the wisdom and social utility of the Vermont firearms laws. It seems that some foreigner from down below was in a supermarket when he observed one of the customers wearing a pistol openly. He got all flustered and immediately called 911. In due course a cop showed up and located the complainer, who pointed out the “culprit.” The cop agreed that the man really was carrying a pistol, and then he asked what the problem was. I suppose the poor fellow rushed off out the door and went back where he came from. Obviously the state of Vermont was too dangerous for him. – The Late Jeff Cooper, Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, Vol. 6, No. 3, March 1998
     
    “It is one of the great ironies of our modern “civilized” era that in most of the places where you don’t feel the need to carry a firearm for self defense you can legally do so if you choose. But in most of places where you do indeed justifiably feel the immediate need to carry a gun, they are banned.” – James Wesley, Rawles
     
    “The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized. The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” – The Late Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
     
    “There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.” – Marcus Tulius Cicero (106-53 BC)
     
    “The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I have said, it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality.” – George Orwell, 1941
     
     
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? […] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1, “Arrest”)
     
     
     
    “How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.” – Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (Texas)
     
     
    “We maintain [privately-owned] arms largely because we seek to prevent violence. Those that wish to disarm us do so that they may perpetrate it with impunity.” – R. Murray
     
     
     
    “The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.” – Dr. Ron Paul
     
    “An armed republic submits less easily to the rule of one of its citizens than a republic armed by foreign forces. Rome and Sparta were for many centuries well armed and free. The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom. Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible. It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants.” – Niccolo Machiavelli, “The Prince” (1532)
     
    “… [M]any gun owners readily concede that their right to keep and bear arms is “not absolute” and is subject to “reasonable” regulation. This concession to moderation or reasonableness is fatal to the right. Yes, there are people who should not have guns. However, the point of the Second Amendment is precisely to deny government the power to decide who those people are, just as the point of the First Amendment is to deny government the power to decide what you may read and hear. Rights are not reasonable, and are not to be made reasonable, because government itself is not reason; it is force.” – Jeff Snyder

  3. I love Sheriff Macks answer when asked why you need a certain type of gun or why so many guns.
    “None of your Dam Business”

    1. Another good response to that question is, “because it’s the Bill of ‘Rights”, no the Bill of Needs.”

Comments are closed.