In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
What does the Second Amendment mean ?
Highball
Member Posts: 15,755
THE TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
By J. Neil Schulman
J. Neil Schulman is the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style. The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
Questions and Answers
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have it italicized my questions for the sake of clarity):
The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?
The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
(2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia, is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?
No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, " or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
(5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped, " "well-organized, " "well-drilled, " "well-educated, " or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?#9;
The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority;" this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
(6) If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues cannot be clearly separated.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
(7) As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(A) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(B) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?
(A) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(B) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Concluding Comment
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
By J. Neil Schulman
J. Neil Schulman is the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style. The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
Questions and Answers
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have it italicized my questions for the sake of clarity):
The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?
The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
(2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia, is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?
No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, " or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
(5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped, " "well-organized, " "well-drilled, " "well-educated, " or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?#9;
The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority;" this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
(6) If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues cannot be clearly separated.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
(7) As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(A) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(B) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?
(A) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(B) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Concluding Comment
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
Comments
Good post, very informative. I'm relieved to know such a study has been done but must question, what became of it? This should have been given the widest of dissemination. I'll help.
I Googled him. This is a pretty colorful fella.
J. Neil Schulman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Neil_Schulman
Schulman's political writings, particularly those on what he calls "gun prohibition" (Censored on Wikapedia since 2006) are prolific and have received national attention. Many of these articles are collected in Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns or in Self Control Not Gun Control.
Because the Virginia Tech shootings occured on his 54th birthday, Schulman made the Hobbit-like gesture of giving a reverse birthday present, releasing the PDF edition of Stopping Power as a free download from his website The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock.
Books by J. Neil Schulman (All are available for download.)
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/books.html
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just wish they would have added that one little word that I put in,..........it takes away all questions, from those that WANT to question.
quote:'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Just wish they would have added that one little word that I put in,..........it takes away all questions, from those that WANT to question.
It means the same thing to me...with or without that word !
I commend you highball, for such a worthy post. If this does not clearly set the record straight(as if there were any confusion)what will? I don't care what it takes to wake up the patriots, they SHOULD be awake allready. They should be ready to STAND for liberty, to protect it. No greater a day will there be, then the day TRUE liberty RETURNS to us, the RIGHTFUL owners. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND HER TRUE PATRIOTS.
Highball has posted many times, about a "significant event" that must take place. I agree that will need to happen,........but also believe, that a lot more of the "silent majority", are getting tired of this garbage, than you realize![;)]
I do think that "some", are preparing. I am one of them,.......do what you do, and if I am wrong, and it happens earlier than I expect it,........I think many of us may be surprised, at the backing out there.
Highball has posted many times, about a "significant event" that must take place. I agree that will need to happen,........but also believe, that a lot more of the "silent majority", are getting tired of this garbage, than you realize![;)]
Marc, I realize MANY people are disgusted at the current state of affairs. However, WITHOUT organization, nothing will come of any "rebellion". My firm belief is all MILITIA need to organize. Within each state, county, district, rural area. They all need to interconnect and connect to EACH state. I feel that even with 100 members in a particular group, such would be innefective in the big picture, I belive. My firm belief is we need to organize, in more than the LOCAL or STATE aspect. This tyranny spreads from coast to coast, not just a town or two. We need to stand and be counted, the sheer number of us ,could in that effect, avoid even the need for a fight. If not, then they will know just how big a movement they will face. While I applaud those that are preparing (you included), my point is, there is more work ahead that MUST be done to ensure victory. [:)]
If organization beyond what we have, takes place,.......I would suggest a different method for it. I am certain that ALL of US, are already on "someones" radar!
Being on "the radar" is what we should expect, at least. The UNconstitutional laws have allowed for a system which the "big brother" trust not its' citizens. It shouldn't, because we will remove those snakes someday. In the same respect we should not trust one member of that system either. We seek each others destruction. Only one can survive, and it MUST be us .. Liberty and freedom must be allowed to reign again.
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
I do think that "some", are preparing. I am one of them,.......do what you do, and if I am wrong, and it happens earlier than I expect it,........I think many of us may be surprised, at the backing out there.
Highball has posted many times, about a "significant event" that must take place. I agree that will need to happen,........but also believe, that a lot more of the "silent majority", are getting tired of this garbage, than you realize![;)]
Marc, I realize MANY people are disgusted at the current state of affairs. However, WITHOUT organization, nothing will come of any "rebellion". My firm belief is all MILITIA need to organize. Within each state, county, district, rural area. They all need to interconnect and connect to EACH state. I feel that even with 100 members in a particular group, such would be innefective in the big picture, I belive. My firm belief is we need to organize, in more than the LOCAL or STATE aspect. This tyranny spreads from coast to coast, not just a town or two. We need to stand and be counted, the sheer number of us ,could in that effect, avoid even the need for a fight. If not, then they will know just how big a movement they will face. While I applaud those that are preparing (you included), my point is, there is more work ahead that MUST be done to ensure victory. [:)]
Freemind
We need a modern day Paul Revere. How do you propose to get it started ? It should not be very hard with the advent of the internet. Just imagine what it was like when the founders were discussing issues like this. How did they get the message out ?
I'll be referring to this in the future.
Where else would the common man have heard about this?
The information SUPER HIGHWAY........I LOVE it.
quote:Originally posted by freemind
The guy up and leaves the state without notice, leaving his brigade in disarray.
Is that a job opening? [;)]
Folks...it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
While I applaud the sentiment.." We must organize"...the fact remains that it was tried in the 90's.
The Murray bombing did as it was designed to do...gave the government power to go after the militias. They did so...and the leaders of many of the Militias are dead or rotting in jail.
"Leaderless Resistance" is a term. find out what it means.
When the time is right,.......everything else will also be "right"[;)]!
Freemind
We need a modern day Paul Revere. How do you propose to get it started ? It should not be very hard with the advent of the internet. Just imagine what it was like when the founders were discussing issues like this. How did they get the message out ?
What I am proposeing is a real militia in every state, broken into sections or brigades. All able to communicate and interlocked with a set of "standards". No racial or twisted anti-government movement involved. All openly operating in public, no secret behind doors crap to make people sucpecious. All state militias should be able to contact other state militias. All should keep each other informed of happening in each others state. All militias should have monthly meetings and openly discuss issues from their state, as well as other states. The meeting should only concern constitutional matters, not "I hate the African-American" crap. All members should be ready to organize when needed, such as when their state may be ready to pass UNconstitutional LAWS, on the capitol. In each community.
Of coarse the only way this will work, is if people get off the couch. Train when they can, and attend meetings, be INVOLVED. This to me is how the militia is SUPPOSED to work.If the left organizes and shows numbers, we should be able to turn out TWICE their numbers. Maybe this approach would avoid watering the tree of liberty, maybe not. At some point though, we HAVE to get up. Get up and organize, before we CAN'T get up.
The sole purpose being to ensure domestic tranquility..and ever present shadow of force facing corruption in high places.
Given the present state of tyranny...there CANNOT be an effective high profile militia presence in the public view...for a militia without arms is a toothless tiger.
Given the present state of tyranny...far better the authorities spend resources, men, and material grubbing out militia members...then having them served up on a golden platter.
Well, Highball decided to explain what that term meant in his last post, and I agree with it.
Some will disagree, but a highly visible "militia" organization,.....especially interacting with dozens of others, will only make you that much easier to find, monitor, and track. Eventually one of your "leaders" will make a mistake of speech, which will unleash the forces upon you. You are now either dead, or in prison,........unable to do anything when the time does come.
How much harder to watch and wait.
Yes...we might wait too long. Always that risk. Until a few months ago..you could count on the fingers of one hand the numbers of posters that shared ANY part of the idea that the government is out of control...and that was after the disfiguring accident of losing a couple fingers...
I know not what others may do...but until and unless there is a major push by the government to seize total control...I will not make a move.
No profit in it all... most gun-owners still support gun control, and bleeding my life out to gain the rights back they will not acknowledge is not in my plan at all.
No...for me, the breaking point is not yet...and I feel the loss of freedom more then most. You may call me a coward, if you wish....something I hear often, from those attempting to push me to commit to actions that would discredit the Scond...and allow those ghouls the pleasure of watching me killed.
I agree it would be a suicide mission right now. The problem is that the Government keeps chipping away small parts of our gun rights. They know that if they break off too much, it will anger us greatly and we will rebel. So, they are sneaky and just chip off very small amounts that will disturb us, but not push us over the edge. This will continue until there is a very small chunk left, then they will try to grab what is remaining. I do not believe they will be able to confiscate all the firearms, but they will control the ammo. What good is a gun without ammo. You better start to stock pile now !
No...for me, the breaking point is not yet...and I feel the loss of freedom more then most. You may call me a coward, if you wish....something I hear often, from those attempting to push me to commit to actions that would discredit the Scond...and allow those ghouls the pleasure of watching me killed.
Highball, I will not call anyone a coward. Nor will I sit idlely by and watch my piece of freedom be stolen. I don't expect anyone to follow me or lead me. I don't expect anyone to be at my side (although the company would be nice). I feel pointing finger does not a lick of good. I know I have done it before, however, I won't anymore. If in my persuit I am alone, so be it. I WILL take my stand at some point. To me there is NO honor in sitting idlely by. You don't wait for a thief to steal you blind, as you sit by the curb, before you do SOMETHING. Those theiving snakes are stealing what is mine (and everyone else's too). Those that come here to harm us are no less bold than the slithering slime we call politicians. Why prey tell, should WE be so TIMID. To say, well I am not gonna give them the satisfaction, is backwards to me. If I go, so will some of them. I won't pass cowering like some would. People before me have lost blood to the fight for Liberty. Am I to be so useless that my blood can't be spilled too? In my eyes, the ONLY way Liberty will suceed, is through action. Action will not take place unless someone stands up and fights. I, sir, am quite ready for a fight.
Time to pi** you off again.
Just how selfish ARE you...anyway? You are upset...so time to go to the matresses ? YOU are smarter then people that have been studying this problem for lots of years ? Since YOU think it is time...its TIME ?
Individual violence will accomplish NOTHING except give ammunition to the gun grabbers.
That does not include resisting jack-boots in the middle of the night, of course.
Want to hurry this thing along ? Convince your friends to STOP begging rotten politicians to obey the Constitution..stop voting...drop out. Prepare yourself. Stop sending money to 'gun groups' that merely delay the inevitable.
STOP PLEADING WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS...let them have their heads..to do as they wish.
The SEDITIONIST
LEADERLESS RESISTANCE:
ISSUE 12, FEBRUARY 1992: FINAL EDITION
http://www.louisbeam.com:80/leaderless.htm
As an aside, apply this information if you would like to know why and how hard it is to root out terrorist cells world-wide and in our own country.
Excerpts from this article that made me think of some posts made on this forum:
Anyone who is so naive as to believe the most powerful government on earth will not crush any who pose a real threat to that power, should not be active, but rather, at home studying political history.
It is potential the federals fear most. Whether that potential exists in an individual or group is incidental. The federals measure potential threat in terms of what might happen given a situation conducive to action on the part of a restive organization or individual.
The Justice (sic) Department promised in 1987 that there would never be another group that opposed them that they did not have at least one informer in. These federal "friends of government" are intelligence agents.
Now there will, no doubt, be mentally handicapped people out there who, while standing at a podium with an American flag draped in the background, and a lone eagle soaring in the sky above, will state emphatically in their best sounding red, white, and blue voice, "So what if the government is spying? We are not violating any laws." Such crippled thinking by any serious person is the best example that there is a need for special education classes.
America is quickly moving into a long dark night of police state tyranny, where the rights now accepted by most as being inalienable will disappear.
Again: http://www.louisbeam.com:80/leaderless.htm
Freemind;
Time to pi** you off again.
Just how selfish ARE you...anyway? You are upset...so time to go to the matresses ? YOU are smarter then people that have been studying this problem for lots of years ? Since YOU think it is time...its TIME ?
Individual violence will accomplish NOTHING except give ammunition to the gun grabbers.
That does not include resisting jack-boots in the middle of the night, of course.
Want to hurry this thing along ? Convince your friends to STOP begging rotten politicians to obey the Constitution..stop voting...drop out. Prepare yourself. Stop sending money to 'gun groups' that merely delay the inevitable.
STOP PLEADING WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS...let them have their heads..to do as they wish.
You think your gonna make me mad? Uh, no.
You call ME selfish because I am ready to fight, yet you are not? What does the fact say, that you have observed FOR YEARS, yet are not ready to fight? You may think that makes you the smarter man, I say it simply makes me a little wiser in that respect. YOU have looked at this subject for years, studied history, and concluded that the government is corrupt. You are not yet willing to act. I have read history, concluded the government is corrupt, yet I am WILLING to get off my bum and DO something for the better. Not sit around to see how bad it WILL get. I see how bad it is now. Obviously you are somewhat comfortable with the current state of affairs, I am NOT. I am ready to change things for the better. I GIVE NOT A FIG for the gungrabbers. You will NEVER win with them. I love my country enough, I see no sarifice that I am not WILLING to give to save it. Sitting on my rump and letting it be destroyed helps nothing, despite what you may believe. You may think doing the necessary hurts the "cause" and is foolish. I know standing for whats right, being a patriot to my country, and trying to salvage the things we SHOULD hold dear, to be my DUTY. I have yet to find where in OUR history, it said we should wait until we loose everthing, before we rebel against tyranny. Your bones will be long turned dust(as well as mine) if we follow YOUR idea. My CHAINS are heavy enough, how heavy are yours? How many more whippings are you willing to take? How many more times will YOU allow yourself to be SPIT upon by those snakes? How many more times will you allow the "masters" to steal the bread from YOUR mouth? It's easier to tollerate when you have the money to get by.(I assume you have enough) BUT when you live PAYDAY TO PAYDAY like me, you get REAL tired of being hungry. Of the things that I have that I lay REAL value to, my FREEDOMS I value MOST. Those are disappearing most expediantly. Highball, you advocate the waiting game. I respect your point of view. I however, feel the opposite. I would hope you respect me as I do you. I am not asking you, nor anyone else, to accept my beliefs because I say so. I accept my beliefs because I have the ability to come to my OWN conclusions, just like anyone else.
Without a ripple...they are gone. The media blackout is total...at the most, a mere mention.
Wasted.
I remain well aware that there will of necessity be martyrs..dying on their doorsteps...I prefer them to be the spur-of-the-moment guys...guys that arn't smart enough to make a plan..or to have a bit of patience.
Not warriours that are able to think and plan. Begin to understand why I debate you ?
As a independent individual..I will respect what you decide to do.
I ask only that you think thru carefully the possible ramifications of that which you do.
Why don't we post a list of all the things we will need to do, how we can do it, and if we can't, what we need to gain the ability to do it, all for the purpose of geting back the gun rights (focusing on those, so we don't get into any real philosophical stuff) we have lost over the last century or so.
I'll come up with one and post it eventually.
What I think we need right now, is at the very least to agree on something, just between all of us here.
Why don't we post a list of all the things we will need to do, how we can do it, and if we can't, what we need to gain the ability to do it, all for the purpose of geting back the gun rights (focusing on those, so we don't get into any real philosophical stuff) we have lost over the last century or so.
I'll come up with one and post it eventually.
The first and most important thing we need to do, is to understand and recognize the Bill of Rights for what it is, i.e. a clear restraint on government.
We also must recognize the fact that the Bill of Rights has been and continues to be circumvented by our government.
If we can get to that point, we may have a chance, just maybe.
Once we are there, we need to measure all actions of government against the Bill of Rights and take appropriate action when govt fails the test....and they will, miserably.
The question is, what is appropriate action?
Voting doesn't work too well anymore, civil discourse with legislators, editorial pages, friends and others is minimally effective, marches and the occasional rally can draw attention, but are largely ineffective. Possibly massive civil disobedience of certain laws??? That would only work if a huge number of people participated and we know that won't happen.
I am not prepared to say we are ready for the Amendment II, solution. I think if things continue down the road to tyranny and world government, as they seem to be, the time will likely come.
I hope and pray not, but......
In order to reclaim our lost gun rights, all it would take is that the laws restricting firearms ownership be repealed.
Why isn't that happening?
Actually, why don't we take this from the final step, and work backwards.
In order to reclaim our lost gun rights, all it would take is that the laws restricting firearms ownership be repealed.
Why isn't that happening?
It isn't happening because of my above post.
How can we repeal anything, when most people, particularly gun owners, are ignorant of the rules of the game and accept that the government has the right (not the power, they clearly have that) to violate the Bill of Rights?
It simply isn't just firearms restrictions. It is ALL individual freedoms and ALL restrictions on government, that are being ignored, trampled on, weaseled away, compromised for one created crisis or another, and on and on and on.....
It is a much larger picture than just the gun issue. The genie is out of the bottle.
I don't see how we can fix just one part of it i.e., gun rights, the whole thing needs correction and soon.
My goal here is basically the creation of a step by step process. The Brady bunch have their step by step manifesto to their goal of a 'socialist utopian paradise', I want to create a step by step process that suddenly makes reclaiming our rights seem /possible/. Possible not just to people like you and me who would be willing to take up arms, but possible to people who AREN'T willing, yet would still do a part otherwise.
I think the reason nobody's repealing it yet is because nobody in office has the inclination to repeal them. The next step would be why that is.
In SPITE of the continuing attacks against those of us with the balls to actually STAND for something...
we are EDUCATING gun-owners on exactly WHAT the Second Amendment MEANS...something most of them refuse to ackowledge, due to the disinformation campaigns of the NRA and most other 'gun rights organizations'..
STEP ONE; Educate as many people as possible as quickly as possible into the deep, dark mysteries of what was written for 8th graders comprehension..the Constitution.
I DO NOT WANT COMPROMISERS ON MY SIDE...EVER !!!!! They weaken and water down those words we should live by.
I want strong INDIVIDUALS...not followers..to carry the banner high of freedoms and rights.
Once the base is established..people with the guts to stand their ground...THEN we can look and see if there is a chance for peaceful restoration of Rights.
My opinion..? Neve happen.
People fear what they don't understand. The Brady Bunch get mindless followers who have never been exposed to guns beyond it being ingrained in their minds by equally ignorant people that 'guns are scary dangerous things'.
I think we need to spread knowledge of the mechanics and science of firearms, and expose as many as we can to it at a young age. Far beyond the father-and-son hunting trip kind tradition that used to work in the past.
There are lots of opinins as to what the 2nd means, but there's only one opinion which counts, that of the Supreme Court. All other opinions are worthless.
Did you not learn reading and comprehension in school? You can't understand some thing like "the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"? I don't need and empty suit of a lawyer to tell me how to comprehend a sentence like that. I certainly hope you were being sarcastic in your statement. If not get educated in the bill of rights AND the constitution. Any decision OTHER than all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL goes against everything the second amendment stands for. Either you are a patriot to this country and its constitution or you are a treasonous Tory.
In my simple layperson's analysis, I think revolution requires a build-up (I think some call it a quickening), a primer (where people realize that revolution is possible and perhaps imminent), and a critical mass or spark (which there is no going back).
I think that the build-up occurs over time, and typically manifests itself as apathy, frustration, and general dissatisfaction by the populace of the current state of affairs.
Primers, which I think there can be several, are small or minor incidents that occur as a result of the build-up. They are precursors to the critical mass and may even evolve into a critical mass event.
The critical mass is the event that ultimately sets off the revolution. It may start small and seem minor, but something happens where it takes off like a wildfire through the populace and cannot be reversed. The result is unpredictable and irrevocable.
Case Study: The American Revolution
Build-up: Increased taxation, general frustration over foregn tyranny, increased oppression by British occupiers
Primers: Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party (probably several others)
Critical Mass: "The shot heard 'round the world"; battles at Lexington and Concord
In our current timeline, I think we have seen a build-up over the course of the past 140 years or so since the Civil War. The increased power of the Federal government, reinterpretation of individual rights as collective rights, increased taxation, decay of social order and morality, etc.
I think there have also been certain events that have served as "pressure release valves", if you will. The two world wars created a great deal of unity and stimulated our economy, as did the Cold War. We had general peace and prosperity through most of the 1980's and 1990's.
However, I think we have had two recent primer events. One is of course 9/11. Afterward we saw a brief period of unity, but it seems that the underlying threat revealed by that event served as a reality check to most Americans. Also, the response by the Federal government to enact stricter measures on the general populace, pressuring many of our remaining rights even further, increased the build-up. In the past, an event like this might have served as a pressure release (like Pearl Harbor), but it didn't work that way this time. Too many Americans actually blamed the Federal government for the event out of negligence or complicity.
The second primer event, that was even more of an eye-opener for me personally, was Hurricane Katrina. This event exposed the naked tyranny of the powers that be. It also proved how impotent they are in protecting or helping us during a disaster. I thought that this event might actually serve as a critical mass to the general populace, but ultimately it did subside and served only as another primer to revolution. But I do believe we are not that far away from such a critical mass event.
I just wrote this off the top of my head. Just my opinions.
WoundedWolf
People will go berserk, and start to shoot any person, that is behaving "strange", and appears to be of Middle Eastern descent.
The Gov will respond by doing what happened during Katrina, to stop the "hate crimes", against innocent Muslim appearing people.
Folks like us, and many more, will not surrender their arms,.........viola,.....the beginning!
Great post though WWolf![;)]
And the third, and final primer event, will be when 20 million Mexicans are made citizens,.........or bombs going off in our malls, and schools, because of the border "insecurity", from radical Islamists, infiltrating from that lax border.
People will go berserk, and start to shoot any person, that is behaving "strange", and appears to be of Middle Eastern descent.
The Gov will respond by doing what happened during Katrina, to stop the "hate crimes", against innocent Muslim appearing people.
Folks like us, and many more, will not surrender their arms,.........viola,.....the beginning!
Great post though WWolf![;)]
Only from my cold dead hands !
Look at the NRA [}:)]they did the same thing. A group of people got together, decided that educating young Americans about firearms was a good idea. People accepted it. Time passed, and that group became a political entity. Eventually they became money hungry and did not care about what they were founded on. [?] I don't know just a thought....if they can do it, why cant us?
If I read your post meaning correctly, there is no reason that folks like us can't form something that does a much better job than the NRA.
Welcome to Kuwait,........and back to Florida soon.