"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed." _________________________________________________________________________ "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson _________________________________________________________________________ Shredding the lies one slice at a time....
Friday, February 27, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Sunday, February 22, 2015
General Sir William Napier: "It is civilians, politicians, who make war, and that too, not for the honor of Moloch, but of Mammon", July 15, 1852
One of the sentimentalities of the day, uttered in newspapers, as Peace Societies,–is that Military men are favorable to War, and therefore, not to be trusted. It is true, the people have almost uniformly decided in favor of Soldiers. But the idea remains with a good many people, who have good sense and are governed by good motives. It is singular, there should be doubt on the subject, when History can be appealed to for the origin of every War. In England and the United States nothing is more notorious, than that Military Men neither make Wars nor advise them, nor direct them, except only in the actual movements of the field. It is civilians, politicians, who make war, and that too, not for the honor of Moloch, but of Mammon;–
The quest[i]on was lately discussed in England by two men among the most competent in the world to discuss it and settle in favor of the Military Man. They were Samuel Gurney. Chairman of the Peace Society, and General Sir William Napier. The Times reported that Gurney, at a meeting of the Peace Society, in reference to the Caffre War, had said that it was a bad principle to have the Governor at the Cape, that there had been since 1837 “a constant reference to the Sword.”“—–The last erected spirit that fell,
From Heaven.—–”
General Napier addressed a letter to Guerney, in which he stated, that at that very date, 1832, Sir George Napier become Governor of the Cape and for eight years peace and Christianity had been cultivated, the Colonial debt reduced, public schools founded, and every thing left in peace and prosperity. Napier concludes, as to the comparison of military men and commercial men, with this pointed question: “What manner of men be they who have supplied the Caffres with fire-arms and ammunition in their savage and deplorable wars? Assuredly they are not military.” Gurney, in reply, admits these facts; but says, Sir Geo. Napier is an exception, and appears to the present Caffre war; but says of military men–”Trained up as they are to the sword, they are far too liable to look to the sword for the settlement of international disputes.”
This is a general proposition, and Napier sweeps it down at once by incontrovertible facts. He writes: “I say unto thee, that since the days of the Marlborough, military men have never had recourse at all to the sword for the settlement of international disputes, and it is not becoming to charge them with it as an offence. Mark, friend, political, and commercial men they are who have always find recourse to the sword.–He makes war, but he does not declare it. The political men declare war, and generally for commercial interests; but when the nation is thus embroiled with its neighbors, the soldiers save it from danger.”
General Napier then significantly asks whether Greenville, who made the Stamp act and the war with America, was a miltary man? Whether Pitt who made the long war with France, was a military man? Whether the East India Company, who conquered India, were military men? Was Warren Hastings or Lord Wellesly military men? Was it military men who made the Affghan war? the Punjaub war? and a war to force opium on China? And was it military men who caused the African Slave Trade, with all its African war? We say that in the history of England and America, for the last hundred years, that question is settled. Military men have fought battles, but not made wars. We have just had a most signal example of this. Who made war with Mexloo? and who fought its battles?–Mr. Polk and his civil administration, not one of them military, made war with Mexico–while Scott, Taylor, and their fellow-patriots won the battles.
Scott, the great military Captain of the country, is, perhaps, one of the most peaceful men in it, and who has, on more than one occasion, preserved the peace of the country when a very little indiscretion would have caused a war. Witness the Maine frontier when troops were marching on both sides–Seott, by availing himself of a personal friendship with the British Governor, prevented a collision and saved the administration from its difficulties.
So on the Niagara Frontier, when the slightest outbreak would have made war, he moved about, the minister of peace. And so in Mexico–he is at this moment charged, as a crime, with waiting and listening to the overtures of peace. Peace was the object of his movements, and he resorted to battle only when negotiation failed.
It is a little singular that an idea as plausible, and so caught at by many people should be so peremptorily negatived by actual history as that military men are disposed to make war, for wars sake. Young men may, and do desire the glory of victorious battle, but young men do not command even regiments, and experienced military men do not desire war. Why should they?
[Glasgow Weekly Times, City Of Glasgow [MO.], Thursday Morning, July 15, 1852. Vol. 13. No. 20. Pg. 1]
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
So much for the "sporting purpose" ruse....
Here’s another “war arm” article similar to this previous post. Only this one has more “authority” behind it.
Legislature of Tennessee Committee: “The invention can be applied to any species of fire arm–either the pistol, shot gun or rifle . . . It will answer for a sporting gun, or for target shooting; and in battle it must necessarily be the most destructive fire arm ever used. It can be fired with certainty at least 40 times in a minute”, Feb. 21, 1852
Legislature of Tennessee Committee: “The invention can be applied to any species of fire arm–either the pistol, shot gun or rifle . . . It will answer for a sporting gun, or for target shooting; and in battle it must necessarily be the most destructive fire arm ever used. It can be fired with certainty at least 40 times in a minute”, Feb. 21, 1852
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Monday, February 16, 2015
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Saturday, February 14, 2015
6-15-1850: "By game laws, the tax on fire arms, the English people are ignorant of the use of the latter; such ignorance being as remarkable as the general knowledge of their use in America."
“The
chief military authority of England, just before Louis Phillippe
decamped, wrote a famous letter to prove that England was utterly
exposed to French Invasion. That authority was right. England was
exposed to dynamic aggressions. By game laws, the tax on fire arms, the
English people are ignorant of the use of the latter; such ignorance
being as remarkable as the general knowledge of their use in America.
When Napoleon conquered the armies of a country he did not care for the
peasantry, who were not used to fire arms.”–Europe By An American, No.
XI. Paris Correspondence of The Tribune. Paris, Thursday, May 30, 1850.
[New-York Daily Tribune, New-York, Saturday, June 15, 1850. Vol. X. . . .
. . . No. 2860. Pg. 6]
Friday, February 13, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Monday, February 09, 2015
It's high time....
That We The People kick the grossly overgrown fat snout of our collective hired servants in the federal government back into its Constitutionally delegated position. These wannbe petty tyrants were hired, in part, to "SECURE the blessings of Liberty." Not to tell us what our liberties are, or when and where we can exercise them. Most of the States in the Union are worthy of the same treatment....
More communists move to America....
According to The Daily Crescent, New Orleans, Friday Morning, December 1, 1848. Volume I. . . . . . Number 233. Pg. 3:
Icarian Colony .—We mentioned some weeks since that the French colonists who settled in the Cross Timbers last year, had become discouraged and were about to return to France. It appears, however, that another colony, with more ample means, and of superior numbers, is soon to succeed them. It is stated that the third pioneer division of the Icarian Colony, under the guidance of M. Mazet, has started from Havre for the colony in Texas. The next division was to follow them in October. This company will be under the direction of M. Pepin. The colonists are well supplied with fire arms, provisions, etc., and will take with them a quantity of grain, garden seeds and agricultural implements. They will also bring some choice shepherd dogs. We infer from this that they intend to engage in the raising of sheep.[More like they intended to make American citizens "sheep".]
Also see:
Sunday, February 08, 2015
I've been rioting on the railroad....
The
Daily Crescent, Riot On The Cheshire [N.H.] Railroad, “and fire-arms
were freely used . . . dispelled the rioters, after one discharge of
musketry”, Aug. 16, 1848
And it goes like this:
And it goes like this:
- I've been rioting on the railroad
- All the live-long day.
- I've been rioting on the railroad
- Just to pass the time away.
- Can't you hear the pistols blowing,
- Rise up so early in the morn;
- Can't you hear the captain shouting,
- "Dinah, blow your horn!"
- Dinah, won't you blow,
- Dinah, won't you blow,
- Dinah, won't you blow your horn?
- Dinah, won't you blow,
- Dinah, won't you blow,
- Dinah, won't you blow your horn?
- Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah
- Someone's in the kitchen I know
- Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah
- Strummin' on the old banjo!
- Singin' fee, fie, fiddly-i-o
- Fee, fie, fiddly-i-o-o-o-o
- Fee, fie, fiddly-i-o
- Strummin' on the old banjo. . . .
Saturday, February 07, 2015
Friday, February 06, 2015
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Monday, February 02, 2015
3-4-1846: “Discharging Fire Arms. Joshua Bigus, (colored,) charged with firing a pistol in the street . . . Justice Wright discharged him yesterday morning by paying a fine of $1 and costs.”
Perhaps the following article should be clarified as to its significance. Maryland was a SLAVE state at that time.
American Republican And Baltimore Daily Clipper, “Discharging Fire Arms. Joshua Bigus, (colored,) charged with firing a pistol in the street . . . Justice Wright discharged him yesterday morning by paying a fine of $1 and costs.”, March 4, 1846
American Republican And Baltimore Daily Clipper, “Discharging Fire Arms. Joshua Bigus, (colored,) charged with firing a pistol in the street . . . Justice Wright discharged him yesterday morning by paying a fine of $1 and costs.”, March 4, 1846
Proper regulation....
Vermont
Senate, “Bill Introduced. By Mr. J. Barrett, authoring villages to
regulate the discharge of fire arms in their limits”, Oct. 27, 1845
Many of theses laws/regulations failed to include an exemption for the use of arms in Self-Defense. Although, I believe Vermont has always been a Constitutional carry state. So it must have been assumed in this instance....
Many of theses laws/regulations failed to include an exemption for the use of arms in Self-Defense. Although, I believe Vermont has always been a Constitutional carry state. So it must have been assumed in this instance....
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)