Found the headline linked article at Keep and Bear Arms, and it is unbelievable! Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Shelton made the following statement, "During states of emergency, I think police need total control. They don't need to worry who has guns and who doesn't. If the governor calls for Oklahomans to relinquish their guns, the public needs to do so."
.
Excuse me?
.
Sent the representative, (lower case intentional), the following E-Mail: mikeshelton@okhouse.gov
.
Representative,
.
Have you read the Constitution of the United States of America? Do you have any idea of the meaning of the Second Amendment to that Constitution? Have you any idea that we are a Republic? Do you realize that what you advance can be construed as Treasonous?
.
Do you know who the Legimate Authority is? Or who the Ultimate Authority is? Must I remind you, that both you and the police are public servants? And that is all? Would highly suggest that you read the Federalist Papers. As Mr. James Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 46:
.
"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."
.
You would do well to consider that you advocate direct Constitutional Violation of your Constituent's Right:
.
"Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 54
.
Disdainfully,
.
E. David Quammen
GunShowOnTheNet.com
.
Apparently this person somehow got into office without having any understanding of the Second Amendment at all. And this in a state that has experienced a direct terrorist attack! Were the police or ATF, (one of the supposed intended targets), able to stop Timothy McVeigh? Does the representative remember how many children died in that horrible act of cowardice? And that there are still those who believe that there was a deeper underlying conspiracy?
.
It is inconceivable that a representative of the people would advocate they be disarmed, especially at a time when they very well might need arms the most! Was anything learned from New Orleans at all? It made it very clear to many American citizens that government cannot be relied upon or trusted! This representative needs removed from office as soon as is humanly possible!
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Seems that Thomas had it right....
"In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known but that of persons in office exercising powers by authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar."
- Thomas Jefferson (Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786)
Reference: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., 17:8.
Quote from the Patriot Post - Founders' Quote Daily
You know, it really is to bad that Tom is considered as one of those, as many say these days, 'old dead white guy presidents' . Especially, when you read Tom's writings and see how much of a champion he was for Freedom, Liberty and Rights. Tom knew it was the average working stiff that was the backbone of America.
These days the average person has to buy, lease, or obtain permission in order to exercise a God-given Right. A Right that was supposed to be guaranteed in the United States Constitution. But now, in addition to that Right being perversely interpretted by the Usurpreme Court. We have government trampling on it, as well as those in the business 'class'.
So, I guess Tom had it wrong, for it seems that those with wealth won out after all. And the poorest laborer is led like a lamb to the slaughter.
How much more despicable does it have to get. Before We The People throw off these perverse chains that bind us, and restore our Republic back to the way it was intended? Or, will we even try?
Monday, April 24, 2006
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE;
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE;
.
Well, it seems Mr. Alexander Hamilton had a differing view from that of many of the other Framers. After consideration of the following points he raised, I'm inclined to agree with Alex....
.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
.
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired..
.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84
.
You know, it appears that Alex had a valid point, doesn’t it? For there have indeed been men, (and women), ‘disposed to usurp’. And they have indeed found ‘plausible pretense’ for claiming that power. Which fact has ‘afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government’.
What I find most interesting however, is Alex’s statement of “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous”. As well as, “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”.
“Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights”…
Alex utilized the word ‘principal’ which leads me to examine just what are the principles of the U.S. Constitution? Let’s take a look, shall we?
The Principles of the United States Constitution:
.
A good place to start would seem to be the preamble to the Constitution;
.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
.
Constitution:
1 : an established law or custom : ORDINANCE. 2 a : the physical makeup of the individual comprising inherited qualities modified by environment b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something. 3 : the act of establishing, making, or setting up. 4 : the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed. 5 a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization
A government of We the People.
Unity.
Justice.
Insurance of Domestic Tranquility.
Common Defense.
General Welfare.
Security of the Blessings of Liberty in the present and the future.
Hmmmm, seems to me we have a problem here. What do you think? Do you feel that your part of the government? Do you feel united? Is it Justice that a woman, whom fled a ruthlessly oppressive dictatorship is being treated as a criminal, for exercising a Right GUARANTEED by the First Amendment?
Are you comfortably insured of your tranquility?
Do you feel secure in the ‘common defense’? Especially, in light of the fact that the courts have ruled that, it is governments duty to provide for the ‘common defense’. But, that they have no duty to provide for individual defense. And to top that off. Many of the states want to restrict or prohibit your rightful exercise of providing for your individual defense?
Can someone please explain how that, in any way, promotes the ‘General Welfare’?
Do you feel that your ‘Liberty’ is secure? Let us examine the word ‘Liberty’. I’ve heard it used some place before….where was it? Oh yeah, now I remember;
"They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
.
Well, it seems Mr. Alexander Hamilton had a differing view from that of many of the other Framers. After consideration of the following points he raised, I'm inclined to agree with Alex....
.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
.
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired..
.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84
.
You know, it appears that Alex had a valid point, doesn’t it? For there have indeed been men, (and women), ‘disposed to usurp’. And they have indeed found ‘plausible pretense’ for claiming that power. Which fact has ‘afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government’.
What I find most interesting however, is Alex’s statement of “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous”. As well as, “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted”.
“Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights”…
Alex utilized the word ‘principal’ which leads me to examine just what are the principles of the U.S. Constitution? Let’s take a look, shall we?
The Principles of the United States Constitution:
.
A good place to start would seem to be the preamble to the Constitution;
.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
.
Constitution:
1 : an established law or custom : ORDINANCE. 2 a : the physical makeup of the individual comprising inherited qualities modified by environment b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something. 3 : the act of establishing, making, or setting up. 4 : the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed. 5 a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization
A government of We the People.
Unity.
Justice.
Insurance of Domestic Tranquility.
Common Defense.
General Welfare.
Security of the Blessings of Liberty in the present and the future.
Hmmmm, seems to me we have a problem here. What do you think? Do you feel that your part of the government? Do you feel united? Is it Justice that a woman, whom fled a ruthlessly oppressive dictatorship is being treated as a criminal, for exercising a Right GUARANTEED by the First Amendment?
Are you comfortably insured of your tranquility?
Do you feel secure in the ‘common defense’? Especially, in light of the fact that the courts have ruled that, it is governments duty to provide for the ‘common defense’. But, that they have no duty to provide for individual defense. And to top that off. Many of the states want to restrict or prohibit your rightful exercise of providing for your individual defense?
Can someone please explain how that, in any way, promotes the ‘General Welfare’?
Do you feel that your ‘Liberty’ is secure? Let us examine the word ‘Liberty’. I’ve heard it used some place before….where was it? Oh yeah, now I remember;
"They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our liberties or not, I leave you to determine."
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788)
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the LIBERTIES of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
...A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, is a miserable creature...
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Saturday, April 22, 2006
This from a friend of mine covering our behinds 'over there'....
The following is from a buddy of mine stationed over in Yemen. His name is Justin and he resigned his post as a Marine Corps. Recruiter to 'get into the mix'. Justin's a good man and I appreciate that he put his ass on the line to help secure our country from cowardly 'terrorist's'.
He has a rare rifle, at the shop I used to work at, waiting for him on his return. (It's a beauty to!).
.
Justin provided some photo's of him and some of our guys training in Yemen. And also wrote the following:
.
" Hey all. Okay, so I'm back among the living, (and clean and well fed, whew!) So they're keeping me pretty... 'busy' over here, but I just had a second to email, so I wanted to give you all an update. The specifics, of course, cannot be sent over Gmail ;) but here's what I've got. Yemen sucks. Just did some training with a counter-terrorism unit, (that doesn't exist, so don't ask,) and it was awesome! These guys are ABSOLUTELY FEARLESS! They are pretty much hunted in their own country, (they have rounded up somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 Al-Qaida in the region since the war started.) Some of the pictures I'm sending you are from our 'shoot house,' an urban training facility we use. I was an observer and evaluator for the Yemenese guys, along with some Army Special Forces guys, and then my Marines got to play. (You'll see some of the shoots we did in the pictures I'm attaching.) Unfortunately, I was observing and instructing most of the time, so I didn't get to pull triggers as much as I would have liked, but oh well. Other than that, been pretty busy with bunker drills, camp security/security patrols in the local area (and others,) etc., etc."
That' Justin with the sunglasses on the right. Thanks bud! And all our people covering us!
Friday, April 21, 2006
The Oath of Citizenship....
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
.
Excuse me? Does anyboy else see something wrong with this picture?
.
First off, how is one to support or defend the Constitution, it they have been disarmed or restricted by their perverse state government?
.
Secondly, we are expected to bear arms, (as I assume the same applies to natural citizen's as well). From where are we to get these arms if they have been restricted or banned by the states?
.
Thirdly, it is requested that this oath is sworn by affirmation to God? Did not the USurpreme Court dismiss God a few years ago? This of course, after He had lifted us up and made our nation great.
.
What kind of vile, hypocritical game are you people in government playing against us?
.
Excuse me? Does anyboy else see something wrong with this picture?
.
First off, how is one to support or defend the Constitution, it they have been disarmed or restricted by their perverse state government?
.
Secondly, we are expected to bear arms, (as I assume the same applies to natural citizen's as well). From where are we to get these arms if they have been restricted or banned by the states?
.
Thirdly, it is requested that this oath is sworn by affirmation to God? Did not the USurpreme Court dismiss God a few years ago? This of course, after He had lifted us up and made our nation great.
.
What kind of vile, hypocritical game are you people in government playing against us?
And fired the shot heard round the world.....
Concord Hymn
.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
.
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
.
Here once the embattled farmers stood
.
And fired the shot heard round the world.
.
The foe long since in silence slept;
The foe long since in silence slept;
.
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
.
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
.
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.
.
On this green bank, by this soft stream,
On this green bank, by this soft stream,
.
We set to-day a votive stone;
.
That memory may their deed redeem,
.
When, like our sires, are sons are gone.
.
Spirit, that made those heroes dare
Spirit, that made those heroes dare
.
To die and leave their children free,
.
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
.
The shaft we raise to them and thee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)