Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "Responsible Gun Ownership" is.....

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 18, 2012, 4:36 p.m. EST by FawkesNews (1290)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"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."

Obviously, there is no lack of arms in America: only a blatant lack of militia.

There simply are not enough Americans believing in America enough to die fighting for it, in America; yet America is filled with Americans hoarding weapons of all sorts, for the sole purpose of fighting to the death with other Americans.

Alas, the enemy of all Americans is the traitor; but that is not news.

115 Comments

115 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

The idea of responsible gun owner is changing rapidly as we speak. Many people who grew up in a hunting culture are stepping forward and voicing their opinions about semi-automatic weapons. For them it's about sportsmanship. Democrats are proposing limiting the size of a clip that can go in magazine. The left has gone right and the right has gone left on the issue of gun control.

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

"Gun Control" is surely forefront today. Strange that automatic weapons were readily available once, yet there were less mass shootings then. Now restrictions are looked at as a means of reducing mass shootings. There must be underlying causes not discussed, or worse.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

If these so called founding fathers got a look at today's weapons and technology they would run for the hills screaming.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Guerrilla warfare worked well. Why cant the internet work as well?

I am sure the founding fathers would have used it to the same capacity.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

No, they wouldn't be using the internet. They would get their news from print media like the politiicans in Washington do.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

I disagree in that some of those founding fathers were actually quite cutting edge in a numerous amount of ways, and would certainly have utilized the internet.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

The internet is for serfs not politicians.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Mass information accessibility is for everyone. Knowledge is power and that is not opinion.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Doesn't matter. If you lie or pontificate on the internet you get called out on it. Politicians would have to ban swearing to get a word in. They only use the internet at this time to get us to work for free.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

No politician is above truth. Many try. Even in today's world.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No internet back then. Founding fathers long dead. Get out of fantasy land!

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Enforce the Second Amendment by recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as being a requirement of National Guard membership.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/responsible-gun-ownership-is/#comment-897415

The writing of the Second Amendment has a clear history that specifically and consistently links the right to keep and bear arms to the national security provided by a well armed and regulated militia. It was written to guard against any act by the federal government to disarm the State militias in favor of a federal standing army that could pose a tyrannical threat to the liberty of the people.

Guess how that turned out.

The National Guard continues to this day but due to its inefficiency in the War of 1812, a federal standing army has replaced it as the permanent national defense force.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

You're trying to justify your position by simply imagining what you claim a president could have done. Of course, simply imagining it doesn't make it reality, especially when there is consistent context behind what was written.

George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights:

c. May 20, 1776

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Then, 12 years later:

"That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."

June 8, 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17, 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24, 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25, 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

September 4, 1789

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

September 9, 1789

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

September 21, 1789

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.

As seen in the Uniform Militia Act three years later on May 8, 1792, certain citizens were legally required to maintain their own arms for mandatory militia participation.

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Dispite state militia participation being mandatory, when the Whiskey Rebellion occured in 1794, the war department had to provide the majority of the militia with the required weapons as most simply hadn't provided them for themselves. By the middle of the War of 1812, the failure of maintaining a well regulated militia for national defense had become apparent resulting in the establishment of a national standing army.

They didn't have to write:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

They already knew that

"a well regulated militia"

was

"composed of the Body of the People"

those "People" being

"[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States".

They knew the context of their own writings and didn't need to specify unnecessary details for unborn individuals over 200 years into their unimagined future.

"[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" "composed" "the Body of the People" of "a well regulated militia" for which "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

As clearly seen, the well regulated militia is the subject defined as being composed of the Body of the People. The militia is first and foremost the context in which the Body of the People is consistently referenced. It goes without saying that the militia did not include people who weren't in the militia (as such a position is obviously self-contradictory). The Body of the People in reference did not include everyone as the reference to the Body of the People in every instance is clearly seen to compose the militia. The People in reference cannot in any logical way be divorced from the militia that consistently provides the context of their reference.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Incorrect generalization. References to 'the people' have contexts as already pointed out. The context of the people referred to in the 2nd Amendment is both specific and consistently seen. References to the people outside of the context specifically provided in the 2nd Amendment can in no way be thought to be automatically subject to that same context and vice versa. The writer and editors of the 2nd Amendment chose the context of its meaning. In the end, they didn't write

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

as many would like it to be and as the framers simply could have written if that had been what they had intended. Instead, in the end, they had clearly written

"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."

something totally wacky and unnecessary if the specific context of the militia referred to had not been intended.

Added to this is the fact that a firearm couldn't be used as a means of personal self-defense. A well trained person with a musket took at least 10 seconds to reload. Muskets were used in conjunction with other armed men who would be firing while others were reloading. A sword was an individual's means of personal self-defense and didn't begin to diminish in use until after 1814 when semi-automatic weapons began to be invented. Firearms, at the time of the 2nd Amendment, were a means of collective self-defense, not individual.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

As already pointed out, in the consistent context of the writings resulting in the 2nd Amendment, all members of "the people" are indeed members of "the militia".

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

As clearly seen, the statement wasn't

"all members of "the people" are indeed members of "the militia".

The statement was

"As already pointed out, in the consistent context of the writings resulting in the 2nd Amendment, all members of "the people" are indeed members of "the militia"."

which is absolutely correct.

[-] 1 points by Narley (525) 1 year ago

Yep, that’s the way the SCOTUS interprets the 2nd amendment.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Up until the end of the last century.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-second-amendments-history/

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

consitution, article l , section 8 part 16,was written in 1787, is about a militia ( army) .the bill of rights ( second amendment ) was written in 1791 , is about separate citizens, men , women and children,.........(the people) whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Interesting.

Will this national guard be called upon to enhance the oppressive powers of the existing hierarchy?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

As in 1794, so today.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

I was referring to the Whiskey Rebellion.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Of course. I should have known. You are absolutely right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Two hundred years ago, a plough was a significant tool for putting food on the table. No one depended on hunting to survive.

The Second Amendment is all about national security, not hunting. This is clearly seen in the modifications made towards its realization.

June 8, 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 17, 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

August 24, 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

August 25, 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

September 4, 1789

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

September 9, 1789

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

September 21, 1789

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.

As seen in the Uniform Militia Act three years later on May 8, 1792, certain citizens were legally required to maintain their own arms for mandatory militia participation.

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394

When the Whiskey Rebellion occured in 1794, the war department had to provide the majority of the militia with the required weapons as most simply hadn't provided them for themselves. By the middle of the War of 1812, the failure of maintaining a well regulated militia for national defense had become apparent resulting in the establishment of a national standing army.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

What a great post.

An armed and prepared populace is less likely to fall prey to oppressive elements from without or worse, from within. It is obvious that the people who wrote this amendment were aware of subversives that would attempt to usurp what they had created.

Thanks for the concise and well composed education.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

From without: we got that covered with the most powerful military in human history. And ruled/controlled by civilian authority!!

From within? We have no defense but people power against this most powerful military. All the guns in America would not slow down the US military for a minute.

The real, more powerful defense against tyranny from within is an engaged population.

That is why we call for all the 99% to Occupy with us WITHOUT their guns!

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Your permalinks deter me.

Thank you.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't know what you mean?

Heres some logic you could appreciate I think.

http://www.upworthy.com/the-most-rational-2-sentences-about-gun-regulation-on-the-internet-right-now?c=upw1

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Several of the forefathers wrote to posterity to succinctly define the second amendment; we can dismiss these words as individual opinion but it was these very opinions that shaped the amendment, so, in my mind their interpretation is very valid. If we are to disregard the words of the Founders in their entirety then we no longer need a Supreme Court; dismiss them as well. And in the future we sill serve at the King's pleasure, without rights, not in a Nation of Law but in a nation of arbitrary law.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

If they were hunting to survive, it was through selling their kills, not by simply consuming them. Ammo costs money and an empty musket kills nothing unless used as a crude club. And not even the Inuit live on meat alone. If you live in a stationary location instead of following a herd, you can only hunt so much in a given area.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

It also was not common. The Virginia militia at the beginning of the Revolution had NO guns, none. Some of the other militias had less that half of their members possessing guns. The most common weapon was pikes and halberds. "Let me see your halberd license, Sir." Oh and very few of the guns were rifles. Most were muskets, either matchlocks or flintlocks. I am willing to allow any registered militia member to be armed with either, if they think their halberd isn't deadly enough.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I think they had four, so that was two apiece. They were darned expensive, no Walmart, so they were custom built by that expensive American labor.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

And even he was too busy making maple furniture to get too involved, so his brother was the Green Mountain Boy. The rest of that was echos. I read it on that Internment net thingy.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I stand corrected, but you know I meant well.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

He lost his head? While others were keeping theirs? Shocking. Just kidding.

I had some in Maine, Connecticut and many in Massachussets. Some involved in Shays's Rebellion, leading to the Bill of Rights.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So we got the "not be infringed" part down cold (300 million guns?)

It's the "well regulated" part that we've neglected.

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

"Well regulated" by whom?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Must be well regulated by the people that own the people that pass the laws.The laws that favor the people Who own the people that pass the laws.Any questions?

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

King George III also made similar laws, with similar intentions. He fared poorly doing so. Do you think others may follow his lead?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Seems to be a pattern of our occupation by a few.Yes we have been occupied for to long.No relief in sight.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Of course there is relief in sight. It is difficult and arduous but it is in sight. So many previously accepted ideas are being transformed through facts and the sharing of them that is in impossible for the powers that be to continue to shape the minds of the masses through old media channels.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Hope your right.Do not think I will see it in my time.Maybe in yours.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Exponential change is taking place everywhere around the world. You may be wrong and I hope you are.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

How is King Georges actions related? No logical comparison.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

The laws King George had passed in the colonies were for the benefit of England, not America. Today's laws are written and passed by and for the few ruling elite. Logical enough?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We are in the process of taking back the govt from the corp 1% plutocrats.

This effort, which is making only slow progress is & will remain non violent.

Are you suggesting we "recruit" and arm a militia to overthrow the US govt by a violent "secession"?

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

We are hopefully taking back the government from the ultra violent, nearly inhuman plutocrats that have stolen it from right under our noses.

This non-violent progress may or may not actuate change. the end results have yet to be experienced.

Your last ad hominem escapes me, as I never used the word "recruit".

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (1071) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

We really do have a window of opportunity thanks to Bradley Manning and Wikileaks.They slammed THAT barn door shut superfast but TOO LATE!LOL!

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Too late is right. The internet and the truth are moving faster than 'any' news outlet can weave the truth into a marketable product.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

They have not stolen it.It has been there's from the get go.Replacing one with another never works out.Meet the new boss same as the old boss.The institutions must change.If not we in the same boat with a new Captain.

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Slight of hand tricks have removed the government from the people, thievery nonetheless. Previous generations depended upon controllable media to administer the truth. Today the truth is deduced from a variety of sources by each person.The new boss eventually will be artificial intelligence and will treat all equally.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You said:

"They recruited from farms and villages through taverns and inns. We have the internet for recruiting and information sharing."

That's you suggesting we use the internet to recruit (as the minutemen recruited to overthrow the British govt) presumably to overthrow the US govt.

Right?

Why are you backtracking? You wanna recruit people on the internet to overthrow the US govt. That IS what all your comments are about.

Don't be ashamed you're not alone. many people contend this is why we need gun rights. Isn't that what your point is.?

That

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Summed up....

My point is that there are enough guns in private possession in America to actually prevent any false government from invading the homes of Americans.

Unfortunately, far too many of those gun owners are more afraid of their fellow Americans than they the false government of America.

The internet is a weapon of its own, as it exposes falsehoods and ulterior motives of those intent upon usurping the 'all' of America.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

None of the 200million guns in civilian hands can stop the most powerful army in human history.

Sorry. That is just ridiculous.

The only viable option is the non violent approach that OWS has adopted.

If you can't see that I ask you think it through.

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

You really believe the US military is susceptible to totalitarian enforcement of their own homes? Many of those gun owners are patriots. Do you account for them?

While non-violent means have inherent potency when mastered, the violent means are used without hesitation by those with oppressive intent. OWS has highly violent opposition.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Violence is a vacant path.

The US Army can not be depended on to fight alongside some rebellious secessionists as you suggested earlier.

Non violent protest is the only appropriate path. We are most powerful when take the more difficult path of non violence.

Put violence out of your mind. It is a poisonous elixer. It will make you drunk with illusions of impossible glorious victories.

That only happens in the movies. (Red Dawn)

Our victory will by over years of struggle, slow progress, setbacks and difficulties. Batten down, hold on. It gets bumpy from here.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The American people? Who else?

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

In the way that the original 80 minutemen became hundreds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Not likely. I mean that was a quarter millennium ago. We were a tiny semi country with no standing army facing a threat from the superpower of the day. The types of weapons that existed 250 years ago were very different.

There are other differences, too many differences to compare to that time.

Do you think there is some similarities to colonial times?

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

A huge percentage of the population then was overtaxed by a government that did not represent them. We too. They were oppressed with military superiority and overcame that oppression through guerrilla warfare. We too. They recruited from farms and villages through taverns and inns. We have the internet for recruiting and information sharing.

The American Revolution was no revolution at all. It was a successful war of Secession. This time the traitors and usurpers live among us.

So yes I think there are some profound similarities. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Only Washington DC is taxed without representation. Is that who you are talkin about?

We are not "oppressed with military superiority" We ARE the superior military that oppresses other country. No power threatens us.

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.” The great Pres A Lincoln

We are the most powerful nation on earth. Who are you fighting against.? Who are you recruiting to fight against?

You mentioned no similarities only unrelated realities from a quarter millennium ago.

You gotta come into the 21st century boss.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

All of America payed to bailout banks that control our government. Not just DC.

We have so much military authority that oppression spills over into our own streets. We oppress ourselves.

Danger comes not as a frontal assault but as an insidious infection of our government, our banking and our very ideology of brotherhood. As free men we would live forever, but are we truly free?

Recruiting? Refrain from such folly. please.

If after all this time on this forum you ask me such ridiculous questions that so many understand clearly, I have but one question to ask you. Where are your loyalties?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am loyal to the great American experiment of government of the people, by the people, for the people. I am loyal to the current effort of taking our govt back from the corp 1% plutocrats NON VIOLENTLY.

We elected the pols who approved the bailout!

We the people still have more power (without guns) than the people in power.

Contemplating armed struggle to take back our govt is ridiculous. What kind of moron didn't learn from the lost cause of the ignorant Confederate States of America?

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Your loyalty falters if non violence fails?

Elected officials approving the bankruptcy of a nation?

The people will always have more power than any government. So long as they are aware of that simple fact.

Armed struggle? Cease insinuating things. Please. May the internet and knowledge replace armed struggle for you yet?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your thread is about gun ownership, You have referred repeatedly to some non sensical comparison to the armed minutemen who overthrew the british authority.

Why are you pretending you mean something else.?

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

My thread is about the right to retain arms. There are clearly enough arms in America. It is the militia America lacks, or does it?

Americas militia today is within the armed services, the police forces and many other decent organizations of Americans. It has been dissolved and divided into citizens and officers. Loyalties have become blurry and misplaced. America needs its militia now more than ever and that is why that amendment remains. When officers realize that they themselves are first and foremost citizens, then there will again be no way for a traitorous organization to control the government of America.

Until then, guns will be hoarded by those who are more prepared to die over a can of soup in a gun battle with their fellow citizen then they would be willing to reclaim the government from those who have divided them.

If you are unable to see that, I ask you think it through.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

No soup for you!!

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

By then soup will be readily available on the black market out of the trunk of a car with some shady salesman.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why does America need a militia now more than ever.? To deal with the US govt being controlled by "traitorous organizations"?

Guns are useless in that regard. The only viable option is the non violent approach that OWS has adopted.

If you are unable to see that, I ask you think it through.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

A militia comprised of Americans from all branches of service as well as private volunteers is an asset and an ally to the overthrowing of bankers in government. Peaceful nonviolent resistance is obviously a first choice, but to disenfranchise responsible patriots with weapons is foolish.

I ask you think that over.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We are all patriots. No one more patriotic than those who can navigate the recapture of the peoples govt through the peaceful non violent methods our great form of govt provides.

First choice and ONLY choice. A militia CANNOT help and is NOT "an ally to the overthrowing of bankers in government"

Sorry. you are mistaken. Use of weapons in this effort is a woeful mistake that they await most anxiously. They know how to deal with the choice of violence. They wrote the book.

We are never more powerful than when we wield only the truth. And when we wield it together in large numbers.

Get the notion of guns, militia, violence to take back the peoples govt out of your head. It is a non starter.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

What our colonials complained of specifically was "virtual" representation and that's a pretty fair assessment of our present condition.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

nah. nothing of the kind. that was a vastly different set of circumstances and a quarter millennium ago.

Stop fantasizing. get into the 21st century.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Parliament argued that the colonials were fairly represented; the colonial complaint was not one of no representation; it was one of "virtual representation." Those were their exact words. And that is precisely what occurs in America today: representatives so far distanced that they no longer represent constituents. It is virtual representation; it exists in essence but not in actual fact.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Nope. We each vote directly, ACTUALLY for our representatives.

I can't even say "good try" It's a weak try.

A stretch. Vastly different circumstances, a quarter millennium ago!

Come join us in the 21st century as we take the peoples govt back from the corp 1% oligarchs using the 21st century methods of non violence.

Join OWS. We need you!

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Only Washington DC is taxed without representation. Is that who you are talkin about?

Parliament argued that the colonials were fairly represented; the colonial complaint was not one of no representation, it was one of "virtual representation." Those were their exact words. And that is precisely what occurs in America today: representatives so far distanced that they no longer represent constituents. It is virtual representation; it exists in essence but not in actual fact.

"Virtual representation" is the phrase these colonials used and it's the very same phrase we have chosen to use today.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We have absolutely NOT chosen "virtual representation" today. And that was not used back then either.

Regardless, we have to take our govt back from the corp 1% oligarchs, and we WILL do that if we stay true to our non violent approach.

Get out of the 1700's. Come into the 21st century and join us in defeating the 1% corp oligarchs.

Support the 99%. Tax the rich! End the wars, public healthcare option,

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Yea, virtual representation is exactly what most Americans are thinking. What's interesting about this is that in the modern era it is derived of computer speak; really interesting to find they used the exact same words in pre-Revolutionary, Parliamentary argument.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Get out of the 1700's.

The 99% need all people to stop fantasizing about Some glamorized, romanticized, hollywood vision of colonial resistance.

Identify the pols who do not support the 99%! vote out any pol who does not support taxing the rich. They work for the 1% corp oligarchs, not the people that make up the 99%.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Imagine that much power in the hands of the average.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

At one point in America it would have been ridiculous to consider that there were so many apathetic and indifferent citizens in blind support of those wishing to fleece the country of its future. Those cannons were in the hands of patriots prepared to defend their fellow citizenry.

Today, the the people of America have been thoroughly harvested of any potential for an improved future and traitors openly decide policy that could never be considered as acting for the betterment of the American people.

Sure there are more nut jobs who would wheel one of those about with evil intent, but to deny a true patriot the right to keep on hand a defensive tool in readiness against possible a government usurped by traitorous elements is foolhardy. Yes cannons are excessive for such purposes.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Spectacular.

I thank you for the inspiration and motivation you just gave me. I do not believe that a well informed population would ever stray from the ideals you have lived by. It is through the dissolution of education and the implementation of selfish greed that America has allowed itself to stray so distant from such realities.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

yawn

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

That's it? Why even type that in at all?

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

While describing the many words that describe such few words, the author chooses to add even more words describing the many words about the few words originally described. Thus joining the many authors describing the description of what a few authors have written.

Thank you for the it though.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You didn't read it. Good to know. The second amendment was a nonissue and was not looked at in the way that you have described above.

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Ad hominems? There was no standing army at the time, what were they to do? They knew of the dangers of private armies and of the means to balance that. Militias need not be armed, just organized. Is OWS not a militia?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Hahahahaha. No.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Nope.

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

I suppose a militia need be organized.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And armed. We are non violent.

We are more powerful without guns.

Get it?

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

A weapon need not be used to have prowess.

Non violence has to be adhered to at all cost to prove effective.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Now your talkin.

Gun ownership has nothing to do with taking the peoples govt back from the corp 1% oligarchs.

That is crazy talk. We must dismiss that non sense, denounce those who suggest it.

Well regulated militia is fine. So let's regulate WELL. And let's insist that all gun owners spend a weekend once a month training in the state national guard. Register ALL guns, and so forth.

That'll do it.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Thanks.

Agreed

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aiight then.

We cannot defeat our enemies with all the guns in America. But we do need you and all the people we can muster.

"The people united can never be defeated"

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Thanks again.

I am simply not willing to disallow the inclusion of so many great Americans who are trained in weapons. Those very people are our military, our police and even our neighbors; and we need them very much. Many of their coworkers are willing to perpetrate violence upon their fellow Americans in defense of an ideology that is only supportive of the 1%. They could not be aware of what they do and that is why we need those that are aware.

"The people united can never be defeated"

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

As long as we all know that if we "allow" through our support and encouragement of gun use in the effort to take back the peoples govt we are encouraging those gun users a fate ofdeath and imprisonment.

Gun use in our good efforts means by definition that we have failed.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Wrooooooooong again.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

That's about as historically inaccurate as one can possibly get.

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Inaccuracies?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

What the Second Amendment actually implies is the right of revolution inherent in our Constitution; militias date to the very first planting; fully functional arms, as I would assume you know, were to be provided by the individual as a contribution to mutual defense; shot and powder were provided through common stores paid for by the tax payer.

But the whole point of the Second Amendment was to ensure the Right of Revolution be preserved which the forefathers believed could only facilitated through private ownership of arms. It is imperative that we retain sufficient fire power to present a significant challenge.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

I disagree with nothing you have stated. Private armies and private firearm ownership are much different.