Jump to content

Patriot1069

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Patriot1069

  • Groups I Belong To

  • Rank
    American Patriot
  • Location Hamburg, PA, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

100 profile views
  1. I would be interested in that as well. Unfortunately, somewhere after the turn of the century, the government turned away from the militia to favor the Military since they were easier to control. The States disbanded them in favor of the National Guard for the same reason. Since there are no amendments or laws to strip them of their duties, they are still a viable force and the States should be bound to their edicts. I agree with you on this subject. There is so much that we can learn when we take history, documentation, and an understanding of how people thought during that time. We have a treasure trove of that material from the Civil War in forms, documents, and letters from the soldiers themselves but very little from our forefathers.
  2. Those are good questions. I am no scholar on this subject either. I look at what was going on at the time and what was available to our founding fathers then, as opposed to what we have had since. I can only give my view point based on historical facts and the documents from that time, such as the ones mentioned, the Federalist Papers, and the Magna Carta. Then I try to put myself in their mindset to see how they would perceive our dilemma today. I welcome feedback from you and others on anything I say because I may have overlooked something or to give me something to think about. Lets start with the first question. If we look at the time just after our government was formed and executed their assigned duties to create our military and law enforcement we find the Militia filling our military needs. From the time of the Indian wars of the late 1600’s until the early 1800’s. West Point Academy was founded in 1802 and reorganized in 1817. We can find the first use of the Regular Army in the Mexican-American War in 1846. From that point I would assume there was no longer a need for the Militia. Now some scholars would say that with the formation of the National Guard they became the Militia. I would disagree since it does not meet the Article 1 Section 8 requirements. Under that provision it requires the State to institute training and appoint the officers. It fails at that point since training is provided at the Federal level at Federal bases with the regular Military personel and the Officers are assigned at that level with Academy trained graduates and are promoted from that level as well. Now let’s look at the law enforcement end. The first police force was established in Boston in 1838. New York City established theirs in 1845. Before that it was Sheriffs, Constables, and Nightwatches who enforced laws while Justices of the Peace would conduct trials. From the beginning the Militia was not mandated to handle the day to day enforcement of laws especially since they were to busy fighting off Native Americans who were on the British or French “payroll” or helping the Army Lets look at each ones scope of duty. The Military scope is to protect the Country from outside threats and to take the war to the enemy. This keeps the enemy off our soil and not a threat to our citizenry. The only time it was used against an enemy on our soil was The Civil War. There is still some contention that the Militia was called in at that point. With units formed according to states by volunteers it is a good argument to say that they were called in to stop the insurrection. My take on it is slightly different. Since the Army of the Potomac was already in existence and based out of Maryland/DC area, I feel the units were intended to fill out the ranks of the regular army due to other duties in other parts of the Country (The Regular Army Before The Civil War 1845-1860, by Clayton Newell). Quite the same as the National Guard today. If we turn to page 27 of the noted book, we see where the regular Infantry was scattered through out the Country just before the Civil War broke out. The law enforcement scope as we know is very different. It’s main function is to maintain the peace and enforce the Laws of the Land. The second aspect has been watered down with laws that are not in agreement with the Constitution. There in lies the problem. We have several separate law enforcement divisions who do different functions within the enforcement duties. First we have the police including State Police. They handle the main enforcement of laws from traffic to murder cases. Sheriffs handle more judicial enforcement and Second Ammendment duties. The last is the Federal police force such as the FBI. They handle high profile cases and crimes that cross state lines. They are more of an investigative division of law enforcement. They do not answer to the people, and like the police are not elected. They answer directly to the President. The Militia is like you said, the stopgap between both. The Militia is made up of the citizenry to aid and assist the Military as needed for short term reinforcement. They handle situations on a local level primarily. While the Military protects the Country from outside, the Militia handles internal protection of the citizens from domestic threats. They are charged with protecting our Constitution and ensure our Independence. They maintain our Republic as it was intended to be. As Ben Franklin said when asked what we have got, he said, “A Republic if you can keep it”. This s where the Declaration of Independence comes into play. As previously quoted, that when any government becomes destructive to the rights of the people the Militia is there to enforce a change or abolishment of that government and bring the nation back into order. It is their mandate to ensure the proper function of the government itself to not trample the rights of the People. Finally, as for how they work together according to the framework. The Constitution was specifically limited in framing our government because of States Rights. Each State has its own Constitution which frames the specific rights of it's citenzry and Laws of that state. The two types had to agree with each other but not cross lines of responsibilities. As with everything there are grey areas that even scholars find points of argument to support their cases. I will only bring in one point to save time. Each of the three forces have a similar oath to protect and defend our Constitution. It is that oath that binds each to their own course. If there is a threat to the Constitution then we are all bound to stand against that threat even against a runaway government that is corrupted to the point of being detrimental to the People and the Constitution. This is only my opinion on how I see it. I hope I answered your questions.
  3. I find his take on the topic interesting as well. I do have a couple points that I would like to get your take on. First point, he mentioned the military is the militia which is what the general consensus is. Point two is his interpretation of the Constitution. Both of which I disagree with like most Constitutional Scholars. On the first point, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution there was no regular military. The French was our Navy, Militias were our Army. We had no ships of our own, and the Marines didn’t exist yet. So to call the Militia our military would be incorrect. When the war was over the militia went back to their farms or cities to their jobs. Under Article 1 Section 8, it establishes the duty of the House to “raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money’s to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and for for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”. As for point two, we see that the Militia is a separate entity apart from the military. Congress has the ability to call on the Militia to enforce the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. Let’s look at that point first. Under Article 6, it states that “the Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land...”. If we look at the article closely the first thing we notice is that the Constitution is first in line which shows that the Constitution is the bar that all laws shall be based upon. Any Law that is contrary to it is null and void but Laws that agree with it can stand as a part of the Law of the Land and the Union. The next part is to suppress insurrection. If we look at recent societal issues, we see our country is being divided in two factions. The first faction is the Republican faction which stands with the Republic style of governance and is Pro-Constitution. The other is Socialist/Communist faction of the extreme left which has dominated the second party of our biparty system. It is safe to say that Socialism/ Communism is anti Constitutional which makes those who support it a clear and present danger to the Country and the Laws of the Land. Now I will not say they are insurrectionists as of yet but they are something we need to keep an eye on. As for repealing invasion, this is a tricky subject. We all think of invasion as something coming in from outside our borders but what if that invasion happens from within. Domestic enemies like Antifa, homegrown terrorist groups, or even groups among refugees. Even those groups that are asylum recipients who are known to have high security compounds spread out across the country. Even the illegal immigration can be classified as an invasion. These illegals are of different nationalities including terrorists and cartel members or gang members. I think it is safe to say that we are in the midst of such an invasion. I think we are ignoring the original reason for the formation of the Militia. This reason is one that the military can not fulfill because the military is subservient to the government by law. For the reason we must look at another document which is older. Where the Constitution was ratified in 1787 this document was ratified 11 years earlier. The Declaration of Independence gives the reason for our very existence. Without this document the Constitution means nothing. Without this document the Constitution would not be the Law of the Land and it wouldn’t even exist. ”When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect of the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Seperation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it’s Foundation on such Principles, and organizing it’s Powers in such Form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” These are the words given to a Tyrant. As unjust as King George was we today are suffering under the Tyranny of our own elitists governing us. These “servants” of the people have now become the rulers of the People. They no longer represent the People but discharge their power to enact their own elitist ideals. They have exposed us to invasion by illegal aliens, drugs and cartel members, gang members from groups like MS13, La Familia, Los Rojos, etc.. They have become corrupt. They have disregarded the rule of law. They have abused their powers given them by the Constitution including Lay and Collect taxes, they give money to other countries instead of paying the debts of our Country and spending tax payer money on Appropriations not granted them by Article 1 Section 8. They have exempted themselves from all Laws they pass. I could go on and on with all the violations but we are well aware of the abuses. The founding fathers never meant for the Constitution to be weaponized against the people or to be ignored just to further a political agenda. Speaking of weaponizing, to use the Patriot act against the people is an egregious violation of trust in our government. It is this reason that the Militia is separate and a vital part of our very existence.
  4. I’ll agree with your accessment. I tried to be respectful until he disrespected me. I may have over reacted at first. I have no problem with someone’s arguments. My problem is when someone argues their points and says to hell with someone else’s points. It’s not the argument but the personality behind the argument that I have the problem with. So to solve this problem I am no longer interacting with personalities like that instead of points of contention.
  5. I tried to be nice at first, which is still a little new to me. I wasn’t like this a three years ago. I was a complete asshole until I quit my MC. At the time I was President of the Club and didn’t tolerated anything from anyone. Then I got with the right woman so I retired. Back then people had to earn my respect, now thanks to her, I’m trying to change. I try to give everyone respect until I’m disrespected then all bets are off. I didn’t want to go off the way I did but he touched off the wrong nerve. I even edited my post after I calmed down and thought about how I reacted. I decided to go back and read some of his posts to others and found he was doing it to others also. That’s when I got the same idea. I agree with your accessment of his actions. Everyone else I have interacted with has not shown to be anything like this guy. I don’t agree with him and probably never will. I tried the respect route and now I have no respect for him. I no longer care what he has to say about anything and will no longer have interactions with someone who only cares about himself and respect for no one. I apologize to everyone but him for my reaction. I probably could have handled it better but I have a history of acting from the gut and head straight into a fight.
  6. I was beginning to think the same thing. Either he is or just that ignorant. He presumes a lot when it comes to others. He has no proof for his presumptions or statements like “He is quoted”. CNN says that same quote everyday twenty or more times a day. He provides no links to show proof. When someone disagrees with his points he deflects or ignores points. He even presumed I was a Democrat and a “Sun Shine” Patriot. Everyone who knows me would make him look like an idiot for even saying that. Even if he isn’t an infiltrator, he has nothing I need. There is nothing he has to say that would even interest me. I back down to no one I don’t care who they are or think they are. As far as I’m concerned, we’re here to support each other not cause derision.
  7. I guess your not understanding. I don’t care about that because my semi can shoot as fast as your bump stock since my finger is fast enough for me. I only need to do a three round burst since I conserve ammo. You want to waste your then go ahead. I DONT CARE!!! Now do you get it or should I spell it out for ya? You think I’m Democrat? That’s funny!!! I’m an Independent, I vote for the best one who most closely represents the Constitution not Party. How I worship God is none of your business.
  8. He has done more for us than any other President so yes I will stand with him. He has signed no bills to prove you right so as far as I’m concerned you are wrong. Also apparently you can’t read well, the red flag laws are STATE legislation and only TWO states have it... Hawaii and Colorado. No bump stocks don’t bother me since they are a waste of time and ammo. I’m so happy for you being not concerned since I don’t care about your whining about inconsequential issues. Better add some rain, snow, and wind to that.
  9. Thank you for giving me some insight to who you are. You are so right that you are as needed as those slinging rounds. I would be privileged to serve with someone like yourself. Maybe one day we will meet so I can shake your hand. My respects to you.
  10. Who cares if felons can buy guns? That’s like giving explosives to a terrorist why not they won’t use them against us. The point about background checks is NOT for the criminal element. Background checks make sure mentally unstable people buy guns legally. Yes criminals buy guns off the street, that will never stop since those guns are stolen weapons from those of us who buy them legally. As far as the promises Trump has kept, look at the economy, look at unemployment rates. No don’t even bother, if I have to explain it you won’t understand it. I don’t know where you get your information except CNN or MSNBC but keep listening to fake news you sound just like them. Who is we in your statement “ We had the first two years...”? He he has stood by our gun rights and has stated that fact on more occasions than I can remember. He supports red flag laws? Where did you hear that from? All the red flag laws that are in effect or are proposed are on the state level. So far only Hawaii and Colorado have them on the books. I have my own opinion on bump stocks. Personally, I feel that if you need a bump stock then your not that good at using a rifle. You either have a slow trigger finger or you need gunsmithing courses. If you think anyone of those so called Demonrats can even come close to winning then you would be wrong. I give no one a pass.
  11. I am sorry you went through all that. In my state you would be allowed to own a gun. Here in PA only felony convictions abrogate peoples right to own weapons. Three misdemeanor in the first degree involving the same charges counts as a felony so you would be a law abiding citizen here. So to answer your question I guess it goes by state but here you would be allowed your right to own a gun without being abridged. Personally, I would care about misdemeanors since I have had a few under separate charges. It’s the violent felons like felony assault with a weapon, armed robbery, rapists, child molestors, murderers, etc. that should lose that right. The one thing the founders never mentioned in the Constitution was people convicted of crimes. It could be because of the crimes of the time. There have been hundreds of crimes added to the list since then and some crimes now were not crimes then. Case in point, dueling, today it’s not allowed and would be classified as murder but was allowed well into the first several Presidents terms. Andrew Jackson was known for his duels. The founding fathers were all well educated and brilliant men but even they never thought what we would be like now. Even the most brilliant people can’t take in every contingency for all possible futures.
  12. I do see your point and can agree to it in part. I would ask you this, would you trust turning your back to a murderer or violent offender? Personally, I have had life long friends and family knife me in the back the second I turned it to them. I have only a few people I trust in my life. I would not nor could not trust someone like that with a gun being behind me. With that being said, criminals don’t buy guns legally so they don’t go through background check so it negates the point of having them. So yes I do agree on your point but I think I would stand by the principle of having them. I still would never agree to any other law against the 2A.
  13. I don’t agree with what the nut with the gun did. With that being said, I want to speak on the delegates speech. He speaks about how he has an office and people can talk to him there or protest there or call him there but not at his home. If he and his party pass the red flag laws or enforce any ban that should get passed, where will the enforcers go with their guns drawn? He clearly did not like the fact that anyone at anytime could just show up on his doorstep and intimidate, or worse, him. What makes him think that any citizen would not feel the same way if it happened to them because of a bill he passed? He also stated that according to the guys manifesto, the guy would use his weapon if he could not beat the delegate by convincing him, vote, or courts. If I’m not wrong, that is what we all do now, we try to convince, vote them out, or fight the law in the courts. It is only by revolt that the people use guns to unseat a tyrant. We use revolution or civil war only as a last resort to unseating tyrants as we have done in the wars we have fought on our soil. The speech is a natural progression that our country used the past. As any tyrant, he was upset because someone called him out on his tyranny and showed the fear any tyrant would have at the thought of or sight of the people coming to depose him. No I do not agree with what the man with the gun did but between that and the speech, it was a true depiction of what the tyrants can expect when the people of this country say enough is enough and it’s time to take our country back. If it would ever happen, the victor writes the history so that man could either be a hero or some nut job with a gun.
  14. I do believe the correct phrase is “ Shall not be infringed”. No Trump is not God and I for one don’t worship him. I personally don’t know of any Trump supporters who think he is God. He is a man who said he would clean up Washington and would make America great. He, unlike all politicians, lived up to and is still living up to his promises. The last time we were in this good of shape was Reagan. There is only one true God that I will ever kneel and worship. As for bump stocks I would not own one myself. All bump stocks are is a waste of ammo and lack of true gun control. I’m not sure of what red flag laws your speaking of because every speech I ever heard was speaking about us keeping our guns. He is the most pro second amendment we have had in decades and if background checks are a problem then let’s give murderers and violent felons weapons so they can commit more crimes. Background checks I can support but no other laws. We may not have had a Republic for that long but we can make it a Republic again but it will take more than what ordinary people are willing to do to get it. Yes the Democrat Party is taking a hard left stance to Communism and must be brought either back to where they were or be eliminated as a party. This is America not the Soviety Union. We are the U. S. A. not the U. S. S. A.. What you call “Party loyalty” has nothing to do with what is good or evil. Good is good and evil is evil no matter how you look at it. The view point is only from which side you are looking from. Does Satan think he’s evil or God is evil? Greed and power charge the lefts evil and at this time the only one who can stop them is Trump whether you or I or anyone else likes him or not. This is how I see what is going on around us.

×
×
  • Create New...