A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To the Security of a Free State

The right-wingers that have voiced their support for the deadbeat Cliven Bundy, and the gun owners that flocked to Bundy’s side all believe the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to provide a Constitutional right to insurrection against the “gubmint”.

This misconception has fueled efforts by gun owner organizations to eliminate many gun safety regulations nationwide.

This same misconception brought the FBI to Nevada to investigate the incidents of Bundy’s militiamen/supporters pointing loaded weapons at federal officers.

The militiamen are now claiming none of them pointed their guns at either BLM rangers, or local police officers. Despite these claims there is plenty of video showing the proud rebels standing up to employees of the BLM and the police department, video that proves the militiamen are lying.

What happened to the bravado of these defenders of the deadbeat Bundy? Why are they no longer boasting of their victory over the “gubmint”? Will the boasts turn to whimpers as they invoke their Fifth Amendment right?

As can be read in many of the posts written by right-wingers on these message boards, their interpretations (and misinterpretations) of the Constitution and U.S. laws are selectively applied, and are subject to change whenever the need arises.

The wackos in these self-proclaimed patriotic militias are NOT members of “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and as the criminals they are, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” must no longer apply to these domestic terrorists.

Even those few that did NOT point their guns and rifles at law enforcement officials, as with any crime all participants can be held culpable, before, during, and after the fact, though some may receive lesser penalties.


http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25469...investigating-bundy-supporters-in-blm-dispute

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...dation-and-weapons-violations-at-bundy-ranch/

 

They are wrong in how they feel and what they did. But to call them terrorist is stretching the point way to far.

 

blah blah blah.

The govt just can't stand it that people wouldn't bow down and grovel at the feet of the goons with badges. Watch the video of the Bundy Ranch, very few images of protestors pointing guns (I only saw one, and that was a guy on a bridge) but several images of BLM SEAL wanna-be's pointing guns at protestors. But thats OK, because the law doesn't apply to the govt. Cops kill innocent people almost every day, they beat people, they frame people, and they get away with it. The BLM steals land, railroads people, and they get away with it. Harry Reid can be the most corrupt politician in Nevada and possibly the nation, but the law doesn't apply to him.

And you support this lawlessness and corruption. Typical prog, thinking the govt likes you when you are just a pawn in the big machine.

 

actually, it's the interpretation that the second amendment is meant solely for militias that incentivises people to form militias, where as if the second amendment was NOT meant strictly for militias, then there would be less interest for the people to form their own militias.

 

Some of the most killings going on today is where there are strict gun laws. Mexico and Chicago.

 

There was nothing lawless about what the government did nor LEO's. The whole situation destabilized because what Clivil Bundy stated and people with guns came a'running. Clivel bundy biolated the law and there is no question aout that. He just does not want the law to apply to him and neither do you.

 

Free state?

 

Are we supposed to be surprised Reid is using another federal agency to conduct his land grab schemes? Why should we be?
I'm surprised he doesn't have Obama on tv every night pleading for tortoise habitat even though they froze half them to death.

 

I don't know. They acted like a armed force taking up positions like a military force. And nobody is arguing they were not armed.

 

I've only seen one photo of a guy pointing a rifle in the general direction of the Feds AND the citizen protesters. I'm sure your familiar with the photo.

Would you care to discuss the reality of that photo?

 

Operative word here is "some".

 

"Law" enforcement and the government do illegal acts every day. Everything about the BLM and their land grabs are illegal, and its not just Bundy but others in Nevada, California (Vail Lake is currently in the news), Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah. Its been going on for years and ranges from 5 acre homes to huge parcels of 10,000's of acres.

How do you know Bundy violated the law? Because the people who have a vested interest in "acquiring" his land - the same people who control the law and the courts - say he broke the law? Bundy says he has documents showing private ownership to the 1880's, and there is no agreement in writing with the federal govt (Nevada yes, feds no).

You have not seen his documents or the evidence from the feds, you just accept the govt's word. BTW, thats the same govt and the same politician (Reid) who have no problems with the NSA spying on you, selective enforcement of laws based on their politics, the NDAA, terrorizing innocent people for their political opinion, or the govt detaining, interrogating, and killing an American with no appeal or due process. And they lied to your face about it all until Snowden and some other whistle blowers shed some light on the govt. They lied about health care, Benghazi, war, spending - just about everything.

And thats the same politician (Reid) who owns land through his sham company (run by his son) in the same area as Bundy, and whose buddy is now running the BLM, and who miraculously has these wonderful land deals where he gets huge pieces of prime real estate for pennies on the dollar just before the land is developed.

And after lies on top of lies and blatant corruption, they have no credibility but you believe them just because they said so.

 

All perfectly legal, they followed all firearm laws. In all the videos I have seen, there was only one guy (lying down on a bridge) who might be pointing a gun at someone, but maybe he was just looking at a jack rabbit, maybe his rifle was empty - the pics dont show what he was looking at.

Like a bully, the govt backed down when someone stood up to them, and the bullies have been sulking in their cubicles and the donut shops over the fact that there are people that won't lick their boots. After a few weeks of it burning in their gut, they have whipped themselves into a frenzy and decided they can't let people stand up to them and live, they must be punished or other people might get ideas. Its not about justice, its about making sure they are on top and you are not, and they will railroad as many protestors as they can in as many ways as possible.

 

Out of the two, your domestic terrorists and the government, which group was the only one to actually discharge their weapons?

 

Where did you get that idea from?? The Second amendment is NOT meant strictly for militias.

 

No, I don't think that amounts to terrorism. Strictly speaking if that amounts to terrorism, the government agency enforcing their policy is a terrorist organization. :/

Bundy was in the wrong. I think this is pretty cut and dry, using public land without laying the established fee, he has - after over a decade of doing so - had some of his cattle confiscated. Though the way the fee is collected is doubly silly (taxing this use of public land and not that, but also how unbelievably nominal the tax is), he's clearly in the wrong.

 

I don't get how you can be free inside a state and what is the meaning of liberty when you are not making the rules.

There are two kinds of terrorism : state sponsored legal one and private illegal .

 

Cliven Bundy has won nothing...but a reprieve.

He has not won any court ruling, he has won no injunction in the courts, he has not been awarded a new lease, he has not had any court ruling overturned.

The Federal government and the BLM still exist.

Cliven Bundy is still up (*)(*)(*)(*) creek.

 

Last time I checked, It wasn't Bundy running away with his tail tucked between his legs.

 

I always wondered what "well regulated" means in practise. Anyone...?

 

And the converse is true of most of Western Europe which has strict gun controls and few firearm-related deaths.

 

Its not a misconception one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment was so the citizens had the ability to rise up and over throw a tyrannical government if the U.S. ever became one

lets here from one of the founding fathers who helped write and sign the constitution and the 2nd amendment Alexander Hamilton

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms

"The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"

 

It's defined in the federal code of regulations.

 

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
​

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
​

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
​

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
​

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
​

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
​

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


[source]