Guest Post: New Jersey Will Pay You $1000 To Destroy The 2nd Amendment
Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market
New Jersey Will Pay You $1000 To Destroy The 2nd Amendment
There is nothing more disgusting or detestable than a citizen informant. Without citizen informants, tyrants could never retain the kind of power they wield. In fact, without citizen informants, totalitarian movements would never gain traction. This is why EVERY functional oligarchy throughout history has implemented programs designed to encourage the development of common spies, using the promise of monetary reward, or collective recognition.
Sadly, there are many in our society that would gladly sell out their closest friends and family to the tortures of authoritarian bureaucracy for nothing more than a firm pat on the head and a few fiat dollars. If there was ever a more degraded lot of bottom feeding opportunist scum, the citizen informant is the very epitome.
With the implementation of the “See Something, Say Something” program, and the increasing drive by the White House to institute community watch efforts to route out “extremists”, showcased quite clearly in strategic outlines like the ‘Empowering Local Partners To Prevent Violent Extremism In The United States’:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/empowering_local_partners.pdf
The issue of informant networking has come to the forefront in America. My personal view is that these nauseating and diseased people should be treated as treasonous as any globalist, regardless of stated intention. That said, in an environment rife with extraneous poverty, informancy cannot be avoided. Plenty of men and women, stricken with empty wallets and bellies, are extraordinarily prone to betrayal, regardless of their inherent morality. This is the kind of world we will soon be living in, and this is the kind of environment that corrupt officials like those in New Jersey are prone to exploit. Pathetic, weak, cowardly, but ultimately dangerous sheep unknowingly serving the very men who would seek to enslave them.
In terms of 2nd Amendment rights, I find the very idea of debate rather pointless. The logic is undeniable. If you cannot defend yourself, you are a victim. Period. You become food for predators and parasites. Any state government or national government which actively seeks to disarm its citizens is suspect. I couldn’t care less about their stated rationalizations or rhetoric. In New Jersey, in Chicago, in Washington D.C., or anywhere else for that matter, an innocent man who is disarmed by law will always be victimized by an outlaw who armed through criminality. The concept of reduced crime through gun confiscation is so naïve it warrants considerable analysis. Through such efforts, good men are left defenseless, while evil men are free to wreak havoc.
The 2nd Amendment is not a negotiable or debatable pillar of the Constitution. It is absolute in its protection. Every American, regardless of the temporary circumstances of the times, is free to arm and defend himself from ANY enemy, from average criminals, to government thugs. The gun confiscation program featured in the video below, and instituted by officials in New Jersey, should not be taken lightly. The pure idiocy inherent in its premise cannot be ignored. New Jersey’s willingness to pay off potential informants could very well be a petri dish test for much more expansive programs across the country in the future. If we cannot stop the corruption and anti-constitutionalism of a pathetic state like New Jersey, then how can we expect to disrupt the same brand of corruption throughout the U.S.?
Guns are simply not the issue. An armed and educated populace is a populace safe from crime. This is a fact. New Jersey’s informant program is a travesty of justice, not only because it encourages American on American treason, but also because it ignores the very purpose behind the Second Amendment; to create a populace free from the fear of tyranny. If we do not put an end to the anti-gun tides in New Jersey, we should fully expect to see such atrocities against freedom planted at our own front doors in the near future. There are no exceptions to the Constitution. New Jersey is not outside of its jurisdiction. Every person in that state deserves the same protections as anyone else. We must disrupt the sick and perverted no questions asked buy off policies now prominent in that region, or be subject to the same in the near future…
(41 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- 22320 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:
- What are some unforeseen outcomes of conditioning our children to live in a police state?
- Gun Ownership Soars To 18 Year High: 47% Of Americans Admit To Owning A Gun
- Infographic On The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Obama
- Black Friday Gun Sales Break Records
- Some Ominous Developments In Europe
Glad I don't live in Jersey.
Don't worry, it's just around the corner from your hood!!!
You know what kill switch?
Seems like NJ is just round the corner, for all of us. Here in India too. Censorship, Government is sacrosanct, guns for the thugs (cops and others) and nothing for law-abiding folk, 24 tier justice system....
The garden state..,,,
Snookie, sneakie, Tatts and tattles.
ori
my/truth/
If you see a chicken coop in a neighbor's back yard, or a tomato plant - or any contraband, say something™.
Big 'Sis & Your Local Stasi Chapter
Newark's not a bad place because people carry guns there; people carry guns there because Newark is a bad place.
Guns or no guns, Newark will always be New York City's lower intestine.
Perhaps.
I still believe the SF bay area is the anus of the USA, both geographically and politically.
That opinion has merit. But at least they've got nice weather and scenery there.
Video looks like a hoax to me.
Im not aware of NJ gun laws and no fan of informant4cash programs however did he not say 'illegal guns'?
And just what constitutes an 'illegal gun' and why is some snitch who wants a free $1000 going to worry about the difference?
I thought Cory was a smart guy.
If it isn’t a gun, it will be a knife.. or a shiv.. or a club.. or a fist, or a group or some other force multiplication for crime.
Guns wouldn’t be so scary if the government didn’t control them to the benefit of criminals.
The gun issue would settle out like it did before gun control laws.
The crime issue would settle out like it did before the police state was established.
And we didn’t have much of drug problem in the United States before a government dismissive of the Constitution decided it needed to engineer the better society from which so many who have been trained to avoid responsibility find the need to mentally escape.
But as worse, the idea of turning any segment of society into mercenary informants is a real bad idea.
Muslim / Mexican style cartel retribution may be in store for Newark.
The law of unintended consequences is always in force.
http://i41.tinypic.com/11uvzts.jpg
If you follow the link the "program" actually says this..
"Anyone with important information about a gun-related crime in Newark can call 1-877-NWK-GUNS (1-877-695-4867) to provide information anonymously. The Newark Police Department has a special Gun Stoppers Unit to operate the hotline and track down felons identified through it. Although callers are not asked their name, they do receive a code number to be eligible to collect a reward of up to $1,000 anonymously.!
My bold letters.
I'm not against citizens cooperating with LE to arrest violent criminals, but likely, just having one without the official permission of the state is a crime there.
The writers of the Constitution would have a problem with that.
Sounds like bullshit. 'Every American, regardless of the temporary circumstances of the times, is free to arm and defend himself from ANY enemy' - The big question is 'at what point do you get to decide who 'any enemy' is?'
Without that it's all horse shit. All you can do is to wait until someone else with a gun points it at you and then die, or cave. Guns are coercive and the small ones too easy to conceal. They are too dangerous for societies to tolerate because they take no skill whatsoever to point at someone if you are of a mind to use it, and in doing so force someone who is not to respond. That's why most of the civilised world chooses to live without them.
It is simply not true that most of the civilized world chooses to live with out them. What is true is that much of the civilized world has decided to make them risky to own, so that the many who do own them tend to bury them in the yard, nearby woods, or some other hiding place. In a truly civilized country such as Switzerland, handguns and semi-automatic rifles are found in probably a majority of homes. In countries which have systematically degraded their lower economic groups under a ruthless class system, as in the UK, guns of all sorts are difficult to own and pistols are impossible to own. The large estates have such weapons as they need, though, and The City of London is extremely well policed unlike most locales. The greater the class divisions (rich and nomenclatura versus ordinary folks) the more restrictive gun laws seem to be. I get extremely fast police response if I call 911, under 1 minute 30 seconds. Two miles away (in the city limits) it may be 45 minutes even when a violent crime in progress is called in. This has happened twice recently. I find the comfortable who live in rather safe areas tend to vastly under-estimate the routine dangers for those who must (for their work, housing) mix with the worst-off or least-educated 20%. I think it is arrogant and self-centered behavior.
Ok so explain to which majority parts of the civilised world choose to live with guns in general ownership. Switzerland is not the same. The Swiss do national service after which they are expected to maintain and be proficient in the art of shooting the rifle they are issued with during national service. That is not the same as any arsehole being able to buy and hold a pistol.
Truth is that I am not new to weapons of the semi automatic, short, long barrel and even the revolving barrel variety and I have thought long and hard about buying a gun myself. Fact is I choose to live in a country where guns are banned and the police are routinely criticised for not dying in shoot-outs in which the criminals almost always wind up dead. Alternatively I could choose to live in an environment such as the US that entitles me to own one but as in all things, it is the nature of a society that we give up some of our rights for our own collective good. I forego my natural right to walk across your property at will so that we can both enjoy ownership rights to property etc.
I don't need a gun to defend myself and history has shown that you don't either, It is my choice to give them up so that I need not worry too much about someone else pointing one at me. It is of cold but nonetheless some comfort to know that anyone who does is likely to wind up dead in very short order. Perhaops that's why the place where I live is one of the most peaceful on earth, and is enjoyed by many expats including Americans...
Arrogant and self centered? I would be if I chose to carry a gun; giving up that right is far from it.
Switzerland is definitely different. Actually you can get gun with the equivilent of a green card, (perhaps a perverted fantasy of Eric Holder) the circumstances of which, would in and of themselves, prevent someone from performing the national service and receiving the state training to become proficient. Looking at the miniscule entirety of gun crime of Switzerland, by far the biggest slice of that pie would be guns possessed illegally, followed by guns legally owned by those who have served in the armed forces, and the smallest potion is those who owns guns legally but have served in the military. The violent crime divide isn't the result of some State approved training & service course, it is the misfits and miscreants in an educated culture of respecting laws and fellow man.
Like I said, I have thought about buying a gun but that would only be for sport shooting purpose, which I can do here if I wish. I choose not to, and I choose to live in a place where I like others are banned from private gun ownership because collectively it makes for a safer place to live. Your comments on Switzerland I don't disagree with...
I was annoyed enough by your words to offer you a personal reply.
"I could choose to live in an environment such as the US that entitles me to own one but as in all things, it is the nature of a society that we give up some of our rights for our own collective good."
Spoken like a truly Godless communist. If you were an American, thoroughly imbued with the freedom that such status affords (which excludes 99.9% of those inhabiting the area collectively known as the United States of America), you would understand that our society is in fact an armed society, deliberately, and from the very get go. It is the only nation in this Hell world that ever codified the right to own firearms, a key pillar of our society. If you are an American without a gun then I say to you that you are no American, but you are a sheep waiting to go to slaughter.
"I forego my natural right to walk across your property at will so that we can both enjoy ownership rights to property etc."
That's another right that America reserves for the people, the right to private property. You do not have a "natural right" to walk across MY property. You demonstrate with your own words your terrible ignorance of rights. What you want are privileges, not rights, and you seem to want to be the one that decides for all who has what privileges. You forego your natural desire to be a petulant tyrant who ignores other people's rights and boundaries because you know that, ultimately, someone is going to have the firepower to keep you off their private property. Isn't that the real reason why you don't want people to have guns? So you can walk on their lawn and laugh in their face when they complain? You don't know the first thing about Rights, so why do you even try to prounounce the word?
"I don't need a gun to defend myself and history has shown that you don't either."
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man. Where do we start? The Palestinians (disarmed)? The Tutsis (disarmed)? The Jews (disamred)? The Armenians (disarmed)? How far back do we need to go--past the invention of firearms?--to demonstrate that throughout history those with the guns did the killing, and those without did the dying? You don't need a gun to defend yourself? What if the person against whom you are defending yourself has a gun? Are you going to use Jedi mind tricks to disarm him and make him repent for his evil desire to threaten you with a firearm?
That you are an idiot is well-established by now. At this point we are still left with wondering just what kind of an idiot you are. This final sentence will help us elucidate the matter.
"It is my choice to give them up so that I need not worry too much about someone else pointing one at me."
Your tombstone (if you should be lucky enough to be appropriately interred and not just thrown in a quickly dug ditch with the rest of the sheep who didn't have guns to defend themselves) may well read:
Here lay a man whose convictions failed him...if only he had had a gun.
Or maybe it'll be more ironic (maybe I'll be the undertaker):
There are only two kinds of people in this world: those with guns, and those with only words engraved on a rock to mark their presence.
A bit winded...I may have to shorten that up.
I am Chumbawamba.
You might want to go read my comments again. you seem to have gone off on one of your usual tangents...
Yes, of course: the issue not your miscomprehension of logic but rather my miscomprehension of your words. I see.
Nice try.
I am Chumbawamba.
No, it's the bullshit tangents you go off on.
'
'There are only two kinds of people in this world: those with guns, and those with only words engraved on a rock to mark their presence.' -What else is there to say? You're a fucking idiot. Go bug someone else.
Or maybe I shouldn't say that because you own a gun...
Please...
i for one have been missing the usually brilliant and insightful postings of Chumba. it's good to know you're still out there Chumba. how's the junk business? as for Harlequin 001. you're a good little schoolboy. scout's honor!
Brilliant and insightful? I must have missed that one. The man's a prick, and you're no better...
Do us all a favour and fuck off.
And take your guns with you...
If you are unarmed that 1 minute and 30 seconds can literally be an eternity. The police CANNOT protect you. All they can do is perform an investigation after the fact. It is irresponsible for a citizen to not be armed.
'Fact is I choose to live in a country where guns are banned and the police are routinely criticised for not dying in shoot-outs in which the criminals almost always wind up dead.'- I choose to live in an environment where the one minute and 30 seconds doesn't routinely happen.
If as you say, the police cannot protect you then why do you bother with them? Would I be near the mark if I suggested that the reason that the police cannot protect you is because you have guns?
It's like picking up a broken bottle in a pub fight. When you do you announce to all and sundry that you haven't the skill or ability to do what you set out to do, which is to fight someone. Picking up a broken bottle, just like picking up a gun gives you the confidence to do something you wouldn't otherwise be capable of, and would not otherwise do, which is to coerce somebody into doing what you want. I choose to live in a society where people cannot hold guns because it removes the opportunity for small weak minded little shits to stick a gun in my face because they feel big. The result is that there is little or no gun crime here because those that perpetuate it know that the police will turn up in the dead of night and they will not survive the arrest. They don't seem to last for very long hence the culture doesn't seem to perpetuate, and there certainly isn't any recurring problem when these arseholes get out of prison because they're dead. They held guns and they are dead. That's the way it should be. Like it or not, an effective police force, which you would have without gun ownership leads to a safer and more peaceful existence. It's why we give up our right to hold guns in favour of law and order and a police force to enforce them.
Do you wonder why the world views Americans as insular and paranoid?
Good luck defending your insular chosen society when armed bandits arrive at the gates demanding riches and women. Maybe you can throw printed out copies of your messages here at them, properly wadded up to provide for better aerodynamic stability.
I am Chumbawamba.
What??
I decided a long time ago gun grabbing retards like you are the "Enemy". Useful idiot for the evil ones you are.
Prick.
Dup
Still a prick...
Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure that is more stringent than that required of ordinary legislation. Examples of such special procedures include super majorities in the legislature, or direct approval by the electorate in a referendum, or even a combination of two or more different special procedures. Thanks.
Regards,
Criminal Lawyer Toronto
Do you really have to ask what makes a gun illegal? I own many LEGAL guns, I went through the proper steps and filled out the forms, got checked via NICS... ILLEGAL guns, Id assume, are bought blackmarket, unknown chain of ownership and/or has the # scracthed off... Damn youre paranoid. If I were arrested due to some loser citizen trying to make 1000 off me legally having my gun Id sue the dept for making an arrest on flawed information... How many of those lawsuits could the dept take before they had to fold...
The police is the STATE, they would merely put a gun to someone else's head for payment.
pods
And who determines which guns are illegal? The same guys (FEDS) that allow thousands of assault weapons to go to drug cartels?
Something tells me that any weapon found in Newark will be 'illegal', if it is illegal or not.
The video is essentially a scam. Like lots of scams it tells you something at the start, in this case $1000!! but if you follow the link it clarifies it to this . "Anyone with important information about a gun-related crime in Newark".
The Feds *directed* semiauto civilian guns of their choice, those gun types most diabolised by the Brady Bunch, to go to *known* straw purchasers, and then on to drug dealers south of the border, for ONE reason: So that later seizures of those diabolised types of guns in Mexico could be later shown to be traced back to gun shops in the U.S.
A little economics problem with this that ZH'ers should appreciate: What the cartel gangbangers want are "select fire" weapons capable of full auto OR semi-auto fire, which they can buy AT LOWER COST from bent federales and global arms makers than they can via smuggling semi-auto-only rifles bought one-of in gun shops in the US.
The sear & bolt carrier on a semi auto rifle can be swapped out in under 90 seconds, and are cheap parts to begin with.
As for price and availability- it is also a hell of a lot cheaper than paying MIC-government-approved-contract-price-markup for a select fire weapon upfront (unless you get the uncle sam favored friend discount- at taxpayer expense), While any individual gang member might be able to get a great bargain on a select-fire gun from a corrupt relative or friend, the issue of availabilty and scale negates price (too many guns go missing from the local office and somebody loses their cushy job and side gig) .
Economics problem solved.
It makes sense geographically seeing that Florida is America's wang.
"Florida is America's wang."
Sad, if true. Notice that it always points down?
No, it's pointing into Latin America.
Florida is the front legs, you can't see the wang as it's buried balls deep in Mexico.
And psychologically among a big part of the demographic in SF, not a place known for procreative sex.
Anus of the USA, that di-stink-tion belongs to CAMDEN NJ
NJ is 1 of the most difficult states to get firearms...2nd amendment yeah sure, and still the consequence is not as sever as NY if caught with an "unregistered" gun (ask Plaxico....that idiot)
Am I missing something here? if legally owned no worries.
If ratted on by some pc. of shit for 1k it's highly likely you are your a pc of shit who shouldn't have an illegal gun
No wonder it's in the top 5 desireable US locations thanks to anusophiles like Mr. Rection.
anusphile?
Never hit the pooper before, always been afraid of getting shat on.
Just look at the density of asshats living in the Pacific Heights area alone, Pelosi, Feinstein......
The only thing I miss about Californication is the In N Out burgers.
agreed. check this one out.http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/
the guns have nothing to do with it. It's all about demographics.
Hey TRAV, picking up from last night's auto post.. Central planning never works!!!
Trav777: I'm going to tell you another secret. Cars are going to be equipped with a hotspot. For a fee, you will be told to download a movie to keep the kids quiet. The cost for a new automobile will rise in cost because you're not getting this service for FREE.
This new technology attempt will backfire. Why? People like me will not renew the (free) paid service included in the sale of vehicle. Think LTE & NFLX
Go long, then short the fuck out of the stock. :) Again, my NAV back seat TV entertainment center has never been loaded with a DVD. I sold my BMW 750 V12 two years ago. I had a equipped TV front console. For all of you liberal retards, the TV would shut off at 5 MPH and go back to system monitoring details. When we converted to digital TV, static appeared on the monitor with limited channel availability.
Those were the past days of free access. Today's Government irony: The Public needs to pay by receiving our (free) services thru book cooking efforts; our investors will believe we're churning a profit.
A: No customers, no profit.
Central Planning never works, when the society host will not play the hide & seek game.
My last trip to New Jersey felt more like a trip to Brazil.
Did you get a wax?
Thought about it. But it was cheaper to just go home and do it myself with some fly paper.
As much as i pains me to say it, trav's right in this instance.
i knew an idiot that couldn't ever legally own here in Jersey (and was someone that really shouldn't be allowed) went to FLORIDA and in 2 weeks not only owned but could legally CARRY.
His record was just a collection of disorderly persons charges
The only thing that changed was the legality to own it. Not the right.
Even convicted criminals have a right to self defense with any means necessary...the law has only said it is illegal in this way.
It always starts incrementally, in the legal sense.
For example, "they" should not be allowed to have children because of X. While X may be a perfectly good reason for their children to be taken away from them, it never stops there...given the passage of time the reasons always expand. New reasons will come and the manpower to support the reasons will come with it.
I picked children & parents out of the air...but the concept applies to anything with law or regulation attached to it.
This is fundamental to the understanding of governance and the expense of it in monetary or liberty terms, it always grows to consume more of both unless constrained.
Hmm, you'd think that the Nanny State would have better things to do than take care of children -- oh, wait... :>(
Exactly.
The re-education of mine begins Mon-Fri when I get home ;-)
So is homeschooling illegal in Texas, or are you simply admitting that you are irresponsible and/or lazy? I mean seeing as you apparently have absolutely no use for the institution of public education, why on earth would you force your children to attend?
http://www.moronail.net/img/16102_50-years-later-in-school
I'm sure you will find this shocking (not) but the US government education system as we know it today was started by socialists on the old Prussian model. Its design is meant to create docile citizens & workers for the state, not so much as to give a well rounded primary education. Just as Carnegie, Wilson, Rockefeller, Ford etc. said it was so many years ago.
http://johntaylorgatto.com/
Having said that, most of my childrens friends go to public school. Interaction with peers is just as much a part of a primary education as reading, writing & arithmetic. These are the people they will know the rest of their lives. In a broader sense, their thoughts & ideas are shared openly among their friends there. Sort of the reverse of what the central planners had in mind. Little enemies within ;-)
Mine have always had a distinct advantage in this superficial enviroment as their mother taught them to read, write, spell and was up to division/fractions before they ever set foot in a public school. In fact squire nmewn introduced his first teacher for his Teacher of the Year Award. The teacher, a good man & teacher in his own right, acknowledged his mother in his acceptance speech. There are good people within it, its the system. They remain A/B honors to this very day...having blown through elementary school, now to high school.
The re-education I spoke of comes mainly in the humanities-history-common law portion of their education now. This is the start of the fun part, where teachers fresh out of college, have to pull them aside and apologize to them for having scolded them in class (in front of their peers) after having gone home and researched the topic a little further...lol.
Nice try.
Interesting, so you'll risk your childrens' development in an environment that you allege strives to strip them of the ability/desire to think critically so that they can,
a) hang out with friends that I can only assume they made in their first 4 or 5 years of life prior to entering any organised educational institution. Friends you deem as 'lifelong'.
and
b) act as your own private little subversives against that system, promoting the political agenda you've spent years conditioning them to accept,
all while simultaneously admitting that your personal experience with their educators has been the exact opposite of your complaints, and that the system you don't value still has value because it covers mathematics and the sciences, which are subjects that for whatever reason you choose to leave to someone else to teach your kids.
I mean, if the public education system is so hell-bent on producing the docile little whelps you claim it is, then how is it possible that yours are receiving honours? Shouldn't it be punishing them for their impertinence instead of rewarding them? Which brings me back to: why on earth would you expose your own flesh and blood to such risk?
The doublethink you flounce through in a single post is truly astounding.
Curious though: what is your solution? Defund the 53 billion (or for perspective: roughly 1/20th of the US' 'defense' budget) spent by the federal gov't annually on education, and dissolve the dept. entirely?
If so, then where will your kids and their little friends hang out together promoting your private agenda?
FWIW, I applaud your wife's efforts wholeheartedly.
That sure looks like a lot of effort you just went through for nothing.
@nmewn - so gun ownership and homeschooling are related subjects? ;-)
just kidding - I'm not sure I do agree fully with your view of the socialistic=prussian public school model, at the time it was introduced the conservatives of the times were dead against it, they feared they would lose control of the masses.
From Bismark's point of view, there was also the matter of breaking the control the catholic-sponsored churches in Western Prussia, Bavaria, etc. The question at the time was how to push literacy from the 50% level to 100% - though I maintain you can't homeschool your children if you are illiterate so homeschooling is a luxury made now possible from this "socialistic" measure taken in the past. But yes, there was also this little detail of the industries needing literate workers...
-----
Gun Ownership:
1. have you seen? Impressive number of red, eh? No wonder they put Socrates to death, asking questions is not popular...
2. After all the poking questions, I still don't "get" the resident's POV - it still looks to me as something like an "article of faith" - you shall not debate gun ownership except in stating what kind of ammo you use?
3. IMHO, the fact that the USA is still number one in gun ownership puts this debate (if it really is one) on a strange slant
4. I'm impressed about this counterpoint: "the militia is present even if/when not formed/needed" - still thinking about it
"so gun ownership and homeschooling are related subjects?...just kidding"
lol...well for the longest time the statists among us certainly didn't want it here (homeschooling) that is kinda like putting a gun to the citizens head and demanding they send their kids to government schools ;-)
Yes, the parents have to be literate.
"But yes, there was also this little detail of the industries needing literate workers..."
Makes room for all kinds state sponsered mischief if the state is not honorable and/or morally/ethically bankrupt. Have your parents buy your pencils and paper and come in here and dump them in this box for all those children whose parents cannot afford to buy pencils and paper. Really? What is this teaching exercise? Reciting the pledge of allegiance before one can even vote or form an opinion on any type of government is one that always got me...lol.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Gun Ownership:
1. have you seen? Impressive number of red, eh? No wonder they put Socrates to death, asking questions is not popular...
Too many questions is unpopular.
2. After all the poking questions, I still don't "get" the resident's POV - it still looks to me as something like an "article of faith" - you shall not debate gun ownership except in stating what kind of ammo you use?
As pointed out earlier, many states would not have joined without a Bill of Rights. Defense against tyranny and common criminals is a right of nature codified in our law.
3. IMHO, the fact that the USA is still number one in gun ownership puts this debate (if it really is one) on a strange slant
Not really. Most people around the world understand the concept quite well.
4. I'm impressed about this counterpoint: "the militia is present even if/when not formed/needed" - still thinking about it
I can say it no better than this, Madison in Federalist #46...
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm
The population has grown of course. So numbers on both sides would be higher. But the intent for citizens to be armed is quite clear.
Seeya
The photo with this article, of the revolver endgun with the end twisted so it cannot be used to save anyone's life, is apparently a sculpture in New York at the United Nations, 'Knotted Gun' by Fredrik Reuterswärd.
Here is a big photo of it - damn ugly and offensive sculpture of hoplophobic damage to life-saving gear:
http://bluedandelion.net/english/nyc/P3220128.jpg
By the way, for those Americans who think we aren't allowed firearms in Europe, there are estimated to be around 1.8 million to 2 million firearms, handguns, shotguns and rifles, in private civilian hands in Belgium, for our small population of about 10 million people.
We remember the Nazi occupation and that 'things can change'.
And a five shot .38 revolver too, the easiest weapon for a Woman or a Senior citizen to purchase and use to defend themselves.
You are wise to remember as the Nazi's used gun registration lists to confiscate them: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
"A girl asked me to kiss her where it stinks, so I drove to Newark"
friend of mine bought ammo, for a friend, as favor...the ammo didn't match any gun he owned...5 days later feds at the door wanting to know whats up...tried questioning...haven't heard back from them yet.....lessoned learned...all cash, while you can...
If true, that is a horrifying story. Being questioned about your buying habits of a legally sold item. Seriously, how is it not like pre-WWII Germany in the US. Your papers please.
Seems unlikely to be true, but I guess it depends on where you got it. I have zero guns that are any lists anywhere, and noone has ever questioned me about ammo purchases- and some of them have been pretty large.
True for me as well. I have made many purchases of ammo online. Some in excess of 1000 rounds. Never beeen questioned about it.
gimmy a lil sumsumpin extra on my snap card and I'll turn all you bitches in for conspiracy to commit terrorism by being associated with ZH.
blablabla
"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."
where is the Militia? Just form the Militia and than talk again... for criminy, one lone armed person is as lost against a bunch as one lone unarmed - and perhaps even more at risk...
An idiotic and long refuted premise; as known to everyone except morons, the militia is everyone who can fight. And you can come after well armed people with a pretty big group, and the group will be fleeing at stop at top speed after the first few go down in a hail of bullets.
your premise can't apply to me, I'm an ignorant alien that has not visited the US since decades - just trying to understand...
"A well regulated..." Hello? I know, I know, the Minuteman, but hey, did they not form their units before combat?
I know I'm teasing, but if you leave only US Citizens talk about the 2nd we outsider don't even understand what you are talking about anymore, you are so entrenched in your old talking points.
so again, what was meant with well regulated? Is this part irrelevant? Is it about the private citizen bearing arms only? Explain it as you would to a child...
Dear Ghordius,
We get to have guns because our Founders realized the only true thing that keeps politicians and dictators in check is an armed populace that can resist. In other words, the fear of death keeps those lying, thieving jack holes at bay, at least just a little. It took Obama-care to sneak up behind us and steal our freedom. Believe me, guns will be a "healthcare issue" faster than you can say "Bob's yer uncle".
Bob's your Uncle?
Bob's Yer Uncle?
Robert is your father's brother, and he's probably keeping his eyes on you.
"Look hard enough at anyone and you can find some rule that they've broken." Efrafan Guard (paraphrased)
"The man in a trench coat, badge out, laid off, says he's got a bad cough, wants to get it paid off. Look out kid." B.Dylan
"...and that new Happy Mondays album... I don't know if there is one, but if there is: it sucks." Bruce McCulloch, Doors fan.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it.
You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.."
That passage always chills me to the bone. Never gets old.
In all honesty, sociopathic 'I'm all right so ef all the rest' hypocrite types have always chilled me to the bone too, regardless of how cleverly they can put a sentence together for money.
"Those who hammer their firearms into plowshares will plow for those who didn't." Attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but he probably didn't say or write it, but could have.
Well regulated meant something quite a bit different in those days.
The idea was that every able bodied male would have his firearms at home or within reach, because - a central armory where weapons were stored would by necessity increase the time required to deploy the militia greatly.
A pocketwatch was regulated when it was adjusted to keep good time within the limits of its component parts. In the context of the 2nd Amendment they were indicating that the militia were well trained in the use of their weapons and competent in their use, marksmanship, maintenance, storage, were able to march, call cadence, perform the manual of arms, etc.
Collectivists today try and twist the meaning to say this requires heavy restrictions and prohibitions on their use and posession.
Somebody has been installing commas where they were never issued. It goes like this:
"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."
It makes sense in context and form this way.
Actually the constitutional phrase seems to lead to an "individual right" result either way. To regulate in 1577 meant to fix, constrain, or keep in regular boundaries. If a state is to remain free, its militia must be kept in line, and the fear of standing armies was great. There are two ways to keep a state's militia in line. One (see the second definition, below) is to insist that the militia must admit the broad mass of people themselves armed and practiced. The other is to guarantee that the broad mass of people can remain a stronger force than a necessarily (financially) much smaller 'official militia." Only a fairly large percentage of armed citizens can provide such a counter-balance, a constraint on the temptation of a militia's or standing army's masters to use them as tools of repression. This reading makes the most sense to me.
A possible third reading, that 'regulated' meant "equipped and skilled only for service in 'the militia' upon the government's order" makes no sense, for why would a right need to appear in the Bill of Rights merely to assure that a state was guaranteed the ability to maintain a possibly-repressive (but well-equipped) militia with no counter-balance? There was no power in the early years which could constrain the creation of such an objectionable small 'militia' other than either guaranteed very broad definition of militia, or very broad right to be prepared to oppose some less-inclusive 'militia.'
The need for both...both a widely armed citizenry to rise up to maintain peace...but also to prevent a small militia organized by a powerful clique in the state from acting tyrannically....seems as if they would be obviously worth guaranteeing, and that by providing the individual right "to keep and bear arms." We know Franklin's and Jefferson's views on these. However the big moneyed interests of the times (the Washingtons, Hancocks, et al) were quick to take the view that getting people to pay bills on time was more important than slow deliberative consideration of such financial injustices as might arise. Consider their reaction to Shays' Rebellion.
From the OED: a?1577 Sir T. Smith Commw. Eng. i. viii. (1584) 7 The other they call?the Royall power regulate by lawes. a?1790 Adam Smith W.N. v. i. iii. i. (Bohn) II. 253 When those companies?are obliged to admit any person, properly qualified,?they are called regulated companies.
And let's not forget that this is the only place where The Constitution defines something as being "neccessary" to the security of a free state! In other words, an armed populace is neccessary for freedom to occur!
Right, and notice that the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) refers to rights of the INDIVIDUAL against the government, NOT rights of the government against the individual. The slimy collectivists hate the this and foam at the mouth when you mention it.
In the 1700s, educated men commonly wrote long sentences with preambles and lengthy adverbial clauses, separated by commas, that would be considered unusual today. The second amendment is a classic example. Notice that if one removes the words, "A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State," the remainder of the sentence - the independent clause - still reads logically, and still carries the same force. The well regulated militia bit was the Founding Fathers' inclusion of one example of many benefits for having an armed citizenry. I suspect if they had anticipated this preamble would be used by tyrants wishing to infringe upon the people's right to bear arms, they would have eliminated it from the final draft.
But anything can be thus used by tyrants, and by our fellow citizens who desire tyranny. And if they find no way to pervert the laws they simply ignore them. And deride me when I say that they cannot pick and choose.
The words in the Constitution are not our final protection. Our own desire to live free is our final protection.
really like these words mick_
What to do to remain free at a personal level? At this point I have no interest at all regarding the freedom of the vast majority of useless sheep. Watch the end of braveheart, all those useless eaters good ole willy fights for in the name of freedom cheer like maniacs as the state dismembers him. They are your enemy and your neighbor. 1k for your guns today, 10k for your life tomorrow. what to do what to do?
The European Redneck answer- see the defnitions of militia in the Hague and Geneva conventions, during wartime basically any armed "group" engaged in the fight (that doesn't fall into regular military or spies) receives "militia" protection- hence some of the US legal acrobatics in the "War on Terror" with "enemy combatants"
The US Redneck answer- great ... great grandpa George Mason drafted the Virginia Bill of Rights before he drafted the US Bill of Rights, and actually refused to sign the US Constitution because it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect the People and the states from the Federal government. The Virginia language is less ambiguous since it did not cater to whiny New Englanders- i.e. the right & obligation of a well armed citizenry overthrow and abolish the government of state by force if it got out of line.
EDIT I've posted the Virgina language below
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-new-jersey-will-pay-you-1000-destroy-2nd-amendment#comment-2044548