This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: New Jersey Will Pay You $1000 To Destroy The 2nd Amendment

Tyler Durden's picture




 

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…

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 01/08/2012 - 13:44 | 2044275 RacerX
RacerX's picture

Glad I don't live in Jersey.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 13:51 | 2044306 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Don't worry, it's just around the corner from your hood!!!

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:00 | 2044342 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

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/

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:09 | 2044352 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

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

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:31 | 2044429 Zero_Sum
Zero_Sum's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:36 | 2044444 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Perhaps.

I still believe the SF bay area is the anus of the USA, both geographically and politically.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:52 | 2044497 Zero_Sum
Zero_Sum's picture

That opinion has merit. But at least they've got nice weather and scenery there.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:10 | 2044553 Thomas
Thomas's picture

Video looks like a hoax to me.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:32 | 2044629 YBNguy
YBNguy's picture

Im not aware of NJ gun laws and no fan of informant4cash programs however did he not say 'illegal guns'?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:53 | 2044683 zhandax
zhandax's picture

And just what constitutes an 'illegal gun' and why is some snitch who wants a free $1000 going to worry about the difference?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:54 | 2044818 Manthong
Manthong's picture

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

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:04 | 2045037 smiler03
smiler03's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 20:21 | 2045303 Manthong
Manthong's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 22:22 | 2045484 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 23:46 | 2045670 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 09:51 | 2046283 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:24 | 2046353 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

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.       

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:05 | 2046462 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

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...

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 10:46 | 2046409 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:08 | 2046468 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

You might want to go read my comments again. you seem to have gone off on one of your usual tangents...

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:23 | 2046510 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Yes, of course: the issue not your miscomprehension of logic but rather my miscomprehension of your words.  I see.

Nice try.

I am Chumbawamba.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:21 | 2046676 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

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...

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 13:23 | 2046914 Yardfarmer
Yardfarmer's picture

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!

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 14:10 | 2047090 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

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...

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:28 | 2046518 VelvetHog
VelvetHog's picture

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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 11:51 | 2046582 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'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?

 

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:01 | 2046609 chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:22 | 2046683 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

What??

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 01:27 | 2045882 yakmerchant
yakmerchant's picture

I decided a long time ago gun grabbing retards like you are the "Enemy".   Useful idiot for the evil ones you are.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 09:52 | 2046285 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Prick.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 01:27 | 2045883 yakmerchant
yakmerchant's picture

Dup

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 09:52 | 2046286 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Still a prick...

Wed, 03/28/2012 - 08:55 | 2296883 jaffa
jaffa's picture

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

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:55 | 2045140 YBNguy
YBNguy's picture

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...

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 21:40 | 2045434 pods
pods's picture

The police is the STATE, they would merely put a gun to someone else's head for payment.

pods

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:01 | 2044708 toady
toady's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:12 | 2045051 smiler03
smiler03's picture

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". 


Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:13 | 2045172 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 20:16 | 2045294 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:07 | 2044542 erg
erg's picture

It makes sense geographically seeing that Florida is America's wang.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:53 | 2044850 Iam_Silverman
Iam_Silverman's picture

"Florida is America's wang."

Sad, if true.  Notice that it always points down?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 23:48 | 2045684 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

No, it's pointing into Latin America.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 21:20 | 2045403 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Florida is the front legs, you can't see the wang as it's buried balls deep in Mexico.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:02 | 2045153 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

And psychologically among a big part of the demographic in SF, not a place known for procreative sex.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:05 | 2045162 Theta_Burn
Theta_Burn's picture

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

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:37 | 2045216 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

No wonder it's in the top 5 desireable US locations thanks to anusophiles like Mr. Rection.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 21:14 | 2045392 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 13:10 | 2046868 Yardfarmer
Yardfarmer's picture

agreed. check this one out.http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:04 | 2044535 trav7777
trav7777's picture

the guns have nothing to do with it.  It's all about demographics.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:19 | 2044584 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:29 | 2044625 Phaethon
Phaethon's picture

My last trip to New Jersey felt more like a trip to Brazil.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:47 | 2044670 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

Did you get a wax?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:03 | 2044713 Phaethon
Phaethon's picture

Thought about it.  But it was cheaper to just go home and do it myself with some fly paper.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:20 | 2045176 Theta_Burn
Theta_Burn's picture

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

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:45 | 2045237 nmewn
nmewn's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 20:20 | 2045299 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Hmm, you'd think that the Nanny State would have better things to do than take care of children -- oh, wait... :>(

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 20:35 | 2045325 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Exactly.

The re-education of mine begins Mon-Fri when I get home ;-)

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 03:17 | 2045765 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

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

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 07:05 | 2046096 nmewn
nmewn's picture

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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 15:19 | 2047336 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 19:14 | 2048003 nmewn
nmewn's picture

That sure looks like a lot of effort you just went through for nothing.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 07:31 | 2046107 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

@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

 

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 19:42 | 2046128 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"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

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:12 | 2045050 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

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'.


Sun, 01/08/2012 - 20:47 | 2045349 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

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

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 21:23 | 2045406 Hey Assholes
Hey Assholes's picture

"A girl asked me to kiss her where it stinks, so I drove to Newark"

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:59 | 2044517 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

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...

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:27 | 2044784 Kali
Kali's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 22:37 | 2045538 Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 23:42 | 2045673 Osmium
Osmium's picture

True for me as well.  I have made many purchases of ammo online.  Some in excess of 1000 rounds.  Never beeen questioned about it.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:43 | 2045111 scatterbrains
scatterbrains's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:02 | 2044348 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

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...

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:09 | 2044373 masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:19 | 2044395 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

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...

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:38 | 2044452 Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

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".

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:05 | 2044538 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Bob's your Uncle?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:10 | 2044550 fuu
Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:56 | 2044661 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:54 | 2045013 mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

"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.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 01:49 | 2045850 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

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.

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 21:18 | 2045400 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

"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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:45 | 2044474 Tedster
Tedster's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:55 | 2044822 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:00 | 2044877 Jerome Lester H...
Jerome Lester Horwitz's picture

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!

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 21:24 | 2045408 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

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. 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:55 | 2044504 thatthingcanfly
thatthingcanfly's picture

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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:35 | 2045214 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

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.

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:51 | 2045253 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

really like these words mick_

The words in the Constitution are not our final protection.  Our own desire to live free is our final protection.

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 02:31 | 2045963 ffed
ffed's picture

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?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:12 | 2044518 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

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

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:16 | 2044577 fuu
fuu's picture

Some other quotes regarding the 2nd: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:25 | 2044609 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Ok, so now I understand the comma. But where is the militia I would organize if I were a US citizen concerned about the 2nd? Still seems the predominant right and matter in the paragraph to me...

UR, you live in CHF-Land, is their way not the full spirit of the thing?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:14 | 2044909 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

The definition of "organized" and "unorganized" militia changes over time and legal jurisdictions.  However, the correct English verb use was and is to "raise" a militia, so the militia always exists.

 The Swiss system is similar, but I haven't properly read the Federal and Cantonal laws- since they don't apply to permanent residents.     

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:30 | 2044949 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Urban Redneck

so the militia always exists.

You are DEAD on..........................even the sorry antis have NO clue if they are physicaly/mentally able to field a weapon, they are MEMBERS of the UNorganized Militia.

Whether you like it, or want to be or not.

The MILITIA,organized, or not  is the PEOPLE.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 20:57 | 2045365 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

If they had simply adopted the resolution language of the Virginia Convention they could have avoided so many headaches centuries later-

That the people have a right to keep and 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

The article link below is a lengthy and well documented source on the ratification debates and conventions, useful for enlightenment of the gun fearing heathens crippled by intellectual snobbery, including such bits as:

[w]ho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country ...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor .

http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html#fnb109

As near as I can recall since my copy is still in Virginia- the paper above reads like an abbreviated version of a chapter in the Halbrook's book below

http://stephenhalbrook.com/everyman.html

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:18 | 2045060 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Ghordius,

Rough crowd eh? ;-)

The second amendment is found within the Bill of Rights. They are peoples rights.

The Bill of Rights is concerning itself with the citizen. If you read them all together (in context, 1-10) you will see it is saying what the new federal government is not allowed to do.

Read the the words.

They are...shall not...no...will not...infringe...they are very prominent and direct throughout the entire document. And wherever they are used it is talking about what the federal government cannot/shall not do. Not what the people cannot do. The document is our contract with it.

There is not one line in there that restricts the people...only the new government they were forming.

This is where O'Barry...our current "constitutional law professor" President...gets confused with the contrived concept of negative liberties. This oxymoronic term "negative liberties" only applies to government. Not to the people.

Which he (and those like him) cannot stand.

Regards.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:37 | 2045098 Iam_Silverman
Iam_Silverman's picture

"Rough crowd eh? ;-)"

Fight club?  Naw.............

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:47 | 2045238 nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...wouldn't have it any other way ;-)

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 22:10 | 2045485 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

 

 

idea's forged in fire are tempered to the tests of time.

sounds corny.. but truer words have Never been spoken!

I would offer our Constitution and Bill of Rights as evidence.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 22:52 | 2045571 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"idea's forged in fire are tempered to the tests of time."

Very much so JW. Nothing even comes close to it.

From as far back in time as one wants to travel and look for it. Men trodding the earth are meant to be free. There was never any stopping it. It just is. The only question is how much we allow ourselves (as individuals) to give away to live together as one.

Everyone has their price. Most have a much lower price than us.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 23:50 | 2045691 Buzz Fuzzel
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

Fight Club?  I suspect we will see soon enough.  Are you ready?  I am.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:55 | 2044694 paulbain
paulbain's picture

You are actually descended from Virginian patriot George Mason, for whom Geo. Mason University is named? Very cool. And still living in Virginia? Also cool.

 

-- Paul D. Bain

paulbain@pobox.com

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:23 | 2044935 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Born in Virginia, I still have a house and family there, but I live in Switzerland.  English is my wife's 5th language and she wouldn't have any opportunity in SW Virginia.  So until the economy improves or civil war breaks out I'm spending most of my time in the closest place Europe has to the Commonwealth.   

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:05 | 2044537 trav7777
trav7777's picture

we have lots of regulations

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:23 | 2044600 HellFish
HellFish's picture

Read the Federalist Papers - the intent and background is there.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:44 | 2044656 SheepleLOVEched...
SheepleLOVEcheddarbaybiscuits's picture

you are a CHILD IN A MANS WORLD...........

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:46 | 2044663 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Ghordius

Well Regulated meant well prepared,each person capable of fighting was REQUIRED to own, and keep their own weapon/s, and their own ammuntion/powder/ball.

Be prepared at a moments notice, and KNOW how to use them.Does that help?.

Back in the day, after Church, men drilled and trained with their weapons,we could do so today if we were of a  mind.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:19 | 2044767 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

For a better understanding of what the founders meant, all one needs to do is read Virginia's Bill of Rights, Article 13:

 

13. 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, 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.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:53 | 2045138 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Ghordius - "well regulated" in the context of the 2nd amendment means well supplied, not having need of arms but already posessing them and knowing how to use them.  A people's militia is of no use if they have no weapons and do not know how to use them.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 19:42 | 2045228 Questan1913
Questan1913's picture

OK sonny,

Well regulated in 1775 meant disciplined or well drilled, in the use of arms.  Every able bodied male was considered to be a member of the militia if he had arms and almost all did.  If you are currently a subject in some european socialist hell hole this is going to be VERY difficult for you to comprehend.  You exppect to be regulated by the State, a totally different concept.  Good luck.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 20:36 | 2045312 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Well regulated -- meaning well-trained, and NOT prone to shooting for sh!ts and giggles.

I posted this in response to some jackhole's shooting spree:

What?  With AdultFriendFinder.com and myF*ckBuddy.biz this guy could NOT get laid??  How much brain damage do you have to have before NO woman will take you on?

That being said, the solution to this problem is pretty obvious:  A stringent nationwide testing and certification program for ALL would-be gun owners.

I have no beef against owning guns (used to own a Taurus 9mm, sold it for the money), just for brainless wonders owning them!

Before you 2nd-Amendment jokers howl in outrage hear this:  I'm not suggesting that the Government be in charge of such a program, rather put the NRA in charge of it!

Whenever any nutjob such as this Guy goes and shoots a bunch of citizens, the training and certification program gets suspended for 90 days or until the NRA can prove that changes they make to the certification program will weed out such unqualified people from the pool of gun-owners.

To quote a comic-book:  "With great power comes great responsibility."  You want people to have the freedom of owning guns, then prove it by requiring that they prove that they're responsible enough to own a gun.  Remember the 2nd Amendment also states that:  "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."

Notice that it states a WELL-REGULATED militia is necessary to the security of a free state, not just anybody with the wherewithal to buy one.  Of course, the Amendment means "Well-Trained" militia.

I'll bet that the NRA will tighten the requirements for owning a gun every time that their membership is inconvenienced by a suspension of the certification of gun-owners.  Any regulatory system has to possess a method of negative-feedback in order to correct for undesirable outcomes (or we have the system we have now).

For example, one question on a written test could be:  "Have you been laid off recently?"  That sure would have ruled out this nutjob (fer sur!).

Being a realist, I know that such a RATIONAL idea has no chance of ever being implemented for several reasons:

1. Too many gun-control fanatics believe that NO ONE should own a gun and will foam at the mouth at any argument to the contrary.

2. Everyone, including the NRA has an interest in maintaining the status quo, no matter how many get shot.  Don't think so?  Then come up with a better solution!
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]
 Shooting advice:

Never let someone or thing that threatens you get inside arm’s length and never say "I got a gun".  If you feel you need to use deadly force for heaven’s sake let the  "first sound they hear is the safety clicking off"  and they shouldn't have time to hear anything after that if you are doing your job.

'The average response time of a 911 call is over 3 minutes....the response time of a .44 magnum is 1400 feet per second.'

Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch, is a drill instructor (Thunder Ranch is a firearms training facility in Arizona ). Here are a few of his observations on tactics, firearms, self-defense and  life as we know it in the civilized world.

"The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win and cheat if necessary."

"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way.."

"Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets.  You may get killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it, cause it's going to be empty."

"If you're not shooting', you should be loading'.  If you're not loading', you should be moving', if you're not moving', someone's going to cut your head off and put it on a stick."

"When you reload in low light encounters, don't put your flashlight in your back pocket.. If you light yourself up, you'll look like an angel or the tooth fairy...and you're going to be one of 'em pretty soon."

"Do something.  It may be wrong, but do something."

"Shoot what 's available, as long as it's available, until something else becomes available."

"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid.  That's ridiculous.  If you have a gun, what in the hell do you have to be paranoid for?"

"Don't shoot fast, unless you also shoot good."

"You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or use any other word you think will work, but I've found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much the universal language."

"You have the rest of your life to solve your problems.  How long you live depends on how well you do it."

"You cannot save the planet but you may be able to save yourself and your family."

"Thunder Ranch will be here as long as you'll have us or until someone makes us go away, and either way, it will be exciting."

More Excellent Gun Wisdom.......

The purpose of fighting is to win.  There is no possible victory in defense.  The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.  The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

1 Don't pick a fight with an old man.  If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers.  The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him 'Why do you carry a 45?'  The Ranger responded, 'Because they don't make a 46.'

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol.  Are you expecting trouble?'  'No ma'am.  If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'

8. Beware of the woman who only has one gun, because she probably knows how to use it very well.

'The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.' G. K. Chesterton

A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose both.

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..." - Thomas Jefferson

[/quote]

Need I go on?

Mon, 01/09/2012 - 00:07 | 2045730 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

For what it's worth, Ghordius, most of the Bill of Rights was so heavily compromised that the delegates all read that sentence with their own interpretation.

When you keep law general enough, it's easy to pass.  When you narrow the focus sufficiently, you find no one will support the law--either because it's pointless, or because you've crossed someone's final threshold for what they could tolerate.

The reason we're still fighting over the 2nd Amendment is because there was *never* a time when everyone agreed on its meaning. 

(Plus, it had been a long summer and a lot of those guys wanted to get home.)

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:08 | 2044370 economics1996
economics1996's picture

Animals acting like animals.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 22:30 | 2045527 Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

That would be... confusing, to say the least, considering Wisconsin just allowed concealed carry and passed Castle doctrine.

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:14 | 2044387 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Glad I don't live in Jersey.

D.C.,Kali,New York,New Jersey,Chicago,Ill, ALL SUCK...............................................the big one.

All of them are run by Criminal elements. And Anti Americans with RARE exceptions.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:19 | 2044586 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Massachussetts?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:16 | 2044758 orangedrinkandchips
orangedrinkandchips's picture

no doubt about that... and fuck...Chicago makes the rest look like beginners.....worst.state.ever!

 

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 23:22 | 2045630 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Geography ain't your strong point sonny.  Best you stay in a banjo state.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:21 | 2044404 Eireann go Brach
Eireann go Brach's picture

Is that Obamas brother in the video?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:47 | 2044479 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

yes...the brotherHOOD.....tic..toc..tic..toc...boom....

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:49 | 2044673 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

No.  His brother lives in a box in Africa.

This is a box in New Jersey down by the river.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:26 | 2044418 midtowng
midtowng's picture

I don't know why people get so excited about the 2nd Amendment. They certainly didn't get excited about the destruction of the 1st, 4th, and 5th

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:13 | 2044742 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

yeah, but without the 2nd we can't back-up the 1st, 4th, and 5th

as a fence makes a good neighbor so does a gun on the front porch

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:23 | 2044778 kk1532003
kk1532003's picture

Because your rights are not granted by a the Constitution or the Bill of rights, you are born with them.  The only way you can lose those rights is if you allow them to be taken away from you.  It's easier to have then taken away if you are not armed.  See the connection?  

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:07 | 2044898 tenaciousj
tenaciousj's picture

You aren't born with anything.  So the two documents you mention grant you those rights while on American soil.   Go to any one of serveral not-so-fun destinations around the globe and tell them all about the rights you were (((born))) with.  They will cut your hands and feet off and then shoot you in the face.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:40 | 2044968 DosZap
DosZap's picture

tenacious,

Yes you are, the right to Self Preservation,only GOD gives life, and only GOD has the right to take it whenever HE choses.

All else is sin.

Now some Dictator, or 3rd world shithole leadership may murder you,(but that's different)but you still had the right to preserve the Life you wer given at birth..............by whatever means neccessary.(If your attacked for no reason).

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 23:24 | 2045637 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Ba'al will smite thee for thy blasphemy.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:46 | 2045121 Iam_Silverman
Iam_Silverman's picture

"Go to any one of serveral not-so-fun destinations around the globe and tell them all about the rights you were (((born))) with."

 

Done that several times.  But, since I was deployed with a military force, the shoe was kinda on the other foot.  Not saying they didn't want to do all of the nasty things you mentioned - it was just harder for them to do it!

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:34 | 2044440 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:59 | 2044520 grey7beard
grey7beard's picture

It should be noted that most of the second amendment worshiping folks are more than willing to sit back and cheer as others lose the other rights.  How many second amendment worshipers were thrilled to watch the OWS crowd get their first amendment rights trampled into oblivion by the police?  Most of the gun people I know cheered as the OWS group were denied their rights.  When will you people learn, when one citizen loses his/her rights, we all lose rights. 

I'm a supporter of the second amendment, have multiple guns, a carry permit, and shoot on a regular basis.  I support the first amendment as much as the second.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:26 | 2044940 pods
pods's picture

Well I argued with many about OWS.  Just the fact that they needed a "permit" tells you that it is NOT exercising a right.

Same thing with gun permits. 

They are now looked at now as civil rights, and are granted privileges.  

If you have to obtain permission to do something, you are not exercising a right.

pods

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 15:28 | 2044617 Hacksaw
Hacksaw's picture

Where is the tea bag golden boy, FA Christy? How could this Adolf Hiltler crap be going on in a tea bagger state? I thought the tea party was for the common man, it looks like their true colors are starting to show.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:20 | 2045068 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Good question ... New Jersey Governor Christopher James 'Chris' Christie, the Republican so beloved of bloggers like Mish Shedlock for his anti-US-public-union, the-state-is-broke, cut-the-budget stance ... the guy apparently some of the US politicians want to prop up for President ...

Where's Christie's gigantic defence of the US Bill of Rights for New Jersey people?

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:00 | 2044703 The trend is yo...
The trend is your friend's picture

@ 1:15 or so he says you receive the 1k if it leads to an arrest of a ILLEGAL gun.  You can still obtain a firearm through proper channels.  Even though it is more difficult to fill out the paperwork and go through the motions then most states, you can still get a gun legally

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:14 | 2044748 zhandax
zhandax's picture

Where does this concept of 'illegal gun' come from?  Is is perfectly legal to meet a neighbor in the parking lot of Home Depot and exchange a wad of franklins for a gun.  If you want to conceal it on your person in public, then that is another discussion.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 22:04 | 2045473 pods
pods's picture

Illegal gun is simply the term used to get you to play THEIR game on their court.

How is it that in this nation the phrase "shall not be infringed" is so tough to interpret?

This place should have burned a long time ago.

pods

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:13 | 2044745 Cindy_Dies_In_T...
Cindy_Dies_In_The_End's picture

Calm down people. Yes, we have the WORST 2nd Amendment restrictions, BUT according to the website:

 

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..

 

They are looking for gun related crime only.

 

Now before you get all excited, consider the mischief people in Newark can do with this. Reality wise, not too many snitches in this part of the hood, IMO.

 

Carry on, people.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 17:47 | 2044985 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

So the New Jersey police will only accost and escalate dangerous situations to deadly situations, with law abiding armed black men... becuase they already have anonymous "probable cause" of a gun related to crime... and I'm supposed to calm down - I have law abiding armed black male relatives in New Jersey. 

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 18:19 | 2045065 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Urban Redneck

Don't forget the other minorities,surely there are a Barrio or two there.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 20:43 | 2045345 StychoKiller
Sun, 01/08/2012 - 13:45 | 2044277 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Cory A. Booker is quite possibly the biggest moonbat ever. NJ needs Corzine back.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 13:50 | 2044301 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Corzine needs a tight rope around his neck.

Booker too.

What happened to the times when traitors like that were hanged by an angry mob?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 13:50 | 2044282 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Who gives a shit. We might as well not even have a constitution at this point.

The US is in a state of totalitarianism...

They can spy on you without warrants. The President can indefinately detain you without trial. Congress doesn't control our currency and our currency is not backed by gold/siler. The President can assisante American citizens. We get into endless wars undelcared by Congress. And as soon as SOPA gets passed there goes freedom of speech on the internet. 

Seriously...who gives a shit anymore?

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 13:50 | 2044302 sushi
sushi's picture

President can assisante American citizens.

 

---

Not only that. He can kill them dead too!!

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:13 | 2044328 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

And has anyone seen these fucking cops in CT in Mustangs with no lights on top? 

That's some fuckin' bullshit. 

Some cities are putting cameras at every intersection. 

They are using drones to spy on Farmers.

Talk about big brother...it's more like big cock in our ass

We're worried about the contitution all of a sudden? No, pitching a tent in Zuccotti Park to bitch and cry that they're not as rich as they feel they should be is the trendy thing to do. This country is full of a bunch of unscrupulous pussies.

*assassinate -- you know what I meant. My moniker is bob_dabolina on a site run by Tyler Durden, I don't even know why I give a shit about my spelling.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:33 | 2044433 djsmps
djsmps's picture

Both the state police and local police here (in Kansas) have unmarked cars like that with no lights. They have SUV's, sports cars, and every other imaginable type of vehicle. It's impossible to tell they're the police.

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:38 | 2044458 CH1
CH1's picture

But... on TV the cops are the good guys, saving us from crime. All that constitutional shit stops them from protecting us!!!

/sarc off

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 16:27 | 2044785 orangedrinkandchips
orangedrinkandchips's picture

those cars are everywhere...

 

Cops, to be fair, are trained fairly well SO YOU TOO HAVE TO TRAIN YOURSELF WHEN DEALING WITH THE COPS....I got enraged with my heath care insurance company and they called the cops....domestic dispute or something...so this fucking cop comes over and i went out to get high right before....THE QUESTIONS they ask are trick questions no matter how you look at it.

 

My heart was beating then (this was a 1.5 years ago) like mad NOT because I was high but becuase I had 5 plants withing 50 yards of the fucking pig...THAT scared the shit out of me....not that he might see I smoked. Im not a hard core criminal who can act normal with a cop....i got super nervous. The fucking cocksucker just had to push...luckily he made me grind the rest of what I had into the driveway (couple of grams) and let it go....

My thought was this..ok....bust someone smoking grass of go after someone who is committing murder....bigger fish to fry.

The 5th admendment is key....

 

And, if you do get pulled over and you have been drinking....SHUT THE FUCK UP....DONT SAY SHIT....If you just say let me go or arrest me I want a lawyer, then it's their word vs. yours. Of course that is why they have 2 or 3 officers vs. you but still....DONT SAY ANYTHING. DONT BE A DICK OR REFUSE, COOPERATE AND BE POLITE, BUT NO TESTS, JUST SAY YOU WANT A LAWYER. FYI....

 

"say the alphabet backwards" is a great question which makes you say somehting like..."shit...I cant do that sober!" Incrimiate yourself is their goal.

 

its a sick, fucked up game and you have to educate yourself.

 

FIGHT THE POWER!

 

 

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:43 | 2044468 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

His name is Robert Dabolina

Sun, 01/08/2012 - 14:59 | 2044516 thatthingcanfly
thatthingcanfly's picture

Nice!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!