medic38572
TB Fanatic
T.L. Davis
Mar 25, 2024
Now that the Democrats/communists have decided to ban citizen militias, H.R. 6981 and Senate bill S. 3589, probably as a requirement from the CCP prior to their intended uprising within the U.S., it might be time to take a realistic look at citizen militias. First of all, the law identifies these “citizen militias” as any time three or more people gather with the purpose of tactical training or training in the use of guns as an illegal “citizen militia.” That wipes out all sorts of gun safety programs right there. How would that benefit anyone except a foreign power intent on invasion? It was the level of gun ownership in America that has dissuaded nations, like Japan, from considering an invasion in the past. Why take that away?
What would be the purpose of an open border if not to allow foreign enemies to invade the United States without papers, background checks or means of tracking them? Put this in line with other domestic hostile actions toward the American people, such as the recent ruling that illegal immigrants could possess guns. Everything that’s taking place right now endangers the citizens and puts them at a disadvantage to a foreign force, especially if they’re already in the United States. We have been warned by FBI Director Christopher Wray that terrorists are likely to commit hostile acts on American soil in the near future.
Let’s look at the Second Amendment for a moment and understand why it was included in the Bill of Rights. After the end of the Revolutionary War, the United States was a weak confederation of states and while the Constitution would eventually establish a military force, the force that fought the British had been disbanded. The state militias were the only defense for individual states and were made up of citizens trained in the use of firearms, something the bills introduced in the House and Senate would ban. It was stated in the Second Amendment, that a well-regulated militia was “necessary to the security of a free state.”
A modern reading of that makes the “free state” into the federal government, the idea being that a “state” is another term for a “nation.” But I have long held that’s an incorrect reading of the amendment and that a “free state” was one of the thirteen that was under the Articles of Confederation, the legitimate government of the revolutionary era, that held that each state was not a part of the whole, but, by agreement, would act as one. This reading it makes each state obligated to have a militia unto itself, recognizing that without an armed and trained militia in the state made it susceptible to being threatened by foreign actors such as Spain, France or Britain, all of which owned vast amounts of the continent.
This fits also with the reasoning of the founders who, in every breath, cautioned against a tyrannical government and the one they were devising was not incapable of becoming despotic and tyrannical itself. So for the free state to remain free, it might have to engage the centralized government with arms. They did not view the United States as we do, today. They saw a loose confederation of bankrupt states, more independent than we can imagine and largely divided into religious or immigrant enclaves who might be threatened by the larger, more populous states surrounding them. If you think of that time, what was to keep Pennsylvania from invading Virginia or vice-versa if borders or commerce were threatened? The language in the Constitution reveals just such concerns in the prohibition of duties or tariffs between the states. The purpose of the Supreme Court was to settle disputes between the states, or individual states with the United States in court rather than the battlefield.
In an attempt to keep citizens from having any power, something the federal government and even state governments seem obsessed with today, the communists intent on degrading the Second Amendment have long equated “a well-regulated militia” with the National Guard, but the Guard can be nationalized during a time of emergency and therefore cannot be the militia of the “free state” but an auxiliary of the United States military. That has to come from the citizens of the state, because states can become tyrannical themselves.
Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v Heller wrote in his opinion "[n]owhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. The phrase "right of the people" in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause, along with similar terminology in the Ninth Amendment, refer to individual rights.”
There is an individual right to keep and bear arms, with or without the argument by Scalia, but I’ll accept the argument for my purpose. In the First Amendment it states that the people have a right to “peacefully assemble” and since there is no prohibition against those people peacefully assembling from also exerting their right to bear arms, the whole argument of the Democrats in the House is irrational and clearly designed to deny both rights to the people.
The question is: for what purpose does this arise now, when the government is highly unpopular, thrashing about to hurt people who express their opinions at school boards or refuse to use insane pronouns for the mentally ill, trying to start wars on every continent, where two-thirds of the people believe the current administration is illegitimate and there is evidence that the president has taken bribes or otherwise received money from China, a direct threat to American security?
There has not been a significant militia presence in America since the FBI incinerated some 86 civilians in a compound in Waco, TX. The modern militia, and there are some still around, is more likely to lend a hand to law enforcement during times of emergency than to try and overthrow the government. The government has done a good job of overthrowing itself with fraudulent elections and acting with total disregard for any provision of its founding document. These bills before congress are just such an example.
Citizen militias have always been defensive, not offensive. I’m not saying there aren’t some nuts out there who have evil intents, but they are usually all bluster until the FBI infiltrator gets them plans and equipment to do something so they can bust the whole group of them. Claire Wolfe made this point in the film Lies of Omission. This is still a good film to watch to get a master class in understanding the issues we see playing out today.
Why does it always seem like the federal government wants to stir up issues with the militias at the same time they’re busy planning their most dastardly and deadly offensives against the American people? It makes one wonder what they have in store now. If there were militias out there waiting for some horrific act of government to come out of their holes, they would have done it during the Pandemic. The federal government just can’t stand the idea that the people might be able to defend themselves from them. It makes them as crazy as not being able to steal a man’s cattle in Nevada.
Visit us at twelveround.com for contemporary novels of freedom Rebel and Rogue (links to electronic versions in the description) Literary Westerns (like those done by Cormac McCarthy and Larry McMurtry) Shadow Soldier, Home to Texas and Deputized. Also, the film Lies of Omission can be purchased as a DVD or a there’s a link to a free version on Tubi TV.
tldavis.substack.com
Mar 25, 2024
Now that the Democrats/communists have decided to ban citizen militias, H.R. 6981 and Senate bill S. 3589, probably as a requirement from the CCP prior to their intended uprising within the U.S., it might be time to take a realistic look at citizen militias. First of all, the law identifies these “citizen militias” as any time three or more people gather with the purpose of tactical training or training in the use of guns as an illegal “citizen militia.” That wipes out all sorts of gun safety programs right there. How would that benefit anyone except a foreign power intent on invasion? It was the level of gun ownership in America that has dissuaded nations, like Japan, from considering an invasion in the past. Why take that away?
What would be the purpose of an open border if not to allow foreign enemies to invade the United States without papers, background checks or means of tracking them? Put this in line with other domestic hostile actions toward the American people, such as the recent ruling that illegal immigrants could possess guns. Everything that’s taking place right now endangers the citizens and puts them at a disadvantage to a foreign force, especially if they’re already in the United States. We have been warned by FBI Director Christopher Wray that terrorists are likely to commit hostile acts on American soil in the near future.
Let’s look at the Second Amendment for a moment and understand why it was included in the Bill of Rights. After the end of the Revolutionary War, the United States was a weak confederation of states and while the Constitution would eventually establish a military force, the force that fought the British had been disbanded. The state militias were the only defense for individual states and were made up of citizens trained in the use of firearms, something the bills introduced in the House and Senate would ban. It was stated in the Second Amendment, that a well-regulated militia was “necessary to the security of a free state.”
A modern reading of that makes the “free state” into the federal government, the idea being that a “state” is another term for a “nation.” But I have long held that’s an incorrect reading of the amendment and that a “free state” was one of the thirteen that was under the Articles of Confederation, the legitimate government of the revolutionary era, that held that each state was not a part of the whole, but, by agreement, would act as one. This reading it makes each state obligated to have a militia unto itself, recognizing that without an armed and trained militia in the state made it susceptible to being threatened by foreign actors such as Spain, France or Britain, all of which owned vast amounts of the continent.
This fits also with the reasoning of the founders who, in every breath, cautioned against a tyrannical government and the one they were devising was not incapable of becoming despotic and tyrannical itself. So for the free state to remain free, it might have to engage the centralized government with arms. They did not view the United States as we do, today. They saw a loose confederation of bankrupt states, more independent than we can imagine and largely divided into religious or immigrant enclaves who might be threatened by the larger, more populous states surrounding them. If you think of that time, what was to keep Pennsylvania from invading Virginia or vice-versa if borders or commerce were threatened? The language in the Constitution reveals just such concerns in the prohibition of duties or tariffs between the states. The purpose of the Supreme Court was to settle disputes between the states, or individual states with the United States in court rather than the battlefield.
In an attempt to keep citizens from having any power, something the federal government and even state governments seem obsessed with today, the communists intent on degrading the Second Amendment have long equated “a well-regulated militia” with the National Guard, but the Guard can be nationalized during a time of emergency and therefore cannot be the militia of the “free state” but an auxiliary of the United States military. That has to come from the citizens of the state, because states can become tyrannical themselves.
Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v Heller wrote in his opinion "[n]owhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. The phrase "right of the people" in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause, along with similar terminology in the Ninth Amendment, refer to individual rights.”
There is an individual right to keep and bear arms, with or without the argument by Scalia, but I’ll accept the argument for my purpose. In the First Amendment it states that the people have a right to “peacefully assemble” and since there is no prohibition against those people peacefully assembling from also exerting their right to bear arms, the whole argument of the Democrats in the House is irrational and clearly designed to deny both rights to the people.
The question is: for what purpose does this arise now, when the government is highly unpopular, thrashing about to hurt people who express their opinions at school boards or refuse to use insane pronouns for the mentally ill, trying to start wars on every continent, where two-thirds of the people believe the current administration is illegitimate and there is evidence that the president has taken bribes or otherwise received money from China, a direct threat to American security?
There has not been a significant militia presence in America since the FBI incinerated some 86 civilians in a compound in Waco, TX. The modern militia, and there are some still around, is more likely to lend a hand to law enforcement during times of emergency than to try and overthrow the government. The government has done a good job of overthrowing itself with fraudulent elections and acting with total disregard for any provision of its founding document. These bills before congress are just such an example.
Citizen militias have always been defensive, not offensive. I’m not saying there aren’t some nuts out there who have evil intents, but they are usually all bluster until the FBI infiltrator gets them plans and equipment to do something so they can bust the whole group of them. Claire Wolfe made this point in the film Lies of Omission. This is still a good film to watch to get a master class in understanding the issues we see playing out today.
Why does it always seem like the federal government wants to stir up issues with the militias at the same time they’re busy planning their most dastardly and deadly offensives against the American people? It makes one wonder what they have in store now. If there were militias out there waiting for some horrific act of government to come out of their holes, they would have done it during the Pandemic. The federal government just can’t stand the idea that the people might be able to defend themselves from them. It makes them as crazy as not being able to steal a man’s cattle in Nevada.
Visit us at twelveround.com for contemporary novels of freedom Rebel and Rogue (links to electronic versions in the description) Literary Westerns (like those done by Cormac McCarthy and Larry McMurtry) Shadow Soldier, Home to Texas and Deputized. Also, the film Lies of Omission can be purchased as a DVD or a there’s a link to a free version on Tubi TV.
Bucking For A New Waco?
Now that the Democrats/communists have decided to ban citizen militias, H.R. 6981 and Senate bill S. 3589, probably as a requirement from the CCP prior to their intended uprising within the U.S., it might be time to take a realistic look at citizen militias. First of all, the law identifies...
tldavis.substack.com
