The American Ruling Class

[blackchisel97]

Too bizzarre to be true?

How much more evidence do you need? DHS trains to shoot pregnant women, old men, children with guns (see photos)

V

[dutchdivco]

5150

Don't get me wrong, I get very angry, too, sometimes. But then i remember, 'sometimes you just have to laugh!'

You said:
"Well I admit I get worked up a little when I see elected politicians who swore and oath to uphold and defend the constitution doing exactly the opposite."

Take another look at what you said. You're 'worked up', because politicians aren't 'upholding' an oath? To a Politician, an 'oath' is just another 'promise', and they LIE, all the time!

Lets face it, "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron!

Its like seeing you walk out of a 'comedy club' saying "Well yeah, I KNOW he's a comedian, but I didn't expect him to be telling JOKES!", or, given that we're talking about Politicians, saying, "Well yeah, i KNOW it was a Sh*T sandwich, but I didn't expect it to have suc bad aftertaste!"

They are POLITICIANS, fer christ sake; LIEING is what they DO!LOL

And yeah, this is, at least in part, a place to 'vent' about the "American Ruling Class", and what you think about that, and so I should think you can share your thoughts, what your going thru, etc.

Keep it civil, etc. which your posts have always done.

As far as keeping a firearm 'handy', IF you reach the point where you have 'payed your debt to society' (their words, not mine) you might TRY petitioning for Civil rights restoration and record expunging. Its JUST a matter of writing a letter, and all they can say is "No". From what you have described, as your 'record', I'm not sure what they would say. Oh, and you might consider taking some 'anger management' (if you haven't already); it would 'look good' to put that in such a 'petition'.

It would be a shame, to go back, JUST because of felony possesion of a firearm. Although, from what the Chicago Police chief and others have said, Holders Injustice dept. isn't 'choosing' to prosecute such cases. Another case of 'selective' enforcement? Jim

[dutchdivco]

Jesse Jackson Jr.

Haven't been following the details, but just in the headlines its clear he is admitting he used Campaign contributions for personal expences for over 5 years; making it obvious NO ONE is 'monitoring' this kind of behavior, and the Lamestream media has totally failed to even comment on THIS aspect of it; i.e. How many OTHER politicians are doing the SAME thing???Jim

[aljhoa]

Muni Corps

Hoo works for Hoooo @Mark 0:45 ?

Public Dispute - Mayor vs Attorney - YouTube

Al

[FuzzyTomCat]

The "Dick" BILL and COMMENTS - HR 11654

Howdy everyone,

I was able to find more exact information on the "Dick" bill and comments : H.R. 11,654, "a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes," to supersede the archaic militia laws enacted in 1792.

The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

..... snip .....

The Dick BILL and COMMENTS HR 11654 - A Bill to Promote the Efficiency of the Militia and for Other Purposes to Supersede the Archaic Militia Laws Enacted in 1792 "COMPLETE ORIGINAL 1902-1903 TEXT"

Library of Congress LCCN Permalink 96190993

Glen

[rickoff]

Howdy everyone,

I was able to find more exact information on the "Dick" bill and comments : H.R. 11,654, "a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes," to supersede the archaic militia laws enacted in 1792.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

Hmmm, Glen, something's not quite right with this so-called "Dick" Bill. This definition of what the Constitution refers to as the militia is out of whack with what the Founders said, if it speaks of the unorganized militia in this way. The Founders made it clear that the militia was simply all the people, which would encompass anyone capable of bearing arms against aggression or tyranny. What about us folks who are over 45 years of age? Are we not capable of wielding a firearm to protect ourselves, our family, our property, and our state? And according to this "Dick" Bill, would we lose the 'personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms' once we pass the age of 45? Conversely, what about persons under the age of 18 who have been well trained in the proper use of firearms? A good example is my February 19th post telling how an eleven year old girl, alone at home, defended herself against armed intruders. This "18 to 45" provision of the "Dick" Bill appears to improperly seek to define who has a constitutional right to bear arms, and is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Am I just reading it wrong, and does the "18 to 45" age restriction only apply to the organized militia (National Guard)? If not, then the "Dick" Bill is of no help to gun rights activists.

[rickoff]

Quotable quotes of the day......

On fiscal responsibility:
“I think the president has lost contact with reality. He doesn’t see the spending and the debt as a problem. We are approaching a real meltdown if we don’t get control of it. If we’re going to save our country and keep us from looking like Greece in a few years, we’re going to have to find things we can cut."

On immigration:
“It’s very apparent to me what’s going on here. The president and the Democrats want two things. They want voters. They want union members. So everything they talk about is about citizenship. The U.S. has an illegal immigration problem, not a citizenship problem."

On gun control legislation:
“We can’t eliminate evil in this world, but the schools are going to have to do things at the local and at the state level to protect themselves and have the ability within to stop something like this once it happens. Gun control laws don’t help. If they did, Chicago wouldn’t be the murder capital of the world. We need to look at real solutions and not just this political talk that makes people feel better but doesn’t make our children safer.”

The above quotes are the words of former Senator Jim DeMint.

[aljhoa]

Howdy everyone,

I was able to find more exact information on the "Dick" bill and comments : H.R. 11,654, "a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes," to supersede the archaic militia laws enacted in 1792.

The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government


The Dick BILL and COMMENTS HR 11654 - A Bill to Promote the Efficiency of the Militia and for Other Purposes to Supersede the Archaic Militia Laws Enacted in 1792 "COMPLETE ORIGINAL 1902-1903 TEXT"

Library of Congress LCCN Permalink 96190993

Glen

The-Dick-BILL

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/f...he/119755.html

Al

[dutchdivco]

So, there's the DIVIDE;

You're either for SPENDING control, and BORDER control, or you're for GUN Control.
Is it really THAT 'simple'? Jim

[dutchdivco]

Seems to me

'people' have gotten too 'hung up' on the mention of 'organised militia's', in the second amendment. Mostly, (until the recent SCOTUS decision) this hang-up was with GC advocates, who tried to imply that because of this first part of the second amendment, the right to keep and bear WASN'T an INDIVIDUAL right, and it seems like the SCOTUS have clearly disabused this notion.
Moreover, it seems to me all the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are inherently individual rights; the freedom of religion doesn't apply ONLY to 'organised religions', freedom of the press doesn't apply ONLY to established news outlets, we ALL are 'protected' from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

It also seems to me that THIS argument is being made, now, to justify the recently proposed GC legislation, and its THIS argument we need to focus on, rather than fighting the last war;

Even the enumerated rights in the Bill of rights, tho individual, are NOT 'absolute'; Freedom of speech doesn't give us the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, Freedom of religion doesn't give us the right to human sacrifice, etc.
So, there ARE limits, and thats fine. BUT, in order for the 'state' to restrict or limit one of these rights, it is incumbent on the STATE to show IT has a 'compelling' interest. That the state has a 'compelling' interest in restricting people from yelling 'Fire' in a theater is 'self-evident', likewise for human sacrifice.
But, I don't believe the 'state' can show, with conrete evidence in SCOTUS, that it has a 'compelling' interest in prohibiting 'assault' weapons, especially since it 'allows' ownership of 'semi-automatic rifles', which is functionally all an assault rifle is. Especially since the fed. government 'allows' private ownership of FULLY automatic weapons, (once a background check shows the 'state' has no compelling interest, and you pay the tax).

By the way, "Class 3 weapons", as defined by BATF, includes not only FULLY automatic rifles, but 'sawed off' shotguns, (smooth bore, 12 guage, bbl less than 18 1/2") as well. Actually, you should see the list of 'class 3 weapons', would cause most GC advocates to pee in their pants, if they knew that 'ordinary citisens' could legally own such weapons! LOL

And, I don't believe the 'state' can show it has a 'compelling interest' in banning 'high capacity' magazines. Where, exactly, is the 'compelling interest'?

Political statements to the contrary, it is NOT incumbent on the individual, to show they have a compelling need, ('pursuit of happiness' suffices), but on the STATE. In addition, (again, contrary to statements by Biden, et al) there IS a 'legitimate sporting reason' for owning/using 'high capacity magazines'; OTHER than to 'kill a lot of people in a short period of time'.

Anyone who makes bets on what SCOTUS will rule, is foolish indeed. But I will say I would much rather be arguing for overturning such laws as 'assault weapons ban', and 'high capacity magazine' ban, than to try to defend them.

I just don't see 'them' as having the 'facts' on 'their' side.

Just as the restrictive gun laws in D.C 'led' to the SCOTUS decision affirming 'keep and bear' is an INDIVIDUAL right, this proposed legislation MAY, in the long run be a GOOD thing, if it is subsequently overturned in SCOTUS. Again, I ain't a betting man, and any bet on what they will rule would be foolish indeed, but I still think this is MAINLY a political ploy, to keep their base energised for the 2014 elections.
Thing is, it is ALSO energising the opposing base. They may be discounting that, since O'bummer won. But O'bummer wouldn't have won, if Repubs hadn't put such a weak candidate up. So, I still think this MAY 'backfire' for O'bummer and team, because while I choked at the very idea of voting for Romoney, I will vote for Mickey Mouse of Daffy Duck, to replace any Congressmen who votes FOR these gun laws. And I suspect MANY others feel this way.So, that makes it a DIFFERENT 'equation' all together! And, HUBRIS may be blinding O'bummer and Company to this reality.
Do you REALLY see Senator Reid voting FOR this legislation, and winning re-election??? I doubt it. Nevada is one of the most Libertarian states in the union. MAYBE if they manage to give all the 'undocumented workers' in Nevada the 'right' to vote, but thats the ONLY way.Jim

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hmmm, Glen, something's not quite right with this so-called "Dick" Bill. This definition of what the Constitution refers to as the militia is out of whack with what the Founders said, if it speaks of the unorganized militia in this way. The Founders made it clear that the militia was simply all the people, which would encompass anyone capable of bearing arms against aggression or tyranny. What about us folks who are over 45 years of age? Are we not capable of wielding a firearm to protect ourselves, our family, our property, and our state? And according to this "Dick" Bill, would we lose the 'personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms' once we pass the age of 45? Conversely, what about persons under the age of 18 who have been well trained in the proper use of firearms? A good example is my February 19th post telling how an eleven year old girl, alone at home, defended herself against armed intruders. This "18 to 45" provision of the "Dick" Bill appears to improperly seek to define who has a constitutional right to bear arms, and is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Am I just reading it wrong, and does the "18 to 45" age restriction only apply to the organized militia (National Guard)? If not, then the "Dick" Bill is of no help to gun rights activists.

Hi Rick,

The "Dick" bill and comments : H.R. 11654 "A bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes," To supersede the archaic militia laws enacted in 1792.

From what I understand "IS" what gave explanation and conditions for the present law for the Bill of Rights second amendment militia clarification to divide the militia into three distinct and separate entities which we are still under today. The bill has only been changed a few times and one was to expand and give the "NATIONAL" guard the ability to go "outside" the continental United States. The "archaic" (Very old or old-fashioned) militia is whats defined in the original Bill of Rights by the final ratification from the 14 states then in existence came on April 19, 1792, when Connecticut approved the ten amendments.

The age part I have no clue if it was changed other than what is in the text from The Dick BILL and COMMENTS HR 11654 - A Bill to Promote the Efficiency of the Militia and for Other Purposes to Supersede the Archaic Militia Laws Enacted in 1792 "COMPLETE ORIGINAL 1902 TEXT (7-pages)"

There is quite a bit of information on this Bill and I'm still looking at it, this took me days to just find the 100 year old text referred to at the Library of Congress Library of Congress LCCN Permalink 96190993 .... there is a need for speed on this so I'm getting more information as I type

Glen

[dutchdivco]

Here's a

Pretty comprehensive 'overview' of gun contol laws, including ways one can legally own NFA, or 'title 2' weapons, also commonly called 'Class 3'; Fully auto, 'sawed off' shotguns, etc.

Very complex, but an interesting read. Unfortunately, don't know how 'up to date' it is,last date i see is 1997.Jim

[aljhoa]

Theodore Roosevelt declared, "Our militia law is obsolete and worthless."

Page 496 U. S. 341

In the early years of the Republic, Congress did neither. In 1792, it did pass a statute that purported to establish "an Uniform Militia throughout the United States," but its detailed command that every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 be enrolled therein and equip himself with appropriate weaponry [Footnote 7] was virtually ignored for more than a century, during which time the militia proved to be a decidedly unreliable fighting force. [Footnote 8] The statute was finally repealed in 1901. [Footnote 9] It was in that year that President Theodore Roosevelt declared, "Our militia law is obsolete and worthless." [Footnote 10] The process of transforming "the National Guard of the several States" into an effective fighting force then began.


[Footnote 7]
"That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."
Perpich v. DOD - 496 U.S. 334 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Al

[rickoff]

The Real reason for gun control

[dutchdivco]

Again

The whole 'militia' issue, (with regard to the 2nd amendment) SEEMS to have been resolved, with the SCOTUS decision. Even O'bummer and Bitem seem to be (lieing) recognising, (or at least giving lip-service to 'recognising) 'keep and bear' is an individual right, and doesn't apply stricktly to an "organised militia".

Am I MISSING something? If so, please point it out to me. If not, there are so many falsehoods being promulgated by 'the advocates', why are we focusing on this old and discredited argument?

"There is no 'legitimate' or 'sporting purpose' for High Capacity magazines; their only purpose is to kill a LOT of people in a short period of time!"

"No one is hunting deer, with an 'assault rifle'.

The Police are being 'out-gunned', and Police chiefs from around the country are IMPLORING us to PASS this legislation."

An assault weapon has no 'legitimate' or 'sporting' purpose, it is designed and intended to kill 'a lot of people'.

Etc., Etc., Etc.,.....

By the by, I wondered where this notion of 'sporting purpose' came from, as it is nowhere in the second amendment. I assumed 'uncle joe' had made it up, as with many of his other cock-a-mamie notions. After reading the detailed material in the link I posted earlier, I see that the BATF DOES use 'sporting use' as 1 criterion, so I GUESS thats where it came from? Not clear to me where THEY got it from, tho. Perhaps just a case of an 'administrative law' ruling.

Speaking of which, many don't consciously recognise there are 3 forms of law or legal proceedings; Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. And, while the first 2 at least have established rules and procedures which give the appearance of fairness, Administrative law DOESN'T; you want to REALLY get f*cked, get into a disagreement with the Gov't over 'administrative' law; ALL the 'factors' are 'stacked' in favor of the Government, or at least thats been MY experience! Not that you can't prevail, but, A) its far more difficult, because of the aforementioned 'stacking', and B) it can cost a LOT of time, and a LOT of $; and they can outspend and outwait you, most every time.

Recall the earlier Rick post, about the young boy who wanted to raise and sell rabbits, and ended up owing the Gov't 10's of 1000's of $'s in fines; I'm pretty sure that was 'administrative law' he was dealing with.
Anyone who applies for Social Security Disability goes into administrative law; Dealing with Social Security Disability is so complicated thatmost lawyers who do it don't do anything else; The S.S. administration decides which lawyers can 'practice', and can revoke such a priviledge 'at will'.The Lawyers are prohibited from taking clients until AFTER they have filed their application, and been denied. And yet, the whole case is largely going to hinge on the answers they put on the application. So, no 'equivalent' of Miranda, or right against self-incrimination, etc. You begin to see how it works?,....THEY 'stack' everythoing in THEIR favor. And, being administrative law, it can easily take over a year for them to process the initial claim, which means someone who is disabled and can't work must somehow survive for a year or more, (and thats only till the FIRST denial!) before they can even hire a lawyer to assist them with the appeal, which can take ANOTHER year.Then they get denied AGAIN, and have their FIRST chance at their 'day in court', with their Lawyer, in an 'administrative hearing'. Again, a LOT of things are 'ajuducated' through administrative law, and its one of the most aggregious ways in which the Gov't can F*ck us, and goes on every day, with most people being un-aware it even exists, (unless you are unfortunate enough to be 'drawn in'. I suspect 'wetlands' cases, where a property owner makes 'changes' etc.would probably fall into this maw, as well. Anyway, dealing with BATF is ALSO something that would, at least initially, be 'administrative law', with the potential always there of moving into Criminal court.Just more 'ranting' on abuse of power of the Gov't., I guess.Jim