Saturday, January 24, 2015

Why I (or any American) NEED An AR15

Here is a discussion that I decided to comment upon (discussing a Piers Morgan video) about the 2nd Amendment.


I'd say Piers was the one making him look like a fool. The government is going to turn on you, as if that isn't idiotic enough, and you're going to defend yourself with an AR 15? Trillions go into the military, the hell are you going to do with an AR 15? This is the best excuse for this really? …

My argument is these people need to come up with a better excuse than "I'm protecting myself from the government" if they want to carry around AR15's. It's absurd. You don't necesarily need assault rifles or AR15's to feel safe. The analogy with other countries being safer proves this. I don't know any country that that ranks higher in economy and safety that allow assault rifles to be out and about. It's an archaic hillbilly way to do things in my opinion. If I'm far off I'd love to hear an argument.

Debby Reagan's the argument you so sorely call for...because it is my RIGHT to own one, given to me as a private right for defense by God and by the 2nd Amendment, as the intention of the framers who wrote it.
The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense."

So, this means that I have the right to own an AR15 if I want to, to be a match against a standing army. And now, before you say...where does it state that the 2nd Amendment's fundamental purpose was to serve as a check upon a standing army, you must look at the framers' discussions surrounding the creation of this amendment.
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.
And that is why I (and all other Americans who are not felons or mentally incompetent) can have and NEED an AR15 rifle, with a big magazine if we should so desire to own one! It is also why the 2nd Amendment says that this right SHALL NOT be infringed. The government has absolutely no right to infringe upon my right to own it! So, when states & federal government ban certain guns/ammo, they are violating my 2nd Amendment right, the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights was to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread. In other right to own and bear arms to match a standing army is not a constitutional right, it is a PRIVATE right, which so happened to be reiterated and strengthened by an amendment to the Constitution, just so it would be absolutely clear to any future government as to what they cannot fool with.


The 'Lectric Law Library

The Act of 1871: The "United States" Is a Corporation - There are Two Constitutions

Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced — in effect vandalized and sabotage — when the title was capitalized and the word “for” was changed to “of” in the title.
The Constitution for the united states of America, is the people's constitution!

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Educational Communism Alive & Well And Soon To Be Countrywide In America With ESEA!

Communism is alive and well in education restructuring in America. The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), due for Congressional Hearings in March 2015, is the last nail in America’s coffin. This bill, the ESEA Re-authorization, will affect YOU — Every American taxpayer! Every American who owns private property!
Read Anita Hoge’s analysis of the Re-authorization of the ESEA, known as Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015 sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander. This bill amends No Child Left Behind which is the Re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 referred to as ESEA.
If we allow that first level of representative government to be eliminated and given to the State, we have implemented the ugly, no recourse, non-representative regional government. Taxation without representation.
Connect the federal money. In the old ESEA re-authorization (SB 1094), and Lamar Alexander's new bill, (no number yet, although they want to vote on it by the end of March), Title I funds follow the child to all public, charter, and private schools.



Do not give the State your wealth that Obama wants to steal from you!

Common Core 
+ Charter School$ 
+ "Choice" 
+ Elimination of property taxe$ 
= Pure Communi$m

No representative government. Top down control. 
Taxation without representation.

We must fight Common Core, Choice, Charter Schools and the elimination of our property taxes. Are we willing to collapse our neighborhood school so that it will be taken over by the state,? Make it into a charter school with unelected boards? Give Title I Common Core vouchers to every private and religious school? And then send our money from property taxes to the state [which will do away with local autonomy]?!!!  

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE by Charlotte Iserbyt HERE! This is VERY important for you to read, understand and then CONTACT your U.S. Congressmen and Senators and ask them to arrange for Anita Hoge, representative of the average American and spokesperson for grassroots parents, to be included in whatever testimony is given before their respective education committees related to the Reauthorization of this dangerous legislation, ESEA. (For Mainers, your US Reps are here!)

Unmasker of Maine...and Beyond
ABCs of Dumb Down