From A Reader


8 responses to “From A Reader

  1. i’m in that second part and it sucks. its like being a parent of a kid involved in destructive behaviors. you know something bad is going to happen, but you dont know what and there nothing you can do to stop it.
    this whole country is a bull in a china shop today.

  2. David Allan Roberts


    We often hear people say, “The First Amendment gives me the right to say…” or “The Second Amendment gives me the right to have…”

    Both statements are contradictory to the purpose of the Bill of Rights and the founding principles of America.

    America was founded under the principle that we, as citizens, were endowed with certain rights, unlike in other countries, where rights are dispensations from the government. It’s what makes America unique.

    Outside the realm of jurisprudence, The Bill of Rights does not confer any rights to the individual, nor does it empower the Federal Government any degree of oversight. Quite the contrary, each of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights is a stricture against the Federal Government, binding and limiting its power.

    The Second Amendment states:

    “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.”

    Many who oppose the ownership of firearms by private citizens make the claim that citizens are only permitted firearms when in service of the Militia. That’s a bass-ackwards reading of the Amendment. When the Amendment is properly read, it is obvious that it is the Militia that is dependent on the people’s right, rather than the people’s right being dependent on the Militia. Furthermore, from the words of the Amendment itself, it is also obvious that the authors of the Amendment considered the right of the people to bear arms to have preceded any militia involvement and even the Constitution itself.

    Those who favor stricter gun-control legislation, point to the phrase, “A well regulated militia…” as license for the Federal Government to intervene and “regulate” the private ownership of firearms. This is a deliberate misreading perpetrated by those wishing to advance their agenda. The word “regulate”, in respect to the Second Amendment, is more closely akin to “trained, equipped and disciplined”, as affirmed in David McCullough’s historical novel, “1776”.

    “The day’s orders form Sullivan deplored the disorter and unsoldierly behavior displayed in the camps in the eve of battle. Yet soldiers were here, there, and everyswhere, strollin about as if on holiday, some of them miles from the lines. “Carts and horses driving every way among the amry, ” wrote Philip Fithian. “Men marching out and coming in… Small arms and field pieces continually firing. All in tumult.”

    “The contrast between such disorder and flagrant disregard for authority and the perfectly orchestrated landing By Howe’s troops could not have been more pronounced.”

    ” Arriving at Brooklyn, Washington was outraged by what he saw, and in a letter written later in the day, he lectured Old Put (Gen. Israel Putnam) as he might the greenest lieutenant. All “irregularities” must cease at once. “The distinction between a well regulated army and a mob is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behavior of the latter.” (Simon & Schuster; page 161)

    Furthermore, to use “regulate”, as in to “control the limits of” would be contradictory to the phrase, “shall not be infringed” that resides within the same sentence.

    And finally, the purpose of the “Bill of Rights”, as intended by the framers of the Constitution, puts regulation of the private ownership of firearms out of the purview of the Federal Government.

    No, the Second Amendment didn’t give you the right, you already had the right. And barring an amendment to the Constitution, you’ve still got it.


    • I would say even with an amendment to the constitution we would still have that right since its bestowed on us by God…

  3. lost patrol

    Roger that…

  4. Entirely too much standing around……………………

    Waiting is the hardest part. Waiting for……. What?

    Evidence of Evil? Check.

    Obvious tyrannical motives and objectives of “our” .gov? Check.

    The list is already endless, comprehensive and manifest: we are being attacked, a state of war exists, our enemies are relentless and beyond compromise.

    And yet we wait for…. What, again?

  5. If you believe this, you are a FOOL and a LOSER. Lets look at this Lie in simple terms.

    The first line: Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it.

    Please explain to me how that works, I have not studied many events in history and they have not repeated. It takes people and groups of people to make history repeat its events. Not believing that “Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it.” That just bullshit!

    The second Line:

    Yet those who do study are doomed to stand by helplessly while everyone else repeats it.”

    You know I have seen a lot of history on television, i.e. PBS, History Channel, subjects like the civil war, the thing is these historians studying the civil war have not created it or made it REPEAT. The Hindenberg has been studied and it has not happened again its in the past and will remain there.

    Yet those who do study are not doomed to stand by helplessly while everyone else repeats it. The groups doing the studying have one goal in mind, to recreate the events they are the evil people who are driving the timeline, like the Rand Corp. and think tanks. That is how it works.

    Oh Mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe? Adam Weishaupt