Edwin Vieira
A short while ago, a friend of mine who is an ardent advocate in “social media” of the entire Second Amendment—including its first thirteen words, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”—related a verbal altercation he had with a proponent of the so-called “individual-right theory” of the Amendment, which focuses exclusively on its last fourteen words, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This fellow chided my friend on the grounds that, were “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” tied in any manner whatsoever to the Militia, tens of millions of Americans now capable of exercising “the individual right” with respect to some (albeit not all) kinds of firearms could (and probably would) be denied a right to possess any firearms whatsoever, because they could (and probably would) be excluded from the Militia. Recognizing this complaint as the product of a variety of industrial-strength ignorance that afflicts all too many Americans today, I felt it incumbent upon me to post a rejoinder.
Read the entire article here:
What can US Citizens do about it in the corporate "court" system?
Learn your jury rights and duties and use them.
Get your Jurors Handbook and your Citizens Rule-book here.
I am especially interested in hearing Anna's readers' comments on this article.
Notice I wrote it to US Citizens, to whom it certainly applies.
Obviously this doesn't apply to American State Nationals, so don't give me a bad time about it. Somebody has to do something to wake up the average Joe on the street.
Posted by Paul Stramer
Legalman @USlawreview 14h14 hours ago
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/USlawreview
Tired of the corruption and tyranny? I have a simple solution. Everybody demands a jury trial on EVERY "offense". Everybody seated on a jury votes NOT GUILTY. The system will basically collapse overnight. Not willing to? Then stop complaining, because you make it all possible.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EClLygOWkAEJq2n.jpg
Well informed ppl.is necessary 4...
ReplyDeleteThe 1902 Dick Act gives you the right to own anything the armed forces have so you can be a well armed militia.
ReplyDeleteHaha.
DeleteNo man gives another the right to protect themselves and their family period
ReplyDeleteThey have published their intentions to genocide the land mass of the united states and making the 'rules' to take away what no other man has a right to take away in the first place is just insanity
Those making the rules are no better than the rest of us in fact they are worse
All you need to do is look at the 'nations' they have already genocided
DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY DON'T HAVE THE SLAUGHTER ALREADY PLANNED
You decide
people really need to strip down this word "FIREARMS"
ReplyDeleteI think Rod Class really opened our eyes to this word with respect to his case.
It's all in the lingo folks.
Thunder sticks, weapons, guns, [FIREARMS] YOU decide!
All the fake government can do is keep people in their commerce system from selling them to you, they have no way to keep a person acting in their natural capacity from owning a firearm only their 14th amendment citizens acting in that capacity. You can by gun from anyone you want and tell em come take it if they can and you will see them in court when you sue them.
ReplyDeleteRights to me are similiar to my arm leg or some other part of me. Everyone is born with them. If I reach out and take up a bite of food to eat and you steal it take it away, prevent me or harrass me trying to eat, I have a right to defend that. Don't everyone have a right to eat? Yet the twist it so say some are so bad we must defend and put up defensive attacks immediately, even hiway stops, homes, searching as though a criminal warrant exists yet where is it? What rights of another have we violated in such harrassments. Just my opinion but rights are one of those things that man does not create nor take away.
ReplyDeleteObviously there are more blunt object deaths than gun deaths by far.
Looking at the bigger historical picture governments or those having put themselves in the offices often are involved in guns since they use em to attack and take over. If some on is and out-law and a violator it won't matter if they got a gun or not cause they will figure out something and violate without regard. Unless using an assault rifle intending to use it in a defensive assault the name of the thing suggests violator would use it to attack people, violate them and the idea of defending against a government gone as mad a cow herd on a stampede is od course not even mentioned yet was in fact mentioned by the writers of those who recognized and respected rights for what they are rather than pretend men acting as god can create and take away such things. Corporate sure, you must give up some rights perhaps to work and that you choice. Even a slave is violated constantly in this manner against their will and if to the point of suffering so even employment is supposed to recognize and not violate basic rights. The old "Don't Tread On Me is about that. Rattlers leave you alone unless violated then will defend using deadly force if necessary.
First of all, the author of the editorial has placed himself in a level of upper class in my opinion. If I have to use a dictionary and study so many areas of references to barely understand what he is saying, then the document clearly is not intended for the lay person. I had to stop reading because I got tired of looking up the meaning of words he was expressing.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, even if this is applicable somewhat to U.S. Citizens, does the conditions of employment extend beyond the work day? Whenever I worked for any corporation incorporated or not, my agreement of employment spans my working hours. At the end of my shift, I return to a private individual and the corporation has no business there unless I agreed to the condition within the employment contract. In other words, what I do on my time is no one's business, period. If you want to control me 24/7/365, then pay me 24/7/365 or shove it.
Dan, yes Ed is an academic with a serious resume so he will naturally want to speak to an audience of his peers, but I have seen some of his work. I do think he has patriotic instincts. Paul I know is keen on his work and recommends it, I suspect Ed is accustomed to a certain group of people. It can be hard to "turn down the volume" at times when you run with a different pack.
DeleteThere is a contextual problem today that was not so obvious back in the day when the issue of having and keeping arms was an issue and we can all recognize the problem. The people still have muskets compared to the governments "bunker busters" and MOABs and you name it.
People just don't want to be without defense and vulnerable and we are instead told to leave that to the "state" to protect you. Not only is the state in violation of any oath that might have been taken as keepers of the peace, police are not under any particular obligation to defend anyone from anything.
We see things like "to serve and protect" painted all over the police vehicles but isn't us that is being served or protected even though they want us to assume so. Guilt by omission of intent.
40 years ago when I studied International Politics it was understood that weapons of mass destruction served as a detente or mutually assured destruction function between countries and nations. That was accepted. It kept both sides real friendly, and in a way a society with weapons for defense purposes is meant to keep a government real friendly too. It is just detente on a much smaller scale, a local scale.
We can't think of it as mutually assured destruction now however, the balance is tipped too far to the government, they have the access to greater financial resources to tip that balance too far. And it is clear that they never could be trusted. Rarely if ever are there exceptions.
International detente isn't what it used to be either. I think it is now fair to say that regardless of what we thought of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, there is a much greater probability that he would still be alive today if Iraq did have the weapons of mass destruction that they were claimed to have. So we see the deterioration in attitudes and normal practices between nations now as well as locally here at home.
This obviously ain't our Grandfathers world any more.