Finally, in the last of this 6-part series about the second amendment, I will address the "militia" aspect of the 2nd amendment. I have shown that the second amendment is very clearly an individual right, and a non-changeable right that is to be interpreted for the original intent of those who wrote it. However, some people still question the "militia" portion of the second amendment, claiming that only groups like the National Guard may have arms.

So, in colonial times, what did the word "militia" mean. Let's go to the writings of the people at that time.

Richard Henry Lee, signer of the declaration and author of the second amendment:

The militia shall always include, according to the past and general usage of the States, all men capable of bearing arms.

and

A militia are in fact the people themselves...and are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns.

Tench Coxe, Attorney General of PA, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington:

The militia are the people at large.

Samuel Adams:

The militia is composed of free citizens.

George Mason, delegate to the Constitutional Convention:

Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.

STILL not enough for you? How about a look at current US law. The United States Code, title 10, section 311(a) states:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 [and] under 45 years of age.

Folks, citizens of the United States have the absolute individual right to bear arms. No legitimate government body, legislative or judicial can take that away under any circumstances. People cannot even grant them the power to do that! This government was very clearly and obviously set up to declare that right is YOURS and it cannot be removed. Ever. Anyone who says different is simply wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:15 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Bravo!! Excellent, excellent stuff! I just posted something I'd like for you to see. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Jay at June 30, 2005 10:37 PM (BKqRl)

2 I want to get involved here...but your blog is such a fucking mess...

Posted by: Random Personae at July 01, 2005 01:33 AM (LxR+H)

3 Thanks for stopping by, Random (your link to your blog doesn't work) -- hopefully you'll like this layout better!

Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:24 PM (lZf6y)

4 So you are saying that only able bodied men 17 to 45 are allowed to own arms? I think you might have some females that disagree with that. I know I do. Where your arguement has problems is that you are leaving parts of the constitution out. Like the begining of the second amendment states "a well regulated Militia..." Nothing you speak of states anything about regulation of the Militia, even your quotes from framers. Where is the regulation at? Also Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution goes further into the duties of the Militia and Congress' regulation of them. Especially "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplinging, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as May be employed in the Service of the United States, REservin to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" They obviously had something in mind when talking about the Militia. Also nowhere in the Constitution does it give you the right to keep and bear FIREarms. It says Arms. Arms can be anything that is a weapon, including polearms, swords and knives. Which where still common weapons at the time this was written. Do I interpret it to mean that no, but since SCOTUS made the decision that arms are not necessarily FIREarms now you have that to argue. Now, I am a gun owning American. I support the 2nd Ammendment, so don't think that I'm trying to argue that we should not have them. But I also am waiting for my Congressional training and arming. Sorry for the long comment.

Posted by: Contagion at July 05, 2005 03:04 PM (Q5WxB)

5 The law clearly states that you CANNOT take the firearms away from the males. I am NOT going to be the one who tries to take them from the females as well... Regulated, as used in common parlayance of the time (and today): 2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature. 3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning. 4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits. In other words, well-regulated meant able to shoot in this case. And sure, knives and polearms also fit into this category. As for the Congressional training, I think you'll have to take that up with your state...

Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 05:15 PM (qV2zb)

6 The law says absolutely nothing about Firearms. That is part of the interpretation process, I agree with it, but it clearly never mentions FIREarms. But that is argueing semantics. I like how you ommited the common first definition of Regulate: 1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning . Now being a historical re-enactor and amature historian of the French and Indian and Revolutionary war periods I happen to have replica manuals and manuscripts from that time. Just for shit and giggles I looked how they used the term regulate. Definition 1 made the most sense, especially 1A. Plus the other definitions really don't fit in with Artical 1 Section 8 and they way it talks about the Militia. As for the training, the state can do it, but congress is supposed to pay for it and arm me.

Posted by: Contagion at July 05, 2005 05:44 PM (977gQ)

7 You're not really serious, are you? Are you honestly saying that because the words "well-regulated" appear that suddenly all other data and facts that clearly show this was intended to be an individual right that the government has the ability to pass laws restricting that right that the amendment was designed to protect?

Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 06:02 PM (qV2zb)

8 No, what I'm saying is that you have failed, in my eyes, to support your case that the government does not have the right to limit the type of arms that the American citizens can or can not have. What other Data and Facts have you listed? None. Unfortunately letters and speeches given by the framers of the constitution do not make law. Plus YOU don't really want to go that route. It is a slippery slope that if you use for this arguement you can't shoot down when people bring up the Seperation of Church and state. Again, I believe in my right to have firearms. I stand by that right. I'm just trying to help you better argue the point because I've argued this with many people that have done a much better job defending it then you have. And yes, the term well-regulated is there for a reason. There was a specific reason they added that phrase. Again you team that with Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the orriginaly document. You can't argue the amendments with out knowing the whole document. NO ONE gets to chose which words in the Constitution they get to ignore. If they wanted the american public to have carte blance access to weapons *I* believe they would have worded it, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's it, no more... but they intentionally and specifically put in "A well-regulated Militia..." For what reason would they have done that? I mean you've already admitted that based on the wording they could limit only able-bodied MEN 17 to 45 to owning weapons.

Posted by: Contagion at July 06, 2005 08:55 AM (Q5WxB)

9 Really? Did you read all six parts of this? No, the letters of the founders may not make law, but they ARE supposed to be considered. The way laws are supposed to be interpreted is that the intent of the people who actually passed the law is supposed to be paramount. It is only a recent invention that laws are only to be interpreted to only be exactly what is written. To get the intent, one needs to read what was written by those who passed the laws. As for the well-regulated militia, they wanted to be sure that the people could defend themselves against tyrannical government. Well-regulated, as I have learned, is to be well-trained in the usage of those arms so that people will always be physically capable of making that defense when needed.

Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 01:57 PM (/k+l4)

10 I read all six parts of this, in fact I'm surprised you haven't noticed I'm using some of your own "facts" against you. Go back and read your own quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeeze out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." IE I'm reading this as, "We wrote what we meant. Interpret it based on the politics, emotions and language of the time." Okay, That's easy enough. Again I re-enact I spend the weekends living in that world and talking history of that time period. I feel I have a farely good grasp on what they where going through both mentally and emotionally at that time. So tell me, with out ommitting any part of the Constitution exactly what you feel they meant by the second ammendment?

Posted by: Contagion at July 06, 2005 02:28 PM (Q5WxB)

11 They meant indeed, what they said -- that the people should be armed. With the amendment, "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," they simply outline part of the purposes -- in order to maintain freedom, people, citizens, need to be armed and capable of using those arms.

Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 03:11 PM (/k+l4)

12 "They simply outline part of the purposes.." Excellent, I like that. One of the better arguements for why that is there. I agree that is part of why that is there. Even though we brushed past it quickly. Arms, especially at that time, also refered to artillary. I believe that if you couple that with Article 1, section 8 it was put in there to prevent everyday citizens from having "arms" that they felt was outside the scope of civilian use. I will admit that I could be wrong on that, but it makes sense from the readings and historical studies I've done. At the time that the Constitution was written, they couldn't even imagine the type of firepower and weapons that we have today, but they knew that advances where being made in weapons technology, albeit much slower at that time. I support the right to own firearms, but I don't know anyone that should own a full automatic M-60.

Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 09:00 AM (Q5WxB)

13 I haven't really tried to read the minds of those people, but if you try and imagine their situation -- being harrassed by British troops and laws -- I'm betting that they did want all citizens to have access to ANY sort of weapon of that time. Heck, the worst they had were cannons, and they really weren't all that good. But certainly, they couldn't imagine things like MAC-10s and Tommy Guns -- I just think that at the time there really weren't ANY arms that were truly outside civilian use. So what if I have a cannon in my yard? How much damage could I really DO with it (as compare to a tactical nuke)?

Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)

14 Actually the artillary they had back then was pretty nasty. It didn't have the range or punch that our modern artillary does, but it was still pretty damn effective. They could fill them with solid shot that could continue through entire lines of men, or for closer fire use Grape shot which was a lot of 1/2 inch to 2 inch lead balls shoved down the barrel turning them into giant shot guns that would take out whole lines of men. Their mortars could launch exploding rounds over fortifications and terrain exploding over the troops sending sharpnel tearing through them and the buildings. It's pretty nasty stuff. I own a 1/2 scale portable Mortar. I can shoot a cement filled pop can a 1/2 mile with it. Ever see what a cement filled pop can does to anything it hits? It's not pretty, and those aren't the exploding rounds that were meant to be shot out of the full sized ones. At this time the regulating body of the Militia has not decided that "primitive" artillary is illegal to own... but they have decided that fully automatic weapons, grenade and rocket launchers and as well as missles are illegal arms. And I don't want you having a tactical nuke either.

Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 11:51 AM (Q5WxB)

15 Very interesting. I imagine a lead ball would be good against rows of troops, but I guess that's why guerrilla tactics worked so well against them. I never heard of exploding rounds being used effectively during that time, neat! I guess I just pictured that artillery of the time, in the hands of a private individual, would be generally useless. I picture a fellow in a standoff with police aiming his cannon at the police car: "I'll shoot, I will!" ... and then the quick scramble as he tries to reload.... And does that mean I have to disassemble my tactical nuke now? The Russians did give me a great deal on it...

Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 01:42 PM (/k+l4)

16 Sometimes one shot is all it takes. And yes, yes you do have to dismantel the Tactical Nuke.

Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 07:32 PM (977gQ)

17 I do? Damn it. I'll be right back...

Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 07:54 PM (qV2zb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So, are any of you, my good readers, going to Hawaii this year? Anyone on the East Coast headed out that way? Have any of you ever priced a trip to Hawaii? Sure would be nice to go, wouldn't it? How about if you didn't have to pay a dime to go and spend time there, vacationing? You, too, can go, all expenses paid -- just get elected.

This year the (utterly useless) National Association of Counties, is having it's "annual meeting" in Honolulu, Hawaii from July 15-19. Are your county officials going? Mecklenburg County has some participants -- the same people who have "cut the budget to the bone," of course.

Now let's see, government is supposed to only do things the people say, and government should only be limited to doing as little as possible. Why in the world would any county "official" need to spend thousands of dollars of money that's NOT THEIRS to vacation in Hawaii? Because they can.

This is the sort of reason that government is too big. This is the type of thing that absolutely is NOT needed. THIS is the type of thing that you will go to jail unless you support it (with tax dollars). What I don't understand is why no one cares.

Maybe I should try it one time. I'll get out one of my guns and walk up to every house in a neighborhood and demand they give me some money to pay for my vacation to Hawaii. Would you be mad if I did that to you? Then why aren't you mad at the elected officials of the county WHO ARE DOING THAT TO YOU RIGHT NOW?

Posted by: Ogre at 05:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

Over the past week, I've been outlining the very clear and obvious right to bear arms that the citizens of the United States own, despite any attempts by courts or legislators of this country. Today, even more quotes from the people who tried to design a system of law and government so that the right would not be taken by the government.

Zechariah Johnston, Revolutionary Soldier, Virginia Legislator, Ratified of the Constitution:

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. This is a principle which secures religious liberty most firmly.

Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, framer of the second amendment:

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

James Madison:

The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. In the several Kingdoms of Europe...the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

George Madison, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, "Father of the Bill of Rights:"

Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great-Britain, the British parliament was advised...to disarm the people. That is was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually.

Thomas Paine, Patriot and author:

I am thusfar a Quaker [a pacifist]: I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation; but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power.

Noah Webster, Revolutionary Soldier, Legislator, Author of portions of the Constitution:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed - as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed.

Once again showing that there is no possible way that the authors of the United States Constitution had any hints that the right to bear arms was anything other than an individual right. Anyone who claims that the right to bear arms is limited to the police and militia is utterly clueless to history, or is intentionally attempting to advance their own agenda for whatever reason.

If that's not enough, there's even more coming tomorrow!

Posted by: Ogre at 05:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

I know that some people have a real problem with the RealID Act. I'm not convinced...yet. Are we at this point yet?

I don't think we are. This guy outlines a quite long and convincing case for the "right to travel." (Long but very interesting read). I'm not so sure we have that right.

Some of the points about a national ID card are indeed very valid. Of most concern is the idea that if a 19-year old can get fake ID to get beer, do you really think a well-financed terrorist will have any problem with it?

The Real ID Act doesn't create anything that gives the government anything they don't already have. But it also does absolutely zero to prevent terrorism or anything regarding law breakers. It will make getting a real driver's license in North Carolina a little tougher for illegal immigrants, but that's all.

Is it a step down the wrong road? Sure. Is it really harmful? Not really.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

I saw a block of text from this news article and a chill ran up my back:

The coalition -- Land for Tomorrow -- has already succeeded in attracting the support of Republicans and Democrats in the N.C. General Assembly

Any time you see "coalition," and "support of Republicans and Democrats," in the same sentence, be afraid -- and grab what's left of your wallet, because you can bet they're reaching for it.

Reading further in the article, I was correct, as feared. This "visionary" group of "conservationists" want to ask taxpayers to approve "$1 billion in bonds" to "conserve the state's land, water, history and future."

I didn't even want to read the rest of the article as my stomach turned, rather violently, when I tried to interpret that statement. First, because someone wants to steal my money at gunpoint (taxes), they are "visionary." When you see "conservationists," I see "anti-freedom, soviet-style housing proponents." Where you see "bonds," I see "massive tax increases."

So that statement that seems so innocent, when read correctly, becomes:
"A group of terrorists who strongly oppose any freedom of choice and who want to relocate all subjects of North Carolina into small, stacked, soviet-style housing in large urban areas only want to take yet more money from those who actually work for it to purchase things they like but cannot afford because they DON'T work." Scared yet?

Hey idiots, if you want to buy land for conservation, BUY IT YOUR DAMN SELVES! I love conservation. Heck, I'd even support this massive project with my own money -- IF IT WAS VOLUNTARY! Why can't you people understand freedom? Why do these "conservation" groups HATE freedom SO much?

Posted by: Ogre at 05:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Last week I outlined proof that the United States Constitution is NOT a "living document," and that the rights in the Constitution were to be interpreted as they were written, for their original intent, and that those rights are not granted by government, but only there to be protected from government. Today I'd like to continue with a few thoughts of the founders and authors of the documents that created this great country.

Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration, "Father of the American Revolution:"

The said Constitution should be never construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

Fisher Ames, an author of the second amendment:

The right of bearing arms is declared to be inherent in the people.

Patrick Henry, Governor, Patriot Leader, author of one of my favorite quotes ("Give me Liberty or Give me Death."):

The great object is that every man be armed. Every one who is able may have a gun.

Patrick Henry, Governor, Patriot Leader:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Thomas Jefferson:

No citizen shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands.

As can very clearly and obviously be seen here, the founders of this country and the early framers of the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, said that every citizen who desires arms should have them. There is no possible interpretation of any of these great men that would even suggest that government has any right or ability to limit that right to bear arms.

Still not enough? There's more tomorrow!

Posted by: Ogre at 01:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

A bill has been introduced in the North Carolina House, and you will likely find it rather hard to believe it's even needed. The bill is HB1545, titled "The Freedom To Serve Act." The meat of the text of the bill reads as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any officer of either house of the General Assembly, or any party caucus officer or whip in either house of the General Assembly, to coerce, dictate, or otherwise force a member of either house of the General Assembly to vote for or against any legislative measure in exchange for a promise of funding of projects or promises of other items. Such legislative action is against the public policy of North Carolina because it prevents members from serving their constituents or fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of their office.

Can you even imagine that such a law would be required? The first portion of the bill outlines the need for it:

Whereas, an unhealthy precedence has been set in previous sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly resulting in publicly elected representatives being denied equal access to resources to serve the people of North Carolina; and

This is real. The North Carolina House of Representatives is being run by a thug who determines who does what, when, and where. Jim Black, Democrat, does things like remove access to phones, reassign legislators to smaller rooms, and removes office budgets for those who dare disagree with him.

This act is needed, but the idea that it is needed is much worse. Voting Democrats in North Carolina, this guy is on your side. When you vote Democrat, you are voting for a tyrant who rules the state with an iron fist.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

It's Monday, and time once again for some excellent carnival of blogs entertainment. If you're not familiar with a blog carnival, it's simply a single topic, idea, or some unifying thing that a number of different people on different blogs post about. Then someone creates a carnival, placing links to all the posts about that topic or idea in one place. So you can read in one place a number of different takes and ideas on one subject.

My two personal favorite weekly carnivals are the Tarheel Tavern -- a carnival of North Carolina bloggers, this week appearing at It's a Pixelated Life...; and the New Blog Showcase Carnival, this week appearing at One Happy Dog Speaks.

Both are lots of fun and interesting, so head on over and read what's going on there. Meanwhile, I'll continue with my plans, today probably heading towards the coast of Maine...

Posted by: Ogre at 01:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

If you listen carefully to various politicians (NOT statesmen), you will hear them claim that they haven't raised taxes, only fees. Now I'm all for user fees to obtain money for services, but only if the fee is actually used to support that service. In reality, in North Carolina, nearly all "user fees" go to the general fund where it is spent -- as quickly as possible -- on anything that Jim Black desires.

Some recent "fee" increases (that take $162.7 million from working individuals to the general fund to be redistributed to non-working individuals):

Driver license record copies: up 60%
Automobile driver's license: up 31%
Truckers driver's license: up 26-38%
Automobile title fee (imagine that, a fee to prove you own property): +$35-40.
Registration fee (nothing to do with anything but state income): +$10-15.

In 1976 the entire North Carolina budget was less than $2 billion.

In 2004, the budget was $15.9 billion.
2005: $16.9 billion.
2006 (minimum estimated): $17.5 billion.
2007 (minimum estimated): $18.2 billion.

So, in 20 years, the North Carolina State budget, not including cities and counties, increased by 875%. That's what you get when Democrats are in charge. During that entire time, Democrats were running the General Assembly.

If you're voting Democrat in North Carolina, is this what you really want?

Posted by: Ogre at 05:15 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

Time again for the lovely weekly Sunday afternoon feature: The New Neighbor. Once again I present to you a blog I've found during the week from the Evangelical Blogroll. I have to admit that many times the appearance of the blog, the first glance, gets me to reading it or turns me off quickly. This week's neighbor made me want it to be good, just because of the appearance of the blog.

Tulip Girl

A clean, fast-loading, elegant blog that follows all the web design rules (except for the lack of llamas) and is easy on the eyes. And yes, there are tulips. Despite being around since December of 0000 -- yes, that's what the Archives show -- but there aren't any actual entries for December of year zero -- TulipGirl has this to say about herself in the "About Me" section:

TulipGirl is currently what she would like to reveal about herself and what she would rather withhold. This section will contain some real information soon!

I don't know about you, but I'm watching that closely to see what "SOON" means...

The first real entry appears on January 1, 2004. I guess that was some New Year's Resolution, huh? The site appears to be updated pretty much daily with all sorts of different things. There's posts about free giveaways, music, relationships, and reading.

So enjoy your day of rest today (and if you have to work today, I hope you reserve another day for a day of rest), and head on over and read a new blog -- introduce yourself to a new person. Relax and have some fun.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:57 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

I was reading this AP Story titled, "Parents Blast Military Recruiters at Schools." After reading it, I wonder how far and wide they had to search to find these idiots. I don't believe for a minute that the "parent" interviewed in this story represents even a considerable number of actual parents.

This idiot, one Nancy Carroll whines that "People of color who go into the military are put on the front line." Racist. Yes, Nancy is black, and Nancy is a racist. She's perpetuating a total lie. The generals don't sit around and say, "Gee, where's the niggers, we need to attack that hill over there." What a total load of BS, I'm almost surprised this was printed without making fun of her.

She's joined by another racist idiot, Representative Jim McDermontt, from Washington. He claims "They're going to the schools where they figure the kids will have less chance to go to college." Well gee, Jim, would you rather they go try and recruit people from Harvard to wash dishes for the military? Jimmy Boy, you're a total idiot. They try to recruit where the people are THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY JOIN!

Aren't you people the same rockheads that complain about jobs? The same ones that complain that government needs to create more jobs? The military IS a job, and they're trying to provide those jobs you jokes are screaming about! So I guess that's just not the right kind of job. Why don't you give them all your money, Jimmy?

Of course, parents can "opt out" of allowing schools to give their contact information to recruiters. But that's not enough. Jimmy Boy and his pals at the ACLU want government protection from government. What a damn load.

Hey "parents," you want a real solution? Take your kids out of the government school system if it's so bad.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:00 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

This past week I've been exploring and enjoying some of Busch Gardens in Williamsburg, VA. I love the pubs, the fresh beer, and the excellent shows. However, the one thing I loved about the Busch park in Tampa, FL, is the animals. When waiting in line for something down there, last time I was there, you could look over the railing of the queue line and watch a couple of these guys just strolling around:

Posted by: Ogre at 02:10 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Tomorrow there is a Family picnic at Canton Recreation Park in Haywood County, North Carolina. The picnic is from 1-5pm on June 25th and the public is welcome. There will be a featured speaker, one Robert Orr, a retired associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court.

There's FREE FOOD!

This event is sponsored by the Haywood County Republican Club. For more information, contact Marge Carpenter at 828-454-9358 or mdcarpenter2004@charter.net.

Sounds like fun! I'd consider taking a trip out there myself, but I'm still on vacation. In fact, the day this is posted I'll be making the drive from Williamsburg, VA to Weare, NH!

Posted by: Ogre at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

The ACLU (Anti-American Communist Lawyer's Union) hates religion. They would suppress any form of public religious expression, especially Christian, if they had their way. If you support the ACLU, you are supporting hatred of religion, whether you like it or not. Their goal honestly is total suppression of all religion. However this nation was founded on religion.

Did you know that the VERY FIRST Act of the first Continental Congress in 1774 was a motion to pause for a prayer? The motion passed (obviously) and it was actually a Jewish prayer that was read -- Psalm 35.

On December 11, 1776, The newly formed United States Congress invited states to celebrate a national day of fasting and humiliation to beg God's pardon for the actions of the people of the new country.

George Washington ORDERED soldiers to begin each day with a public prayer.

During the Jefferson administration, the largest church service in the country was held in the U.S. Capital Building.

If you are religious, the ACLU hates you. Do not support them. Do not believe their lies. This great nation was founded on religion, no matter who tells you otherwise.

Today is the Stop the ACLU Blogburst. Head on over there to read more about the horrible organization.

Posted by: Ogre at 06:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the last two days, I've outlined that the United States Constitution should be interpreted only as it was written, and only as the writers intended, without taking into consideration the current societal trends. I've shown the original intent of rights secured, not granted, by the Constitution. Today I want to provide a few quotes from the people who lived and wrote the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

James Wilson:

Homicide is enjoined [REQUIRED] when it is necessary for the defense of one's person or house. It is the great natural law of self-preservation which, as we have seen, cannot be repealed or superceeded or suspended by any human institution....Every man's house is deemed, by the law, to be his castle; and the law, while it invests him with the power, places on him the duty of the commanding officer.

St. George Tucker, a justice of the Virginia Supreme Court and a federal judge under President James Madison:

The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

Chancellor James Kent, one of two "fathers of American jurisprudence:"

The municipal law of our country has likewise left with individuals the exercise of the natural right of self defense. The right of self defense is founded in the law of nature, and is not, and cannot be, superseded by the law of society.

Not convinced yet? I'll post more views of the authors and signers of the Constitution next week.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

The Asheville Citizen-Times feels that workers are entitled to your money simply because they work, not because they earn it. At issue is an article written by a worker's compensation lawyer where he bemoans and complains that the NC Senate might pass a bill that amends worker compensation law in North Carolina.

Now, if you read Mr. Gantt's (the worker's compensation lawyer) article, you'd think the proposed law would not allow any worker who was injured on the job any money at all. He calls the bill "harsh and unfair." He claim that the bill will move people from worker's compensation to welfare. He says that the bill will result in "more bankruptcies."

So, what's in this bill that "should be buried and rejected?"

No compensation shall be allowed when the employee refuses to submit to or cooperate with a blood or other applicable medical test after the accident, if the employee had previously been warned in writing by the employer that such refusal would forfeit the employee's right to recover benefits under this Article.

So if you get injured on the job because you're hammered, you don't get free cash.

An employee who reports an injury or illness to the employer that the employee claims is work‑related waives any physician‑patient privilege with respect to any condition or complaint reasonably related to the condition for which the employee seeks compensation.

So if you want to claim you've been injured, you have to actually allow your employer and your employer's insurer access to the medical records that prove you really are injured.

in no case shall the period covered exceed 500 weeks from the date of the injury. In cases of total and permanent compensation, including medical compensation, shall be paid for by the employer during the lifetime of the injured employee.

So, if you're totally disabled, you get cash for your lifetime. If you're not totally injured (that means capable of working in some form), you only get cash for 9.6 years. Then you have to find a job.

Yeah, you're right, Mr. Gantt. This bill isn't fair -- to ambulance chasers and "worker's compensation lawyers."

Posted by: Ogre at 05:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator Dick Durbin noted the mild inconveniences that terrorists have been suffering at the Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) detention facility and compared these "torturing" to Nazi concentration camps, Soviet Gulags, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia.

We should send some of our government school children there, as the conditions and treatments there are better than some of our government schools...but that's a story for another day.

Presuming Dicky Bourbon Durbin gets his way and the terrorists are let go, where do you think they should go? Here's the top 10 places suggested, as compiled by our research team on crack crack research team:

10. Dicky's House. He needs some more undocumented people to do some yard work, anyone. (Ok, that one was too easy).

9. Chicago. There's so many people there and so much crime, it's not likely anyone would even know the difference.

8. Up Durbin's ** Bleep **. Oops. How'd that one get by the censors?

7. Paris. The French are already on their side, and I'm sure they'd take them.

6. Out the door. Just let them out the door and have them wander over to the other side of that little island to see how they fare...

5. Iraq. Well, that's where they want to go already, right? And if Dicky just personally asks them, I'm sure they won't actually kill any more Americans, right? It's not like they're terror... oh wait, never mind.

4. California. There's already millions of illegal aliens there, and if we don't let them go there, there will be no one to pick vegetables from the farms, right? At least that's what the FMSM (Formerly Mainstream Media) tells me...

3. North Carolina. They might be dangerous, but at least they'll be able to get driver's licenses (NC has one of the lowest requirements for DLs and actively campaigns to give DLs to illegal immigrants).

2. The Mariana Trench. With concrete shoes.

And finally, the #1 place to send the terrorist, illegal ENEMY combatants, as suggested by Dicky Durbin:

The University of Colorado, where they can get taxpayer-funded educations and learn from the self-proclaimed experts how to hate America.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday I posted facts that showed the current media bias against firearms is clearly wrong. I showed how the founding fathers very clearly indicated that the United States Constitution is NOT a "living" document, and that when interpreting the Constitution, one should absolutely consider the original intent of those who wrote it.

Today I'd like to continue with some details about that original intent, specifically the source of the rights in the United States Constitution.

James Wilson, one of only 6 men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, who was also the second most active member of the Constitutional Convention, said that the rights found in government documents did NOT create new rights, but instead the documents were

...to acquire a new security for the possession of the recovery of those rights to which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator.

John Adams said the same thing when he said that

Rights are antecedent to all earthly governments; Rights cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights are derived from the great Legislator of the universe.

Thomas Jefferson agreed that government

is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us.

Alexander Hamilton:

The Supreme Being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He invested him [man] with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety

So now we've clearly shown that government is not in the business of granting rights, but instead the Constitution has clearly outlined various boundaries of natural rights that the government should never cross.

Tomorrow we'll continue with more details and facts about the actual right PROTECTED, NOT GRANTED, in the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Great post Ogre! It truly shows the intent and beliefs of our founding fathers. Thanks for sharing your research with us. PS - I cross posted this to Crosses aCross America - it reinforces a post I did early on the founding fathers and their beliefs.

Posted by: Kathy at June 22, 2005 08:49 PM (xLEQL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

According to Dateline Alabama, over 25% of lobbyists in North Carolina are breaking the law. Most groups who lobby lawmakers are required to file two reports each year showing their activities. In 2003 and 2004, it was revealed that at least 201 organizations with lobbyists did not file at least one of the two required reports. There were also apparently 27 groups that filed NO reports for the year.

The solution? It's the same solution as requested by all liberals, the formerly mainstream media (FMSM), Democrats, and socialists the world around: more government!

The Secretary of State's office simply claimed that they needed more money to enforce these laws and fine those who have not filed reports. They claim the "system's computer" doesn't create a report of those who haven't filed. I'll help them out if they need the SQL to create the report -- it's very, very, very basic.

Then again, the Secretary of State's office gets their funding from the legislature, who gets their funding from the lobbyists...hence there will be no more money, and there will be no fines, nor enforcement of the laws in this case. How much money is at issue here? According to some reports, as much as $18.6 million changed hands in 2003-4.

People of North Carolina, something really stinks in Raleigh, and the smell is not coming from the fish market.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Do you, personally, my good and fair readers, have the individual, personal right to own and use a firearm? If you're a member of the military or a police agency, clearly you do, and I don't think anyone would ever argue that they don't. But if you are just an "average" citizen, do you have that individual right?

Not according to the media:
"There is no individual right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights" -- Richard Benedetto, "Gun Rights are a Myth," USA Today, December 28, 1994.

"Law-abiding Americans have no unconditional right to firearms access" -- "Time for Gun Control," New York Post, August 12, 1999.

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep them" -- "Legal Guns Kill, Too," The Washington Post, November 5, 1999.

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun." -- Michael Gartner, former president of NBC News, "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them, USA Today, January 16, 1992.

They are all wrong. Dead wrong.

For those who believe the United States Constitution is a so-called "living document," you're wrong, too. Thomas Jefferson, to Supreme Court Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeeze out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

James Madison, to Henry Lee on June 25, 1824:

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that not be the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than faithful, exercise of its powers...

What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all it's ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

James Wilson, one of the original justices on the Supreme Court:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.

So, very clearly and obviously, those who created the United States Constitution absolutely determined it should not be a "living" document and that it should be read and interpreted as for its original intent, and the intent of those who wrote it.

Tomorrow I'll post some information on the opinions of those who wrote the second amendment.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.