Government wants to limit arguments in machine gun case
Militia leader accused of having illegal weapons
Last updated Friday, December 29, 2006 7:50 PM CST in News
By Ron Wood
The Morning News
FAYETTEVILLE -- A man charged with possessing illegal machine guns shouldn't be able to make constitutional arguments at trial, according to a motion filed Friday by federal prosecutors.
Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, a lieutenant commander of the Militia of Washington County, is charged in U.S. District Court with possessing three homemade, unregistered machine guns and an unregistered sawed-off shotgun.
Trial is set for Jan. 8 in Fayetteville.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Wendy Johnson filed the motion asking U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren to preclude Fincher and his attorney, Oscar Stilley, from arguing matters of law to the jury as a defense. The government believes Fincher wants to argue the gun charges are unconstitutional and that the prosecution must prove an "interstate nexus" for the firearms, according to the motion.
The government is arguing that it is the court's role to decide matters of law and to instruct the jury. The jury's role is to then determine and apply the facts to the law as instructed by the court. The jury has no role in deciding legal issues, according to the motion.
The government also wants the court to order Fincher to disclose items the defense intends to use as evidence at trial, the results of any physical or mental examinations or experiments to be used at trial and provide written summaries of witness testimony the defense intends to use.
Fincher was also put on notice Friday that the government intends to present evidence about additional firearms found at Fincher's home or at the "Militia Headquarters" during the execution of search warrants.
Fincher was arrested Nov. 8 by federal agents. He remains in federal custody in lieu of $250,000 bond, and a number of other conditions also set by the magistrate judge, including moving out of his home and in with his daughter, posting the deed with the court, electronic monitoring, not attending militia meetings and giving up any weapons.
According to police, two of the .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919, allegedly had Fincher's name inscribed on them and said "Amendment 2 invoked," a reference to the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms. The other was a 9 mm Sten design.
Since 1934, it's been illegal for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department.
Federal law permits the public to own machine guns manufactured and registered before 1986 under certain conditions. Guns made or imported after that date can be bought by law enforcement agencies but not the public.
Each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax and must be registered with the bureau's National Firearms Registry.
Reader Comments (140 comment(s))
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.
Common Sense wrote on Dec 30, 2006 8:24 AM:
" To machine gun owner: The Commerce Clause is a legitimate vehicle for the federal government to regulate firearms. If you don't accept that, you're spitting in the wind. Plain and simple, if you are going to own a machine gun, register it. Geez. "
Got What He wanted wrote on Dec 30, 2006 10:32 AM:
" Fincher put up a web site with video of him shooting his machine gun, was featured in a newspaper article about the militia and argued publicly against the validity of gun laws. Well, he got his wish....he squawked loud enough that the Feds finally noticed him and that he didn't have any licenses for his machine guns. He got arrested and is now headed for trial. He got what he wanted. He knew the law and chose to ignore it. A simple license and he could have avoided all this. Can't wait for the trial. "
GunShowOnTheNet.com wrote on Dec 30, 2006 11:02 AM:
" Common Sense said; "The Commerce Clause is a legitimate vehicle for the federal government to regulate firearms."
Show me where in the U.S. Constitution where it is legitimate. There is an amendment, (Amendment II), and thousands of pages of history that prove your contention incorrect.
The Right of We The People to Keep and Bear Arms is/was long considered as the First Law of Nature;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html
The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are BASED on "the transcedent
Here is more absolute proof;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRight.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/SenateJournal09091789.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/TheRight.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&Precedent.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Contents.html
Our government(s) have been, and are continuing to betray We The People. We, with OUR U.S. Constitution, are the Legitimate, Supreme and Ultimate Authority. Those in our governments were put there by us to SERVE our best interests. The Constitution is an instrument defining delegated powers granted, as well as restrictions on the use off governing powers.
They are, in effect, turning the intended Constitutional Republican form of government into an aristocracy/oligarchy.
I applaud what Mr. Wayne Fincher is doing. He is standing up to the beast and exercising his Sovereign Authority. The people in government are our SERVANTS - not our masters. May God Bless, help and Keep Wayne through his trial and tribulation. Wayne is one of a few of the last TRUE American Patriots. I respect what he is trying to do FOR us "
DKSuddeth wrote on Dec 30, 2006 11:03 AM:
" To 'common sense',
you said - "To machine gun owner: The Commerce Clause is a legitimate vehicle for the federal government to regulate firearms. If you don't accept that, you're spitting in the wind. Plain and simple, if you are going to own a machine gun, register it. Geez."
Take a very close read on how the commerce clause is used by congress and the decisions that the courts have made. You do realize that using the commerce clause, congress can regulate ANYTHING that you may wish to grow on your own personal property? "
GunShowOnTheNet.com wrote on Dec 30, 2006 11:11 AM:
" Sorry for that last post, it turned out not as I had intended.
Here is concrete proof the government is wrong in what they are doing;
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? ... Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."....- Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
(Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the federal treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803)..
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829). (Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791). "
Blah Blah Blah wrote on Dec 30, 2006 2:44 PM:
" Thank you for the past several comments, militia people. You give us a clear picture of why the government wants to limit arguments in the case. You guys cannot quit talking. And you insist on quoting every dead white man in history. You guys are a laughing stock. "
Artificial Market Constraints wrote on Dec 30, 2006 3:24 PM:
" Got What He Wanted -- You said "He knew the law and chose to ignore it. A simple license and he could have avoided all this."
If you consider "simple" to be paying $7,000-$10,000 for used rifles that would cost the police $400 to $1,500 new, plus a $200 tax stamp for each item plus approval of your local Cheif Law Enforcement Officer, plus transfer fees, plus ATF forms if you want to take it anywhere, plus, plus, plus...
There is nothing "simple" about a citizen legally owning a full auto gun. "
1776 wrote on Dec 30, 2006 10:21 PM:
" CS, GWHW, May your chains lay lightly on you. If you want the truth about that nasty "M" word, go here and read, and read them ALL.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm "
Zoomie wrote on Dec 30, 2006 10:29 PM:
" Got what he wanted, Once again another person ignorant of the law piping up. There is no such thing as a license for a machinegun. It is a registration process. Fingerprints, CLEO sign-off, passport photos, forms. Oh yeah outragous prices. All controlled by the good ole fedgov. "
Not Surprised wrote on Dec 30, 2006 11:18 PM:
" While i am a firm beliver in the 2nd amendment, WHY would anyone really want to own a machine gun, you cant hunt with it, its expensive to shoot, and home defense, why thats just silly. You can own one if you want to fill out the paper work, and if you want to fill out the paper work and go through the process to own one, then fine. Otherwise go buy a semi-auto, I prefer a .22. Its cheap to shoot and fun to go "plinking" with. But remember pratice good gun safety.
"
Tony von Krag Ph.D. wrote on Dec 31, 2006 12:39 AM:
" Not Surprised wrote on December 30, 2006 11:18 PM:"While i am a firm beliver in the 2nd amendment, WHY would anyone really want to own a machine gun, you cant hunt with it, its expensive to shoot, and home defense, why thats just silly.
By your chain of logic I guess then the federal government has the right to tell you how much horsepower you can have in a a car or truck. I mean a 60cc Japanese J-Car can carry 4 and go 60kph, anymore is just plain silly? Or how about this, every family only needs 1500 sq ft of space and one bathroom. The country got along fine for years living like that. Sounds silly doesn't it? BTW I agree with you on .22's and gun safety but taring a tool or sporting item as silly is a show of bad logic called a "straw man". "
Stephen Carville wrote on Dec 31, 2006 5:55 PM:
" This case is more than the Second Amendment. It is a blatant attempt to limit the right of the defense to argue the law to a jury. The prosecution will argue the law but if this stands the defense will be limited in it's ability to rebut those arguments. Those supporting the government's position are just helping to flush what's left of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments down the toilet.
"
Tom wrote on Jan 1, 2007 3:15 AM:
" Saddam had a fairer trial then Wayne'll get.
Talk about anything you like, as long as you don't talk about the case, the law, or what the country was founded on.
a little sunshine on your day, look this up:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 (b) (2)
The power in the government is too "connected", related, and long term. The first thing that needs to happen is getting these vermin out of power so some change can happen. "
Collector wrote on Jan 1, 2007 6:01 AM:
" To set the stage, I am a military arms collector, don't hunt, not a member of any militia, not an automatic weapons owner, and I am a successful professional. While I don't have an interest in owning a machine gun, I do feel that the usability test ("can't use it for hunting") is spurious. My meager collection is used for my own collecting and research pleasure, for target shooting, and for education of others. This gentleman will no doubt lose his case on precedent alone. However, no US court should disallow any aguments he may bring in his defense, particularly the rights provided under the Constitution and its amendments. The prosecution clearly does not want to risk some of his "peers" on the jury actually agreeing with him and failing to convict. Although not a "government hater" I do feel that federal prosecutors would prefer to convict by decree and not have to deal with the pesky citizens who sit on juries and who may disagree with them. "
Hurd Owosso, MI wrote on Jan 1, 2007 7:05 AM:
" Tony you should have made the distinction that owning the gun was a right and owning the car was a privilege.....
Not Surprised.... It may come as a shock to you but the 2nd is not about hunting. I wonder how far our forefathers would have got if they were limited to spears and clubs or fists against the firepower held by the English. But if you don't not stand against this then who will ther be to stand with you when they come for your plinker? "
DJStuCrew wrote on Jan 1, 2007 1:04 PM:
" It's been said before and worthy of saying again: which part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't the government understand? Instead of going after killers, gangs and child molesters, they're going after a guy who has never been a problem to anyone. Your tax dollars at work, people! "
MBFree wrote on Jan 1, 2007 3:26 PM:
" Bureaucrats cannot follow their own rules and still function.
"
Squirt wrote on Jan 1, 2007 3:30 PM:
" Bureaucrats are not in the fairness business. They are in the control, power and money busines. They crave attention, irresponsiblility, glory and domination. "
FBasch wrote on Jan 1, 2007 3:47 PM:
" This Government is out of controll and I feel safer with Wayne Fincher, myself and who ever wants to protect this country from tyranny. If you cannot see what is happening all around us then put down your stupid glamour books, video games, remotes and take a gander. Not a very pretty picture. Who made these unconstitutional gun laws to begin with? I would not trust them to prosecute me in a unconstitutional liar room. May God bless you Wayne and grant you a just trial. He will pull down the strongholds of this evil system one great and glorious day!!!!!! "
Persona wrote on Jan 1, 2007 4:44 PM:
" Judging from some of the responses, it is true that MOST Americans are mindless slaves to their menevolent all powerful government.
How true these words are:
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. - Ayn Rand
May God almighty grant me the wish to live long enough to see you mindless automatons squirm and squeal like pigs at the hands of your masters.
http://causapatet.blogspot.com/ "
georgee wrote on Jan 1, 2007 4:46 PM:
" owner.One who has complete dominion over particular property.
Bureaucrats ''amended'' version.
owner.One who has complete dominion over particular property, unless a bureaucrat thinks he or she needs it
"
Eddie wrote on Jan 1, 2007 5:02 PM:
" See if I Have this Right?...
Ted Kennedy kills a woman at Chappidquidick and does no jail time. Wayne Fincher who has killed or injured no one arrested in the name of Ted Kennedy by the infamous BATF has already spent seven weeks in jail. Hmmm "
squirt wrote on Jan 1, 2007 5:31 PM:
" Bureaucrats never ask permission to aggress against someone or their property.
Bureaucrats act on behalf of themselves under a collective alter ego known as ''the state'' a thinly concealed protection racket. "
Jerry Hawkins wrote on Jan 2, 2007 7:57 AM:
" This attempt to gag the jury is just as wrong as the arrest of the defendant. "
Scott wrote on Jan 2, 2007 2:52 PM:
" The right to bear arms is about the right to resist a tyrannical government. Hunting rifles would never pose a threat to our government. The reason the defense wants constitutional arguments suppressed to prevent jury nullification of unconstitutional law. "
God Bless Wayne Fincher wrote on Jan 2, 2007 6:00 PM:
" The fed has for years been violating the second amendment among other of our constitutional rights. Therefore, there is much more than Fincher's liberty at stake here. If Mr. Fincher is correctly found to be in the right, it would tear a gaping hole in the government's web of infringement. Judges know this by trade, and few of them have the guts to initiate or propagate that tear prefering instead to hide behind "case law" which has been trending toward this infringement for decades.
I hope that Magistrate Jones will be one of the few judges who DO have the guts to do what is right and will allow the clear words of our constitution to ring in the ears of the jury. "
1894C wrote on Jan 3, 2007 10:40 AM:
" To those who see Mr. Fincher as some right wing nut-case, or who get upset because the words of the founders are repeatedly invoked, I offer some words of caution.
Do not lightly ignore the words of the founders, rather listen, and consider what they say. These men who risked everything "their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor" to fight against the most powerful nation on earth for the ideal of liberty and self determination.
The words of men of such action are not worthy of scorn. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
Also before you dismiss Mr. Fincher as a "gun nut" consider what he is saying by way of his actions. He has by all accounts committed no offense with the weapons in question (other than not paying the tax/ registering them).
More to the point he is by all accounts adhering to every meaningful description of militia you could use (setting aside those that say the National Guard which did not exist at the writing of the Constitution and clearly can fall under federal authority is in fact the militia).
As such how can you argue that the militia is not entitled to posses such arms unless you are arguing that the 2nd amendment is simply passe; that agents (federal state and local) has a monopoly on force.
Sadly what many Americans believe today is that lethal force using firearms is the exclusive right of Gov "
Justafeeling wrote on Jan 3, 2007 5:56 PM:
" I am not a constitutional scholar. I have a collection of 10 or more guns. I hunt big game, I like plinking and I have trained with my pistols so that if I need to use one, I will not fail to be effective. I keep most of my guns locked as most guns should be kept. The Founders personal disposition on gun ownership was enlightened by a struggle against tyranny over 240 years ago. In my opinion. This administration has helped all people acquire whatever deadly force they may want for whatever purpose they want wile at the same time increasing federal oversite of citizens and radical missdirection of national treasure. The questions in this trial will be legal. I know the Constitution would have been written differently if the gun crime stats, school shootings and the massive killing capacity provided to one person by this inconceivable technology were to have been known to the Founders. I love all of you and I pray the hundreds of thousands of guns in this country are never used in the ways that so many are preparing for.
"
disappointed wrote on Jan 3, 2007 8:36 PM:
" When I see cases like this I ask myself, what are the Feds doing about the gangs and their guns in L.A. and other large cities? The feds will spend thousands on this case, a case involving a man who has harmed no one with a gun, while millions pour across our borders illegally with little effort made by the government to stop them. Amongst them are murderers, rapist, drug dealers and the like. They cause irrepairable harm to our citizens, unlike the man in this gun case. The Feds remind me of that scripture about straining at a knat and swallowing a camel. "
Far Mor wrote on Jan 4, 2007 1:31 PM:
" The lack of knowledge of American history by those who think the second amendment gives carte blanche for anyone to own and carry any kind of firearm always amazes me. Before the part of the sentence in the second amendment that says the people shall not be deprived of their right to bear arms is the part stating the necessity for a WELL REGULATED militia. The founding fathers rightly feared the creation of a standing army based on their experience of the way the monarchy had used it for purposes of tyranny. Today, however, we have a standing army for the defense of the country and no longer depend on the citizen militia. In truth, the second amendment requires the regulation of firearms. If one is going to quote the second amendment, the ENTIRE amedment should be quoted and not take only one part out of context. "
Mike Williamson wrote on Jan 4, 2007 3:52 PM:
" For the ignorant: www.odcmp.com The government even has a procedure to sell you surplus weapons. The military has procedures for recalling the militia, which is defined Title 10 USC as all males between 17-45 and anyone else who wishes to declare so. That is "well regulated militia." If you think "right of the people" means "Army," then "right to assemble" must mean Congress, yes? The Second Amendment gives any lawful citizen the right to own "arms." Eventually, as with free speech, the courts will decide to strike all such unconstitutional restrictions.
The legitimate problem here is that his defense is restricted, and the judge will "instruct" the jury what to do with the facts...so why bother with a jury?
The jury does have the right and responsibility, per the Constitution and SCOTUS, to throw out ANY CONVICTION for ANY REASON. If a single juror finds the law, the trial or the evidence lacking, there is no conviction. This is what our founders intended.
If the judge tries to "instruct" you otherwise, tell him where to go and what to do.
Does NC have an informed jury law? All CIVILIZED states have laws requiring the jury to be informed of the above. Google the phrase if in doubt.
The above statements are factual with the exception of my presumption that unconstitutional laws will eventually be tossed. Don't attempt to dispute me. You're wrong. "
Baffled wrote on Jan 4, 2007 6:57 PM:
" Who did the man with the machine gun hurt or threaten? I don't think it's the government’s responsibility to spend taxpayer’s money on prosecuting somebody who has hurt no one. The Constitution of the United States of America specifically called for each state to form their own well regulated militias.
"
Big Al wrote on Jan 4, 2007 7:36 PM:
" Of course the prosecutor is correct. The constitution does not apply in a administrative law hearing, the trouble is the public is to ignornant of what goes on in the so called criminal justice system to know the difference. No attorney will help this poor smuck out or it would blow the whistle on the whole scam and they would be dis-barred. I feel sorry for this guy, but then again I feel sorry for everybody that gets trapped by these crooks. No so called Federal judge is an article III judge. Learn the truth and it will scare the hell out of you! "
Second Amendment wrote on Jan 4, 2007 8:03 PM:
" All of you thinking that this man has broken the law are WRONG. The Feds know for a fact that if you manufacture your own weapons for YOURSELF and yourself only, there is NO LAW to register them. Gun registry should be abolished, unless you like the ATF kicking in your door because you have a yellow sheet on record and its only a 22. Find out the facts before you start mouthing off. "
1776 wrote on Jan 4, 2007 10:56 PM:
" Far Mor, you are 100% wrong. I beg you to go read Dr. Edwin Vieira's post at http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm
"
1776 wrote on Jan 4, 2007 10:58 PM:
" A Visitor From The Past
I had a dream the other night, I didn't understand.
A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand.
His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed.
He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said:
"Aye, We fought a revolution to secure our liberty.
We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny.
For generations, this legacy we gave,
In this, the land of the free and home of the brave."
"The Freedom we secured for you, we hoped you'd always keep,
But tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep.
Your freedom gone, your courage lost, you're no more than a slave,
In this, the land of the free and home of the brave."
"You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun,
Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one.
On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent.
Although you have no voice in choosing how the money's spent."
"Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate.
Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state.
You read about the current news, in a regulated press.
You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the I.R.S."
"
1776 wrote on Jan 4, 2007 11:00 PM:
" "Your money is no longer made of Silver or of Gold.
You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled.
You pay for crimes that make our Nation, turn from God in shame.
You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name."
"You've given government control to those who do you harm,
So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm.
And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail,
Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail."
"Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they've sworn.
Your daughters visit doctors, so their children won't be born.
Your leaders ship artillery, and guns to foreign shores,
And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars."
"Can you regain the freedom for which I and others fought and died?
Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?
Are there no more values for which you'll fight to save?
Or do you wish your children, to live in fear and be a slave?"
"People of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
Preserve our Great Republic, and our God-given Rights!
And pray to God to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!"
"
1776 wrote on Jan 4, 2007 11:00 PM:
" As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came.
His words were true, we are not Free, we have ourselves to blame.
For even now as tyrants trample our God-given Right,
we only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.
If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you're asleep,
And wonders what remains of our Rights he fought to keep,
What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave:
"Is this still the land of the free and home of the brave?
Or is it the Land of the Fee, and Home of the Slave?”
Author Unknown
"
tripwire wrote on Jan 4, 2007 11:34 PM:
" You all should read this.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=97645 "
To Far Mor wrote on Jan 5, 2007 12:07 PM:
" You need to learn to read the 2nd Amendment in the context of the entire Constitution. No rights found in the Constitution are collective rights, all are individual rights. Thus the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms although this is not necessarily an absolute right. To claim that the 2nd Amendment requires gun regulation is laughable. The Bill of Rights is just that, it lists the natural rights that the Founding Fathers thought were important enough to include in the Constitution, it doesn't list restrictions on individual rights. "
God Bless Texas wrote on Jan 5, 2007 2:52 PM:
" I have to agree with what a few have said. I have no personal interest in hunting, but I am a strong believer in people's individual rights as long as it does not harm others. I am a computer professional, make over $125K a year, live in a 5000+ Sqr foot home and on a golf course. We are not all the backwater hill billies that the media tries to make us out to be. I do collect various firearms not specifically for a personal need, but to do target shooting and collect historical firearms that have been used in the last 50 years. The logic of not having a need for a machinegun being compared to an amount of horsepower in a car is an excellent comparison. I have 300+ horsepower, I can top out at 175 mph in my car. Does anyone NEED over 80 horsepower and the ability to go over 70 mph? No. But it is fun to have. Plus most weapons are controlled based on appearance. For a democrat, any rifle with a removal magazine is a militia assault rifle that is only used by people living in bunkers in the hills of Montana with 4 teeth and a Ford Truck with no original paint left. The government really has no business regulating these types of weapons with the rediculous amount of fees. "
Lucky wrote on Jan 6, 2007 2:55 AM:
" Blah Blah Blah wrote on December 30, 2006 2:44 PM:
"Thank you for the past several comments, militia people. You give us a clear picture of why the government wants to limit arguments in the case. You guys cannot quit talking. And you insist on quoting every dead white man in history. You guys are a laughing stock." Iam sure Blah ,blah or one of his/her offspring may end up as a lamp shade of some future Tyrantt. Cant happen Ya right klown! "
Gun Owner wrote on Jan 6, 2007 4:27 AM:
" The argument above about the "well-regulated" section of the 2nd Amendment is laughable. It most certainly in no way shape or form implies that arms are to be restricted or controlled by the government. It is not a typical saying today, but in the time the amendment was written "well-regulated" had the very common meaning that something was in proper order, or well equipped. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is saying that a properly equipped/properly organized militia was needed for free a state to remain secure.
Furthermore, regardless of that, the amendment acknowledges/"grants" no right nor any power to this militia, "well-regulated" and necessary or not. The amendment merely makes a statement about the militia, prior to acknowledging a right of the people... "
winperk wrote on Jan 6, 2007 5:32 AM:
" The constitutional amendments are individual rights!............
and everything related to constitutional rights are individual rights.............................
That should do It for people that can read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
FreeFincher wrote on Jan 6, 2007 6:04 AM:
" I also wanted to add in response to those above seeming to imply Mr. Fincher should have just registered his machineguns and avoided all this, if you were not aware, he couldn't. You are not allowed to pay the tax and register any machineguns not already registered prior to 1986. IE all new machineguns not already registered properly are banned, no new ones for regular civilian ownership. Mr Fincher would have had to pay something like $10,000-20,000 or likely more for a used, registered and thus "transferable" MG similar to the Browning M1919 MGs mentioned in this article. I'm not even sure of the exact true value of a transferable 1919 MG, rest assured it is insane for what should really be a $1000 or so firearm... "
AlterEgo wrote on Jan 6, 2007 7:54 AM:
" Quoting Big Al;" Of course the prosecutor is correct. The constitution does not apply in a administrative law hearing, the trouble is the public is to ignornant of what goes on in the so called criminal justice system to know the difference. No attorney will help this poor smuck out or it would blow the whistle on the whole scam and they would be dis-barred. I feel sorry for this guy, but then again I feel sorry for everybody that gets trapped by these crooks. No so called Federal judge is an article III judge. Learn the truth and it will scare the hell out of you! "
Those pro and con on this subject miss the whole point. The "District Court" that the trial is being held in is "illegal" period! There are only two "District Courts" in the nation. You have all been decieved into thinking that these courts of "Admiralty" are Constitutional. Did you ever notice that the flag in these courts has the gold fringe? While I support Mr.Fincher, I regret that he allowed himself to even recognize these kangaroo courts. "
Mark wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:17 AM:
" The defense should check with the Michigan Attorney General who ruled that Michigan residents can own machine guns without federal approval first, it may help the Akansas case. "
Mark wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:21 AM:
" The defense should check with the Michigan Attorney General who
ruled that Michigan residents can own machine guns without federal
approval first, it may help the Fayetteville case. "
Paul W. Davis wrote on Jan 6, 2007 12:07 PM:
" Whether anyone likes it or not, the right of the people (the individual persons) to keep and bear arms exists for three reasons: 1. To prevent tyranny. 2. To repel invasions of our nation and separate states. 3. To provide for the individual safety and security of one's person and property, and all pertaining thereto. END OF STORY. It needs to be remembered that the Founding Fathers of this nation built this nation, and the current generation is doing nothing but tearing it down. Just who do you think is right: the builder, or the destroyer? "
Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2007 12:32 PM:
" Because the British tried to take our guns in Lexington, the United States, a free country, emerged. Would there even be a United States if the British had succeeded in disarming the population?
As ludicrous as it may sound, we again may have to fight those who currently believe that they, and not the individual citizen, are in charge of this country. We should be as armed and ready today to protect our rights against an unlawful goverment as the patriots were some 200 years ago.
The Bill of Rights (or the first ten amendments to the US Constitution) guarantee individual rights, not state or militia rights, and that the government "shall not infringe on these rights."
And there is no defense to anyone who tries to impose their will upon you. "You don't need automatic weapons" is as ludicrous a statement as you don't need a convertible or a two-story home.
What most people forget is that this is a free country; you are free to do whatever you please, unless specifically prohibited by law. And those laws may not violate the Constitution of the United States. "
Texas wrote on Jan 6, 2007 1:44 PM:
" Amen Ron and don't forget that if we had to have fought the British with slings and arrows we might now have been under British rule. That is whey we need to have the SAME armaments as the military in my opinion.
And I am not so concerned about the military personal and having to fight them in the future as I am with NATO forces perhaps or of our own Federal Agents all being under one unbrella (Homeland Security). These would be the real threat, not our sons and daughters in the military.
So why should we be subject to restrictions either in licensing, permits, taxes, munitions or otherwise when it comes to our REQUIRED IN EACH STATE, for being a part of the Militia. And yes the militia is US, the citizens of these United States.
I say we should take it a bit further and march on Washington and demand that the government repeal each and every law that either limits or restricts in any manner our right to keep and bear arms. Let's start with the gun control act of 34 or whenever it was!
My thoughts on this whole thing.
And for the guy that said something about our fore fathers maybe writing the constitution differently if they would have known about all the violence that we have, you need to wake up.
"
Crunker wrote on Jan 6, 2007 2:15 PM:
" "While i am a firm beliver in the 2nd amendment, WHY would anyone really want to own a machine gun, you cant hunt with it, its expensive to shoot, and home defense, why thats just silly."
The Second Amendment does not protect your right to own guns for hunting, it protects your right to own guns for self and civil defense.
True, machineguns are expensive to shoot, but that's not an argument against the right of the individual to have one.
How is it silly to have a machinegun for home defense? True, 1919s are not great home defensive guns, but the owner was intending to use them for country defense... the world is not a safe place right now, for any American. Besides, submachineguns like the MAC-11/9 are excellent home defensive weapons, and though they could be hade prior to 1986 for $350 + $200 tax stamp, they are now $3,500 + $200 tax stamp. Ridiculous. "
John S. Kelly wrote on Jan 6, 2007 2:39 PM:
" Perhaps during this fellows' trail one person, (just one), will vote his conscience and vote against prosecuting this individual for an un- constitutional law.... It could happen but don't hold your breath???? "
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 2:49 PM:
" I am in full agreement with Paul W. Davis, Ron and Texas. All pseudo laws that infringe on my natural right as set forth in the 2d Amendment are illegal and criminal in intent. The time is becoming ripe for the people to assemble enmass and demand that these infringemens be made null and void immediately. All we need is a real leader to rally around. I'm ready to leave for D.C. at once. Are you? "
David Kachel wrote on Jan 6, 2007 2:56 PM:
" Talk, talk, talk.
I've been listening to this for forty years.
Nothing ever changes. We gun owners voice our outrage over the shredding of the constitution while the government and a variety of prominent idiot-citizens inform us that we're too stupid and uneducated to understand the "true meaning" of an "outdated" constitution and the intricacies of the law.
Federal agents fealt secure enough in their total power over us to murder innocents at Ruby Ridge and Waco knowing that just throwing a few labels on them in the press would keep us quiet and still, we just talk, talk, talk.
There are now "exceptions" to virtually every aspect of the Bill of Rights, yet all we do is talk, talk, talk.
I'm sick of it. Americans are content to believe they are free if they can shop at Wal-Mart, vacation in the Bahamas and periodically vote for their preferred member of an unabashed ruling class.
Even our mail is no longer sacrosanct.
The second ammendment? Who are you kidding? The 2nd ammendment is now nothing more than a vote getting tool. Either party will grab our guns the instant they believe they need to or can get away with it.
"
David Kachel wrote on Jan 6, 2007 2:59 PM:
" Wake up guys. The battle is lost. The constitution is nothing more than Federal toilet paper and Mr. Fincher's fate was decided before he ever entered the courtroom. The prosecutors will manipulate the case so that he cannot defend himself, the judge will go along with it and the jury will be "instructed" to find him guilty.
How many citizens are demonstrating outside the courtroom against the Fed's urinating on the Constitution? The answer will tell you what is the real state of affairs! We have become a nation of frightened sheep and the government knows they can now get away with anything. "
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 3:13 PM:
" You're right, David. Your battle is lost. I suspect there is a very good reason the gov has not seriously attempted to confiscate personal firearms in the US. If they did so attempt I suspect an immediate revolution would ensue and the standing US armed services would not be able to quell it. Give me freedom or give me death; that's a quote from long ago when we had real men in the land. May God strengthen our hearts and hands. "
patriot wrote on Jan 6, 2007 3:14 PM:
" Perhaps a petition stating forth our belief that this mans rights have been infringed and the laws allowing this to take place are unconstitutional and illegal, could benefit him and ourselves. This could be a way of being proactive and "walking the walk" and not just "talking the talk" Anyone interested? "
David Kachel wrote on Jan 6, 2007 3:36 PM:
" Anyone who believes that "we the people" are still the government is a fool.
Is anyone out there ready to rise up and take back your country from a smug ruling class that believes we can do nothing to stop them?
I didn't thinks so.
Besides, while you weren't looking, they made taking back control of your own country a crime. "
David Kachel wrote on Jan 6, 2007 3:43 PM:
" Gene Copeland said:
"I suspect there is a very good reason the gov has not seriously attempted to confiscate personal firearms in the US. If they did so attempt I suspect an immediate revolution would ensue and the standing US armed services would not be able to quell it."
Gene,
There was a time that might have been true. No longer. It already happened in California with a great many weapons there and not a shot was fired.
If someone in another state did have the courage to let fly, the feds would of course gun him down, and then label him in the press as one class of lunatic or another and the public would swallow it completely as they always do.
The groundwork is already done. What do the majority of Americans think of gun owners? Nut cases, animal torturers and fringe believers in outmoded ideas. We've already been packaged and sold. "
David Kachel wrote on Jan 6, 2007 3:54 PM:
" Worse, too many groups who take a public stand in support of the constitution all too frequently also have a bigot's and/or religous nut case's agenda which immediately drops them into the "not to be taken seriously" category in the public's mind.
I've more than once dropped my jaw in disbelief and walked away in disgust when a seemingly rational constitutionalist has suddenly started talking about the "problems" with blacks, Mexicans and Jews.
This does incredible damage and only serves to convice large numbers of the public that maybe the constitution is outdated after all. "
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 4:05 PM:
" Yes, Patriot. I am interested. Have you experience in such? If so, let me know what I can do. If not, how may we find someone who is so experienced? Let's do it. "
David Kachel wrote on Jan 6, 2007 4:10 PM:
" The rant continues...
Gun grabbers and constitution haters know exactly what they're doing and how to do it. The rest of us don't have a clue and every time we open our mouths we hurt our own cause.
What do you see in public? There are the gun grabbers, in coat and tie, well-spoken and seeming rational.
All too often, the proponents of the Bill of Rights are standing there in blue jeans, a dirty T-shirt, displaying a notable lack of education, poor grammar and holding a can of beer. He's lost before he even opens his mouth. There may be a well-dressed articulate proponent of the constitution there too, but you can bet the cameras won't ever focus on him. The gun grabbers are much further down the road to success than any of us realizes and most of what we do to defend ourselves only hurts our case. "
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 4:10 PM:
" David, you wrote, "...the public would swallow it completely as they always do". I understand. However, I am amazed at the lack of understanding by so many people as to the true meaning of the 2d Amendment. Whenever I explain to them, many react by saying, "I never knew that". Maybe education is the answer. If so, it certainly would have to be done outside the public school system. "
Idahoser wrote on Jan 6, 2007 4:23 PM:
" How does "The Interstate Commerce Clause" override these words:
"...THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Dumass. "
David Kachel wrote on Jan 6, 2007 4:26 PM:
" One more post and I'll shut up...
The problem is not the 2nd ammendment!
The problem is a calculated and methodical effort on the part of a ruling class (I mean Democrats AND Republicans, just to be clear) to discredit and archive the Constitution in order to garner more power and wealth. The 2nd ammendment is just an easy soft spot in the Constitution in a country where an ignorant populace is easily convinced to surrender liberty in exchange for the illusion of safety. Guns, illegal immigrants, terrorists, etc. are all just distractions: things the ruling class points out with one hand so that we won't see what they're doing with the other hand. And it works. How many of us are upset over illegal immigrants even though they've been here for a century; because the government told us terrorists might be slipping across the border with them? It's all b******t. "
David Kachel wrote on Jan 6, 2007 4:38 PM:
" OK, well I guess that wasn't the last post. Gene Copeland said, "maybe education is the answer". Gene, education IS the answer. Unfortunately the only place enough people can be educated is in the schools and who controls the schools? Exactly, which is why gun hatred and disrespect for the Constitution in general is taught in our schools. What my children know about the Constitution, I taught them. The schools taught them nothing. They teach nothing about history either. Without understanding history and the Constitution, giving up one's rights seems to be a no-brainer. And that's exactly what we have; a society of no-brainer's eager to give up every freedom they have. And sadly, that ship has already sailed. "
Kevin Miller wrote on Jan 6, 2007 5:42 PM:
" It is obvious that he broke the law. However, it is also obvious that the law violates the constitution. The fact that the government is attempting to prevent the defense's use of constitutional rights is even more frightening yet. Enough! The second amendment is the one that guarantees the others.
After reading this story, I did something I've been meaning to do for years.I went to www.nra.org and punched in my credit card for a year's membership ($35). I believe them to be the most effective organization in supporting the second amendment.
I think I'll be keeping my eye out for other organizations that are looking to defend my various rights and support them as well. I'd even contribute to a well managed defense fund for Fincher if someone were to set one up.
"
Carlton wrote on Jan 6, 2007 8:14 PM:
" To "Got What He Wanted":
I'm sure you can't wait for the trial you bootlicker. If you don't like the freedom afforded in the Constitution for Mr. Fincher, why don't you purchase a ticket to a destination more of your liking, say Beijing or Havana? "
ccw40cal wrote on Jan 6, 2007 9:02 PM:
" To Kevin Miller: Welcome Aboard! I'm a Life member myself and I think EVERY gun owner should join the NRA.
Whether you agree/disagree with the trial/conviction/whatever of the guy, the point of the article is how the prosecutor wants to control what is said & presented in court. That is unconscienable and should be dis allowed. He wants to orchestrate the whole thing so that the defendant cannot adequately put forth a valid defense, thus ensuring his own victory. Gee, who was the last one we can think of who did that to his own people? (Can you say "Saddaam?") "
scott in vermont wrote on Jan 6, 2007 9:08 PM:
" When Hezbollah and Al Qaeda operators start shooting up US movie theaters, parks, shopping malls, and sporting events after the Israelis whack the Iranian nuke facilities, there won't be any male in this country walking out the door without a Glock on his hip and an AR-15 or some other rifle in his car...the 2nd Amendment is designed for times like these; terrorism will become more violent and more entrenched, and if the idiots in the FBI weren't smart enough to figure out 911 before it happened (when they had every clue imaginable in front of them), can anyone really trust his or her family's safety to OTHER federal agencies or the local donut-munchers? I'd rather roll out with a guy like Fincher than any BATF morons anyday, as well trained as they are for going after mom and pop FFL owners and other people who make simple paperwork mistakes. Fincher has gallantly chosen to fight his fight, and baited the feds into action, and its comforting to me to know that there are still guys like Fincher willing to risk prison for what they believe in...I say God bless and godspeed, and let the jury refuse to convict on constitutional grounds...JURY NULLIFICATION.
Hell, Fincher with his Browning belt-feds probably could do more in the war on terror than these half-baked feds with their Ivy League pedigrees could do...free him and send him to the Mexican border, along with a bunch of others...
"
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 9:20 PM:
" Kevin Miller, you wrote, "It is obvious that he broke the law". No, he did not break the law, Kevin. The law under which he was arrested is invalid. Many believe any law passed by legislators that appears to be a law, constitutes the law of the land. The US Constitution is the supreme law of this land, and any law, to be valid, must be in accord with the Constitution. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid. One must prevail. "
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 9:22 PM:
" Continued for Kevin......“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it”. (Sixteenth AMERICAN JURISPRUDDENCE, Second Section, Page 177). "
Mr. Johnson wrote on Jan 6, 2007 10:23 PM:
" No state has ever passed a law (or at least one that I have ever heard of) that restricts our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion. Not in any way have those rights been attacked by any law that I have ever heard of. The same may also be said for the Third Amendment, and the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth, the Seventh, the Eighth, the Ninth, and the Tenth Amendment.
ONLY the Second Amendment, alone of all the ten amendments, has been attacked by state laws, and for some unknown reason, people have let these bad, unconstitutional laws stand. It must be stopped.
I am a radical in the sense that I am a Second Amendment absolutist. It does not take a genius level intellect to comprehend the simple phrase, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED." The word "infringed" carries a clear, unambiguous meaning.
Someone may counter my statement with an attack based on the use of the word "militia" in the Second Amendment, but the fact of the matter is that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and of the Bill of Rights, the militia as defined was any able-bodied man who was able to carry arms for defense. "
Mr. Johnson wrote on Jan 6, 2007 10:34 PM:
" Continued from my previous post.
In fact, no written prohibition against the carrying of arms by those who were NOT men existed. The truth of the matter is that, taken in context, at the time the militia was free white men, women and freedmen (former slaves and previously indentured servants) could and did participate in such activities.
You must also consider the very position of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights. It is certain that the authors of the Bill of Rights chose to arrange the individual amendments in the order which they considered to represent their importance, with the most important, the freedom of speech and religion, being first and foremost. And the, the very next thing on their minds was to ensure that the people shall preserve the right and capability to defend themselves by force of arms, including and especially arms that are suitable for use by the MILITIA.
I hold the position that ALL laws that restrict firearms or access to them, or their use for ANY peaceful purpose, are laws that are fundamentally unConstitutional and it is the duty of every good citizen to ignore all these laws as they are Constitutionally invalid.
Finally, it is absurd to punish a person for the TYPE of weapon he chooses. Punish criminal ACTS, not mere ownership of a weapon of any kind. That is no crime.
"
Mr. Johnson wrote on Jan 6, 2007 10:39 PM:
" In closing, I again note and call attention to the fact that only the Second Amendment has been directly attacked by any state or even federal laws. Why is this? What is it about the Second Amendment that makes it the illegitimate stepchild of the Bill of Rights?
Nothing, in fact. It is only the fact
that there are those who do not WISH for us to have the capacity to defend ourselves, our families, and our property by force of arms. Some of these people do not even believe that you, the people, should have ANY right to defend yourself, thinking that this is the job of the police.
But it is NOT! The job of the police is to figure out what happened after the crime has been committed, and who did it, and find them and bring them before the courts for justice to be administered. Police do not prevent most crime. They only deal with the aftermath.
Those who support gun laws and wish to see the Second Amendment weakened or eliminated are not the friends of any free American. They are nothing less than the enemies of our freedom and should be treated as the enemies that they are. Begin your attack upon them by making sure they never hold public office again. Vote against them when the time comes. "
Mr. Johnson wrote on Jan 6, 2007 10:44 PM:
" My final comment on this matter is simple:
No matter how I read it, I can see absolutely no reference in the text of the Second Amendment to HUNTING.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is about our intrinsic, inalienable right to defend ourselves from all enemies.
If we lose the Second Amendment, the rest of our freedoms will most certainly follow. It is the threat and promise
represented by the Second Amendment, the threat and promise of armed rebellion, which has always, and MUST ALWAYS, serve as notice to our own government that WE THE PEOPLE are in fact the ones who hold all the power. The government SERVES THE PEOPLE. The people do NOT serve the government. If they do, America as it was envisioned is dead. "
Patriot wrote on Jan 6, 2007 10:45 PM:
" Gene C. , I don't have any experience in forming an internet petition. Hopefully someone will come forward to address that. I think many will find this site of interest. www.jfpo.org The NRA may not be what we all think it is or should be. Can anyone recall a victory over bogus legislation? A bill? Anything at all? Maybe they can sway an election republican. 12yrs they owned the house and senate,things didn't get better. republicans aren't much better for your gun rights than democrats. "
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:13 PM:
" I fully agree with and support Mr. Johnson. I would like to add further. Lets take another look at the 2d 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."
What did the authors of this Amendment have in mind? The States remaining free. They had a fear of the newly formed Federal government. How might a State secure their freedom? By the raising of a militia; well regulated. Where might they raise this militia? The only source was the body of the people. And, this body of the people would be ineffective unless they were suitably armed. At this point in time the body of the people were suitably armed. How might the framers of this Amendment assure that the people might be suitably armed if called into a militia? Here is the crucial part; they stated that the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed by whom? It does not say, hence no person nor entity is entitled to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This specifically includes government and the judiciary. No one is allowed to infringe upon this right held by the people.
"
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:14 PM:
" continued......What does it mean to infringe? Infringe means: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Okay, what does encroach mean? Encroach means: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another. That seems pretty clear to me. Some say the thinking of the framers of the Bill of Rights are obsolete. I question and doubt that. I am ready to debate and defend the thinking of those men who laid their life and property on the line for our freedoms set out boldly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But, you say, only the militia can bear arms and they must be well regulated. How did you come to that conclusion? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? What comes first, the armed people or the militia? Common sense says that the armed people are necessary in order to form a militia. Notice the common logic that a well regulated militia would, of necessity, follow the assembling of a militia. But, you say, States have the National Guard and do not need a militia. Who told you that? The Federal government has, from time to time, set forth the draft to assemble enough military personnel to defend the USA. "
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:15 PM:
" continued.....However, do you believe the National Guard would suffice to quell the onslaught against a State from a tyrannical oligarchy? Not hardly. A militia of the people might be needed. This is the essence of the 2d Amendment.
Then there is the underlying base of personal safety that was used in the drafting of this Amendment. It was, and is, common knowledge that the police have no legal mandate to protect the individual citizen. The individual citizen has the right and must defend his or her own person, and those around them, plus personal property. The individual citizen also has the inherent right to equip themselves, and use the state-of-the-art in arms. Who has the right to force me to defend my very life with nothing more than my bare hands? The founders of this nation believed I had a right to bear adequate arms, either openly or concealed, to protect myself and others from predators, either human or otherwise. I encourage everyone to educate themselves to the true meaning of the 2d Amendment and then defend it at every opportunity. May God bless the USA!
"
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:48 PM:
" Your posts prompt further comment. Mr. Johnson is right. At this juncture we must use our vote to assure lawful representatives. Before the next day of voting use this litmus test. Ask the candidate how they interpret the 2d Amendment to the US Constitution. If they affirm the peoples right to keep and bear arms without regulation, then vote for them. If they waffle in their reply, do not vote for them. Ask them straight out if they will honor their oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. We need to weed out the unlawful representatives. Two that come to mind are Chuck Shumer and Diane Feinstein. Consternation to the enemy! "
Gene Copeland wrote on Jan 6, 2007 11:52 PM:
" Patriot: I, too, hope someone here will come forward with experience or at least put us in touch with someone who does, who believes as we do. Waiting for help. "
MarkL wrote on Jan 7, 2007 12:20 AM:
" Education of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a must if we are to have any hope of turning around the situation regarding unconstitutional legislation. The scary part of this to me is the prosecutor’s effort to deny Mr.Fincher any chance of a fair trial, maybe it is because he knows that the law of which he is charging Mr. Fincher is null and void because of the second amendment, and that if the jury is allowed to here this that they will indeed find the defendant not guilty, which is just what he is. As to the National Guard being the equivalent to the militia, I would like to point out the at the time of the writing of our constitution and the bill of rights there was no such thing as a national guard, and to point out to those who don’t know it that even though the National Guard is called by a states name such as The Arkansas National Guard it can, and has been nationalized by the president and placed under federal control. A good example of this is the current situation in Iraq, and another time comes to mind, the Little Rock Central High integration in 1957 where the Governor called out his states National Guard and President Eisenhower placed them under federal control by presidential order and order in regular Army units to enforce the courts orders. So if you are under the misguided belief that your states National Guard is "
MarkL wrote on Jan 7, 2007 12:28 AM:
" anything like the militia's of the time of our founding fathers I am afraid your are mistaken. And a reply to Blah Blah Blah, first of all not all of us here are Militia types and further more if you fail to know your history you are mostly likely going to get to relive its most unpleasnt moments.The holacoust, slavery, and every other nasty moment of mankinds cruelty. "
MSDOFSG wrote on Jan 7, 2007 12:55 AM:
" If I have the money to build as many machine guns, I will do it, pretty soon the Gov. is going to control our houses and how many time we go to the DAMN toilet, like in the comments before, the Gov. should be worry on real criminals such drug dealers,rapist,gangs, and not a simple man who just wanted to build his own weapons,... SHAME ON THE FEDS! "
Paul W. Davis wrote on Jan 7, 2007 1:30 AM:
" To All,
http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/raid/main.html "
Pilikia wrote on Jan 7, 2007 10:49 AM:
" Someone once said that, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance", and the fact that this case has even been brought is sure evidence that I as an American along with my fellow countrymen have failed to provide each other with the vigilance necessary to remain free from such government intrusion. "
rdarmand wrote on Jan 7, 2007 2:59 PM:
" I feel sorry for Fincher. I don't think he has a prayer of winning in court. The federal government doesn't even try to disguise its contempt for the citizenry anymore. In their eyes, we exist to be ruled by them. We are cattle. We are sheep, and they are the shepherds who shear us at their pleasure.
Selective enforcement usually refers to picking and choosing which violators of a particular law will be prosecuted; this application is generally accepted as unjust. But the term also refers to enforcing some laws and not enforcing others. The Brave Boys of BATFE are no different from state and local authorities; they'd much rather go after people who don't resist than those who do. Any animal would.
Men would not. "
rdarmand wrote on Jan 7, 2007 3:17 PM:
" Sorry for being so verbose; I'll keep this brief. In looking over the other comments here, I've noticed many admonitions to make sure we send the right sorts of people to Washington on election day. That viewpoint is hopelessly naive. Anyone running for office today on a major party ticket has already sold out; and a minor party candidate simply cannot win. The sad truth is that the political process is broken in this country, and you vote on this issue, and many others, is pointless. The fastest way to accomplish the goal of political reform is to abandon the current process altogether. When your vote means nothing, continuing to participate in the voting process gives it the appearance of a legitimacy that it does not possess. If people abandoned the political process in droves in this country, that would get their attention -- because they need the appearance of popular support to legitimize what they do. Take that away from them, and they are revealed for what they truly are. "
Truth wrote on Jan 7, 2007 4:48 PM:
" Far Mor wrote in part on January 04, 2007 1:31 PM:
"In truth, the second amendment requires the regulation of firearms. If one is going to quote the second amendment, the ENTIRE amedment should be quoted and not take only one part out of context."
Remember, the Jury is to be hearing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Far Mor needs to learn how to read and understand what he read.
I suggest you visit below and understand what the 2nd Amendment says!!!
http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/diagramamend2.htm "
lonesomedove (Montanan with most of his teeth) wrote on Jan 7, 2007 5:22 PM:
"
Second Amendment--Bearing Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1193]]
BEARING ARMS
__________
SECOND AMENDMENT
This is from the GPO website, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html:
"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."
Note that there is only ONE comma, which is how the amendment was ratified. Read further in the comments and see that the 2A is a bar on the federal government.
Please, my brothers, lose the "Given," or "Granted by" language when you discuss the Bill of Rights; Rights are SECURED by the constitution. More properly: "Constitution Secured Rights."
"
Nick wrote on Jan 7, 2007 5:42 PM:
" Anyone seen the movie 1984? Seems they need to remake it with the current year!! This government needs to be put in its place, but who will stand up and do it now like they did back in 1776? "
disappointed wrote on Jan 7, 2007 8:36 PM:
" The feds need to let the man have his say. To do otherwise is to show them for what we know them to be. Also, i cannot begin to imagine the energy and the monies being used in this matter that concerns a man who has harmed not one person with a weapon all the while the streets of LA and any other major city in this country are filled with guns held by criminals. "
KyCavalier wrote on Jan 7, 2007 9:04 PM:
" Also, about the Bill of Rights...They were to "regulate" the Federal Government...not necessarily "give" individual rights. Those rights stated were already a God given right to everyone...this was to ensure that the Federal Government didn't forget this important FACT. Many didn't want to include a Bill of Rights on grounds that someone might perceive these areas the only ones to be off limits, but anything is fair game to take away. Others didn't want to have them so that others...like so many stupid people today...could read whatever they want to in them. The Bill of Rights is to limit the Federal Government....not individual liberties. Oh, and quoting "dead white men" is the only way to argue against living stupid people. They wrote it....why wouldn't you want to quote them? Unbelievable....
Oh, and the Department of Education clearly is against the 10th Amendment.
"
Criminal due to local law... wrote on Jan 7, 2007 9:34 PM:
" Where can I send a donation to this poor guy sitting in jail? You mean to tell me no national gun group or local wealthy gun owner has bailed this guy out of a prison cell???? I'm going to Google this guy right now and send a donation SOMEWHERE....... "
Mark wrote on Jan 7, 2007 9:47 PM:
" For those who have read the book, "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. It appears that Mr. Fincher's current situation is somewhat similar to that of Mr. Ross's protagonist. For those of you not familiar with this work of fiction, now might be a good time to attempt to locate a copy. It was in print in 1997. Some libraries may have a copy of two.
For those that want to assist Mr. Fincher, might I suggest to send $50 to $100. One hundred contributions to his defense fund would go a long way in saving others not just money, but perhaps their very freedom from this type of maleficent behavior on the part of the government.
Thank you Paul for providing the following link: http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/raid/main.html
For those of you who want to assist in some way or just stay abreast of the on going situation this is the link. Tomorrow will be watched closely, especially by those most interested in expanding their socialistic agenda. "
Criminal due to local law... wrote on Jan 7, 2007 9:52 PM:
" (10 minutes later...)I just Googled this Wayne Fincher and found over 800 items related to his search. The first one revealed where I can send some $$$ to his defense fund. I will do so in the morning or I have NO moral compass to continue with my gun possession. He really is taking it on the CHIN for many of US. Let us REALLY show him SUPPORT........He needs cash! Criminal in Chicago....... "
Criminal due to local law... wrote on Jan 7, 2007 9:55 PM:
" "Unintended Consequences" can be purchased @ amazom.com or www.deltapress.com "
Bruce Leo Hartmann wrote on Jan 7, 2007 10:36 PM:
" This is good and bad. The good part is that Mr.Fincher is making a militia argument. It's also good that the case is in Arkansas which (I believe) is part of the 5th Circuit which is our most pro-gun circuit. His BIG problem is the sawed off shotgun. In the 1934 Miller decision the gun at issue was a sawed off shotgun. In it's dicta the supreme court stated that it could not conclude that a sawed off shotgun was suitable for militia use; however, the facts of the Miller case involved taking a sawed off shotgun across state lines. Mr. Fincher needs to object anytime the prosecutor or a prosecution witness uses the term "weapon" as only "arms" are expressly constitutionally protected. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 8, 2007 2:20 AM:
" How can the following possibly be misconstrued -
...That inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment . . . nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed....
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senate07081856.html
WAKE UP AMERICA! "
Ruven wrote on Jan 8, 2007 10:55 AM:
" IF the govenrment made more of a concentrated effort to export, diminish,and those who have and plan to promote terorist activities, than hassling our citizens..we would be more respectful to those who were given
powers. Besides, the gun control laws are based on the nazi weapon laws in 1938 to prevent victemized Jews from having any defense. Sound like a plan? "
Steve wrote on Jan 8, 2007 1:51 PM:
" I have letters from (then) Attorney General Ashcroft and Sen. Diane Fienstien that indicate the US government has no lawful right to tax, regulate, classify or restrict ownership of firearms in the possession of private Citizens unless that Citizen is in the Militia AND the Militia is in the actual service of the United States. Contact me through my web site if you are interested - www.dangeroustruths.com "
Mycos wrote on Jan 8, 2007 2:26 PM:
" Are you all so ignorant as to see no value in limiting the amount of firepower that one person can wield?
Since that days of flintlocks and "Constitutionw writing" arms have developed a little since then. Should you all then be allowed to own Abrams tanks? Why not? The second amendment clearly states that a tank, as an armament,is everyone's Constitutional right to own. Or should that be limited to WW2 Sherman's now?
And why are you so gung-ho on the right to bust into someones house because they are smoking a joint? Are you for the Constitution or not? Why is it your duty to kill people a politician decided to war against, but yet you feel all hurt and stepped on when he says that Abrams tank can't go back to Hooterville with you?
Basically, WTF is the matter with you Americans? Is there something in the water? How in Gawds name did Cheney convince you that religious kooks were a threat more serious than nuclear extinction? How do nuclear armies with ICBMs be less threatening than kooks with ONE Cold War throwaway? Why a need to torture people now? Are you nuts? Americans in tin-foil beanies...I can see it now. "
Bob, wrote on Jan 8, 2007 3:53 PM:
" Hey "PATRIOT" with the petition. Exactly what type of "PATRIOT" are you? That's right, I think the patriots in oncord and Lexington handed the Brits a petition, didn't they! "
veteran wrote on Jan 8, 2007 3:54 PM:
" any disease, left untreated, will, in time, destroy the whole body.
below is a link to an organization that is also working on behalf of the
"American people", at least the few that are remaining.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
"
LoneStarLady wrote on Jan 8, 2007 4:18 PM:
" The Feds need to get over themselves. It is our right to bear arms. The Feds don't want the 2nd Amendment Right is because they know they would lose hands down. They think that the American People are so stupid! The only way this government or anyother will ever get my guns is to either kill me or bend over! Hang tight Mr. Fincher, we are all behind you. If this Government wants another Revolution in this country then by golly we should give them one so that they don't forget their place! "
Ironic wrote on Jan 8, 2007 4:57 PM:
" Isn’t it funny how all the political powers to be are protected by taxpayer funded automatic weapons while honest hard working citizens must abide by silly regulations which disallow guns with magazines holding more than 30 rounds. Let us remember government exists at most to protect the right of its people and should neither provide for nor punish them for acts that hurt no one. "
Freedom2U wrote on Jan 9, 2007 4:23 AM:
" To diminish or deny a right of the whole of the American People , based on the actions of a few criminals or madmen,..... may be the greatest crime of all. "
Vinnie wrote on Jan 9, 2007 1:43 PM:
" Mycos You need to look harder. The men who wrote the second amendment had plenty of opportunities to "limit firepower".
Matchlock and wheellock weapons were not "state of the art military" and could have been specified or even alluded to. They weren't. The amendment is about state of the art military weapons.
Yes this means that EVERYBODY is allowed to own M2 .50 cal truck mounted machine guns if they can afford it. Or a tank for that matter. Miss use of them should be a crime. Owning them should not. "
Scott wrote on Jan 9, 2007 4:30 PM:
" http://www.fija.org/
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
I hope a rich person or group will buy full page newpaper adds across the state to remind people of our most important individual power.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding. "
Montana with a gun wrote on Jan 9, 2007 6:18 PM:
" There is also another case too. Google KT Ordnance.
This man is also going to be rail roaded into jail. What will become of his wife and two kids?
Thake some time and read the "law" that he broke (so they say) Title 18 922, read the defintion of "Firearm" first. Then see if he did brake the law. "
Animal wrote on Jan 9, 2007 11:01 PM:
" First,they took God out of school,then they let our borders be overrun,now they are coming for our guns.Guess what's next. "
Animal wrote on Jan 9, 2007 11:24 PM:
" Politicians take an oath and swear on the Bible to protect this country from invasion,to enforce all its laws,to punish anyone who breaks these laws. Yet,here we are.Our borders are wide open, illegals gather in open view and disrespect the law and American citizens.We allow these anti-American groups to continue on the tax payers tab.We are afraid our goverment will stand by and watch as the American citizen is murdered in the streets.We are already falling at 25 a day, by murder/car accidents,from illegals aliens as it is.The federal goverment isinstigating this reaction, are we supposed to wait around to be killed by someone who should not even be in this country.People, wake up. "
Mycos wrote on Jan 10, 2007 1:55 AM:
" So when does the rationale behind arming citizens to fight back against the threat of a tyrannical government kick in?
You go on and on about the possibility of losing machine guns while Bush has rescinded your right to trial, to know the charges against you, to face your accuser, to not have your mail read, phone tapped, not be tortured while in custody without charges being leveled against you.....on and on and on! He just ruled that Americans can now be sent off to be tortured by Syrian thugs, or that Bush can decide for himself only whether he feels American security is best served by his breaking of any law he chooses, as per his hundreds of "signing statements" that no president has ever assumed to possess such complete dictatorial powers ever. Indeed, no monarch has had such power since the Magna Carta was signed almost a thousand years ago. His rescinding of habeas corpus automatically makes 9 of the ten Amendments moot, so when do you feel a tyranny is likely to form, thus the very need to use the guns you're talking about?
I can tell you that the rest of the world is waiting for you to make a move. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 10, 2007 3:31 PM:
" Here is one of the best legal descriptions I've read on Amendment II:
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.... "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 10, 2007 3:31 PM:
" ....The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]. (Mr. Cooley was Dean of the University of Michigan's Law School, Michigan Supreme Court justice, and a nationally recognized scholar). "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 10, 2007 3:33 PM:
" "The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature,
is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person
of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one,
whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity
as well as justice."
- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice).
"
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 10, 2007 3:35 PM:
" There are two clauses contained in Amendment II, one is declaratory and the other is restrictive, as evidenced;
Preamble to the Bill of Rights -
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"
"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:"
DECLARATORY clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
RESTRICTIVE clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 10, 2007 3:38 PM:
" "The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature."
- Nunn v. The State of Georgia, AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846
"
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 10, 2007 3:44 PM:
" "The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom....As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed...”
- CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY BY THE COURT, United States Circuit Court, DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, SPECIAL JULY TERM, 1861. JULY 10, 1861.
"
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 10, 2007 3:51 PM:
" "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." - Benjamin Franklin
**************************************
“Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator, for the wisest purpose; and no political union, however fraught with blessings and benefits in all other respects, can long continue, if the necessary consequence be to render the homes and the firesides of nearly half the parties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure.”
- President James Buchanan, Washington City, December 3, 1860. Message to the U.S. House & Senate.
**************************************
"The armor and the attitude of defence afford the best security against those collisions which the ambition, or interest, or some other passion of nations not more justifiable, is liable to produce. In many countries it is considered unsafe to put arms into the hands of the people, and to instruct them in the elements of military knowledge. That fear can have no place here, when it is recollected that the people are the sovereign power. Our Government was instituted, and is supported, by the ballot-box, not by the musket."
- President Andrew Jackson, Dec. 7, 1835 message to U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America - December 8, 1835.]
"
Son of Liberty wrote on Jan 10, 2007 5:02 PM:
" I support this man. He has the guts to fight the feds within their own system. Hes doomed, but his outcome will affirm what we know we have to do... "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 11, 2007 10:05 AM:
" David Codrea at The War on Guns posted the following this morning:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/01/jury-seated-in-fincher-trial-judge.html
"The Judge came in this morning and virtually reversed his ruling from yesterday. In addition to that, I distinctly heard him say (and the court record proves it) that the Second Amendment was an individual right in that he spoke about the Bill of Rights and stated that they were individual rights that were protected by the first 10 Amendments."
"This morning he totally reversed himself and stated that the 2nd Amendment conferred a collective right...." "
Defiance wrote on Jan 11, 2007 11:05 AM:
" Fincher's actions remind me of that cartoon where the mouse is flipping off the eagle. If not that, maybe he just has medical problems and this is his way of getting them paid for since he doesn't have medicare yet. "
bob j wrote on Jan 11, 2007 12:29 PM:
" first of all ,i'mm all for wyane ,but if you read title 10 us code regarding the militia laws ,and related data regarding,,you will find that the intent of militia is to be subserviant to the gov of the state.this was written in the days when gov's were honorable men and stood against oppression by the federal govt.not true today, but the gov was to appoint the commander of the state militia or allow an election by the rank and file ,also of the higher officers .if the arkansas gov. was honorable, he would step foward and legitamize the owner ship of the machine guns for state defense.such as with the state police and sheriffs dept. he was put on notice of the intent of this militia and if he did not protest then ,it should be prima facia that he accepted it. and its chosen commanders and officers. also he had knowlege it possessed automatic weapons.which it should be able to. people of arkansas ,,get on your govenor!!!now "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 11, 2007 9:09 PM:
" bob j - "...but if you read title 10 us code regarding the militia was...."
....Point taken. However, "the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms", exists apart from being in the Militia. It was/is long considered as the First Law of Nature. American government(s) were formed to PROTECT and SECURE the residual of our Natural Rights. The whole basis that the Declaration and the Constitution stand on. Are "the TRANSCENDENT laws of nature and of natures God".
According to the Laws of Nature; "The First Law of Nature is that EVERY MAN ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may SEEK and USE ALL HELPS and ADVANTAGES of WAR of war."
- Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan", (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651
Following are PROOFS to back this contention -
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/SenateJournal09091789.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRight.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/TheRight.html
"
Mycos wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:34 AM:
" Bush has trashed the Bill of Rights completely and suspended much of the Constitution. For years, every law that the legislature hands him to sign into LAW, an act which is supposed to be simply procedural, as he MUST DO IT, he has added a little "amendment" of his own, these "signing statements" you must not have heard about. They say simply that he can decide whether he feels that the nation is best served by his obeying the law or not. He is saying that he alone needs to know the reason why, no-one else need know the logic behind why he is breaking the laws of the US, and no person or no body of the US Senate, House, FISA, .....no-one has the right or authority to tell him otherwise. IOW he has assumed dictatorial powers by invoking the magic words " for national security".
When habeas corpus died, the USA died.
Now again.
So when does this "reason" you all keep saying you have been given the right to bear arms come into effect?
I see many quotes but one. Franklin's statement about those fools that freely give away their rights to gain security deserving neither rights or security. Why not seen here? Because you know he is talking directly to the generation that sold out the wars fought by their forefathers, just because 2 building 'fall down go BOOM!
2700 dead is just another bad day in Darfur fer chrissakes! "
rdarmand wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:59 PM:
" Fincher has been convicted; big surprise. His militia defense - the only defense he had - was denied him on the basis of an exercise in self-serving reframing by the court. ("What is a militia? A militia is something approved by the state [no references]. Fincher's group is not approved by the state; therefore it isn't a militia, and Fincher can't defend himself on the basis of the 2nd Amendment because it doesn't apply to his group.") People who believe trials like this are about justice are living in a fool's paradise. Politics is about power, first and last, and our courts are political institutions. If Fincher were acquitted, the foundations of government would be shaken in this country as they have not been shaken since the Civil War. Fincher's conviction was a bygone conclusion the moment he was arrested. Courts in this country frequently decide the result they want, then fabricate a rationale to get there. Flimsy or sound, most people can't afford to go the distance to contest their rulings; and they know it. From the State district courts to the Supreme Court of the United States, justice is secondary to preserving their power. "
rdarmand wrote on Jan 14, 2007 8:21 PM:
" A final comment: There have been many posts here that speak words that are noble, true and fine concerning what the Constitution means, etc. What no one seems to realize is, it doesn't matter. I am not being cynical when I say this, but trying to direct all this wasted energy in a more profitable direction. Your philosophy of government, noble and preferable as it may be, was killed by history with Lee's surrender at Appomatox. That's where your philosophical battle was fought and lost. You are spending your energies fighting a battle that was lost nearly 150 years ago. There is only one way I know to fight the squalid, bloated behemoth squatting in Washington, DC, and that is to abandon the political process altogether. When the proportion of the eligible populace that actually exercises its franchise drops into the teens, the thieves and tyrants in our nation's capital will no longer be able to pretend to any measure of legitimacy, and will be betrayed for exactly what they are. "
Vicars wrote on Jan 22, 2007 2:35 PM:
" rdarmand, you are correct, in that the civil war was fought over the ninth and tenth ammendments, which reserved power not expressly given the federal government by the constitution to the States or the people. (See SC's Declaration of Secession, 1860) Lee surrendered the Confederate government, not the people, nor our philosophy. All States, therefore, are occupied lands, and as such, does the fed really need legitimacy, when they occupy by force? I believe civil disobedience in the face of force, although honorable and certainly preferable, is not sufficient to overcome. God hope I'm wrong. "
Gary Williams wrote on Jan 28, 2007 6:04 PM:
" rdarmand quotes the court with "What is a militia? A militia is something approved by the state [no references]".
A well regulated militia assumes "the regulator" has the power to regulate "well". The government is the only body with enough power to enforce regulations on a militia, so references aren't required. It's whats known as a no-brainer.
Second, man is not a dog, and doesn't live by a dog-eat-dog rule of survival. On the contrary, we get by with a group strategy. "Power in numbers", like wolves, also means protecting each other from predators and sharing the food they catch...which btw was never, ever, ever...another wolf. Dominance is gained through good health and good social skills, with constant threats and hoarding of food resulting in expulsion or attack and kill as punishment.
Given the above facts, men who think predatory behavior against your own kind is "how life is" are looking to be cast out of the group, and a lone wolf seldom prospers long enough to have kin to pass down their disordered ethical views.
I cannot tell you how much I look forward to the day when people too stupid to see that were a socially dependant animal like deer and wolves, rather than solitary predators like bears or sharks, finally disappear from the face of the planet. "
Free America wrote on Feb 6, 2007 12:03 AM:
"
Well Gary, I find your brand of logical thinking humarous. It seems in your pipe dream of a world,Man is no
better than the common animal, such as a
deer. Well I must disagree. Man is not
an animal. But you are definately intitled to your opinion, no matter how asinine it may be. Though the B.A.T.F.E
and F.B.I. qaulify as animals in my book,after Waco, etc. "
Gary Williams wrote on Feb 6, 2007 5:57 AM:
" I was quoting other's who say that dictatorial power gained by keeping a countries wealth confined to one small group( Idi Amin, Papa "Doc" Duvalier, Saddam Hussein, etc.) is justified as being merely "survival of the fittest".
I'm saying that this might have some basis if we were a solitary predator species like bears or sharks. But we are a socially-dependant animal. Survival in groups means rules of behaviour must be followed. Selfishness, unnwarranted violence, failure to protect other members of the group are not tolerated.
They do not prey on their own, so for them to invoke Darwin as an excuse to prey on others of their own kind is to misunderstand 99% of behavioural evolution, "game theory", and recipricol altruism. Particularly why empathy evolved among socialle dependant species *alone*, and why members lacking the neccesary amount for maintaining a healthy pack, herd or clan are always run off, or simply killed by the rest of the wolf-pack or Clan.
Indeed, pre-agricultural people have been found to be invariably egalitarian, with a hereditary "chieftain" as the most "unfair" practice likely ever developed by pre-"civilized" or settled man. But even then, wealth was still dispersed relatively equally, with the "Potlatch" being a perfect example of how the redistribution was considered essential to maintaining harmony among individuals. Modern societies go against hundreds of thousands of years (millions perhaps) of the genetic predispositions evolved during that time. "
Mycos wrote on Feb 12, 2007 6:20 AM:
" [quote]There's only one way I know to fight the squalid, bloated behemoth squatting in Washington, DC, and that is to abandon the political process[/quote]
The right to strike is a tool that stuck a dagger through the heart of the robber barons 100 years back when our vote was worthless during their Gilded Age. Unfortunately decades of anti-regulatory BS has allowed them to take back everything they lost when we fought for the right to to strike.
Now, because the Cold War rhetoric told us that socialism is evil, the loss of union power has the corporate robbers barons back in power.
Luckily state-funded basic education was already around before anti-communist rhetoric made further "universal" thinking unpatriotic. If we got any stupider, we'd bed in the Dark Ages again. Equating deregulation with Darwin is so outrageous a lie that only fear makes you believe things like; only an army able to torture, led by a President who can ignore the Bill of Rights is all that can protect you from stateless, army-less religious kooks...kooks who have been threatening people for a hundreds years without causing any such hysterical thinking to arise. Why now? The fear being played up by the robber barons who wants even more power.
Look. OBL has no ability to threaten the country itself. The Soviets did otoh, a nuclear army defeated without needing any of the powers taken by Bush. I bet he'll find a reason to halt elections next. Watch! "
Not already registered?
Lawful Machine Gun Owner wrote on Dec 29, 2006 11:33 PM: