Fincher Guilty In Machine Gun Case
Last updated Friday, January 12, 2007 3:37 PM CST in News
By The Morning News
It took a jury just under five hours to find Hollis Wayne Fincher guilty of owning illegal machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.
Closing arguments in federal court in Fayetteville wrapped at mid-morning and the case went to the federal jury about 10:30 a.m. The jury returned its verdict about 3:20 p.m.
According to police, Fincher had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. The other firearms were 9 mm STEN design submachine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.
The defense tried to make the case an issue of the Constitution versus federal gun laws. The government tried to make the case as simple as possible for jurors — Fincher had the machine guns and they weren’t registered as required by federal law.
A major issue was whether the Militia of Washington County is a valid state militia for second amendment purposes. Judge Jimm Larry Hendren ruled it’s not.
Reader Comments (156 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.
Josey Wales wrote on Jan 12, 2007 4:02 PM:
" One more car added to the train of abuses. When do we get to the caboose? "
um wrote on Jan 12, 2007 4:02 PM:
" maybe he should have gotten a better lawyer. I would've like to see someone like Erwin Davis, WH Taylor, Norwood, or Jim Rose argue this case. They've all had success wuth high profile cases lately. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 12, 2007 4:23 PM:
" Just got off the phone with the GOA and with Fincher's legal defense fund chief. I'm donating a STI Texican serial numbered Fincher 001 as a fund raiser. Details on the raffle and legalities of a national/international gun raffle are being determined as we speak. If you aren't able to receive a firearm through an FFL or have an FFL or an equivalent in your country of residence than just contribute to the appeal funs at: The Wayne Fincher Defense Fund” at 2225 North Mockingbird Lane, Fayetteville, AR 72703. Some of us shall not go gently into a world of chains and thieves. Should have things sorted by Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
posting updates will be at http://amishtomsgunland.blogspot.com/ "
Can't wait for the "Commerce Clause" laws regulating the First Amdt wrote on Jan 12, 2007 4:36 PM:
" I come from a country that for many many years required registration/permit of typewriters together with it's text samples.
Any drum-type manual copy machines were included in the registration/permission scheme as well.
I am NOT JOKING.
Good Luck USA, it's coming soon. "
Marty wrote on Jan 12, 2007 4:54 PM:
" in the 20th century over 170 million unarmed men woman and children were murdered for political reasons by their own government not including wars and abortions. They were drowned, starved , burned, buried alive, frozen, shot, stabbed, poisoned to name just a few of the ways governments murder their own people. Go to your google search engine for ''Death by Government'' "
Gunner wrote on Jan 12, 2007 4:57 PM:
" Not a surprising verdict, since the man's only legal defense -- the Second Amendment -- was thrown out by the fascist judge. "
Tom wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:08 PM:
" Amen gunner. who wants to admit the supreme law of the land as a defense when we can hide the truth. Hey NANANA, don't expect any help when they come for you. You'd be amazed at how many "laws" you break each day without even knowing it. Wayne's only crime was that he followed the true law. "
Yeaaaa wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:14 PM:
" Jimmy Hendren is a joke. Do you think I can eat this food on my plate or should I get a permit for that as well. To hell with the police and to hell with judges that send good honest American people to prison. "
marty wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:19 PM:
" Death by government go to photo's of genocide
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM "
texasminutemen.org wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:27 PM:
" So what's to be done about it??? Nothing as usual I imagine. "
JPH wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:31 PM:
" The government sure made good time getting around "that G**damn piece of paper". God help us all. (second post, first was removed?) "
Vinnie wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:47 PM:
" I LIKE the government. I trust the government. The government is always right. It is bad to question the way things are!
P.S. I had to give my e-mail address to this sight to post. "
Got What He wanted wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:51 PM:
" Fincher chose to break the law. Fincher chose to advertise he was breaking the law. Pretty simple case. You break the law..you get convicted. He wanted to make his stand..now he has..now he has been convicted. Let him appeal...take it all the way to the Supreme Court..maybe it will get overturned. But for now...he's a convicted felon!! And he should be. "
supercat wrote on Jan 12, 2007 5:55 PM:
" Had the government sought to bring the defendants in U.S. v. Miller to trial, they would have been allowed to introduce evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for use as a military weapon; if a jury found that such an item was indeed useful as a military weapon, that would have been basis for acquittal.
No Supreme Court case since has changed any of that. Unfortunately, since the government realized it would lose if it brought the case to trial, it instead offered a plea bargain for probation and time served and declared itself the winner. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 6:00 PM:
" Gun laws help keep the wrong people from obtaining weapons. Fincher's main problem was that he would allegedly sell a full auto to anyone that wanted one - with no background check - then try to hide behind the "militia" and his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. He wanted a court battle and bragged about his weapons in the paper, in letters to the government, and on the Internet. He got the court battle and lost. That's the chance he took. "
Tom wrote on Jan 12, 2007 6:05 PM:
" common sense, you're wrong. Gun laws help keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people. TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 He got a rigged trial where he wasn't even allowed to present a defense. He broke no law, but the government has. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 6:20 PM:
" Tom: Law abiding people can legally purchase weapons after a waiting period and a background check. What mechanism did Fincher use to determine whether the people he allegedly sold full auto machine guns to were law abiding? I personally encourage all law abiding people to legally purchase and carry whatever gun they like to defend themselves and others. There are too many dangerous people out there to allow the "full-auto weapons for everybody" mentally that Fincher promoted. "
Joe wrote on Jan 12, 2007 6:28 PM:
" Common Sense your showing your ognorance the first item purchased by a large number of hispanics who enter this country under the cover of darkness is a gun. Could you please explain to this citizen why crime sky rockiting in England and other countrys where guns are prohibited. How would you like to be MY Slave AS long as you follow My rules you will be Ok. Get Real Pal "
Tom wrote on Jan 12, 2007 6:28 PM:
" Not everywhere. Does a car dealership have to do the same for drunk drivers? There are too many dangerous people for us to have any rights is what you meant to say. Freedom doesn't depend on permission from others. If a criminal gets something dangerous and USES it, either lock him away and attempt to rehabilitat them or kill them. Making so many laws as to make everyone a criminal does nothing for freedom or safety. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 6:41 PM:
" I said gun laws "help" stop dangerous people from obtaining guns. I didn't say it stopped them. And you can't compare car dealers to gun dealers - apples and oranges. And criminals had access to something dangerous because Fincher allegedly would have sold it to them. I love this country and our rights. The government doesn't say we can't own full autos - it just tells us to follow a process to obtain one. "
Joe wrote on Jan 12, 2007 7:00 PM:
" Common Sense read the Arkansas Constitution you might be surprised. The Federal Govt. just made a BIG Statement in Fayettville AR on 1-12-07 "The Arkansas Constitution is Null and Void", although we have known for some time that this might be the case as the AR Constitution also says Our Real Property is Alodial Tell that to the Tax man,police depts and federal Gov. Wayne loses this and your in deep trouble and dont know it!! whats next?I also think your way off base!!! to imply Wayne was and or would sell weapons to known criminals "
Tom wrote on Jan 12, 2007 7:26 PM:
" gun laws stop dangerous criminals from getting them as much as laws against murder prevent them. The only people to obey the law are people who obey laws. criminals have access to more dangerous weapons with less of a paper trail thanks to the feds leaving the borders wide open. The feds HAVE said that we can't own NEW full autos, only those that existed pre '86. how'd you like it if they said no new guns could be made for civilians? That's what they did. The only "legally" owned and registered machine gun used in a crime was by a cop in Dayton. There are under a million in the US, and those that subjects can own generally go for $10K plus. For the record, I'd like one or two, as well as a suppressor...short barreled shotgun, maybe if the price was right. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 12, 2007 7:35 PM:
" Fincher never offered to sell any machine gun to anyone at any price. He wanted to maintain them as part of the armory, and yes they had a real armory, just like the National Guards do, of his Washington County Militia. No interstate commerce or even intrastate commerce was ever intended or discussed. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 7:44 PM:
" We can agree to disagree on whether Fincher had the Constitutional right to manufacture full auto machine guns, but he could have run his militia (full autos and all) and said whatever he wanted to say had he just legally purchased the weapons and required the same of other militia members. I never implied that Fincher would knowingly sell such weapons to known criminals - I don't think he would. What I said was that he would have no way of knowing who he was selling them to because he wasn't a licensed machine gun dealer with the ability to conduct background checks - as evidenced from the fact that an undercover ATF agent was able to attend the meetings and probably could have purchased one. None of your doomsdays predictions will change thoughts on that. "
Fuzzbean wrote on Jan 12, 2007 7:45 PM:
" So this went to trial, and was decided by the jury? In that case the guilty verdict -- at this low level -- is neither good nor bad.
The battle is nothing. It's the war that counts. "
Colt_1991A1 wrote on Jan 12, 2007 7:49 PM:
" JUSTICE, n. A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.
THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993) "
Joe wrote on Jan 12, 2007 7:58 PM:
" Common sense Did you know that there are local policemen in the washington Co. Militia Wayne did not care if the Aft agent was there he had no crime to hide just because a judge said the WC malitia is invalid does not mean this is fact.the same judge ruled last week drug testing came under medical malpractice and has opened pandoras box as we know drugtesting today how many Dr's are practicing medicine in states without a lic by being a medical review officer for drug testing how many people have had there rights under hippa violated by the MROs who released there drug test results without written permission from the doner? Drug labs are balistic as are the Dr's Now he says were in a court of law but the law of the land cannot be used as a defense? Whats next? "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 8:01 PM:
" And for the record, full auto rifles are useless for anything but suppression fire. The military doesn't even hand them out to standard front line soldiers anymore - only three round bursts. What do you have if you've got a full auto? An empty weapon. And Fincher doesn't exactly appear ready to defend Arkansas against any sort of attack. According to the paper, the trial had to be delayed because he wasn't even ready to defend himself due to multiple health problems. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 12, 2007 8:12 PM:
" For somebody who calls themselves "common sense" one would think you would realize this was an intentional challenge to the validity of the travesty known as the NFA act of 1934. Think Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus not Wayne Fincher vs a Cuban invasion. Then maybe you an call yourself "common sense." "
45superman wrote on Jan 12, 2007 8:17 PM:
" If I had half the courage of Mr. Fincher, I'd be in a cell, too. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 8:26 PM:
" Joe: I thought we were discussing gun laws - you and Tom keep bringing up car salesmen and drug labs. And if Fincher's intentions were to maintain all of the weapons at his armory; why did the paper say full autos were found at multiple locations across Arkansas and not just at the militia headquarters armory? And since you brought up the National Guard, you should call and ask whether they keep all of their weapons at the armory or if they let the guardsmen take them home at night. By the way, the NG conducts background checks before they let you join and carry a weapon. "
Free Fincher wrote on Jan 12, 2007 8:30 PM:
" It's interesting how the verdict followed the actions of Hitler. They must be liberals... "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 8:42 PM:
" Thomas: Actually I did realize this was an intentional challenge to the gun control law. As I stated in an earlier post "he [Fincher] asked for a court battle." I recommend spending more time trying to justify your argument and less time trying to attack me. Frankly, for this to have been such a well planned intentional "Civil Disobedience" plot to challenge the constitutionality of NFA, the paper sure made it sound like the defense stumbled over themselves during trial. Perhaps Oscar Stilley wasn't such a good choice for an attorney. "
Joe wrote on Jan 12, 2007 8:55 PM:
" Common Sense I really want to know how you thought you handle up If your going to court on a constitutional issue the constitution must be used as the gold standard for a verdict The prosecutor should be disbarred as should the judge for the hoax they perped on the public today. the advancement of liberalism and socialism flew at a very fast pace in fayettville today. "
Truth Versus Evil wrote on Jan 12, 2007 9:13 PM:
" It's a shame that this man lost, but it's disgusting that the Second Amendment was rejected as a defense.
True common sense dictates that proper use is always considered first; that misuse is never put before proper use.
Yet laws such as your NFA, AWB, and our laws in Blighty do the exact opposite: attempt to prevent misuse by removing the rights for proper use.
As such, the NFA is an irresponsible law, and should die a well-deserved death. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 9:22 PM:
" Joe: I thought the handle up all by myself. The reason they weren't allowed to argue the constitution because the US Supreme Court has ruled that the NFA is constitutional in previous cases. A District Court judge cannot overturn that which the US Supreme Court has ruled valid. Otherwise people could just keep losing in lower courts all over the country and constantly appealing to the Supreme Court asking them to decide something they've already ruled on. Why don't you volunteer to be the next Fincher and see if you can do better. I recommend finding a better attorney. "
Vinnie wrote on Jan 12, 2007 9:45 PM:
" No, its disgusting that the jury never heard the defense. It would be a shame to "confuse" the jury. Remember "the court GIVES them the law".
http://www.arkansasmilitia.com/raid/docket/Fincher%20Motion%20Hearing.pdf "
straightarrow wrote on Jan 12, 2007 10:20 PM:
" Common Sense, I don't find any sense, but I do find you all too common. Can you read with comprehension or are you just a leg-chained parrot?
Do you have any idea what the words "....shall not be infringed." mean?
How is it you set yourself up as superior morally and intellectually to Jefferson, Washington, Hancock, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Marshall, Franklin et al?
"May your chains rest lightly....."
please do not claim to be my countryman. You are an embarrassment to America. Hendren is a traitor to her.
"
Hey Joe wrote on Jan 12, 2007 10:23 PM:
" There are no local policemen in the militia....I'm positive....you're blowing smoke....or breathin' some kind of smoke....I challenge you to name one local police agency whose officer is a member of the militia. You can't do it. You know why? 'Cause it's not true. "
1894C wrote on Jan 12, 2007 10:40 PM:
" I can't for the life of me understand the glee some posters are showing regarding the result of this trial.
If ANY other part of the Bill of Rights was being eviscerated this way and these same people would be screaming to the rooftops.
Put aside your hatred of guns for a moment and consider what this is saying. In effect the government has gutted a part of the bill of rights, rendering it effectively meaningless.
Being secure from searches without probable cause...unless the government thinks it's important.
Freedom to assemble.. unless the government thinks it's not a good idea.
Freedom of the press... unless the government doesn't like what you have to say.
IS IT CLEAR YET?!?!
DO YOU GET IT YET?!?!
How many usurpations of our sovereign right are you willing to concede?
Fools!
What makes you think that putting yourself at the mercy of the government is a safe practice? "
Tom wrote on Jan 12, 2007 10:58 PM:
" Common sense: § 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
"
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:10 PM:
" Straightarrow: That was really clever how you flip-flopped my handle and used it in a sentence. I should have just chosen a regular name so I wouldn't have to keep discussing it, but it's amusing how spun up ya'll are getting over it. And I just don't get the analogy between reading comprehension and a parrot. Now the last time I was called an embarrassment to America was in uniform in 1993 on an American Airlines flight home from fighting in Somalia - courtesy of some liberal puke in first class. I've given to this country - many others gave more than I - just so you can say what you're saying. Just because people don't agree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment doesn't make them traitors. That smacks of McCarthyism. And that, my friend, is a proper analogy. "
disappointed wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:11 PM:
" the question i have in all of this gun stuff is why does the average citizen and the gov fear the likes of this man? did he ever do a criminal act like robbery with a gun? if so, never let him have another one. if not, let the man own what he wants to own. do we tell people they cannot own a 400 or 500 horsepower vette or a big 4x4 or suv when all most of us really need is a small 4 banger? and plz do not say it is apples and oranges. the issue is the document says i can own a weapon but the gov want to restrict that which makes the gov wrong. the issue is not about need. we use to be free. "
disappointed wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:26 PM:
" to mr common sense, the truth is no man has died for this country's freedoms since ww2. all since have been because we stick our noses into others business. and that comes from one whose dad earned his first CIB in ww2 and the next in Korea and then i did time in the corps, the army and later on our streets as a cop and my oldest son is a navy pilot. i too use to be a true believer, but after burying several cop friends who had died in the so-called war on drugs i began to question the gov. why do those in power and most police leaders want the citizens to not have weapons and yet those same leaders efforts at ridding the street gangs of weapons is about the same as their efforts at curtailing illegal immigration? "
Paul W. Davis wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:29 PM:
" To All,
Oscar Stilley took this case because no other local lawyer would touch it, and he was not going to see Wayne run over by the government. Perhaps you should have been in the court room as I was and seen the defense shut down at every turn by the citation of procedure and precedence, willfully disregarding the law and neglecting all the laws that applied in this case. I am very familiar with the inner workings of this case, and I can tell you that it was very much like the show trials of the USSR in the 1920's and 30's. Yes, it sounded good, but was very wrong. There are fundamental problems in our judicial system, and we will end up in tyranny because of it. Oscar did the very best he could possibly do under the circumstances. It was a pleasure and honor to assist him. "
disappointed wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:30 PM:
" i stand corrected, i think what we did and are doing in afghanistan is for us but not so the rest. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:40 PM:
" This trial isn't about gunhaters. It was about illegally manufactured unregistered machine guns. The search warrant was reasonable, based on probable cause and signed by a judge with appropriate jurisdiction. If it wasn't, Stilley should have ordered a suppression hearing to try and argue the warrant's validity and disqualify the evidence - but he didn't. People can assemble and protest in this country and do so, and the media - based on the constant US bashing some of them dish out - can say whatever they like even if it's top secret and compromises national security. The sky is not falling and the British have been repelled. Stand down Paul Revere. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:55 PM:
" Common Sense - You are sorely lacking in the meaning of the handle that you chose. This IS the "true interpretation" of the Second Amendment -
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
The FACTS cannot be disputed. All of that information is directly off of the Library of Congress - American Memory website. Most directly from the Journals of the U.S. House and Senate. The governments position can be readily disproven off of OUR website - We The People's. These people in 'power' are supposed to be our SERVANTS - NOT our masters. We tell them what to do, within Constitutional limits - NOT visa-versa.
Would highly suggest that you educate yourself as to the TRUTH of the matter..... "
Paul W. Davis wrote on Jan 12, 2007 11:59 PM:
" You know, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between possession and usage. We do not limit the possession of words under the limitations on free speech. Rather, what we limit is the usage of those words. Why is it then that we limit the possession of firearms instead of limiting their usage? In short, the government is using two entirely different standards for determining the limitations on individual rights. You cannot use one standard for the First Amendment and a different standard for the Second Amendment. That is not good law. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:00 AM:
" Tom: You left out the part where the Arkansas Constitution allows militia members to manufacture machine guns and provide them to whomever they choose...or is that not in there? We live in a rule based quasi-civilized society. Everyone can't just go off and do whatever they want based on their own individual intrepration of the law. Imagine the anarchy. And again, it is legal to own a machine gun if you follow the rules. They're really quite easy. It may cost you some money, but there's nothing in the constitution that mandates machine guns be affordable. I don't like paying a tax for the privilege of owning a vehicle, but I do it because the people I elected made it so. If I want it changed, I'll elect someone that promises to repeal the tax. And it's interesting that neither you nor Joe respond to any points that I make in the post above (Nat Guard & Fincher not keeping all the weapons in the "armory." I'm sure we'd all love to hear you argue that rather than my moniker. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:04 AM:
" Wayne was illegally railroaded by a perverse usurping and tyrannical government. They have NO Constitutionally legal delegated authority over arms in the hands of We The People. In fact, the reverse is true they were EXPRESSLY prohibited from interferring with We The People obtaining, Keeping and Bearing arms.
If you contend this - CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVE your contention. Because I can, most definitely, prove my statements. Otherwise, you are writing about something that you are OBVIOUSLY uneducated about. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:07 AM:
" "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. 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 13, 2007 12:12 AM:
" Hey 'common sense', you know who Alexander Hamilton was, right? Let's see what he had to say about this -
"You, Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body; but, granting your supposition were true, it would be a matter of no real importance. When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded. Men may then betake themselves to the law of nature; and, if they but conform their actions, to that standard, all
cavils against them, betray either ignorance or dishonesty. There are some events in society, to which human laws cannot extend; but when applied to them lose all their force and efficacy. In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential
rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void."
- Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 23 Feb. 1775 Papers 1:86--89, 121--22, 135--36
"
Jerry Hawkins wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:16 AM:
" Notice how fast Fincher was prosecuted, but the cop that shot and killed the mentally challenged kid has yet to go to trial.
Notice Fincher killed no one, but our fine heroes of law enforcement has. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:22 AM:
" The Constitution was an instrument designed to keep government within the bounds imposed upon it by the PEOPLE that formed the government. A government formed to PROTECT and SECURE the residuals of the Freedom and Liberties retained. When a people form a society for mutual protection. They give up some of their natural rights, for the safety of the common welfare. Bills of Rights were done to define the Natural Rights NOT given up, but retained. It is as a line in the sand. Which tells the government; You may go this far in your SERVICE to us, but NO farther. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was EXPRESSLY removed from the bargaining table. It is a preexistent, inherent and inalienable God-given Natural Right. In fact, it is the First Law of Nature. And, our governments were FOUNDED on the "laws of nature and of natures God".
Those laws TRANSCEND man made law.....
"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 AN ADVANTAGES OF WAR."
- Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan", (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651....
Those whom allow themselves to be governed by fear, will soon find themselves under its absolute rule.... "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:28 AM:
" Disappointed: I disagree with your statement that no one has died for this country since WW2. They'll never be a war where everyone agrees that we should be in it, but much like me (and you too I'm sure) the government didn't ask me whether I thought we should be in Somalia or any other war - they just asked me to go with my fellow soldiers. America is supposed to be a beacon of freedom and with that comes a responsibility to do the right thing - which is not always easy or popular. I agree that our government is far from perfect. We don't do enough to stop illegal immigration and the war on drugs is failing miserably - but I fail to see what that has to do with Fincher making machine guns. Tell me what the militia was doing to help fix the immigration and drug problem - or was he too busy making plans to repel an inland invasion by Cuba. Give me a break. "
Joe wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:29 AM:
" I know for a fact a Gentry officer has been to the meetings and lots of others many policeman are constitutionalists remember they take an oath "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:50 AM:
" Stilley may very well be a fine attorney, but he lost miserably. If Fincher's actions, as it seems, were intentional in order to challenge the NFA, why did he have to scramble in order to find an attorney to defend him. Why not have a legal defense fund already in place with some big name lawyer ready to pounce? The papers say Fincher boasted for years about his militia and stockpile, but he obviously bit off more than he could chew. I don't dispute the validity of a militia, but they should have to follow the same laws as the rest of us - its the only way to help limit the risk of such a dangerous weapon falling into the wrong hands. And for the last time: ordinary Americans, including militia members, can have machine guns if they pass the background and pay the stupid fee to register them. And I suspect that we limit the possession of firearms, and not words, because you can't walk into a school and murder innocent children by throwing 800 words a minute at them, but you can by throwing 800 rounds. "
disappointed wrote on Jan 13, 2007 1:02 AM:
" common sense: i said no one has died for our freedoms since ww2 but then corrected myself to include afghanistan. it is a gov inspired con job to say men died for our freedoms in korea, 'nam, etc. this country was not being attacked and under threat of losing our way of life and country. those who served during say the cold war did more directly for just this country and freedom than did those who actually fought and died in such areas as korea, 'nam, etc. i am not saying anything negative about them, but do not confuse service and being obedient with service directly to and for this country. it is also a con job when the gov tells the citizens that they should not be allowed certain guns. again, what business is it of the govs as to what gun i own? all i am saying is we need to question authority of the gov and not believe all they tell us, etc. ps, thx for your service! "
disappointed wrote on Jan 13, 2007 1:14 AM:
" common sense, you worry about a man owning a weapon capable of 800 rds pm but how often does that happen compared to how often auto accidents happen involving suv's or large 4x4's or high hp cars but we do not see the gov saying we cannot own them. yes they can pay a tax on the m-gun but then what does that say about the gov, they actually only care about did you pay the tax on it. if they were honest they would simply ban it vs saying you can have it if you jump thru certain hoops. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 1:20 AM:
" Common Sense wrote "I don't dispute the validity of a militia, but they should have to follow the same laws as the rest of us - its the only way to help limit the risk of such a dangerous weapon falling into the wrong hands. And for the last time: ordinary Americans, including militia members, can have machine guns if they pass the background and pay the stupid fee to register them."
SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT GOVERNMENT HAS THE LEGALLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. I CAN SHOW YOU WHERE THEY WERE EXPLICITLY DENIED ANY AUTHORITY TO DO AS YOU CLAIM. The government has usurped against our Rights. Rights they were supposed to SECURE - NOT Infringe against.
Again, you make claims concerning the validity of government actions - CONSTITUTIONALLY BACK the claims you have made. Just WHERE does the government draw the authority to do as you claim? Unless of course it is ASSUMED authority. Which of course is REPUGNANT to the whole intent of a Constitution. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 1:29 AM:
" Common Sense - "its the only way to help limit the risk of such a dangerous weapon falling into the wrong hands."
Then what about gasoline, kerosene? Or napalm? (a very easily made highly flammible and explosive substance). There are many different common everyday items that can be employed as far more dangerous weapons than guns. Tell me why these aren't regulated?
There can be no Constitutionally legal imposed sanction AGAINST exercise of a Natural (Constitutionally protected) Right. There can only be punishment assigned for MISUSE or ABUSE of that Right. The argment you make, would strip the world bare of ALL potential sources of 'danger' that government or sheeple can conceive in their fearful little minds. Do you even have the slightest notion of what the words FREEDOM and LIBERTY mean? "
disappointed wrote on Jan 13, 2007 1:50 AM:
" i think we modern citizens have a hard time understanding how it was at first when we didnt have the organized US National Guards that we know of today. the common man worked and had weapons to protect his from crooks and indians and wild creatures that may attack him or his. but those same weapons were then available for defense of the community/state if needed. men didnt have to run down to the local armory and get ready, they were ready. can you imagine a guy showing up to repel the brits and they turned him away because he had something he had designed and made that was better than the norm. we need to either change the document to say we cannot have guns
(i hope that never happens) or leave alone those who wish to have them and quit trying to get an extra tax dollar out of the issue. "
Gun Nut wrote on Jan 13, 2007 2:06 AM:
" To Paul W. Davis: Fincher had an attorney appointed to represent him named David Dunagin, who has handled thousands of criminal cases, including representing Louis Beam back in 1988 for trying to overthrow the US Government, which resulted in an acquittal. How many criminal trials has Stilley handled? I heard Dunagin say he was going to file papers to challenge the constitutionality of the NFA, but Stilley was hired to do the case and Dunagin was relieved. The papers were never filed by Stilley. How many appeals has Stilley written AND WON? I did a search and found where Dunagin has made law in this state representing the oppressed, protecting their constitutional rights. So can the crap that Stilley had to represent him since no local lawyers would. Stilley's and Fincher's decision to try the case this way hurts the defense of the 2nd Amendment. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 13, 2007 3:02 AM:
" GunShow: Where I live, people don't throw gasoline or napalm at innocent civilians or school children - they use guns: to rob stores; shoot children in school; and kill cops during bank robberies. Guns are more practical and effective weapons than cars or any of those other things mentioned, which is why they are regulated. There are a lot of laws not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Our country would be in shambles if we only obeyed what was in the Constitution. There must be additional laws (consistent with the spirit of the Constitution) in place to protect the masses. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specifically prohibit convicted murderers from bearing arms - would you argue that the men who committed the LA bank robbery, or the kids at Columbine, be able to possess a machine gun after their release from prison simply because it wasn't specifically prohibited by our forefathers? NFA wasn't enacted to prevent Wayne Fincher from owning a machine gun - it was created because there are too many fricken psychos in this country to allow your "machine guns for everybody" mentality. You're suggesting that we wait until the damage is done and then punish those who abuse their right to bear arms. Why not do what we can to prevent deaths by limiting the potential for mass casualties? And my argument is not all inclusive as you suggest - it's about guns...let's stick to the subject. "
Ubiqtorate wrote on Jan 13, 2007 4:00 AM:
" [i]Got What He wanted wrote on January 12, 2007 5:51 PM:"Fincher chose to break the law. Fincher chose to advertise he was breaking the law. Pretty simple case. You break the law..you get convicted. He wanted to make his stand..now he has..now he has been convicted. Let him appeal...take it all the way to the Supreme Court..maybe it will get overturned. But for now...he's a convicted felon!! And he should be."[/i]
"Got What He Wanted"... you sir are a traitor. "
Tom wrote on Jan 13, 2007 4:02 AM:
" common sense, it doesn't matter if the national guard can take their guns home or not. Individuial citizens have a right , and as pointed out, we are the militia. What good does a gun do anyone if they have to drive across town to get it when needed? We were expected to show up with our guns when needed. As far as him manufacturing them, without private citizens doing the same thing we'd be using sticks and stones. You can go off and do what is within the law, and he did just that, the fed gov has decided to do what is outside the law by illegally making so-called law that limit that right, take it away, or artifically increase the price of exercising that right. We've been electing people who promise to do all kinds of things and never do, we call them politicians. Your apparent hatred of an innocent man and Americans with an understanding of our laws and government is sad. Don't bother trying to puch more buttons, we're on to more important things. "
Jim wrote on Jan 13, 2007 4:31 AM:
" Common Sense=Troll
Thanks for your service in Somalia. However, it will be servicemen just like you who will come to our houses to take our guns away. I am thankful for your service but not thankful for your refusal to uphold and defend the constitution like you swore to do. Your opinion on the matter is your right but the facts remain. We have the right to bear arms and that shall not be infringed. Any taxes or gun laws violate this constitutional right. Since you refuse to abide by what you swore to what does that make you? Perhaps the enemy of freedom. Good day to you. "
lysander spooner wrote on Jan 13, 2007 5:52 AM:
" common sense, more than adequate rebuttals have been offerred to counter every point you have made. It is apparent you have chosen to deny the validity of "the supreme law of the land", including any and all arguments presented by the Framers in defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Since the definition of "infringed" is the same today as it was in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" do you fail to grasp? "
JRH in Owosso wrote on Jan 13, 2007 6:00 AM:
" "And for the record, full auto rifles are useless for anything but suppression fire. The military doesn't even hand them out to standard front line soldiers anymore"
Any firearm that fires more than one round per pull of trigger is considered "Full Auto".
"
KenK wrote on Jan 13, 2007 7:24 AM:
" Maybe I just look at things differently. I am absolutely for the right to own fully-automatic guns, but there are legal and moral obligations that go along with that right. You MUST file for a special ATF permit to own firearms like that. There is a fine line between the good guys and the bad guys and the line of demarkaction is the law. If you break the law, you are a criminal (convicted or not). Based on this verdict, he has lost his "rights" because now, he would not be granted an ATF stamp/permit.
A good lesson to all of us. Don't be a bad apple - Be responsible, law-abiding, and safe. "
Ken K. wrote on Jan 13, 2007 7:27 AM:
" Maybe I just look at things differently. I am absolutely for the right to own fully-automatic guns, but there are legal and moral obligations that go along with that right. You MUST file for a special ATF permit to own firearms like that. There is a fine line between the good guys and the bad guys and the line of demarkaction is the law. If you break the law, you are a criminal (convicted or not). Based on this verdict, he has lost his "rights" because now, he would not be granted an ATF stamp/permit.
A good lesson to all of us. Don't be a bad apple - Be responsible, law-abiding, and safe. "
mccollumjck wrote on Jan 13, 2007 9:06 AM:
" The Founding Fathers told us, through their personal writings, that the number one reason why we have the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from someone who might come to power with tyranical ambitions who would use the military against us. An armed citizenry is our number one safeguard for our freedoms and liberties. If we give up the 2nd Amendment, we lose all of our other rights. Another reason is to protect our country from foreign invasion. Our Founders used the Swiss model of a citizens militia to help set ours in motion. A third reason is to protect our families and property from criminals who would visit harm upon us and our loved ones. A thug will think twice about commiting a crime if he evens suspects that the potential victim is armed. Lastly, for those of you who think that people need nothing more than a .22, the Founders intended that the citizenry be armed with the best weaponry of the day. This was intended to counter balance the monopoly of power possesed by the military. One last point: If you like living in a free country where genocide by government does not occur, like in Darfur, think the founding fathers. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:05 AM:
" Ken K. - So then, you are for perpetually punishing someone? Or, cruel and unusual punishment? The "convicted felon" and the Lautenberg Amendment" ploys are just that. If someone that has committed a crime has served their lawfully imposed sentence. They have paid for their crime.
The Right to Self-Preservation is the First Law of Nature. It is an Inalienable and inherent God-given Right. Do you even know the meaning of the words inalienable or inherent? 'Gun control' was invented by the communists, nazi's and socialists. We here in the U.S. are NONE of those. Nor, because of our Constitution, can we EVER be ANY of those.
Those supportive of 'gun control' have either a communist/nazi/socialist viewpoint. Or, they are cowards.
This nation was founded on "the Laws of Nature and of Natures God". (Which as taught in schools all the way into the early twentieth century. They (think) that God has been removed from our education and government systems. And now they are going after the rest of our Rights.
Many of the posters here sound like government boot-lickers. You are for "trading essential liberty for temporary security". Guess what? You deserve, nor or worthy of neither. You sound more like cowards than Americans. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:10 AM:
" From: The Embarrassing Second Amendment,
Sanford Levinson,University of Texas at Austin School of Law, Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659,http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.txt
we see that one aspect of the structure of checks and balances within the purview of 18th century thought was the armed citizen. That is, those who would limit the meaning of the Second amendment to the constitutional protection of state-controlled militias agree that such protection rests on the perception that militarily competent states were viewed as a potential protection against a tyrannical national
government. Indeed, in 1801 several governors threatened to call out
state militias if the Federalists in Congress refused to elect Thomas
Jefferson president. [70] But this argument assumes that there are only
two basic components in the vertical structure of the American
polity--the national government and the states. It ignores the implication that might be drawn from the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments; the citizenry itself can be viewed as an important third component of republican governance insofar as it stands ready to defend
republican liberty against the depredations of the other two structures, however futile that might appear as a practical matter. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:15 AM:
" ....continued do to word limit on posts: One implication of this republican rationale for the Second Amendment is
that it calls into question the ability of a state to disarm its citizenry. That is, the strongest version of the republican argument would hold it to be a "privilege and immunity of United States citizenship"--of membership in a liberty-enhancing political order -- to
keep arms that could be taken up against tyranny wherever found,
including, obviously, state government. Ironically, the principal
citation supporting this argument is to Chief Justice [Roger] Taney's
egregious opinion in Dred Scott, [71] where he suggested that an
uncontroversial attribute of citizenship, in addition to the right
migrate from one state to another, was the right to possess arms. The
logic of Taney's argument at the point seems to be that, because it was
inconceivable that the Framers could have genuinely imagined blacks
having the right to possess arms, it follows that they could not have
envisioned them as being citizens, since citizenship entailed the right. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:16 AM:
" Why would the first President of the new Constitutional Republic make the following statements;
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." - George Washington....
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end,
a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and
interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to
render them independent of others, for essential, particularly military,
supplies." - George Washington, to U.S. House & Senate, Jan. 8, 1790.
Why would one of the main authors of the Constitution state; “[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” - James Madison, autobiography (Don't see the words 'militia' OR 'people' there, do you?)
Those arguing in favor of 'gun control' are totally ignorant of history. Or, they fail to remember that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It's either that, or you are lazy gov. boot-licking cowards. "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine
"
Thomas wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:26 AM:
" ...As Fred Donaldson of Austin, Texas wrote, commenting on those who
defended the Supreme Court's decision upholding flag-burning as
compelled by a proper (and decidedly non-prudential) understanding of
the First Amendment, "[I]t seems inconsistent for [defenders of the
decision] to scream so loudly" at the prospect of limiting the
protection given expression "while you smile complacently at the Second
torn and bleeding. If the Second Amendment is not worth the paper it is
written on, what price the First?" [99] The fact that Mr. Donaldson is
an ordinary citizen rather than an eminent law professor does not make
his question any less pointed or its answer less difficult. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:27 AM:
" Why would the man known as The Father of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams. Along with Benjamin Franklin. Make the following statement; "Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together WITH THE RIGHT TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THEM IN THE BET MANNER THEY CAN. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the DUTY of SELF-PRESERVATION, commonly called the FIRST LAW OF NATURE...." "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:30 AM:
" Adams & Franklin go on to state; "In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their ESSENTIAL NATURAL RIGHTS, OR THE MEANS OF PRESERVING THOSE RIGHTS; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the SUPPORT, PROTECTION, and DEFENSE OF THOSE VERY RIGHTS; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through FEAR, FRAUD, or MISTAKE, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave...." "
Alex wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:33 AM:
" Common Sense,
I wish to own a FN P90. I CANNOT register this gun wuth the government because of the 1986 machinegun ban. If I wish to buy a pre-86 M16 it will cost me $16,000-$22,000. Each year the price goes up for a gun the government buys for $700 new.
These laws are back door bans. In 50 years only the rich will have NFA weapons. And modern weapons in 2056 will be illegal.
Death by a thousand cuts. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:34 AM:
" "The possession of arms is the
distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who
himself belongs to another, must be defended by him whose property he
is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has
what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what
he possesses; else he lives precariously; and at discretion."--James Burgh, English writer well known to American revolutionaries, Cato letters, 1774-1775 "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:38 AM:
" That was quoted from 'The Rights of the Colonists', (actual title; 'The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting'). In the report, dated Nov. 20, 1772. "
Foul wrote on Jan 13, 2007 12:38 PM:
" Stock up on firearms and ammo. You'll need them when Unkle Samski comes after yours next.
RIP USA. "
DKSuddeth wrote on Jan 13, 2007 2:07 PM:
" To those that are preaching about the 2nd Amendment being some sort of 'states right' to maintain a militia need to come to terms with yourself that you want a government overlord deciding what you can and cannot do. The founders built this country on the basis of having individual liberty and not a socialist approach to living in a society. If you trust your government more than you trust your neighbor, then this country is not for you.
What will you do when guns are removed from civilian hands and those in power decide to enforce an evil will upon you? "
Stalwart wrote on Jan 13, 2007 3:04 PM:
" CS - First, I'd like to take a moment and do something I've not seen anyone else so far do, and thank you for you service to our country. You are a patriot in the true sense of the word.
Now, that said, in this case, you are DEAD WRONG. While the government certainly has the power to tax firearms, including but no limited to those covered under the NFA, the fact is - the government now refuses to collect the tax on these machine guns, and therefore have imposed a de facto ban. This is NOT constitutional, and goes beyond regulation.
A previous poster spoke about the difference between possession and use. This is the cusp of the issue. No person has any right to tell another what they can or cannot own (with the exception of those items that pose a clear and present threat to the public - i.e., chemical agents, biological toxins, radioactive material, etc.). The government has every right to restrict what the citizenry wiht laws regarding inappropriate behavior. As is commonly pointed out, outlawing guns won't help, as there is already a law against murder.
The NFA of 1934 is a law that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many, but it is a constitutional law. The FOPA of 1986 is not, as it halted the issuance of "tax stamps" for weapons regulated by the NFA. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 5:00 PM:
" Stalwart - "While the government certainly has the power to tax firearms, including but no limited to those covered under the NFA...."
Agreed, that the government does indeed have the delegated authority to lay taxes. Where I disagree, is that a selective arbitrary "Tax-Stamp" has any Constitutional validity. Especially when applied to an article vital to the maintenance of freedom and liberty. For, in effect, that turns a right into a priviledge, (as alluded to by a previous commentator). The only difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a full-auto is rate of fire. And, anyone familiar with the two, knows that a semi-auto can be used with better efficiency in the right hands. (Depending on the circumstances of course).
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an essential natural right. As the militia was intended for the common defense of the community against all enemies foreign or domestic. So to, is the individual right of self-preservation. Commonly referred to as the "First Law of Nature".
Speech is a God-given natural right as well. But, it certainly cannot be taxed. It is impossible for government to prevent someone from speaking or writing, (without inflicting cruel and unusual punishment i.e. - cutting off hands or tongue). Only penalties can be applied as punishment for the misuse or abuse of the those right(s). "
Tom wrote on Jan 13, 2007 7:58 PM:
" Let's see every reporter, anchorperson, and media hack undergo a background check before they're allowed to publish. Let's also outlaw internet publication, since it's only purpose is to spray uncontrolled hate-words out at a rate too great to be throttled by grabbing-up all the paper copies from the mail.
Fahne Hoch!
National Socialism is here! It just took a few extra decades. "
ByGone Era wrote on Jan 13, 2007 8:56 PM:
" America, do not be disappointed. Many of you are operating under the false impression that you have a Constitution. It is something of a bygone era. It was done away with after the war between the States. Our rulers passed the 14th amendment (making us citizens instead of natural persons endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights) then came the Federal Reserve Act, the Income tax, the Gun Control Act, etc..... More and more Federal power, all taken from the States and the people. Americans of the that day did nothing.
The Arkansas jurors of today did nothing. What do we have left....nothing. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 9:06 PM:
" ByGone Era - Agreed in that it APPEARS to be lost. However, why haven't they seized complete control then? Do you think that EIGHTY MILLION Gun owning Americans might have something to do with it?
Government CANNOT legally abrogate Natural Rights. They are ours despite ANY perverse government edict. Perhaps the following might bring the picture into better focus;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/RightofDefense.html
"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. . . . 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).
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).
"
Truth wrote on Jan 13, 2007 9:11 PM:
" Common Sense, Hitler would have loved you. He also registered guns, I guess his buddies in the White house got the idea from him.
You just don't get it do you. Many of us out here have sons and daughters in a stupid war now, when they should be here protecting their own property from the ATF. These people love to bust in your houses, shoot innocent children by mistake, shoot your animals.
And where do you get the idea that Wayne is manufacturing guns. You are making up lies and you need to quite right now.
You do not even want freedom or you would be helping the true lovers of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,like Wayne Fincher and the Arkansas Militia.
You are really quick to judge others, but one day you will be judged by an all mighty God who has given us these rights and freedoms.
Guns will always fall in the wrong hands rigistered or not. But when we are out numbered by the thugs with guns then you will wish that good guys had guns.
I hope God opens your eyes to the truth before it is too late. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 13, 2007 9:22 PM:
" The ONLY way that the perverse in OUR government can win. Is if We The People roll over and play dead. The founders had to fight this same exact type of tyranny and usurpation to win theirs, (and ours, supposedly), Freedom and Liberty. They established the TRUE fundamentals on how to win the battle against those that attempt to subvert.
The current court(s) are subvertedly deciding by "stare decisis" ('to stand by that which is decided'). Rather than the Constitutionally charged FUNDAMENTAL law, (the Constitution - See Federalist #78). That is what is known as "COMMUNIS ERROR FACIT JUS". (Common error repeated many times makes law). Which results in "SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA". (The rigor of the law is the height of oppression).
We either stand and contest this travesty of justice, or lay down and wait to be enslaved. The choice is ours. If enough of us stand and let our resolve be known. They will have no other choice than to back down. And then We The People need to VOTE EVERY LAST ONE OUT, (excepting perhaps Ron Paul). Clean out OUR government, from top to bottom. And fill it with SERVANTS that understand the meaning of the word SERVANT. They are NOT our masters, as they seem to think and act currently.
"
Skellington wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:43 AM:
" "The government doesn't say we can't own full autos - it just tells us to follow a process to obtain one."
Common Sense, even an absolute laymen as myself can debunk that one-only about 35 states allow FA MG ownership for those who would otherwise meet the requirements. Thats state government, and it is enforced by federal gov't (batf/fbi). Further, fed. gov. says only FA MG's manufactured before May 1986 are allowed, any made after that are ILLEGAL.
"
mccollumjck wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:32 AM:
" Let your gun be your constant companion in your walks...this gives exercise to the body and independence to the mind...no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson "
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 14, 2007 12:02 PM:
" GunShowOnTheNet. I'll look at the site you listed in your response to my post. I appreciate your zeal, I have it too. I just can't believe how a group of jurors could be so dumb and ignorant of the Bill of Rights as to sell out their freedom (and the freedom of their countrymen) willfully allowing the Federal Govt. to usurp what is a natural (and historic) right of man. All one has to do is read what our founders intended when they incorporated the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. Let me ask the jurors this question (if they can read a paper, and are first willing to turn off Dr. Phil for a minute)Have you ever heard of Jury nullification? I didn't think so. "
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 14, 2007 12:17 PM:
" GunShowOnTheNet asked,"why haven't they seized complete control (of our guns)then? They tried that at Lexington on April 18, 1775. It didn't go so good (for them). But the men of that day lived independent and self reliant lives; they would not have any ruler over them. Today, many Americans (I've read as many as 80%)live from paycheck to paycheck, and many others suckle at the teet of the Federal Treasury (Social security, SSI, Disability, Medicare, Medicaid).The public schools do not teach about the natural rights of man, so many are ignorant of these principles. I try to convince everyone I talk to, if they will listen; to move to the country, become as independent as you can, even if you have to sacrifice some creature comforts. An independent man is a free man! A free man will require and insist on a subservient govt.,just as our forefather did. "
mccollumjck wrote on Jan 14, 2007 12:56 PM:
" Dittos to GunShowOnTheNet and ByGoneEra. The Government controlled schools are no longer teaching true American History. How many of our graduating seniors can recite the preamble of the Constitution or even know what the Second Amendments stands for? As the Founding Fathers stated "A Nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects what never has been nor ever will be." George Washington said it best when he said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable..The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference..they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 14, 2007 1:35 PM:
" To posters like Truth: As I said in another post - Try to convince people that you're right instead of calling them Hitler when they disagree with you. Say something like: "I understand why you think that", but then state your argument using the Constitution and whatever else to justify your position. Many of you have done that and that's how you win people over - not by saying that the ATF loves to kick in doors and kill innocent children. They're people with families and morals just like us whether you like them or not. At the beginning of this debate, I didn't realize there was a ban that prevented us from buying new machine guns - I just thought you had to register. The 86 ban is wrong, but I still believe in backgrounds checks to get one - that doesn't make me a communist. Fincher having a machine gun doesn't bother me - its others. You may be able to convince civilized society that the ban is unlawful if you approach it the right way, but you'll never win their hearts by arguing that federal LEAs and local PDs are unconstitutional and US courts shouldn't exist and have no valid authority. It's too radical and comes across as an extremist point of view. They're FAR from perfect, but they do more good than harm and are acceptable in the eyes of most Americans. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 14, 2007 2:18 PM:
" What if I say something like "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."-Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878 "
Thomas wrote on Jan 14, 2007 2:22 PM:
" More precisely, as it mentions "war arms": "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm...is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must b e prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
-WILSON V. STATE, 33 ARK 557, AT 560, 34 AM. REP.. 52, AT 54. (1878). "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 14, 2007 3:01 PM:
" Thomas: Exactly. Great argument. You're right on target (pardon the pun.) It does seem that people in that century understood our founding fathers intentions way better than the VAST majority of politicans and the general public do today. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 14, 2007 3:29 PM:
" No one escapes when freedom fails. The best men rot in filthy jails, and those who cried, "Appease, appease!" are hanged by those they tried to please.--Origin unknown
The scary thing is, as a Texas layperson, I know Arkansas firearms law precedents better then the judge who presided over this federal court, which is a travesty in and of itself because of the lack of any interstate commerce involved or even any intent of intrastate commerce or commerce of any kind. "
Greg wrote on Jan 14, 2007 3:31 PM:
" Resist Resist Resist Tyranny! Fight the SOFT war now - BEFORE it becomes a HARD - SHOOTING WAR against the despots who misapply the law. FREEDOM!
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. T. Jefferson "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 4:47 PM:
" ByGoneEra - Thanks man.
mccollumjck - Yup.
Common Sense - "...but I still believe in backgrounds checks to get one..."
Question for you. Do you believe that there should be "backgrounds checks" before you speak, write, eat, or go to the restroom? All of those are Natural Rights that NO person can rightfully divest us of. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with Natural Rights. Do you realize just WHO it was that started "background checks" and "registration"? Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler, that's who. They, along with chairman Mao, were the biggest mass murderers in the history of man. Did you realize that the 1968 'Gun Ban' follows the Nazi gun control act very closely? Search them up on the internet and educate yourself.
We The People with OUR Constitution ARE the Legitimate, Supreme and Ultimate Authority. All those in government are OUR servants.
If a person is "Free" they are in the state of "Nature" and entitled to defend themselves. Self-Preservation is the First Law of Nature. You might read this for an awakening;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/USJapanSecurityTreaty.html
Are you familiar with the atrocities that Japan committed before and during WWII? Yet, we acknowledged that they still had the Right of Defense. They had committed HORRENDOUS war crimes, yet they maintained their NATURAL RIGHT.
"
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:19 PM:
" Does anybody know who the first ones who initiated "arms control" are? As far as I can tell, it was the Philistines. To Wit; 1 Samuel 13:19, 22
"Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make [them] swords or spears: . . .So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that [were] with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found...."
http://gunshowonthenet.com/biblicalarmsquotes.html
Don't need to remind anyone what happened to the children of Israel all throughout history, do I? Especially, before, during and a little after WWII in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? Let's put it this way. Stalin made Hitler look like a piker.....
As noted by Alex Kozinski, a Federal Appeals Judge, (Ninth Circuit), and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."
(Cont'd.) "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:21 PM:
" "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." - The doomsday provision Oct 19, 2005 by John Stossel
WAKE UP AMERICA! Our servants have and are continuing to betray us, their RIGHTFUL masters. We MUST NOT let it continue.....
"
Common Sense wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:25 PM:
" GunShow: No I don't believe in background checks before we speak, write, eat, or go to the bathroom...especially if I really gotta go. There are limitations on the First Amendment just as there are on the second - neither are absolute but both amendments are equally vital to a free society. There are public safety concerns with both that MUST be addressed. Perhaps NFA & the 86 ban are not the right way, but give everyone a better alternative and I may support you. And if Hitler/Stalin were the first ones to institute background checks/registration, that does not make America a Nazi Germany. Motive and intentions are relative. I have a hard time believing that our government is headed towards anything resembling Communism. We have to elect leaders to make decisions on our behalf to represent the people. Many of them betray us for their own personal gain. Our political system, great as it is, allows our politicians to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder - which is why many of the laws and courts are messed up. You can't get elected in this country unless you're in somebody's pocket...then you owe them. What we need is a true patriot to run for office and for us to elect him for his values and morals, not because he had the biggest and prettiet yard signs. We elect the true patriot, the rest will fix itself. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:29 PM:
" And kudos to you on your knowledge of American history and the framers of this nation. Sadly...it's a lost art. "
arthur wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:34 PM:
" the NFA is wrong. and if the nfa is wrong then it is wrong to convict this guy.
I am at a loss as to why it would be illegal for an individual to build their own machine gun, not for resale, if one were to interpret the Second Amendment fairly and honestly.
It is just unconscionable that certain ideologues in the bureauocracy and judiciary can prostitute the simple intent of simple words to enforce their personal agendas. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 5:41 PM:
" Common Sense - Thank you. "...but give everyone a better alternative and I may support you."
The "American history and the [intentions of the] framers of this nation ARE the viable alternative. The laws of nature and of natures God ARE what works.
Notice if you will, the INCREASE in criminal activity since the 1934 gun ban. As well as the increase after each and every gun ban enacted since. Our supposed servants keep using a proven unconstitutional remedy in order to (supposedly) 'fix' the 'problem'. In other words, they are attempting to play God. They think they are smarter, wiser, better educated than the "old fogies" that initiated our INTENDED system. Which system was based upon "the TRANSCENDENT laws of nature and of natures God". Everytime in history that man goes against those laws - that civilization gets destroyed. We need to get back to basics. There are certain Fundamentals that NEVER change. And, We need to abide by them in order to live rightly. Failure to do so WILL bring destruction down upon us. History PROVES this fact....
"
Common Sense wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:02 PM:
" GunShow: Don't you think the alternative should have some restrictions? Are you suggesting that they just lift the ban and go by ONLY what's in the 2nd amendment? If that's the case, then everyone: convicted felons; drug dealers; illegal aliens; mental patients; teenagers; and whoever else wanted to could just walk into a gun store, purchase a full auto without giving their name, then go off and do whatever they wanted. I'm not sure that is the sort of world I would want to live in. I know you're going to say that some of those types of people already have such weapons, but that number would increase exponentially. And a side note - I'm pro law-enforcement; I think we all are or at least respect their mission. A lot of people on here have been bad mouthing federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. We need to remember that they don't get to pick and choose which laws they enforce. They have to enforce the ones our elected leaders put into place whether they agree with them are not. And don't start rambling on about Nuremberg - there's a difference. We should be angry at our elected officials for passing laws inconsistent with our Constitution and find new ones that truly reflect what our forefathers wanted for this nation. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:07 PM:
" Common Sense - "There are limitations on the First Amendment just as there are on the second - neither are absolute but both amendments are equally vital to a free society."
Incorrect. There are PUNISHMENTS for misuing or abusing that right. Government CANNOT "limit" a NATURAL RIGHT. They can only affix punishments for purposefully misusing or abusing that right. The Rights are OURS whether there is government in place or not. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:14 PM:
" Common Sense - "If that's the case, then everyone: convicted felons; drug dealers; illegal aliens; mental patients; teenagers; and whoever else wanted to could just walk into a gun store, purchase a full auto without giving their name, then go off and do whatever they wanted. I'm not sure that is the sort of world I would want to live in."
That IS the world you live in whether you like it or not. The founders set down certain Fundamentals in accordance with "the TRANSCENDENT laws of nature and of natures God". Following those simple precepts ARE what made us the NEVY of the world. We can ALL see what has happened to, what was at one time, the greatest nation ever on the face of the earth. We either return to what works, or we become another example of what NOT to do. Those whom allow themselves to be governed by fear,
will soon find themselves under its absolute rule.... "
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:17 PM:
" CommonSense, I think you lack some. Compromise is never the solution. Once the Federal govt. begins to ration rights, then the absolute and pure intention of the words chosen by the framers are lost, and begin to be subject to "interpretation." Interpretations take strict meanings and broaden (then stretch) them to fit "situational definitions." Which is what we have seen in Mr. Fincher's case. Whereas; "shall not be infringed" means to not be encroached upon (meaning to gradually intrude upon), violated.
If you think having someone pass a background check makes you safer, then you need to start taking more responsibility for your own safety, and not delegate it to the government, at the expense, peril, and reduction of my rights. Jefferson said " a departure in principle in the first part is precedent for a second, and so on." You are living proof that he was right. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:17 PM:
" Ooooops! Make that "Following those simple precepts ARE what made us the ENVY of the world." "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:22 PM:
" "Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains...No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue: and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."-Patrick Henry "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:31 PM:
" In your world then, could we take those guns to school, football games, the grocery store, and to church? If not, then isn't that the government putting a restriction on our right to bear arms? Can I not bear them at all times? There's nothing in the Constitution that says I can't take them everywhere I choose, so the government should not try to stop me from sitting in english class with an M4/203 grenade launcher. I'm a school teacher in case you're wondering why I always use the school example. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:45 PM:
" In other words, if we allow that government has ANY other power than we allow it. It will take it, and then begin to assume more. They now have the "God complex". I will bow the knee to NONE other than the TRUE God. Not some petty tyrant wannabe.
We The People EXPRESSLY reserved the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In addition, there are others reserved that were NOT enumerated. Government has NO delegated authority to exercise ANY control over our enumerated Rights. They can only pinish for abuse or misuse of those rights.
If we give in. We will soon have a world that is completely stripped bare of all potential sources of danger. All the people will be confined into little boxes so that they cannot possibly harm one another.
When the people lose their morals and principles, the government naturally follows suit. If We The People want ANY semblance of Freedom, than we need to take the necessary steps to attain and retain it. Once it's gone - it's gone. Then the ONLY way to get it back is through revoltionary means.
Fight while it's easy and you have a chance. Or, you will have to fight very hard, with little hope of victory. Where death will appear as a more pleasant alternative than life..... "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:54 PM:
" All of that is fascinating, but you didn't answer my question. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 6:59 PM:
" Fear is an evil and corroding thread. When the fabric of our existence becomes interwoven with it. Life ceases to be worth living.
Freedom demands responsibility and faith. Cease, or fail, to employ those and you lose your freedom.
"Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshipped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord." - Joshua 24:14-15
Seek the Lord and ye shall live.... ANY people that have once believed and then turn their back on Him. Gets severely punished and/or destroyed. History is filled with examples - MILLIONS of them..... "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:06 PM:
" Common Sense - "All of that is fascinating, but you didn't answer my question."
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR AMRS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
THAT IS the answer. And it has NOTHING to do with having to be in the 'militia'. The Right is an INDIVIDUAL one GUARANTEED to be SECURED to each and every citizen of these United States.
The militia is for the COMMON DEFENSE, wherein each INDIVIDUAL citizen joins with their NEIGHBOR to fight off ALL enemies Foreign or DOMESTIC.
"
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:14 PM:
" "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without ANY qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."
"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under ANY color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).
Mr. Tucker was THERE at the debates - he KNOWS that of which he wrote.
The current government is doing to us EXACTLY as the British did, which caused the revolution. It only follows to reason that the same result shall occur if they continue their perversions.....
"
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:21 PM:
" Common Sense - What you contend is that we restrict or remove "liberty" so that we can have 'security'. Wherein then is the Freedom?
“Those who trade essential Liberty for temporary security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security.” - Benjamin Franklin.....
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.... "
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:40 PM:
" Common sense, I wouldn't care if my neighbor drove to school in a tank. Although, the M4 and all rocket launchers should be stowed in the lockers. It would be somewhat cumbersome to have all that hardware clanking around the hallways. But seriously, you are reaching a little far (in your scenario) to try and prove your point. Prior to Federal gun control laws did everyone carry guns or tote artillary pieces behind their car or truck? Back in the day when parents had parental rights and children were obedient and also respectful to their techers, parents didn't let their children bring guns to school (and students didn't want to either). This discussion here would not have taken place 20 or more years ago. Our culture has changed for the worse, and mostly because of government interference. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 7:57 PM:
" ByGoneEra - Excellent point.
All of our troubles are occurring because of "special interest" groups. Mainly those with wealth, power and influence. Thereby turning our Constitutional Republic into an aristocracy. (The rule of a very 'select' few over the many). They are able to impose their wills upon us because of our weak, corrupt and contemptible "representatives". Which are supposed to follow the guidelines of OUR Constitution. Rather than serving the selfish views of those that serve 'mammon' or whom have 'power'. We are NOT a democracy or aristocracy - we ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Rule by certain FIXED laws and principles which cannot be altered without amending the FUNDAMENTAL LAW. This has NOT been done, (nor is it ever likely to lawfully occur). Which makes ALL forms of 'gun control' Constitutionally REPUGNANT. "
Common Sense wrote on Jan 14, 2007 8:10 PM:
" I don't think I was reaching too far to prove my point. My point was that there has to be some restrictions to ensure order and safety. You're absolutely right that, back in the day, kids were more obedient and respectful to their parents, teachers, and the laws, but we don't live in those days anymore - and it's not because the 2nd Amendment is being oppressed. It has mostly to do with groups that won't allow God in the classroom, but have no problem with books that promote homesexuality in the school library. I agree that the 86 ban is wrong, and that Fincher should have been allowed to argue the Constitution in court, and that militias have a right to exist, but I will NEVER support an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms by anyone at any place of their choosing at any time without restriction. The thought that you guys even support the idea that any gun, much less full autos, can be possessed in any of the scenarios I described above is unbelievable. In a school by any kid at any time? I am at a loss for words. May God have mercy on us if we ever see the day. This is over. I am done. "
Thomas wrote on Jan 14, 2007 8:14 PM:
" I've never seen so much as a fist fight at a gun range, hardly even a heated discussion, and in the old days, even prisoners got their guns back when they had served their time. Some things to think about.
In the days of the "wild west" statistically there was less crime in the "wild west" towns than there was in eastern and midwestern cities. The difference being, the westerners all kept guns and the easterners tended to be sheeple. You can look it up. Historical fact.
I took guns to school when it was allowed. We had rifles and skeet and trap and archery and no children were left behind dying and bleeding in a field and nobody shot up the cafeterias or did drive by shootings though I did once throw a water balloon at a teacher. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 8:24 PM:
" Common Sense - Your argument defeats iteself. When guns were readily available, (could order them by mail up til 68'), there was not near the crime that we see now. NATURE WAS ALLOWED TO RUN ITS COURSE. Evil was held at bay by the fear of swift and sure retribution.
Now that the laws of nature and of natures God have been perverted, subverted and increasingly eliminated. We can readily see the results.
The supposed 'brainiacs' that came up with these subversive schemes refuse to admit their mistake(s). And, continue on in their usurpations in stiff-necked pride. Because of their false pride - WE ALL ARE GOING TO PAY THE PRICE. "
mccollumjck wrote on Jan 14, 2007 9:01 PM:
" Common Sense: I think ByGone and GunShow did a great job answering your question and I would like to give my answer to your question. Yes, we have the right to carry arms to all those places you mentioned. With carrying firearms comes great responsibility. And teaching responsibility falls on the shoulders of the parents. Parents have to instill into our children that you have to exercise safety and maturity when using firearms. Consider what Richard Henry Lee said about firearms..."To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." We need to teach our children(when they reach the right age) the sport of shooting and the history and heritage of the 2nd Amendment. We have to cultivate a sense of love and appreciation into our children for firearms. This should all be done under the direction and descretion of the parents. If we can raise our posterity in such a manner, I guarantee you that we would have the safest nation in the world, just like the days of our Founding Fathers. People could carry regularly and not have to worry about some crazy person doing something stupid. I can remember, when I was younger, my dad telling me stories about how they used to carry shotguns to their one room country school house and go duck hunting after school. "
mccollumjck wrote on Jan 14, 2007 9:12 PM:
" I wish we were still that free today. I feel the reason we can't do that today is because our society is decaying. We have taken God out of our government, schools, and our country. When society loses its moral fiber, one of the casulties is the value of life. Life means nothing today, so it is no big deal if a kid takes a gun to school and starts blowing people away. That kind of behavior is glorified in video games, movies, and rap music. And the liberals try to tell us that it is the fault of the gun. I think it has a lot to do with the direction this country is moving in this day and age. I should end this post here. I have a lot to say about this topic and could type all night...lol "
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 14, 2007 9:50 PM:
" GunShowOnTheNet. I've been looking at your site, it's excellent. You wrote, "Evil was held at bay by the fear of swift and sure retribution." This is true. I took my Boy Scout Troop (years ago) to the Cherokee Nations Capital at New Echota, in Calhoun, Georia. You can tour their reconstructed Supreme Court Building. They modeled their form of government after our Constitution. The building had a typical County courtroom layout, with a platform at the front of the room where (I think) five justices sat. If a guilty verdict was rendered, the defendant was sent out through a set of double doors (on the west wall) right then to receive their punishment. When we walked through those double doors (on the tour) we found waiting outside a whipping post and a gallows. A guilty verdict involved one of those two items, and that's it. Justice was swift.
http://ngeorgia.com/parks/new.html "
Constitutional Expert wrote on Jan 14, 2007 10:11 PM:
" Rosie Parks broke the law by refusing to sit in the back of the bus. There is no Constitutional Amendment protecting the right of blacks to sit in the front of the bus. All political-correct leftists applaud Parks for breaking the "law" in deference to a higher Constitutional principle.
The Second Amendment expressly protects that right of the People to keep and bear arms. Why are they so selectively blind? "
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 14, 2007 10:12 PM:
" mccollumjck, you are right! We (as a nation) declared war on God in 1962, and he took notice. In 1973, with the abortion ruling being shoved down our throats by the ruling elite (American Aristocracy)using a devious Supreme Court "Interpretation" they acheived something by Judicial review that they couldn't do through legislation. And they have used this same pattern over and over again. Since 1973 we have gone down hill politicially, economically, and morally; because we did not stand up to them. You mentioned video games, rap, and movies. In 1973 the No. 1 TV show in America was "The Waltons." A farm family living together and helping each other thru tough times. celebrating America's pioneer spirit and Christian charity. Today we have "Qu--r Eye for the Straight Guy?" We need to repent. We are on the verge of destruction, but like the Assyrian city of Ninevah, there is hope! "
Thomas wrote on Jan 14, 2007 10:44 PM:
" It is every American's right, and obligation, to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."-Benjamin Franklin.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html "
Thomas wrote on Jan 14, 2007 10:51 PM:
" Bill of Rights is important too, at least to some of us.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/ "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 11:53 PM:
" ByGoneEra - Thank you. It has been a LOT of work, (and more is added every day). Just went through some type of problems on it, (virus attack or server failure). So, I'm having to re-upload a few graphics.
Have a complete history concerning our right - from Biblical times, up into the early 20th century. I've studied it thoroughly through the debates and beyond. There is simply NO legal justification for 'gun control' of ANY type. And this is not an idle boast - it is a provable FACT.
The American Revolution was sparked by the British regulating and finally trying to confiscate the peoples arms. Tyrants will NOT stop, they must be STOPPED. We must make a stand now while there is still chance for a peaceful resolution. Or be we will be enslaved, or face another bloody Revolution. Choice is upto We The People, it IS OUR Constitution. And ALL American governments are supposed to be our SERVANTS - NOT our 'masters'. "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 14, 2007 11:55 PM:
" Thomas - The Federalist Papers and the Debates very much help in understanding both documents;
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&Precedent.html
---------------
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/FederalistIndex.html "
GunShowOnTheNet wrote on Jan 15, 2007 8:44 AM:
" "A major issue was whether the Militia of Washington County is a valid state militia for second amendment purposes. Judge Jimm Larry Hendren ruled it’s not."
And President Andrew Jackson DISAGREES with the USURPING judge.
"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.]
"
Government is Slavery wrote on Jan 15, 2007 4:22 PM:
" What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter’s "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it’s based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man’s life and property is what we like to call… slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 530.
"
Kevin Gallagher wrote on Jan 15, 2007 5:55 PM:
" I do not know the full story so i cannot comment. All i can say how did anyone find out about these firearms?
if i had something like this i would keep it very close. Maybe the man was not smart enough to realize this. Full autos are not effective firearms. bullet placement is, all that is needed is good practice and a semi auto, unless they start taking them away like they did in England. "
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 15, 2007 8:49 PM:
" Kevin you wrote, "unless they start taking them [our guns]away like they did in England. " England is not a Constitutional Republic, but we are.
We could never allow our guns to be taken away. If our government should ever decide that they have the right to declare our guns illegal, nullifying the second amendment and in one final blow - to outright destroy OUR Constitution; whatever they have planned for us after that would not be worth living through as a slave.
Slaves have no rights. We the people empowered our government, not the other way around.
Of course it is strickly hypothetical to think of our Government abolishing the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment for that matter, ..... it would never happen.
"
Skellington wrote on Jan 16, 2007 1:15 AM:
" "They're people with families and morals just like us whether you like them or not."
The left has been saying that about the arab terrorists: they're fathers with families too. what you said is irrelevant.
"I know you're going to say that some of those types of people already have such weapons, but that number would increase exponentially."
Why would he say that? It is a lie: they are banned by your beloved federal laws.
"A lot of people on here have been bad mouthing federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies."
Yes, Stalin and Hitler would have us tracked & killed for as much, but they didn't have a 1st amend. either.
"We should be angry at our elected officials"
good observation, yet our anger alone is worthless... "
MJ wrote on Jan 16, 2007 10:09 AM:
" I am currently qualified with a semi-auto M1A. A weapon that is completely useless in full auto.
I believe that automatic weapons present their own set of problems that are not only limited to resupply of ammo.
Why the Militia of Arkansas would even want individual full auto weaponry is beyond the comprehension of my military mind. Better to live to fight another day than attract attention to oneself.
Crew served full auto has it's valid uses. In the event of all out rebellion they would be useful. These types of weaponry could be captured or purchased by the fighting groups.
I would like to point out that the Iraqis under Saddam possessed full auto AK 47s. Currently the occupation allows Iraqi civilians one full auto rifle per family. It seems that the Iraqis have more gun rights than Americans! "
Kimber Jones wrote on Jan 17, 2007 5:38 PM:
" As Walt Kelly once lamented, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Or in this case, the enemy of the American people is the United States Government and its Fascist agents, the United States Courts. "
Matt wrote on Jan 17, 2007 9:02 PM:
" Oh, it's so nice to see an anti-gun activist judge right out in the open like that. It's clear that the Judge doesn't have a clue what a Militia is, or what the 2nd amendment means :( "
Paul W. Davis wrote on Jan 17, 2007 11:12 PM:
" To Gun Nut,
Perhaps you ought to read the Court Docket: Davis Dunagin was the court appointed attorney. By Dunagin's own admission, he was already covered up in work and was not even going to touch this case until right before the trial. Dunagin represented Wayne at the Bond Hearing and I note that Wayne's Bond was excessive. How come David Dunagin never presented evidence or witnesses that would attest to Wayne's character so that he was not held under such excessive conditions. Perhaps you ought to read the Bond Hearing transcript before you rant on about who is what.
I am continually amazed by the fact that people speak and write without knowing half of what has transpired. "
§ 311 Unconstitutional wrote on Jan 19, 2007 6:22 AM:
" § 311 descriminates against women. The world would be much safer and saner if women were in charge of the weapons. This is 2007, not the 1700's. "
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 19, 2007 8:26 PM:
" 311 - It's not a matter of whether men or women are in charge of the weapons; what matters most is if free men and women can defend themselves against those who would enslave them. Do you think that people who are alive today are any different than the people who lived in the 1700's? Do you think because you are a "modern" woman you have evolved or advanced yourself beyond the reasoning powers or mental capabilities of an 18th century individual? Human nature has not changed. Evil persons can, will, and do plot against you; to take your freedom, productivity, and property. Our government owes so much money, that while you sit here reading this they are spending away your future. Wake up and look around! The aristoracy that brought us the southern plantations and northern poorhouses; are in the process of creating (just for you) a "Global" plantation. "
Don in Massachusetts wrote on Jan 22, 2007 7:58 AM:
" Funny,
In the MILLER case, 307 US 174, the US Supreme Court ruled that machineguns may be militia style firearms if any evidence is brought into court showing:
machineguns are part of the ordinary military equipment;
or,
could contribute to the common defense.
All Fincher has to do is bring into court some pictures of our soldiers holding machinegun, and this will meet the Supreme Court criteria. "
Don in Mass. wrote on Jan 22, 2007 8:05 AM:
" Remember, the NFA was "found" to be constitutional only becasue NFA type fireams did not show any constitutional function -- part of the ordinary military equipmen OR could contribute to the common defense.
You can only tax those things not constitutional.
Also, under the 5th amendment, militia person, not in paid service, still retain all their rights under the Constitution.
s.311 requires "militia" to be part of the paid National Guard.
s.311 is of course, unconstitutional for you cannot be in the militia and the National Guard, at the same time "
Allan Hampton wrote on Jan 27, 2007 12:45 PM:
" Don’t lay the blame on the judge or government; the bottom line blame is either an un-American or stupid jury. The citizen jury is instituted in constitutional America to protect fellow citizens from government abuse, especially abuse in government courts under the color of law (legislation).
One pro-American on that jury could have stopped a conviction.
Allan
"
ByGoneEra wrote on Jan 28, 2007 12:24 PM:
" Allan is right. The jurors don't know their rights, or more accurately, their duty to protect the constitution and the citizenry from an oppressive tyranniacal centralized government.
The jurors did nothing but protect the government and its interest. I wonder how many women were on the jury. I find that it is usually the women who vote in favor of safety and security, instead of freeedom and liberty. Not to say that men sometimes aren't of this same frame of mind, but usually not so. To the Arkansas jury I'd say: You just helped the governemnt take some more of our rights away. Soon there will be nothing left but a fascist regime, but at least you'll be safe, or will you be?
Remember these lyrics?
Bow down before the one you serve,
you're gonna get what you deserve. "
Not already registered?
NANANA NANANA wrote on Jan 12, 2007 3:56 PM: