The Eastern Shore Militia blog has been established to connect individual volunteers and groups of like minded citizens from the Eastern Shore who choose to band together to help one another in various ways and otherwise enjoy fraternity. The intent of this association is to facilitate the continued training of members in the skills necessary to aid in maintaining a Free Society under the jurisdiction and protection of the Constitution of the United States of America as ratified in 1788.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A new kind of friendship
Well here it is. A blog to bring patriots together to uphold the constitution. Who will stand up? Who will speak up? Will we let our Constitution be dissolved? Let's hear what you have to say.
This is silly. But here goes. I will do my part to help. I have to use my blown dart gun- of course - we all know why. But I am willing to sign up. Shake the establishment up a little. Brother at arms (blowdarts for me) Where do we have our first meeting? We can arm ourselves with video cameras. When I was the Johnsons Lake Neighborhood Association President we would write down tag numbers of people picking up the ladies of the night and send the WIVES a postcard to let them know! We could do that. Or we could do neighborhood patrols and talk on CB's like we used to. This stuff works, It just takes one to start the revolution. No GUNS needed. That’s a plus for me!
Please notice that we're not moderating comments. We don't want any circumstances to come about that causes the need to do so. Please feel free to contribute but if your goal is to ridicule, go somewhere else.
If we want to return a COMMON SENSE SOCIETY to this land, get rid of the lawyers and adopt the cowboys code of ethics: ride,shoot straight,speak the truth.This country has become so corrupt,that it is no wonder the Arabs hate us and call us the Great Satan.
This could be a great idea if taken seriously. Mad Granny, I'm with you, when is the first meeting. Hipboots, I'm with you on Jonathan Taylor being out, he wouldn't know loyalty if it slapped him in the face.
Hip boots The Grinch isn't even welcome here anymore. What's up with that guy? I just keep booting his comments because he has nothing good to contribute.
Here is a post I came across, will post the link so you can read whole discussion as well... Keep in mind he is responding to some moron and just nails him with this post.
posted by: Larry Gude Strung Out 01-03-2008, 06:53 AM
Vague? Quote: Originally Posted by soul4sale View Post "The practice of carrying a weapon is a clear assertion that I am a man. By that I'm not talking about macho bull####; By saying I am a man, I mean that I am an adult, responsible for my actions, and willing to accept the consequences of them."
I really, really want to like 2nd Amendment activists. Despite the fact that they derive their entire moral authority from a vague turn of phrase in the Constitution taken out of context, I personally share their belief that an armed populace keeps the goons at bay.
And then I read crap like this. A clear assertion that you are a man is the thing hanging between your legs. A handgun is a tool, but it as a tool with one purpose - to kill a person. People do not go around carrying tools - power drill anyone? - unless they intend to use them. Carrying a gun asserts that you believe it will be necessary to kill someone and intend to kill someone. If you are strapping a pistol without a clear need or intention to kill someone, you are just looking for something to further assert your stubby clitorous. And that, by definitiion, is macho BS.
Advice for this writer? Stop watching so much television and feeding adolescent hero fantasies.
Quote: Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Seems prertty clear.
Did you know that Alexander Hamilton argued against even having the bill of rights in the first place? Yup, on the grounds that there was no need to reserve the rights of the people. His concern was that ratification of the constitution would imply some sort of surrendering of individual rights. His point was that the constitution was not surrendering of rights by the people, that it was LIMITS on the government and thus, no need for a bill of rights.
He said;
Quote: I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[ He was concerned that people like you would read a given right as 'vague' and therefore assert a governmental power, disarming the people, that does not exist.
Did you know that Patrick Henry didn't even want a constitution on the same grounds, that people would abuse it to limit the people?
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was also afraid of abuse of rights if they were written as people would argue, endlessly that thus and such wasn't explicitly expressed in the bill of rights and therefore, afraid of 'vagueness' and finally argued that it was better to secure what could be secured, taking 1/2 a loaf over no thing.
4salesoul, your thoughts are exactly what men who knew what a king was all about were afraid of. Hamilton thought individual rights went without saying. Henry thought the same thing so strongly that he didn't even see the need for a constitution. Jefferson expressed those same fears by saying we best right down the most important ones because people are still going to try and argue against them.
Have you ever read the bill of rights? Did you notice that it is a list of the rights of the people? Not a state. Not the militia. Not the federal government. It doesn't say that the state has a right to free speech. It doesn't say that the militia has a right to be secure in it's papers. Anti gun people, more accurately, pro monarchists, never seem to have an ounce of trouble discerning who has rights until they get to #2. Then, all of a sudden, an entity, not the people, have this right.
Notice that there is no right to not have your left leg turned into sausage and fed to the militia? I think, and I can only claim to think what they though, I think they felt it unnecessary.
I think if the founders were alive today they would say your sense vagueness is exactly what they feared. Henry might say "I told you this would happen!" Hamilton would say "Yup." And Jefferson would say "but it says 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' How in the hell is that vague????
I like the idea of this ESMI was just talking to some of my brothers about an eastern shore militia and came across this web site. Its nice to see other like minded people. looks like I have a new site to keep up with thanks.
This is silly. But here goes. I will do my part to help. I have to use my blown dart gun- of course - we all know why. But I am willing to sign up. Shake the establishment up a little. Brother at arms (blowdarts for me) Where do we have our first meeting?
ReplyDeleteWe can arm ourselves with video cameras. When I was the Johnsons Lake Neighborhood Association President we would write down tag numbers of people picking up the ladies of the night and send the WIVES a postcard to let them know! We could do that.
Or we could do neighborhood patrols and talk on CB's like we used to. This stuff works, It just takes one to start the revolution. No GUNS needed. That’s a plus for me!
well, you have got to have guns, and a bar. Ever wonder where DWI laws came from?
ReplyDeletewell 6:57 I don't think that's what we had in mind. Apparently you don't know that alcohol and gunpowder don't mix.
ReplyDeletePlease notice that we're not moderating comments. We don't want any circumstances to come about that causes the need to do so. Please feel free to contribute but if your goal is to ridicule, go somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to return a COMMON SENSE SOCIETY to this land, get rid of the lawyers and adopt the cowboys code of ethics: ride,shoot straight,speak the truth.This country has become so corrupt,that it is no wonder the Arabs hate us and call us the Great Satan.
ReplyDeleteTwenty four of the fifty six of our forefathers, who signed the Declaration of Independence, were lawyers.
ReplyDeleteNone were cowboys. :)
Okay,24 of the signers were lawyers, what were the other 32 forefathers who signed the Declaration of Independence?
ReplyDeleteim in
ReplyDeleteI'm in if the grinch is out.....
ReplyDeletehipboots
Count me in. When is the first meeting?
ReplyDeleteBad Boys, Bad Boys, what'cha gonna to do when we come for you!
ReplyDeleteThis could be a great idea if taken seriously. Mad Granny, I'm with you, when is the first meeting.
ReplyDeleteHipboots, I'm with you on Jonathan Taylor being out, he wouldn't know loyalty if it slapped him in the face.
Lets stop all illegal aliens from stealing any job on the shore.
ReplyDeleteGrinch you sure you play games with me, Im a lot differant creature than Joe. You better think twice.
ReplyDeleteEveryone keep an eye on House bill HR 45 about licensing firearms owners and other schemes. This is a federal bill.
ReplyDeleteTo late 5:58, they've already got mine!
ReplyDeleteWe should start contacting our representatives now to voice our opinion on the issue.
ReplyDeleteHip boots The Grinch isn't even welcome here anymore. What's up with that guy? I just keep booting his comments because he has nothing good to contribute.
ReplyDelete"We should start contacting our representatives now to voice our opinion on the issue."
ReplyDeleteI've told myself it's time to get more involved and have started to prepare letters to email around. That way I know I've said my peace.
Here is a post I came across, will post the link so you can read whole discussion as well...
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind he is responding to some moron and just nails him with this post.
posted by:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
01-03-2008, 06:53 AM
Vague?
Quote:
Originally Posted by soul4sale View Post
"The practice of carrying a weapon is a clear assertion that I am a man. By that I'm not talking about macho bull####; By saying I am a man, I mean that I am an adult, responsible for my actions, and willing to accept the consequences of them."
I really, really want to like 2nd Amendment activists. Despite the fact that they derive their entire moral authority from a vague turn of phrase in the Constitution taken out of context, I personally share their belief that an armed populace keeps the goons at bay.
And then I read crap like this. A clear assertion that you are a man is the thing hanging between your legs. A handgun is a tool, but it as a tool with one purpose - to kill a person. People do not go around carrying tools - power drill anyone? - unless they intend to use them. Carrying a gun asserts that you believe it will be necessary to kill someone and intend to kill someone. If you are strapping a pistol without a clear need or intention to kill someone, you are just looking for something to further assert your stubby clitorous. And that, by definitiion, is macho BS.
Advice for this writer? Stop watching so much television and feeding adolescent hero fantasies.
Quote:
Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems prertty clear.
Did you know that Alexander Hamilton argued against even having the bill of rights in the first place? Yup, on the grounds that there was no need to reserve the rights of the people. His concern was that ratification of the constitution would imply some sort of surrendering of individual rights. His point was that the constitution was not surrendering of rights by the people, that it was LIMITS on the government and thus, no need for a bill of rights.
He said;
Quote:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[
He was concerned that people like you would read a given right as 'vague' and therefore assert a governmental power, disarming the people, that does not exist.
Did you know that Patrick Henry didn't even want a constitution on the same grounds, that people would abuse it to limit the people?
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson was also afraid of abuse of rights if they were written as people would argue, endlessly that thus and such wasn't explicitly expressed in the bill of rights and therefore, afraid of 'vagueness' and finally argued that it was better to secure what could be secured, taking 1/2 a loaf over no thing.
4salesoul, your thoughts are exactly what men who knew what a king was all about were afraid of. Hamilton thought individual rights went without saying.
Henry thought the same thing so strongly that he didn't even see the need for a constitution. Jefferson expressed those same fears by saying we best right down the most important ones because people are still going to try and argue against them.
Have you ever read the bill of rights? Did you notice that it is a list of the rights of the people? Not a state. Not the militia. Not the federal government.
It doesn't say that the state has a right to free speech. It doesn't say that the militia has a right to be secure in it's papers. Anti gun people, more accurately, pro monarchists, never seem to have an ounce of trouble discerning who has rights until they get to #2. Then, all of a sudden, an entity, not the people, have this right.
Notice that there is no right to not have your left leg turned into sausage and fed to the militia? I think, and I can only claim to think what they though, I think they felt it unnecessary.
I think if the founders were alive today they would say your sense vagueness is exactly what they feared. Henry might say "I told you this would happen!"
Hamilton would say "Yup." And Jefferson would say "but it says 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' How in the hell is that vague????
http://forums.somd.com/politics/124130-why-i-carry-gun-archangel-blogger-2.html
How in the hell is that vague indeed!!!
dont miss the Glen Beck show tonight at 5pm on fox news
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of this ESMI was just talking to some of my brothers about an eastern shore militia and came across this web site. Its nice to see other like minded people. looks like I have a new site to keep up with thanks.
ReplyDelete