Saturday, August 16, 2008

The People in Arms: Jomini, The Art of War, p.31

" . . . a people wholly or almost wholly in arms, and making means of resistance out of everything, each individual of whom conspires against the common enemy."

This is only a definition. It neither suggests nor promotes such an enterprise. It is something to keep in mind though, should circumstances ever require submitting to any foreign ideology and the loss of our freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

At present the First Amendment stands in danger of being abrogated. How? By attempts to forbid certain speech that does not agree with a foreign ideology that its adherents are trying to impose upon us*.

The "common enemy" exists already, however, he is here, and he is trying to make us submit to him. We resist him, as much as we can. He thrives on the ignorance of our populace. We do not conspire against him, we warn the people about his intent.

Why do you think our Constitution has that 2nd amendment?

The purpose of that was not so that we can go out and hunt deer.

But enough of abstractions! The gist of this post is best explained by the following excerpt from this post:

[I quote]

I [Daniel Pipes] wrote about the Muslim American Society in "The Islamic States of America?" and how it seeks to replace the Constitution with the Koran. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross takes this further today in "MAS's Muslim Brotherhood Problem," where he looks closely at the MAS Minnesota website and notes that it calls on members to fulfill their "duties as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam [Hasan] Al-Banna." Gartenstein-Ross then takes a look at The Message of the Teachings and finds that it instructs Muslims that they must work on reforming their government

so that it may become a truly Islamic government. … By Islamic government I mean a government whose officers are Muslims who perform the obligatory duties of Islam, who do not make public their disobedience, and who enforce the rules and teachings of Islam.

Al-Banna also instructs that Muslims should "Completely boycott non-Islamic courts and judicial systems. Also, dissociate yourself from organisations, newspapers, committees, schools, and institutions which oppose your Islamic ideology." Al-Banna also condones in this book spreading Islam with violence: "Always intend to go for Jihad and desire martyrdom. Prepare for it as much as you can."

[close quote]

. . . were this to happen, we must re-read the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of the present post, the one that I have written here . . . and . . .

. . . the rest is silence


Regarding the 2nd Amendment:
that reads,

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Note: the amendment consists of two clauses, the prefatory clause announces a purpose (A well regulated militia, etc.), but (according to the following Supreme Court decision) does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause (the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).

. . . the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed does not depend on nor is limited by that "well regulated militia" introductory clause.

Supreme Court decision of June 26, 2008
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-
ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-
bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

etc., etc., etc., PDF Acrobat Format

Afterthought: By the way, what happened to the part that says " . . . and bear arms?"
Does "bear" mean "carry?" (If necessary to do so, that is?)

[emphasis mine. lw]

be sure to look at this: Can we co-exist with Islam? It starts with "Islam is a civilization that is entirely based upon duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon equality and freedom."
*What the Islamists are attempting to do, in this case supported by people and organizations whose grasp on reality is tenuous, is to suppress freedom of speech in the most important conflict of our time using as justification a Shari'a centric flawed logic demanding that none speak ill of "the religion of peace," in any context. From

No comments:

Post a Comment