Yeah, you cleared things up alright.... :rolleyes:

Back on topic for a moment....


Whether the cops above keep standing for our rights, or are pushed aside relies on whether we stand with them.

It is our choice, think about it...

They are most from police forces of a few to maybe 50 cops, how long can they last, if the feds cut off funding, and try to arrest them individually...

We all must send letters to the cops saying if you need support, and they come after you... We will defend you, as we defend the people, and the constitution..

IMHO

Greywolf

It's simple.

If they honor their word...

If they stand for us...

we stand with them.

Otherwise, we turn our back.

More from the person who reported the letter from Missouri sheriffs in my last post:

At the risk of appearing even more gullible than my previous comments on this topic indicate, I add to our category of Defiant Sheriffs one from Collin County, TX. Terry Box writes on "his personal Facebook page," "Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." (Thanks to Charles Everett for sending me the article.)

Now dear friends and fellow serfs, I have not lost my mind, nor have I suddenly gone over to the dark side. Yes, talk is cheap. Yes, I realize these same lawmen enforce unconstitutional edicts all the time. Yes, I know they've already stolen guns from you and thrown you or your kids in jail for smoking weed. Believe me, I expect neither consistency nor a firm commitment to liberty from any of Leviathan's lackeys, any more than I expect them to be kind, pacific, humane, etc. I further note that when the newspaper's report mentions the sheriff's political party (it doesn't in Box's case), it turns out to be Rethuglican. So you can bet your bottom Bitcoin that if George "War Criminal" Bush had blithered about grabbing our guns, these guys would have been too busy busting down our doors to muse on the Constitutional ramifications.

Nonetheless, it's still heartening to see the State's own enforcers siding with us for a change. Or at least saying they do.

Viva la Revolution!

Source

Haha I see, no more bare arms for me. I'll wear long sleeve camo from now on.

On a more serious note, I think we as defenders of the Constitution must know the Constitution. Spend some time memorizing the Bill of Rights, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Don't memorize too well like me? Print up some cards and hand them out. If you are in San Antonio have an NRA or Gadsden Flag bumper sticker don't be surprised to see one of these under your windshield wiper. When speaking of the Second Amendment be sure to point out how the rest of the Bill of Rights has been thrown away.

A heavily regulated sport being necessary to the funding of a fee state, the privilege of some people to keep and bear government specified arms shall be controlled.

Gary Raney: The Slave-Catching Sheriff of Ada County, Idaho
Posted by William Grigg on January 25, 2013 01:16 PM

If Idaho had been part of the Union in 1850, and Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney had occupied that office at the time, he would have dutifully arrested any black man or woman identified as an escaped slave. Oh, sure, Raney may have expressed agonized reluctance as he did so – but that reluctance would have been rhetorical window-dressing for his pious invocation of the sacred responsibility he had to submit to the “law of the land.”

This is the inescapable logic of the position Raney has taken in an op-ed column published this morning in the Idaho Statesman.

“I have been asked many times in the past couple of weeks whether I will uphold my oath to defend the Constitution and proclaim an intolerance of federal action against the Second Amendment,” Raney writes. Many others have indulged that pressure and now we see Oregon sheriffs, Wyoming legislators and others making hollow promises to protect you from the intrusions of the federal government.”

“I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution,” Raney continues, before tacitly promising to do that very thing. You see, the Constitution, on Raney’s construction, “includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the `supremacy clause’ that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress."

Actually, that right is not included in the Constitution; it exists independent of that document or any other government charter, and no government has the moral right or delegated authority to take it away. What Raney asserts here is the idea that the existence of that right is contingent on government approval, and thus can be nullified by government. From this perspective, the only part of the Constitution that matters is the supremacy clause, at least as people like Raney pretend to understand it.

“So, despite the fact that I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration, my oath requires me to uphold the laws that are passed by our federal and state representatives,” summarizes Raney. The same would have been true, of course, of the Fugitive Slave Act – which was properly enacted and enforced as the “law of the land” despite the heroic efforts of people in some cities and states to nullify enforcement of that abominable measure.

Give Raney whatever credit is due to him for his candor: Like the other sheriffs who have pledged not to carry out unconstitutional federal gun confiscation measures, Raney receives federal subsidies – but unlike his pro-Second Amendment colleagues, Raney is forthright about the fact that he is merely a servile tool of the federal leviathan state. He will confiscate firearms from innocent people if ordered to, but at least he won’t have to walk back any promises he had made to protect their rights.

Source

Who said that it would be easy to return the country to Constitutional legitimacy?

It doesn't mean that we don't try.

Cockrum v. State, quotes about Militia:
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.

A free citizenry does not ask its governments' permission to exercise a right. It does not register its exercise of a right. It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms. It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed. It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary. In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government will receive its Consent to Govern. --Donald L. Cline

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder, author American Handgunner, Second Amendment Foundation Officer

“No true reform is possible that leaves government intact. Appeals to a government for a redress of grievances, even when acted upon, only increase the supposed legitimacy of the government's acts, and add to its amassed power.”

“Government will be abolished when its subjects cease to grant it legitimacy. Government cannot exist without at least the tacit consent of the populace. This consent is maintained by keeping people in ignorance of their real power. Voting is not an expression of power, but an admission of powerlessness, since it cannot do otherwise than reaffirm the government's supposed legitimacy.”


It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it -- James Madison.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

Wis. sheriff urges residents to get gun training

Source

A sheriff who released a radio ad urging Milwaukee-area residents to learn to handle firearms so they can defend themselves while waiting for police said Friday that law enforcement cutbacks have changed the way police can respond to crime.

In the 30-second commercial, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. says personal safety is no longer a spectator sport.

"I need you in the game," he says.

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," he adds. "You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. ... Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there."

The ad has generated sharp criticism from other area officials and anti-violence advocates. The president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Roy Felber, said it sounds like a call to vigilantism.

"That doesn't sound too smart," Felber said. "People have the right to defend themselves, but they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands."

Under Wisconsin's "castle doctrine," someone who uses deadly force against an unlawful intruder to their home, business or vehicle is presumed to have acted reasonably. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Justice said that as of this week, there are about 155,000 concealed carry permits in Wisconsin.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clarke said he just wants people to know what their options are. While self-defense isn't for everyone, some people see personal safety as their own responsibility, he said, and they should be trained properly.

"I'm not telling you to 'Hey, pick up a gun and blast away.' ... People need to know what they are doing if they chose that method — to defend themselves," he said.

But he also said he wanted to call on residents to be law enforcement "partners." He said he could either whine about budget cuts that forced him to lay off 48 deputies last year or he could get creative.

"People are responsible to play a role in their own safety, with the help of law enforcement," Clarke said. "I'm here to do my part, but we have fewer and fewer resources. We're not omnipresent, and we have to stop giving people that impression."

"After sitting down and thinking about this, I'm thinking 'Hey, I've got an untapped reserve over here, and it's the public,'" Clarke said.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's office released a statement criticizing the ad: "Apparently Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie."

Barrett was beaten up several years ago by someone with a tire iron, and Clarke said he thought that would make the mayor "a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

Jeri Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said Clarke took a dangerous position with his ad. She pointed to the case of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida who fatally shot an unarmed 17-year-old following an altercation. Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, claiming self-defense under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

"I feel like this is such an irresponsible thing for our chief public safety officer of a county to do," Bonavia said. "I think he owes this community an apology. And if he really believes that he's not capable of providing for our public safety he should get a different job."

I think the Sheriff is on to something...

But he'll catch hell for saying it...

Maybe the sheriff's dept. should offer the gun training classes at a reasonable price, and that will cover some of the cut backs, and keep those deputies busy...

HEADLINE...SHERIFF TRAINS CITIZENS IN FIREARM USE AS PART OF THE NEW MILWAUKEE CITIZENS MILITIA....film at 11...

greywolf

The Civilian Disarmament Dialectic
by William Grigg

Source

The Opinion page in today's Idaho Press-Tribune published side-by-side op-ed columns by Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue and Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney on the subject of proposed civilian disarmament measures. (The essays are hidden behind the paper’s ridiculous paywall.) The comparison is quite instructive.

Sheriff Donahue, who has played to his constituents by joining the ranks of Second Amendment Refuseniks, condemns Barrack Obama’s civilian disarmament as “political posturing,” while professing his confidence that “Congress would not be so foolish as to let anyone strip us of our Second Amendment [sic] rights.” He also regurgitates the long-stale and always-unedifying talking point that the country deserves a “meaningful dialogue” on gun-related violence.

Donahue adroitly misdirects the reader from what should be the central question: What would he do in the event that Congress were so foolish as to enact gun confiscation laws?

The astute reader will notice that Donahue gives the game away in this statement from the first sentence of his third paragraph: “Law-abiding citizens have every right to own legal firearms….” Here he takes refuge in a familiar statist tautology: Our “Second Amendment [sic] rights,” on this construction, consist of the freedom to own whatever firearms the government permits us to have.

Later in the essay, Donohue – succumbing to the irresistible temptation to boast about his supposed accomplishments – describes how he has “worked for years with dedicated ATF agents and other local law enforcement officers to keep illegal guns, like sawed-off shotguns, off our streets and enforce laws prohibiting felons from owning or possessing firearms."

Sheriff Donahue’s message to gun owners is: You can trust me not to help the Feds disarm you, because I only work alongside the Feds to seize "illegal" guns – which actually means that I will disarm you as soon as they outlaw possession of whatever guns you happen to own.

For his part, Sheriff Raney (as I have noted before) insists that the Constitution’s supremacy clause – which he deliberately misrepresents – gives the Federal government plenary authority to disarm the public, and that his oath of office requires that he carry out federal orders. In his op-ed, Raney goes out of his way to acknowledge that the Constitution protects "the right to keep and bear arms" and to emphasize that "I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration...."

His message to gun-grabbers is: You can trust me to disarm the public, emitting a dense fog of persiflage about individual liberty as I do so.

Donahue and Raney have collaborated to produce a museum-quality example of the controlled dialectic at work in the campaign to disarm the public. Both of these sheriffs will carry out orders to confiscate personal firearms. They've just tailored their respective rhetorical approaches for different constituencies.

We shouldn’t neglect the role played by the Press-Tribune in this exercise. The mission statement of the P-T’s editorial collective is: “Empowering the community.” This means, in practice, sacrificing the rights of the individual on behalf of the supposed “collective good” – and justifying the criminal actions of the state’s enforcement caste when they result in harm to the innocent.

Last August 16, a SWAT team from the Gem County Sheriff’s Office invaded the home of an innocent couple on the basis of a spurious domestic violence call. One of them, Detective Rich Perecz, assaulted the terrified wife, dragging her bodily from her home. The husband was forced to kneel facing away from at least two officers who held the muzzle of their “assault rifles” at the back of his head. Then, without a warrant or probable cause, the team – led by Gem County Sheriff Chuck Rowland – conducted an illegal search of the house. They eventually found an item they called “drug paraphernalia” and wrote the husband – who was left with lasting injuries after being dropped, handcuffed, on his tailbone – a ticket.

Why did the Gem County Sheriff authorize a paramilitary raid, rather than a simple welfare check? One of the deputies identified the husband as a “constitutionalist.”

The victims of this home invasion, Michael Gibbons and Marcela Cruz, tried for months to get the local media – including the Press-Tribune -- to report on the story. Finally, on October 17 – long after the story had been widely publicized online – the Press-Tribune published a masterpiece of statist stenography entitled “Gem Sheriff defends deputies in video.” (Sheriff Rolland, of course, was involved in the same criminal actions, and hardly qualifies as an objective observer.)

When – not “if” – the Feds escalate their war against private gun ownership, “local” sheriffs like Donahue, Raney, and Rolland will do as they are ordered; they will defend their deputies as they commit crimes against innocent people; and collectivist media outlets like the Press-Tribune will dutifully retail the Regime’s talking points in the name of “empowering the community.”

I wonder how long he will KEEP HIS WORD TO UPHOLD THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

And what if that cunt Obummer nullifies the Second Amendment? What then?

No President or Law passed by CONgress can remove or Nullify any part of the Constitution. Modification of the constitution takes a Con-Con.

Any law repugnant to the Constitution is Null and Void.

Let them pass all the laws they want - it means nothing. And when they come to enforce a unconstitutional law/commit treason - Shoot Them All.

Here is an article that says it like it is:

It’s Okay, Sit Tight… The Sheriff’s Coming, And He’ll Save Us All!

http://info.themicroeffect.com/2013...he-sheriffs-coming-and-hell-save-us-all/

..."Whew! What a relief!! I feel so much better knowing that all of these sheriffs – who for decades have been cooperatively kicking down doors, operating warrantless checkpoints, seizing property and imprisoning private and peaceable consumers of certain goods based on a pretense of legitimacy under the Pure Food and Drug Act’s invocation of the “interstate commerce” clause in the US Constitution, just to pick a single example– are going to suddenly say “Enough is enough!”...

Something tells me that if a person convicted of a federal NFA offense open carries in that county, they are just as likely to get shot or thrown in jail as any crackhead caught doing the same.

Talk is cheap with those people, especially when they know they are ill equipped to handle any sort of serious uprising. Their only chance at survival is to try and say the right things to get at least some of the asymmetrical force over to join their government approved tory militias.

I know for a fact that when Craig Zanni was a lower ranking deputy prior to being one of those "Sheriffs" who signed a letter to Biden, he was present and collaborating with the BATF on a raid against one of our people, and had backed up the justification for the raid by telling other patriots that the guy was a dope dealer when I knew the guy too, and the guy was definitely NOT dealing dope.

Yeah, I agree with you guys.

Can't trust any of them.

Sad but true.

Not my fault. Their fault.

As I said in another post..

I was delighted to see the Torrance county sheriffs letter to the citizens, say he would not enforce any unconstitutional laws...

But just a few days later I read his op-ed piece in the Telegraph saying he thought we needed universal background checks, no private sales and mental health checks on any possessing or buying firearms...

I then realized he too was pandering, and would confiscate any weapons the government said were illegal...

He also would stop you if you were carrying and take your weapon till you pass some arbitrary mental health check...

Then maybe you'd get it back..

I also realized that, like he had done before out here, he would target Vets who were armed and lived out here to get away from society...

There is a lot of guys out here who have escaped the confines of society and want to be left alone..

Perfect targets for this guy...

Most now are Vietnam vets but Iraq and other vets are slowness moving in...

I had to withdraw any support I had for his statement and I will resist any effort he uses to fool the people...

You see this is why we must use caution when we see reports like sheriffs backing the constitution..

We jump in too fast Like many of us did, and we lean credibility to their voices with other patriots..

We must always wait just a few days, before we support any thing, someones says who is connected to the government,

Greywolf

The best gesture these posturing sheriffs can do is call up the citizens of their communities for militia training: basic marksmanship and fire team training, based on their location and proximity to each other.

Yes, but even the hard core Communist nations had local militias made up of party loyalists.

Call from a sterile phone explaining that you are with the BATF and require assistance in an investigation then see how quickly they want to cooperate in order to be in on the forfeiture action

As much as I want to, I don't know if I should respond to all the anti-gun nuts in our local paper.... They are ripping the sheriff up for saying he won't enforce unconstitutional executive orders or laws...

As much as I disagree with some of the Sheriffs ideas, These nuts are off the deep end..

The local paper is pasted with them all calling for his impeachment, and saying if the president says it's a constitutional executive order the sheriff must follow it.

Not one of them has an understanding of the Constitution and that includes the Parers resident op ed writer...

Not one understands that if the Sheriff was to enforce an unconstitutional law he could be tried later for that..He couldn't use the "I was just following orders" response...

They haven't a clue that it is up to the individual soldier and sheriff to decide in his mind whether the order he was given is lawful...

Yea, that's a rock or a hard place..But that's how it is ....

You have to decide, and pray you were right when the courts decide...You can't enforce it and violate someones rights and later say oh well, I guess that was unconstitutional..Sorry I shot your son when he resisted...

You'll face your own trial then...

None of them get that executive orders are orders for Federal agencies. and not for local or state agencies.

Not one of them understands, that not only would an executive order to confiscate weapons be unconstitutional because it violated the second amendment, But so would any law that violates it....

They have been brain washed by years of submitting to unlawful orders, that they don't get you have the right to resist...

Greywolf

Greywolf, sounds like a good time to write your sheriff letting him know you support his decision on this one. He needs to know there are more opinions out there than just the loonies in the paper.

Not 100% correct, only thank the Sheriff and let him know he supports some of what the Sheriff stated but not the bad parts and then explain why he believes as he does.

NECRO THREAD TIME

Now that Kessler was proven to have been a bad guy all along....

I smelled it, just could not quite pin it down. Too many legally registered full autos, not enough real deal. Just another privelaged asshole waving his shit around with a stay out of jail free card in his back pocket. Notice this was about the time the nails were in the coffin of our patriots protect patriots website operation and Edogz (out of Pennsylvania) had just finished wreaking havoc around here.

Ever notice how none of these guys volunteer to go undercover as like, prison guards or cops to ferret out human rights abuses? No, that shit is only for Steven Segal movies (while the ponytailed one was in New Orleans NOT opposing gun confiscation and NOT throwing a beatdown on anyone who did), but yours truly was chained to the wall at the local BATF building rather than being deployed there with the National Guard, you know, "for the safety of the public".

The "public" at the Danziger bridge was not so safe, were they?

Fucking pigs. I get tired of these lying assholes getting up on stage and being the big stars of the freedom movement while pulling stunts like Kessler did.

I saw an article about him today and i thought he looked like someone you called out on here awhile back. What an asshole.