The mouse that ROARED!


OK, soap box time again.

While I have nothing against local communities expressing their token support for the 2A I really don’t like that many groups seem to keep trying to tie that support into membership in the militia.

While the founding fathers clearly meant for a well armed citizenry to have the ability to defend themselves, their families, their communities and the Nation from whatever threats they may face, they gave the right to keep and bear arms to the PEOPLE. NOT just to the able bodied men who could answer the call and join the militia.

Actions like this just feed into the anti self defense and anti 2A arguments that the right only belongs to people in the Militia. Since the Militia act of 1903 and the National Defense act of 1916 took steps to organize militias into the National Guard they argue that the 2A no longer applies to citizens who are not members of the guard. These actions just support that false argument.

Fortunately the founding fathers were smart enough to write the 2A in such a way that affirmed the natural right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Not just the people in the Militia. The concept of a citizen militia being necessary to maintaining the freedom and security of our Nation was important enough for it to be included as one prefatory reason stating why the right of the people needed to not be infringed. But it was only one of countless reasons.

So while the ability of citizens to keep and bear effective arms may be an essential condition for the existence of a well regulated militia, the existence of a well regulated militia is completely irrelevant to the PEOPLE’S natural right to keep and bear arms.


I just found it refreshing that an entire town has said “Enough is enough, get the militia ready.”


I agree and like that people are standing up. The declaration posted with the article actually doesn’t mention the militia part and I think that is a strong statement though without any real teeth.

The problem with getting the Militia ready though is that SCOTUS has affirmed that the Militia lies under full control of the Congress aside from the task of training and providing officers which are up to the individual States.

Unfortunately it seems that our founding fathers did not foresee (or at least did not provide specific protection from) a time when 99.9% of Congress is completely corrupt and can not be trusted with control of the Militia:(


It appears the people of that town have the right stuff to become the “New” founding fathers.


Nice thought but I don’t think the French will help them out this time.

I’m sure the Russians and Chinese would be happy to pitch in though. But the costs of what they would gain and everyone else would loose by our country going into a revolution or civil war far outweigh the benefits. A Ghandi style peaceful non compliance movement makes far more sense to me. Or we could take the easy route and vote all the kleptocrats out of office but no one seems interested in seriously trying that option.


Nice thought, but voting doesn’t work when mail-in voting and voter fraud is rampant and not addressed. This is HOW we became a third world country in less than three years.

A republic that doesn’t protect its voting system becomes a banana republic.


Well we could demand that gets fixed as well. Seems a lot more doable to me than trying to win a bloody conflict against the military industrial complex🤷‍♂️

Plus if we all took steps to support options that weren’t the usual lesser of two evils it would be a lot harder to stuff the ballet boxes enough to override the true will of the people. Unfortunately right now there are too many people willing to vote for the candidates who tell us what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear.


Gotta start with a leg to stand on. The house holds all the cards.


And by anti-2A folks making an argument we are supposed to refrain? Because our actions are wrong? How about these folks are right, they are correct in forming a militia? The idea that we shouldn’t do it because another group disagrees or will talk bad about us is exactly what they want us to act like. When we abstain, They Win.


Telling people to formally join a militia to prove they have the right to keep and bear arms makes me and likely many others believe they feel they don’t have those rights unless they join. That weakens not strengthens the 2A.

If anyone wants to join a militia that is fine with me. Just don’t tell me that proves they have the right to keep and bear arms. Militia membership is not a requirement for anyone to exercise their 2A rights. That is a false argument from the anti self defense crowd and I think it is better to avoid playing that game.


So true. An argument could be made that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to preserve the ability of the governed to protect themselves from armed militias acting at the behest of government. Justice Thomas made that argument when he wrote about how the KKK was a local militia formed by Reconstruction-era governments to oppress unarmed newly freed slaves.


I watch these “rights” you speak about eroded every day.
Yes or no, are our “rights” to keep and bear arms being infringed?

Maybe you could ask this guy:


Time to pick up your sh#t and move. Just drop everything and go to a free state! It won’t be as scary as waiting for these idiots to return, knowing he lost his rights! My advice, get out NOW!


Yes. They are being infringed both by the anti self defense crowd and the supposedly pro 2A/pro self defense people who think we have the right to keep and bear arms as long as we submit to a long list of preconditions and special permissions.

Playing along with the only militia members have the right is a significant infringement. One that could easily be used to exclude anyone not deemed fit to serve in the militia for any number of reasons. That is one of several reasons I think it is vital to keep from turning the non existent link between militia membership and 2A rights into a reality. Regardless of whether people believe we are all the militia or not. They are two non related arguments from a legal standpoint.

1 Like

Que the PopCorn


We might run out of places to move to.
Who’s to say Texas, Arizona, and Nevada have not turned into Kalifornia by the time we celebrate the tercentennial? :man_shrugging:t4:




They did, our Declaration of Independence states:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

As Jefferson stated:

There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.


I think that’s great and more small communities should do the same