Second Amendment PRIMER

[Wallew]

The book is "The Second Amendment Primer" by Les Adam, published by Palladium Press.

---

It is becoming QUITE APPARENT TO ME that several members here HAVE NO CLUE what our Second Amendment RIGHTS mean OR where they came from. In that vein, the HISTORY LESSON starts now:

By Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"All the victories of the early Romans, like those of Alexander, have been won by brave citizens, who were ready, at need, to give their blood in the service of their country, BUT WOULD NEVER SELL IT."

That means that for a country to SURVIVE it needs IT'S CITIZENS to protect the whole. It also MEANS that mercenaries, people who are paid for their services to protect the 'empire', will ALWAYS do what's best for themselves, not what's BEST FOR THEIR COUNTRY...

Cicero's orations for Milo

"If the right of inflicting capital punishments, and of defending the citizens by arms against robbers and plunderers, was taken away, then would follow a vast license of crime and a deluge of evils"

Again, WE THE PEOPLE are RESPONSIBLE for the safety and prosperous outcome of this nation. AND if we allow our rights to do so become subservient to those in power (DA GUBMENT), then what follows is ANARCHY AND A 'DELUGE OF EVILS'.

This is for SGT. HAAB. Who STOOD IN THE GAP, like so many millions before him. King Leonidas (Molon Labe for those who don't know) set the example that Sgt. Haab followed.

Sgt. Haab made TWO tactical decisions when he confronted the seven illegal aliens who snuck into our country illegally.

The first tactical decision was "Let these law breakers into our country to do whatever their heart may desire. OR stop them where they stand." He choose to stop them where they stand. FOR THAT I SALUTE YOU SGT. HAAB.

After making the first decision, he was faced with a second tactical decision. The odds were seven to one. Sgt. Haab looked at the odds. I'm confident his long years of MILITARY TRAINING caused a thought process something like this...

"Hmm, let them in, stop them. OK, I'm gonna stop them. Hmm, seven to one odds, not good for me. Should I try and detain them armed or unarmed? ARMED."

He pulls his weapon and then DETAINS the ILLEGALS. He even enlists the aid of another motorist SO HE CAN CONTACT AUTHORITIES. Several here on this forum have suggested that I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM SHOOT THEM. But that is true only if they attacked him (odds WERE SEVEN TO ONE AGAINST HIM) while he was doing his duty as he saw it. FOR THAT I SALUTE YOU SGT. HAAB.

I salute SGT. HAAB for stepping into the gap, KNOWING that there would be consequences to his actions. As a Sgt., he's been in the military quite a while. He's also had so much training, it would go against his grain to just 'let it slide' and ignore these law breakers. As he took the oath to protect this country against all threats foreign AND domestic, he could do nothing else. AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, he KNEW what was going to happen to him BEFORE he drew his sidearm. FOR ALL THAT I SALUTE YOU SGT. HAAB.

It's truly a shame that there are too few men like SGT. HAAB.

 

[shaggy]

Ahh yes, to hell with the rule of law untill it fits our need to observe it.

Had to resurrect this dead horse didn't you?

Haab was detaining people at gunpoint in an attempt to enforce a federal law. Haab was not acting as a federal officer in the line of official duties. Would you please cite to me somethng in the US Code that provides a citizen (non-LEO) the right to enforce federal laws and the legal authority to detain a person.

You're so zealous in your support of Haab against the illegal immigrants, you refuse to acknowledge Haab also broke the law. So tell me Wallew, if its OK for Haab to break the law to stop and detain other people he thought were committing a crime, shouldn't it be OK for someone else to point a weapon at Haab and detain him for the illegal act of detaining someone else in violation of the law?

You either abide by, and live within the rule of law or you don't. If you're against illegal immigration because they are law breakers you should be equally against illegal acts by persons like Haab. You gain no credibility if your support of the rule of law shifts and wavers to suit your agenda. Its called hypocrisy, Wallew. No one is saying the illegals deserve to get off, but just because the illegals were wrong does not mean Haab was in the right. You make a mockery of the rule of law to which you only give lip service.

 

[Wallew]

Shaggy,

Apparently you either can't read or can't comprehend what I said!

So tell me Wallew, if its OK for Haab to break the law to stop and detain other people he thought were committing a crime, shouldn't it be OK for someone else to point a weapon at Haab and detain him for the illegal act of detaining someone else in violation of the law?

AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, he KNEW what was going to happen to him BEFORE he drew his sidearm.

There's your answer. You either read it and didn't understand it or read it and IGNORED what it meant. Sgt. HAAB PROTECTED MY COUNTRY and was AND still IS willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

Too bad YOU can't say the same thing.

 

[shaggy]

Wallew,

Knock it off with the personal attacks. It only makes you look childish and crazy.

Haab may very well have thought he was protecting his country, but he broke the law in doing so. And for that he'll get his day in court. I've got little problem with that - send the illegals back and let Haab deal with the consequences of his actions.

And if you think Haab didn't commit a crime, I'll once again ask you to cite me a section of the US Code which empowers a citizen to make citizens arrest for a federal crime and detain people with deadly force.

 

[tyme]

Again I ask you to cite me a section of the US Code which empowers a citizen to make citizens arrest for a federal crime and detain people with deadly force.

If citizens didn't have this power, how'd they manage to give it to the federal government?

 

[ebd10]

How about this one?

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


Release date: 2004-03-18

(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.

What is a militia for, if not to protect the country from foreign invaders?

 

[shaggy]

Not exactly sure what you mean, Tyme.

The Constitution creates the government and sets the bounds of authority under which it operates. Immigration is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction as provided by the Constitution and federal legislation enacted pursuant to powers and authority enumerated within the Constitution. As a matter of federal jurisdiction the federal government has full authority unless otherwise granted or delegated. Show me the delegation of authority for enforcement to private citizens. Because unless acting pursuant to some such authority thatwould act as a shield, Haab likely committed aggravated assault.

 

[shaggy]

What is a militia for, if not to protect the country from foreign invaders?

And the militia operates under the control of Congress.

US Constitution Art. I, Section 8, Para. 15
Congress shall have the power...To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

 

[Wallew]

Following up on the story of Patrick Haab, the Army Special-Ops officer who detained seven undocumented migrants illegal aliens, several new facts have become evident.

First, he says he acted in self-defense, drawing his weapon on the undocumented migrants illegal aliens because "his military training took over when he saw the men coming out of the bushes." Even Haab says his actions were based on the fact he thought they were going to attack him and not because he assumed they were illegals. In fact, Haab said he had no idea that the men were undocumented immigrants illegal aliens at the time he drew his pistol from a holster he often wears.

Patrick said the 911 dispatcher told him to use his best judgment. He said he gave a second gun, a Derringer that he kept in his car, to another motorist who was also stopped at the rest stop. Patrick said the other motorist knew Spanish and confirmed that the men had crossed the border illegally.

Bottom line. How can you fault Haab for thinking he was about to be attacked? He was near the U.S.-Mexico border, walking his black lab (similar to those used by Border Patrol agents), when seven undocumented immigrants illegal aliens come out of the bushes toward him?

Patrick said repeatedly that he did not threaten the immigrants."I never patted any subjects down," he said. "I never pulled the (gun's) hammer back."


http://www.gopbloggers.org/


You lieberals REALLY NEED TO GET A GRIP! I SALUTE SGT. HAAB FOR PROTECTING MY COUNTRY!

And for all you LIEBERALS OUT THERE:

Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona, said she is concerned about private citizens acting as border agents.

"Groups that are down along the border don't have a right to act as if they are the Border Patrol, and they don't have the right to detain migrants," she said. "We understand that people feel that the government isn't doing its job, but that really means you have to use the political process."

Arpaio said he did not believe Haab's actions were coincidental to the Minuteman Project. "You don't go around pulling guns on people," Arpaio said. "Being illegal is not a serious crime. You can't go to jail for being an illegal alien. . . . You can only be deported."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0413detain13.html

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS WE ONLY DEPORT ILLEGALS... Instead of LOCKING THEM UP AND MAKE THEM BREAK BIG ROCKS INTO SMALL ROCKS. I promise, ILLEGAL IMMIGRATIONS WOULD CEASE IMMEDIATELY IF WE DID THAT.

FROM SGT. HAAB HIMSELF:

Haab said he drew a revolver he wears legally under Arizona's open carry law to stop six men -- later determined to be illegal immigrants -- from rushing him Sunday night at a rest stop on Interstate 8.

"I believe I'm a victim," said Haab, who spent 11 months in Iraq but declined to discuss his duty or location there, except to say that he takes medication for combat stress and lost a close friend in a roadside bombing overseas.

http://www.kpho.com/Global/story.asp?S=3208659&nav=23KuYeMB

 

[novus collectus]

Wow a blogger reported it, it must be true.

 

[Wallew]

NC,
ONCE AGAIN I see you ONLY ZEROING in on the blogger story. THE OTHER TWO are mainstream media. And don't KNOCK the bloggers, AS THEY WHIPPED THE CR@P out DAN RATHER and it cost him his job...

Angygirl, I did not migrate here by choice. I was six years old when my mother brought me here from Cuba on a refugee status. What is wrong with you people that you can't grasp the concept of, we have enough population here now. It has nothing to do with how I feel about any ethnicity. What is wrong with you people that you have no respect for our immigration laws? We have quotas for "legal" immigration and they are there to protect this country from overcrowding and putting too much stress on our social structures and to allow people to assimilate. What is wrong with you people that you think that Mexico should dictate our immigration policies and that Mexicans should decide how many people we should have in this country? Your arguments that "I got mine, so why can't everyone else get theres" is so lame that I can't even respond to such nonsense. No, no hispanic took my job! I own my own restuarant business. But a lot of blacks and whites are being displaced in the job market due to hispanics demanding that everything be in Spanish for them. I have offered solutions to the problem. Illegals should be deported and then reapply just like the legal immigrants to come in here. I am not opposed to a guest worker program but it has to be based on "our" needs for foreign labor, not the migrant. In the meantime until or if we get our immigration laws changed, we have to abide by them. Most of you in here have decided that they should violate our laws before our immigration laws can be changed. Its not right no matter what you say. Uncontrolled massive illegal immigration is effecting American citizens billions of dollars above and beyond any taxes they contribute. We cannot have uncontrolled population growth either. Why do you people turn this into a racist issue?

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/for...yQuote&REPLY_ID=4544&TOPIC_ID=1694&FORUM_ID=8

From the mouth of a CUBAN. I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF! Thank you EDUARDO!

 

[shaggy]

A little more from the story you left out Wallew...

"He said he first saw one man walk out of the bushes toward a white Chevy Suburban with California license plates parked in the lot next to Patrick's car. A few seconds later, six more men emerged. Although Patrick said at one point that he was "attacked," he later acknowledged that none of them had weapons and none tried to touch him. But he insisted that might not have been the case if his dog had not gotten between them and if he had not been armed. "​

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0414detain14.html

Now you didn't have to be a lawyer to see self-defense being proffered as his defense and justification a mile away. Its the ONLY legal defense he has and the only way he'll get off on a serious felony. Why? Because there is nothing elsewhere in federal or state law that provides a citizen the legal authority to arrest & detain as he did.

Now don't get me wrong, Wallew, it very well may have happened as he said it did, but some things don't add up. If you look at the situation as a normal self defense scenario and disregard the fact that they were illegals things start to fall apart. Do you pull a gun anytime you see a group of six or seven men walking towards a car parked next to you? No weapons were pulled by them. They didn't try to touch him. He pulled because he thought they were illegals and they might attack him. He didn't KNOW they were illegals. He had no indication they were going to attack him. For all he knew they may very well have been legal US citizens at the time he pulled a gun on them.

 

[novus collectus]

Do you know what the real reason is that REAL journalists call them "undocumented workers"? It is the same reason they couldn't call O.J. Simpson a murderer until he was found to be one by a civil court. They would be subject to libel if they said that they were illegal before a court said they broke the law. The blogger is just trying to appeal to the most base of our society and I seriously doubt that he vetted any of his sources. Where did the part go that they were in a car? Where did the bushes come from.

I really hope that the blogger got it right and he really did do a good thing without breaking the law. but they get it wrong a lot more than they get it right. REAL journalists get it wrong too but at least they have an ethic they are "supposed" to follow (like vetting sources which Rather "conveniently" forgot to do). A blogger just wants to use facts that support his view and will never admit he got it wrong if the facts were wrong as well.

 

[tyme]

The Constitution creates the government and sets the bounds of authority under which it operates. Immigration is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction as provided by the Constitution and federal legislation enacted pursuant to powers and authority enumerated within the Constitution.

Can you point out the section of the Constitution granting the Federal Government the authority to regulate immigration? Given the structure of the U.S. at that time, I wouldn't be surprised if the intent was to let States deal with immigration issues. Whether this is an immigration issue at all is questionable, a bit like calling theft a commerce issue. It is, in a sense, but it's more appropriate to consider both a crime.

As a matter of federal jurisdiction the federal government has full authority unless otherwise granted or delegated. Show me the delegation of authority for enforcement to private citizens. Because unless acting pursuant to some such authority thatwould act as a shield, Haab likely committed aggravated assault.

Citizens used to have the power to enforce laws. Because of modern political correctness, the notion that every citizen is responsible for maintaining order has fallen by the wayside. The federal agencies charged with preventing illegal immigration are not doing their job very well. State agencies defer to the DEA, INS, and Border Patrol. Who else is left to enforce the law besides citizens?

 

[Wallew]

REAL journalist ALL HAVE A LIBERAL AGENDA.

Blogger do too, but at least they ARE NOT PAID TO DO A JOB that is supposed to be reporting the news WITHOUT THEIR BIAS.

I should know, as I was going to be a journalist. I am a freelance photojournalist, PAID AND PUBLISHED by several MOTORCYCLE MAGAZINES and even the editor of one of the rags I used to write for WOULD NOT PUBLISH a piece on the right to keep and bear arms. AFTER PUBLISHING an article by one of his LIBERAL FREELANCERS that said WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

So please, comparing ANYONE to LIBERAL JOURNALIST and trying to intimate that these people are giving an unbiased view of this story is WRONG.

You know it, but don't want to admit it.

 

[shaggy]

Can you point out the section of the Constitution granting the Federal Government the authority to regulate immigration?

US Constitution Art.I Section 8 Para. 4
Congress shall have the power: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization

The federal agencies charged with preventing illegal immigration are not doing their job very well. State agencies defer to the DEA, INS, and Border Patrol. Who else is left to enforce the law besides citizens?

It doesn't really matter what your opinion is regarding how well they're doing their job. If you ask them, I'm sure they think they're doing a great job. Whats relevant is what the law empowers you to do. And if the law doesn't empower a private citizen to act in such a situation, they can face criminal penalties.

Here's an example - I had an uncle who was killed by an assailant with a shotgun. The court put the a*&hole away for 20 years - that was 20+ years ago. If I don't think the court or the prosecutor did their job, or did their job to my satisfaction since I wanted the death penalty, does that give me the legal right to hunt down that POS and kill him now that he's free?

 

[tyme]

Naturalization and immigration are different things.

No, it gave you or anyone else the right to detain him and present him to the authorities if they had refused to go arrest him.

 

[utaherrn]

FWIW, IMHO, from my perspective, this situation is going to get ugly

more ugly (uglier?) the longer it's allowed to continue (are there degrees of ugliness?).

Federal Law Enforcement is not enforcing the law at the borders. No one is disputing that fact. A lot of people or groups with agendas are trying to cloud the issue though.
For whatever reason, ie: funds, manpower, politics, etc, the job isn't getting done. Citizens will feel the need to enforce the law if the government won't.

I believe in order, not chaos, but I can empathize with those living on the border. I can understand their frustration, even if I don't agree with their actions. I am presently undecided about what action that citizens should take when government fails to act in this particular situation. There are several instances in our history as a country when good people had to stand up and make the government do its job. We're getting to that point. The Minutemen have forced the government to act when it would not have otherwise.
We must close the seive that is the U.S./Mexico border. We need to do the same with the U.S./Canada border too, just so no-one will call me a racist/fascist/whatever and because Canada doesn't have the same laws/standards we do.
We have rules and law regarding immigration that everyone is talking about. Let's enforce it. Let's follow it.
There is plenty of room in this country for all who wish to live here and CONTRIBUTE to society. I am all for an orderly process though. I am all for a fair and equal policy.
The current sad state of affairs is neither.
Just my longwinded .02

 

[shaggy]

Naturalization and immigration are different things.

True, but to my understanding the word "naturalization" as mentioned in section 8 applies to both immigration and naturalization. Also keep in mind the Necessary & Proper Clause of the Constitution could come into play as without restrictions on immigration the issue of naturalization would be almost moot.

Of course, if I'm wrong, feel free to show me something in the Arizona statutes relating to the control of immigration.

No, it gave you or anyone else the right to detain him and present him to the authorities if they had refused to go arrest him.

But on one hand you're advocating citizens should be able to step in and "enforce the law" when the government doesn't meet up to your personal expectations. You said:

Citizens used to have the power to enforce laws. Because of modern political correctness, the notion that every citizen is responsible for maintaining order has fallen by the wayside. The federal agencies charged with preventing illegal immigration are not doing their job very well. State agencies defer to the DEA, INS, and Border Patrol. Who else is left to enforce the law besides citizens?

So by your logic if I feel as though the government didn't do the job of getting the death sentence for the killer of my uncle, why shouldn't I be able to step in and "enforce the law" myself?

 

[TheBluesMan]

I am closing this for many reasons.
1. The title is intentionally misleading. The discussion is about illegal immigration, not the Second Amendment.
2. The provocative tone and general impolite attitude that comes through in many posts.
3. Of late, this topic has been BEAT TO DEATH! :barf:

As always, feel free to PM or email if you have any questions about this decision, but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer - I'm really backed up answering my messages. Sorry.

-Dave