Quote of the day—Antonia Okafor Cover @antonia_okafor

Yes, the framers intended We the People to have “weapons of war”.

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that civilians can have one form of arms and the govt can have the superior form?

If that were true then what type of equal playing field would that leave us with?

Antonia Okafor Cover @antonia_okafor
Tweeted on November September 23, 2019
[See also United States v. Miller 59 S.Ct. 816(1939).—Joe]

11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Antonia Okafor Cover @antonia_okafor

  1. And Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: “…grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal….”

    They explicitly envisioned privately owned warships! Kind of hard to sail under a letter of marque without one.

    • +1. Also, said warships would be armed with the latest military grade heavy cannon, definitely “Weapons of War.”

  2. The court in Miller ruled that the 2nd amendment only applied to militia weapons. What would their ruling have been if Miller had had a Thompson or a B.A.R.? I’m guessing they would still have found a way to rule against Miller as neither he nor his attorney were there to make an argument.

    • Trench guns (short barreled shotguns) had already proven their worth before the Miller discision. Miller _was_ armed with a militia weapon. Seems the anti-gunners were just as ignorant 80+ years ago.

      • The problem in Miller is that the defendant had died by the time the case was argued. So the attorney committed malpractice by not appearing in front of SCOTUS, which caused the justices to observe that they had been shown no evidence that short barreled shotguns were military weapons.
        If the attorney had done his duty the case might well have been decided correctly. It doesn’t seem like he was ever penalized for his derelection, either.

  3. Having declared the constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, a “Charter of Negative Rights”, the corrupt who lust after power have thus shown themselves to understand these things perfectly well. Insightfully, even.

    We among the advocates of liberty have been in “education mode” for generations now, trying to “teach” the allies of the Beast about (whether we’ve known it or not) the “perfect law of liberty” (Jesus’ words for God’s law).

    But the question of the hour is; what is the next step beyond education, once it becomes obvious that the corrupt powers have understood these things all along, perhaps even better than we? What is the plan for when we admit to ourselves that they’ve understood these things and simply disagreed, and have taken a contrary position, and have had schemes for systematic corruption underway since a time before our parents were born?

    But to admit that, we’d have to admit that those people we’ve been trying to “educate”, those we’ve been making fun of for their “stupidity” or “insanity” are in fact many steps, and several generations, ahead of us, and now control even this very infrastructure we’re herein using to communicate. Further, we’d have to admit that;
    “…we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12 King James Version (KJV)

    Paul certainly had a way with words, didn’t he?

    So it is that knowledge is one thing, and it serves the intellect, while allegiance is something else altogether. What sort of “education” do we have in mind for the latter issue? What is available within our intellect for addressing it straight up and head-on? I don’t know.

    Maybe it goes no farther than this other quote from Paul’s same letter to the Ephesians;
    “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose* them” (*some translations have it as “reprove”).

    Reprove, reprimand, expose. Tell the truth to a world of lovers of lies. That’s about all we have. So maybe we are on the right track after all. Sometimes. Depending on what fight we’re fighting, either we’ve lost already, a thousand times over and pathetically, or we’ve already been offered the greatest victory in all of history and we have but to claim it.

    • Try the “Order of St.Possenti”. Everything you have said is spot on. The problem as I see it is for us to look at it as they do. We refuse to look at evil for what it is, then fight on that basis.
      Why would they want a failed state in America? Because that’s where you have the most power over human beings. You can rape, murder ,and pillage all you want. All driven by the psychotic need of being something above human I guess. To us it’s insane. As indeed it is. But a failed society can never be a threat to their power. Thus their desire.
      Every system devised by man will fail because the nature of man is fallen. We seem all to eager to forget that. Communism, Islam, Capitalism, even Christianity. Everything gets co-opted and destroyed.
      Jesus told us we would have to defend ourselves while on this earth. Something else we seem to forget. We should keep that first and foremost in mind always.
      The only constant on earth is war. We shouldn’t be fighting against our own ability to be warriors. Both spiritual and physical.
      We should embrace it. Realize the earth is a war zone. And quit getting blindsided by evil at every turn.

      • It does seem that way. A civilization is guided by its Weltanschauung. And our Weltanschauung is dominated by leftist tired of playing by the rule of law. They want their utopia now and see us standing in their way.

        We’re in a war for the soul of our civilization. Plan well and don’t count on a clear nor quick victory. I’m starting to think that this could be a long slog won or lost by our descendants.

        • Amen brother! To me the best way to defeat them is not to think in terms of victory. But in terms of being comfortable in the fight. Something our enemies can never achieve.

  4. If “the people” in the Second Amendment aren’t the general population, who are “the people” in the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments?

    If “arms” in the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a right to arms particularly suitable for military/militia use, what kind of arms does it protect a right to?

    If “keep” doesn’t mean to own or possess, what does it mean?

    If “bear” doesn’t mean to carry on your person, what does it mean?

    • Your absolutely right, but that’s for you and me. We have a constitution that was wrote by the people, for the people.(and not the people in DC). That only 9 people can understand. (who live and work in DC).

Comments are closed.