Quote of the day—Dean Weingarten

When you provide a means for all citizens who are willing, to become part of the state defense agencies, which includes the right to arms, you have short circuited many of the state sponsored restrictions.

This correspondent has often considered a similar provision could be used in the United States, to push back against federal power.

State legislatures could define any person with a carry permit to be a member of the state militia, on duty; they could make it an option available with a few hours training; they could proclaim that federal NFA laws do not apply to state militia members on duty. It is a powerful tool the states have not yet used.

Dean Weingarten
July 29, 2021
Czech Republic: a Right to Armed Self Defense

See also what Mike B. had to say about this idea.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Dean Weingarten

  1. I have a thought on that, along the lines of how $1 is frequently used as the “consideration” in a contract when something is simply transferred from one party to another.

    Suppose they declare that all these people are part of the state militia. What obligation does that entail? What can the militia be required to do? Where can the militia be required to serve? Who can muster the militia?

    At least in Washington State, the state constitution requires that the militia elect its own officers, and the militia is privileged from arrest while going to and from musters and officer elections. (This is how we know that police and sheriff’s departments are not the militia, because the chiefs of police are appointed, and the sheriffs are elected by the people, not the militia. The WA state legislature is required to provide for the election of militia officers by militia members, but has failed in its constitutional obligation to do so.) Presumably, only the elected officers of a militia ‘unit’ can must them, but who can give a lawful order to that officer?

    • … but who can give a lawful order to that officer?
      Surely that would be the Gubnuh.

  2. It’s a fine idea, and it has been in place since the beginning of the Republic. Most of us are militia members already, and anyone who is not a militia member is to be free to keep an bear arms, without infringement, for the purpose of having a feeder population for the militia, and to be on-call in cases of extra need.

    But none of this addresses the cause of the entire problem, which is that we’ve all got our thinking backwards. All I can do here is repeat what I said last time this came up;

    “ We the people should be background checking those who serve in government positions. Not the other way around! Why is our thinking on this backwards? Turn it around!”

    My employees at my business don’t tell me what to do, they don’t make the rules, they don’t make the business decisions like which products to develop next, they don’t keep an eye on me in case I might do something wrong. I welcome and value their input of course, but the final decisions are mine.

    Those in government positions are like house servants who have gotten together and decided they’re going to rule the manor. It is a mindset that CANNOT be allowed in any government institution (any servants’ quarters) if there’s going to be any chance of a peaceful, libertarian and just society.

    So long as our government can tell us to lock down, and we do it, and thousands of businesses dutifully fail as a result, and so long as our government can tell us to get injected with whatever they wish to inject us with, and we do it, we are not a free people and never will be. All these legal and social “war-gaming” scenarios are irrelevant, as is the number and type of guns we have, so long as the public mindset is that of the serf.

    And that in turn is why we have public education. Fix that first, otherwise there’s no one to even so much as understand liberty, let alone want it, to say nothing of getting active so as to restore it;

    “Diet, injections and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…”
    Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1952, p. 61-62

    With the Prussian/Jesuit education system we have now, the mindset and perceptions of the public are determined at a “very early age”.

    If we have guns and all the other “terrible instruments of war” in the hands of whom are essentially flag-waiving, beer-swilling, proud, Trump supporting Marxists but don’t know it, who know not reason, and make them all officially members of a militia that is essentially Marxist and knows not reason, commanded by a Governor who is essentially Marxist (Roman) and knows only the “reason” of hierarchical, authoritarian power, don’t expect libertarianism to suddenly break out spontaneously. I’d expect quite the opposite.

  3. The Militia, is absolutely the best protection a society can muster. Citizens protecting their homes and community will never get any better as far as human institutions go.
    Then we add the, “State”. At this point in the decline of the empire. There is no power that can be given your used by the government that will not be corrupted.
    Our brainwashing tells us we need some sort of legal consent to act on those thing we know to be right. And that’s what needs to change.
    One needs no permission to protect home and family. Even to the point of acting in groups to protect one’s community.
    And anyone saying different is an enemy. Both of you and of civil society.
    It matters not if their evil or ignorant.
    We should not be trying organizing under or asking government permission to protect ourselves. From government.??? Which has proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a mostly a criminal organization. With a few honest folks sprinkled in for flavor.
    That’s why your inter-BFYTW, is so important. It’s the only counter balance to the need of legal consent. (which you will notice the communist use on you, and ignore for their convenience.)

  4. What no body wants to admit here is that what the Czech republic gives the Czech republic can take away. That makes it a PRIVILEGE….not a right. Which is exactly how the VAST majority of politicians in America view our RIGHTS….as PRIVILEGES they can grant, withhold or invalidate whenever and however they choose.

    • Why wouldn’t they? We’ve never given them a reason not to, have we?
      Now, It puts the mask on it’s face, takes the jabs. And stays quiet. Or we talk about it’s food privilege?

Comments are closed.