The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

To own and bear ARMS!

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is supposed to protect the right of the people to own "regular" military "ARMS!" The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve for the people the ability to attack, destroy, and replace a government that has become tryannical. It has nothing at all to do with hunting or recreational rifles. If it takes tanks and artilliary to take down a tyranical government that is the right of the preople. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and their friends all believed in and practiced that kind of popular democracy.

Real power ALWAYS comes at the point of arms. Real freedom only exists when the men who would be free are willing and able to own and bear arms effectively.

For more reading see Second Amendment

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Blogger Gridlore said...

Actually, if you read the entire thing, you'll see that the Second Amendment refers to a "well-regulated militia" and nowhere mentions what kind of arms may be carried.

Sorry, but the various laws restricting access to military weapons have all stood up to court tests.

March 15, 2008 10:12 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to gridlore:
To read the US Constitution you need to infer language and word definitions common to the late 18th century. In 18th century usage a "militia" is the free men of a nation who may be called to service. The Militia Act of the First Congress convened under the Constitution affirms this meaning. The term "well regulated," when used to refer to militias which fought in the American Revolution, meant that they were armed and equipped according to the standards of the “regulars” or the regular army. A “well regulated militia” is the free men of the nation armed with the same arms used by the regular army. In the days when General George Washington led the militia into battle, a “well regulated militia” had cannon as well as swords and muskets. Today a “well regulated militia” would include all free men who should have M1 tanks and TOW missiles as well as swords and fully automatic rifles.

The agents of Satan in black robes of hell are part of the tyrannical government and work to disarm free men and subject us to their police state domination -- exactly what the 2nd Amendment is supposed to allow us to have the means to overturn.

March 15, 2008 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what is the solution? What should _WE_ do?

March 15, 2008 4:37 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
Our criminal government makes it illegal for any man to speak of taking action against it. (in doing so they are in criminal violation of their Constitution Amendments 1 and 2.)

Bob has observed that some men have been taking action against various anti-men, anti-family provocateurs, hate mongers, officers and agents who are unprotected on an individual basis at home or otherwise. Just and observation. Bob does not advocate any illegal or criminal acts.

March 17, 2008 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...;_ylt=ApHMkKKQTakH3VQY4eZYmYY__8QF

Thoughts on this reporter.
What should be done about this reporter?

What would you do if you were beholden to no law (secular or religious) and no person?

"The laws we need are blocked by a powerful lobby led by the National Rifle Association, whose idea of reasonable gun regulation is a prohibition on gun shows within the grounds of an insane asylum. Its argument is that any law is the camel's nose under the tent, as if the government didn't already have its nose in the most intricate aspects of our lives.

This is the same lobby that worked overtime to scuttle a 1994 assault weapons ban that was riddled with loopholes and allowed to die by the Bush administration 10 years later despite near-unanimous support from law enforcement and 70%-80% of the American people — including a majority of gun owners. "

Many women own guns. They own then so they can murder men. They are fine with gun control aslong as it targets men mostly.

The fact that there will never be another revolution in my lifetime almost brings me to tears.

March 18, 2008 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I truly hate this person for what this person, Don Campbell, says and believes.

"It's a complex subject, granted, because modern-day handguns and long guns can be modified and accessorized in countless ways. But if Congress had the guts to take the lead, it would appoint a commission of reasonable people who I believe would agree on:

* The optimum firepower and configuration needed in a weapon to defend your home, bring down any critter from a quail to a moose or shred a paper target.

* Banning civilian ownership of all automatic weapons and all semiautomatic weapons that hold more than six rounds of ammunition. Six rounds is enough for any serious hunter, let alone a gangbanger.

* Tougher background checks on the mental history of all gun purchasers and requiring gun-show vendors to follow the same rules as federally licensed dealers.

* A ban with no loopholes or grandfather clauses on any gun that doesn't meet these standards or isn't brought into compliance within two years, with the penalty thereafter of a hefty prison term for anyone found with such weapons."

March 18, 2008 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we need to understand what "well-regulated" meant in the context of the time the Constitution was drafted. It was NOT regulation BY the government OF the people but vice versa. This in turn begs the question as to why the government is inherently superior at regulation than the people it governs. The truth is that any and every government is effectively no more and no less than a mature terrorist group. To whom should it be beholden?

March 19, 2008 8:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home