Free State Project news

[sixmillman]

Free staters will enjoy this and thank god they havn't decided to move to New Hampshire.
New Organization Hopes To Persuade Christians To Move South

[castille]

Theres only 1 problem: The people who refuse to help themselves, rely on the state to hand them free money, and will protest any movement that tries to support "self help".

How would you deal with those kind of folk?

[Poetic_Justice]

BEST MOVIE EVER!

[LogicaLunatic]

Six,

HA Christian Exodus is full of crap. :)

They're doing exactly what somebody else here has described before. When the government says that the school can't lead the students in a prayer, these fools then say that children can't pray in school.

When the government says that bible study shouldn't be part of the curriculum, these dumb asses then contend that bibles aren't allowed in schools at all.

They're either extremely stupid for interpreting it that way or intentionally misleading for turning the issues around like that.

Just my own Christian Exodus review :)

Are you kidding me? Where is the outrage lol. Perhaps the sensible people here just ignore posts like this? Has anyone else watched the video? This is such clan propaganda. I'm serious. The news casters wondering how their can still be people who doubt FSP lol. You have to be kidding me.

I am not surprised by the people they interviewed as typical members.

I do value the concept of preserving freedom, but this is really a joke in my honest opinion.

I know some of the libertarians will hate me for saying so, but this is a clan.

Sean, you should keep an eye on people trying to sell agendas like this here if they don't post about anything else. One or two of the people in this topic only come to volconvo it seems to spread this.

[The Dunedan]

dotComa,
Please clarify what you mean by "this is a clan." If you're trying to link us to the Ku Klux Klan, might I suggest you take a look at our website, which will quickly put the lie to this.
1: One of our founding members is black; kinda not possible if we were Klan-ish.
2: Lotsa Catholics, Pagans, Jews, and at least five Muslims. Again, not terribly Klan-ish.
3: Secession: Not even considered an option by FSP leadership. As much as I like the idea, I ( and every other FSP member ) remember what happened the last time somebody tried that.
4: The old ""they're anti-Gov, so the -MUST- be racists!" canard: Sorry to disappoint you, but we're not. If you'd done your homework on us, you'd see that. We welcome any person, of any political persuasion, who's willing to sign the Statement of Intent, regardless of their age, race, sexual orientation, nat'l origin, etc etc.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am an FSP member, and what DID YOU SAY I BELONGED TO, AFTER I RESEARCHED, TALKED WITH, CORRESPONDED, DEBATED IN THEIR FORUM THE POSSIBILITY OF MY JOINING DOTCOMA?

What you just said in you above post, is an insult and a slam to all those who belong to that group, which I am a part of. Your ignorance of the organization, movement goals, and policies are only surpassed by your craving to speak out on how your "moral" judgement supercedes all "common peoples" perception.

Please investigate and review the FSP before you attempt to espouse YOUR OPINION. Do you think it is WRONG to have groups who have a focus on something they believe in? How about religion? How about the Young Republicans Club? How about Mothers Against Drunk Driving?

I think you sir, should study a bit more before you speak out and attempt to label an organization you know nothing about.

Have you ever heard the phrase: "Getting libertarians to join ANYTHING is like trying to herd cats."

There is a reason for this. MOST (thats right, I said MOST) Libertarians arrive in that parties political alignment because of dilligent investigation of their platform. Libertarians are NOT inclined to seek CONFORMITY, nor do they cling to the necessity of establishment, therfore they naturally fear affiliation with large organizations that are NOT transparent and fluid in explanation. Libertarians often are labeled by major party loyalists as "extremists" or "anarchists", yet that is as FAR from the truth as could be possible. They ask the government to adhere to ITS OWN RULES, AS OUTLINED IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENT, THE CONSTITUTION. Is this WRONG? IS IT NOT OUR JOB, AS WE THE PEOPLE, TO ENSURE THAT GOVERNMENT LIVES UP TO ITS RESPONSIBILITY, AS STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?

There are two types of people in this country, those that understand and recognize the Constitution, and those that don't. That is the only class system I will admit to there being allowed in this country.

DOTCOMA seems to definitely fall in the latter category, those that don't.

Originally posted by The Dunedan, dotComa,   Please clarify what you mean by "this is a clan." If you're trying to link us to the Ku Klux Klan, might I suggest you take a look at our website, which will quickly put the lie to this.   1: One of our founding members is black; kinda not possible if we were Klan-ish.   2: Lotsa Catholics, Pagans, Jews, and at least five Muslims. Again, not terribly Klan-ish.   3: Secession: Not even considered an option by FSP leadership. As much as I like the idea, I ( and every other FSP member ) remember what happened the last time somebody tried that.   4: The old ""they're anti-Gov, so the -MUST- be racists!" canard: Sorry to disappoint you, but we're not. If you'd done your homework on us, you'd see that. We welcome any person, of any political persuasion, who's willing to sign the Statement of Intent, regardless of their age, race, sexual orientation, nat'l origin, etc etc.

I said Clan, not Klan. You don't have to be racist to be a clan. So there goes your whole argument. I wasn't even talking about it in that context.

Moving on...

Although from what I've seen and read here I do think the whole concept is a joke, I was talking about the actual source linked. The movie is so obviousely propaganda for the organization. Like I said, they're saying things like "I can't believe there are still people who doubt FSP"-because so many people know about it, and would agree with it if they heard about it :rolleyes:

I am an FSP member, and what DID YOU SAY I BELONGED TO, AFTER I RESEARCHED, TALKED WITH, CORRESPONDED, DEBATED IN THEIR FORUM THE POSSIBILITY OF MY JOINING DOTCOMA? What you just said in you above post, is an insult and a slam to all those who belong to that group, which I am a part of. Your ignorance of the organization, movement goals, and policies are only surpassed by your craving to speak out on how your "moral" judgement supercedes all "common peoples" perception.

I'm well aware of what the organizations goals are, but it's just not something most normal Americans would agree with. Why do I say this? I saw men with guns walking around in public, saying it's because they can. Sorry, but if you ran a poll tomorrow on how many people in this country would be for that you'd get some slim pickings.

Oh, and I love the whole "THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T TELL ME TO WEAR A SEAT BELT" :rolleyes:

I'm all for freedom, but in this competitive world we need to go forward, and not back to the wild west.

You can focus on <"something you believe in">, but after giving the posted video a chance, and going to the website, I think it's a joke. I have a right to my opinion.

There are two types of people in this country, those that understand and recognize the Constitution, and those that don't. That is the only class system I will admit to there being allowed in this country.

Well if you all understand the constitution so clearly you should all become attorney's-they are all wasting their time struggling with the vagueness of the document, but you seem to have it all figured out.

[Osborn F Enready]

Yes, actually we do, lawyers are UNNECESSARY when dealing in COMMON, OR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. You only need a lawyer when dealing with the other forms of law our system has inflicted upon us. Lawyers are a BIG part of the problem, as they seek to REDEFINE laws, instead of helping to defend or enforce their cases on the plain meanings.

[Osborn F Enready]

As far as "carrying a gun because I can", you are damn right I can, as it is a RIGHT, not a privlidge as they would have you believe. Can anyone protect my rights, my person, or my loved ones at all times? NO! That is why I have the RIGHT to carry a firearm should I SO CHOOSE TO DO SO.

We don't need lawyers to interpret the constitution because you have it all figured out? That just lowered my expectations for this debate.

Your gun carrying desire is an opinion, and many would disagree with how you interpret our 2nd amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was written before we had an established police force. However, this is not even something I want to debate about-it's one of those issues that we'll both refuse to budge.

[Osborn F Enready]

Look DotComa, I will accept any rational explanation backed by logical deductions from factual information, but I am not seeing any yet.

You are discussing a RIGHT. This is not over the dinner table conversation, or something to be sorted out between a few people in a secluded corner of a den.

Constitutional Law is written and interpreted in plain English. It is an accepted fact, there are no hidden meanings, or indirect references. Here it is in Blacks Handbook of American Constitutional Law;

HANDBOOK of AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
by Henry Campbell Black, LL. D. Fourth Edition; West Publishing Company. 1927


Constitution Defined - § 3 . . .
A constitution differs from a statute or ordinary act of legislation in three important particulars:


It is enacted by the people as a whole (that is, by vote of the qualified electorate) who are to be governed by it, instead of by their representatives in a congress or legislature.

A constitution can be abrogated, repealed, or modified only by the power which created it, namely, the people in the sense stated above, whereas a statute may be repealed or changed by the legislature. The people, however, can modify or repeal their constitution only through the medium of a constitutional convention or constituent assembly, or by affirmative vote on amendments or on a new constitution duly submitted by the legislature. In those states where the initiative and referendum are in use, the provisions of the constitution are as binding on the people in the exercise of their legislative prerogative as upon the legislature, that is, these devices cannot be used to alter the constitution in any other mode than as the constitution itself provides. [State v. Dixon, 59 Mont. 58, 195 P. 841; State v. Stewart, 53 Mont. 18, 161 P. 309; City of Ft. Collins v. Public utilities Commission, 69 Colo. 554, 195 P. 1099 ]

The provisions of a constitution refer to the fundamental principles of government and the establishment and guaranty of liberties, instead of being designed merely to regulate the conduct of individuals among themselves. [Constitutions announce principles, while statutes apply them. Sproules v. State, 97 Tex Cr. R. 561, 262 S. W. 757.] But the tendency towards amplification in modern constitutions derogates from the precision of this last distinction.

At present there are at least 51 Constitutions operative in the United States of America. There are the Constitutions of the 50 states of the Union, and the Constitution of the United States. I say "at least" 51 because many of the states of the Union have more than one Constitution. As an example, California has two and Oklahoma had at least six different versions that have been found as of the date of this writing.

As noted above by the famous John Bouvier, a Constitution's essential element is that it is, "…containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers…" You will note that in Bouvier's definition, nothing appears about regulating Citizens. That is because, at least in a free nation, it is The People, in agreement with each other, who create the Constitution for the sole purpose of establishing, defining, and limiting the scope of government.


"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
-- Patrick Henry

Every state of the Union has a distinct and unique Constitution of its own. Of course if you are a state Citizen, as opposed to a "citizen of the United States" [federal citizen], then you should attempt to locate your state's original Constitution because that's the one that establishes the true and original structure, powers, and limitations of your state government…at least when the state addresses you. [See the Citizenship location within this website for the distinctions between state Citizens and "citizens of the United States".]

All state laws must be made pursuant to the Constitution of the state and all federal laws must be pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. Laws that are manifestly incompatible with the language or intent of the Constitutions are null, void, and unenforceable. While it is commonly understood that a Supreme court of a state, or the United States, will declare a law unconstitutional, most people fail to recognize that the first step in that process is for a Citizen to decide, for himself, that a law is incompatible with the Constitution and refuse to obey the law. In other words, if we never take a stand, all laws will be presumed to be Constitutional. It is only through the belligerent actions of a nation's Citizens that laws are brought under review and then can be judicially declared unconstitutional.

Constitutions must be read and interpreted in plain English. One should take into account the way certain words or phrases may have been used or defined at the time the Constitution was drafted, and how they may differ from the use or definitions now in effect. The use and definitions of words or phrases as they existed at the time the document was written must control the interpretation of the provision(s) under review. Because most pre-Civil War Constitutions are intentionally succinct, significant weight must be given to the intended meaning of each section. If the intended meaning is not immediately clear from the language of the document, the "original intent" can be ascertained by review of the historical context of the issue being addressed and goals that must have been in the minds of the framers of the Constitution as they wrote the words. Usually the authors and signers of a Constitution will have written privately and/or publicly about the document or the various issued addressed within. Such writings have been routinely used to establish the exact meaning of various parts of Constitutions. Additionally, as we enter the 21st century, many of the questions we may ask have already been answered by various Supreme courts.

Constitutions are not "living documents" as is contended by some ignorant and verbose commentators. Because a Constitution defines the structure, powers, and limitations of the government, such elements are fixed, except as such may be altered by the amendment process. When a Constitution includes language that protects personal liberties (sometimes called "natural rights" or "God-given rights"), these provisions must remain in effect, and remain fixed as they are for all time. They are not subject to modification by amendment because no one, not even our fellow Citizens, has the authority to deprive us of our liberty. If the Constitution in question is a Constitution that is operative in America, there is the added aspect that such Constitutions are controlled by the principles espoused in our Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence it states,


"...all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

In other words, if a Constitution was altered in such a way as to diminish personal liberties or remove their protections, then the government constituted by that Constitution would cease to be a valid government and the Citizens would be greatly justified in using whatever means necessary to bring that government to an end.

As our society grows in size, evolves socially, and advances technologically, various issues that have never before been tested upon the Constitution will need to be so tested. It has been this way since the first state Constitution was created and it is still that way today. Fortunately, since the nature of man hasn't changed in thousands of years, the principles contained within these constitutions remains valid and enduring. When all is said and done, the underlying purpose of a Constitution is to keep the ways of men in check.


"Let no more be said about the confidence of men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution".
-- Thomas Jefferson

At this point it is probably prudent to explore why many states have more than one Constitution. Prior to the Civil War, each state of the Union had but one Constitution in existence. There was no apparent need for more than one because that single document could be amended by a vote of the People of the state. However, with the advent of the 14th Amendment to Constitution of the United States, the landscape was radically altered. [See Citizenship page on this website for the distinction between state Citizens and "citizens of the United States.]

Citizenship under the 14th Amendment, is not a result of one's birthright [unalienable right], as is the citizenship status of a state Citizen. The status of "citizen of the United States" (aka - federal citizen) is one that is bestowed by the Constitution. In other words, the status of "citizen of the United States" is a statutory privilege granted by the government.

The original Constitutions of the states were created by The People of the states and were designed to serve the de jure [legitimate] state Citizens. As such, these Constitutions limited the operation of government in the manner required for addressing state Citizens. However, the state governments were not bound by the same limitations when governing "federal citizens" because these federal citizens did not have the same protections from government interference as do state Citizens. [See case law on the lack of rights of "citizens of the United States".] As can be seen from the following US Supreme Court holding, "federal citizens" do not inherently possess the same rights as do state Citizens:


"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99
[See case law for more court rulings on this subject.]

One can clearly see that when dealing with federal citizens, a state could act with much greater flexibility. It could act toward federal citizens in ways that would be unconstitutional if done to state Citizens. So why did this require new state Constitutions? In section 1 of the 14th Amendment, it states:


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

By ratifying this language, the states agreed to consider federal citizens living within their borders, a form of state citizen. We say, "a form of" because these federal citizens could not lay claim to the unalienable rights expressed in Declaration of the Independence, and thus were plainly in a different "class of citizenship". [See Citizenship page on this website for the distinction between state Citizens and "citizens of the United States.] When the states agreed to consider federal citizens as a form of state citizens, it raised significant state Constitutional issues - not the least of which was that these new citizens were not a party to the original state Constitutions! These new citizens were not The People, and never could be. The original Constitutions of the states were written by and for The People of the states, not these new hybrid (State/Federal) citizens.

Normally these non-de jure state Citizens would simply have been considered aliens within the state, but the 14th Amendment changed that. The individual states of the Union now needed to create a new State government (operating in parallel to the de jure state government) that was established under a Constitution by and for these hybrid citizens, with their different set of privileges, immunities, and disabilities. To achieve this end, the legislatures of the states of the Union created new Constitutions under which to govern their new hybrid citizens.

These new Constitutions are not "constitutions" in the true sense. A true Constitution creates a government of, by, and for, The People; The People being the de jure Citizens of that society/community/nation. These new Constitutions are actually nothing more than "statutory laws" that are dressed up as Constitutions and referred to as such. The original Constitutions of states admitted to the Union before the Civil War are based on the fundamental beliefs and concepts espoused in the Declaration of Independence. State constitutions drafted after the Civil War must be studied with a careful eye.

Under the long standing and well-settled doctrine of citizenship law, a person becomes a Citizen at birth, by the fact of the land upon which he is born, without there being any law necessary to grant him such citizenship. This is exactly the basis upon which state Citizens become Citizens of their respective states. However, 14th Amendment citizens would have no citizenship at all were it not for the adoption of the Amendment. This makes their citizenship a "fiction of law". A Constitution can only be created by real "Citizens of the land" and the government that is created by a Constitution can only govern these "Citizens of the land" (and aliens within its borders); that is because the government (at least in America) must derive its power from The People.

Now, here we approach fundamental issue - there is no such thing as a legitimate government that governs only "fictions of law". And while federal citizens obviously are real people, their citizenship is a fiction of law, thus rendering "their" constitution a mere statute (created by the de jure state legislature) and their newly formed [parallel] State government a mere appendage of the legitimate and original, state government. Unfortunately, we have long ago come to a place where the "mere appendage" is far larger and more well recognized than the original and legitimate state government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To those that have not read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, they are essential in knowing the facts about the Constitution if there are doubts of its meaning or intentions.

DotComa, my RIGHT is to keep and bear arms.

DotComa, the Constitution is to be "interpreted" in plain English, and can be better understood by reading the surrounding documents.

I take offense that intelligence would deter your intrest in this forum, as intelligence fosters good debate sir, please take part.

Whoa..posting all of that is meant to demoralize me. I can't debate with that. I can't respond to all of it in a reasonable time.

That is why in the etiquette here it states that pasting huge articles like that is not encouraged.

I'll respond when you give me the courtesy of making a point, with source, and with length that allows me to respond.

[Sean]

I'm going to move this to Society and Rights (it's turned into that sort of topic)

[sixmillman]

Such anger and hate spews from Osbourne it is really quit scariy. He always has a ton of cut and paste nonsence from some web site to prove
to prove that it is always "us" against "them"
Often so wrong but never in doubt

[Lunaris]

It was socialism, look at Britain before Thatcher - we were one crap country, things like 3 day working week and antional strikes plus a top rate tax of......98%

We were, pre-Thatcher, both the highest taxed and the worst country in Europe. After Thatcher we are the lowest taxed and best country. Amazing.

[Poetic_Justice]

dotcoma, Two comments...
First, I'm a Canadian, but I've read a lot of Jefferson, Hamilton, etc. etc. It seems like these men spoke very plainly at every other time, why would the constitution be any different? Why would there be a need to "interpret" the constitution? Unless the meanings of words have changed, it seems to me like the constitution would be extremely straightforward, except to those who wish to "interpret" it so that they can pass their own pet laws without having to amend the constitution.

For example, in Canada, our constitution, like yours, is extremely straightforward, delegating some responsibilities to the provinces and some to the federal government. The provinces have among their responsibilities, health, education, the environment, resources, etc. etc. However, at the beginning of the constitution it is claimed that "Parliament is allowed only to make laws for the good fo the country". Rather than accepting that as a moral obligation agaisnt the Parliament, the feds decided that that gives them the right to usurp provincial responsibilities like health care education, and resources. Particularly, when Alberta started to find oil, the feds used that argument(with the co-operation of some other provincial premiers jealous of Alberta's luck) to take a healthy piece of the oil. They also used that argument to make the Canada Health Act and to sign the Kyoto agreement. All those actions were accepted because the feds managed to "divide and conquer". They left the meaning of the constitution and made it mean whatever they like. Now our courts read in and read out whole sections of our constitution and change it day by day. It is peope like you who allow them to by denying the simpleness of the constitution.

On another note, seatbelt laws and gun laws are obviously non-libertarian, how do you call yourself a libertarian and then act against them?

[Osborn F Enready]

SixMillMan said:
"Such anger and hate spews from Osbourne it is really quit scariy. He always has a ton of cut and paste nonsence from some web site to prove
to prove that it is always "us" against "them"
Often so wrong but never in doubt."

I say:
Yes, my anger resides very close under the surface in these times. Once finding many truths, behind allegations that were incredulous, preposterous, ridiculous claims of conspiracy, and then being able to PROVE all of the "circumstantial evidence" fits the bill, it is QUITE disheartening. Everyday, literally, I am amazed at how much the average person will take before lashing out at the blatant lies, propaganda and corruption that pollutes our system in its current form.

There is a quote, I think so perfectly describes exactly what I am saying....

``The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.''
-John Hay, 1872

Most people do not have occasion in their daily affairs to worry about dealing with the law, but now, as the invasion of civil liberties is reaching a fever pitch for national security, people are being subjected to more and more and finally starting to see what peaceful pot smokers have known for years. The system is hypocritical, biased, selective and no longer representative of the people, or the ideals of this nation.

It is maddening to examine a vegetable, a plant that grew, and still grows naturally around the world, and then imagine a logical, reason how our system could possibly build a case to outlaw "it" because "we" can't be trusted of our own volition to be "allowed" to use it in any way, shape or form. This becomes a more ridiculous folly for those who seek logic, as they research and investigate the origins of its illegalization. The documentable proof, the "evidence" used to build its entire foundation was racism, fear mongering, and outright LIES. Its effects have been repeatedly proven to be nothing comparable to the "claimed" effects its opponents claim to be fact. This all happened in 1937, and here you can check out some excerpts from the major promoter of criminalization, Harry Anslinger.

The following are excerpts of Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Find the rest of the facts about the lie called the Drug War here:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...y/basicfax.htm


Yes, my anger and rage are difficult to mask in todays world. I am not alone in thinking our forefathers would have long ago risen against this government that claims it represents liberty, and justice for all. I was born in the wrong time, or very much the right time, depending on what you hope the future holds. Regardless though, I am one man, yet one armed and educated man, and I refuse to conform to any system that does not play by its own rules, as this one is currently doing. I actively seek support of those who feel as I do, and seek to right our system through peaceful means, however as my duty as a citizen, I also prepare for the worst should its necessity arise.

``It is my right to be uncommon...if I can; I seek opportunity...not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stole calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid; to think and act for myself; enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, This I have done, and this is what it means to be an American.''
-Dean Alfrange

``If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.''
-Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

[Liberty Landing]

I know some of the libertarians will hate me for saying so, but this is a clan.

So is your family. So are high school social cliques. So are a group of friends going out after work to a bar to get piss-faced drunk.
What you just said is the equivalent of "The FSP is a group." Well, duh. Unless you attach some negative meaning to the word "clan," I don't see how that's supposed to be a problem.

The right to keep and bear arms was written before we had an established police force.

So?

It seems to me like you're starting off with a lot of very anti-libertarian assumptions. This makes debate with libertarians impossible.

[Liberty Landing]

All that said, folks, the party's over. The FSP is dead.

Take it from me, I'm a member, too. I'd love to see 'em succeed but it's not going to happen.