The Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” US Constitution.

Primary Purpose of Charter and of Second Amendment Groups

The primary purpose of this Charter is to keep the Second Amendment of the US Constitution a working part of our collective strategy for the free and democratic governance of the United States of America, en perpetuity.

Preamble

“The case for Insanity is very strong among the insane.” Anonymous

A number of US Supreme Court decisions in recent years have called into question the juris prudence tradition of the US Justice System. Racial statistics have proven that the US Justice System does not guarantee the right of a fair trial to all Americans regardless of race.

The outcome of Bush v. Gore in the national election of the year 2000 made plain that the Supreme Court, itself, could become tainted and readily subverted to accomplish the goals and objectives of precisely those persons, or types of persons and entities, the Founding Fathers of the US Government wished to protect our fledgling Republic from.

In the case of Citizens United, the US Supreme Court ruled that fiat currency, a currency sold to the US Government to mitigate debts public and private by a private interest (i.e., the Federal Reserve) can be considered, “speech,” as used in the US Constitution, and, therefore, restricting the use of currency in the electoral process was, in effect, determined to be an unconstitutional limit of the freedom of speech of certain US persons. The Court further ruled, in violation of its own traditions of juris prudence, that corporations could be US Citizens, leaving the US electoral process completely and arbitrarily at the mercy of large concentrations of wealth represented by corporations owned either by US Citizens, or by citizens of foreign countries.

This act by the Court, of course, completely obliterated the notion of national sovereignty, leaving only the barest edifice of a democratic republic left for some later tyrant to knock completely to the ground.

All these shortcomings and others make plain that the entire suite of rights which defined the United States of America as a nation are no longer the operating documents upon which the soundness of our government is based.

We, the chartered members of any Second Amendment Group in good standing, have therefore come to understand that our present US Government is unsound.

Therefore, those of us who believe in the integrity of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution and in the soundness of the US Constitution as an operating document for good governance, find it necessary to declare that, in particular, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution can no longer be completely entrusted to any branch of the US Government to interpret, protect, defend or otherwise adjudicate. Furthermore, we, the chartered members of a network of autonomous Second Amendment Groups, have found it necessary to subscribe to the idea that we, ourselves, outside of state, local, federated or federal government control or adjudication, can use this Charter to preserve, protect and defend the Second Amendment of the US Constitution from those who would lead the citizens of the United States down the road to autocratic, oligarchic tyranny.

The plan, then, is to use this charter to accomplish the primary purpose of keeping the Second Amendment of the US Constitution a working part of our collective strategy for democratic governance of the United States of America, en perpetuity. No other purpose is intended or implied, nor should any responsibility for the successful implementation and deployment of this primary purpose be entrusted to any proxy but the chartered individuals of each autonomous Second Amendment Group (SAG).

We, the chartered members of any SAG in good standing, alone, are responsible for adhering to the recommended standards of weapons competence, ownership and militia regulation contained in this Charter.

A Second Amendment Group’s Relationship With Government

Sound Government Interactions

Lawful, non-partisan actions taken by a local or more federated authority that can be demonstrated to be in the service of the general welfare either through preponderance of the evidence (most-trustworthy) or through appeals to common sense (less-trustworthy than actual data), can safely be considered “sound government interactions.” No SAG should be found to be in opposition to a Sound Government Interaction and still be considered a SAG in good standing.

SAG’s, whether individually or in any collective grouping of SAG’s, should never accept “promotion of the general welfare” as an adequate argument in demonstration of sound government interaction. If a government cannot make fact-based, data-driven decisions in service to the common welfare, no SAG in good standing has any requirement to yield to an unsound government interaction.

SAG’s in good standing are required to yield to all government interactions found, or classified, as “sound.”

Steps to Declare a Government or Authority Unsound

Unsound government interactions are inherently insane, in service to the idea of government as a corporate-like entity in service, ultimately, only to itself and its own perpetuation.

Interactions with sound governments are inherently simple, common-sense and free from the encumbrances of long-winded, complex, litigious and costly processes. If any of these encumbrances are present in a government interaction, one or more unsound governmental practices are at work either blatantly or behind-the-scenes.

If the government, or entity of questionable soundness, acknowledges its own insanity formally, in writing and made publicly known to the point of common knowledge among the general public, a SAG can be temporarily blocked from any individual or collective SAG sanction.

Once a SAG in good standing has declared an interaction with a government or federated entity to be unsound, it must announce that fact to other SAG’s and to the governmental agencies or authorities who are directly impacted by this finding.

This declaration of unsoundness need only be done once with proof of receipt from other SAG organizations.

Proof of receipt from the entity found to be operating in an unsound manner is preferred, but not specifically required for obvious reasons.

1. Collection of relevant data for and against soundness
2. Demonstrated examples of the consequences of unsoundness
3. Proposed solution(s) to the entity to regain a finding of soundness
4. A statement of the unequivocal, irrevocable steps that will be immediately undertaken as a result of this finding of unsoundness.

Interactions With Unsound Governments

From the point of declaration of unsoundness by a single SAG in good standing, it behooves that SAG to organize a collective action that is both tactically and strategically sound.

Collective actions have as their minimum result a government or federated authority that publicly to the point of common knowledge among the general public declares its own unsoundness.

All strategies and tactics that do not have as their first goal the entity’s public, common-knowledge declaration of its own unsoundness, do not represent sound strategy and tactics for dealing with unsound governments.

Beyond an entity’s demonstrated or actual refusal to declare its own unsoundness in honest and straightforward terms easily understood by the general public, no SAG and no collective group of SAGs are under a specific requirement to demonstrate civility, cooperation or honesty.

Bringing unsoundness to heel is, of course, a first goal, but endless equivocation and mendacity on the part of the unsound entity should be expected as a direct consequence of its unsound nature.

In the event of a sanction action, five percent of the population of the unsound entity should be preserved in the interest of collective historical data and any future findings of unsoundness on the part of either the sanctioning SAG or the entity sanctioned. Choose the survivors of a sanction as wisely as possible, but make no mistake: sanctioning is serious business and human beings will die as a direct result of a finding of unsoundness by a SAG and a subsequent strategic and tactical action undertaken by a SAG collective.

The case for insanity is very strong among the insane, so mincing words or practicing outright dishonesty with a SAG or its collective by any outside group or authority will be discouraged through the use of lethal force as a last resort following a declaration of unsoundness.

Once all preparations are made to include the number of survivors of a sanction, a sanction will be carried out that preserves as many SAG members as possible and only the number of those survivors decided at the outset of the sanction. Everyone else is to be considered acceptable collateral damage.

The target of a sanction must be the source of the unsoundness within the entity targeted, first and foremost.

All support entities in service to the unsoundness must also be destroyed. This is includes all communication, transportation or information resource entities to include tangible targets. If the unsound entity retains a defensive militia of any sort in service to its unsoundness, eighty-percent of that militia should be destroyed.

Interaction with unsound governments or governmental authorities is a practice of unsoundness in the first place, so limiting the number of interactions with these insane actors is important, as well as making these interactions as unequivocal and of as high a quality as possible.

Killing is a bitter business and it is our own ethical conduct when carrying out sanctions against insane actors that preserves the human mind from the inevitable consequences of sacrificing human lives for the survival of the Second Amendment as a viable instrument of human civilization.

A Second Amendment Group’s Relationship With Other Militias

Sound Militia Interactions

Promotion of the general, common welfare can never be the basis of a sound interaction with any entity be it governmental, quasi-governmental or individual. One either knows what the general welfare is and serves it, or one is without bearings. If a significant amount of an entity’s appeal rests in “promotion,” it is to be regarded with utmost caution and concern. Promotion is veiled force, plain and simple, so not all cards are on the table or known by promoter or the target audience.

Service to the general welfare is a fact-based, fact-finding enterprise and cannot be left to mere chance encounters among entities like other militias or governmental organizations. Therefore, two entities looking to interact on the basis of mutual trust and respect must first be willing and able to engage one another using methods and processes known by the general public and determined by content experts to be in the set of “best practices” for any particular praxis of entity to entity interactions.

Since the number and kind of “axes” of entity to entity interaction has yet to be delineated or fully known at this time, the basic principles for determining “soundness” must begin with “ability to determine soundness,” and “willingness to determine soundness.” If an entity is neither willing, nor able to determine the soundness of its own internal interactions, it cannot be expected to be a sound partner for entity to entity interactions; therefore trust across militias would be impossible to achieve. Peaceful, respectful absorption of the unsound militia by the sound one is a “sound” interaction at this point. The only other sound interaction at this point in the analysis would be to terminate further interaction as a militia to another militia until such time as the potential militia becomes able to willingly and soundly engage in mutual fact-finding.

Symptoms of inability or unwillingness to determine the soundness of internal interactions must be analyzed, cataloged and used as the sole determining factor in assessing a militia’s internal soundness both now and in future cases. This catalog of symptoms of unsoundness, whether they be due to inability or unwillingness, must be in-use internal measures of soundness in the assessing militia before they can be projected outward to interactions between or across entities or other militias.

Once a common set of symptoms of unsoundness across entities is complete and analysis has produced a general agreement across entities, the process of both militias working together with mutual trust and respect, as well as moving forward together to develop as individuals and groups can be considered, “sound enough,” to progress into other measures and axes of militia compatibility and evidence gathering to further determine soundness of interactions across militias. The production of trustworthy data for further, future analysis and application is a key behavior inherent in militia or entity, “soundness.”

The goal of soundness in intra and inter-militia interactions is to maximize peaceful, respectful, trust-building interactions while at the same time maximizing effectiveness and efficiency as a militia. With these two axes of measurement at optimal levels, sound interactions between people and organizations would be maximized and maximum peace, it is believed, would be the order of every day.

Some would believe, in the absence of historical evidence or competent analysis, that the mere presence of any militia is an a priori indication of unsoundness be it in a government, an organization or a militia. The Founders of the United States found this to be untrue as it was clear then, as now, that organized behavior frequently becomes unsound and will then utilize criminal means to right itself. While this tendency is absurd on its face – the use of criminality to correct the behavior of an organization that has become unsound in its daily or regular operations – it is, nevertheless, the historical norm for unsound organizations, hence the emphasis on obtaining and maintaining inter-organizational, organizational and personal soundness. “Sanity,” would be an appropriate synonym to use in establishing any criteria for soundness of purpose or operation.

Militia Behavior Automatically Categorized As Unsound

This list is not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive, but only to serve as a foundation onto which will be poured other criteria that will increase the granularity of the focus on soundness without reducing in any relevant manner the basic principles of soundness seen as the opposite behaviors or observations contained herein.

1. A cult of personality wherein individual loyalty to persons is valued above individual commitment to operating according to best practices or the principles derived from best practices. A gang, an angry mob or any organization ruled by a single charismatic leader or core would be examples of militias or organizations where personalities rule above principled, justifiable actions backed up by sound data gathering principles and analysis.

2. An unwillingness by the militia to adopt the principles and methods necessary to soundly gather and analyze relevant measurements of soundness of and within the militia.

3. A disability, perhaps measured by a relative unwillingness within the militia, to soundly obtain and soundly analyze the measures of an effective and efficient militia operation. This could also be demonstrated through multiple observations of behavior within the operating militia where distrust, disrespect or disorder in data gathering are made in a brief, but reasonably sound, period of time.

4. Observed repeated failures to act on the sound analysis of observed measurements. Either a measurement discriminates too little or too much, or the measurement measures nothing of relevance towards the perpetuation of sound militia operations and interactions. In any case, documented actions should be taken to resolve any unsound practices, measures or methods and that documentation should be observable to at least the general militia population.

5. Lack of openness regarding the data or analysis of that data that is related to militia effectiveness or efficiency. Some individual measurements of soundness may well require privacy unless or until a challenge to those findings or their relevance is made public.

6. Reliance on secrecy in the conduct of day to day operations either inside or across militias. Prudent discretion is not secrecy, but indiscretion and its effects can be clearly measured, analyzed and reconciled to arrive at sound information and data policies. Cause and effect chains can and should be mapped and understood before any attempt is made to censure or declare an individual or militia unsound.

7. Armed conflict should not be construed to be a daily, routine operation for any militia. Reliance on conflict so as to preserve a climate of secrecy within or across militias is an unsound militia practice.

8. An inadequate administrative function such that decisionmaking authority for the militia or organization is unclear or obscure. More principles should be gathered as data becomes available to form a set of best practices in the operation and maintenance of a “sound militia.”

Interactions With Unsound Militias

Unsounds militias, by definition, cannot be entrusted with a long term relationship the foundation of which is a set of simple shared values, mutual trust and mutual respect. This does not necessarily mean that all hope for a single relationship-like transaction is lost, only that it cannot be expected to be fulfilled.

Every SAG can and should have its own set of rules for dealing with these sorts of organizations depending upon the size or level of asymmetry that exists between the SAG and the unsound militia in question. It is best and highly recommended that whatever policy the SAG has it should be written down, generally known and publicly available so that there can be no question as to the how and the why of any particular relationship-like transaction or the response to a successful or unsuccessful transaction. This written policy should include the trust-steps that the unsound militia must take before a change in classification from unsound to sound can take place. A network of militias is only as good as its weakest link, so any steps necessary to requalify a militia as sound need to bear in mind that the integrity of the entire Second Amendment Group movement is at risk when either the qualifications process or its documentation for auditing purposes is out of accord with best practices.

Before any defensive or offensive actions can be taken against any organization or militia, that organization or militia must be determined to be unsound. Once that determination is made and the steps to requalify as sound, as well as the reasons for the declaration of unsoundness have been made clear to that unsound organization or militia, these facts must be communicated to at least one other SAG capable of joining in an action against an unsound militia or organization.

Once an agreement to engage in offensive or defensive maneuvers against an unsound entity are made with at least one other SAG, it is a matter of strategy, tactics, time and resources as far as when such actions should take place. The only obligation a SAG has to an unsound entity is to provide a proven, best practice-based, documented and auditable path out of the declaration of unsoundness by the SAG making the determination. Once the SAG has begun the process of organizing collective actions for or against an unsound entity, that path is subject to the dictates of the larger collective, not the individual SAG. So it is absolutely essential that for most offensive or defensive collective actions, the SAG network involved should be of sufficient size to meet a reasonable expectation of mission success. The larger collective not included in the originating collective consensus building activities cannot be held accountable for the failure of the missions of the smaller collective. Therefore the onus for contingency planning must be on the organizing collective of SAGs choosing to take collective actions.

The vast majority of unsound militias or entities should present no threat to the existence of any SAG or network of SAGs. If, however, it has been determined via affidavit, legal instrument or other reliable evidence that a SAG does have reason to believe it is under threat by an unsound militia or entity, collective action must be initiated and organized. It is a matter of organizational commitment and pride in the SAG movement for other SAGs to come together in unity of purpose and mission to counter the impending threat to the viability of any one SAG by an unsound entity.

The documentation and traceability of the process of escalation between the SAGs and unsound entities may seem cumbersome, but it is absolutely essential both in terms of maintaining a suite of best practices and in terms of garnering support with sound non-SAG entities with whom a SAG or SAG collective might partner. We must share values of transparency within the SAG movement and with sound non-SAG entities to the maximum extent possible. When a SAG collective has made a decision to engage in collective action, it should come to be universally understood that serious, sometimes lethal consequences, are sure to follow at a time and place of the SAG collective’s own choosing. At this time it is believed that the level of qualifications in terms of marksmanship and organization required to become a SAG in good standing is sufficiently rigorous that no entity, sound or unsound, would wisely choose to threaten the existence or viability of any SAG group.

A Second Amendment Group’s Relationship With Noncombatants

The United Nations has a very loose definition of noncombatant that could easily place a SAG member engaged in a collective action under threat of loss of life. Therefore, if a SAG member is actively engaged in an armed collective action, any civilian or known combatant brandishing a weapon of lethal or disabling force, cannot be considered a noncombatant. All combatants in a theatre where lethal force is to be employed under any rule of engagement can be killed without any resulting sanction from any SAG group.

A noncombatant is any civilian or member of a sound entity not brandishing a weapon of lethal or disabling force. If any such weapon exists on or near the person of such a noncombatant, their dropping it to the ground and/or raising their hands above their head is to be strictly construed as noncombatant, non-lethal, non-brandishing behavior. Therefore such individuals are to be considered and treated as noncombatants.

Good to excellent relations with noncombatants must be maintained by a SAG and its membership in order to retain a classification of soundness. While mission success has top priority for a SAG or collective, if a SAG has a written policy and plan for dealing with noncombatants the reasonable purpose of which is maintaining good to excellent relations prior to engagement in a mission, no finding of unsoundness against a SAG or a member is possible unless those policies and procedures were not followed by the SAG or its member(s).

It would be unsound and unreasonable to expect that an unsound opponent in armed conflict would not seek to use noncombatants in a scheme designed to injure, disable or kill a SAG member or collective. Therefore it is essential that every decision to engage in armed conflict with an opponent include a reasonable plan for evacuation of noncombatants to a geographically identifiable DMZ (demilitarized zone) where their lives and health can be preserved during hostilities. Prior to or during engagement with noncombatants, the location of this DMZ must be made known. Included in the plan must be reasonable and adequate plans for evacuation to the DMZ so that a maximum number of noncombatants cannot be used by unsound opponents as human shields or traps. With these plans in place and the procedures followed, no finding of unsoundness is possible even if relations with noncombatants slip below the threshold of “good relations” as a result of armed engagements.

A Second Amendment Group’s Relationship With Itself

Sanity and soundness, which sound like pipedreams in the world we have engineered for ourselves, are absolutely essential characteristics to identify, develop and maintain for ourselves. These are not just the foundational elements of good character to be actively pursued by monks, priests and people who no longer work for a living, but the bedrock upon which we build a functional relationship with ourselves and, by extension, each other.

Insanity, emotional illness or mental disease develop because we adopt and practice unsound principles with which to live our lives. For too long now we have allowed ourselves to be told by figures of authority how we should live, what we should think, how we should feel and what we should do. This is complete nonsense. Any governing body, organization or militia that seeks to manage the lives of its citizens or members is spending too much time trying to run individual lives and no time demonstrating how following proper principles of self-governance can be the model that sane people would freely choose to accept and adopt into their own lives.

How we do any one thing is how we will do everything. Remember that saying and watch its truth unfold before you as you watch the wasteful become wasted and the arrogant become humiliated.

If we are methodical in our approach (1), precise in following the principles we believe will work (2), honest with ourselves and others about our results (3) and generous about sharing what we find and have found (4), we cannot fail to be attractive those who want to live peaceful, worthwhile lives. If our relationship with ourselves is not well, our treatment of others according to these principles of methodology, precision, honesty and generosity will begin to alter our unhealthy relationship with ourselves. If our relationships with others have been unhealthy, our continued willingness to believe in and practice these four core principles will begin to bear fruit and fences will mend between neighbors.

But make no mistake, if we have no principles to guide us back to health, we will become sick, get sicker, infect others with our sicknesses and our relationship with ourselves and others will shear into tatters and blow away in the winds of change. We did not come into this world to leave it in worse condition than we found it, nor is it sound to strive to become so unhealthy that others may take pity on us and we ensnare them in our little games of cat and mouse, victim and perpetrator or enabler and abuser. So sanity and soundness are not just goals for us, but a way of life that we must insist on from ourselves and in our relations with others.

Obviously our species is not stable at present. We fight amongst ourselves over power or resources of one kind or other and those among us who are equipped to fight without mercy or ruth have bubbled and clawed their way to top of the social pyramid in many circles. As human beings capable of empathy and compassion for our fellows, we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated, coerced or cajoled into accepting the pathetic terms offered to us by the narcissist or the psychopath. These individuals are not fully human, not capable of conscience or regret and unworthy of our deepest and finest sentiments towards ourselves.

This state of affairs is precisely why we must become well trained in the maintenance and deployment of martial weaponry. It is not because we crave conflict or war, but because we do not wish to have it thrust upon us by the unscrupulous that we must practice, train, measure, improve and train others to do the same.

Not everyone can wield a weapon in battle effectively. Some would do well to avoid battlefield stress entirely. But every member of a group can contribute mightily when our communal goal is to establish a comradeship and affinity where the whole becomes greater than the sum of its many parts. There are many tasks required to fulfill our four core principles and the burden should be shared with the understanding that not everyone will seen as equal contributors to the success of a SAG. But too often ambition to have more than others subdues the ambition to be of service to the health of the overall community. Without the fellowship of a healthy SAG, we will become separated and will become a house divided against itself. Without unity of purpose and commitment to our SAG and the principles on which all SAGs are based, we will spend the rest of our lives in a footrace against centers of power and corruption that would seek to enslave us, our children and our children’s children. So unity at the SAG level is, at a minimum, a first priority.

However, we cannot expect a single SAG to be all things to all people; people need to breathe, explore, expand and become the best person that they know how to be. The SAG Charter would be worthless if it sought to discourage individual achievement used in service to the whole. Make no mistake that is our challenge at both group and higher levels within the SAG community: how do we enable individuals to develop their ambition to serve group purposes without discouraging their willingness to do so? Some SAG’s will believe they have THE answer to this question, a one-size-fits-all approach that may or may not work. That is why SAG members need to be given the freedom to grow, branch off and flourish where they find themselves. If a single member cannot be fitted to be of service to one group, it is up to the SAG community to be of service to the individual, to discover or uncover their talents and bring those talents to bear on the problem of effective self governance. Or it is up to the SAG community to make clear who should and who should not be permitted to possess anything like the power to make life or death decisions over anyone else’s life.

So the purpose of this charter is to establish baseline minimums for functional relationships across SAG’s and to then allow, expect, encourage or even celebrate the autonomy of any single SAG. Sometimes people will need to fit themselves to the SAG Community and sometimes the SAG Community or individual group would do well to fit themselves to be of service to the individual. Flexibility and autonomy need to be at a maximum where our core principles and their derivative best practices are not directly at risk or directly involved.

Beyond these high level suggestions and recommendations, the SAG Community, as a whole, must require the following from its individual SAG’s at a minimum.

1) Compliance with the most current revision of this Charter and the group’s addendums

2) A publicly available process document compendium explaining all the group’s processes, best practice findings and measurements that prove, without confounds, the soundness of the group’s processes.

3) A minimum of 1,000 rounds of battlefield ammunition or equivalent lethal force

4) A minimum of one weapon capable of deploying the ammunition of requirement #3 down range or on the battlefield, or one person capable of neutralizing a minimum of two opponents in a life threatening situation.

5) Publicly available records demonstrating minimal competence with at least the weapon mentioned in Requirement # 3, or demonstrated ability to neutralize two opponents in a life threatening situation. Regular drills and skills test records that demonstrate that the individuals within the group continue to maintain at least minimum competence requirements.

6) Publicly available records showing any remedial steps and processes taken to adjudicate or resolve the findings of the regular measurements mentioned in requirement #5.

7) Publicly available regular meeting minutes with any subordinate action plans to include the individuals responsible for carrying out those action plans and the dates those actions are to be completed.

8) Publicly available metrics demonstrating that the SAG, as a whole, utilizes metrics gathered in good faith from the individual and group performance data to guide the SAG in its decisions and action plans, as well as develop and refine a set of best practices found in the document compendium mentioned in requirement # 2.

9) Publicly available policy processes, findings, metrics and best practices utilized in ameliorating, avoiding or resolving intra- and inter-group conflicts within and outside the SAG community

10) Maintenance of at least “good” relations within the surrounding community in which the SAG is geographically located.

11) Maintenance of a finding of soundness measured by a SAG not collocated but within the SAG community itself at least annually. All SAG’s must be found to be “sound” or they are to be placed in remediation until soundness is restored.

12) Any and all dues or fees collected from membership must be in direct service of all 12 of these requirements and for the maintenance of all bottom-up regional and nationwide SAG activities. No one member can donate or disperse more than the equivalent of $1,000 USD in any given year in support of SAG activities. Under no circumstances are there to be officers within the SAG community who accept remuneration for their service to the SAG community. We must run on a shoestring budget at all times. A minimum required Chart of Accounts ledger for SAG activities is forthcoming. All transactions relating to the SAG community, its actions and its activities must utilize these CoA account names and be conducted in standard double-entry format. Day to day activities may be conducted in bookkeeping, single-entry style, however those transactions are to be captured and balanced double-entry style at least monthly using the standardized CoA and reported at group level at least monthly. Findings of “unsoundness” can be caused by a group’s failure to stay fiscally accountable with both its local membership and the SAG Community as a whole.

A Second Amendment Group’s Relationship With Other SAGs

Starting a Second Amendment Group

If you are the rightful, authorized owner of a firearm or weapon and possess a minimum of 1,000 rounds of ammunition for that firearm or equivalent force for a weapon, you can begin the process involved in organizing a SAG.

A general distaste or resentment against the established administrative or governmental order in which you live or serve is an important motivation for becoming a SAG member.

A similiarly equipped and predisposed comrade at arms willing and able to assist in the creation, command and/or maintenance of a SAG is an absolutely essential part of forming a SAG membership.

A plan for enlisting additional support for the recruitment of additional membership, firearms, weapons, ammunition and implementing the recommended systems of control arising out of this Second Amendment movement and this living Charter.