Mark “Oz” Geist, Quest for 2019 NRA Board of Directors

Editors' Note: Mark “Oz” Geist is a real American hero and proven problem solver. He is campaigning for his first time for the 2019 National Rifle Association's Board of Directors, please consider him for your vote.

Mark “Oz” Geist
Mark “Oz” Geist

USA – -( My name is Mark “Oz” Geist. I was nominated to run for the NRA board by Lt Col Oliver North. I am a 12-year veteran of the United States Marine Corps.

After being honorably discharged, I continued to serve my community as a Law Enforcement Officer. Six years later, I began my career as a Private Security Contractor for this great nation.

In doing so, the other members of the Annex security team and I saved more than 25 American lives.

Because of my life experience, I believe I bring to the table a unique perspective on the various issues that face the NRA and its members. Serving on the NRA’s Board of Veteran Affairs, I want to see the NRA expand our membership and outreach to include more Veterans and minorities.

I have traveled across this great country of ours over the past few years and have met tens of thousands of Americans who depend on hunting and fishing to feed their families.

Self-reliance, the right to self-defense and hunting are uniquely American traditions and values that have been handed down from generation to generation. We must continue sharing these values that established this great nation.

The 2nd Amendment was given to “We the People” so that we can have the means to protect the rest of the United States Constitution. In doing this, we must focus on the long game. We must address this fight from both a strategic view as well as a tactical view.

Ultimately it is the war we must win and how we fight this war will vary from battle to battle. I ask that you not get discouraged if it appears that we are weak on one front, for it will allow us to be stronger on another.

Trust in the fact that my focus is on one thing and that is protecting this Country, its people and the Constitution of these United States of America and to do so we must retain a strong and vibrant 2nd Amendment.

The enemy we face is laser-focused on taking away our 2nd Amendment rights. The liberal far left has shown us that they will stop at nothing to degrade, harm and attack those who do not believe the way they do. If we do not stand together, we will lose alone. So, I ask you all to Vote for me and know I will have your 6!

~ Mark “OZ” Geist

Mark Geist Backgrounder:

Mark “Oz” Geist is a member of the Annex Security Team that fought the Battle of Benghazi, Libya, from September 11 to September 12, 2012. A Colorado native, Mr. Geist joined the United States Marine Corps in 1984. During his time in the service, he served in Barracks Duty in the Philippines, then with the 2nd Battalion 9th Marines Golf Company, as well as the Surveillance and Target Acquisition Platoon. He then was chosen to serve in the newly formed Marine Cadre program as an Anti-/Counter- Terrorism Instructor. Upon the completion of a very successful tour and re-enlistment, Mr. Geist changed his military occupational specialty to the Intelligence field, specializing in Interrogation Translation. He attended language school where he studied Persian Farsi.

After serving 12 years in the United States Maine Corps, Mr. Geist became a Deputy Sheriff in Teller County, Colorado. In that role, he was assigned as liaison with the Vice Narcotics and Intelligence Unit in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as well as an Investigator for Crimes against Children. Certified as a Forensic Interviewer of children, he investigated numerous case of abuse in which he helped to secure convictions of the perpetrators. He then took a job as Chief of Police in Fowler, Colorado. After leaving the Fowler Police Department, Mr. Geist began his own business in private investigations as well as bounty hunting and bail bonds.

In 2004, Mr. Geist began doing contract security work in Iraq. He worked for Triple Canopy, providing Personal Security Details for Department of State personnel in Baquba, Iraq. Upon the completion of that contract, he worked for USIS, the United States Investigative Services, training Iraqi SWAT teams and Personal Security Details. He also served as a mentor/advisor to the Personal Security Detail of Dr. Ayad Allawi, the former Prime Minister of Iraq.

Mr. Geist finished his career as a security contractor in Benghazi, Libya, where he was credited with helping to save the lives of more than 25 Americans. Mr. Geist is still recovering from the injuries he sustained in the battle. He is a co-author of the bestselling book 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi.

For more on Mark “Oz” Geist visit

  • 53 thoughts on “Mark “Oz” Geist, Quest for 2019 NRA Board of Directors

    1. There’s a lot of back and forth here by what many would say are keyboard patriots. If you have question for Mark Geist then ask him. >>> <<<
      Don't talk crap on a forum where he cannot respond as the article is written by someone else. His statements are basic for task of letting you to get to know him. His remarks were not meant to be some sort of constitutional statement to please those with tunnel vision that only see what's in front of them.
      I've never met Geist but I have had a few occasions to converse with Kris 'Tanto' Paranto. He'd most likely tell you to put up, speak up or shut the [email protected] up! Mark probably would likely do the same.
      We need leaders like Geist and he is one of the best we can get in the NRA. So man or woman up! Be a patriot, Be a warrior. Close your mouths because talking won't get it done.

      1. So Nottinghill,

        Are you saying he did not write the forward part of the Article to which his name is attached claiming to be his words?

        Sadly the website you linked to does not provide a direct means of contacting him either, unless it is to book him as a speaker or hire him for training seminars. Even those may go through a middle man.

        No let me propose to you a question. Much of the problems within the NRA are caused by leadership not defending the Constitution as it was written. So why wouldn’t we demand that if we are going to vote for someone that it should be based on defending constitutional principles? If Mr. Geist doesn’t have the Constitutional understanding for the position then he is not the right man to be there even with his service in the military, or the NRA acknowledges that it has nothing to do with defending constitutional rights and goes back to being a gun club dedicated to training for which he absolutely would be ideal. This is not keyboard patriotism, IT IS telling the people to stop saying what some people want to hear and start putting up.

      2. I have,
        I know the man.
        He was the Cheif of police for the town of Fowler CO. Mark is a stand-up guy true to his word and dam sure not afraid to stand for what he believes in.
        The man is very approachable and I believe he would welcome any questions you may have.
        Chris Spera
        Nepesta Cattle Co LLC
        Fowler CO

    2. OK after all this go back and compare death by blade in oriental and muslim controlled countries, to the US death by firearms.

    3. Its nice to be able to have time to have a debate and cast your vote. But the RKBA will be fought at each gun owners front door at 3am. Knock Knock! We want your guns! My name could be iron felix.
      Only the names have changed, whats ur name?

      1. There are lots of NRA members who like to suggest that responsible gun safety laws of the type that have worked in every developed country in the world mean that guns will be banned in america if common sense gun safety laws are allowed to exist.. And as long as NRA members and gun owners continue with this all or nothing fallacy, america’s gun violence toll will continue to rise and the NRAa and its gun owneing members will be increasingly out of touch with reality. Responsible gun owners embrace gun safety instead of NRA extremist politics and fear propaganda of the type we keep seeing from the NRA. Including from this board candidate. Just say no to fear, myths and extremist politics. The NRA should be representing the average american instead of extremist gun anarchists like LaPierre and North.

        1. Unfortunately for you, America has something those other countries do not have. It’s called the bill of rights, and it forbids Government at all levels from infringing on the rights of individuals. We will never embrace your controls, nor will we ever acknowledge them as common sense or having anything to do with safety. They are strictly about controlling citizen firearms ownership, and every idiotic ideolog that has pushed it has at times admitted it when they thought they were speaking to people friendly to their cause.

          So before I provide these quotes, we will not work with you, we will not compromise with you, and we will not comply with what you want. If you try to force them on us, you are going to have to go door to door and attempt to murder us because we are not going to hand anything over, we are not going to register, and we are going to tell you where to stick your opinion.

          US Politicians
          Bill Clinton
          “Only the police should have handguns.”

          “When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps”

          Pete Stark
          “If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.”

          Joe Biden
          “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”

          Major Owens
          “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

          Dianne Feinstein
          “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it.”

          Howard Metzenbaum
          “No, we’re NOT LOOKING AT HOW TO CONTROL CRIMINALS … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”

          Historical Gun Control opponents

          Adolf Hitler
          “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

          Joseph Stalin
          “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

          Vladimir Lenin
          “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”

        2. Gun violence is perpetrated by criminals many of them are poor, gang, and drug related. Let’s do something about that instead of focusing on guns. #1 secure the border, #2 wipe out the gangs, #3 get education to the poor, #4 bring gun education to all schools. They are tools only and the user is to blame for misuse of said tool. Nothing scary about guns. They are just metal and plastic. I will NOT support any legislation that infringed on the 2A or any other part of the constitution.

    4. Mark couches his comments in terms of political partisanship throughout. But gun safety and responsible gun ownership is not a political issue. The willingness to accept that america has the worst per capita gun violence rate in the developed world and that responsible gun owners embrace gun safety should be responsibility #1 for any NRA official. Mark hasn’t done that in any way in his statement. The NRA needs a significant change in its leadership. Away from extremism, promoting myths and fear in order to sell guns for the NRAs backers, the gun and ammo industry, should be job 1 for the NRA. Until that happens, its reputation as an extremist organization opposed to reasonable gun safety measures earns the NRA will continue to be part of america’s worsening gun violence epidemic. How about some common sense for a change guys. Gun safety laws have worked in every developed nation on earth, yet the NRA fights against them. Including even being opposed to gun violence research efforts. It would appear the NRA is afraid of the truth. And they should be. LaPierre and Norths bloated salaries would be in danger if they broke from the fear and “guns everywhere” policies that the gun and ammo industries profit motives require of them. Tens of millions of dollars in ad space in nRA publication and donations come from those gun manufacturers. Time for some reality and turning to common sense. Mark’s appeal to fear about gun safety advocates shows he’s not interested in addressing america’s dangerous gun culture and worsening death rate.

          1. No, as of 2016 we ranked number 10, behind several African and South American countries(Such as Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, El Salvador, and the Worst was Honduras.

            Then again, knowing your propensity for lies already, you’re not talking about facts, you’re just spouting talking points hoping no one else knows the real numbers again.

          2. Believe och is a bloomberger illegal import , living on wellfare in a basement in nyc . Has no idea what per capata even means .

            1. Yes, I was there for his initial comment on Ammoland. Recognized him from the start.

              He is definitely in the constraints of a cranial rectal insertion.

          3. You mean, “per capita,” but you have no idea what that is or how to calculate it, you idiot!

            The only way you can make your statement get even CLOSE to accurate mathematically is to add suicide deaths into the US figures, while taking suicide rates out of other countries. What a moron.

      1. @ Och will your long winded comment means nothing to me because in your third line you didn’t feel it was important to capitalize the word America. That burned a hole in your whole post because you don’t respect this country enough to capitalize its name. Troll, troll your boat gently down the stream.

        1. @Tcat, Ochgabble can hardly start out in the correct direction before he meanders off into some weird fantasy world of his own imaginings. I bet his handlers shit a brick when they review his work.

        2. Thanks for sharing the eight grade mentality tomcat. Not impressed rambo. I do understand that its hard for you to stay on topic for more than a century for two. You didn’t address anything I said with your comment.

          1. @och will I didn’t intend to comment on anything you wrote. You failed your eighth grade and proceeding grades of education because you did not learn to capitalize important words but you did learn to turn your primitive comments to be someone else’s fault. Must have been on the playground, last year.
            I had no intention of impressing you, I am standing up for the country many of us appreciate and have taken an oath to guard from shills like you. Capitalize the word America, dunce.

            1. @Tcat, och swill makes a lot of English errors. I wonder if he is a native speaker. If not a native speaker, then he could be a propagandist from anywhere in the world. If the Russians or Chinese can get firearms ownership eliminated in America, then invasion of America would be a hell of a lot easier. Just guessing.

          1. @och will.

            Actually, your comments represent evidence, particularly against you.

            Your inability to spell or put together a coherent complete sentence fragment only serves to make people on the left that would agree with your idiotic positions hide and feign innocence of knowing you. Most people upon reading the slop that you wrote here today will likely come to the conclusion that you have either reached the point of pickling inside out from whatever you are drinking or that you have been hitting the laser lettuce. Regardless, something is seriously wrong with your agent orange.

      2. Oldmarine >>> och will
        I don’t know where you got your numbers from but you need to do more research because you are terribly wrong.
        you need to NOT rely on one set of numbers because WOW I have never see such ridicules numbers any where.
        Many studies say otherwise. You are right about one thing that is “It’s not about gun safety” . It’s about crimes against the Constitution and the People. If we don’t go after the Violators of the Constitution then it will only get worse. We can bitch and whine all we want but it will eventually be US the citizens that will have to deal with all of these criminals. The ONLY thing and I mean the ONLY thing that will work is for citizens begin Charging the Anti- Constitution criminals with their crimes. Everything must be done according to the Constitution including going after the domestic terrorist in political positions. Enemies of the Constitution are the enemies of the country and the people. The ONLY thing that will fix this is to become offensive in the law. Does anyone understand this ???

        1. Excuse me. Where did I get my numbers??????? Can’t help you understand the situation if you are too lazy to research what’s happening in gun violence in the USA.
          There are multiple sources for that data.

          1. Ochwill,
            You are correct in that research on gun violence from trusted sources are almost limitless for anyone to query. However, I have found over and over that ultra right hand gun activists like to site their own sources. For example, they obtain their information from a recipe on the best way to cook possum. They want it cooked like THEY LIKE IT! Possum is not for everyone. Is it trigger hands!

          2. @Green Watch Dog.

            And you just showed you have no idea how to do research beyond a basic google search for opinion pieces that you like only because they agree with your opinion.

            Try this. 10 Countries using Per Capita(100K) Gun-death rates
            1. Honduras @ 65
            2.Venezula @ 51 (some sources have it as high as 59)
            3. El Salvador @ 46
            4. Swaziland @ 37
            5. Guatemala @ 35
            6. Jamaica @ 31
            7. Brazil @ 22
            8. Columbia @ 19
            9. Panama @ 15
            10. The US @ 12

            What is even more interesting is that The US has approximately 120 firearms per 100 citizens. The closest country as far as ownership to that is Serbia with less than 38 per 100 citizens. So, we have more than 3 times the number of firearms compared to the next closest country but we are by far not the 1st in the world when it comes to firearms violence per capita.

            In otherwords, there is something wrong with och Will’s numbers GWD. This is the third time he has been caught in a lie, and the third time you have supported him here in agreement with that lie while disparaging those who believe in Gun Rights as being radicals.

            1. @ The revelator,
              Yes, you are correct to compare other countries that are 3rd tier. Dangerous places to live. Your list are ones that are the some of the most violent. Try to compare to where human beings live in developed, prosperous, and economically vibrant countries such as Canada, England, Australia, etc.
              Now it is my bed time, and I need to shower and get ready for a new day. Have a good night.

            2. @Green Watch Dog

              You mean like Venezuela that prior to Chavez was in the top 5 most prosperous countries in the world?

              The more interesting point is that most of those countries I listed have some pretty strict forms of Gun Control. This will be fun to watch over the next 10 year span as Brazil’s new President just returned Gun Rights to the Brazilian people a few weeks ago. It will be interesting to watch what happens when gangs and drug lords start getting shot back at when they target innocent civilians.

              You want to talk about London?
              Gun Crime up 42% in 2017, violent crime up even higher. Englands crime rate right now is soaring.

              Australia? Yeah, wrote plenty of college papers documenting that fiasco. A non compliance rate of close to 70% with their firearms laws. When the law took effect, in the more populated areas which did comply the murder rate rose and spiked. And, just to be clear, the sources for those numbers I gave you before was the University of Sydney in Australia since I tried to find a source that would be coming from your point of view. The actual numbers in Foreign countries, including the “Developed and prosperous”, are on average about 15% higher do to under reporting. The US is one of the few countries that tries to accurately report our numbers.

              Canada, I actually lived there for a while back in the 90’s. Toronto right now is having a rise in crime. 30% spike in homicides for 2018. Canada also has a similar issue compared to Australia. The majority of the country did not comply with most of their laws including the Long Arms Registry. It got so bad that in 2012 with their registry doing nothing to solve crime problems the parliament introduced and passed Bill C-19 to abolish the Long Gun Registry.

              That is the reality of Canada, England, and Australia; three countries whose combined population still does not equal our own. Therein lies the problem. Even among developed countries you are never going to get equal comparisons due to differences in values, history, economics, or even density. Now if you like the laws they have, finish school and move to one of them. Live under those laws. I can tell you from experience the reality is much different from the flowery language and virtue signaling of their politicians passing bad laws.

            3. @Rev, And I have read analysis to the effect that if one takes out the death related to firearms statistics from the three top dangerous cities, then the US is an incredibly safe place to live.
              Of course, “safety” depends upon who defines it. I have heard of certain green rat finks calling the police when a Chihuahua came out to bark at him.

            4. From the BBC: “The Met Police’s figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016”.
              “Crime offense”. That is a broad term isn’t it Revelator ? You should know that
              the U.K. is so much lower rate of deaths caused by guns. Now I can see why I have been having so much trouble spelling your name like you like it. The auto correct on the computer tries to change it. The computer tries to spell it Revolter or Revelatory. Did you know that?

            5. @Green Watch Dog

              I’m going to break down the article for you since you either did not understand it, or you are trying to intentionally muddy the waters.

              “Gun Crime Offenses”
              Why is this important even if it is broad. Well first of all, for a country whose Gun Control legislative efforts were supposed to stop “Gun Related Crime” through controlling firearms possession, it really has not done anything to stop it. In spite of the law which has been in effect for over two decades it is still prevalent enough to see a significant increase. Keep in mind, this was specifically for the numbers centered in one major city in the UK, not the entirety of the UK.

              “But their homicide numbers are so much lower.”
              Ok, and we have more than five times their entire population, combined with borders that to not have the same level of security compared to the UK.

              Ok, so you want to understand their homicide rate. Ok here are some interesting numbers then.

              Here in the US, ownership of firearms is more than 40 times that of the UK. So if you use the understanding of those numbers at the Per Capita rate here is what you get.

              2.9 per 100 people in the UK
              Homicides per 100K .06

              120.5 per 100 people in the US
              Homicides per 100K 11.9

              So the UK has 2.4% of the guns we have in the US by population at that statistical rate.(2.9 divided by 120.5)

              To get the rate of ownership we reverse that (120.5 divided by 2.9) So we have 40.5 times the total firearms ownership by population.. Multiply the murder rate by 40.5 (.06 times 40.5) and you get 2.43 the expected equivalent. (2.43 divided by 11.9) comes out to about 20 percent expected for an apples to apples comparison at 2.4% of our total. I understand if this is confusing for most.


              But this is not the full story. Knife Crime. The UK has spent the last few years regulating kitchen knives, and a decade or better restricting or banning pocket knives. Last year, London had a special task force doing spot stop search and confiscation of any tool that could be used as a weapon, and many of the items confiscated where Philips head screw drivers.

              You may not remember the riots from a few years ago, but they had a run on stores there leading to a shortage of sports equipment since home owners and business owners bought up all the cricket bats and were ordering baseball bats from here in the states to use for self defense.

              The UK, for all its laws which violated the rights of the law abiding in the name of safety have actually not helped make them safer. Their crime rates are rising. The more social anxiety they have there due to economic, political, and cultural stress the worse it will get. And there are some places in the UK now where the police will not answer a call.

              This is the illusion of gun control. It doesn’t make you safer. This is why Benjamin Franklin said “Those who give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither.” What this means is that when something is dangled over you head to frighten or persuade you, those who give away a portion of their rights to deal with their concerns of the moment forge the chains of their own downfall into slavery.

    5. @Wild Bill is correct and JMR is not in that the Constitution and Second Amendment simply reaffirm an existing INHERENT Right that we are given as human beings. We didn’t “get” this Right because we fought a war against another country and the Founders wrote it on a piece of paper. They knew we already possessed it. Read their foundational studies of Thomas Aquinas and how his works influenced their writings and our form of government. Yeah, a little deep but it gives you a pretty good understanding of what we, as a country and govt, are all about.

      Back to the issue at hand, the same question to Oz as anyone else: Do you believe that all firearms laws should be repealed and will you work to do everything you can to see that they are? (Something NRA has not)

      1. You didn’t read my statement correctly. I didn’t say we got the right because we fought a war, I said we earned the second amendment fighting a war after rights were taken away.

        And that rights do not come from the second amendment or the constitution. That’s why the constitution was written as a negative rights document.

        1. @JMR, I appreciate that clarification. I often look back at what I have written, and to my own horror, realize that I written something in a way that lent itself to obfuscation. Other times people bring it to my attention.

    6. @JMR: I think you have over-analyzed what Mark Geist has said. His point is that before it was written made therefore made so we had no right(s). Mark would and will make a better BOD than most who already hold these seats.
      Your statement, “Our constitution is (I believe) what’s called a negative rights constitution..” is one that I would never make because it is erroneous. Keep your beliefs to yourself. You have done what the socio-communists do. You have sought to redefine the US Constitution as it suits you.
      Mark Geist will fight for ours rights not because he was told or ordered to do so but because he wants to, as it were, to put his a$$ on the front line for us. So let us help him and not denigrate him.
      We need leaders in the NRA and not more a$$hole corporate mouthpieces.

      1. Uhh, maybe you should follow your own advice? But you have misread what I wrote, I know how our constitution works, I sometimes forget what it is precisely called. I was correct though, our constitution is a Negative Rights constitution, that’s part of what makes America so great.

        You probably were not taught this in school however, though you should have picked up on a few things if you were paying attention.

        Why is Open carry legal in most states? Because there is no law that says it’s illegal. Think of most of the laws, they’re not written to say “you can do” they’re written to say “you cannot do” why is this? Because rights are the people’s. They’re not given to them by the government, they already have them.

        Look at the way the bill of rights is written, none of it gives you anything, they all say in essensce “the federal government cannot take these rights away under any circumstance” and if you read the preamble you would know why. (Because the founder were smart enough to see this situation)

        Again, I cannot vote for people who do not understand how our constitution works, you coming in here and defending him doesn’t change that, further your idiotic attacks on me sure ain’t going to change my mind.

        If you don’t like it, go be mad somewhere else I do not care, I would advise you do your research before you spout off nonsense however.

      2. Also, I’m not real fond of people who are nominated by people in the NRA. You seem to understand that the NRA has a problem, so why would you vote for someone that that same NRA thinks is a good candidate?

        Heck some of what is written here in his statement has been echoed by those same NRA corporate mouthpieces, shills, and defenders here on ammoland over the past few months. I disagreed with the BS at that time, and I disagree with the BS at this time.

        I want people who will fight for our rights, not strategically give a little away now so that we have a little to give away next time, because that just ends in the same place as giving them all away now, it just stretches it out over a longer period of time.

        Heck the NRA pushed the Fix NICS Bill, which was used to kill national reciprocity as well, that’s part of their grand strategizing. Even though no one on the left really called for Fix NICS, because the shooting that caused the initial clamor was ended by a good guy with an AR-15 so it was swept out of the spotlite quickly. But the NRA kept pushing it, until it was attached to National Reciprocity, and then they got rid of the National Reciprocity portion, and thankfully we were able to stop it at that point since we weren’t getting anything.

        What has the NRA won for us exactly in recent years? How has their strategy played out? A losing strategy is worthless, no matter how brilliant it may be, or seem to be.

      3. I’ll help you out a little bit on understanding what the difference between negative rights and positives rights are, I just thought of the example after thinking about your dumb socio-communists remark.

        Example of a Negative right: Government cannot infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

        Positive right: You have the right to Free Healthcare, and Free College.

        Socio-communists hate negative rights, they love positive rights, because negative rights, like ours, put the power in the hands of the people, Positive rights puts the power in the hands of the government, and you better hope they are a generous government. (They never are)

        Although not all positives rights are bad, though the best ones simply reaffirm negative rights.

        (The term Negative rights is weird which is why I always struggle to remember what it’s called, it seems counter intuitive)

      4. @Nottinghill

        JMR is on the right track concerning “negative rights.” To understand it though you have to look at it from the perspective of the Government. Our Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions against government, so from their perspective it is in a negative context that prevents them from doing what they want. That is not erroneous, it is accurate.

        Where JMR goes off track is in the idea of positive rights. Healthcare and education are not rights because they rely on the actions of other people. No one has a right to demand the labor of another on their own behalf. Instead, you do have a right to try and educate yourself, or take better care of your own health. We also have a right of acquisition, which means we have the right to seek out and hire someone to help us. The difference is the end result itself is not a “right.”

        Where he is 100% correct however is on the Issue of pre-existence. The constitution does not “Grant” or give any rights. It restricts government from infringing on those rights. This is why the founding fathers cited two sources of rights more than 20 years before our Constitution came into existence. These were God, or Nature’s law. A Right is something you have from the moment you come into existence, it is something you are entitled to no matter where or when you are born.

        Now, Mr Geist has said some things we should be very concerned about. He refers to self defense and self reliance as “Traditions” instead of rights. He has also stated that the constitution “gives a right.” Under that belief, because the constitution is written by man, if it grants rights it can also take them away. He cites “To protect the constitution” as a reason, so what would stop them if it was decided that protection is no longer necessary?

        This is why rights deal with wants, not needs.

        1. If the government passes a law that says “you get free healthcare” it is a positive right. Maybe I didn’t make that part clear.

          Positive rights deal with placing the burden on other people. But they’re not rights until the government makes them so.

          1. @JMR, why even bother to try to classify our Constitution into some artificial category? Our Constitution is what is written. The first three Articles set up the three branches, and limited powers. The Bill of Rights recognizes the pre-political Rights of people that preempt governmental action.
            If you are classifying constitutions to amuse yourself that is fine. Only one Constitution is relevant to Americans.

            1. I’m not trying to classify, that’s literally what it is. It’s how the whole thing works.

              Are you really being serious here?

          2. @JMR

            No, because the Government does not have the authority or power to define or limit what rights are. That is why we have the 9th and 10th amendments expressly forbidding Government from deciding what qualifies as “Rights.”

            “Positive rights deal with placing the burden on other people.”

            For something to be a Right, it must be held and applied equally to all people. Anything that enslaves a man to his neighbor or anyone else is not a right. And yes, slavery is the proper term, not burden. No one has the right to force another to work if the benefit is going to someone else other than the person doing the work, to do so is slavery. That is not and never will be a right, it is welfare plain and simple with your money being taken at the point of a gun.

            1. Yes that’s why positive rights suck, but that doesn’t changed what they are, they are still positive rights.

            2. In the end we’re arguing the same thing.

              Why am I making the distinction between what is a Negative right and what is a positive right? Because our country and it’s founding document that lays out how everything works is a Negative Rights one. Therefore anything that is a Positive Right is unconstitutional.

              But in order to make that distinction you have to know what is a Positive Right. And we actually do have a few that are law, for instance any anti-discrimination law is a Positive Right.

              You can call it whatever you want I guess it doesn’t matter, it just matters that it’s not a Negative Right.

              Not that it matters a whole lot in the end, the Government, Congress, The Senate, the Presidency and The Supreme Court have become so filled with corruption it doesn’t matter.

            3. No, JMR, we are not arguing the same thing.

              As pointed out, Government does not have the power or authority to create, define, or limit any “Rights”.

              9th Amendment
              “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

              10th Amendment
              “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

              These two pieces of the BOR state that rights come from people and cannot be created by Government, and second that Government may not take power to create or limit as it is restricted by the constitution for both Federal and State levels.

              There is no such thing as a “Right” which oppresses the rights of a neighbor, and Government does not have the power to make such a right. Rights end where they begin to transgress on another individual’s rights. No ifs, ands, or buts.

            4. Yea you’re not telling me anything I’m not saying.

              You’re just hung up on me calling it a Positive right, because you think I’m calling it a right, even though I’m not. Even though the definition of positive right is exactly what your saying, only I can shorten it down to two words, and you have to use a whole paragraph, in the end it does the same thing.

              And the government does unconstitutional crap all the time, which is why it’s important to know what a Positive Right and Negative Right is and what type of constitution we have.

              Because otherwise if you’re faced with two laws with slightly different text like:
              “Government shall not discriminate”
              “No-one shall discriminate”

              You can’t tell which one is constitutional and which one is not.

              Stop getting hung up on the phrasing “Positive Right” we are saying the same thing.

            5. @JMR

              No, What I am hung up on is not your terminology, it is you trying to legitimize unconstitutional behavior through acceptance and apathy.

              When you have talked about “Positive Rights”, your own words have been to state that they are “Created by Government”, as well as some of your examples of those “positive rights” being capable of infringing on the rights of others.

              As per the constitution, Government cannot create rights. The founders expressly prohibited them from doing so. This is in fact one of the “Negative Rights” against government. It prevents them from deciding what rights are important, how they can be limited, or WHO they belong to. All rights begin and end with the PEOPLE, not government.

              What you have been saying is giving credence to the idea that Government can regulate some rights. This is wrong. You are now trying to claim that what I said about this is “You shortening it down into two words.” NO… Not even close. Here is what you said before.

              “Positive rights deal with placing the burden on other people. But they’re not rights until the government makes them so.” ~ JMR Jan. 30, 9:12 AM

              Do not consent or try to give Government the authority to define “Rights” at any time. Your own words trying to excuse it have no business out of anyone trying to claim to be a constitutionalist. Instead of worrying about if people will think you are correct in a debate, change your words so that the words themselves are correct. What you have just advocated for is a direct violation of the Bill of Rights, whether you acknowledge it or not. And on that, I will never in my life stand in agreement with you. Government does not have that power, even if you try to excuse it away saying “Well government does unconstitutional stuff all the time.”

              Sorry JMR, you are on the wrong side on this one.

    7. The second amendment wasn’t given to anyone, the second amendment was the result of fighting a bloody war against the premiere military of its time, after they took away rights.

      The second amendment doesn’t give you the right to own a firearm, it prevents the government from taking it away.

      Our constitution is (I believe) what’s called a negative rights constitution, that means that it recognizes that people have all the rights, and the constitution gives rights to the government, or lays out the process in which citizens can give the power over these rights to the government. The bill of rights was written to guarantee that people understood this and prevent the government from doing what its been doing.

      I cannot vote for someone that does not understand the basics of how the constitution works.

      1. It is a shame that idiots like you can vote. Every last person running for the board uses the same terminology. Methinks you are a troll and a killary supporter. Go choke yourself/

    Comments are closed.