• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dabnis2

SCOTUS to revise gun laws?

227 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

FWIW I have as much disdain for gun-grabbing theory as for right-of-armed-rebellion theory.

Funny, I've never seen you mention it before.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the federal judge's injunction blocking this summer's planned confiscation program out in California. Over here:

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/185445-uncooperative-californicators/#comment-5827548

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did a Dabs thread degenerate into reasoned discussion?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2017 at 8:50 PM, Gouvernail said:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 

Yes. A thoughtful contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

...     ....    .... Believing in that statement doesn't mean supporting every rebellion, as you seem to think it must.

Not sure where you get that from. If all the rebellions we've had so far have been stamped out, and considered illegal, then why would you think that any will ever be?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not sure where you get that from. If all the rebellions we've had so far have been stamped out, and considered illegal, then why would you think that any will ever be?

-DSK

Because 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That doesn't mean any rebellion will ever be considered legal by the government being overthrown.

I don't think they meant to say "any Form of Government EXCEPT THE ONE WE'RE MAKING" in that sentence. Do you think it somehow doesn't apply to our government? Are there any others to which it doesn't apply or is ours the only one in history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

And are they LAW?

Has the US Supreme Court pardoned any armed rebels? The only ones I know of are the Confederate generals and gov't officeholders; and they were not pardoned, they were pretty much sent home and forgotten... never charged. It was considered more important to re-unify the country (and make a profit by imposing economic burdens on the south); if all that was ever embodied into law then you may have a case.

Last time I checked, "delusional" referred to people who insist things that are not real, are real. What you're saying refers to thing that are NOT law, and are NOT backed up by actual factual happenings in history. They -are- backed up by the rantings of gun nuts similar to yourself. Social reinforcement is very important but it ain't quite the same as physics or even legislation.

-DSK

Never mind.  I'm speaking to a child who stamps his feet and goes Lalalalalala when someone tries to explain a difficult subject to them.  As evadent.  If you think the writings of the FF's, along with many other scholars throughout the centuries carries no weight and does not affect current and future LAW, then I am wasting my breath with you.  Continue to enjoy your delusion if it helps you sleep at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

How did a Dabs thread degenerate into reasoned discussion?? 

You wound me deeply. all of my threads are newsworthy, I see the subject matter on the "News". And, they are meaningful & polite.

Key word is "Polite"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 1:31 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Never mind.  I'm speaking to a child who stamps his feet and goes Lalalalalala when someone tries to explain a difficult subject to them.  As evadent.  If you think the writings of the FF's, along with many other scholars throughout the centuries carries no weight and does not affect current and future LAW, then I am wasting my breath with you.  Continue to enjoy your delusion if it helps you sleep at night.

You need to place this Pooplius snipped  in context. The beauty here is that the fine English minds had actually made a journey where intellectually and legally they could face down a despot...or a series of them. But dammit Jeff, neither the behavior nor the policy they adopted were rash.

They left a trail of intelligent writing, which left phrases and concepts behind as historical guideposts for us. The appproved rebellion against tyrannical forces has a context, and a protocol, and occurs in the setting of a relatively stable muster.

Raz'r's question (who determines the tyrants?) has an orderly answer: for England, the Parliament determined that, for the USA, it was the state authority or Congress. (But not some Pooplius in his Mother's swamp, or some Randy Weaver on his foreclosed mountain.)

Similarly, the term "well regulated" has undeniable references which are easily traced. The CATO scholars and Scalia somehow managed to miss basic references to what was considered the stability of the colonies? 

Quote

Charles, "Arms for Their Defence"

The terminology was likely borrowed from the English militia laws. In the House of Lords during the debates of the 1756 Militia Bill, the Earl of Stanhope stated, “[T]he only proper military force of a free country is a well regulated and well disciplined militia.” 15 COBBETT, supra note 150, at 152.

The language would become part of the 1757 Militia Act that was passed by the English government. It stated, “Whereas a well-ordered and welldisciplined Militia is essentially necessary to the Safety, Peace and Prosperity of this Kingdom.” 30 Geo. 2, c. 3 (1757) (Eng.).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2017 at 7:37 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Not sure where you get that from. If all the rebellions we've had so far have been stamped out, and considered illegal, then why would you think that any will ever be?

-DSK

Malheur, OR. Bundyville, USA. Tom's mind runs along uncooperative lines. Not a nation builder.

bundy sniper, from behind.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Raz'r's question (who determines the tyrants?) has an orderly answer: for England, the Parliament determined that, for the USA, it was the state authority or Congress.

Newsflash: the Declaration of Independence begins "We the people..."

Because that's where the authority came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ripe. "We the people" declare tyranny before taking up arms to fight it. Sounds vague, and illegal, and redundant to voting.

Newsflash indeed.

Quote

Wiki: On October 27, 2016, a jury acquitted seven of the defendants. Five of them were released but Ammon Bundy and his brother Ryan remained in federal custody pending trial on charges related to the 2014 Bundy standoff.[78]

 

Ammon Bundy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Ripe. "We the people" declare tyranny before taking up arms to fight it. Sounds vague, and illegal, and redundant to voting.

Yes, that's right.

Unfortunately, King George and Parliament, much like our government, neglected to put into law the proper procedures for overthrowing the government.

The Founders must have known they were being extremely naughty, not following prescribed overthrow procedures and all. It's no wonder there's no document anywhere where they tried to justify their obviously wrong actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, that's right.

Unfortunately, King George and Parliament, much like our government, neglected to put into law the proper procedures for overthrowing the government.

The Founders must have known they were being extremely naughty, not following prescribed overthrow procedures and all. It's no wonder there's no document anywhere where they tried to justify their obviously wrong actions.

??? It's not clear what you are saying. And Parliament passed Blackstone's fifth auxiliary right, bubba.  The right to rebel, the one alluded to in YOUR Federalist 29. That's why Madison or Hamilton mentioned it. Try to keep up.

You mention documentation? :Lots of documents exist which show that England did not allow vigilante behavior, and that it was therefore unprotected by the laws of the FF. Several instances have been produced by myself, see below.

YOU need to present documents laying out the acceptance of armed self defense in the days of the FF. Documents which accept riding around armed. Please Please show any adjustment of or rejection of the Statute of Northampton before 1776. (Where were Mr. Beard's elk circa 1776-1791?)

  • YOU need to produce newspaper accounts or pamphlets informing Lord Dunmore that they had individual gun rights, to return the locks on their guns stat, in order to suppress slaves some more.

  • Weapons and powder confiscations are documented in at least four areas, but "self protection" rights  were not listed with the very long list of specific grievances in the Declaration.

  • If Malcolm were correct, the norms of vigilante behavior would appear as accepted in court documents and newspaper accounts. Produce such documentation. Malcolm states it exists, then presents nothing. Levinson didn't check her...and didn't document her, either.

As I read Halbrook's stuff I read scattered phrases about individual rights from here and there, but the cases are not cohesive, none is presented in legal settings, and each presentation has obvious problems when scrutinized. Here's an example.

Quote

 Take for instance Kates’s seminal 1983 Michigan Law Review article, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment. 168 The article begins its inquiry by parsing the Second Amendment’s language, particularly what constituted the Founders’ militia:

The Founders stated what they meant by “militia” on various occasions. Invariably they defined it in some phrase like “the whole body of people,” while their references to the organized-military unit usage of militia, which they called a “select militia,” were strongly pejorative. In short, one purpose of the Founders having been to guarantee the arms of the militia, they accomplished that purpose by guaranteeing the arms of the individuals who made up the militia. In this respect it would never have occurred to the Founders to differentiate between the arms of the two groups in the context of the amendment’s language. The personally owned arms of the individual were the arms of the militia. Thus, the amendment’s wording, so opaque to us, made perfect sense to the Framers: believing that a militia (composed of the entire people possessed of their individually owned arms) was necessary for the protection of a free state, they guaranteed the people’s right to possess those arms.169*.

Here, Kates reaches a number of conclusions based upon one historical truth—early state and colonial militias generally consisted of all persons capable of bearing arms.170 However, three of these conclusions are unsupported by the historical record.

 First, Kates offers virtually no research on eighteenth century arms restrictions, nor does it provide any of the ideological or philosophical limits on the right. See HALBROOK, supra note 22, at 328–30 (stating that even “subtle interferences” would violate the Second Amendment under its “shall not be infringed” language).

 

*Footnote 169: What Halbrook leaves out is there were numerous eighteenth century arms restrictions.

  • See Charles, Historical Guideposts, supra note 18, at 23–25;
  • Saul Cornell, Early American Gun Regulation and the Second Amendment: A Closer Look at the Evidence, 25 L. & HIST. REV. 197 (2007);
  • David Thomas Konig, Arms and the Man: What Did the Right to “Keep” Arms Mean in the Early Republic?, 25 L. & HIST. REV. 177 (2007).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Newsflash: the Declaration of Independence begins "We the people..."

Because that's where the authority came from.

We the people was actually the states and their militias. I seem to recall a general, whining to congress for money, that sort of thing. So, a well regulated militia...

fantaay land to think its dickheads like the folks in VA this weekend.

so, let's say it's up to the states. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

YOU need to present documents laying out the acceptance of armed self defense in the days of the FF. Documents which accept riding around armed.

Paul Revere rode around for the express purpose of alarming the people and helping them conceal their arms from the British, who wished to confiscate them.

Raz'r, they knew the difference and knew how to say "states" when they meant it.

Quote

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Try substituting "the states"  for "the People" and it's just not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Paul Revere rode around for the express purpose of alarming the people and helping them conceal their arms from the British, who wished to confiscate them.

Raz'r, they knew the difference and knew how to say "states" when they meant it.

Try substituting "the states"  for "the People" and it's just not the same.

So there was no constitutional congress nor army led by Washington? Interesting things we learn here. The revolution was a spontaneous act. Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

So there was no constitutional congress nor army led by Washington?

Certainly not authorized by the British government. They got their authority from _____________.

(I think the answer is "the people" but you clearly have another. Please fill in the blank.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Quote

 

33 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

We the people was actually the states and their militias. I seem to recall a general, whining to congress for money, that sort of thing. So, a well regulated militia...

fantasy land to think its dickheads like the folks in VA this weekend.

so, let's say it's up to the states. 

 

A serious fantasy. Pooplius has a loose and undefined definition of militia. (The cover page of the Miller decision.) Yet Pooplius has not recognized the import of the enrollment provision in Miller's definition of militia. Pooplius will not answer whether lone wolf gun actors have militia gun rights. This progression is slippery, and scary, it smells of anarchy.

Very sketchy stuff. If you want to have a country, have a country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Certainly not authorized by the British government. They got their authority from _____________.

(I think the answer is "the people" but you clearly have another. Please fill in the blank.)

The states....  these tests are fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

The states....  these tests are fun.

So the states (meaning a rebellious group of traitors) got their power from the states? That doesn't seem a bit circular to you?

Jocal, I'll ask again: in which militia was Jack Miller enrolled. (By the way, he was not Otis McDonald.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So the states (meaning a rebellious group of traitors) got their power from the states? That doesn't seem a bit circular to you?

Jocal, I'll ask again: in which militia was Jack Miller enrolled. (By the way, he was not Otis McDonald.)

Thought you knew history better than that. The rebellion was run and funded by the new states. Not folks like your alt-right models

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Paul Revere rode around for the express purpose of alarming the people and helping them conceal their arms from the British, who wished to confiscate them.

 

You going by the Caribou Barbie version of history, or what really happened?

The British Army marched to Lexington & Concord to sieze the state militia's store of powder, not to go house-to-house confiscating muskets.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Thought you knew history better than that. The rebellion was run and funded by the new states. Not folks like your alt-right models

So all that stuff I was taught about government deriving authority from the consent of the governed was hooey.

Government actually derives authority from government. I see.

The thing is, the British government didn't think they had any authority at the time.

You're someone like the alt-right you think are my models. You're part of the people. How does it feel to be like the alt right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You going by the Caribou Barbie version of history, or what really happened?

The British Army marched to Lexington & Concord to sieze the state militia's store of powder, not to go house-to-house confiscating muskets.

-DSK

Actually, weapons owned by the rabble and certainly not owned by any authority of the British government were hidden on private property, so your version is only partly true. They were going to private property to confiscate guns, as I said. I never said muskets.

The rabble were not following any procedures established in law for overthrowing the government. And they didn't think to include any such procedures in our government either. Very strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Actually, weapons owned by the rabble and certainly not owned by any authority of the British government were hidden on private property, so your version is only partly true. They were going to private property to confiscate guns, as I said. I never said muskets.

The rabble were not following any procedures established in law for overthrowing the government. And they didn't think to include any such procedures in our government either. Very strange.

How is a state armory "private property"?

They were going to confiscate powder stores, according to the British Army accounts of the period. I would tend to trust the accounts written by those who were there.

Does it seems strange to you that laws written by a group of people forming a government would not include permission to overthrow that government? They didn't think it was necessary, they were allowing the vote (which the British did not, as you may recall but would prefer to ignore)

The whole body of history, and of enacted law (including the US Constitution), and of legal precedent including the Confederate officials, undermine the right-of-rebellion theory. I don't expect you to ever agree. But at some point you might decide to retreat into the nice safe alt-right echo chamber where you get agreement and affirmation instead of those confounded pesky facts.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the states are the same thing as "the people".  Interesting concept mitch.

Let's see how that sounds in the DoI and the Constitution.

Notice that both the term "People" and "State' is used to mean completely different things?  

 
Quote


 
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one STATE to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all STATEs are created equal, that they 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 STATES to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of STATES, unless those STATES would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the STATES.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the STATES at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our STATES.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free STATES.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good STATES of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samuel Adams swiped 97 barrels of gunpowder in Portsmouth Harbor, NH.

Quote

p50  Sir John Wentworth, governor of New Hampshire, tells us that the raiding party was openly collected by beat of drum in the streets of Portsmouth, and that, being apprised of their intent to attack a government fort, he sent the chief justice to warn them that such an act "'was short of rebellion," and entreated them not to undertake it, "but all to no purpose."

 They embarked in three boats, sailed to the fortress and "'forced an entrance in spite of Captain Cochrane, the commander, who defended it as long as he could. They then secured the captain triumphantly, gave three cheers, and hauled clown the king's colors.''*

https://ia801401.us.archive.org/18/items/loyalistsofmassa00staruoft/loyalistsofmassa00staruoft.pdf

Gage was ordered to get the powder  back. Gage went up the Mystic River with 200 men and came back with 212 barrels of gunpowder. When he staged 800 men on the Boston Common, Paul Revere got in a boat and was captured before spreading much alarm about the preciouses.

The bullets which Adams swiped showed up at Bunker Hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So the states are the same thing as "the people".  Interesting concept mitch.

Let's see how that sounds in the DoI and the Constitution.

Notice that both the term "People" and "State' is used to mean completely different things?  

 

 

 

And Votes are how people exercise their rights. We saw in Va yesterday what mob rule by armed thugs looks like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How is a state armory "private property"?

They were going to confiscate powder stores, according to the British Army accounts of the period. I would tend to trust the accounts written by those who were there.

Does it seems strange to you that laws written by a group of people forming a government would not include permission to overthrow that government? They didn't think it was necessary, they were allowing the vote (which the British did not, as you may recall but would prefer to ignore)

The whole body of history, and of enacted law (including the US Constitution), and of legal precedent including the Confederate officials, undermine the right-of-rebellion theory. I don't expect you to ever agree. But at some point you might decide to retreat into the nice safe alt-right echo chamber where you get agreement and affirmation instead of those confounded pesky facts.

-DSK

A rabble can't have a state armory and the British were ordered to search homes, as bolded in the letter below.

I guess I should have used the sarcasm font. No, your idea that those must be included to prove that they meant what they said in the Declaration is what's strange to me.

Does the right to vote determine whether the Declaration's statement about the right of the people to alter or abolish their government applies? You seem to think it doesn't apply to our government but haven't answered any others to which it doesn't apply.

What have I ever said or done to indicate to you and Raz'r that I'm some kind of alt-righter?
 

Quote

 

In obedience to your Excellency's commands, I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency's orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c., collected there, which was effected, having knocked off the trunnions of three pieces of iron ordnance, some new gun carriages, a great number of carriage wheels burnt, a considerable quantity of flour, some gunpowder and musket balls, with other small articles thrown into the river. Notwithstanding we marched with the utmost expedition and secrecy, we found the country had intelligence or strong suspicion of our coming, and fired many signal guns, and rung the alarm bells repeatedly; and were informed, when at Concord, that some cannon had been taken out of the town that day, that others, with some stores, had been carried three days before ....

I think it proper to observe, that when I had got some miles on the march from Boston, I detached six light infantry companies to march with all expedition to seize the two bridges on different roads beyond Concord. On these companies' arrival at Lexington, I understand, from the report of Major Pitcairn, who was with them, and from many officers, that they found on a green close to the road a body of the country people drawn up in military order, with arms and accoutrements, and, as appeared after, loaded; and that they had posted some men in a dwelling and Meeting-house. Our troops advanced towards them, without any intention of injuring them, further than to inquire the reason of their being thus assembled, and, if not satisfactory, to have secured their arms; but they in confusion went off, principally to the left, only one of them fired before he went off, and three or four more jumped over a wall and fired from behind it among the soldiers; on which the troops returned it, and killed several of them. They likewise fired on the soldiers from the Meeting and dwelling-house. We had one man wounded, and Major Pitcairn's horse shot in two places. Rather earlier than this, on the road, a country man from behind a wall had snapped his piece at Lieutenants Adair and Sutherland, but it flashed and did not go off. After this we saw some in the woods, but marched on to Concord without anything further happening. While at Concord we saw vast numbers assembling in many parts; at one of the bridges they marched down, with a very considerable body, on the light infantry posted there. On their coming pretty near, one of our men fired on them, which they returned; on which an action ensued, and some few were killed and wounded. In this affair, it appears that after the bridge was quitted, they scalped and otherwise ill-treated one or two of the men who were either killed or severely wounded, being seen by a party that marched by soon after. At Concord we found very few inhabitants in the town; those we met with both Major Pitcairn and myself took all possible pains to convince that we meant them no injury, and that if they opened their doors when required to search for military stores, not the slightest mischief would be done. We had opportunities of convincing them of our good intentions, but they were sulky; and one of them even struck Major Pitcairn. On our leaving Concord to return to Boston, they began to fire on us from behind the walls, ditches, trees, etc., which, as we marched, increased to a very great degree, and continued without the intermission of five minutes altogether, for, I believe, upwards of eighteen miles; so that I can't think but it must have been a preconcerted scheme in them, to attack the King's troops the first favourable opportunity that offered, otherwise, I think they could not, in so short a time as from our marching out, have raised such a numerous body, and for so great a space of ground. Notwithstanding the enemy's numbers, they did not make one gallant effort during so long an action, though our men were so very much fatigued, but kept under cover.

– Lieutenant Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment of Foot, letter to General Gage (April 22, 1775)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

And Votes are how people exercise their rights. We saw in Va yesterday what mob rule by armed thugs looks like. 

 

timothy-mcveigh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

A rabble can't have a state armory

 

State of Massachusetts paid for and owned the armories. The STATE was rebelling against the British crown, not the individuals.

I can't find a reference to this letter but will assume it's real. It does not change the fact that their main objective was the powder stores in the STATE armory.

This whole episode also points out the problem with quartering. The British plans were well known because they all lived in American homes. But we don't have that problem today, thanks to the fact that the United Colonies won. Lt-Col Smith's alleged attempt to enter and search private homes ... and similar episodes... is probably why we have the 4th Amendment. Do you care about that one too?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

A rabble can't have a state armory and the British were ordered to search homes, as bolded in the letter below.

I guess I should have used the sarcasm font. No, your idea that those must be included to prove that they meant what they said in the Declaration is what's strange to me.

Does the right to vote determine whether the Declaration's statement about the right of the people to alter or abolish their government applies? You seem to think it doesn't apply to our government but haven't answered any others to which it doesn't apply.

What have I ever said or done to indicate to you and Raz'r that I'm some kind of alt-righter?
 

 

Where is your fucking link to this source Pooplius?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

A rabble can't have a state armory and the British were ordered to search homes, as bolded in the letter below.

The bolded is mere cherry picking from a bulshitter. We have a messenger who tweaked the message.

Gage gave Smith the orders. Here they are, with a link, as is appropriate in our community. They were after stockpiles of guns and powder. Their orders were also to destroy flour, foodstuffs and tents. This was not about private guns from the get-go.You read too much Halbrook et al, exclusively.

Quote

Orders from General Thomas Gage
to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot

...

Boston, April 18, 1775

you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.

You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores...

http://www.winthrop.dk/reports.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

What have I ever said or done to indicate to you and Raz'r that I'm some kind of alt-righter?
 

 

You enable them.

You and they feel better than Judge Taney, which equalizes all racial imbalance, instantly.

You can manipulate MLK like a mofo, bro.

You are keen with the one-sided racial barbs, and remain gayly devoid of understanding about racial issues.

You could be their prophet, the idea man for alt-right purposes.

You distrust government, you make yourself the equal of LE

You sound informed and appeal to the image of higher instincts

while you empower yourself (and all the deplorables) with the shield of gunplay, they love that shit.

You were very, very weak when it came time to tell it like it was with Dylann Thomas. 

They love that shit too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The bolded is mere cherry picking from a bulshitter. We have a messenger who tweaked the message.

Gage gave Smith the orders. Here they are, with a link, as is appropriate in our community. They were after stockpiles of guns and powder. Their orders were also to destroy flour, foodstuffs and tents. This was not about private guns from the get-go.You read too much Halbrook et al, exclusively.

 

I would say that if he was ordered to search individuals houses and barns, then they would have seized individual guns too. I've got a number of sources of original documents but they are very verbose (you think current "governmentese" is bad!) and difficult to parse. The above quotes may be genuine but they don't scan right to my eye. Nonetheless, at some point I'll dig thru it.

But if the British Army was ordered to search houses and take away individual guns, that does not change the fact that they were after MILITARY STORES. Not privately owned guns. Their primary objective was the state's arsenal. Why else would they go to Lexington and Concord, where the Massachusetts state colony arsenals were?

Think for a second. From the British point of view, the colonial elected assembly of Massachusetts had little or no legal authority, but they thought of themselves as the state government. This was the "rebellion." The fact that individual citizens chose to stand by their elected representatives rather than the Crown made them rebels, yes, but without the assembly they would be just criminals not rebels.

Tom, nothing you've cited shows that "the right of armed rebellion" is enacted or recognized in US law. Not even if the whole state does it. It sounds suspiciously close to the 'sovereign individual' doctrine which results the absurdity of a citizen standing in court declaring that the court has no jurisdiction over him (well then why are you there, dummy).

The only time you have "the right to rebel" is when you win. But that's kind of putting the cart before the horse, retroactive legislation in frowned on.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I would say that if he was ordered to search individuals houses and barns, then they would have seized individual guns too.

Not all houses and barns were searched. Even while marching in ten miles, the colonists' residences were shuttered, the officer said. Incommunicado. Their mission map of Concord specified the barns and locations with the arms stashes.

 

Quote

The only time you have "the right to rebel" is when you win.

McVeigh was a winner, he said, since the score was 168-1. McVeign understood insurrection theory. McVeigh lets Pooplius do the talking. CATO briefs and trains Tom. (T)reason.com informs his elk every morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So the states are the same thing as "the people".  Interesting concept mitch.

Let's see how that sounds in the DoI and the Constitution.

Notice that both the term "People" and "State' is used to mean completely different things?  

Can you articulate the differences for us?

What I notice is ten red mentions of the state in the Declaration of Independence (and two more that you missed). Thanks for demonstrating that the conflict was declared on behalf of the state, as a conflict between the states and the sovereignty. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

State of Massachusetts paid for and owned the armories. The STATE was rebelling against the British crown, not the individuals.

I can't find a reference to this letter but will assume it's real. It does not change the fact that their main objective was the powder stores in the STATE armory.

This whole episode also points out the problem with quartering. The British plans were well known because they all lived in American homes. But we don't have that problem today, thanks to the fact that the United Colonies won. Lt-Col Smith's alleged attempt to enter and search private homes ... and similar episodes... is probably why we have the 4th Amendment. Do you care about that one too?

-DSK

Yes, I do care about that one, and it brings up a related topic. Who are the people anyway?

Like the confiscation issue, I'd be interested in your take on that one.

15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I would say that if he was ordered to search individuals houses and barns, then they would have seized individual guns too. I've got a number of sources of original documents but they are very verbose (you think current "governmentese" is bad!) and difficult to parse. The above quotes may be genuine but they don't scan right to my eye. Nonetheless, at some point I'll dig thru it.

But if the British Army was ordered to search houses and take away individual guns, that does not change the fact that they were after MILITARY STORES. Not privately owned guns. Their primary objective was the state's arsenal. Why else would they go to Lexington and Concord, where the Massachusetts state colony arsenals were?

Think for a second. From the British point of view, the colonial elected assembly of Massachusetts had little or no legal authority, but they thought of themselves as the state government. This was the "rebellion." The fact that individual citizens chose to stand by their elected representatives rather than the Crown made them rebels, yes, but without the assembly they would be just criminals not rebels.

Tom, nothing you've cited shows that "the right of armed rebellion" is enacted or recognized in US law. Not even if the whole state does it. It sounds suspiciously close to the 'sovereign individual' doctrine which results the absurdity of a citizen standing in court declaring that the court has no jurisdiction over him (well then why are you there, dummy).

The only time you have "the right to rebel" is when you win. But that's kind of putting the cart before the horse, retroactive legislation in frowned on.

I don't agree with the idea that the Mass Assembly was self-justifying. I think it got its power from the consent of the governed. From the people, in other words. Where do you think it got power from? Or does it just appear at some point?

I still think the founders meant it when they said "the people" have the power to alter or abolish their government, and they meant that statement to apply to "any form" of government, as they said,. If they meant "the state" had somehow justified its own authority and was rebelling, they never said that in the Declaration. Or anywhere else I have seen.

Do you think the cannons that the rabble wanted to protect from the government were considered "dangerous and unusual weapons" at the time, or were they the kinds of weapons people would have at home for ordinary self-defense needs and hunting?

At what point does thinking of yourself as a government actually make you a government? And what makes a government immune from the "any form" statement in the Declaration? I know you think it doesn't apply to our government but I'm wondering why? Which other governments does it not apply to and why?

The Founders were not following any "right of armed rebellion" that had been written into British law. Does that mean they had no authority to rebel? They seemed to think they (not their "state" assemblies) did when writing the Declaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Lt-Col Smith's alleged attempt to enter and search private homes ... and similar episodes... is probably why we have the 4th Amendment. Do you care about that one too?

Another related fourth amendment question: I think it applies to data technology developed since paper. Cellphones, for example.

I think the second applies to technology invented since 1791 too, but the opposite view has prevailed in our appellate courts and even made it to the Supreme Court.

Do you think the second applies to tech invented since 1791?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Another related fourth amendment question: I think it applies to data technology developed since paper. Cellphones, for example.

I think the second applies to technology invented since 1791 too, but the opposite view has prevailed in our appellate courts and even made it to the Supreme Court.

Do you think the second applies to tech invented since 1791?

Yep, for example: the ruling that police can bug your home using those window-reflected remote microphones is just appalling IMHO.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Distraction Row ^^^, from Pooplius. Tom has sidestepped Smith's orders. The orders were about searching specific houses and barns on a map of Concord. They had information about weapons caches, the stuff of which probable cause is made.

The colonists had stated issues, and multiple legal issues. Gun confiscation was neither, evidently.

massachussets in 1776: A LANDSCAPE WHERE CONFISCATION WAS LEGAL

The English laws considered self defense rights alienable, but supported the gun confiscation of Smith, Dunmore, and Gage. Soon, all Tory guns were collected by state militias, under U.S. authority.  Within a few years, the U.S. legal structure would support militia officer Benjamin Lincoln in collecting the Shays' actors' guns.

Q. No pamphleteers? No edititorial outrage? Why not?

A. Because individual gun rights did not exist here at that time. They were not "the rights we inherited from England" (the title of the CATO Institutes Heller brief).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

...    ...    ...

I don't agree with the idea that the Mass Assembly was self-justifying. I think it got its power from the consent of the governed. From the people, in other words. Where do you think it got power from? Or does it just appear at some point?   ...   ...   ...

Well, can't help what you agree or don't agree with, it's just the facts of history. There was an elected colonial assembly in every one of the 13 colonies, and IIRC only two had any actual power with the British gov't. However, one and all, they considered themselves to be governing authority and that eventually led to the break with King George III. The American Revolution was not a bunch of individuals deciding one day to declare independence, and then later on, deciding to form states.

As for government deriving from the consent of the governed, that's an axiom. But it's a very poor (very!) guide to civics. An individual cannot declare his independence from the state, and continue to live there. A group of individuals can form their own township, for example, but will either need to 1- move outside the USA or 2- succeed in winning an armed rebellion before they can decide they don't have to follow US law.

What you've been saying (and I've heard from a few others in the gun nut world) is that the US Constitution guarantees us the right to own firearms so that we can overthrow the gov't. That is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that any gov't would do such a thing, it's ridiculous in the face of the actual factual written laws including the Constitution, and it's ridiculous considering the actual factual history of armed rebellion in the US. But it is a remarkably persistent bit of nonsense. And considering the  social reinforcement you can get from talking it up in gun-nut circle jerks, I don't expect any 'true believer' to give it up on my say so.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

But it is a remarkably persistent bit of nonsense. And considering the  social reinforcement you can get from talking it up in gun-nut circle jerks, I don't expect any 'true believer' to give it up on my say so.

-DSK

No success, maybe, but you made a helluva a run at it in a few paragraphs. Very well laid out IMO.

Steamer, you might offer some sources.

American colonists had staffed the French and Indian wars with more than 10,000 soldiers via state militia formats. The British system got used to working with state authority for that reason, and others. Local assemblies in Massachussetts had an attitude, and had an authority problem, a century before the revolutionary war. Smuggling issues abounded, state-to state, because regular tariffs were expected from each respective Colony. The state governments had legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, can't help what you agree or don't agree with, it's just the facts of history. There was an elected colonial assembly in every one of the 13 colonies, and IIRC only two had any actual power with the British gov't. However, one and all, they considered themselves to be governing authority and that eventually led to the break with King George III. The American Revolution was not a bunch of individuals deciding one day to declare independence, and then later on, deciding to form states.

As for government deriving from the consent of the governed, that's an axiom. But it's a very poor (very!) guide to civics. An individual cannot declare his independence from the state, and continue to live there. A group of individuals can form their own township, for example, but will either need to 1- move outside the USA or 2- succeed in winning an armed rebellion before they can decide they don't have to follow US law.

What you've been saying (and I've heard from a few others in the gun nut world) is that the US Constitution guarantees us the right to own firearms so that we can overthrow the gov't. That is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that any gov't would do such a thing, it's ridiculous in the face of the actual factual written laws including the Constitution, and it's ridiculous considering the actual factual history of armed rebellion in the US. But it is a remarkably persistent bit of nonsense. And considering the  social reinforcement you can get from talking it up in gun-nut circle jerks, I don't expect any 'true believer' to give it up on my say so.

-DSK

Yep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

...    ...    ...

I still think the founders meant it when they said "the people" have the power to alter or abolish their government, and they meant that statement to apply to "any form" of government, as they said,. If they meant "the state" had somehow justified its own authority and was rebelling, they never said that in the Declaration. Or anywhere else I have seen.

Agreed. But the state they were forming was formed by "the people," elected by vote not chosen by ancestry or bought with cash. This was (and still is) a revolutionary thought. It's beautiful, and as a social experiment, there is still room for it to ultimately fail, unfortunately.

The power to alter ones' government comes thru voting. The power to abolish it .... well, that's a much tougher hill to climb. It can be done by voting but is rightfully more difficult to enact; by armed force? Point to where it says that in US law (including the Constitution) and you're golden. Obviously if you can -win- an armed rebellion then yes you have the right. But it doesn't say you get a free pass for trying, in fact the legal precedent and historical is all very much contrary.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

...   ...

Steamer, you might offer some sources.

...   ...

I'm already stealing time from more important projects to do this. Anybody who cares enough for FACTS instead of affirmation talk-talk can start by googling the Whiskey Rebellion.... great name but seriously, not very well-organized :lol:

I do appreciate the affirmation, thanks!

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try the Constitution:

 

Quote

 

We the STATES of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 2

1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the STATES of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 13

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the STATES peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)

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

 

Article [IV] (Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure)

The right of the STATES to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the STATE or things to be seized.

 

Does substituting state for "the People" work here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's the biggie that blows razr's concept if the state = the people out of the water.

 

Quote

 

Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)

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

Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)

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.

 

Seems like they went out of their way to distinguish between The States and THE PEOPLE.

Mitch, I honestly thought you were brighter than this.  I'm going to have to revise my opinion of you now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And here's the biggie that blows razr's concept if the state = the people out of the water.

 

Seems like they went out of their way to distinguish between The States and THE PEOPLE.

Mitch, I honestly thought you were brighter than this.  I'm going to have to revise my opinion of you now.

So, you think "the people" have a "right" granted by the constitution, the actual document that gives legitimacy to said government. AND said govt outlines the mechanism for its own overthrow already (voting).

do you have an example of one armed rebellion in 200+ years found legal via this reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, this is actually a great topic for discussion. Militia rights exclude women, hugely. And such rights exclude the older age groups, so commenters on both sides agree courts have short-changed individual gun rights, vis a vis the term The People. And I can see that the courts' adhesion to collective rights theory has prevented proper discussion. If based on honest history and if featuring robust research, I wish the discussion good health.

 

From a in-depth study of the 1792 (Outdoor) Militia Act right up your alley, here is a discussion of where today's courts stand on this.

Quote

The 1792 National Militia Act, the Second Amendment, and Individual Militia Rights: A Legal and Historical Perspective 70pgs

 Does Court Precedent Require That the Militia Consist of the People in General?

file:///C:/Users/Joe/Downloads/Charles, 1792 Militia Act.pdf

The vacated en banc decision in Nordyke v. King is also illustrative. The concurrence by Judge Gould equates the militia with an armed populace:

The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.

Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.315

So far so good, but questions remain. And the states are responsible for regulating this firepower, and empowered to regulate it, with means, manner, and location restrictions.

Quote

It is unclear what Judge Gould meant by a “lawfully armed populace.”

  • Did he mean all law-abiding citizens constitute the United States militia, including its unorganized and reserve components?
  • Does he believe armed citizens will just come together and repel an invasion without professional training, discipline, and organization?
  • Which State officers or employees have the authority to array them?
  • Is this armed populace subject to martial law, and are there penalties for failing to array?

These are all questions that contemporary jurists must consider if they are to going to equate the Second Amendment’s “well-regulated militia” with an unprofessional armed citizenry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE PEOPLE did not mean Libertarian anarchy in 1791.

Let's look at the drift of Federalist 28. Hamilton writes that protection against arbitrary "military establishments" was not individual gun rights.  He pitched that it was “in the hands of the representatives of the people.”

 

Hamilton looked at it overall as a balance of mustered power. If the feds abused the colonists, the state could face them down (with official guns). If the state unfairly abused the citizens, the colonists would back the feds, with official guns.

Quote

FEDERALIST 28

...Powers being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the states governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

.....    ...   ...   ...

Seems like they went out of their way to distinguish between The States and THE PEOPLE.

Mitch, I honestly thought you were brighter than this.  I'm going to have to revise my opinion of you now.

So, you think "the people" have a "right" granted by the constitution, the actual document that gives legitimacy to said government. AND said govt outlines the mechanism for its own overthrow already (voting).

do you have an example of one armed rebellion in 200+ years found legal via this reasoning?

Yeah, the "Right Elbow" rebellion of 1924.... just kidding. At least he hasn't called you DELUSIONAL yet.

Jeff is there a point in your righteous indignation over the STATE /= PEOPLE or is it just to shoot (pardon the pun) Raz'r down? I still don't see either an enacted law or a judicial precedent or an historical example in any of your arguments.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The People is a loosey-goosey, all inclusive American militia, I hear.

Since restrictions were applied to the many militia guns outdoors. and the militia is the general population, did their citizen gun rights not trump such restrictions? See #1. 

file:///C:/Users/Joe/Downloads/Charles, 1792 Militia Act.pdf

Quote

 An Act for Regulating and Governing the Militia of the State of Vermont, and for Repealing All Laws Heretofore for that Purpose § 36 (Vt. 1793)

(“Whereas the good citizens of this State, are often injured by the discharge of single guns . . . no commissioned officer, or private, shall unnecessarily fire a musket, or single gun, in any public road, or near any house, or near the place of parade...unless embodied under the command of some officers.”);

 An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia Within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and . . . fo repealing the Laws heretofore made for that Purpose, at 15 (Mass. 1781)

(“That no Soldier...shall unnecessarily discharge his Firelock from and after his appearing . . . on a Training or Muster-Day, without the express Order or License of his Superior Officer.”);

An Act for Establishing and Conducting the Military Force of New Jersey § 53 (NJ 1806), reprinted in MILITIA LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEW JERSEY (1806)

 (“That it shall not be lawful for any...private to come on parade with a loaded or charged musket.”);

 A Supplement to the Act Entitled, An Act to Regulate and Discipline the Militia of this State § Maryland. 1799)

 (“[A]ny private . . . To whom a musket is delivered, shall use the same in hunting, gunning or fowling or shall not keep his arms . . . in neat and clean order...shall [pay a fine].”).

The reason I ask, control and authority of the militia gun behavior and control and authority of the civilian gun behavior fall under separate forces. Each is based on separate authority and separate legal rationale. Conflating the two introduces a lot of confusion...it stimulates the deplorables, which works for CATO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this THE PEOPLE bullshit started with Parker, which built on Emerson...(as funded by CATO's Robert Levy )

Emerson was a poorly unsupporte fluke in Texas were a DV abuser was returned his gun based on the Second.  

Quote

Alone among federal rulings siding with the Parker majority is a 2001 case from the Fifth Circuit, United States v. Emerson, when for the first time, a federal court embraced the“individualist” view.37 Yet even this case offered little meat to supporters of the individualist view, since the Emerson court upheld Timothy Joe Emerson’s prosecution for violating a federal gun law (he was later convicted in a Texas court).38 Until Parker, the other circuits had ignored Emerson.

 

Here's Parker, presented by a particularly blunt historian.

Quote

 

2004 Don't Know Much About History, Politics, or Theory: A Comment Robert J. Spitzer

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol73/iss2/14

2000 WHY HISTORY MATTERS: SAUL CORNELL’S SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF LAW REVIEWS

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByoyLoSA8QKpOG10WnNDSVlGNlk/view

While a military weapon might be used for personal self- defense, or a small side-arm might have military utility, as a matter of law the activity of collective military defense was always understood to be entirely different from an individual’s personal self-defense.30 The former pertained to the Second Amendment, whereas the latter did not, and never did.31 If a person shot and killed someone in what the defendant claimed was an act of self-defense, prosecutors and judges did and do rely on the criminal law, as it evolved in the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition.

The Parker majority ruling is characterized not only by bad history, but dreadful law. In its fifty-eight page ruling, the two-member Parker majority contradicted nearly fifty other federal court rulings spanning seven decades, as well as four Supreme Court rulings, all of which support the straightforward proposition that the right to bear arms exists only in connection with citizen service in a government organized and regulated militia.34

Within Libertarian dogma, and within The "Standard Model",  the Parker definition of militia is key:  the militia is "the people".

Quote

However, in Parker v. District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals inaccurately defined what constitutes a select militia and a “well regulated militia,” mitigating the latter to nothing more than an armed citizenry:

 

[T]he modifier “well regulated” means that “[t]he militia was not individuals acting on their own; one cannot be a one-person militia.” We quite agree that the militia was the collective body designed to act in concert. But we disagree...that the use of “well regulated” in the constitutional text somehow turns the popular militia in the 1792 Act into a “select” militia that consisted of semi-professional soldiers like our current National Guard.298

 

The Parker court’s definition of what constituted the Founders’ “well regulated militia” defies both law and history. Neither the eighteenth century popular print culture,299 the debates concerning the National Militia Act,300 nor the writings of Timothy Pickering support such a proposition.301

 

You want originalism? Then let's define militia by considering Charles' superb review of the 1792 militia act, and it's few modifications, for a definition.

Quote

The 1792 National Militia Act, the Second Amendment, and Individual Militia Rights: A Legal and Historical Perspective   70pgs

file:///C:/Users/Joe/Downloads/Charles, 1792 Militia Act.pdf

(p366) A) Who Constitutes the “Militia” for the Purposes of the Second Amendment as a Militia Right?

This brings us to the question: who constitutes the militia for the purposes of the “right to keep and bear arms” as a militia right? If we use the National Militia Act as the historical benchmark, the answer is those classes that are capable of bearing arms. While Individual Right scholars argue that this definition devalues the Second Amendment as a militia right,306 the truth of the matter is the constitutional purpose of a “well-regulated militia” was the “public good” and not individual preferences.307

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
 9 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Founders were not following any "right of armed rebellion" that had been written into British law. 

This is my second correction of this mis-statement, Tom. Do some reading FFS.

A few days ago you quoted Hamilton in The Federalist 29, quoting just such a law (a "right of armed rebellion"). The English Parliament had granted itself that legal right to face down James the II, and his Catholic gun confiscators. (Whoops, they had ceded that very right, and all militia control to Chas the I, a Protestant. Their militia had lain dormant for 70 years.)  This was very clearly laid out on SAILING ANARCHY a few times.

The dignified anti-tyranny jurisprudence whichresulted was summarized by Blackstone, as the five "auxiliary rights" by which to declare and challenge a government tyrant. Read our forums.

Yo, Hamilton referenced this classic right in Federalist 29, and you quoted that historic guidepost here two days ago. Get a clue.

 

 

Within civics, there are good ways and poor ways to face down tyrants. And within law, there is a legal progression from natural law, to castile doctrine, and on to appropriate tyrant fighting. All came from England.

This is fun, you poseur. Here's a bonus quote, a repeater, and I ask your consideration.  Here's some beautiful jurisprudence, some wisdom which goes far beyond Larry Pratt, some basic law which Hamilton knew, but you have denied twice.

Quote

History Lesson 101: Interpreting Text Without Historical Context is Just a Con

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

William Blackstone Said What?—Misconceptions of the “Fifth Auxiliary Right” Continue

(see p 1753 pls) Blackstone’s reference to “the natural right of resistance and selfpreservation” does not refer to armed self-defense for private purposes.140 It is a public allowance (under due restrictions) of a “natural right”—and that allowance is made for a particular, public purpose: to “restrain the violence of oppression” from a tyrannical sovereign.141 This indeed is the only interpretation that comports with Blackstone’s definition of an “auxiliary right”: a means to ensure that rights “ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, [would remain in force] if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment.”142

  1. The first auxiliary right (the first means to protect primary rights) is Parliament’s exercise of its powers;
  2. the second is the sovereign;
  3. and the third is the courts of justice.143 When those fail, the people may resort to
  4. the fourth auxiliary right: the right to petition Parliament or the King for the “redress of grievances.”144
  5. And only after that right is exhausted may the people resort to “having arms.”145

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yep, for example: the ruling that police can bug your home using those window-reflected remote microphones is just appalling IMHO.

-DSK

So what do you think of the argument that the second amendment only applies to technology that existed when it was written, unlike the rest of the amendments?

 

18 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, can't help what you agree or don't agree with, it's just the facts of history. There was an elected colonial assembly in every one of the 13 colonies, and IIRC only two had any actual power with the British gov't. However, one and all, they considered themselves to be governing authority and that eventually led to the break with King George III. The American Revolution was not a bunch of individuals deciding one day to declare independence, and then later on, deciding to form states.

As for government deriving from the consent of the governed, that's an axiom. But it's a very poor (very!) guide to civics. An individual cannot declare his independence from the state, and continue to live there. A group of individuals can form their own township, for example, but will either need to 1- move outside the USA or 2- succeed in winning an armed rebellion before they can decide they don't have to follow US law.

What you've been saying (and I've heard from a few others in the gun nut world) is that the US Constitution guarantees us the right to own firearms so that we can overthrow the gov't. That is ridiculous. It's ridiculous that any gov't would do such a thing, it's ridiculous in the face of the actual factual written laws including the Constitution, and it's ridiculous considering the actual factual history of armed rebellion in the US. But it is a remarkably persistent bit of nonsense. And considering the  social reinforcement you can get from talking it up in gun-nut circle jerks, I don't expect any 'true believer' to give it up on my say so.

-DSK

If my interpretation is ridiculous, what's yours? (By the way, Joe, it's 29, not 28.)

Quote

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

By the way, we agree on the "sovereign citizen" stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The power to alter ones' government comes thru voting. The power to abolish it .... well, that's a much tougher hill to climb. It can be done by voting but is rightfully more difficult to enact; by armed force? Point to where it says that in US law (including the Constitution) and you're golden. Obviously if you can -win- an armed rebellion then yes you have the right. But it doesn't say you get a free pass for trying, in fact the legal precedent and historical is all very much contrary.

I think that voting is a very naive answer to a tyrannical government. They generally have all the guns and won't let their subjects vote them out.

I don't look to the Constitution to justify the rebellion because it was written afterward. I think the document that was used to justify the rebellion and was written at the time is a better guide to why they thought their rebellion justified.

In your view, they could not have known at the time the Declaration was written that the revolution was, in fact, justified. They had no way of knowing they would win and you believe an attempt to overthrow a government is only justified if successful.

We agree on the "free pass for trying" thing. As I said many posts ago, believing that people have a right to alter or abolish their government does not mean one must support every attempt.

I think there are some failed attempts at rebellion in history that were justified, despite failing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

(By the way, Joe, it's 29, not 28.)

I repeat, twenty eight. Where Hamilton discussed the inevitability of violent insurrection, local and statewide. Hamilton discussed taking such difficulty to the "representatives of the people."  He name dropped the recent, statewide insurrections in Mass and PA, and the ensuing lack of federal thunder.

Quote
Quote

... the whole power of the proposed government is to be in the hands of the representatives of the people.

 

He recognized there will be friction. Then he discussed representation first, not the guns of "the people". Then he pled for a military power available to the Feds, one separate from the militia.

But this is the beauty of 28. In the fourth paragraph from the end, Hamilton suggests The People can support state efforts to control the unfairness of the feds, and federal efforts to control the unfairness of the state. Of course, this can be done by voting through the representatives, or in his worst case scenario (which you mentioned in Fed 29), by fighting under the representatives of the people under the provisions of Article XVII of the English Declaration of Rights.

Please comment on the power of representation not gunplay, in The Federalist #28. It sets up the mustered gunplay of 29.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, I'll ask again: in which militia was Jack Miller enrolled? (By the way, he was not Otis McDonald.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Jocal, I'll ask again: in which militia was Jack Miller enrolled? (By the way, he was not Otis McDonald.)

By the way, 28 is not 29. You are a cheap little fellow, Pooplius. Feeling a need to change the subject?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2017 at 9:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Pooplius has not recognized the import of the enrollment provision in Miller's definition of militia.

You're right. I'm completely unaware of that provision. So I started the learning process by asking the obvious question:

in which militia was Jack Miller enrolled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You're right. I'm completely unaware of that provision. So I started the learning process by asking the obvious question:

in which militia was Jack Miller enrolled?

Miller? I hope Miller's not packing an AW in Baltimore. AW's are unconstitutional.

Hold on. We were discussing a fragile gimmick in your bag of tricks, the angle YOU introduced, your term, The People. Are you acquainted with the Militia Act of 1792, and the subsequent non-alterations? The People were not in that militia. Neither was Miller. 

You are living in the Pooplius fantasy, the same which Steam Flyer mentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The People were not in that militia. Neither was Miller. 

So why would the Supreme Court hear his case? Did time-travelling libertarians convince them that he was part of "the people" or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So why would the Supreme Court hear his case? Did time-travelling libertarians convince them that he was part of "the people" or what?

Let's leap ahead. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding your cheap logic.

The Miller Case Gambit: the SC once heard the case of a checkered criminal who was no militia member, and made longstanding collective gun rights conclusions. Therefore the whole population gets battlefield weapons, anything lawful and suitable for militia fighting.

Tell Mr. Miller to avoid joining the MD militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, please say whatever you are trying to say. You are so gamey that you are unclear. Posting the cover sheet of the Miller decision is a weak statement. Be big, Tom.

  • Modern/Parker/Libertarian/"Standard Model"/Pooplius version?  The militia was the collective body (designed to act in concert, according to Heller, and not including militias of one, according to Parker)
  • Supreme Court Version:  precedent limits the “militia” to those who are capable of bearing arms. 
    • See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2800 (2008) (confirming its holding in Miller);
    • United  States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939) (link);
    • Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (link).
  • 1792 National Militia Act Version: those classes that are capable of bearing arms.
Quote

(p369) The numerous attempts to amend the National Militia Act also affirm this 1792 definition of a select militia. Both in 1796 and 1798, militia bills were proposed separating the national militia into a “select” and “reserved” corps.302 The “select corps” would be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of twenty and twenty-four years of age.303 Meanwhile, the “reserved corps” would be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between twenty-five and forty years old.304 The bills were rejected, however, because a select militia contradicted the “voluntary public spirit” that was inherent in a constitutional militia, and ultimately burdened one class of citizens over another.305

file:///C:/Users/Joe/Downloads/Charles, 1792 Militia Act.pdf

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think that voting is a very naive answer to a tyrannical government. They generally have all the guns and won't let their subjects vote them out.

That would be contrary to the Constitution. The idea of rules and laws is to follow them. One of the great things about the USA is that the highest gov't official is also bound to follow the law.

I don't look to the Constitution to justify the rebellion because it was written afterward. I think the document that was used to justify the rebellion and was written at the time is a better guide to why they thought their rebellion justified.

Well, as I have pointed out, there have been plenty of attempts at armed rebellion since the Constitution was written. The judicial history of these does not support the "2nd-Amendment-is-so-we-can-overthrow-the-gov't" theory.

In your view, they could not have known at the time the Declaration was written that the revolution was, in fact, justified. They had no way of knowing they would win and you believe an attempt to overthrow a government is only justified if successful.

We agree on the "free pass for trying" thing. As I said many posts ago, believing that people have a right to alter or abolish their government does not mean one must support every attempt.

I think there are some failed attempts at rebellion in history that were justified, despite failing.

Really? Why do you live in the US then, if you believe that it should be overthrown?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Really? Why do you live in the US then, if you believe that it should be overthrown?

-DSK

When did I say the government should be overthrown? I think that before attempting that (domestically or internationally) there should be a plan to replace the government. I haven't seen one, nor any recent evidence that Americans are any good at nation building. I did see tens of millions of my fellow citizens vote for one of two complete assholes in the last election, so have no hope we could improve on our government with the current electorate.

I do think that this statement applies to every government:

Quote

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think it applied to the government they were rebelling against, despite there being no provision in British laws for the violent overthrow of the government.

I think it applies to "any form of government" despite the fact that no form of government has ever had prescribed procedures for the violent overthrow of the government.

For those reasons, I don't believe that a document like the Constitution that describes how our government is structured must contain overthrow procedures for the statement from the Declaration to be applicable.

They thought it applicable to all governments, despite no government ever having what you are asking for.

Why do you believe that the Constitution is a better guide to what they thought about justifying rebellion, when the Declaration is the document that was actually used for that purpose? Seems to me that the one they wrote about why their rebellion was justified would be the best guide to, well, why they thought their rebellion justified.

I know you will once again say that's ridiculous. Let me acknowledge it and save you the trouble. Now, please spell out a non-ridiculous reason why the Declaration should not be used for its intended purpose in this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

When did I say the government should be overthrown?

 

When you said that some past rebellions were justified

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Now, please spell out a non-ridiculous reason why the Declaration should not be used for its intended purpose in this discussion?

The "purpose of this discussion" is to determine the legal justification (if any) for armed rebellion. Our laws are not adjudicated based on the Declaration of Independence. We consult the constitution to maintain the security of the free state.

****************

Tom, three viable, actual versions of THE PEOPLE appear in post 168. Don't just bail, let's clarify your position someday, and develop your interpretation a bit. Do "the people" have to respect martial law? Who manages "the people's" militia? Mr. McVeigh surfed militia couches, was he not sort of a de facto militia figure acting on insurrection theory? See how that works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

When you said that some past rebellions were justified

-DSK

Once again, in your desire to minimize the opinion of someone you're arguing with, you ignore most of the comment, and find a tangent to pick at.  Well done - you really got him there. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

When you said that some past rebellions were justified

Once again, in your desire to minimize the opinion of someone you're arguing with, you ignore most of the comment, and find a tangent to pick at.  Well done - you really got him there. 

 

He asked a question, I answered. Most of the rest of Tom's comment was not relevant to the question.

I'm glad, and reassured, he clarified. Generally I think well of Tom even though we disagree on many things. Is it so much -your- business that you have to butt in, to try and make me look bad, personally?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 ...despite there being no provision in British laws for the violent overthrow of the government.

... no form of government has ever had prescribed procedures for the violent overthrow of the government.

WTF? Tom, this is your third correction. Again, you quoted Hamilton referencing such a law in The Federalist 29. It is known in English Law as  Blackstone's "Fifth Auxiliary Right." Article VII covers it in the 1689 Bill of Rights. BTW, they felt the right of the people to alter or abolish an unjust sovereignty was a natural right, not a constitutional one.  But they recognized it legally because they had once willingly rescinded the right to Chas the I.

Quote

 Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012 

 (p1758)  At no part did Blackstone link the right of personal security with the possession of arms, nor did he cite to the Declaration of Rights’ “having arms” provision in his discussion of personal security.147 The omission was deliberate, for Blackstone was referring to a rather distinct principle—lawful rebellion and resistance to restore the Constitution.148 Parliament controlled this right as a means to check a tyrannical sovereign, particularly one that maintained an oppressive or unlawful standing army.149

 

 In such instances, Parliament maintained the authority to call forth the people as a militia— “suitable to their condition and as allowed by law”—to restore the Constitution and the people’s liberties in the process.150

 See Charles, The Right of Self-Preservation, supra note 9, at 26–40.

Charles, The Right of Self-Preservation, supra note 9, at 42, 45.

I read these articles, Tom, and you should too. Their approach was prudent, and admirable. Gun violence (under a muster) followed four peaceful, lawful attempts at resolution. (Which were listed yesterday in Post 150.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 I did see tens of millions of my fellow citizens vote for one of two complete assholes in the last election, so have no hope we could improve on our government with the current electorate.

 

So - no hope via elections? Why would you have hope then for an armed rebellion leading to a better outcome?

You sound like the far right folks calling for a convention of states (another peaceful & constitutional way to change how we're governed) - who bitch about election results, but somehow think a convention of states will do exactly what they hope it will do....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 7:04 PM, Raz'r said:

So, you think "the people" have a "right" granted by the constitution, the actual document that gives legitimacy to said government. AND said govt outlines the mechanism for its own overthrow already (voting).

do you have an example of one armed rebellion in 200+ years found legal via this reasoning?

Yes, I do think people implicitly have the right to rebel IF the gov't is not following the Constitution.  As Tom has pointed out already, there is no codified mechanism for rebellion.  The simple answer is the winner gets to decide if the rebellion was justified and legal.  

The key here is whether or not the gov't is acting extra-constitutional or not.  As long as the Gov't is acting within the law, no matter unpopular or despised, then a rebellion would be unlikely to be justified.  However, if the all or part of the gov't (the executive branch for instance) is acting contrary to the Constitution - such as executing judges and disbanding congress - I would say that the citizens not only have the RIGHT to rebel but the DUTY to do so.  I took an oath to support and defend the CONSTITUTION, not the gov't.  If the gov't is blatantly and egregiously violating the Connie, then they are an illegal gov't and instantly the "domestic enemy" I swore to defend the constitution against.  YOU DO GET THAT, right???

But you are tap dancing as usual around the question posed to you.  THE PEOPLE are where the authority for the current gov't lies, not the States.  The US Constitution was very clear when it used the term THE PEOPLE vs THE STATES.  I think they did that for a reason.  What do you think that reason was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 9:30 PM, jocal505 said:

Hamilton looked at it overall as a balance of mustered power. If the feds abused the colonists, the state could face them down (with official guns). If the state unfairly abused the citizens, the colonists would back the feds, with official guns.

Quote

FEDERALIST 28

...Powers being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the states governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

jo jo, where do these "official guns" come from?  Are you saying that both the states and the Fed gov has armories stashed all over the countryside with "official guns" ready to hand out to THE PEOPLE depending on which side they needed them to take?  Or are these armories co-owned by both the state and the Feds?  How would that even work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 10:03 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Jeff is there a point in your righteous indignation over the STATE /= PEOPLE or is it just to shoot (pardon the pun) Raz'r down? I still don't see either an enacted law or a judicial precedent or an historical example in any of your arguments.

There IS a perfect historical example.  It was called the Declaration of Independence.  That was a rebellion.  Pure and simple.  And the FF's knew that they'd better win.  If they won, they would be heroes and founders of a new nation.  If they lost, they would have been hanged and forgotten by history except as a footnote.  

And my righteous indignation does have a point - its to point out that the Constitution and other documents written around that time very clearly made a distinction between the people and the states.  There is a reason why the Constitution starts off with "We the People" instead of "We the States".  Oh and I do enjoy shooting razr down too.  But that's just a bonus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

jo jo, where do these "official guns" come from?  Are you saying that both the states and the Fed gov has armories stashed all over the countryside with "official guns" ready to hand out to THE PEOPLE depending on which side they needed them to take?  Or are these armories co-owned by both the state and the Feds?  How would that even work?

I don't know who owned these guns. That was handled several ways within the states. Some private guns were used in official capacity, the gunowner having been mustered.  Feel free to chase the details down, using cites from non-libertarian sources. 

The MIlitia Act of 1792 will be pertinent in honest militia discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2017 at 0:25 AM, jocal505 said:

William Blackstone Said What?—Misconceptions of the “Fifth Auxiliary Right” Continue

(see p 1753 pls) Blackstone’s reference to “the natural right of resistance and selfpreservation” does not refer to armed self-defense for private purposes.140 It is a public allowance (under due restrictions) of a “natural right”—and that allowance is made for a particular, public purpose: to “restrain the violence of oppression” from a tyrannical sovereign.141 This indeed is the only interpretation that comports with Blackstone’s definition of an “auxiliary right”: a means to ensure that rights “ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, [would remain in force] if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment.”142

  1. The first auxiliary right (the first means to protect primary rights) is Parliament’s exercise of its powers;
  2. the second is the sovereign;
  3. and the third is the courts of justice.143 When those fail, the people may resort to
  4. the fourth auxiliary right: the right to petition Parliament or the King for the “redress of grievances.”144
  5. And only after that right is exhausted may the people resort to “having arms.”145

Hey joe, where are these arms going to come from if we ever made it all the way to #5?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Hey joe, where are these arms going to come from if we ever made it all the way to #5?  

You tell me. Do some reading and citing of non-libertarian sources (since Halbrook and Caplan are discredited now). Written accounts survive in each state. Get back to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 THE PEOPLE are where the authority for the current gov't lies, not the States. HAMILTON DISAGREES The US Constitution was very clear when it used the term THE PEOPLE vs THE STATES.  I think they did that for a reason.  What do you think that reason was?

You have thrown both words into your posts in an un-examined mishmosh. You are glibly quoting both words without parsing, and without historical guideposts for either. A useless non-comparison from an under-informed (but opinionated) kinda guy...

Hamilton opined (in Fed 28, above) that their overall design was to have the power in the representatives of the people. A subtle, wise,  and effective improvement. McVeigh did not consult with (or act on behalf of) his representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I don't know who owned these guns. That was handled several ways within the states. Feel free to chase the details down, using cites from non-libertarian sources. 

 

Ah, so there are magical, mysterious guns out there for official use should either the state or the Feds decide "the people" needed take up arms against the other?  

Or could it be that your Federalist cite assumes that because of the 2nd Amendment, that the citizens were ALREADY armed with their own gunz and that they would use them when needed for either purpose???  

Quote

And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2017 at 4:43 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think there are some failed attempts at rebellion in history that were justified, despite failing.

"In history" doesn't mean "only in American history," Doug.

And I think the one that foundned our country was justified for the reasons given in the Declaration.

I think they were right that justified rebellion is a potential feature of ANY FORM of government. Yes, even the ones they were talking about that did not have a constitutionally-prescribed procedure for the violent overthrow of the government. Meaning, again, every government. Even our current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ah, so there are magical, mysterious guns out there for official use should either the state or the Feds decide "the people" needed take up arms against the other?  

Or could it be that your Federalist cite assumes that because of the 2nd Amendment, that the citizens were ALREADY armed with their own gunz and that they would use them when needed for either purpose???  

 

No homework done, eh? Your info is incomplete, under-informed, and cherry-picked.

There were three state policies, and several timeframes. Which state are you inquiring about? Covering what dates? Go to work with your sharp Jeffie intellect, and let us know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Generally I think well of Tom even though we disagree on many things.

WTF is wrong with you? I don't think well of anyone from the alt-right. You think I'm from the alt-right and think well of me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Raz'r said:
On 8/16/2017 at 5:11 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 I did see tens of millions of my fellow citizens vote for one of two complete assholes in the last election, so have no hope we could improve on our government with the current electorate.

 

So - no hope via elections? Why would you have hope then for an armed rebellion leading to a better outcome?

I don't, as readers of the English language would understand from the part of my post you clipped:

Quote

When did I say the government should be overthrown? I think that before attempting that (domestically or internationally) there should be a plan to replace the government. I haven't seen one,

What part of "I haven't seen one" made you think I have seen such a plan? Haven't is a contraction of HAVE NOT, you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

I think they were right that justified rebellion is a potential feature of ANY FORM of government. Yes, even the ones they were talking about that did not have a constitutionally-prescribed procedure for the violent overthrow of the government. Meaning, again, every government. Even our current one.

Don't drag our forums down with routine lies. DAILY LIES? You are repeating an untruthful statement for the fourth or fifth time. Back up your statement by refuting Blackstone's much-quoted Fifth Auxiliary Right, or STFU.

Please explain the lucid, brilliant and civilized series of Blackstone's organized tyrant-fighting. Behold that it is 80% non-violent. Please explain Patrick Charles' summary of Blackstone, quoted yesterday. The British had allowed for the legal right to face down tyrants. I quoted the law and cited it with peer-reviewed history.

However, I don't see where the English law transferred into U.S. law, after it justified the Declaration of Independence in Hamilton's POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

23 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

WTF is wrong with you? I don't think well of anyone from the alt-right. You think I'm from the alt-right and think well of me?

You put on quite a show using Dylann Roof as a point of confusion.  Big Tom just couldn't be sure which of Dylann's many actions might be wrong. Tool.

Quote
  On 7/11/2015 at 5:02 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Was Dylann Roof right to do what he did, Tom, or was he wrong

Tom Ray Posted December 2, 2016  (seventeen months later)

He did lots of things in his life. For all I know, you could be talking about any of them. Are you talking about the murders or something else?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ah, so there are magical, mysterious guns out there for official use should either the state or the Feds decide "the people" needed take up arms against the other?  

Or could it be that your Federalist cite assumes that because of the 2nd Amendment, that the citizens were ALREADY armed with their own gunz and that they would use them when needed for either purpose???  

 

Jeffie, let's say, for the moment, you are the Militia Captain elected by the company of the real Publius. (We can assume Pee Wee signed up for your leadership, but I digress. If Pooplius signs on, watch his attitude. If NGS shows up, have him peel potatoes. If I don't show up, please consider my Quakerish POV. Still digressing...)

 

Seriously, how do you suppose this worked circa 1776-1791? Note: some companies stored all their guns in armory situations (so, of course, many individuals would have separate firearms at home, many wouldn't, depending).

But let's assume that the Jeffie DFG Princesses keep their approved, documented guns (they were spec'd by the Feds BTW) at home . You're sharp. so you're gonna be storing beau coup extra  powder for your boys, and some swivel cannons , somewhere (probably by arrangement out of the rain on private property). Your appointment, your regular orders, your reports, your payroll, and any quartermaster supplies each interface regularly with the Gov.

If any armed conflict of tyrants falls against the feds, the location of your arms storage and military baggage is immaterial. If you and the feds are facing off against the governor it's trickier, but the infallible consensus of your community has possession of any public (state) armory and military stores, not the offending governor.

The militia captain controlled the stores in the USA, the militia lieutenants did the same in Stuart and Tudor England. It was at that level that control of arms was almost lost, then won, with James II. They were bitter times when the Parliament would hand out guns, then collect them, repeatedly and effectively.

THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION WAS A MODEL FOR THE FF BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF VIOLENCE. Militia assignments came from parliament as a result of the Glorious Revolution. This reflected in state control of militia assignments in the USA ninety years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2017 at 2:11 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Now, please spell out a non-ridiculous reason why the Declaration should not be used for its intended purpose in this discussion?

 I already know the answer, I got it from CATO's paid, discredited historians... 

"Intended purpose?" i suggest that the Declaration was a classic exercise of the fourth auxiliary right, an expression of grievances, within the English culture of the well-educated FF. The Declaration is hardly law, however.

 

Your logic, if I understand it, is that the Declaration of Independence legalizes political violence? This would have produced an innocent verdict for McVeigh and his elk. no?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 7:04 PM, Raz'r said:

So, you think "the people" have a "right" granted by the constitution, the actual document that gives legitimacy to said government. AND said govt outlines the mechanism for its own overthrow already (voting).

do you have an example of one armed rebellion in 200+ years found legal via this reasoning?

We have a right granted by the words of the Declaration of Independence.  I don't know how much more clear that can be:

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

Note that the line in the beginning of this passage that says"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - This is the voting part.  But once a gov't moves from just bad to "becomes destructive" or has a "long train of abuses and usurpations" and rules with "absolute Despotism" - I am pretty certain voting isn't going to change anything, that is if you are allowed to vote at all.  

I agree with the FF's that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".  But they obviously they didn't think that the British Crown was still in the light and transient stage.  

I'm honestly gobsmacked that any American can read this document and then turn around and say with a straight face that we do not have the "right" to rebel should the gov't get to this stage.  I 1000% agree that we should not rebel for light or transient causes.  Trump is transient and is not a cause to rebel and attempt an overthrow of the gov't.  Nor is the gov't taking over BLM land a legitimate reason for the Bundy clan to rebel.  Arguably, how the South was treated during the lead up to the secession and the civil war was the closest we've been to having legitimate reasons for a split.  But even then, I do not think they had enough of a legitimate beef to actually rebel against the Union.  And they lost anyway, so its a moot point.  

So let me ask all you ninnys that say that we do not have a "right" to rebel and throw off the yolk of gov't....... what would you think if trump or someone even worse than trump was somehow able to seize power, and install him or herself as a dictator.  They abolished the courts, congress became a rubber stamp to despotism and they pretty much ignored the constitution and especially the BoRs?  What then?  Are you going to sit there and wring your hands and go......

R'azr:  "Gosh darn, it would be nice if this wasn't the way our gov't was, but since there is no mechanism or law that says we can overthrow the current gov't, I guess I'd better just sit here and take it.  Hey jocal, can you please pass the Vaseline so it doesn't hurt so much when the gov't storm troopers fuck me in the ass tonight?" 

Jocal:  Sure thing mitch, or should I say 'bitch'?  It doesn't matter anyway, when we passed the Gun Confiscation Act of 2022, we basically lost all our ability to push back anyway.  So its a mute point.  I sure wish I had listened to Jeff and Tom back then."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

We have a right granted by the words of the Declaration of Independence.  I don't know how much more clear that can be:

Note that the line in the beginning of this passage that says"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - This is the voting part.  But once a gov't moves from just bad to "becomes destructive" or has a "long train of abuses and usurpations" and rules with "absolute Despotism" - I am pretty certain voting isn't going to change anything, that is if you are allowed to vote at all.  

I agree with the FF's that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".  But they obviously they didn't think that the British Crown was still in the light and transient stage.  

I'm honestly gobsmacked that any American can read this document and then turn around and say with a straight face that we do not have the "right" to rebel should the gov't get to this stage.  I 1000% agree that we should not rebel for light or transient causes.  Trump is transient and is not a cause to rebel and attempt an overthrow of the gov't.  Nor is the gov't taking over BLM land a legitimate reason for the Bundy clan to rebel.  Arguably, how the South was treated during the lead up to the secession and the civil war was the closest we've been to having legitimate reasons for a split.  But even then, I do not think they had enough of a legitimate beef to actually rebel against the Union.  And they lost anyway, so its a moot point.  

So let me ask all you ninnys that say that we do not have a "right" to rebel and throw off the yolk of gov't....... what would you think if trump or someone even worse than trump was somehow able to seize power, and install him or herself as a dictator.  They abolished the courts, congress became a rubber stamp to despotism and they pretty much ignored the constitution and especially the BoRs?  What then?  Are you going to sit there and wring your hands and go......

R'azr:  "Gosh darn, it would be nice if this wasn't the way our gov't was, but since there is no mechanism or law that says we can overthrow the current gov't, I guess I'd better just sit here and take it.  Hey jocal, can you please pass the Vaseline so it doesn't hurt so much when the gov't storm troopers fuck me in the ass tonight?" 

Jocal:  Sure thing mitch, or should I say 'bitch'?  It doesn't matter anyway, when we passed the Gun Confiscation Act of 2022, we basically lost all our ability to push back anyway.  So its a mute point.  I sure wish I had listened to Jeff and Tom back then."

Next question. Are you

a)supporting organized, mustered militia activity, or are you

B) legalizing personal grudge politics with guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

"In history" doesn't mean "only in American history," Doug.

 

Yabbut we were talking about the US pretty specifically, I thought.

 

5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

WTF is wrong with you? I don't think well of anyone from the alt-right. You think I'm from the alt-right and think well of me?

No I think you're a gun nut (not meant as an insult) and Libertarian, and you probably don't like Jethro Tull. I realized a long (long!) time ago that people could like different things than me and still be basically OK... maybe that's wrong? And I read too much.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

We have a right granted by the words of the Declaration of Independence.  I don't know how much more clear that can be:

Note that the line in the beginning of this passage that says"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - This is the voting part.  But once a gov't moves from just bad to "becomes destructive" or has a "long train of abuses and usurpations" and rules with "absolute Despotism" - I am pretty certain voting isn't going to change anything, that is if you are allowed to vote at all.  

I agree with the FF's that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".  But they obviously they didn't think that the British Crown was still in the light and transient stage.  

I'm honestly gobsmacked that any American can read this document and then turn around and say with a straight face that we do not have the "right" to rebel should the gov't get to this stage.  I 1000% agree that we should not rebel for light or transient causes.  Trump is transient and is not a cause to rebel and attempt an overthrow of the gov't.  Nor is the gov't taking over BLM land a legitimate reason for the Bundy clan to rebel.  Arguably, how the South was treated during the lead up to the secession and the civil war was the closest we've been to having legitimate reasons for a split.  But even then, I do not think they had enough of a legitimate beef to actually rebel against the Union.  And they lost anyway, so its a moot point.  

So let me ask all you ninnys that say that we do not have a "right" to rebel and throw off the yolk of gov't....... what would you think if trump or someone even worse than trump was somehow able to seize power, and install him or herself as a dictator.  They abolished the courts, congress became a rubber stamp to despotism and they pretty much ignored the constitution and especially the BoRs?  What then?  Are you going to sit there and wring your hands and go......

R'azr:  "Gosh darn, it would be nice if this wasn't the way our gov't was, but since there is no mechanism or law that says we can overthrow the current gov't, I guess I'd better just sit here and take it.  Hey jocal, can you please pass the Vaseline so it doesn't hurt so much when the gov't storm troopers fuck me in the ass tonight?" 

Jocal:  Sure thing mitch, or should I say 'bitch'?  It doesn't matter anyway, when we passed the Gun Confiscation Act of 2022, we basically lost all our ability to push back anyway.  So its a mute point.  I sure wish I had listened to Jeff and Tom back then."

stop the rambling. the Declaration was a govt's declaration of war on another gov't.  While it claims rights for the "people" - we know the "people" at the time were only white, male, landowners.  Stop re-writing history. there's no need. The SCOTUS has affirmed a personal right to bear arms. Personal rights are open to regulation. It's now just a matter of how much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

We have a right granted by the words of the Declaration of Independence.  I don't know how much more clear that can be:

...    ...    ...

 

I'm honestly gobsmacked that any American can read this document and then turn around and say with a straight face that we do not have the "right" to rebel should the gov't get to this stage   ...    ...

 

Oh yeah.

Kind of like the part declaring that "all men are created equal" ended slavery.

You're gobsmacked over the darndest things

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

stop the rambling. the Declaration was a govt's declaration of war on another gov't.  While it claims rights for the "people" - we know the "people" at the time were only white, male, landowners.  Stop re-writing history. there's no need. The SCOTUS has affirmed a personal right to bear arms. Personal rights are open to regulation. It's now just a matter of how much.

Nice deflection.  We are not talking about the right to bear arms.  We are talking about the right to revolt.  

So direct question.... lets say somehow a future POTUS somehow gains enough power and uses the military or paramilitary like DHS or something to gain total control of the gov't and disbands the other two branches.  He puts congress critters and federal judges up against a wall and executes them and installs himself as emperor.  Are you saying that the citizens have no right or duty to attempt to abolish this "gov't" through force?  Are you seriously suggesting our only option is to vote him out?  How does this work in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites