Token

Token
Birthday
December 31
Title
Rex Der Hause
Company
Ministry of Truth
Bio
and you will stop. don't MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!! let it grow This the faith my Father taught me - and my Father in LAW taght my mate. So let it be written. So let it be done.... otherwise..... Hurry along you don't want to be LATE Butt.. Buttt.. I"M not going anywhere.... and NEITHER are YOU oh....sillyme, NO , not late in the sense of your silly temporal sytem which doesn't even allow me to show my true age.. Late as in the LATE MR DENT I men LATE in it's TRUE sence, you know DEAD..... Bit of THREAT actually come to think of it..... silly things to use to try to control a warrior priest, so I forget sometimes that it actually works on some Humans

MY RECENT POSTS

Token's Links

Salon.com
JANUARY 20, 2013 11:52PM

The Founding Fathers and the "Scary Rifle" Ban

Rate: 6 Flag

 

 I wrote this as a comment on a post that claimed to interpret what the Founding Fathers felt about the Second Amendment and "Assault Rifles"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great piece- just like listening to a dog try to do algebra. Wonderfully opinionated for someone who self admittedly and prima fascia doesn't know a damn thing about what he is talking about.

As Al points out, the FF modelled their notion of “militia” on the Swiss- every citizen a soldier, armed with contemporary military weaponry - right up until the civil war, town or county or “estate” militias would form, keep and practice with their own artillery pieces. As the FF envisioned it, modern militia companies would fall in with “their own county” tank corps and F-16's. ( as essentially do the Swiss to this day) “Gun Control” was first propounded in New York in 1845 as a way of keeping Italians and Irish from defending themselves from “Native” ( Mostly English) Americans, and after the civil war as a way of keeping freed slaves from defending themselves from the KKK,

Also, if you're going to lecture me about Automatic and Semi-Automatic, learn the difference. Automatic weapons ( ones that “spray” bullets, more than one to a trigger pull) have been so heavily regulated since 1934 that you essentially must give the BATF the authority to break in and search your house at will. SEMI AUTOMATICS ( scary looking ) by definition are NOT “Assault Rifles”- Assault Rifles are by definition capable of full auto fire

As it turns out, semi auto high capacity weapons ( Pistols- Scary Rifles) are IDEAL for home/self defense. Why do you think cops carry them? 10 rounds are not enough if the guy attacking you is still breathing. Since you admit you have no experience in such areas, why should I take your mental bullshit in place of my experience about how difficult it might be to hit an aggressor in any situation. ( Have you ever even played Paintball?)

It's all academic any way. The government may only rule by the consent of the governed. A hell of a lot of people won't consent to such nonsense as “The Never Let A Crisis Go to Waster” in chief proposes as a way to draw attention away from his steady destruction of the economy. It would be interesting to know how he stacks up as a serial murderer- he isn't limited to 30 rd clips or Automatic weapons, he simply calls in a missile strike when he wants to murder an American Citizen and any wives children or other innocents who happen to be in the area. The image of him on stage as a “protector of Children” makes me want to vomit.

That said, anyone who wants to own any of the weapons he might succeed in having banned will simply buy one the same place they buy cocaine and marijuana.

But, the cork in the bottle is that the constitution was not written as a list of privileges granted by a generous sovereign to lowly subjects. It was written by Free Men, with unalienable RIGHTs- The Constitution is merely a delegation of authority to act on the behalf of the people as a whole in certain very limited and enumerated duties. It is simply a limited “Power of Attorney”, the authority is delegated with specific limits, the 2nd amendment being one of them. That delegation is revocable at any time, as is any delegation of authority, and the delegate may not delegate the power given to another ( Delegate non delegendus). For the president to take the Arrogant Imperial and high handed power plays he has is exactly like someone you once gave power of attorney to transfer a car title trying to use that power of attorney to close out your bank account and sell your house.

I revoke my power of attorney- I revoke my consent to be governed.

So, in the same manner that a woman always has the right to say no, to refuse physical intimacy, even to her spouse, how much more so may a Free Citizen, a quantum of Free Will, refuse consent to be governed by a government that claims to govern by consent? To claim that my consent is somehow not mine to give is roughly the same as the elders of a village deciding that one of the virgins of a tribe must have sex with them, because  her consent is theirs to give because they “represent her”.

 Be clear. You will need FORCE to govern without consent. INDIVIDUAL consent.

This means that when YOU attempt to force your fears and beliefs upon me and determine what I may do or own by some sheep like herding of power politics into “Legislation” you are of exactly the same Moral character as the village elders who “know what is best” for the virgin- A Rapist

As is Obama

  These NY Women won't comply with gun confiscation or 7 round limit

                               Rapists are harder to kill than deer

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
"Droit du seigneur"- it seems that this is still wanted by the powerful people.

I am still not certain how I feel about semi-automatic weapons and double digit clips. I can feel the need to defend myself and want one of those Glocks, but at the same time I wonder why we aren't advancing and educating ourselves to know that might doesn't make right. Why do I have to live in fear?

It's a muddled up mess. I'm closer to buying the gun.
When "consent" is forced upon an individual, then "government by consent" becomes an oxymoron.

Your argument that the individual may withdraw his consent to be governed by any other person or body of people, is absolutely correct.

You had an excellent chance here, Rudy, to develop that argument to a decent level and leave a mark in this debate. I'm so sorry that you let your hatred (a manufactured hatred, at that) for Mr. Obama, show how you've been psychologically conditioned to the exact same kind of hate exhibited by the rabid Left.

Am I saying that you appear to have been brainwashed?

Gee...... do ya figure?!!

;-)
.
To live under the Constitution is to accept submission to majority will, limited to the degree the "Social Contract" allows. You have no individual right to decide those questions on your own, other than to abandon citizenship and/or leave the country.

Here's a quote describing that:

"It is obviously impracticable in the foederal government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all — Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained."

Google it, just for grins.
Phyllis

I too, wish that I didn't need to own a means to defend myself. If you buy a gun, be absolutely sure to learn how to use it well and safely

Sky

I'm not even sure there is any such thing as an "Obama"- the one I see on TV is such a Narcissistic arrogant "I have the POWER" asshole that it's hard to take him seriously as anything other than an actor in an elaborately plotted "Reality" show.

I admit I use him as a handy punching bag-

He serves as a focus for my feelings toward anyone in government who feels that they must care for us because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. Roughly like the abusive husband who rapes his wife every time he has sex with her, simply because he has no other referent for intercourse.

Obama personally? who knows or cares- he's an Actor. I delight in throwing tomato(e)s at the screen.
the constitution was never ratified by referendum, it was imposed by state government. worse, they are all dead. the american government rules by virtue of laws never formally accepted by living americans.

but no matter- it is a nation of cows, willing to sell out their children for present convenience. so they will continue voting for the lesser evil, and feel fortunate that the good king does them less harm than the bad king. all that is important to them is their mortgage tax relief, garbage collection, and that their middleclass neighborhood be drone free, and free of the sound of gun-fire that enlivens the seedy side of town.
Paul

If you believe in a government of FORCE rather than a government of Consent. That I'm forced doesn't equate with CONSENT. it is the very definition of rape.

This is what I wrote to Kosher as reply to his comment on this Post on Oursalon, it seems apt as an answer that describes my attitude to such delimitations of my Liberty and consent:

A government of consent has no RIGHTS ( nor do any other type of governments, but neither here nor there ) Laws are obeyed as "Rules of thumb" in order to maintain Harmony ( At one ment) and "infractions" are sorted out on a basis of JUSTICE and atonement- NOT LEGALISM and punishment.

What DUTIES it has, are delegated to it as specific and enumerated authorities in which the People ( natural Persons in the incorporation) agree to allow certain agents to oversee the exercise of their and others RIGHTS to ensure mutual Peace and Justice in community intercourse. This delegation is written down in the form of a charter ( The Constitution) which enumerates those specifically delegated powers and authorities and sets certain very clear restrictions upon the exercise of that authority. Among these is the clear warning that the right of the people ( each and every human communicant) shall not be infringed. ( Tampered with in the slightest)

Where we are now is roughly like having bought shares in a Mutual Life Insurance Corporation, only to wake up and find that the President of the Corporation has taken that delegation of authority given to him to manage your investment and parlayed it into emptying your bank account, selling your house, and pimping out your wife and children as prostitutes.

The question is not whether I can be coerced into compliance, I assure you, I have been all my life. The question is one of CONSENT, and it is exactly the sort of consent that is the difference between making love and rape.

I freely consent to participation in the governments Driver licensing and registration scheme, because I agree to the benefits it provides in terms of safety and accountability for damage. It is also quite arguable that access to paved public thoroughfares in a potentially very dangerous contraption is indeed a privilege granted by the People and not a Right given by God ( My Conscience if you will) as is the right to freely travel those same roads by my god provided means of transport ( ie legs). I grant the state that authority.

I also insist on a trial and Justice when a LEPer ( law Enforcement Professional) tickets my car for being parked more than 12 inches from the curb. ( I took pictures with a yardstick showing that the hub itself of the wheel was 10 inches from the curb and insisted on a trial- the Capt of the watch said that his cop was just going to swear i moved it- I pointed out how much faith that gives me in our LEPers, to know that their first reaction on being questioned is to perjure themselves - 3 hours later, I pointed out that his having to humor me over a bullshit $10 ticket for 3 hours had already cost me as a taxpayer, at least the $60 ( min $20 hr x 3) of his time salary for that period, and I was outraged at such waste. The Capt voided the ticket and asked me to go away- )

I don't consent to be “corrected” by idiots in order to generate revenue for the state.

Neither do I consent to be dictated to by idiots because it makes them feel better to tell me that I have no need nor right to own a means of protecting myself from either other animals or from agents of the state. Particularly since the idiots in question are at pains to be clear that they have no duty to protect me or mine. And that of course, it is entirely paranoid to think that said idiots would EVER represent a danger to me, such that I might need a weapon against them.

I consent to the general concept of laws, both civil and criminal, and I consent to authorizing agents of the government REASONABLE use of coercion either by violence, punitive deprivation of rights or property, or excommunication from the community in order to protect members of the community, or indeed, any innocent ( eg animals) from harm. These laws are the criminal laws, and I only consent to the use of violent or punitive deprivation in the case of FELONY ( Fell= Deadly) crimes. Misdemeanors are, by definition, Bad Demeanor, and Bad Behavior is only permissibly punishable by exclusion from participation.

I do NOT consent to Preemptive force on the order of the “Minority Report” crystal ball gazing I ( eg manipulation of statistics or theoretical schemes that do not work in real world trials) to ascertain who “Might” commit crimes and applying preemptive punishment in the form of denial of rights or restriction of activities or possession.

I DO feel the need to “Be Prepared”. ( Boy Scout for 20 years)

Part of that preparedness is my RIGHT to defend myself and my family and community from all enemies, government and criminal, foreign and domestic. So long as I harm no one by it, I have a god given ( conscience) right to own anything up to and including a nuclear bomb ( or a computer with internet access to the defense department's nuclear bombs- and drones) I am coerced into not fulfilling that felt need by the penalties that the government has set forth in its usurpation of my 2nd amendment rights. Since I really don't think I will actually either need or be able to afford a Nuclear bomb, I haven't pushed it. ( digress a minute- do you think any law could prevent Bill gates or George Soros from owning a bomb if they wanted one?- do you think it HAS?)

Back to the topic under discussion. I refuse my consent to abrogate my god given right to own what I deem necessary to my defense from criminals. In this case, a “Scary Rifle” with 30 ( or 100) round magazines. I will discuss the efficiency of such a weapon for the task if you wish, suffice to say cops like them. I do not consent to any ban on such devices. What stand and whether I take any stand against the coercion put in place by the state in order to keep me from possessing one is not the point.

The point is that the State is simply a delegation of my individual will and consent, in much the same way that the decision to have sexual intercourse is a matter of will and consent between a Russian peasant woman and a squad of Nazi soldiers. To say that she consents because the intercourse actually does happen, therefore the Nazi's have a right to do it ( because they can) is precisely the nature of what has become of our “government of consent”. The morality involved is exactly the same.

In other circumstances the unwillingly conscripted teen age German soldier and the poor Russian peasant girl might become the stuff of a tremendous romance on the all conquering nature of love, and their sexual acts might be the stuff of ecstasy--

so is my relationship to the state.

Never mistake what I put up with because I can't change it with what I know to be right.

And never mistake my acquiescence in the face of threat of force to be endorsement.

The Constitution is a delegation of limited authority to a corporation for limited purposes, by Quanta of Free Will,

IT IS NOT a specification of revocable privilege from a Sovereign Deity Collective to its subjects.

I will not CONSENT to any other interpretation.
You're free to have your own interpretation, but what you describe isn't the Constitution or the philosophy behind it. What you describe is a pre-constitutional, pre-liberal philosophy, pre-civilization "State of Nature." It's like libertarianism, but with naked aborigines and mud huts.

Alas, the Constitution is a liberal social contract, not a libertarian manifesto. As the quote above from the Federal Convention, introducing the Constitution, says, you surrender some liberties in order to preserve others. Pure, double-deluxe, foundational liberal philosophy.

While your concept may be interesting and individual, it's not relevant to the Constitution, generally speaking.
Quizzical.

Your knowledge of early Militia and Gun Control herstory is spot on, yet the last 4 years [back from a world crash to limited prosperity] which is the time of our BLACK HAWAIIAN FEARLESS LEADER and his heroic restoration of our economy seems invisible to you- yet, there it is, the record of the DOW for the entire time, sitting there plain as day.

It seems this phenomena could be the same one that leads people to hide directly behind the Social Contract while lobbing bombs at it, in true glass house fashion.

IMUA (ONWARD)
"yet, there it is, the record of the DOW for the entire time, sitting there plain as day."


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Seriously, dude? You are going to us Obama's traitorous selling out to corporate profits as your proof? Why do you think those corporations made so much money? Could it be because Obama's refusal to prosecute ANY wrong doing, his support of corporate rights over human rights and all of the money that those good corporate citizens have given him and the other Dempublicans?
I can think of no situation where you have a right to defend yourself against the government. I don't think that is anywhere in the Constitution. If you think about it, you are saying that a provision of the law that you have a right to fight with arms tells you that you can. It makes no sense. The Constitution actually prescribes specific means for dealing with government, and for making amendments to itself. The notion that the government provides a way to take arms against itself is nonsense. Civil war is actually illegal. It is not a right.
@Bill Beck:

You're absolutely right. Complete nonsense.

"A well regulated Militia, composed of gentlemen freeholders, and other freemen, is the natural strength and only stable security of a free Government." - George Mason

"Thus, the Second Amendment protected the right of the states to maintain and arm their own militias, as long was they were "well regulated" and ultimately under federal control. The Amendment was not a suicide clause allowing revolutionaries to create private militias to overthrow the national government or even to impede the faithful execution of the law. The Amendment prevented Congress from abolishing the organized, well-regulated militias of the states."

'A WELL REGULATED MILITIA': THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE by Paul Finkelman, Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law.
[r] Rudy, I agree with your sensibility re Obama and do not consider you or myself "rabid" whether left or libertarian.

I am a pacifist. I am against guns. I have been close to a near fatality or two re guns and recklessness from gun possessors emotionally off-balance. It is sobering. The fewer guns in existence the better as far as I am concerned.

NY cops shoot to kill. I have empathy for cops, but life has become too cheap to our leaders and that has been messaged down to our cops and soldiers.

Homeless people breaking mentally and acting out from duress not seriously endangering others and capable of being "rounded up" for help instead are killed without question on the streets, and the mayor takes a bow and the media applauds. WTF?

The danger of guns does not come from the "emotionally ill" primarily -- apparently only 4% of gun violence comes from "officially" (however that is determined) "emotionally ill" people. Most crimes come from drug induced, alcohol induced, ego-violated induced reckless ragings. as well as your criminal class Yes, we need to protect ourselves from rapists and other types of criminals.

We need a police force that is still focused on the real evil perpetrators and not obsessed with going after people calling out the government for its blatant evil. But our government lets the big-time criminals walk and God-help anyone trying to whistle-blow on them or directly on the government doing that. They call it fascism. Government by psychopathic power mongers.

Bush threw our Constitution in the wastebasket and Obama has simply left it there. Uber-teflon Obama. "I didn't throw it there. I just didn't take it out and restore it." implies Obama. Hah!!! And bobble-headed Americans buy that. It wasn't Obama. It was Bush. Bush was a monster. Obama is a slick monster. Obama keeps on violating our rights.

Evil is evil no matter the mask.

All the deaths in the cities from the non-assault weapons are being ignored. Those should not be ignored. The gun issue is a new opportunity for the Obama cabal to ramp up surveillance and remove citizen rights in the guise of caring about the poor Newtown "kids". More razzle dazzle impression management. Give me a friggen break. As Obama destroys the schools and deprofessionalizes teachers he postures for the cameras as caring. The cynicism and exploitation is vomit-inducing. Disinformation is the name of that game, and now that Obama has a whole network, MSNBC, selling out for him, disinforming for him, as well as more and more of Hollywood and the teebee shows, fascism becomes more and more the way of America.

Life is cheap for a government that does not role model peace. Instead it sells weapons to anyone and everyone to destabilize the whole damn world to colonize it for power and profit. It teams up with one of the most ferocious regimes on the face of the earth, Saudi Arabia, supplies it with incredible amounts of vicious weaponry and enables it to feed that weaponry to Middle Easterners willing to destroy countries and peoples so the spoils of said countries can be shared with the big bullies. That is the US, Saudi Arabia, NATO and all the little bullies colluding with them, until they, too, will be turned on. Meanwhile the US when convenient which seems all the time now decides it will involve itself with countries with juicy resources in the guise of helping the poor citizens with their freedoms, poor citizens soon to be refugees if they are lucky or DEAD collateral damage if they are not.

Rabid protesting, you say? Yeah, let's not over-react to this ethical freakshow?

Psychopathic, sociopathic. Evil is prevailing. Evil has the drones. Evil has the cluster bombs. Evil tortures and evil detains. Evil rapes. Evil robs. Evil recruits more evil doers. Evil really likes ostriches and those who go after the messengers calling out evil.

I will try to wrap my head around the gun issue better but I list to the "two wrongs don't make a right" scenario and guns are so romanticized and glamorized as representing macho power, since kids are little, and all over the tv screen and video screens, that it makes me despair. We need a humanist paradigm shift away from those dangerous and wrong-headed symbols of power. There is a hypnotic enthrallment with guns and macho-ness. Channel surf and you see non-stop killing. Killing, killing, killing. How much focus on morality and processing the horrors and motivations? Even well drawn dramas like L&O. I wonder what the cumulative impact is of watching them over and over and over. In terms of desensitization to brutality?

My thoughts this depressing inauguration day, Rudy!

best, libby
i suggest that any who talk about the american constitution either read a lot of history, or accept, provisionally, that the constitution of '89 was a counter-revolutionary document.

the process was this: in the years leading up to the revolution america's elite became uncomfortable about british rule. in the south, the plantation owner's were terrified and enraged at several common law judgements in britain which essentially made slavery legally impossible to enforce. remaining in the same legal system was dangerous to their wealth. they found common cause with elements in the north: the shippers who profited from the triangle trade, the lawyers who resented stamp duty, and the smugglers [often lawyers and shippers] who were being put out of business by receding customs duties.

so they published a declaration of independence filled with fine phrases meant to engage loyalty from all walks of life, 'all men are born equal.' they didn't mean a word of it, read their published personal correspondence.

the revolution was successful, then stage 2: excluding 'all men' from the reins of government. their argument is the same as that of every elite, "the mob are children, the better sort of citizen must rule."

but throughout history, the 'better sort' have ruled, and their track record should incline anyone with an inclination toward good social administration to demand democracy.
Paul, Oahu, Bill, and Kanuk

Nor is the Constitution relevant to the sort of blatantly unconstitutional usurpation of power that the President is currently busily overseeing. The relevant default mode of such “Democracy” is “Payback”
(“When in the course of human events.....) I know how that works and have participated in such games most of my life- How about you? Can I expect you on my doorstep anytime soon to ENFORCE “The Will of the Borg”?

Never fear, if I feel that I need a machine gun ( or an armored personnel carrier) I'll consort with other like minded INDIVIDUALS at the local airbase and see what we can come up with - (maybe even an F-22 or so) Mostly, I'll try to leave apocalypse now to the younger fellers around here. Maybe I'll make a few assault weapons ( fully automatic) out of plumbing parts, or on a friends CNC milling machine, just to keep my hand in. Have you seen the guns you can make on a Rep Rap?- really interesting stuff. I'm also designing an an air powered machine gun- hence not a firearm and not regulated- hows that?
Really sorry I don't have your consent to do so. Not sure why I'd need to ask it.

Actually, I'd rather keep U.S. together, because from what I see, Obama et alia are just a front for the Multinational ( S.P.E.C.T.R.E- remember them? now a wholly owned subsidiary of Chase Bank, etc. ) 1% er Criminal Corporations trying to destroy the last bulwark of individual freedom. ( OK, I surrender, THAT thought is JUST TOO CRAZY_ Right? Come and takee me away!!! ( or at least forbid me access to dangerous devices)) so that they can continue to suck the life blood from the proletariat 98%!!! ( Fascist Monsters!~)


Amy, Libby, and Al

Thank you for your support, I know we differ in some things, but we are Natural Persons of conscience and in your company, I can be certain that at least I will be treated as an intelligent Quantum of Being and Free Will ( even if a pain in the ass), no matter how “crazy” the discussion gets.

(rant warning)

Thanks for being part of the Spirit of the true America of Individuals in a Community, rather than the divisive parsers of what the meaning of “IS” is who live within the symbolic Borg of the Crony Corporate Government of US, racking their dictionary and thesaurus for new ways of “justifying” their dictatorships by clever creation and manipulation of Law, without regard to Justice.
( Whew!!) ( Can anyone say Nattering Nabobs of Negativism three times quickly?)
PS Libby

I wish that I did not feel there was a need to protect the defenceless-
I'm delighted and grateful that I've never had to shoot anyone in defence of RIGHT- though I have on several occasions driven off predators by brandishing a gun- once halting a rape.

I agree that guns are too glamorized- I grew up with them as a tool, no different in "danger" than an axe or a knife.

but they can't be uninvented, so it is a matter of political power to be armed. An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subjct.
Rude, not only do you have my consent to do so, I request that you do so. Be sure to make a martyr video so we will know when you were last seen. That'll be great.
Bill

Like I said, i don't recall asking your permission. And my signature isn't on the Constitution, I checked. I consent to its authority only so long as it is correctly interpreted in favor of each and every individual natural person of the People and their unalienable rights. Like any power of attorney, the delegation of authority IS revocable.

As far as the "martyr" thing goes, I agree with Patton in that my duty isn't to die for my cause, it's to make sure some other poor SOB dies for HIS cause. I get along fine in my community. I don't expect to be martyred by them any time soon.

You, on the other hand, might be well advised to stay out of my community, if you come trying to enforce YOUR cause. ( certainly NOT because you appear to be African American, we hate petty dictators of any shape size or color- Military people and Rednecks are funny that way. )

As to whether the prez sends his thugs, it might get kind of hairy, what with the Martial law around here being the Air Force- they might have problems with who they obey in the case of Obama declaring himself king. ( Believe me, they have HUGE problems with him on an individual off the record "Non-Professional" basis-)
I see their all here. O'Rourke with his prefabricated and pretentious constitutional arguments that ignore the fact that this country was founded by an armed revolution against the existing government (Paul you like to tell everybody you’re a lawyer. Then I must assume you are familiar with the importance of precedence when arguing your case). Then there are a few others that seem to be saying I can’t defend myself therefore self defense should not be an option for anyone. I am an avowed coward and would prefer to be a helot than to ever fire a shot in anger at the people who murder my loved ones by cover of darkness (for the governments hand in atrocities like this see the work of Richard Gage, Steven Jones, and Niels H. Harrit, then we can get started on the Oklahoma City bombing, and after that maybe we will discuss all the evidence that Aurora and Sandy Hook were staged to unleash you people and your incessant clucking imploring us all into slavery). That’s the true foundation for the liberal whining about guns. Its not altruism like they have convinced only themselves.They want to project their cowardice upon the rest of the country.

Then we have Bill Beck perhaps the most repugnant of all individuals on OS. What was that you said Bill? “I can think of no situation where you have a right to defend yourself against the government.” Yea, I believe you used to be a cop. 20 million killed by the Bolsheviks. 20 million killed by the Nazis. How many in Africa and Haiti (why don’t you ask Ezili Danto how different things would be in Haiti if the people were armed)? Slaughtered by ruthless policy's of genocide carried out by their governments and made easy by the fact that those who were murdered had no means of defending themselves. And Bill giggles like a school girl because he is so happy his black president will attempt to disarm the crackers that he so hates. Only on OS could a guy like him get a pass because he is Black. No wonder markinjapan left this site.

Don’t bother answering me because I’m not going to read it. We can do our talking in the streets and as Jim Morrison once said “better bring your gun.”

One other thing you people seem to feel you have some kind of a consensus because that is what Wall Streets MSM says. The last legitimate poll I saw had America in favor of Assault Rifles in the hands of its citizens at 72% . In fact Clinton s treason banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines was rescinded as soon as he left office (it’s a shame the same wasn’t done with his repeal of the Glass Steagall Act at the behest of his Wall Street and global corporate masters).You think the military is going to disarm the folks back home? You should think again and start reading Veterans Today ( http://www.veteranstoday.com/ ). See what the boys with the guns are saying because I will tell you right now it doesn’t matter what cowering woman and emasculated “men” think. They will do what what they are told by the victorious. That’s the way its always been throughout the course of history and that is as it should be. Nature has its laws for a reason. In a world that’s in accordance with reality, as opposed to the self serving virtual reality the globalists have created, helots don’t vote.
Jack, if you knew what you're talking about I'd be offended.
That's exactly it Amy --- step back .... stand behind protective contract ... make sure you're in perfect safety yourself ... begin the long denial, yawn.

It isn't a matter of liking the markets, either they're good or they're bad and people, actual people, get hurt.

If, in addition to despising capitalism, you have an alternative we haven't, yawn, tried, and hopefully it's not some Objectivism that basically serves up the same fantasies without the PR ...

I like living off the land, I'd love to see an economy not dominated by evil corporate swine ... but, a president has to think about Hoovervilles, hell we've actually go them, how convenient to armchair QB him as if you're the next Menger yourself ;(
Bill writes: "I can think of no situation where you have a right to defend yourself against the government."

Kanuk quotes: "The Amendment was not a suicide clause allowing revolutionaries to create private militias to overthrow the national government or even to impede the faithful execution of the law."

I certainly am not a constitutional scholar. But we find this remark in District of Columbia v. Heller: "There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be "necessary to the security of a free state." See 3 [Joseph] Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary--an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

The Joseph Story referred to above "was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845. He is most remembered for his opinions in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and The Amistad, and especially for his magisterial Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, first published in 1833. Dominating the field in the 19th century, this work is a cornerstone of early American jurisprudence. It is the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and remains a critical source of historical information about the forming of the American republic and the early struggles to define its law." [from the Wikipedia article]

Concerning the Second Amendment, Story wrote "One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.

"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In case you don't have a dictionary handy, a "palladium" is "a safeguard, especially one viewed as a guarantee of the integrity of social institutions." It comes from the original meaning of "a sacred object that was believed to have the power to preserve a city or state possessing it," the original sacred object being "a statue of Pallas Athena believed to protect Troy."

In other words, the Second Amendment is the right that protects all other rights.

While District of Columbia v. Heller is not "about" the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny, it is instructive that the decision identifies defense against tyranny as one of three legitimate reasons why the militia was believed to be "necessary to the security of a free state." The decision also states that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

While Bill cannot think of "where you have a right to defend yourself against the government," the founders could easily think of it. They were wise enough to understand that human nature could produce "ambitious and unprincipled rulers" who would "subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." A defense against such rulers would not be the act of "suicide" that Kanuk mentions, but a defense against tyrannical rulers.

While I think this is a reasonable understanding of the Second Amendment, I want to be clear that I am not one of those who see the hand of tyranny at work in every new law or regulation.
mish,
Story was doing nothing more than repeating the original defense of the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with an individual right, or a right to insurrection. The concept is simple. If the Fed Gov becomes tyrannical, your state militia will oppose it. If your state gov becomes tyrannical, the Federalized militia will oppose it. If one comes at you and the other won't protect you, you're an insurrectionist (and screwed).

Bill is right because that scenario is almost entirely unlikely today. Kanuk is right because it applies ONLY to state or fed militias, not insurrection.

Story does nothing to support the arbitrary decision to, after 213 years, suddenly find an individual right in the 2nd. It's windy window dressing, nothing more. That doesn't mean I don't think you "should" have the right of home defense, just that it was never the intention of the 2nd amendment. That it is now rests solely on the Heller decision, not historical fact.

The irony...or hypocrisy...of Scalia's amendment of the amendment is...to cite only one example...that he's known for saying judges should rule on what the law is, not what they want it to be. He wanted to reverse every element of 2nd amendment history to wedge an individual right into it, and he did. It's called "Judicial Activism."
amend (haha) "Should" to "Shouldn't"
Ok, I read it again. I was right the first time. Re-amend to "should." Gee, I could be a Supreme Court Justice!...and now I'll finish my coffee, like I "should" have before I started writing....
In my layman's interpretation of the Second, and with what I've read about it, at the very least the Second Amendment presumes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Stated differently, it does not grant a right; it recognizes a preexisting right. What those arms are, and how and where they can be used is open to discussion. Without private ownership of arms there is no militia, or at best a militia armed with knives and rocks.

I agree that an insurrection "scenario is almost entirely unlikely today." So what I'm discussing is theoretical and hopefully, will never happen. Unfortunately, things are theoretical until they aren't, and "unlikely" is not "impossible." In addition to "ambitious and unprincipled rulers," there is what one might call a "totalizing" tendency of government. The government wants to observe all, know all, control all. Today the U.S. government is doing things that would have been unimaginable (and technically not even possible) thirty years ago. What will we see thirty years from now? I don't know, but I do know that it is quite possible that there are things that we cannot imagine today may be the status quo in the future.

And maybe it all comes down to how much a person trusts government, any government. A person who trusts that his government will do the right thing sufficiently often, and who trusts that his government will make an adequate effort protect him and his family, will probably see little reason for private ownership of firearms. A person who does not have that trust will probably see private ownership of firearms as necessary.

Some years ago I was very opposed to guns. In fact, I used to donate money to what was then the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. And then one day my wife came home and told me that one of her clients had been stalking her. Shortly thereafter he also started stalking me. To make a very long story short, the police had nothing to offer, and it was at that point that I realized I was responsible for my own defense. And that if the stalker ever violently confronted me in the street or in my own house, I would have to provide for my own defense.

That's my story. It's not everyone's story, but it is mine, and it is a story of how, for me, the issue of firearms went from being theoretical to practical. And for anyone who believes that, in the event he is confronted with a dangerous situation the government will be there to protect him, all I can say is that I hope that works out for you.
mish,
The 2nd gives the right to be armed to maintain the militia. The anti-federalist claim (fear?) was the supposed runaway federal gov would disarm the militias in favor of a standing army. In art 1, s 8, Congress has the power to (among other things) arm the militias. The claim was Congress could refuse to arm them and, because only Congress has the power, the states could not. So the 2nd gives the right to arm, etc, to The People (note collectively, as in the sovereign form) avoiding the possibility of the above happening, and because The People are of the states and the nation, either way, the militias would be armed. As noted above, 'bear arms" had an almost exclusively military meaning. If confused, look at the prefatory clause that refers to militias.


Most states had similar language in their BORights. Pennsylvania and one other state (too lazy to look it up) included, in separate language, the Personal Right (to hunt, self-defense, etc). I think Pennsylvania also included that in their Fed BORights submission along with their ratification of the Constitution. However, it was not included in the 2nd amendment, nor did the debate touch on a personal right or self defense. It was mostly about a conscientious objector clause that was cut from the amendment as it now reads. Why? Well, the Feds would declare some as such and refuse them arms. BTW, not all arms were to be personal in all cases but also supplied by the feds, from an armory. The Feds obviously could not refuse to arm those already armed.

The funny thing about Heller is the personal right language was rejected out-of-hand by the 1st Congress, yet it suddenly becomes 'evidence" of the personal right in the 2nd. There's a list of strange things about the decision in Heller, per history of the 2nd and previous Court decisions. However, personal right is what the 2nd means as of 2008, so there it is. Concealed carry will probably be in next year's Court session, per the 7th Court of Appeals recent ruling.

I was never anti-gun, and did some .22 plinking as a kid. I also went through 3 armed robberies working for Safeway when I was a 21 year old, and have had a 12 gauge at my head, a .38 on my back and a .357 aimed at my chest. At the same time. I may write about those robberies someday. All of them lasted for several minutes, not quick stick-ups. We were laid on the floor in the 1st. Some blood in the 2nd robbery, but not mine. All by the same guys within 2 weeks time. Anyway, I know fear and I know what it's like to want to kill somebody. I get where you're coming from, in other words, and maybe more so.
Jack

Thanks for stopping by, and for the veteran site. It is always strange to me when someone like Obama makes decrees as if they were personal dictates ( as, in his case, they most often are) and then gets outraged that his worshipful subjects just don't immediately carry them out.

The primary problem with his sheep who would violently enforce “non-violence” is that generally they lack either the guts or the experience to do so. Obam's Narcissism will do for their “Guts”, and there are always thugs for hire. but they still don't seem to understand that the thugs he hires for enforcement aren't to drive off the violent, but rather to herd the sheep. It's a “Clockwork Orange” world for the bamster and his jolly droogs.

Oahu

Yep, Obama has certainly been good to those mean old 1% ers who won't pay their fair share. Everybody else has quit being “unemployed” because they've quit looking for work.

mishima

Thanks for stopping by. One of the features of modern “Constitutionalism” is that it is no longer taught as the basis of our government, our society. We've fallen back into the democratic state of nature known as “Payback”. Since we are still enmeshed with the trappings of the constitution, they still can be used to a limited extent as an argument, but when you have a god emperor ruling who has just had his anointment renewed, then the “Constitution” is whatever the anointed one can get away with with 9 black robed court fool monkeys chittering at him in the background.

When the president of your PTA interprets her powers to include pimping out your children, then the PTA charter is no longer a relevant basis of argument.

Paul

You can parse the Constitution up and down, “Payback” and “wergeld” are the new ruling principles of the land. Fortunately, the 2nd amendment was written with just such an occurrence in mind. It isn't the gun that's the weapon tyrants fear- It's the free will and spirit of the People. That Spirit is the true weapon of Liberty.
"Parse" meaning accurate history as opposed to suppositions and personal theories outside of accurate history.
Paul

Parse it any way you like, when push comes to shove, I guess we'll just have to see who gets what shoved where. See you on the battlefield. Political Power comes out of the barrel of a gun. That's the real world interpretation of any legal document- and that's the game Obama is playing. Game on.
Rude,
I was just commenting. I don't do fantasy role-playing games, whether Dungeons and Dragons or Invasion of the Tyrannical Oppressors. I'm not against others combining fantasy with perceived machismo, but it's just not my game.
Paul

That you live in the world of words and don't understand action is the reason that your words are irrelevant in any real political sense. I'll worry about you and your opinions when I see you on my porch breaking into my house ( be sure to wear a rose so I'll know who you are when I bayonet you) (Actually, I'd just call the LOCAL cops- or maybe take you out for as beer for being so absurd).
actually it's pure brass...
....confirmed by the EEG....
Well Paul

As usual, discussion with you has become pointless and boring. I will leave you here alone as usual. playing with yourself......