Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I think the word for that is oily.
Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?
- Thread starter Tennessee Gentleman
- Start date
- Status
I think the word for that is oily.
copenhagen
New member
TG, M16s are no more Dangerous than AR15s. Call my 6 years in the USMC useless so far if you want, but I have to tell ya bud, well aimed shots beat out "burst" any day of the week.
OK, just to refresh memories on the new page, the quote TN Gent is trying to back up:
The first quote offered in support is one in which I specifically mention safe storage and firing restrictions and regulations. As for the rest, missiles and aircraft are not ALL military weapons. They're not nukes, to name the most glaring and obvious example.
Try again. Remember the key words you used to describe me: UNRESTRICTED access to ALL military weapons. Bet you can't back it up (once again), but I'll be amused if you try again.
So what is disingenuous or "oily" about finding areas of agreement to work together with like-minded individuals, even if they don't agree with you about everything.
The first quote offered in support is one in which I specifically mention safe storage and firing restrictions and regulations. As for the rest, missiles and aircraft are not ALL military weapons. They're not nukes, to name the most glaring and obvious example.
Try again. Remember the key words you used to describe me: UNRESTRICTED access to ALL military weapons. Bet you can't back it up (once again), but I'll be amused if you try again.
So what is disingenuous or "oily" about finding areas of agreement to work together with like-minded individuals, even if they don't agree with you about everything.
Sideshows aside, TN Gent, do you really believe that our nation could not ever face another revolution? I think the answer to that question is central to answering the topic question of your thread. Is it your belief that we could never in a million years grow ourselves a tyrannical government which would deserve and require a violent revolution?
Stagger Lee
New member
It's mine.
We have a system of government in which far too many people must agree before anything happens. That's two separate bodies--the House and the Senate, comprised of 535 individuals, and once a majority of them agree, the President still has to sign off on it. All of those people are elected by--and answer to--the voters, who are or at least should be fully informed by the media as to the issues and the actions of the legislature. Additionally, we have courts that oversee and can nullify acts of the legislature which are at odds with the Constitution. Checks and balances, and checks and balances on top of the checks and balances. That's how the system works.
Additionally, nobody runs for office thinking "hey, I'm going to do what I can to subvert the constitution and do away with our democracy..." That's Turner Diaries stuff, not reality. And even if one of those people gets in office somehow, they're still vastly outnumbered by other people who don't think like that, and they're all watched by us, The People.
Now you'll have to tell me how you think that the tyranny that you and others here fantasize about can happen because it's my contention that it cannot happen.
Isolated incidents like Waco, Ruby Ridge, confiscation of a few guns during the Katrina aftermath...none of that stuff comes anywhere close to "a tyrannical government" nor does it justify some of the across-the-board anti-government fear and raging hate that we routinely get from a few of the usual suspects on this board.
So if you want to continue believing that you and your rifle stand ready to fight the tyrannical government that might someday come along, first you'll have to surmise how that could actually happen, and then you'll have to explain why you let it happen, because it cannot happen overnight nor can it happen in secret.
Conn. Trooper
New member
I dont see the government that we have today (not this government in particular, the style of democratic government) is ever going to cause a revolution. The government we have is made up of your friends and neighbors (mycongressman lives 3 roads over), the people we elect. Not a king, or a dictator, or a shah, or whatever. We the people decide who represents us.
Now that being said, the national guard is especially made up of your friends and neighbors, they have armories in your neighborhood and drill in your neighborhood. I was in the guard for a while and I drilled and went ti an armory 10 miles from my house.
Should a king ( dictator, emperor, shah, etc.) attempt to seize power from our democratically elected government, then yes, I would say revolution by force is needed. Until then, no.
Police and soldiers are hired and enlist from the people in this country. They are also your friends and neighbors. They are not english sent by the king to oppress the colonies, or planning on gassing the kurds tomorrow, etc. If taking a few guns after katrina is the worst offense, and that has been addressed by laws and civil suits, then I dont see why this is an issue.
Millions of men and women have died to have the country we have today, and given us the right to vote. Use it to make changes. Typing tough guy comments about how you will fight to the death to save democracy (and guns) is counterproductive at best. If you want to fight for democracy, join the military.
Now that being said, the national guard is especially made up of your friends and neighbors, they have armories in your neighborhood and drill in your neighborhood. I was in the guard for a while and I drilled and went ti an armory 10 miles from my house.
Should a king ( dictator, emperor, shah, etc.) attempt to seize power from our democratically elected government, then yes, I would say revolution by force is needed. Until then, no.
Police and soldiers are hired and enlist from the people in this country. They are also your friends and neighbors. They are not english sent by the king to oppress the colonies, or planning on gassing the kurds tomorrow, etc. If taking a few guns after katrina is the worst offense, and that has been addressed by laws and civil suits, then I dont see why this is an issue.
Millions of men and women have died to have the country we have today, and given us the right to vote. Use it to make changes. Typing tough guy comments about how you will fight to the death to save democracy (and guns) is counterproductive at best. If you want to fight for democracy, join the military.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Well you are right about one thing, I am NOT going to do that again. We can play with the exact words that you said or didn't say but my recollection from the previous threads we discussed you and several others clung to the idea that since the unorganized "militia" stood as a bulwark against tyranny then they should be equipped with the same weapons in use by our current military since when they needed to raise up and smite the tyrant they needed to be on somewhat equal footing with the US military and that meant all weapons used by the military should be available to civilians and protected by the 2A. That means ALL weapons. If you wish to retreat from that fine but the quotes I showed I think demonstrated your position. It is not a smear.
Nothing and I would applaud that. What is disingenious is using extremes to make your point seem reasonable and/or the other guys seem silly. So you use M16s since they are the low end of the spectrum of military arms and don't seem as dangerous as other military arms such as rocket launchers which would be harder to defend and make you look kind of loony. But you want more than "just" M16s to be available. Kind of like the Brady's saying "we don't want all your guns."
As I have said before rhetorically anything is possible but I agree with Stagger Lee and the Trooper that it would be unlikely to the point of rendering moot the unregulated militia being of any value.
I agree with the Trooper who says if you want to fight for democracy become a LEO or join the military. Otherwise, vote, participate in our democracy and help to build the institutions that makes us great. As a sergeant of mine once said to a private who asked why we were on the border guarding against attack of the Warsaw Pact when it was freezing cold and miserable: "So civilians will have better things to do" You have better things to do publius than pretend you are some type of militia warrior ever vigilant against a tyrannical army. You have better things to do.
Last edited:
CGSteve8718
New member
Conn Trooper said:
Even though I'm on the other side of this argument, this is a reasonable and well written post. I agree with it. It doesn't sound naive, so long as you know that not everyone with a badge or a uniform is a good person, and the services are at the whim of the govt. as a whole, and is not used always to defend democracy (see my earlier comments about Smedley Butler and Cold War era).
Though that is not tyranny on a grand scale that would require an armed revolution.
If you want to fight for democracy - join the military? Hmmmm... That's a bit like saying: 'If you want to fight against America becoming a police-state - join the police!'
One could argue that militias and the 2nd Amend. have already a history of profound failure. The Civil War was a total meltdown of the constitution - and the 2nd Amend. didn't do much good to help the situation. One might even argue that the 2nd Amend. inflamed the situation. There is also a history in America of denying people their 2nd Amendment rights ie. slaves were denied 2nd amendment rights, and native tribes were denied 2nd amendment rights...There's a long history of double standards in regard to 2nd amendment rights.
The idea that some rogue leader will seize power is a bit farfetched. Most likely the tyranny will come from a dominant majority party enthusiastically electing a Reagan-esque, Kennedy-esque, popular leader and then discovering too late that he and his cronies are a bunch of misguided ideolgues who put themselves above civil liberty and the general welfare of others. Tyranny will come wrapped in the flag. Misplaced patriotism - is always a good way to foster tyranny too.
There has also been a history of radical opposition to the govt. by various individuals and groups ie. Shay's Rebellion, Radical Ablitionists, Unions,
the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground, the KKK, radical militias...
While I deplore the ideas and actions of some of these groups, they do all nevertheless sometimes function as watchdogs or coal mine canaries in that they are the flashpoints of opposition to 'perceived' or 'real' acts of government tyranny. Do we really want a government to be so totalitarian that it makes it even harder for people to radically oppose government policy? Do we want to really consign free speech to an Orwellian Free Speech Zone? Do we really want to water down the 2nd Amend. to the point where it is a hollow shell of rights that basically just supports a Police State?
Just some thoughts...
One could argue that militias and the 2nd Amend. have already a history of profound failure. The Civil War was a total meltdown of the constitution - and the 2nd Amend. didn't do much good to help the situation. One might even argue that the 2nd Amend. inflamed the situation. There is also a history in America of denying people their 2nd Amendment rights ie. slaves were denied 2nd amendment rights, and native tribes were denied 2nd amendment rights...There's a long history of double standards in regard to 2nd amendment rights.
The idea that some rogue leader will seize power is a bit farfetched. Most likely the tyranny will come from a dominant majority party enthusiastically electing a Reagan-esque, Kennedy-esque, popular leader and then discovering too late that he and his cronies are a bunch of misguided ideolgues who put themselves above civil liberty and the general welfare of others. Tyranny will come wrapped in the flag. Misplaced patriotism - is always a good way to foster tyranny too.
There has also been a history of radical opposition to the govt. by various individuals and groups ie. Shay's Rebellion, Radical Ablitionists, Unions,
the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground, the KKK, radical militias...
While I deplore the ideas and actions of some of these groups, they do all nevertheless sometimes function as watchdogs or coal mine canaries in that they are the flashpoints of opposition to 'perceived' or 'real' acts of government tyranny. Do we really want a government to be so totalitarian that it makes it even harder for people to radically oppose government policy? Do we want to really consign free speech to an Orwellian Free Speech Zone? Do we really want to water down the 2nd Amend. to the point where it is a hollow shell of rights that basically just supports a Police State?
Just some thoughts...
WeedWacker
New member
Then I would be terrified of what you would constitute as an oppressive/tyrannical government, especially in the terms of Hurricane Katrina
Stagger, Conn Troop, and TN Gent,
It seems as though you all have the same answer to the topic question. A militia can't/doesn't exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government simply because it's impossible that our government could ever turn bad. At this time, I agree. However, I would point out that the people who designed our government did not agree for all time, and I share that view with them. They figured the government they were building might turn bad, and that's why the 2nd amendment was included in the first place.
TN Gent, stand by your incorrect opinion of my views if you must, but I will just say I didn't vote for the entire list on this thread and your mind-reading skills are not as sharp as you seem to believe.
If arguing that the most common military rifle in our armed forces was not within the intent of the 2nd amendment seems silly, why do you do it? If you look up the word, what is REALLY disingenuous is misrepresenting another person's views to make your point seem reasonable and the other guy seem silly. You know, like saying someone favors unrestricted access to all military weapons just to make that person seem loony, when the fact is that the premise is wrong, and the person in question does NOT hold that position. THAT would be disingenuous (and a smear).
It seems as though you all have the same answer to the topic question. A militia can't/doesn't exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government simply because it's impossible that our government could ever turn bad. At this time, I agree. However, I would point out that the people who designed our government did not agree for all time, and I share that view with them. They figured the government they were building might turn bad, and that's why the 2nd amendment was included in the first place.
TN Gent, stand by your incorrect opinion of my views if you must, but I will just say I didn't vote for the entire list on this thread and your mind-reading skills are not as sharp as you seem to believe.
If arguing that the most common military rifle in our armed forces was not within the intent of the 2nd amendment seems silly, why do you do it?
If you look up the word, what is REALLY disingenuous is misrepresenting another person's views to make your point seem reasonable and the other guy seem silly. You know, like saying someone favors unrestricted access to all military weapons just to make that person seem loony, when the fact is that the premise is wrong, and the person in question does NOT hold that position. THAT would be disingenuous (and a smear).Happily, this is a policy decision the COTUS removes from the judgment of individual citizens.
Familiarity and tyranny are not contrary concepts. The american response to taxation that would be phenomenally low by modern standards was not because friends and neighbors were shut out of the system; they weren't. We were english and part of an english system, not something foreign to it.
I think that was valuable service, and part of a social and political good. The salutary effect of that kind of participation in society doesn't reside exclusively in having performed it under the authority of the state, however.
And if that happens, how would you propose to arm the militia, i.e. the unorganised public, including those who some deride as camo-clad families with cheap rifles? Or do you imagine that a future tyrant would be especially tolerant of 2D Am. rights?
The prudent option seems to be to keep the population armed.
As noted, this is not an apt distinction. WE were english, and english taxation was carried out by our friends and neighbors. Any theory that would justify the american revolution and the acts undertaken in its name will also justify the harrassment and killing of our friends and neighbors who we identify with the problemmatic tyranny.
The american colonies had a very substantial tory population. They weren't typically treated gently.
It is an issue because the forceful violation of civil rights on a large scale is a viable definition of tyranny, one of the elements of the amended question presented.
They also gave us the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right of free speech and assembly and a right to keep and bear arms.
There are many rights we can exercise, not just the right to vote. To suggest that we would not need other rights simply becuase we can vote would be an error in the context of american law and politics, imo.
I believe the US military services have a distinctly limited role is fighting domestically for republican government, though their role in fighting in defense of it elsewhere is huge.
One of the things that McCain notes when a crowd doesn't like a contrary question is that he fought in part so that person could exercise the right to disagree. Whether contrived or not (I cannot know) he makes a demonstration of respect to people who don't always demonstrate it toward him. While I don't wear camo, or have white tennis shoes to wear to a gunshow, I don't see the need to deride people who have a vigorous notion of the militia as being inadequate for not having done things I have, even if they do seem intemperate at times.
Stagger Lee
New member
You do understand the difference between small, temporary occurrences that result from one official making a bad spur-of-the-moment decision, and a large-scale policy decision meant to apply to everyone forever, don't you?
On second though, your statement suggests that you do not.
Breaking it down very simply for you, in Katrina, one mayor made one decision that was wrong-headed. It was not only nullified by higher government, but laws were actually passed across the country to ensure that such a thing would not happen again. (Wow, look at that! Other government officials proactively protecting your rights)!
But Nagin's gun confiscation was nothing more than a mistake, much as some people here want to believe otherwise. Not defending him, but can you tell us all honestly that you've never made a bad decision, especially when you were wrapped up in something as large and serious as seeing an entire city in jeopardy? The guy screwed up and he screwed up big, but it was just one short-lived occurrence that was quickly remedied and that's a long, long way from the sort of "tyrannical government" that some of you apparently cannot wait to fight. Nothing that Nagin did would have justified anyone in New Orleans shooting it out with the police or the national guard, especially when they'd all been ordered to evacuate in the first place.
Stagger Lee
New member
If you see that as "tyranny", you probably should seek help.
Lee, we all need help now and then. Only some realise it.
If tyranny is the arbitrary use of absolute power, these elements of the federal apparatus are regular offenders. You don't need a stated policy of abuse in order for state authority to be regularly abused; it is inherent in enthusiastic service combined with limited foresight and other normal human vices.
In any event and before anyone misreads, those agencies are mentioned not because they merit armed resistence at the moment, but because their actions are not just "small, temporary occurrences that result from one official making a bad spur-of-the-moment decision". They are programmatic incursions into areas of historic liberty.
If tyranny is the arbitrary use of absolute power, these elements of the federal apparatus are regular offenders. You don't need a stated policy of abuse in order for state authority to be regularly abused; it is inherent in enthusiastic service combined with limited foresight and other normal human vices.
In any event and before anyone misreads, those agencies are mentioned not because they merit armed resistence at the moment, but because their actions are not just "small, temporary occurrences that result from one official making a bad spur-of-the-moment decision". They are programmatic incursions into areas of historic liberty.
Stagger Lee
New member
"Historic liberty"?
Are you talking about some "historic right" to pollute, operate an unsafe workplace, discriminate against people based on their skin color or race, and not pay taxes? How are those things "liberties" since to allow you to do any or all of them would constitute an infringement upon the rights of others? You're not saying that you're the only one that has rights now, are you? Don't your neighbors have a right to enjoy their property, including a right not to have you degrade their land by dumping toxins on your own? Are you saying that people don't have a right to apply for jobs, school admission or buy/rent homes without regard to their color, race or gender?
Reality is, we live in a society. Everyone else has rights too, and the government can regulate some individual rights in order to protect the rights and safety of everyone. That's exactly what our nation's founders set out to do when they wrote the constitution and created a government, not an endorsement of anarchy.
Are you talking about some "historic right" to pollute, operate an unsafe workplace, discriminate against people based on their skin color or race, and not pay taxes? How are those things "liberties" since to allow you to do any or all of them would constitute an infringement upon the rights of others? You're not saying that you're the only one that has rights now, are you? Don't your neighbors have a right to enjoy their property, including a right not to have you degrade their land by dumping toxins on your own? Are you saying that people don't have a right to apply for jobs, school admission or buy/rent homes without regard to their color, race or gender?
Reality is, we live in a society. Everyone else has rights too, and the government can regulate some individual rights in order to protect the rights and safety of everyone. That's exactly what our nation's founders set out to do when they wrote the constitution and created a government, not an endorsement of anarchy.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Partially true. I for one do not believe that a well-regulated citizens militia exists anymore. An armed populace is NOT a well-regulated militia. It is a dead letter except for the kooks who are part of paramilitary orgnanizations. I think it died out in the nineteenth century and today necessity demands a large standing professional Army and on the civilian side a very professional LEO system.
We think that today the true bulwark against tyranny is our mature democratic institutions and processes. Not speaking for the others but I support an armed populace not to protect us from zombies, aliens or the government, but from criminals. I want the option to be able to use a firearm to protect myself and my family and that's reason enough to be pro gun and happy about Heller. I do not think the 2A gives me the right to own all types of military weapons to have "just in case"
we have to fight our own Army. It's not silly. What is silly is unrestricted access to military weapons for civilians which is what I believe your position to be. I think the disingenious part is putting forth the M16 as a more palatable choice when what you really want is the whole enchilada. Like Sarah Brady. They put forth the idea they only wish to keep guns away from criminals because it sells better rather than the truth which is they want all guns gone or so restricted that only a wealthy person could own them.
I made the charge and showed the quotes to back it up. If you have changed your mind feel free to elaborate.
Other than that the matter is closed as far as I am concerned.No, I think the fact they are tolerated (unless and until they break the law) is an example of what Trooper, Stagger Lee and I have been saying all along. Our democratic institutions keep us free internally.
I am not sure I understand that comment. Please elaborate. How is the 2A being watered down?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Good point Stagger Lee. I think we call it the social contract. I give up my "right" to revenge myself against one who has harmed me in return for a legal process to right that wrong. The legal process may fail me but so might my aim
- Status