Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

Status
Not open for further replies.
^ Provided it is followed. The DoI gives us authorization to get rid of any government that doesn't adhere to it and recommends that we do so...

I wonder how many people have read that. Read Thomas Paine's material alongside it and see what conclusions you reach--see if you don't come to the same conclusions I do.
 
The remedies for a bad government are in the Constitution....

The "People" have all the power they have just forgotten.

Remember the vote on illegal immigrantion that got stopped. The "People" did that. No guns needed.

hrmm.....
 
Also, the D of I can provide courts with "original intent" if they so choose to use the D of I in any particular case where constitutional law is being argued. For crying out loud, Ruthy Baby (Justice Ginsburg) even looks to foreign nations and how they deal with certain situations, even though said nations have no consitution such as ours. So, why shouldn't our justices rely on the written content in the D of I to help guide them in determining what limits the COTUS puts upon government and what rights are protected for the people?
 
As bad as the Katrina Gun Grab was ..should the gun owners of New Orleans shot it out with the NO Cops? My point is: Did the fact that people were armed stop the NO Police from grabbing their guns? Or should we address that thru the courts and in TN at least we passed a law to forbid a public official from ever doing that.

I've said this before: All I'm after is the same weapons the bad guys have. In Katrina, that was pretty clearly out of state police, The National Guard, Coast Guard, etc.

I've been in a natural disaster situation where there wasn't much law. Officer came down, checked on us, and was VERY cordial. Wonder if the 120 pound Rott, 2 feet from his genitals had anything to do with it? He was off lead, and, all you could see were the 4 canine teeth.

My friends had my back, with M1A, M16's, and knew what they were doing. Would we have shot it out with the police?
The point is: we didn't have to. Such impolite behavior, as occured in Katrina, becomes unacceptable, in armed company.

Perhaps if instead of a little pistol, the cops had been looking down the barrel of an M16 they would have thought better of their tactics, and attitude, instead of beating up an old lady...

By the way, you can contrast this with Rodney King riots, where the police, and Guard just pulled out of the area.

When you have such inconsistent protection, firearms are a necessity, not a luxury.
 
And since it's liberals who seem to be the biggest pushers for taking our guns away, what future behaviours do they have planned, in case they would ever be successful?

Liberal, as a term, is now an oxymoron. The original definition was one who listened to all sides of an argument, and came to a reasoned conclusion. Living 20 minutes from Berkeley, I can tell you that 'facist-liberal' is more to the point. Folks around here are just as tolerant of your position and logical reasoning as Hitler would be, or Stalin. Actually, that's an insult to Hitler and Stalin, compared to the 'tolerance' present in Berkeley.
 
Progressive seems to be the new, preferred, term by self described "Liberals", using the term "Liberal" loosely. The founders were actually small "l" liberals.
 
Maybe the "Progressives" have this is mind for us, if they can ever disarm us, which seems to be remote now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ested-for-chasing-away-youths-with-plank.html

Pensioner arrested for chasing away youths with piece of wood
By Nigel Bunyan
Last Updated: 4:33PM BST 08/07/2008

A pensioner who used a piece of wood to chase away a gang of teenagers who had been throwing stones at his home is facing a jail term after being arrested and charged with possessing an offensive weapon.
Sydney Davis, 65, a father-of-two, dialled 999 when his home in the Pinehurst area of Swindon, Wilts, came under attack.

But when police failed to turn up over the next two hours he decided to take action himself.

He grabbed a section of wood from a broken-up sofa lying in his front garden and chased the youths down the street - just as police officers finally arrived.

Mr Davis, a retired builder, was astonished when police arrested him while allowing the gang to run to safety.

The householder now faces a court appearance and a potential prison term of six months if convicted.

Mr Davis, whose windows have been smashed five times in the last eight months, branded the law "a colossal ass".

He went on: "This is Britain gone mad. Just what in the world is this country coming to when the police arrest people like me for protecting their own property?

"The police say they want to reduce crime, yet they let evil little toe-rags like this off. Then they prosecute hard-working, upstanding residents like me.

"There is simply no way we can shake off this problem of 'Yob Britain' if the legal system fails to protect the everyday person".

Mr Davis' difficulties began on July 2 when a gang started throwing stones, stick, mud and eggs at a number of homes.

His wife, Pauline, 42, and their sons, Peter, seven, and James, five, cowered behind the sofa as the windows were hit by a flurry of missiles.

"My wife called the police at 6pm, but they just kept on throwing stones through my back gate.

"I left the back door open to stop them smashing it. Suddenly a really big rock came crashing into the kitchen. I just grabbed the wood, which was the nearest thing I could find, and chased them off.

"The police turned up just as I was chasing them. As a result I was arrested, but they didn't arrest any of them."

Mr Davis was handcuffed, taken to a local police station and later charged.

Wiltshire Police confirmed both the charge against him and the fact that no one else had been arrested in connection with the incident.

The householder is expected to appear before local magistrates later in the month.




From the article:

A pensioner who used a piece of wood to chase away a gang of teenagers who had been throwing stones at his home is facing a jail term after being arrested and charged with possessing an offensive weapon. emboldening is mine.


Cripes, farting could be considered an offensive weapon.


Notice that he was not arrested for assault or battery with an offensive weapon. He didn't use it to attack the gang of kids. He was merely "possessing" an offensive weapon. So, if you go for a walk with a walking stick in the UK, could you be arrested for being in possession of an offensive weapon? What's the difference between a walking stick and a piece of wood?
 
Last edited:
What should be noted is that the decision for an individual right was in fact, 9-0. That's the biggy. That's what we gunnies have said for 70 years. Now the SCOTUS has finally admitted it. This will not be overturned.

Al, I don't think anybody who loves guns would disagree or be unhappy with this result.
 
I've been in a natural disaster situation where there wasn't much law. Officer came down, checked on us, and was VERY cordial. Wonder if the 120 pound Rott, 2 feet from his genitals had anything to do with it? He was off lead, and, all you could see were the 4 canine teeth.

My friends had my back, with M1A, M16's, and knew what they were doing. Would we have shot it out with the police?
The point is: we didn't have to. Such impolite behavior, as occured in Katrina, becomes unacceptable, in armed company.

I am sorry but this sounds kinda imaginary. Are you saying that cop came to arrest you and turned away and forgot about it because you had a Rottweiler and some friends with M-16s? I think he was just checking and seeing you able to protect yourself went away.
If the National Guard comes in and wants to take your guns they will have overwhelming force to do it. But you are saying your M-16s will stop them? Did they stop them at Waco? Those guys were armed to the teeth with full auto and they ended up as ashes.

Also, keep in mind you are citing isolated cases. Katrina was bad but the entire courts system throughout the US didn't break down. The President didn't suspend habeus corpus, or try to alter the constitution. Also, think about it. Did the fact the people in New Orleans have guns stop the cops from taking them? If they had had full autos would it have stopped them? Remember the cops came because they had weapons. I don't see how people having arms would have prevented the Katrina Gun Grab.

The approach to try and fix Katrina IMHO is to sue, pass laws to prevent them and prosecute those who violate. Anyway, I don't think Katrina was a concerted effort to impose tyranny but rather an incompetent mayor who panicked.

If you are in a Katrina situation in the future and the NG come and say give up your weapons I'm betting big you ain't gonna shoot it out with them.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it was the mentality of the leadership in New Orleans....

I went through Hurricane Rita in SE Texas and we had nary of the incidents in New Orleans.
 
Louisiana is very strange. Their law, founded on Napoleonic code, holds property over people.
It's pretty much unique in the U.S. The law is pretty much if anyone, including police trespass without notice, you may shoot them. Bing!!! Light goes on.!!! No wonder the police were so worried about guns down there. Entering on a persons property, with that law in place, made them VERY nervous, and scared. Now it starts to make a bit of sense. Not good sense, just sense. Rather disarm all citizens, then take the chance one of them legally justified, shoots an officer, by accident or not. So, they get out the records of who has registered their guns, and, confiscate them, making sure THEY are protected, but, throwing the citizens to the dogs, or criminals, if you would.

Given that is the law, and, most law folk are indoctrinated in liberal ideology by their law schools, it's not a great shock that something like that should happen.

Now, the disaster I spoke of was Jan 1, 1982, in Capitola Kalifornia. Power was out for 3 days, torrential rain, and flooding, after long prior periods of rain. No place for the water to go, so, power out, sewers overflowed, creeks turned into raging rivers. Mudslides, giant redwoods going 35 miles an hour, down the middle of a river that used to be Soquel Creek, and knocking bridges out. It's on record, and, I've posted that experience more then once, not going to do it again. The police officer came down the hill because he heard a gun shot, and, was investigating where the shot came from. Was he checking on us to see if we were all right? Perhaps, perhaps not.

What I will say is one look at the Rott removed any sort of chippy attitude from his voice, and, in talking to him, it was REALLY noticeable, in his attitude, when he noticed the dog.

You seem to focus on the M16 part. When someone has an AR-15 with a selector switch, it's not distingushable from a normal AR-15. Needless to say, no one volunteered to demonstrate the guns in full auto, even though that was before the ban, the modification, putting in the selector switch, was still illegal. Also, covering positions are best being just that, without the person at the door being aware that they, and you are covered.

Now, you ask how people having weapons could have stopped the gun grab. Again, I go back to the Rodney King riots where the police pulled out, along with fire departments, due to being walking targets, and, let the people fend for themselves. The police also did not charge the barricades in the Pacific Palisaides with guns blazing because legally owned guns were protecting their own property, and neighborhood.
 
TennesseeGentleman said:
Al said:
What should be noted is that the decision for an individual right was in fact, 9-0. That's the biggy. That's what we gunnies have said for 70 years. Now the SCOTUS has finally admitted it. This will not be overturned.
Al, I don't think anybody who loves guns would disagree or be unhappy with this result.
[sarcasm] Um TG? Have you been reading your own threads? Or the numerous threads since the decision? [/sarcasm]

There have been, um, some few that have pissed and moaned that the decision was not broad enough... The decision did more harm than good. Etc. This, despite the fact that many of us said from the start, that the decision would be narrowly tailored.
 
There have been, um, some few that have pissed and moaned that the decision was not broad enough... The decision did more harm than good. Etc. This, despite the fact that many of us said from the start, that the decision would be narrowly tailored.

Well some people are never happy. I couldn't believe when I retired that I could actually carry a gun concealed in TN. They started that in 1996. That was not the case when I grew up here. So, I 'll take a Heller. Of course being an old soldier I'm not trained to ever expect much.
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
The approach to try and fix Katrina IMHO is to sue, pass laws to prevent them and prosecute those who violate. Anyway, I don't think Katrina was a concerted effort to impose tyranny but rather an incompetent mayor who panicked.

I would say everyone involved panicked, and there was a bit of incompetence as well from all parties.

Is it not the duty of servicemen and law enforcement to disobey unlawful orders? Or does one follow all orders without question, without discretion, just because you were told to do so?

All LE agencies and military involved seemed to have misunderstood that, having taken the oath to uphold the Constitution.

I have read enough of your posts to know that you said somewhere that you were a career military man, or at the very least worn a uniform and served our nation. What would you have done? Even though we don't agree on much, I'd be very appreciative if you answer this question. You could answer it as what you would have done, and what you think you would do now.

I have worn a uniform myself, but admittedly, and sadly, if I were in that situation then, I would have followed orders, and would not have known what to do. I would have known that inherently, I was doing something not quite right though.

If I wore a badge, or chevrons on my collar today, feeling how I feel, and knowing what I know and were put in that situation, and I was told we were going door to door, kicking them in, and confiscating weapons, I would have been definitely been given the charge of disobeying orders. I would have told the CO why, and if I were in charge, I would be telling my men why we weren't going to do that.

The funniest thing I think of after the Katrina incident after other states enacted laws that something like that would not happen there is that there were already laws in place that are supposed to prevent those kinds of actions called the 4th and 5th Amendments.

I'm not making light of the situation down in NO, but it really shows just how easily law and order is thrown out the window.
 
If you are in a Katrina situation in the future and the NG come and say give up your weapons I'm betting big you ain't gonna shoot it out with them.

But the fact that many of us have weapons and some of us might use them to defend ourselves against such an unconstitutional, immoral, and outrageously dangerous action as disarming civilians when law and order has broken down might just tend to stop anyone from attempting such an action.

That'd be the "bulwark" from the topic question.
 
Also, think about it. Did the fact the people in New Orleans have guns stop the cops from taking them?

Did that fact that taking them was illegal and immoral stop them?

Making it illegal is a bulwark, and it failed.

Giving us the ability to shoot back is another bulwark, and it also failed.

There's no rule saying we can only have one kind of bulwark against tyranny. Looks like we needed at least those two, and they needed to be larger!
 
Did they stop them at Waco? Those guys were armed to the teeth with full auto and they ended up as ashes.

The initial assault at Waco was repelled by the inhabitants, but they were unable to defend against a tank/helicopter assault. If what you're saying is that we face a danger from tyranny armed not just with rifles, but with tanks and helicopters, and we need the ability to defend against those things as well, I tend to agree. ;)
 
I would say everyone involved panicked, and there was a bit of incompetence as well from all parties.

Is it not the duty of servicemen and law enforcement to disobey unlawful orders? Or does one follow all orders without question, without discretion, just because you were told to do so?

Well said. Here is the issue with illegal orders. Yes in the military we are trained to disobey illegal orders. However, while some orders are illegal in their face (ie Shoot that prisoner etc) others such as "I have declared a state of emergency and we must do X" is not always so clear. Katrina was the equivilant IMHO of a nuclear blast. My church went down to MS afterwards and helped there. My friends who went said the damage was unbelieveable. So, I think Katrina was more of a fluke panic attack than it was a carefully thought out way to disarm the public. Only Mayor Nagin knows that for sure. Also, there are a lot of urban legends about Katrina see here: http://www.snopes.com/katrina/crime/carjack.asp
and here: http://www.snopes.com/katrina/satire/police.asp

Nobody has shown me yet that civilians having guns stopped Mayor Nagin from ordering the guns to be taken.
 
The initial assault at Waco was repelled by the inhabitants, but they were unable to defend against a tank/helicopter assault. If what you're saying is that we face a danger from tyranny armed not just with rifles, but with tanks and helicopters, and we need the ability to defend against those things as well, I tend to agree.

Yeah, that would have really had a much happier ending at Waco:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top