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

[RDak]

TG: Al gave a very good response to your original question.

You have to remember that the speaker in your link is a rabidly anti-gun, lead attorney for the NAACP. He may not be an attorney now but he was and might hold an administrative position currently? But he has a LONG association with the NAACP. (A group that has always been rabidly anti-gun, for reasons that simply baffle me.)

His views are slanted heavily towards the opinions of the mayors of DC, New Orleans, Chicago and New York City and all the liberal anti-gun States.

ANYTHING that man says has to be taken with a grain of salt. Usually, upon further research you will find anything that attorney states on 2nd Amendment issues (and quite often on other issues IMHO) is ridiculous and heavily slanted towards the collective right theory and extreme liberalism. It is well known that the NAACP wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment and will give ridiculous theories like your link provides.

The unregulated militias are the bulwark against tyranny. Any elementary review of the history of the 2nd Amendment will prove this out. (Al already proved that when citing Scalia's explanation. And Scalia's explanation is clearly correct as evidenced by many scholars of the 2nd Amendment.)

Amongst 2nd Amendment fanatics like myself, the speaker in your link is a well known anti-gunner who will raise any silly argument to thwart the individual rights theory.

His diatribe in your link being a prime example IMHO. I don't say this very often but I have seen that man speak in your link many times and honestly feel he is an idiot. I mean that, I'm not trying to be mean. I honestly feel he is dumb. (He's the type of person who will say "not necessarily" when you ask him a simple question like "is the sky blue"? You know the type. He's that type IMHO.)

I'm VERY surprised that you fell for that speaker's garbage. VERY surprised.

 

[publius42]

Nobody has shown me yet that civilians having guns stopped Mayor Nagin from ordering the guns to be taken.

Nobody has shown me yet that the fact that it was illegal stopped Mayor Nagin from ordering the guns to be taken.

Now that we've established that both of our preferred methods are not terribly effective, why not double up on both of them?

 

[publius42]

Yeah, that would have really had a much happier ending at Waco

It's possible, IMHO, that if the government knew they might lose their helicopters and tanks in that assault, they may not have ordered the assault, and we might have had a happier ending with fewer deaths. Is that not a valid possibility?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It's possible, IMHO, that if the government knew they might lose their helicopters and tanks in that assault, they may not have ordered the assault, and we might have had a happier ending with fewer deaths. Is that not a valid possibility?

IMHO, no. They would just use greater levels of force and killed everybody. Especially, after those agents were killed initially.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'm VERY surprised that you fell for that speaker's garbage. VERY surprised.

Well, don't sell me so short. I do like to listen to all sides. Otherwise you become narrowminded and might be wrong later on.

However, lets put Mr. Payton aside and look at his argument. Maybe I missed Al's answer to that. At first he said he couldn't view it cause he is on dial up ( I think a mod on dial up must be one h*ll of a good time manager) and he spoke simply to my initial mistated question. Does article 1 section 8 of the COUTUS render invalid the idea that the militia stands against tryanny?

Katrina has been posed as an instance of state power abuse. I concur. However, Publius and I reached an impasse when I could not show that law stopped Mayor Nagin from grabbing the guns, nor could publius show that the fact New Orleans residents had guns stopped Nagin from taking them.

 

[Al Norris]

At first he said he couldn't view it cause he is on dial up...

Just to set the record straight, I said I don't, as a general rule view youtube, as it is a waste of my time (being on dial-up). I never said I couldn't view them... Just saying, is all.

 

[RDak]

Oh I don't sell you short TG. Just this time.

I've read a little of the history of the Revolutionary War period and it took alot of tyranical "incidents" and "policies" to create a feeling amongst many Americans that fighting back was the only answer.

Based on their real life experiences, and how they described it in their writings, I think it takes an accumulation of many tyrannical "acts" to cause the citizenry to rebel.

In the Katrina incident, many people made their objections known and many States passed legislation making that type of gun confiscation illegal.

That's probably how the people in the Revolutionary War period would have liked "things" to happen rather than rebel with arms IMHO.

It was the accumulation of tyrannical behavior that finally "broke the camel's back" from what I've read. They had a feeling of serious desperation and hopelessness before they rebelled. It ain't something they took lightly, nor was it something they ascribed to "immediately" due to one "localized" tyrannical act.

I mean, I wouldn't rebel against the government because it made one tyrannical mistake. Mistakes happen and, in the main, they can, and are, corrected in our country for the most part IMHO.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I mean, I wouldn't rebel against the government because it made one tyrannical mistake. Mistakes happen and, in the main, they can, and are, corrected in our country for the most part IMHO.

I agree. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant and continue to engage the anti-gun people but I do think that the antigun agenda has taken some real hits lately and I think we have it better than when I first became interested in guns in 196 cough cough

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG

I agree. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant and continue to engage the anti-gun people but I do think that the antigun agenda has taken some real hits lately and I think we have it better than when I first became interested in guns in 196 cough cough

On this I agree with you. We had some major defeats in 1968, and in one respect in 1986. In 1986, we also had a major win, in that the federal government was ordered never to keep a national registration list of firearms owners. We won some other victories in the FOPA86, but the ban on possessing any full auto's built after 1986 was a tragic loss.

We also took a hit in 94 with the AWB, but that was turned around with the failure to pass an extension in 2004. None of the predictions of increased police shootings came true.

We do have 40 states with at least "shall issue" concealed carry permit laws. We now have the USSC ruling that the 2nd Amendment does indeed PROTECT (not grant or confer) and individual right to keep AND bear arms. This is a natural, inalienable right which our founders believed existed outside of any formation of government. In their own words, governments are formed to protect those rights. We got off track in that regard. We may still be off track. Many people today, believe government is there to give us stuff that we haven't put out enough effort to earn on our own. They believe that our rights come from the government. That's a modern day ideology. Unfortunately, it exists on both sides of the political aisle. The left side has many more of those believers, however, there are more and more of them on the right. Maybe it's the old addage of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

I like it when we both agree that we should be vigilant and attack the anti gun people. It's better to fight along side other gun owners to than to fight with them. There is strength in numbers. We have some great leaders on our side at this point. I'm feeling that the anti gun leaders are not great at recruiting more followers, as they once were. Of course, we have lot's more data now on the failure of gun control and the lack of increased violent crime (it usually goes down or stays static) when "shall issue" concealed carry permits are made law. This has taken a lot of the wind out of the anti's sails. Most of the wind they must rely on now is just fart gas.

There are still a handful of states that are very unfriendly with respect to the freedom to keep and bear arms. California, parts of Illinois (Chicago), Massachusetts, Parts of New York (NYC), and New Jersey, just to name a few.

There is still a lot of work to be done, but we can see the progress being made. We are moving in the right direction for the most part.

 

[Monsterman]

IMHO, no. They would just use greater levels of force and killed everybody. Especially, after those agents were killed initially.

The davidians were isolated anyway, that makes them fish in a barrel. You guys wouldn't be so lucky if you tried that crap around here.

 

[USAFNoDak]

The davidians were isolated anyway, that makes them fish in a barrel. You guys wouldn't be so lucky if you tried that crap around here.

Just imagine how easy it would be to take out Al Qaeda or the insurgents in Iraq, if they all gathered in one compound instead of spreading out to live amongst the "public". The latter makes it hard to control and defeat them. Why, part of the reasoning to invade Iraq was to draw more of the radical, fascist Islamist terrorists into one "general" area to fight them, vs. having them spread out everywhere. We can debate whether that's worked or not, but we did kill a lot of foreign fighters in Iraq.

It would be an awfully tough task, and politically risky, for our federal government to order it's forces to make war on the gun owning population, and still keep the rest of the people supporting the government. You start killing men who have been upstanding citizens in most peoples eyes, and their friends and family will quickly join the cause against the government and support the citizens.

If the poop really hits the fan, and a man would try to become a dictator in the US, you'd then have members of the military, national guard, reserves, police, sheriffs, and armed citizens rising up to resist. That would be a lot more powerful of a force than some people understand. There's a difference between fighting an army or a force of men in a foreign land where you don't necessarily care what happens to the infrastructure and the people. It's a lot different trying to establish control over a mass of people who don't want you to control them if you can't destroy everything these people rely on for their daily lives. Thus, war planes, war ships, tanks, artillery, etc, may not be applicable to control the population of the US in the long run.

 

[Monsterman]

There's also reeprisal after the fact.

Terminating people who operate tanks, helicopters, and even ground troops, hell even snipers is pretty easy when they're all snug and cozy in their own homes!

Besides, I simply extend them the same courtesy they give me. It's not like they're any better than me. I just prefer to stand up to the bully AFTER school is out, that's all. I can, in fact modify their behavior, and shock them into complacency this way. Just watch me!

 

[Stagger Lee]

Wow, the last few posters here are really showing what "enemies, foreign and domestic" means. Anyone thinking that it's cool to fantasize about killing American soldiers or law enforcement officer under any circumstances is and will always be an "enemy, domestic" in my book and no one that I will ever consider as a comrade or a peer.

Pretend to be patriots and freedom fighters all you want, but no matter how cool you sound to yourselves and a select few other headcases, you'll always be the enemy to me, and I suspect, to the vast majority of rational, sane, loyal and genuinely patriotic Americans.

 

[Monsterman]

Wow, the last few posters here are really showing what "enemies, foreign and domestic" means. Anyone thinking that it's cool to fantasize about killing American soldiers or law enforcement officer under any circumstances is and will always be an "enemy, domestic" in my book and no one that I will ever consider as a comrade or a peer.

Pretend to be patriots and freedom fighters all you want, but no matter how cool you sound to yourselves and a select few other headcases, you'll always be the enemy to me, and I suspect, to the vast majority of rational, sane, loyal and genuinely patriotic Americans.

If there weren't people like us, then there wouldn't be any need for military and police, who's only job is to defend the exact opposite of what the promise to defend.

Don't try to make me feel bad, because now I will probably just feel a little better about myself. And when I say "a little", I actually mean a lot.

 

[Al Norris]

Wow, the last few posters here are really showing what "enemies, foreign and domestic" means. Anyone thinking that it's cool to fantasize about killing American soldiers or law enforcement officer under any circumstances is and will always be an "enemy, domestic" in my book and no one that I will ever consider as a comrade or a peer.

So you believe that the Founders and the Heller Court (which mentioned this twice) are wrong that the Militia (via the 2A) was to prevent tyranny?

Then you probably also disagree with the following:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Sorry to disappoint you. But in the context of this thread, revolution (civil war?) is exactly what is being talked about.

The "reprisal after the fact" that Monsterman alluded to, can be also found in the John Ross novel, Unintended Consequences. Like it or not, the thoughts of the Founders are not pristine and lilly white. Thinking outside the box, is how the US came to be.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Whatever. If this is just going to be a website where kids puff and boast about how many cops that they'll kill someday, then it's not a site that I care to support any longer. I know that it's romantic to imagine that we're all back in 1776 fighting some evil government, but the government that we have today is US, straight up. We're all represented and anyone can be a part of it by merely winning an election or applying for a job. It's the same government that those founding fathers created, complete with all the means by which to change it via voting and the courts.

Monsterman is probably just a kid so I don't really get all worked up when he boasts that he's the reason that America has to have police officers, but to hear support for that sentiment from one of the moderators...

And John Ross's book is nothing more than a fiction piece. Ross is no one special. If you want to cite him as justification for hate-based/fear-based fantasies, why not just go all the way and cite Stephen King or the Turner Diaries?

Sorry, I've got way too much honor and integrity to associate with people who honestly think that my government and my country is the enemy. I know that the internet commandos who can't hack going to Iraq or Afghanistan to fight our real enemies have to have someone to rage against, but if it's going to be me and my fellow Americans, well that bus stops short.

And posts like that dishonor everyone else who posts here, including the vast majority who actually have their heads screwed on straight.

 

[Al Norris]

As you so succinctly stated: Whatever.

Oh, and that quote I gave but didnt supply a cite to? That was by Senior Circuit Judge Kozinski*. Just in case you wondered.






*Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 570 (Kozinski, J., dissenting), certiorari denied by 540 U.S. 1046.

 

[Monsterman]

You know what, I really am sorry

I am sorry for "after the fact" subversive, seditious BS. I probably could do this, it is tactically sound, even an "internet commando" would know that. Hell, a five year old would know that.

But hey, I can't exactly say it would feel good, because, well, I don't have any of that "honor" and "dignity" that you talk about. You know, that kind of training military and police have that allows them to kill with impugnity?

I'll never have any of that, because I couldn't live with myself after doing stuff like that. Afterall, I'm just an "internet commando", and every other overused cliché you people with "honor" and "dignity" like to use.

Hey, I think you forgot something that goes with with honor and dignity. Humility and humanity. Forgot about that? Oh, that's okay, I'm used to it.

 

[Group9]

"I am sorry for "after the fact" subversive, seditious BS. I probably could do this, it is tactically sound, even an "internet commando" would know that. Hell, a five year old would know that.

But hey, I can't exactly say it would feel good, because, well, I don't have any of that "honor" and "dignity" that you talk about. You know, that kind of training military and police have that allows them to kill with impugnity?

I'll never have any of that, because I couldn't live with myself after doing stuff like that. Afterall, I'm just an "internet commando", and every other overused cliché you people with "honor" and "dignity" like to use.

Hey, I think you forgot something that goes with with honor and dignity. Humility and humanity. Forgot about that? Oh, that's okay, I'm used to it. "

Definitely a good call by Stagger Lee. Seventeen, tops, I'd bet.

 

[Monsterman]

Nope, I'm not the one who lost it.

You don't like me killing your criminal gang? Don't start trouble with me. Let me have those fun things, I'm not gonna hurt anyone unless they start trouble first.