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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/455751.stm

British police are out of control. They can shoot people with virtual immunity. They won't protect you though. Same the world over.
Click to expand...

That's outrageous. This is the problem when a society invests 100% of it's security, even individual security, in "group-think" government. The government is supposed to protect our rights, not strip us of them and then offer to protect us if they feel like it. They are under no legal obligation to protect individual citizens. That's why individuals need their natural, or God given right to self defense protected. That's why the right to have the most effective tool to defend ourselves needs to be protected. This isn't "rocket" science. The problem we have is that the chicken poop liberals have turned it into "political" science. Since they are either scared of guns, or scared of what they would do with a gun, they believe no one should have one except the "group-think" government.

Obama is a "group-thinker" from the git-go. Any vote for Obama is a vote AGAINST freedom and a vote for a stronger "group-think" government which will continue to take our rights away in exchange for an empty promise of safety. Obama's promises are just like the suits he wears; empty!

McCain is less of a "group-thinker", but still exhibits some of that characteristic himself. This is why many freedom lovers feel as though we have no viable candidate in this race; viable meaning one who we support AND who has a reasonable chance of winning.
 
Last edited:
Definitely a good call by Stagger Lee. Seventeen, tops, I'd bet.
Click to expand...

You need to use the ignore feature. Like any board you will have the kooks that come on here. Not worth answering them.

Alan Gura, mentioned in his speech to the Cleveland City Club that insurrection is really not what the framers were talking about but rather "putting things right" IF a dictator were to try and take over. In other words restoring constitutional government.

While we have seen some isolated instances of that like Katrina, there was an immediate response in the press and from the NRA with lawsuits. That seems to be a greater deterrent to future governmental misconduct rather than some citizens shooting it out with the cops and getting killed or wounded.

I think in this day of instant news and communication that widespread unconstitutional acts by the government would be highly unlikely.

What some call unconstitutional acts however is very debatable. Some say the income tax is, others say flouridation in the water is, eminent domain etc. Mostly this is kooky stuff and no armed response would prevent those governmental actions.

I think an armed citizenry protects better against criminals of the violent persuasion rather than imagined dictators.
 
Alan Gura, mentioned in his speech to the Cleveland City Club that insurrection is really not what the framers were talking about but rather "putting things right" IF a dictator were to try and take over. In other words restoring constitutional government.
Click to expand...

I believe the bolded portion is more your conclusion than faithful recollection of his answer.

Were a government to ignore constitutional restraints and be overturned by armed citizens for the purpose of restoring their constitutional rights, the insurrectionist model would be illustrated.
 
Too many people in this nation wrap themselves in the flag and declare "My country right or wrong"...History gives us some idea of how poorly this can play out.

A better attitude might be "My country, support it when it is right, correct it when it is wrong."

I support Monsterman 100%.
 
Thanks Dog Confetti

I know what I proposed to do is irrational. Pretty much like the situation we find ourselves in when heavily armed people high on adrenaline raid our homes, and hell, even our own minds.

I pretty much know that fighting the army is not a winning battle, but seriously folks, do they really even need a reason to send them after us anymore? You're not giving us any choice in the matter. If it offends you that we don't bend over and take it, then I believe you have some serious issues with your ego, and your own psyche.

I've pretty much made up my mind, you can turn me into swiss cheese, but it really won't be worth it by the time you get that chance.

If force is the only thing you understand, that's the only thing coming your way. I think I gotta stop now, it hans't gone anywhere but down.
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Most all of us have that attitude. We just think there are lawful ways to do that rather than using violence where everybody loses.
Click to expand...

I think nearly everybody here agrees with this. No one is really advocating violence as a first resort, but the answer to the thread's question is "yes".

It is for the absolute worst case scenario where your votes aren't worth a damn, and numerous seemingly insignificant incidences become large ones. It is for when the lawful means are exhausted and people are no longer confident in the possibility of change.

The thing I wish for some members to understand is that to think that just because someone serving in an official capacity is beyond reproach, and can do no harm is just unreasonable. Men are subject to the same whims of greed, and corruption regardless of their positions, be they elected officials, sworn law enforcement officers, or servicemen. Without turning this into a history lesson, I will just say as Dog Confetti said that history will show us the errors of not understanding this.

As I have seen, and as I'm sure you have as well, wearing a uniform does not magically make you a white knight that can do no wrong. To not recognize this is foolish.

Patriotism is standing by your country always, and standing by your government if it deserves it.

Going back to our earlier discussion TNGent, where you gave the example of clear cut unlawful orders with "shoot this prisoner" as an example, to me, Mayor Nagin's order of "no one will be allowed to have guns" is just as clear cut. I'm sure there had to be at least a few NG soldiers or police officers that have heard of the 4th Amendment. Maybe the realization of kicking people's doors down without probable cause and without warrants dawned on them to be an unlawful order?

Yes, Katrina was like a "nuclear blast" in the chaos and confusion it caused, but it is still shocking to me how easily "law" and order are ignored by an incident isolated to a general area. Whether the order was intentional tyranny or not, it did show that people like Ray Nagin (nearly all mayors of every major city in the country) are not fit to hold positions of leadership if they do not have the calmness of mind and strength of character to keep it together in an emergency situation.

There are executive orders for the federal govt. to take over and the Constitution to be suspended in dire situations. If New Orleans served as a microcosmic example, it would seem that a tropical storm would be dire enough.
 
I think nearly everybody here agrees with this. No one is really advocating violence as a first resort, but the answer to the thread's question is "yes".

It is for the absolute worst case scenario where your votes aren't worth a damn, and numerous seemingly insignificant incidences become large ones. It is for when the lawful means are exhausted and people are no longer confident in the possibility of change.

The thing I wish for some members to understand is that to think that just because someone serving in an official capacity is beyond reproach, and can do no harm is just unreasonable. Men are subject to the same whims of greed, and corruption regardless of their positions, be they elected officials, sworn law enforcement officers, or servicemen. Without turning this into a history lesson, I will just say as Dog Confetti said that history will show us the errors of not understanding this.

As I have seen, and as I'm sure you have as well, wearing a uniform does not magically make you a white knight that can do no wrong. To not recognize this is foolish.

Patriotism is standing by your country always, and standing by your government if it deserves it.
Click to expand...

I am guessing that blacks down south, post civil war, tried to get their rights protected in a "legal" manner at first. There were law enforcement agents in the south who were part of the KKK and would not step in to protect blacks from the KKK and other whites who would oppress them. Finally, black citizens had to resort to getting firearms to protect themselves, and they used them on occasion to do just that. There were attempts made to make it so that blacks had their 2nd amendment rights, as well as other rights, suspended. Gun control started as a racist method to control freed southern blacks. The situation doesn't always have to be armed citizens taking on the forces of the US government, such as the Army, the Navy, the Air force, and the Marines. It can be localized.

I agree that the vast majority of us will use the "legal" process for a long time before we'd ever resort to violence. I think people are wondering and trying to figure out how long they can be frustrated by a legal process not working before they'd have to resort to violence and want to get inputs from others to see where they stand. I don't see this as anything endangering society or the government at this time.
 
The thing I wish for some members to understand is that to think that just because someone serving in an official capacity is beyond reproach, and can do no harm is just unreasonable. Men are subject to the same whims of greed, and corruption regardless of their positions, be they elected officials, sworn law enforcement officers, or servicemen. Without turning this into a history lesson, I will just say as Dog Confetti said that history will show us the errors of not understanding this. As I have seen, and as I'm sure you have as well, wearing a uniform does not magically make you a white knight that can do no wrong. To not recognize this is foolish.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is a matter of degree and history MUST be understood in it's proper context. The United States today and throughout its history has NEVER been like Germany was in the 1920s. Therefore, simply pointing out that Hitler banned guns is a bit disingenious. Yeah, he banned guns and newspapers and took over the courts and suppressed all free speech and press as well as religion. Banning guns was just part of that and not in my opinion the biggest part.

As to our governmental institutions, of course they are run by men and men are flawed but not ALL of them ALL the time. There are checks and balances that come into play when a person in authority abuses their power. I argue that our system of constitutional government keeps us free and is the bulwark against tyranny. I am not so sure an armed populace does that as well.

Whether the order was intentional tyranny or not, it did show that people like Ray Nagin (nearly all mayors of every major city in the country) are not fit to hold positions of leadership if they do not have the calmness of mind and strength of character to keep it together in an emergency situation.
Click to expand...

As many people would tell you from New Orleans. The city government there is very corrupt and poorly run. Kind of like Washington DC. I think Ray Nagin isn't qualified to run a one car funeral and Katrina showed that.

I'm sure there had to be at least a few NG soldiers or police officers that have heard of the 4th Amendment. Maybe the realization of kicking people's doors down without probable cause and without warrants dawned on them to be an unlawful order?
Click to expand...

I am not so sure of that. Saying something violates any amendment is very broad and requires interpretation. You should listen to what Alan Gura says about infringment and making no law that abridges or infringes. Saying something violates the constitution without some law or court decision to define that is meaningless like the dolts on this board who say "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand boy?".

I think a lot of LEOs were from out of town. So were the Guardsman and I am not sure ALL of them did the bad stuff either. We only heard about the ones who did. I can see where many of them believed that some type of martial law had been declared and with the very poor leadership in the city not telling them otherwise they acted.

The NRA made a big deal of it (and they should) and TN for example passed legislation that would specifically prohibit state leaders from taking firearms from civilians in emergencies. I don't think you'll see that again but if you do I'll ask you what I have asked others.

Did the fact that citizens were armed stop Mayor Nagin from taking those guns?

Should the NO citizens have resisted the gun grab violently?

BTW just to really stir the pot, has Mayor Nagin or the City of New Orleans been found by any court to have violated any constitutional rights of their citizens? If no court finds that then what?
 
TNGent, even a rookie cop knows you can't just barge into someone's home or business, start tearing it apart, and confiscating property without a warrant.

This fact of law enforcement duty has been established in court many years ago, and the circumstance that many LE agencies were from out of state is no excuse since it is federally recognized.

To answer your question, no, I don't think Mayor Nagin went to court or will go to court for his actions...just like most officials who commit crimes do not. There is a double standard there, and I think that is what the crux of the title question is about.

I don't believe I've ever said anything as simple as "what part of shall not infringed do you not understand" but sometimes, things really are that simple.

I'm all for legality, just like mostly everyone here is. But how long do the citizens have to stand up to injustice, and impossible odds before things are made right? Using NoDaks example on blacks in America (while NOT equating gun control with slavery), how many generations had to suffer injustice before something was finally done about it? I mean, the Civil Rights Act was only passed in 1965, that's an incredibly short time ago, and many members here are older than that (as I believe you are).

It is true that up until as late as the 60s the KKK infiltrated all levels of government. They were the police, they were the mayors, they were Congressmen. If you want to go deeper into history, they had their own endorsed president (Kaptain Kal Koolidge). What legal, lawful, means of recourse did they have?

Just look at DC, it took over 70 yrs for the SCOTUS to hear a 2nd Amendment case. Even the folks on here who say simplistic things like "the law is the law" recognize that DC's (and probably other cities' draconian gun control laws) were unconstitutional. There isn't that much room for interpretation there.

Your pot stirring question just proves that some form of tyranny exists. If a court found Mayor Nagin to not be in the wrong that is.

Just for clarification before someone lumps me into a category. I know that not all the soldiers and officers down there were involved in those acts. Some members of my old reserve unit were down there, and I've spoken with other members of other forums that were helping down there as well who did not participate in those kinds of activities. Shame on those that did.

I also understand that it is not ALL of government that is corrupt and abusive of power. I agree with you that our form of government and our system is part of what keeps us the freest nation on Earth. However, I am not confident that it will last. Like I mentioned there is a double standard at work here. How many things do officials get away with by being fired or stepping down, but if we were to do the same, we'd be imprisoned and fined?
 
Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

BTSOOM. That being said, the last thing you want is the government and it's paid minions to be the only parties with access to the means of coercive force. History has shown that such a situation never ends well.
 
CGSteve8718 posted:
I also understand that it is not ALL of government that is corrupt and abusive of power. I agree with you that our form of government and our system is part of what keeps us the freest nation on Earth. However, I am not confident that it will last. Like I mentioned there is a double standard at work here. How many things do officials get away with by being fired or stepping down, but if we were to do the same, we'd be imprisoned and fined?
Click to expand...

I would suggest reading "Constitutional Chaos; What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws" by Judge Andrew Napolitano. I am almost done with it and it does indeed ask some very important questions. It also points out some government transgressions that I was not aware of. What we do about these willfull violations of the constitution and the law by our own government agencies is the key question. I don't think we are anywhere near a violent overthrow of any government entity at this time, though that has happened in our not too distant past. I believe it was in Tennessee after WW2, was it not? Someone posted the story on these forums a few weeks back. I read it but didnt' commit it to memory, unfortunately.

For now we exercise our right to vote, our right to send letters to our government agents and representatives, and our right to peacefully protest. We also use our rights to seek redress of grievances through our courts. This worked in Heller which started us down the path of bringing the Second Amendment back to a full standing with the other INDIVIDUAL rights we have and which are supposed to be protected by the government under the direction of the Bill of Rights. Libs and anti gunners can no longer tell us that we have no INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. That is now settled, even though it was a close decision. Napolitanos book discusses how at times the courts are accessories to the government breaking its own laws, so counting on the courts 100% for a redress of grievances carries no gaurantee.
 
I agree

You should listen to what Alan Gura says about infringment and making no law that abridges or infringes.
Click to expand...

Gura is worth noting on this topic.

He noted his answer to your question in the City Club address you referenced above. Founders unambigously saw the militia as a remedy for tyranny.
 
One way - and I think the obvious way - to see the term 'militia', is to see it in the context of the American Revolution. The founders opposed a large standing army but they did not oppose a well-organized militia, which was the sort of minuteman-type forces organized to defeat the British. Obviously the founders meant for a militia to be a peoples' militia - not a standing army. Also the 1st Amendment proclaims obvious basic rights - and the 2nd Amendment very prominently comes next as a means of protecting those rights. The notion that a well-regulated militia just means some sort of national guard extention of a standing army is bogus; the militia is the vital natural force meant to keep a tyrannical government in check.



Jefferson and others were very clear about the right of the people to revolt against a tyrannical government, and the 'militia' was the obvious force to carry out that task. Why would there even be a 2nd Amendment if it only meant to allow a standing army the right to bear arms? That would be strangely redundant. A standing Army doesn't need an amendment to have the right to bear arms anymore than a car needs an amendment to have wheels. A peoples' militia however does need a 2nd amendment so that a tyrannical government cannot confiscate arms or prevent people from organizing into a militia to oppose tyranny.


The right to bear arms was such an important right, it came right after the first amendment. It's a right of basically every citizen - not just the military or the police. To give away that right to the police and the military - is to move in the direction of denying people the means to overthrow government tyranny. The founders did not carry concealed weapons permits or run background checks on folks. They weren't envisioning the Brady Bill or the Lautenburg Act when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

:D
 
To reiterate what I've said, that of course nobody responds to but it bears repeating, is that our status as an armed citizenry is much like concealed carry: we do not know just what might have been carried out against us already were we not armed as a people, but we can see what has happened against unarmed people in the past and at the present. This whole "It's different here and now, that can't happen" stuff is utter garbage. The reason we have the 2nd Amendment because the founders knew that at some point or another, governments don't want citizens, they want subjects. If you can't tell the government no, just what do you think they would do? Hell, what haven't they done lately that they wanted to?!

See how compliant the law and what regard they have with your with your rights by looking at Adrian Fenty and the DC city council. That's what they think of your rights. If you can't make them do what you want them to do rather than what they want to do they will do anything they want. We're only lucky they haven't wanted to do worse. If you are willing to be disarmed, just what exactly do you think will stop them from being just as evil as any other hideous regime that's currently or formerly come about?

If you think it's a wise decision to bet on the good nature of authority, willing to gamble with or throw away by perpetual passiveness and accepting steady loss of your right to defend yourself against them, I sincerely hope you don't handle your money, your health, or your family affairs with the same naive foolishness--and I will ask that you not pull me into the same boat with you.
 
how many generations had to suffer injustice before something was finally done about it? I mean, the Civil Rights Act was only passed in 1965, that's an incredibly short time ago,
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it was not an African-American Militia that made those changes. For the most part it was accomplished through our system and the media (yes they do good sometimes) without widespread violence.

the militia is the vital natural force meant to keep a tyrannical government in check.
Click to expand...

Back to an earlier post. How then do you reconcile that with Article One Section 8? How can we use the militia for insurrection if the COTUS gives Congress the power to raise the militia to suppress insurrection?

If you think it's a wise decision to bet on the good nature of authority,
Click to expand...

Authority has no nature. I am betting on the integrity of the vast majority of those who hold that authority to uphold their constitutional oaths as I did once upon a time. I say again if you can't trust them we are screwed and your AR-15 will be no good to you.

I sincerely hope you don't handle your money, your health, or your family affairs with the same naive foolishness
Click to expand...

Well friend, unless you are sewing your money up in a matress that is exactly what you are doing with folks such as the FDIC FSLIC SEC and a host of many others. I guess we are BOTH fools.:rolleyes:

even a rookie cop knows you can't just barge into someone's home or business, start tearing it apart, and confiscating property without a warrant.
Click to expand...

I think Katrina was so bad it caused a few to brain fart and do it. Nevertheless, did the fact that citizens had guns stop them? No and it won't in the future either. I hope the NRA can hold New Orleans accountable for Mayor No-Gun.

believe it was in Tennessee after WW2, was it not?
Click to expand...
The Athens TN revolt in 1946. There is some debate about how much good that revolt did. However, it was an isolated incident. Similiar stuff went on in rural counties (like McNairy of Buford Pusser fame) in TN and some of that is still there. Still isolated and far from TEOTWAWKI.
 
No, the fact that people were armed did not stop the lawless officials from illegal confiscations. This is mainly because the people were so absolutely shocked that it was happening. Of course during the occasion, weapons (the select fire kind that we are also supposed to have) were trained on these civilians demanding that they turn in their own weapons. According to the documentaries done on the Katrina gun confiscation, these were all folks just going about their business, or while they were in their homes.

Another big thing is, people are automatically intrinsically fearful of, and or trustworthy of authority. If looters were coming by and were up to no good, I'm sure homeowners would have used their weapons to defend themselves and their families (I'm sure this did happen), but since the police were knocking on the door, people assume, "oh gee, it's the police, they won't do anything wrong, or strange". That adds to the surprise that people had when they opened the door for the authorities only to hear them demanding for their property, and then taking it away. This was spontaneous.

I think it would be different if somehow, it was nationwide and it caught on with the people in a reasonable timeframe.
 
The U.S. Govt. at various times has in fact suppressed rebellions - and used military force to do so. However, that does not mean that the 2nd Amend. was violated in all these cases. For example, in Shay's Rebellion, the Rebellion was indeed suppressed, but the Govt. did not then confiscate weapons from the people or pass laws forbidding that people carry or own weapons. The Govt. suppressed a Rebellion - but it did not suppress the right of people to bear arms. The Govt. can oppose a Rebellion but according to the 2nd Amend.it cannot suppress the right of people to bear arms. Not all Rebellions are the same, or on the side of justice. The wisdom of the 2nd Amendment was to give citizens the right to bear arms and thus form a rebellion against tyranny without giving Govt. the power to deny people ostensibly the means to ever form a force of rebel militias.


One significant exception where the 2nd Amendment was violated routinely by the U.S. - was in its treatment of 'slaves.' Slaves were often forbidden to own or carry weapons. Think about it: Why were they as a class forbidden to have weapons? They were forbidden weapons so they could not successfully form rebellious militias. Why did John Brown attack Harper's Ferry? He was trying to seize weapons so as to foment a rebellion of slaves against a tyrannical government.


One could then argue quite easily that the Civil War won 2nd Amend.rights - as well as other constitutional rights - for the slave class and that the 2nd Amendment then empowered ex-slaves to protect their secured freedom.


Any group of folks can in theory come together and launch a rebellion, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily right or on justified. What is important is that the 2nd Amendment makes it harder for the government to pre-empt such actions by denying people the right to assemble and bear arms....
A lot of people don't like the 2nd Amendment. A lot of politicians don't like free speech or the freedom to assemble. Tough Cookies! That's why eternal vigilance is so important!

:cool:
 
It is not a competent argument against a right to cite instances where the government has successfully ignored that right. Clearly, the right to vote has been abused by government in many northern cities in the 20th century. It would be passing strange to argue that the vote is a meaningless right because of those abuses.

the militia is the vital natural force meant to keep a tyrannical government in check.
Click to expand...
Back to an earlier post. How then do you reconcile that with Article One Section 8? How can we use the militia for insurrection if the COTUS gives Congress the power to raise the militia to suppress insurrection?
Click to expand...

Tennessee Gentleman, I wonder why you pose this question. I was 15 feet from Alan Gura when he addressed exactly that question at the City Club. Your argument incorporates an appeal to the authority of Gura speaking at my club(and does so inaccurately), but ignores the answers he gives.

Yes, Congress is authorised to call forth the militia for its own purposes. (Since the militia already existed, Congress could not have the power to create it.) This does not compel the other members of the militia, or even those called, to follow a tyrannical government.

The authority granted does not negate the ability of the militia to act on its own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top