One of the oppositions main tactics is to infiltrate our ranks, do and say stupid stuff so that we get blamed.
Some on our side make this really easy to do.
This is a discussion on Militia movement's heroes will be packing heat at rally on the Potomac within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; You generalize and make broad statements that make it impossible to counter argue. There are plenty of politicians who are actively working to make this ...
You generalize and make broad statements that make it impossible to counter argue. There are plenty of politicians who are actively working to make this country a better place. True, some of them are scum just like you'll find in any profession (Retail worker, cops, school teacher, you'll find scum in with any profession). This does not mean we advocate throwing bricks through the window of people who've done nothing more than subscribe to the Democratic party.
When, and if they actually come for me, that is when I will bear arms. Until then I owe it to this country, the people and myself to give the process a chance. We have been in rough spots before and come out, you seem to forget that four years in the grand scheme of thing is irrelevant.
One of the oppositions main tactics is to infiltrate our ranks, do and say stupid stuff so that we get blamed.
Some on our side make this really easy to do.
NRA Life Member
I'm not a proponent of bloodshed, but I can't blindly advocate following the "rules" especially when those rules are authored by these criminals. My point is that the only thing these people have to fear is moving from Congress into a very well-paying job. And I don't doubt that the ratio of scum-to-virtuous within the House and Senate is far above any supposed "national average" for other jobs. And if you're waiting until "they come" for you, you're in for a fast and lonely take-down.
Please, someone tell me, where EXACTLY is the incentive for an elected rep to act responsibly and in good conscience? Or at the very least NOT engage in behavior that is detrimental to our country?
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
I'm not predicting the end of the world here, just wondering what you propose we do when the powers that be stop caring about what they are and aren't allowed to do, and they start removing our rights? Again, not saying it'll happen and it is unlikely, but what happens if Obama - or any other future president for that matter - decides to impose martial law and Congress doesn't stop him?
Do you really think the second amendment was meant to protect us from common criminals?
The Constitution doesn't say we should throw off an oppressive government because that's not the point of the Constitution. The Constitution is a document that lays out how the government should work, its powers and responsibilities, what it can and can't do. The Declaration of Independence is a much more philosophical document dealing less with how government should work, and more what people should expect of their government, and how those people should react when that government oversteps its bounds too much.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Of course the Constitution doesn't say people have the right to rebel. That right was understood as one of the most basic human rights. The Constitution doesn't enumerate that right because it was already done in the Declaration. The Constitution does, however, attempt to secure and preserve the rights necessary to facilitate such rebellion should it ever become necessary. The right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their property...
Last edited by paaiyan; April 19th, 2010 at 06:57 PM. Reason: Adding content
WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.
The issue is that people are for the most part ignorant, they'll believe whatever agenda fits their outlook on the world. And they will elect people that fit their bill, and sadly they do not take the time to look up who these people really are and simply believe whatever election commercial is currently playing on television.
If you still think congress and the POTUS thinks they derive their powers from the consent of the governed, that they even care about the consent of the governed, and that the government hasn't become destructive because of the massive debt it is passing on to your children and your childrens' children then you sir are no patriot either. You are an ostrich or to put it bluntly, you have rectal vision. It is because a majority of sheeple continue to vote to maintain the status quo that things have been allowed to go this far. Voting and continuing to vote for a losing cause is not patriotism, it's just plain stupid!
No offense, but if complaining about the way things are on a message board is considered patriotic, I'll continue to be a sheep.
There are other options out there. Continuously voting in corrupt politicians, or blowing up federal buildings are not the only options available to us. If you think otherwise I'd suggest getting your vision corrected, because you are seeing nothing but red.
We are nowhere near the sort of situation where the type of illegal activities being advocated by a few in these forums, against forum rules btw, could possibly be justified in any way whatsoever.
The governors have all the power they need to convene a constitutional convention and change things. The Senate has all the power it needs to change things. The Courts have all the power they need to rebuke the other two. When that system breaks down, then maybe there is something to discuss. We aren't there. We are nowhere near being there.I'm not predicting the end of the world here, just wondering what you propose we do when the powers that be stop caring about what they are and aren't allowed to do, and they start removing our rights?
I think too many assume that their particular viewpoint (whatever it is) is somehow representative of society at large, and that if their view isn't the one which actually prevails, they should scream that their rights are being violated sufficient to justify murder---yes, I used the word murder, because that is what is required in a rebellion; and it is what some on TV are presently hinting at and inciting other to accomplish.
At the present things are working exactly as the founders intended, even if individually some of us vehemently dislike some aspects or some of the results. Old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
(We could fly off on 200 pages of debate here if I mention one name-- John Brown, villain or hero?" Let's leave that for another time.)
Again, not saying it'll happen and it is unlikely, but what happens if Obama - or any other future president for that matter - decides to impose martial law and Congress doesn't stop him?
The question is filled with a double what if. You are speaking of the exceedingly improbable. What if my grandmother had....
Again, we have fifty state governors with fifty state National Guard "militias" and I suppose if the governors called a Constitutional Convention and were jailed --- then there is something to talk about. We aren't anywhere near that situation now, are we?
I do not think the framers of our Constitution intended to provide for rebellion because they envisioned a republican form of representative government in which the political power belonged to the electorate. Therefore, what you are suggesting would not make sense as a motive for 2a.Do you really think the second amendment was meant to protect us from common criminals?
As for rebellions, I think we know very well what our founders thought about rebellion and did about it. And it is not what we were taught in elementary school-- where the Whiskey Rebellion was seldom mentioned, pr soon forgotten by kids like myself as having no bearing on our lives.
"The Whiskey Rebellion, less commonly known as the Whiskey Insurrection, was a resistance movement in the western frontier of the United States in the 1790s, during the presidency of George Washington. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, remembering Shays' Rebellion eight years before, decided to make Pennsylvania a testing ground for federal authority. Washington ordered federal marshals to serve court orders requiring the tax protesters to appear in federal district court. Washington invoked the Militia Law of 1792 to federalize the militias of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey... This marked the first time under the new United States Constitution that the federal government used military force to exert authority over the nation's citizens. It was also the only time that a sitting President personally commanded the military in the field."
In other words, Washington himself did not believe there was a right to rebellion against the government of the US. And he personally fought against it.
Thus, even at the very start of our nation's history, the government protected itself from armed rebellion using the full weight of the military--in this case the lawful Federalized state militias. That is, the military entities which we today call The National Guard.
I want to note, we don't celebrate the Whiskey Rebellion's leaders as heroes, and most folks don't even know their names. We do remember and revere George Washington.
Going back to your example in this post---an unlawful martial law unilaterally proclaimed by a sitting president:
Why assume the most dire scenario you can possibly think of and pose that as somehow comparable to today's very ordinary differences of opinion amongst the electorate?
Wrong! It doesn't say that because under The Constitution the government by definition can not be oppressive.The Constitution doesn't say we should throw off an oppressive government because that's not the point of the Constitution.
Quite clearly if you think about the US Government's response to the Shay and Whiskey Rebellions, you will see that what you are asserting is not what the founders themselves actually thought--- except of course when they were writing a letter to a certain King.Of course the Constitution doesn't say people have the right to rebel. That right was understood as one of the most basic human rights.
So, for the benefit of all the so called "originalists " who lurk here, and who have somehow convinced themselves that THE FOUNDERS THEMSELVES provided for rebellion with 2A, I think the putting down of the Whiskey Rebellion is the best example from history of what the founders actually thought.
As a Canadian I thought the language used by the paper was over the top. What I do notice is that the MSM don't report is just how many protests, tea party's and OC events have happened with people who have been armed and no gun related issues occured? They don't want to talk about it I think because there are lot of "armed gatherings" where nothing much happens and the MSM hates that.
I live less than a mile from Gravelly Point (for the moment). If the Potomac is 15 miles wide at that point, I'm a monkey's uncle...
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
There are many former captains of industry and wall street who are in jail too. No doubt not enough, but you can't really assert that "nothing happens to them."
Those BGs in public life who don't make it all the way to a cell are publicly humiliated by opinion writers and talking heads. Some of the "harder" ones don't really care that they are the butt end of jokes and ridicule, but these bad eggs almost always eventually cross a line and go to jail. Sometimes it takes a "special prosecutor" to get the job done, and sometimes these guys miss the mark, you can bet that anyone under the microscope of a prosecutor is not thinking nothing will happen to them. At a minimum they will face financial ruination defending themselves.
In relatively recent history and certainly my memory, one former President was forced from office while another was both humiliated and disbared from the practice of law. A Vice President of the US was forced from office and sent to jail (Agnew). Now and again, a judge will be impeached and prosecuted. Governors have been sent to jail too, as have many lesser figures in the various state legislatures, judicial positions, and prosecutor's offices.
Earlier you asked: "Please, someone tell me, where EXACTLY is the incentive for an elected rep to act responsibly and in good conscience?" I can't address the incentive, though I think it is the natural human tendency toward altruism and attaining a common good is what motivates. The disincentive to misbehaving is the threat of jail time.
Things don't always work fast, perfectly, cleanly, but do keep in mind that a difference in opinion on a policy matter doesn't make the other person a criminal. I think that is the error too many make. They take the position that ordinary disagreements are sufficient to call the other side's position criminal, or unconstitutional, or "communistic" or "fascistic."
If we can remember that we are all friends and family we'd all be a great deal better off.
Nothing going on here in the US is sufficiently out of the ordinary of our history to justify the sort of dire acts many quietly wish would happen and a few publicly hint at. For those who think that way, history has a few good lessons--starting with The Whiskey Rebellion; repeated with John Brown (whose cause was just), and continuing into our century with various anarchist groups, communist groups, black-liberation groups such as the Symbianese Liberation Army, and many many other misguided groups who preferred violence to the ballot.
Our Constitution gives those in power the full authority needed to protect constitutional governance, and private militia groups are outside of the constitutional plan for checks and balances; notwithstanding their own misguided thinking on the matter.
Ken Gladney gets beaten by SEIU thugs
Bobby Jindal's aide gets beaten (viciously!) by lefty protestors
Someone, a Democratic donor, shoots (!) a bullet into Eric Cantor's office
Leftist professor guns down coworkers in Alabama
Pro-Obama protestor bites off finger of innocent bystander at townhall meeting
The list goes on and on. Sure, some protestors bring guns to rallies, thereby scaring the wits out of liberals. Any violence? Nope. All this 12-step, introspective, aging hippy BS talk of scary people railing against the government and needing to be stopped is simply ridiculous. Most of these people can't remember THEIR behavior from 2000-08, much less their antics in the 60s.
Dissent used to be patriotic. Now that the anti-establishmentarians of the past 40 years ARE the establishment, the whole 1st Amendment thing is scary as all get out and the rebel scum must be stopped.
Is Obama going to destroy this country? He** no. He's not capable enough or smart enough to do so. Are some of the Tea Party protestors overreacting? Likely. But this sudden attack of the vapors the American Left is getting over a few protests aimed at them is disengenous, immature, weak, pathetic, comedic, and induces in me nothing but contempt. Get over yourselves, put on your big boy underwear, and deal with the consequences of your votes.