WE THE PEOPLE...

johnson1010 · Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:55 am


	Quote: It's naive to claim that your interpretation is the only valid one

I assure you that this entirely obvious statement is getting nowhere with Stahrwe.

stahrwe · Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:35 am

JulianTheApostate wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: It's pretty simple. In fact, Thomas Jefferson explaine why as noted in a previous post: When the government fears the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny.

You really think that citizens with guns can take on the US military? Besides, if the citizens who own firearms took control of the country, it would be a much worse place.


	stahrwe wrote: The ironic thing is that the Second Ammendment is the most violated of all the Bill of Rights. The language is clear and any gun control must deviate from the ammendment. All such deviations are in fact unconstitutional. If the government wants to regulate guns, they should ammend the Constituion. There is a process for doing so and it is not a perogative of the courts.

Come on. The constitution is vague, and different people honestly reach different interpretations. Those interpretations are often shaped by an individual's personal preferences: gun control opponents argue that the 2nd amendment blocks it, while school prayer opponents argue that the 1st amendment blocks it. It's naive to claim that your interpretation is the only valid one, and that those who disagree don't understand the constitution, even if they're constitutional scholars like Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor.

As for the citizenry taking on the military bases:

1) Study the American Revolution.
2) The law prohibits the use of the US military against US citizens. Whether that would hold during a civil insurrection or not is problematic though I suspect that few US military would take on US citizens.

johnson1010 · Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:53 pm

That is laugh out loud funny.

Why don't you ask a professional soldier how he would feel about repressing an armed insurrection against the government, an attempted assasination of a government official, hostages being taken, responding to an attack from a "militia" etc...

Just who is this militia supposed to be attacking, if not the establishment's soldiers? Civilians? Government workers? are they just there to force compliance from unarmed working class citizens?

And, let us note once again that you are not at all denouncing the concept of an armed rebellion against the current government.

etudiant · Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:36 pm

stahrwe wrote:

JulianTheApostate wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: It's pretty simple. In fact, Thomas Jefferson explaine why as noted in a previous post: When the government fears the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny.

You really think that citizens with guns can take on the US military? Besides, if the citizens who own firearms took control of the country, it would be a much worse place.


	stahrwe wrote: The ironic thing is that the Second Ammendment is the most violated of all the Bill of Rights. The language is clear and any gun control must deviate from the ammendment. All such deviations are in fact unconstitutional. If the government wants to regulate guns, they should ammend the Constituion. There is a process for doing so and it is not a perogative of the courts.

Come on. The constitution is vague, and different people honestly reach different interpretations. Those interpretations are often shaped by an individual's personal preferences: gun control opponents argue that the 2nd amendment blocks it, while school prayer opponents argue that the 1st amendment blocks it. It's naive to claim that your interpretation is the only valid one, and that those who disagree don't understand the constitution, even if they're constitutional scholars like Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor.

As for the citizenry taking on the military bases:

1) Study the American Revolution.
2) The law prohibits the use of the US military against US citizens. Whether that would hold during a civil insurrection or not is problematic though I suspect that few US military would take on US citizens.

I have to hand it to you Stahrwe, you have the ability to move from the merely contrary to the truly bizarre with the grace of a gazelle.

Study the American Revolution.

I realize that much has been made of the “Minutemen” and similar in popular folklore. But in fact the outcome of the revolution was decided in large measure by very conventional military events. Strategically, it was the entry of France and Spain into the war on America’s side that tipped the balance. A colonial rebellion became, essentially, a world war at that point. Probably the most important event of the war was the intervention of the French fleet at the battle of Yorktown, which caused the surrender of British forces. This caused final disheartenment in Britain, where enthusiasm for the war was never great, as they saw it as a conflict between fellow British citizens.

On a smaller scale, the differences between the so-called militias and British regulars was not that great, certainly by today’s standards. Washington strove to have a professional army, and succeeded to an extent. This was a low-tech era, when all could have pretty much the same weapons without too much effort. It was a case of essentially men flailing away at each other with flintlocks, and the distinction between regular forces and “militias” was not nearly so great as with a similar situation today.

The law prohibits the use of the US military against US citizens. Whether that would hold during a civil insurrection or not is problematic though I suspect that few US military would take on US citizens.

The US military has attacked and fired upon, and killed US citizens hundreds of times though the years. In the vast majority of these cases, it was for transgressions far, far less serious than insurrection. Most notably, the army was deployed to counter the great labor unrest in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Strikes were suppressed and workers killed, often for merely agitating for a fair wage and safe working conditions. The army also served as an occupation force in the South in the 1870s, sparking more conflict. There have been many others instances, including the big anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s and 70s. Three very brief examples:

The great railway strike of 1877: A series of strikes spread through the rail system, as workers struggled for a decent wage and working conditions, leading to the intervention of federal troops. About 30 killed.

General Douglas McArthur (WW2 fame) orders an infantry charge to clear demonstrators from Washington 1932. The crime the demonstrators are committing? They are WW1 vets asking for a pension adjustment so they can get by during the tough times of the depression. Between one and four killed.

Kent State University, 1970. Four students are shot dead for protesting the Vietnam War.

If you believe that a rag-tag, nutty, armed militia attempting to change the government by force would not be met with violence, then I don’t know what you have been smoking.

I do know this though.

I wouldn’t mind a pound or so myself. P.M. me, and I will arrange payment.

toodeemo · Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:01 pm

ARTICLE I

Section 8

The Congress shall have the power:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Just in case there is any quesiton about the authority of the suppress insurgencies or as someone erroneously concluded:

"The law prohibits the use of the US military against US citizens. Whether that would hold during a civil insurrection or not is problematic though I suspect that few US military would take on US citizens."

Again, reading the Constitution is instructive. Looking back at the Revolutionary War is an exercise in history and quite interesting. But it is a completely different situation, a completely different time, and pure nonsense to think the government would not suppress an attack from within.

JulianTheApostate · Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:39 pm

As a more recent example of US military involvement in domestic affairs, consider the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict. The National Guard, Army, and Marines were sent in to restore order, and the only objections to that came from a few radical leftists.

In any case, armed opposition to the US government, where it's LA rioters or Montana militias, is a scary prospect, not a preventer of tyranny.

Interbane · Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:13 am

What really gets me is that these nutjobs want to give power back to people who are going to make the country worse. They are willing to fight for it! You definitely have to give it to the men creating the propaganda for the far right, they can sure hook em. I guess it helps if you already have a delusion or two under your belt.

johnson1010 · Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:49 am

Interbane,

How do you think a professional soldier would respond to an armed insurrection against the government?

Interbane · Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:23 pm

Well, our DOD members aren't mindless automatons. They think and feel. The military is frighteningly thorough, with attention to every detail including psychological. I'm sure combat unit commanders, from the top down, have by now foreshadowed and left breadcrumbs for the possibility. Those who seek violence are wrong, and the innocents on the sidelines would be highlighted as the beneficiaries of military action. An oath is sworn to protect the country. That means, even if you agree with the insurrection, your sworn duty is to protect the people that the insurrectionists might harm. It's axiomatic. Those who feel so powerfully that they wouldn't defend our country against insurrectionists would be disciplined, perhaps imprisoned. Judging by how things have gone in the past when shit hits the fan, even those outspoken soldiers would snap to attention and do their duty, even if they vehemently disagree. The majority of soldiers... they would do their duty unflinchingly.

toodeemo · Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:08 pm

I'll tell you how they respond. Back in 1970 on the New Haven CT. green, there was a protest gathering/Earth day celebration. There were protests and rallys all over the country in public gathering places and on college campuses. About 100K people were in New Haven, mostly to show support for the Black Panthers who were on trial for killing Bobby Seale. We had everything Lots of people. William Kuntsler. Erika Davis. Oh, and about 500 National Gaurdsmen with boyonettes and loaded guns spread out on every corner. There literally was a cloud of tear gas over the area.

I was sitting around with some friends playing my guitar. "Uncle John's Band" was the tune. For no reason that I could think of, I got gassed by one of the guardsmen. Now I know I wasn't exactly Eric Clapton on guitar, but I don't think I sucked enough to get tear gassed.

THAT is what professional soldiers do when there is a threat to the state or Federal Government. That's what they are trained to do and that's what they should do when facted with a perceived insurgency. All I can say is it's a good thing people cleared out before the Kent State incident. Soldiers are hired to protect the republic. If THEY are co-opted into an insurgency, that's how a takeover happens. So please dont think the government would not put down an insurgency.

I know what I"m talking about. As I said, I was gassed because of the threat. Either that, or the National Guard REALLY doesn't like the Grateful Dead.

phillies4evr · Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:24 pm

too........ I am so happy that you are at the end of this! I gave up too because nobody wanted to hear my point of view as a tea party activist. And now all I have to say is... let sleeping dogs lie!

etudiant · Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:01 pm


	toodeemo wrote: I'll tell you how they respond. Back in 1970 on the New Haven CT. green, there was a protest gathering/Earth day celebration. There were protests and rallys all over the country in public gathering places and on college campuses. About 100K people were in New Haven, mostly to show support for the Black Panthers who were on trial for killing Bobby Seale. We had everything Lots of people. William Kuntsler. Erika Davis. Oh, and about 500 National Gaurdsmen with boyonettes and loaded guns spread out on every corner. There literally was a cloud of tear gas over the area. I was sitting around with some friends playing my guitar. "Uncle John's Band" was the tune. For no reason that I could think of, I got gassed by one of the guardsmen. Now I know I wasn't exactly Eric Clapton on guitar, but I don't think I sucked enough to get tear gassed. THAT is what professional soldiers do when there is a threat to the state or Federal Government. That's what they are trained to do and that's what they should do when facted with a perceived insurgency. All I can say is it's a good thing people cleared out before the Kent State incident. Soldiers are hired to protect the republic. If THEY are co-opted into an insurgency, that's how a takeover happens. So please dont think the government would not put down an insurgency. I know what I"m talking about. As I said, I was gassed because of the threat. Either that, or the National Guard REALLY doesn't like the Grateful Dead.

If he was in the Guard at the time, he probably preferred Johnny Cash or Glen Campbell.

Critics can be harsh though.

seespotrun2008 · Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:34 pm


	Quote: too........ I am so happy that you are at the end of this! I gave up too because nobody wanted to hear my point of view as a tea party activist. And now all I have to say is... let sleeping dogs lie!

I wanted to hear your opinion. I asked you a few questions some time back. You started this so that we could have a discussion right?

etudiant · Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:38 pm


	phillies4evr wrote: too........ I am so happy that you are at the end of this! I gave up too because nobody wanted to hear my point of view as a tea party activist. And now all I have to say is... let sleeping dogs lie!

I am going to risk giving the dog a shake.

I think it is unfair to say that participants on this site have not been willing to listen to your point of view. From what I have seen, other posters here have listened, and then offered intellectual debate on your position. Not all have agreed with you, but this is to be expected in any sizable group of people. I have heard you respond to a degree, but also have a certain reluctance to explore or respond fully to some comments.

There is value in debate, in the process itself, IMO, even if you are not the one that ends up being validated. It is an exchange of ideas, and these days, with the technology of the Internet, it can be an impressive gathering of voices- from all over the world in fact. Open-minded discussion can be positive, because you will go away with either more surety of your position, or with new information.

Many in the world would describe the ideas of the Tea Party as extreme. When I say many, I mean a consensus of mainstream, recognized, respected media outlets in countries outside the US, and many within. You may disagree, and believe there is more to say about these issues. But that will require more time at the keyboard.

JulianTheApostate · Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:26 pm

etudiant wrote:


	phillies4evr wrote: too........ I am so happy that you are at the end of this! I gave up too because nobody wanted to hear my point of view as a tea party activist. And now all I have to say is... let sleeping dogs lie!

I am going to risk giving the dog a shake.

I think it is unfair to say that participants on this site have not been willing to listen to your point of view. From what I have seen, other posters here have listened, and then offered intellectual debate on your position.

However, it's uncomfortable to participate in a discussion forum in which most people hold opposing views. Actually, I'm glad that a self-professed tea party activist is participating, to provide a diversity of opinion.

Forum rules

WE THE PEOPLE... Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!