Lingua Franca article on Second Amendment scholarship
spino...@my-deja.com
flavoring. The increasing monopolization of the publishing market has
caused previous fringe topics, with mass appeal, to
become "respectable" academic topics. Thus, Borders backgrounds books
with a left-liberal tone (notably in its shabby treatment of Juliet
Schor's 1992 book THE OVERWORKED AMERICAN) and foregrounds right-
revisionism...such as new "scholarship" on Noah's Ark.
This is probably the reason while in recent years the "standard model"
of the Second Amendment, an essentially silly reading, has become
academically respetable. In the standard model, it is an individual
right which if interpreted correctly means that individuals can own and
operate tanks and rocket launchers. The strict interpretation of the
standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
Constitution and no feasible Constitution, of any state, can
consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic law
if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
The Lingua Franca article describes some of the academic malpractice
that has resulted from the acceptance of the standard model on the part
of academics like Lawrence Tribe, who may very well just be sick and
tired of getting email for lo these past ten years from the lunatics on
talk.politics.guns, and hopes to get these wads off his back.
Fortunately, it also describes the research of brave academics who have
responded to the standard model by showing that it is a variant of what
I described, ten years ago, as the Literary Digest fallacy.
In the 1936 election, the Literary Digest predicted a Republican
victory: their pollsters simply telephoned people at random and asked
who'd they vote for. Of course, in this Depression year, many people
did not have phones and those people, poorer and thus more Democratic
than the Literary Digest sample, voted for Roosevelt.
The Literary Digest was an example of how a democracy can not only
violate the rights of a minority: it can literally make them not "men"
to be covered by its constitution. Antebellum slaveowners probably
believed, not as a matter of metaphor but as a matter of truth, that
black men were not "men" and Chief Justice Taney announced without
irony in Dred Scott that a black man had not rights that a white man
need respect.
The application to the gun issue is direct. By focusing on the second
amendment the right would restrict personhood to those persons owning
firearms and willing to use them to take human life, even as the
pollsters of the Literary Digest were unconsciously or consciously
biased against people so feckless as not to own phones.
The constitutional scholars who have stood against the neo-barbaric
invasion of the academy by the gun nuts have showed, for example, that
probably only 14% of white adult males owned firearms in Colonial
America...which puts paid to any notion that our liberty from King
George was ensured by an armed citizenry, a notion nonsensical on the
18th century battlefield in which training and discipline overcame
armed property owners. George Washington repeatedly complained about
the low quality of the Colonial militia and could not hire Baron von
Steuben soon enough to train his regulars in the latest battlefield
methods of the King of Prussia.
Even at this early date, the key to success on the European battlefield
was properly synchronized fire, and there was no place here for a mob
of farmers with a variety of muskets, blunderbusses, arquebuses,
fowling pieces and crossbows. Pumpernickel and Tommy Atkins were given
their standard Brown Bess, thank'ee very much and clean the dam' thing
now.
The legend is that here in America the colonials fought Indian style
but they simply did not fight Indian style at Trenton, Princeton, or
Yorktown, to name three turnings of the tide in the American's favor.
Light troops did maneovre Indian style at Saratoga because the ground
was forested but the critical territory was not the backwoods, it was
the Philadelphia-New York axis.
It is thus seen to be nonsense even on the 18th century battlefield to
pretend that anyone's liberty was secured by a mass uprising of gun
owning citizens. Other scholars have shown that instead the second
amendment was passed as a sop to the slave-owners, who could control
slaves with guns even if they ran away from pissed-off redcoats.
If the gun nuts had any real respect for the Constitution, they would
focus on its most important amendment, one purchased in blood at
Gettysburg: the Fourteenth amendment.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andrew Colglazier
I guess you need to read the article again.... this time with an open mind.
Andrew "FF"
Freedom Fetishist and
Plain 'Ol Citizen
spino...@my-deja.com
andr...@aol.comFF (Andrew Colglazier) wrote:
> In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com
writes:
mind.
Perhaps I should also, this time, take care to run my index finger
under the words and to sound them out, reading in the slow and open-
minded way of the freedom fetishist.
The very self-title, freedom fetishist, is revealing. Misinformed
common usage of "fetish" believes this word to be merely a quantitative
expansion of enthusiasn and therefore misinformed common usage elects
this word. Misinformed common usage is unaware of the way in which
quantitative change become qualitative change.
That is, it may be dangerous to fetishize freedom if this means that it
means protecting all its apparent manifestations. The scholars
criticising the standard model show that what appear to the freedom
fetishists to be manifestations of freedom we are beholden to protect
what Samuel Johnson referred to in 1776 as "Cries for Liberty from the
Drivers of Negroes."
If we fetishize a thing, or a term, we use it in violation of its inner
purpose, like cargo cultists who make a temple out of a DC-10. If
freedom is at all a negative term then we VIOLATE the person who does
not choose to live in a society in which he must use deadly force in
order to do well.
Finally: I am certain that it is the case, as it is the case in many
neobarbaric venues, that my very literacy now indicates a closed mind.
Enlightenment has become the slack-jawed, drool streaked fetishization
of what, it is plain, we are not correct in thinking of as a mass
uprising of armed citizens, when it is now clear that only 14% of the
adult male citizenry of Colonial times had guns.
antisdolie
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This is probably the reason while in recent years the "standard model"
> of the Second Amendment, an essentially silly reading, has become
> academically respetable. In the standard model, it is an individual
> right which if interpreted correctly means that individuals can own
> and operate tanks and rocket launchers.
Nah, that is typical hyperbole of the gun grabbing monkey in an effort
to generate fear.
> The strict interpretation of
> the standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
Again, typical gun grabbing monkey hyperbole. Teason is treason; one
reason for the 2nd Amendment is to have an armed populous to PREVENT
treason from those so inclined.
> Constitution and no feasible Constitution, of any state, can
> consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic
> law if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
What the 2nd actually means is "the people are armed, so YOU better not
ignore our basic law" and it is directed to the government.
> The Lingua Franca article describes some of the academic malpractice
> that has resulted from the acceptance of the standard model on the
> part of academics like Lawrence Tribe, who may very well just be sick
> and tired of getting email for lo these past ten years from the
> lunatics on talk.politics.guns, and hopes to get these wads off his
> back.
Yeah, that must be it. Typical gun grabbing monkey response.
> Fortunately, it also describes the research of brave academics who
> have responded to the standard model by showing that it is a variant
> of what I described, ten years ago, as the Literary Digest fallacy.
Would those "brave academics" be HCI paid propagandist Dennis Henigan?
> The constitutional scholars who have stood against the neo-barbaric
> invasion of the academy by the gun nuts have showed, for example, that
> probably only 14% of white adult males owned firearms in Colonial
> America...
Baa ha ha ha. Another gun grabbing monkey that believes unless it is
written in a will, it was never owned. Polly wanna cracker!
Jim
xer...@my-deja.com
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20000126103052...@nso-fu.aol.com>,
> andr...@aol.comFF (Andrew Colglazier) wrote:
> > I guess you need to read the article again.... this time with an
open
> mind.
>
> Perhaps I should also, this time, take care to run my index finger
> under the words and to sound them out, reading in the slow and open-
> minded way of the freedom fetishist.
>
> The very self-title, freedom fetishist, is revealing. Misinformed
> common usage of "fetish" believes this word to be merely a
quantitative
> expansion of enthusiasn and therefore misinformed common usage elects
> this word. Misinformed common usage is unaware of the way in which
> quantitative change become qualitative change.
>
> That is, it may be dangerous to fetishize freedom if this means that
it
> means protecting all its apparent manifestations.
It goes with the territoty.
> The scholars
> criticising the standard model show that what appear to the freedom
> fetishists to be manifestations of freedom we are beholden to protect
> what Samuel Johnson referred to in 1776 as "Cries for Liberty from the
> Drivers of Negroes."
>
You need to study a little more on the history of gun control laws in
America. The first laws restricting gun ownership (if you don't count
the British) were designed to keep slaves and former slaves disarmed.
> If we fetishize a thing, or a term, we use it in violation of its
inner
> purpose, like cargo cultists who make a temple out of a DC-10.
> If
> freedom is at all a negative term then we VIOLATE the person who does
> not choose to live in a society in which he must use deadly force in
> order to do well.
>
So my right to self-protection is VIOLATING you? I'm so sorry.
> Finally: I am certain that it is the case, as it is the case in many
> neobarbaric venues, that my very literacy now indicates a closed mind.
> Enlightenment has become the slack-jawed, drool streaked fetishization
> of what, it is plain, we are not correct in thinking of as a mass
> uprising of armed citizens, when it is now clear that only 14% of the
> adult male citizenry of Colonial times had guns.
>
So 14% of the adult male colonists defeated the British Army. Do you
honestly believe that?
Duane K. Kelly
>
> Lingua Franca is a "review of academic life" with a mass-market
> flavoring. The increasing monopolization of the publishing market has
> caused previous fringe topics, with mass appeal, to
> become "respectable" academic topics. Thus, Borders backgrounds books
> with a left-liberal tone (notably in its shabby treatment of Juliet
> Schor's 1992 book THE OVERWORKED AMERICAN) and foregrounds right-
> revisionism...such as new "scholarship" on Noah's Ark.
>
> of the Second Amendment, an essentially silly reading, has become
> academically respetable. In the standard model, it is an individual
> right which if interpreted correctly means that individuals can own and
> standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
> consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic law
> if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
>
> that has resulted from the acceptance of the standard model on the part
> of academics like Lawrence Tribe, who may very well just be sick and
> tired of getting email for lo these past ten years from the lunatics on
> talk.politics.guns, and hopes to get these wads off his back.
>
> responded to the standard model by showing that it is a variant of what
> I described, ten years ago, as the Literary Digest fallacy.
>
> victory: their pollsters simply telephoned people at random and asked
> who'd they vote for. Of course, in this Depression year, many people
> did not have phones and those people, poorer and thus more Democratic
> than the Literary Digest sample, voted for Roosevelt.
>
> The Literary Digest was an example of how a democracy can not only
> violate the rights of a minority: it can literally make them not "men"
> to be covered by its constitution. Antebellum slaveowners probably
> believed, not as a matter of metaphor but as a matter of truth, that
> black men were not "men" and Chief Justice Taney announced without
> irony in Dred Scott that a black man had not rights that a white man
> need respect.
>
> The application to the gun issue is direct. By focusing on the second
> amendment the right would restrict personhood to those persons owning
> firearms and willing to use them to take human life, even as the
> pollsters of the Literary Digest were unconsciously or consciously
> biased against people so feckless as not to own phones.
>
> invasion of the academy by the gun nuts have showed, for example, that
> probably only 14% of white adult males owned firearms in Colonial
> George was ensured by an armed citizenry, a notion nonsensical on the
> 18th century battlefield in which training and discipline overcame
> armed property owners. George Washington repeatedly complained about
> the low quality of the Colonial militia and could not hire Baron von
> Steuben soon enough to train his regulars in the latest battlefield
> methods of the King of Prussia.
>
> Even at this early date, the key to success on the European battlefield
> was properly synchronized fire, and there was no place here for a mob
> of farmers with a variety of muskets, blunderbusses, arquebuses,
> fowling pieces and crossbows. Pumpernickel and Tommy Atkins were given
> their standard Brown Bess, thank'ee very much and clean the dam' thing
> now.
>
> The legend is that here in America the colonials fought Indian style
> but they simply did not fight Indian style at Trenton, Princeton, or
> Yorktown, to name three turnings of the tide in the American's favor.
> Light troops did maneovre Indian style at Saratoga because the ground
> was forested but the critical territory was not the backwoods, it was
> the Philadelphia-New York axis.
>
> It is thus seen to be nonsense even on the 18th century battlefield to
> pretend that anyone's liberty was secured by a mass uprising of gun
> owning citizens. Other scholars have shown that instead the second
> amendment was passed as a sop to the slave-owners, who could control
> slaves with guns even if they ran away from pissed-off redcoats.
"In fact, although Standard Modelers all support some version of an
individual right to bear arms, they express a wide range of views on gun
control. In a recent Harper's Magazine article on the Second Amendment,
these two issues were taken as coterminous by the journalist Daniel
Lazare, who wrote, "The truth about the Second Amendment is something
that liberals cannot bear to admit: The right wing is right. The
Amendment does confer an individual right to bear arms, and its very
presence makes effective gun control in this country all but
impossible." From there, Lazare went on to argue that the Constitution
was irredeemably flawed."
"Probably the harshest words for the Constitutional Commentary forum,
however, come from a Standard Modeler who is herself a historian: Joyce
Lee Malcolm. "It is rather sad that a small group of historians, who are
displeased that there is overwhelming evidence for an individual right,
are unable or unwilling to engage with that evidence and prefer to
ignore it and brand this scholarship as 'bad history,'" she comments.
"It is a very unprofessional approach and more than anything else
demonstrates how paltry their own case is."
"The anti-Standard Model historians counter that when egal scholars
couch their arguments in historical terms, they should not dismiss as
irrelevant the latest findings published in refereed history journals.
Observing that law journals are generally run by squads of students
rather than peer reviewed, Cornell claims the structure of legal
scholarship has allowed the Standard Modelers to recycle their errors
tenfold because they are insufficiently scrutinized before publication
but canonized afterward. "The standards for history in law journals are
just not the same as the standards for historical scholarship in
professional history journals," he declares. Garry Wills concurs, though
he says he only realized law journals were not peer reviewed after
lambasting the Standard Model in the New York Review of Books. "I was
taking these people more seriously than I perhaps should have, because I
thought, 'Well, my God, here are refereed journals,'" he says. "And it
turns out they're not."
"Somewhat surprisingly, Sanford Levinson pleads guilty to these
accusations with good humor. "It's absolutely right," he says. "Lawyers
are notorious for raiding other disciplines and taking some prisoners,
and then making use of them as they wish. I do it, every law professor
does it." In fact, Levinson has high praise for the Constitutional
Commentary forum and Saul Cornell's article in particular. "I sent him a
piece of fan e-mail after reading it," he says. Levinson feels Cornell's
work will likely advance the debate on the Second Amendment, which he
considers not yet closed by any means."
Excerpts from:
Liberal Legal Scholars Are Supporting The Right to Bear Arms.
But Will Historians Shoot Them Down?
BY CHRIS MOONEY
> If the gun nuts had any real respect for the Constitution, they would
> focus on its most important amendment, one purchased in blood at
> Gettysburg: the Fourteenth amendment.
"The idea that President Abraham Lincoln waged war against the South to
abolish slavery is fiction created by the victors. Here's an
oft-repeated sentiment by President Lincoln: "I have no purpose,
directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in
the states where it exists.
"I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to
do so." Slavery simply emerged as a moral front for northern aggression.
"A more plausible source of North-South antagonism is suggested in an
1831 speech by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun where he said,
"Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is whether ours is a
federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a
government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the
States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government,
as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence and force
must ultimately prevail."
"A significant source of Southern discontent was tariffs Congress
enacted to protect Northern manufacturing interests. Referring to those
tariffs, Calhoun said, "The North has adopted a system of revenue and
disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has
been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds
appropriated to the North." Among other Southern grievances were
Northern actions similar to King George III's Navigation Acts, which
drove our Founders to the 1776 War of Independence.
"Though it's not politically correct for our history books to report,
black slaves and free blacks were among the men who fought and died
heroically for the cause of the Confederacy. Professor Edward Smith,
director of American studies at American University, says Stonewall
Jackson had 3,000 fully-equipped black troops scattered throughout his
corps at Antietam -- the war's bloodiest battle. Smith calculates that
between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some
capacity. These black Confederate soldiers no more fought to preserve
slavery than their successors fought in WWI and WWII to preserve Jim
Crow and segregation. They fought because their homeland was attacked
and fought in the hope that the future would be better and they'd be
rewarded for their patriotism."
Jewish World Review Nov. 17, 1999 /8 Kislev, 5760
Walter Williams (A black man BTW)
--
========================================================
"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks,
coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns
versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a
machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the
chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
--Josh Sugarmann: "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America"
(Washington D.C. Education Fund to End Handgun Violence and New
Right Watch) September 1988, p. 26)
Deception is the name of the gun-grabbers game.
=========================================================
Jim String
>In article <20000126103052...@nso-fu.aol.com>,
> andr...@aol.comFF (Andrew Colglazier) wrote:
>> In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com
>writes:
>> I guess you need to read the article again.... this time with an open
>mind.
>
>Perhaps I should also, this time, take care to run my index finger
>under the words and to sound them out, reading in the slow and open-
>minded way of the freedom fetishist.
>
>The very self-title, freedom fetishist, is revealing. Misinformed
>common usage of "fetish" believes this word to be merely a quantitative
>expansion of enthusiasn and therefore misinformed common usage elects
>this word. Misinformed common usage is unaware of the way in which
>quantitative change become qualitative change.
>
>That is, it may be dangerous to fetishize freedom if this means that it
>criticising the standard model show that what appear to the freedom
>fetishists to be manifestations of freedom we are beholden to protect
>what Samuel Johnson referred to in 1776 as "Cries for Liberty from the
>Drivers of Negroes."
>
>purpose, like cargo cultists who make a temple out of a DC-10. If
>freedom is at all a negative term then we VIOLATE the person who does
>not choose to live in a society in which he must use deadly force in
>order to do well.
>
>neobarbaric venues, that my very literacy now indicates a closed mind.
>Enlightenment has become the slack-jawed, drool streaked fetishization
>of what, it is plain, we are not correct in thinking of as a mass
>uprising of armed citizens, when it is now clear that only 14% of the
>adult male citizenry of Colonial times had guns.
Oh, I get it now: you're insane.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>Lingua Franca is a "review of academic life" with a mass-market
>flavoring. The increasing monopolization of the publishing market has
>caused previous fringe topics, with mass appeal, to
>become "respectable" academic topics. Thus, Borders backgrounds books
>with a left-liberal tone (notably in its shabby treatment of Juliet
>Schor's 1992 book THE OVERWORKED AMERICAN) and foregrounds right-
>revisionism...such as new "scholarship" on Noah's Ark.
>
>This is probably the reason while in recent years the "standard model"
>of the Second Amendment, an essentially silly reading, has become
>academically respetable. In the standard model, it is an individual
>right which if interpreted correctly means that individuals can own and
>operate tanks and rocket launchers. The strict interpretation of the
>standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
>Constitution and no feasible Constitution, of any state, can
>consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic law
>if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
There is no "right to treason." The purpose of the 2nd is to maintain
the means and ability to "remove" the treasonous and to restore and
maintain Constitutional government. The RKBA is for maintaining the
security of a free state, not overthrowing it.
>The Lingua Franca article describes some of the academic malpractice
>that has resulted from the acceptance of the standard model on the part
>of academics like Lawrence Tribe, who may very well just be sick and
>tired of getting email for lo these past ten years from the lunatics on
>talk.politics.guns, and hopes to get these wads off his back.
Heh, can't come up with anything better than that?
>Fortunately, it also describes the research of brave academics who have
>responded to the standard model by showing that it is a variant of what
>I described, ten years ago, as the Literary Digest fallacy.
>
>In the 1936 election, the Literary Digest predicted a Republican
>victory: their pollsters simply telephoned people at random and asked
>who'd they vote for. Of course, in this Depression year, many people
>did not have phones and those people, poorer and thus more Democratic
>than the Literary Digest sample, voted for Roosevelt.
Well, duh.
>The Literary Digest was an example of how a democracy can not only
>violate the rights of a minority: it can literally make them not "men"
>to be covered by its constitution. Antebellum slaveowners probably
>believed, not as a matter of metaphor but as a matter of truth, that
>black men were not "men" and Chief Justice Taney announced without
>irony in Dred Scott that a black man had not rights that a white man
>need respect.
SCOTUS was wrong. Your point is?
>The application to the gun issue is direct. By focusing on the second
>amendment the right would restrict personhood to those persons owning
>firearms and willing to use them to take human life, even as the
>pollsters of the Literary Digest were unconsciously or consciously
>biased against people so feckless as not to own phones.
Geez, there's a stretch: "restrict personhood to those persons owning
firearms?" Where do you come up with such drivel? What's "personhood?"
Is that anything like citizenship? Never took Logic 101, did you?
>The constitutional scholars who have stood against the neo-barbaric
>invasion of the academy by the gun nuts have showed, for example, that
>probably only 14% of white adult males owned firearms in Colonial
Uh, you got this little tidbit from watch Dan Blather, didn't you?
Something about an examination of probate records of the time? Hey,
free clue: then, as now, people were quite aware of the need to avoid
paper trails on guns. Of course you don't list your guns in legal
records, you transfer them privately to your heirs or friends.
Government should never be allowed to know _which_ guns you own.
>America...which puts paid to any notion that our liberty from King
>George was ensured by an armed citizenry, a notion nonsensical on the
>18th century battlefield in which training and discipline overcame
>armed property owners. George Washington repeatedly complained about
>the low quality of the Colonial militia and could not hire Baron von
>Steuben soon enough to train his regulars in the latest battlefield
>methods of the King of Prussia.
Uh, huh. This is exactly why the gun grabbers and government are _so_
concerned about guns in the hands of private citizens, because they
are ineffectual.
>Even at this early date, the key to success on the European battlefield
>was properly synchronized fire, and there was no place here for a mob
>of farmers with a variety of muskets, blunderbusses, arquebuses,
>fowling pieces and crossbows. Pumpernickel and Tommy Atkins were given
>their standard Brown Bess, thank'ee very much and clean the dam' thing
>now.
Oh sure. You don't think two or three hundred skilled riflemen could
shut down the US economy?
>The legend is that here in America the colonials fought Indian style
>but they simply did not fight Indian style at Trenton, Princeton, or
>Yorktown, to name three turnings of the tide in the American's favor.
>Light troops did maneovre Indian style at Saratoga because the ground
>was forested but the critical territory was not the backwoods, it was
>the Philadelphia-New York axis.
Haven't spent much time at the forts and battlegrounds in NY and around
New England?
>It is thus seen to be nonsense even on the 18th century battlefield to
>pretend that anyone's liberty was secured by a mass uprising of gun
>owning citizens. Other scholars have shown that instead the second
>amendment was passed as a sop to the slave-owners, who could control
>slaves with guns even if they ran away from pissed-off redcoats.
The whole point of the 2nd is that if we have guns we'll never have
to use them.
>If the gun nuts had any real respect for the Constitution, they would
>focus on its most important amendment, one purchased in blood at
>Gettysburg: the Fourteenth amendment.
Gotcha. The 14th is the most important. Right... for whom?
Best,
Jim
Andrew Colglazier
>
>In article <20000126103052...@nso-fu.aol.com>,
> andr...@aol.comFF (Andrew Colglazier) wrote:
>> In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com
>writes:
>> I guess you need to read the article again.... this time with an open
>mind.
>
>Perhaps I should also, this time, take care to run my index finger
>under the words and to sound them out, reading in the slow and open-
>minded way of the freedom fetishist.
This would be advisable.
>
>The very self-title, freedom fetishist, is revealing. Misinformed
>common usage of "fetish" believes this word to be merely a quantitative
>expansion of enthusiasn and therefore misinformed common usage elects
>this word.
Well, before you blather any further, I should tell you that I have taken on
the title of "freedom fetishist" only after it was foisted on me by another of
your anti-gun owner stereotypists.
Misinformed common usage is unaware of the way in which
>quantitative change become qualitative change.
I knew you would blather further. The above sentence seems to lack any logical
application to the topic at hand. Feel free to continue.
>That is, it may be dangerous to fetishize freedom if this means that it
>means protecting all its apparent manifestations. The scholars
>criticising the standard model show that what appear to the freedom
>fetishists to be manifestations of freedom we are beholden to protect
>what Samuel Johnson referred to in 1776 as "Cries for Liberty from the
>Drivers of Negroes."
At the risk of seeming to be a member of the unwashed proletariat, let me just
say "Huhhh???" in reply to the above.
>
>If we fetishize a thing, or a term, we use it in violation of its inner
>purpose,
"...inner purpose,...."???
like cargo cultists who make a temple out of a DC-10.
"...cargo cultists..."???!!!
If
>freedom is at all a negative term then we VIOLATE the person who does
>not choose to live in a society in which he must use deadly force in
>order to do well.
And where would you find such a society within our society, pray tell? I am
unaware of any such condition. "Freedom" can only be used in a negative
fashion by those who fear it.
>
>Finally:
Thank God!
I am certain that it is the case, as it is the case in many
>neobarbaric venues, that my very literacy
What literacy? The vocabulary you are attempting to use has left you burning
on a pile of Webster dictionaries.
now indicates a closed mind.
>Enlightenment has become the slack-jawed, drool streaked fetishization
>of what, it is plain, we are not correct in thinking of as a mass
>uprising of armed citizens, when it is now clear that only 14% of the
>adult male citizenry of Colonial times had guns.
Who gives a flip? If the possession of arms is a right, if only one individual
had a firearm, and no one else, it would not alter the basic legality of that
possession.
Now go soak your head.
Dan Day
>The strict interpretation of the
>standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
>Constitution and no feasible Constitution, of any state, can
>consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic law
>if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
Don't be stupid. The populace is armed to *protect* their rights,
and to protect the Constitution, not to destroy them. Your claim
is as silly as saying that the police are armed to enable
their "right to commit violent crimes", or as the Violence Policy
Center so hysterically writes, that a license to carry a concealed
handgun for protection is a "license to kill".
I think it's time that you stopped naming yourself after a
respected philosopher. You clearly aren't worthy of it.
--
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the
plain Meaning of Words!"
--Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
Dan Day
>right which if interpreted correctly means that individuals can own and
>operate tanks and rocket launchers.
Absolutely correct. Your mistake is assuming that such a
correct conclusion is necessarily a reductio ad absurdum.
It is not. It is now, and has always been, LEGAL for private citizens
to own and operate tanks and rocket launchers, and many do. And
yet, the Republic has not crumbled.
Read the following and, if necessary, run your finger along under
the words:
#### Old post of mine starts here
Subject: Yes, 2nd Amendment protects nukes
People often ask, "well, if the Second Amendment to the US Constitution
protects the private ownership of arms, then does that mean you have
the right to own a nuclear weapon?"
Most respondents approach this issue with something to the effect that this
can be resolved by interpreting "arms" as meaning "personal arms" (i.e.
those which can be carried and used by an individual against another
individual). Others "resolve" it by saying that this issue "obviously"
shows that the Constitution must be allowed to be re-interpreted to
accord with "common sense".
However, I think both miss the point. First, the writings of the
people who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment give the clear
impression that they meant *all* arms, including cannon and privateer
ships. Second, it's as wrong to "creatively interpret" the Second
Amendment in order to say that these days it should apply only to
personal arms as it is to say that it now applies only to the National
Guard, or even to say that it's entirely outmoded and can be totally
ignored. Any of these is an arbitrary selective interpretation, and
all are equally unsupportable, as would be any attempt to limit the First
Amendment protection of free speech only to, say, distribution methods
reaching only a limited number of people.
In short, I think the proper approach is to say that yes, the Second
Amendment was written to protect all arms, and thus nuclear weapons are
indeed covered by it. Now before anyone has a heart attack, let me
point out that I, too, think it is a good idea that individuals not
own nuclear weapons.
So what's the solution? Easy: Just follow the procedure that the
Constitution itself provides for modifying any provision of the
Constitution to adapt to changing times -- amend it following the
procedures in Article V. The people who wrote the Constitution did not
intend for it to be selectively interpreted in order to fit changing
conditions. They planned that if conditions *did* change enough to
warrant an alteration in the provisions of the Constitution, it should
be done with due care and consideration, and only upon the agreement of
two thirds of each house of Congress, and three fourths of the legislatures
of the states.
If times have indeed significantly changed since the day the Second
Amendment was ratified to protect the right to keep and bear all arms,
then it should be a easy matter to get the Congress and the states to
agree upon the issue of which weapons are clearly too dangerous for
individual ownership, and an amendment listing those arms exempted
from the protections of the Second Amendment should be ratified.
*This* is the proper way to react to changing times -- not arbitrary
decisions, whether they be personal, legislative, executive, or judicial.
Under the Constitution, the government only has the powers that we, the
people, agree to allow it to have. If a line needs to be drawn (or
redrawn), the only proper way is by consent of the people, through the
amendment process.
When it was ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment protected all arms
without exception, and thus it still does so today. If you don't
like that, try to amend it. For some arms, it will be easy to get
the majority opinion required to ratify that exemption, and you will
then have the blessing of the Constitution itself. For other arms,
you might find it more difficult to acquire a consensus, and you'll
have to live with the fact that not enough of "the people" agree with
your personal view on the matter.
Pat Hines
>
> In article <20000126103052...@nso-fu.aol.com>,
> andr...@aol.comFF (Andrew Colglazier) wrote:
> > In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com
> writes:
> > I guess you need to read the article again.... this time with an open
> mind.
>
> Perhaps I should also, this time, take care to run my index finger
> under the words and to sound them out, reading in the slow and open-
> minded way of the freedom fetishist.
<verbose pap snipped>
> Finally: I am certain that it is the case, as it is the case in many
> neobarbaric venues, that my very literacy now indicates a closed mind.
> Enlightenment has become the slack-jawed, drool streaked fetishization
> of what, it is plain, we are not correct in thinking of as a mass
> uprising of armed citizens, when it is now clear that only 14% of the
> adult male citizenry of Colonial times had guns.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
This guy sounds exactly like Frank Zimring, so much so I'd not be too
surprised to find that it is him.
An eloquent garbage mouth. Full of whining and drooling, signifying nothing.
Pat Hines
spino...@my-deja.com
xer...@my-deja.com wrote:>
> You need to study a little more on the history of gun control laws in
> America. The first laws restricting gun ownership (if you don't count
> the British) were designed to keep slaves and former slaves disarmed.
If the anti-revisionist scholars are correct, and Washington felt that
levees en masse of armed citizens were useless, then the Second
Amendment was primarily passed for the benefit of slaveowners.
Note that southern codes forbidding ownership of guns by freedmen were
passed in defiance of the "standard model" of the second amendment: the
interpretation that it is an individual right. However, the judiciary
of the late 1860s did not apply the Second Amendment to the southern
laws. Instead, a Congress dominated by Radical Republicans who
disliked the South (for good enough reason) passed a NEW amendment to
the Constitution: the Fourteenth, which stated that the laws already
existing applied equally to all citizens. By this, Congress did not
mean the modern "standard model" of the Second Amendment for in the
1860s the interpretation was that the Second Amendment allowed a
citizen militia.
The Second Amendment is therefore a weak tool for protecting racial
rights, since another Amendment had to be passed to at least get a
start on racial equality. The Fourteenth amendment was used by the
Warren court to desegregate schools in 1954. Of course, much of the
gun nut lobby hates everything the Warren court stood for. It is
therefore, again and for the last goddamn time, hypocrisy to point to
disarming laws of the 1860s and to then claim the high moral ground of
racial equality.
The gun program is that of Senator Calhoun, Congressman of the ante-
bellum period, who wanted a country in which the winners would lord it
over the losers in the form of black people, brown people, and women.
Calhoun's vision simply contradicts the vision of the Constitution and
the Declaration of Independence.
It is therefore hypocrisy to claim that by being a Second Amendment
absolutist, one is committed to equal rights. Genuine equality and
freedom for African-Americans such as exists today came because of
nonviolent, unarmed struggle. The Second Amendment was passed so that
armed Southerners could prevent slave rebellion.
>
> So my right to self-protection is VIOLATING you? I'm so sorry.
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, pal. If the
gun nuts create a society in which in order to ensure my Fourteenth
Amendment rights I have to take life, well, they've effectively revoked
the Fourteenth amendment (which is the racist program of the right
wing.)
There is a deep, neo-barbaric desire in the gun lobby to simply revoke
the social contract, with its freedom AND responsibility, based on
personal indiscipline, an artifact, in turn, of consumer society. This
is a society in which the proud, armed citizenry allows itself
repeatedly to be sold out by politicians and business and one in which
an Illinois man, upset because he was not given coffee at a hospital,
returned to the hospital with a gun and killed several nurses. This is
regression to the point of infantility.
The Lingua Franca article mentions one glorious Second Amendment case:
a doctor had threatened his estranged wife with a gun. One would well
ask what the Founding Fathers would think of mere lack of chivalry, and
infantile regression, as having anything at all to do with the right to
overthrown tyranny.
The very idea that the armed citizen is the final guarantor of rights
is deep nonsense. Second Amendment absolutists portray the amendment
as a guarantor of the right to rebel.
However, not only does a constitution self-contradict when it contains
a strong right of insurrection, a clause reading "your right to rebel
against what you do not like is guaranteed by your little gun": if
Thomas Hobbes is correct then a constitution does not need this
verbiage at all. In Hobbes, the "right" of rebellion is embedded at a
deeper level than that of constitution making because it is a natural
right.
The Hobbesian right of rebellion, although a natural "right" in the
sense that a revolutionary ATTEMPT is always physically possible, be it
a coup d'etat or a refusal to abide by laws (in the manner, say of Ted
Kaczynski), the revolution is not guaranteed success. In the War of
the Southern Rebellion, the Southern states exercised a natural right
to take a whack against Fort Sumter but of course they did not have the
right to be led by Longstreet, and not "Granny" Lee, at Gettysburg, and
even there success was not ensured.
But a constitution does not need to incorporate the right of armed
rebellion, should not include this right, and our Constitution, in the
Second Amendment, was not providing this right. The militia of the
amendment is that which guarantees the security of the state against a
professional military with its own agenda. To interpret it as an
individual right to prepare for a coup d'etat is to ask for a
constitution that self-destructs.
>
> So 14% of the adult male colonists defeated the British Army. Do you
> honestly believe that?
No, as I have said, Washington's use of trained soldiers who were
primarily in it for pay at Princeton, Trenton and Yorktown persuaded
the British that the costs of keeping American colonies were too high.
Washington's soldiers did not all bring their own guns to the field but
instead were issued guns. Following the Thirty Years War of the 17th
century it became clear that fire would have to be synchronized. The
Duke of Marlborough, British victor in several wars in the later part
of the 17th century, used trained and synchronized fire and consistent
weaponry, and his military descendants used this fire on Americans with
murderous effect at Bunker Hill and Monmouth, an American defeat.
Colonials armed with arquebuses, harquebuses, blunderbusses, fowling
pieces and what-all could not hope to advance, lay down disciplined
fire, and advance again: they were scattered by the high military
technology of the 18th century, the thin red line of the scum of the
earth. The men of the British Army, prior to enlistment or
impressment, typically did not have a pot to piss in, much less their
own firearm, but when they met Americans in the European conditions of
Monmouth Courthouse they beat 'em because the Sergeant Major told them
when to fire their gun, the property of King George.
Structurally, this situation obtains today. Undermotivated but highly
trained American Marines defeated the citizen army of the Viet Cong at
Hue in 1968.
The claim that one is for "freedom" by some fantasy of a levee en masse
of pre-armed citizens is nonsense, and it is a coverup for a desire of
white suburbanites to win a race war.
spino...@my-deja.com
antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:>
> What the 2nd actually means is "the people are armed, so YOU better
not
> ignore our basic law" and it is directed to the government.
If a MINORITY of the people believe that the government is contravening
the Constitution, and they believe further that they cannot use
peaceful means to get the attention of the authorities, they have the
Hobbesian natural right to TRY to rebel, a right that as I have said
cannot, and need not, be part of the Constitution.
As Hobbes indicates, any person has the natural right, in the sense of
logical potential, to make like the goddamn Unabomber for any reason.
We can condemn him from a moral and an extralegal standpoint but the
law cannot, on pain of infinite regress, prevent him from violating the
law.
If each law had to do this, it would have to contain a clause "do not
violate this law" in addition to its other verbiage. But then the
person, exercising her Hobbesian natural right, could say "fuck that
shit" not only to the basic text of the law but also to the rider which
says "do not violate this law." So the law would have to contain MORE
text such as "don't even THINK about saying "fuck that shit" to this
law's previous statement 'do not violate this law'."
The law would contain an infinite number of such clauses. I am not
playing word games. I am showing, instead, a deep confusion in
American thinking courtesy of the NRA. Americans believe that their
laws are somehow different than others in that they incorporate some
special right to rebel...over and above the Hobbesian natural right to
TRY to rebel.
Lincoln was asked after Appomatox, and before John Wilkes Booth
exercised the "standard model" interpretation of the Second Amendment
at Ford's Theater, why the colonies could break away from King George
and the South could not break away from the United States. Lincoln's
answer was nasty, brutish, short and Hobbesian: they lost. The South,
by firing on Fort Sumter, wanted to have its cake and eat it too: it
wanted to exercise its natural right and be recognized as the servants
of the "real" constitution.
This tragedy repeats itself as farce in the standard model.
If the MAJORITY believes that the government is in deep and not
reversible violation of the Constitution it tautologically still has
the election process in most scenarios. If it loses this then it has
the Hobbesian right to take up arms. But the Second Amendment is not
giving this: it is just as absurd for a basic law to add a rider "you
have the natural right of rebellion" as it is to add a rider "you
better not rebel, boy." The latter leads, as I've shown, to infinite
regress: the former leads to self-contradiction.
It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
myself against them when they have no intention of so doing. It is
equally silly to look to the Second Amendment to guarantee against
tyranny at some future date, for tyranny BY DEFINITION contravenes the
Constitution. Finally, it is pragmatically nonsense to say that
drilling in camo will put the fear of the people in the Beltway: quite
the contrary: it has lessened actual civil liberties.
spino...@my-deja.com
"Duane K. Kelly" <dkk...@dev.null> wrote:>
> > If the gun nuts had any real respect for the Constitution, they
would
> > focus on its most important amendment, one purchased in blood at
> > Gettysburg: the Fourteenth amendment.
>
> "The idea that President Abraham Lincoln waged war against the South
to
> abolish slavery is fiction created by the victors. Here's an
> oft-repeated sentiment by President Lincoln: "I have no purpose,
> directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery
in
> the states where it exists.
This was Lincoln's original intention. However, he had a strong view
against extension of slavery into the territories: this is why he was
elected, and the South seceded because of Lincoln's views. And he
changed his views in 1863.
>
> "A more plausible source of North-South antagonism is suggested in an
> 1831 speech by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun where he said,
> "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is whether ours is a
> federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one;
a
> government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the
> States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of
government,
> as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence and force
> must ultimately prevail."
Interesting, because in Calhoun's other writings he claims that the
victor in war has a natural right to enslave and dominate the
vanguished.
Thomas Hobbes would point that this right, insofar as it exists, also
is possessed by the vanguished. The vanguished has the right at any
time to mount a Spartacist rebellion. He has no natural right to
success, but the slaveholder has no special right to vanguish the
Spartacus.
Calhoun's mistake was to want these natural rights to be recognized in
law. However, they cannot be recognized unless a Platonic state is set
up in which the Guardian caste is enumerated or given by a rule such as
heredity.
Calhoun's rule contravened "all men are endowed by their Creator."
That is because Calhoun said, incoherently, that the planter caste of
the antebellum south was a caste that deserved to rule by means of
states' rights.
However, by this rule, Calhoun would have to concede that if the slaves
mounted a successful rebellion they'd have to be handed over the
states. So he also had to depart from the founding principles of
equality by adding the natural superiority of the white race.
>
> "A significant source of Southern discontent was tariffs Congress
> enacted to protect Northern manufacturing interests. Referring to
those
> tariffs, Calhoun said, "The North has adopted a system of revenue and
> disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation
has
> been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds
> appropriated to the North." Among other Southern grievances were
> Northern actions similar to King George III's Navigation Acts, which
> drove our Founders to the 1776 War of Independence.
>
The South preferred the basic inefficiency of exhausting its soil by
planting, year after year, cotton and tobacco. Anything beyond this
would have demanded free labor. Therefore, boo fucking hoo as regards
the relative effect of the protectionist tarriffs enacted to help the
North. The South was free at any time to build her own industries but
that would have meant, for the good old boys, 16 hour days in the
office or on the shop floor, with uppity free machinists talking out of
turn and leaving when they wanted. How much easier it was to exhaust
the soil with African help, and then to move on to Kansas or points
south, shoving aside the "dagoes" and sipping mint juleps.
> "Though it's not politically correct for our history books to report,
> black slaves and free blacks were among the men who fought and died
> heroically for the cause of the Confederacy. Professor Edward Smith,
> director of American studies at American University, says Stonewall
> Jackson had 3,000 fully-equipped black troops scattered throughout his
> corps at Antietam -- the war's bloodiest battle. Smith calculates that
> between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some
> capacity. These black Confederate soldiers no more fought to preserve
> slavery than their successors fought in WWI and WWII to preserve Jim
> Crow and segregation. They fought because their homeland was attacked
> and fought in the hope that the future would be better and they'd be
> rewarded for their patriotism."
These troops were cooks and drovers, a point neatly obscured. And many
of them were slaves brought to the field by their masters. White
southern troops would have mutinied had they to fight alongside blacks,
and the south lost the war because Jeff Davis refused to induct slaves.
However, this deep nonsense does show the real program of the gun nuts:
to rebuild de Old South with an armed white Massah once agin securely
in control.
spino...@my-deja.com
pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:>
> There is no "right to treason." The purpose of the 2nd is to maintain
> the means and ability to "remove" the treasonous and to restore and
> maintain Constitutional government. The RKBA is for maintaining the
> security of a free state, not overthrowing it.
This assumes that a single interpretation of "treason" can be made.
In Hobbes, the sovereign BY DEFINITION cannot be a traitor: l'etat,
c'est moi. The Founding Fathers saw that this would not work and in
our system, the "sovereign", an actual personal President, can most
assuredly be a traitor to the Constitution. Whereas even today in
Britain the King-in-Parliament, an abstraction referring to Parliament
substantially and the "King" as something only honorary, cannot be a
traitor.
However, it is just ignorant to say the the Second Amendment is what is
available to check and balance an Executive, a Congress, or a judiciary
that is in violation of the Constitution. Reams of the Federalist
Papers refer to the checks and balances, and the government of laws and
not men, as being the safeguard against an executive, congress or
judiciary that is violating the Constitution.
It is nonsense to say that the Executive, the Congress or the judiciary
will check its instincts to trample the Constitution because militias
are drilling in the fucking woods. Quite the contrary: the actual
response is to start trampling on real rights in response to "domestic
terrorism."
Instead, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that citizens would
access the levers that had not already been seized by the constitution-
violators, and, of course, this is what actually happened as recently
as 1974: President Nixon was forced to resign or be impeached for his
violation of the Constitution (not so much the second-rate burgalry,
instead for war waging without consulting Congress.)
If it is the case that the ENTIRE government is in violation of the
Constitution, then the citizenry have the natural, Hobbesian, right to
rebel, one which can never be stated, but which exists.
The intent of the Constitution is of course to see that the actual
executive, Congress and judiciary subordinate themselves to the law.
But no single clause can ensure this. The safeguard against a King
Charles I is not in the RKBA, for Cromwell's men took arms up very
nicely at Naseby and elsewhere without any such right. It is instead
implicit in tens of clauses of impeachment, recall and election which
show that at any stage in our system the constitution violators in
charge can and should be, not shot at, but booted out of town.
spino...@my-deja.com
d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:44:32 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
> >Constitution and no feasible Constitution, of any state, can
> >consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic
law
> >if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
>
> Don't be stupid. The populace is armed to *protect* their rights,
> and to protect the Constitution, not to destroy them. Your claim
> is as silly as saying that the police are armed to enable
> their "right to commit violent crimes", or as the Violence Policy
> Center so hysterically writes, that a license to carry a concealed
> handgun for protection is a "license to kill".
>
> I think it's time that you stopped naming yourself after a
> respected philosopher. You clearly aren't worthy of it.
You want the perception of slobs of their "rights" to be coherent but
it is possible that slobs don't have coherent ideas.
Of course, if gun ownership for the purpose of Constitution protecting
is an individual right, as the "standard model" says that it is, then
everybody has the Constititutional "right" to protect the Constitution.
But this means that what they are protecting is their interpretation
and people interpret the Constitution in different ways.
I am identifying a basket of incoherent ideas, held by slobs. The fact
is that the standard model does mean that the RKBA is a right to
treason. What this means is that the standard model is a reduction to
absurdity.
Dan Day
>>
>> I think it's time that you stopped naming yourself after a
>> respected philosopher. You clearly aren't worthy of it.
>
>You want the perception of slobs of their "rights" to be coherent but
>it is possible that slobs don't have coherent ideas.
It's highly ironic that you use the word "coherent" twice in a
sentence that itself incoherent. Would you care to try that again
in English?
>Of course, if gun ownership for the purpose of Constitution protecting
>is an individual right, as the "standard model" says that it is, then
>everybody has the Constititutional "right" to protect the Constitution.
Not only a "right", but a duty.
>But this means that what they are protecting is their interpretation
>and people interpret the Constitution in different ways.
Welcome to freedom and self-determination. Do you have a problem
with that? Apparently, you do.
>I am identifying a basket of incoherent ideas, held by slobs.
No, you are identifying how incoherent is your own understanding of
those concepts. Don't blame your own confusion on others.
> The fact
>is that the standard model does mean that the RKBA is a right to
>treason. What this means is that the standard model is a reduction to
>absurdity.
Only if you insist on being absurd about it, which obviously you
do. Yours is like claiming that the right to vote is absurd, because
what if everyone voted for Mickey Mouse?
antisdolie
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Lincoln was asked after Appomatox, and before John Wilkes Booth
> exercised the "standard model" interpretation of the Second Amendment
Careful, your bigotry is showing.
> It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
> myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS the right, not GRANTS it, so of course the
above is silly.
> It is equally silly to look to the Second Amendment to guarantee
> against tyranny at some future date, for tyranny BY DEFINITION
> contravenes the Constitution.
Yes, but the purpose is, if nothing else, to make it that much harder.
Would the killing fields have been as deadly had eye-glass wearing
Cambodians been armed? Who would have a harder time creating a tyranny
and subjugating the populous, the Beltway Boys or the Downing Street
Gang?
> Finally, it is pragmatically nonsense to say that
> drilling in camo
There you go again, revealing your bigotry.
> will put the fear of the people in the Beltway: quite
> the contrary: it has lessened actual civil liberties.
Poor excuse to allow it to happen.
Jim
antisdolie
spino...@my-deja.com
d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:13:23 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it's time that you stopped naming yourself after a
> >> respected philosopher. You clearly aren't worthy of it.
> >
> >You want the perception of slobs of their "rights" to be coherent but
> >it is possible that slobs don't have coherent ideas.
>
> It's highly ironic that you use the word "coherent" twice in a
> sentence that itself incoherent. Would you care to try that again
> in English?
The sentence is grammatically well formed, and consists only of 22
words. The "incoherence" is your inability to read. One of the
reasons for the way in which the academy is now treating the
idiot "standard model" seriously is the brutalization of the academy in
recent years and the disregard for complex thought which changes all
rights to individual rights.
>
> >Of course, if gun ownership for the purpose of Constitution
protecting
> >is an individual right, as the "standard model" says that it is, then
> >everybody has the Constititutional "right" to protect the
Constitution.
>
> Not only a "right", but a duty.
A duty to protect their private interpretation? Not at all. Instead,
people have a duty to balance their private convictions with those of
other people, until such a time as they decide that their private view
of the Constitution has been irredemably compromised. At this point
they have the natural right (uncodable in law) and arguably the moral
duty to break out in armed rebellion.
The difference is between an emotionally stunted doctor who wanted his
threatening of his estranged wife to be treated as exercise of Second
Amendment rights, and John Brown, who wasted no time in
demanding "rights" which John Brown knew that the government would not
give him anyway. The initial act in John Brown's exercising of his
natural right of rebellion was after all an attempt to seize arms and,
of course, when Brown was attacked by the government he did not whine
that they were violating his second amendment rights.
Under the standard model the RKBA is either a right of treason or the
right to violate the Fourteenth Amendment by terrorizing subordinate
groups. This is because a constitution does not need and cannot have
(without paradox) a clause that addresses its applicability in the
scenario where the government has trampled on the Constitution. A
Constitution cannot do more than pronounce impotent curses on tyrants
and introduce mechanisms for prevention of tyranny.
Gun ownership is no such mechanism. Tyrants are not afraid of an armed
citizenry when even in the putative hey day of an armed citizenry in
Colonial America, only 14% of the white male freedmen had guns. And,
again, the lesson of the 1990s is that widespread militia formation
outside the National Guard only worsens the civil liberties climate
because it places unarmed peaceful activity under suspicion.
>
> >But this means that what they are protecting is their interpretation
> >and people interpret the Constitution in different ways.
>
> Welcome to freedom and self-determination. Do you have a problem
> with that? Apparently, you do.
Yeah, what ev er.
>
> >I am identifying a basket of incoherent ideas, held by slobs.
>
> No, you are identifying how incoherent is your own understanding of
> those concepts. Don't blame your own confusion on others.
>
> > The fact
> >is that the standard model does mean that the RKBA is a right to
> >treason. What this means is that the standard model is a reduction
to
> >absurdity.
>
> Only if you insist on being absurd about it, which obviously you
> do. Yours is like claiming that the right to vote is absurd, because
> what if everyone voted for Mickey Mouse?
The very posssibility that Geogre Dubya Bush may be President DOES
speak to the Founder's fears that democracy would become slobocracy.
But of course the right to vote is of sufficient importance that the
citizen (unless he's an emotionally self-indulgent RKBA sort) puts up
with George Dubya by balancing his distaste for the politicians with
alternatives to democracy. But the RKBA is completely ineffectual as
compared to the right to vote, so the citizen rejects the absolute RKBA
as having anything to do with democracy.
spino...@my-deja.com
antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <86osdi$o5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Lincoln was asked after Appomatox, and before John Wilkes Booth
> > exercised the "standard model" interpretation of the Second
Amendment
>
> Careful, your bigotry is showing.
What ev er. I am a bigot because of a distaste for John Wilkes Booth.
Wha t e v er.
>
> > It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to
arm
> > myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
>
> The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS the right, not GRANTS it, so of course the
> above is silly.
Men have a right to wear tights and arguably this is necessary to the
security of a free state. Does the Constitution have to enumerate
these pre-existing rights? No.
>
>
> Yes, but the purpose is, if nothing else, to make it that much harder.
> Would the killing fields have been as deadly had eye-glass wearing
> Cambodians been armed? Who would have a harder time creating a
tyranny
> and subjugating the populous, the Beltway Boys or the Downing Street
> Gang?
>
Yeah, let's reason with half understood movies. In fact, all sides in
Cambodia were armed thanks to United States interference, and the armed
conduct of the Cambodian military as supported and encouraged by the US
was responsible for the slaughter in 1975. George Dubya Bush is
purchasing the Republican nomination: how on earth has an armed
citizenry prevented this?
antisdolie
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <86pomh$b5e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <86osdi$o5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Lincoln was asked after Appomatox, and before John Wilkes Booth
> > > exercised the "standard model" interpretation of the Second
> > > Amendment
> > Careful, your bigotry is showing.
> What ev er. I am a bigot because of a distaste for John Wilkes Booth.
> Wha t e v er.
Okay, I stand corrected, make that bigotted AND stupid. Of course, you
think that for something to have been owned, it must have been listed
in a will, so I should have known that prior to your response.
> > > It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to
> > > arm myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
> > The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS the right, not GRANTS it, so of course
> > the above is silly.
> Men have a right to wear tights and arguably this is necessary to the
> security of a free state.
Agruably, if you are an idiot.
> > Yes, but the purpose is, if nothing else, to make it that much
> > harder. Would the killing fields have been as deadly had eye-glass
> > wearing Cambodians been armed? Who would have a harder time
> > creating a tyranny and subjugating the populous, the Beltway Boys
> > or the Downing Street Gang?
> Yeah, let's reason with half understood movies.
Didn't see the movie, buy your diversion from the questions is quite
typical of the left-wing gun grabbing monkey. Why am I not surprised.
> In fact, all sides in
> Cambodia were armed thanks to United States interference, and the
> armed conduct of the Cambodian military as supported and encouraged
> by the US was responsible for the slaughter in 1975.
What ev er. You, not surprisingly, still failed to anwser the
questions.
> George Dubya
> Bush is purchasing the Republican nomination: how on earth has an
> armed citizenry prevented this?
Oh, gee, now we know why you are here. A sounding board for your
bigotted voice against a presidential candidate. I suppose you envy
Monica Lewinsky's former position too.
Jim
Andrew Colglazier
>
>In article <389b9df8...@news.globalcenter.net>,
> d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:44:32 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >The strict interpretation of the
>> >standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
>> >Constitution and no feasible Constitution, of any state, can
>> >consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic
>law
>> >if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
>>
>> Don't be stupid. The populace is armed to *protect* their rights,
>> and to protect the Constitution, not to destroy them. Your claim
>> is as silly as saying that the police are armed to enable
>> their "right to commit violent crimes", or as the Violence Policy
>> Center so hysterically writes, that a license to carry a concealed
>> handgun for protection is a "license to kill".
>>
>> I think it's time that you stopped naming yourself after a
>> respected philosopher. You clearly aren't worthy of it.
>
>You want the perception of slobs of their "rights" to be coherent but
>it is possible that slobs don't have coherent ideas.
>
>Of course, if gun ownership for the purpose of Constitution protecting
>is an individual right, as the "standard model" says that it is, then
>everybody has the Constititutional "right" to protect the Constitution.
>
>But this means that what they are protecting is their interpretation
>and people interpret the Constitution in different ways.
>
>I am identifying a basket of incoherent ideas, held by slobs. The fact
>is that the standard model does mean that the RKBA is a right to
>treason. What this means is that the standard model is a reduction to
>absurdity.
No, you've got it wrong. The standard model observes that at the point a
government ceases to be representative, and becomes oppressive, it no longer is
deserving of respect by the people. If that were to occur, it stands to reason
that the government would need to be divested of power. If the government were
in fact so corrupt, it is doubtful that an election would do the job. Armed
force might be necessary, and that is what the standard model interpretation of
the 2nd Am. is all about.
Get it now?
Andrew Colglazier
>
>In article <slrn88uqon....@molly.hh.org>,
> pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:>
>> There is no "right to treason." The purpose of the 2nd is to maintain
>> the means and ability to "remove" the treasonous and to restore and
>> maintain Constitutional government. The RKBA is for maintaining the
>> security of a free state, not overthrowing it.
>
>This assumes that a single interpretation of "treason" can be made.
>
>In Hobbes, the sovereign BY DEFINITION cannot be a traitor: l'etat,
>c'est moi.
Hair splitting; you can't be serious with this specious argument, which turns
on definitions of terminology, and not on the spirit of the discussion. The
government, in any form, must be beholden to the people. At the point it
begins to serve itself rather than the people, it has lost its legitimacy, and
should be removed.
The Founding Fathers saw that this would not work and in
>our system, the "sovereign", an actual personal President, can most
>assuredly be a traitor to the Constitution. Whereas even today in
>Britain the King-in-Parliament, an abstraction referring to Parliament
>substantially and the "King" as something only honorary, cannot be a
>traitor.
In our system of government, the people are sovereign, and the government a
tool for implementing the will of the people. The president is not sovereign.
That was a concept thrown out with the development of a representative
government. A true sovereign, such as a king, can most certainly be traitorous
to his subjects, since in monarchical tradition, the king is entrusted with
caring for the people in benevolence. If the king is no longer benevolent, he
must fear the wrath of the people.
>However, it is just ignorant to say the the Second Amendment is what is
>available to check and balance an Executive, a Congress, or a judiciary
>that is in violation of the Constitution. Reams of the Federalist
>Papers refer to the checks and balances, and the government of laws and
>not men, as being the safeguard against an executive, congress or
>judiciary that is violating the Constitution.
All well and good, and the three branches of government generally are
sufficient to meet these needs. But what happens when these checks and balances
no longer function as planned? This has happened in our history. I'm afraid
that I have forgotten the case, but at one point, when the SC handed down a
decision that was not liked by the executive branch, the president said "The
Court has made its ruling. Now let it enforce it." The SC has no power except
that given it by the Executive, and that is true also for the legislative. If
the executive branch abuses its authority, it is up to the people to restore
the balance, since the executive controls the military power of the country.
>It is nonsense to say that the Executive, the Congress or the judiciary
>will check its instincts to trample the Constitution because militias
>are drilling in the fucking woods. Quite the contrary: the actual
>response is to start trampling on real rights in response to "domestic
>terrorism."
Huhh? Clearly if a group is planning armed insurrection absent abuse by the
government, they are terrorists, not patriots. But the answer is not to start
trampling real rights in response. That leads to a police state, which WOULD
give rise to legitimate acts of resistance to a government which had lost its
way.
>Instead, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that citizens would
>access the levers that had not already been seized by the constitution-
>violators, and, of course, this is what actually happened as recently
>as 1974: President Nixon was forced to resign or be impeached for his
>violation of the Constitution (not so much the second-rate burgalry,
>instead for war waging without consulting Congress.)
That is how a healthy checks and balances system is supposed to work. No need
for armed insurrection. But what if he had not left so quietly? What if he
had subverted the military? The situation would have been much, much
different.
>If it is the case that the ENTIRE government is in violation of the
>Constitution, then the citizenry have the natural, Hobbesian, right to
>rebel, one which can never be stated, but which exists.
But it must be stated. If it isn't stated, then the concept loses legitimacy,
and is forgotten or made impossible (as you wish to do).
>The intent of the Constitution is of course to see that the actual
>executive, Congress and judiciary subordinate themselves to the law.
>But no single clause can ensure this. The safeguard against a King
>Charles I is not in the RKBA, for Cromwell's men took arms up very
>nicely at Naseby and elsewhere without any such right.
Yes. And look what happened to Cromwell....... Cromwell's uprising was not
legitimized by anything such as the Constitution. The people of England knew
nothing except the power of the monarch, and since Cromwell was not their
traditional monarch, he lacked legitimacy under English law. The Constitution
is a piece of paper. By itself, it can prevent nothing. Only when backed up
by the power of the people does it have any meaning.....
It is instead
>implicit in tens of clauses of impeachment, recall and election which
>show that at any stage in our system the constitution violators in
>charge can and should be, not shot at, but booted out of town.
All well and good when things remain civilized. But that doesn't always
happen. Pull your head out of the sand.
Andrew Colglazier
And there you have it. Spinoza reveals his true prejudices and stereotypical
thinking about gun-owners as a group, and completely loses any dubious
credibility he might accidentally garner by making the above argument.
Andrew Colglazier
>
>In article <86nij5$prv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:>
>> What the 2nd actually means is "the people are armed, so YOU better
>not
>> ignore our basic law" and it is directed to the government.
>
>If a MINORITY of the people believe that the government is contravening
>the Constitution, and they believe further that they cannot use
>peaceful means to get the attention of the authorities, they have the
>Hobbesian natural right to TRY to rebel, a right that as I have said
>cannot, and need not, be part of the Constitution.
But the right to rebel IS a part of our Constitution, and our heritage. Try
and deal with that reality, please. Let me also point out that if there is a
minority of the people who actually move to carry out a rebellion, that doesn't
necessarily mean that the majority of the people withhold tacit approval of
such an act. Look at the partisan movements during WWII against the Germans.
Actual armed resistance behind enemy lines was carried out by a real minority
of citizens, but clearly NO resistance was possible without the support of the
citizenry at large.
>As Hobbes indicates, any person has the natural right, in the sense of
>logical potential, to make like the goddamn Unabomber for any reason.
>We can condemn him from a moral and an extralegal standpoint but the
>law cannot, on pain of infinite regress, prevent him from violating the
>law.
You are correct in this statement, but I would not use the term "natural
right." Rather, a more correct term would be "natural ability." "Natural
right" should be reserved for those instances when force is used legitimately
to preserve or restore a benevolant state, not to resist or undermine one.
>If each law had to do this, it would have to contain a clause "do not
>violate this law" in addition to its other verbiage. But then the
>person, exercising her Hobbesian natural right, could say "fuck that
>shit" not only to the basic text of the law but also to the rider which
>says "do not violate this law." So the law would have to contain MORE
>text such as "don't even THINK about saying "fuck that shit" to this
>law's previous statement 'do not violate this law'."
Huhhh? You are losing the thread.....
>The law would contain an infinite number of such clauses. I am not
>playing word games. I am showing, instead, a deep confusion in
>American thinking courtesy of the NRA. Americans believe that their
>laws are somehow different than others in that they incorporate some
>special right to rebel...over and above the Hobbesian natural right to
>TRY to rebel.
To believe otherwise would be to subscribe to the idea that the people are
ALWAYS beholden to superior might, regardless of the legitimacy of that might.
>Lincoln was asked after Appomatox, and before John Wilkes Booth
>exercised the "standard model" interpretation of the Second Amendment
>at Ford's Theater,
Booth's act of assassination was an act carried out by a partisan on the part
of an opposing force. Since it is unclear exactly what the Confederation would
have ended up doing with its government, it is difficult to quantify his acts
historically. Suffice it to say that he acted alone, without substantial
support by the populace, and possibly without any support by the Confederate
leadership.
why the colonies could break away from King George
>and the South could not break away from the United States. Lincoln's
>answer was nasty, brutish, short and Hobbesian: they lost. The South,
>by firing on Fort Sumter, wanted to have its cake and eat it too: it
>wanted to exercise its natural right and be recognized as the servants
>of the "real" constitution.
>
>This tragedy repeats itself as farce in the standard model.
>
>If the MAJORITY believes that the government is in deep and not
>reversible violation of the Constitution it tautologically still has
>the election process in most scenarios. If it loses this then it has
>the Hobbesian right to take up arms. But the Second Amendment is not
>giving this: it is just as absurd for a basic law to add a rider "you
>have the natural right of rebellion" as it is to add a rider "you
>better not rebel, boy." The latter leads, as I've shown, to infinite
>regress: the former leads to self-contradiction.
Then you don't understand the right of self-determination, and you won't
understand how these two concepts can coincide. Too bad for you.
>It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
>myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
"......ask the authorities....."????!!! You really don't get it, do you? I
don't ask the government to do anything concerning my rights; I REQUIRE the
government to acknowledge the existence of my rights, and to serve me in
preserving those rights. This is not an issue which should be discussed with
the government.
It is
>equally silly to look to the Second Amendment to guarantee against
>tyranny at some future date, for tyranny BY DEFINITION contravenes the
>Constitution.
The 2nd Am. is to serve as a reminder to government that the power of the
people is not to be trifled with. Armed insurrection is not a measure to be
instituted at the drop of a hat, and no one I know adheres to such an idea.
All other aspects of representative government exist to PREVENT the utilization
of rebellion. But at the point the government ignores the Constitution and
does what it wants, words no longer have a role in resolving the issues.
Finally, it is pragmatically nonsense to say that
>drilling in camo will put the fear of the people in the Beltway: quite
>the contrary: it has lessened actual civil liberties.
Oh, really? Give me one example of how it has lessened actual civil liberties?
I don't necessarily advocate "drilling in camo," though our armed forces do
this every day. But I think it is perfectly all right if responsible and above
board groups wish to do so, since that is something envisioned by the founders.
Actually, it is the perverse belief that such activities are, by definition,
subversive that has driven such groups to illegal measures.
Donald R. McGregor
>>It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
>>myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
You're confusing a legal right to rebel (act against the government
with no fear of legal consequences) with an _ability_ to act against
the government.
Rebellions are by definition extra-legal exercises. They may
or may not be in the right. The 2nd amendment protects
the ability or potential to act in an extra-legal way, rather
than immunizing the actors from legal consequences for rebellion.
--
Don McGregor | "There's nobody getting rich writing software that
mcg...@mbay.net | I know of." --Bill Gates, 1980
d'geezer
"Donald R. McGregor" wrote:
>
> >In article <86osdi$o5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com writes:
> >>It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
> >>myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
>
> You're confusing a legal right to rebel (act against the government
> with no fear of legal consequences) with an _ability_ to act against
> the government.
>
> Rebellions are by definition extra-legal exercises. They may
> or may not be in the right. The 2nd amendment protects
> the ability or potential to act in an extra-legal way, rather
> than immunizing the actors from legal consequences for rebellion.
>
> --
> Don McGregor
Possibly it might help to consider human behavior in its larger sense.
Statements like the DOI, Constitution and the BOR are less law or
attempts to seal the access to rights than they are statements of
intent. It starts to fall in place when one considers that everything is
really a crap shoot. Even that we live or die is a product of game
theory, for you science types, and for you philosophical types, life and
it's meaning have been endlessly debated. We won't settle it here on
tpg. What we can settle is our own personal intent.
Personally about the same time I became, as a child, aware of death I
determined to stay alive as long as possible. And over the years as I
have seen animal and human die so many times, I notice that most do
everything within their immediate power to stay alive even one second
longer. I'll go with nature. Those who would attempt to take away ANY of
my means to stay alive are my natural enemies. Hell, I ain't even mad at
them most of the time, just on guard. Bye all you gun grabbers. You are
by any definition I can come up with your own worst enemies when you
attempt to defy nature. But then you know that deep down. You do every
thing you can to preserve your own life, including being involved in
taking the lives of others. We know you. d'geezer
--
"They will always find something; a knife, a club, a pipe, their bare
hands, the poisoned cup. Killers don't need guns to kill, but you do to
defend against them. Arm yourself." d'geezer,1935 -????
Pursuant to U.S. Code, title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, B227, "Any
and
all non-solicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
download and archival fee of $500.00 U.S." E-mailing denotes acceptance
of
these terms.
SMS Mike
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> If the anti-revisionist scholars are correct, and Washington felt that
> levees en masse of armed citizens were useless, then the Second
> Amendment was primarily passed for the benefit of slaveowners.
<<<<==========================================>>>>
SMS: I have heard a LOT of nonsense in my time, but the (Slave Owner)
theory for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment takes the cake. Such TOTAL
"horse shit" deserves a round of applause!
Slavery wasn't instituted at gun point, and it wasn't maintained that way
either. One does NOT shoot ones slaves if one wants to have any slaves left
to work with. The whip, and total control over every aspect of a slaves
life was ALL that was necessary. Slaves were BREAD into slavery and kept
that way by social norms.. The few that ran away were hunted down with dogs
and horses; NOT GUNS! Dead Slaves do NOT plant or harvest crops. Slave
owners were NOT inclined to shoot their means of production..
Here is the original Second, as written by James Madison.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a
free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
The 2nd Amendment has ALWAYS been about protection of the Country/State by
the PEOPLE. Its roots go back even further than English Common Law and the
English Bill of Rights. Here is an example from a bit of Colonial History
around the year 1631..
"The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1,
ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in
New England-"
"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the
principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all
adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions,
cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied
the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much
attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was
ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might
be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation
of the colony (Massachusetts)."
It's not difficult to see that the Northern Colonies were absolutely
fanatical about the right to keep and bear arms. Initially, the major
fighting in the war for independence was done in the northern colonies.
Arms and Militia Arms was a hot topic well into the early 18 hundreds.
To entertain that southern slavery, or the institution of slavery itself,
played even a small part in the decision to include the 2nd Amendment in
the U. S. Constitution is absolutely ludicrous!
--
_________________________________
SMSgt Mike Eglestone (E-8)
United States Air Force (1966-92)
The NRA interpretation of the 2nd Amendment might be wrong in one respect
only. The Founding Fathers expected each and every Free Man to own a
Military Weapon, and they expected each Free Man to be ready to defend this
nation if called. As such, the 2nd Amendment recognizes a "Responsibility
To Be Armed" as much as a "Right To Be Armed." That, however, is the ONLY
mistake the NRA has made when addressing the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
-SMS Mike
---------
People don't want the facts when making up their minds. They
would rather have one good, soul-satisfying emotion; than a
dozen facts.
-Robert Keith Leavitt
---------------------
David E. Young
>In article <86nngu$to6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> xer...@my-deja.com wrote:>
<snip>
>>
>> So 14% of the adult male colonists defeated the British Army. Do you
>> honestly believe that?
>
>No, as I have said, Washington's use of trained soldiers who were
>primarily in it for pay at Princeton, Trenton and Yorktown persuaded
>the British that the costs of keeping American colonies were too high.
>
>Washington's soldiers did not all bring their own guns to the field but
>instead were issued guns.
DY: We'll let the "primarily in it for pay" pass without comment. So S is
claiming that those early Revolutionary War Era Recruiting Posters which
indicated those wishing to join the Continental Army should bring their own
gun were just a hoax?
And what about the fact that the core of the Continental Army was formed
from the farmers who surrounded Boston on and after April 19, 1775?
Apparently, S would have us believe that those farmers chased the British
back to Boston, but that they had no arms of their own until Washington came
along and provided them. Maybe that is why some refer to him as saviour of
our country. And exactly where did Washington suddenly get arms for everyone
in 1775?
A good number of French Muskets were eventually provided by the French, but
that does not change the fact that many Continental Army soldiers had their
own arms.
See, S is a good example of what happens when someone raises a child and
relies too extensively on fairy tales. They grow up to believe fairy tales,
and try to convince others to beleive fairy tales.
Read the original sources. You will never regret having done so. You will
also be much better at recognizing fairy tales when they are presented as
fact.
--
David E. Young dey...@up.net
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment:
A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in
Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government,
and an Armed Populace, 1787-1792.
Information at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
David E. Young
rely on John Locke, Two Treatises on Govenment. Locke specifically addresses
the concept of the smallest minority, the individual, who is being
oppressed by the government, and what actions are proper and necessary. It
is not my area of expertise, and therefore will not comment further.
--
David E. Young dey...@up.net
Editor - The Origin of the Second Amendment:
A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in
Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government,
and an Armed Populace, 1787-1792.
Information at http://members.xoom.com/youngde/
spino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <86osdi$o5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <86nij5$prv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:>
>> What the 2nd actually means is "the people are armed, so YOU better
>not
>> ignore our basic law" and it is directed to the government.
>
>If a MINORITY of the people believe that the government is contravening
>the Constitution, and they believe further that they cannot use
>peaceful means to get the attention of the authorities, they have the
>Hobbesian natural right to TRY to rebel, a right that as I have said
>cannot, and need not, be part of the Constitution.
>
>As Hobbes indicates, any person has the natural right, in the sense of
>logical potential, to make like the goddamn Unabomber for any reason.
>We can condemn him from a moral and an extralegal standpoint but the
>law cannot, on pain of infinite regress, prevent him from violating the
>law.
>
>If each law had to do this, it would have to contain a clause "do not
>violate this law" in addition to its other verbiage. But then the
>person, exercising her Hobbesian natural right, could say "fuck that
>shit" not only to the basic text of the law but also to the rider which
>says "do not violate this law." So the law would have to contain MORE
>text such as "don't even THINK about saying "fuck that shit" to this
>law's previous statement 'do not violate this law'."
>
>The law would contain an infinite number of such clauses. I am not
>playing word games. I am showing, instead, a deep confusion in
>American thinking courtesy of the NRA. Americans believe that their
>laws are somehow different than others in that they incorporate some
>special right to rebel...over and above the Hobbesian natural right to
>TRY to rebel.
>
>Lincoln was asked after Appomatox, and before John Wilkes Booth
>exercised the "standard model" interpretation of the Second Amendment
>at Ford's Theater, why the colonies could break away from King George
>and the South could not break away from the United States. Lincoln's
>answer was nasty, brutish, short and Hobbesian: they lost. The South,
>by firing on Fort Sumter, wanted to have its cake and eat it too: it
>wanted to exercise its natural right and be recognized as the servants
>of the "real" constitution.
>
>This tragedy repeats itself as farce in the standard model.
>
>If the MAJORITY believes that the government is in deep and not
>reversible violation of the Constitution it tautologically still has
>the election process in most scenarios. If it loses this then it has
>the Hobbesian right to take up arms. But the Second Amendment is not
>giving this: it is just as absurd for a basic law to add a rider "you
>have the natural right of rebellion" as it is to add a rider "you
>better not rebel, boy." The latter leads, as I've shown, to infinite
>regress: the former leads to self-contradiction.
>
>It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
>myself against them when they have no intention of so doing. It is
>equally silly to look to the Second Amendment to guarantee against
>tyranny at some future date, for tyranny BY DEFINITION contravenes the
>Constitution. Finally, it is pragmatically nonsense to say that
>drilling in camo will put the fear of the people in the Beltway: quite
>the contrary: it has lessened actual civil liberties.
>
>
Peter H. Proctor
>From: mcg...@otter.mbay.net (Donald R. McGregor)
>Subject: Re: Lingua Franca article on Second Amendment scholarship
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:55:36 GMT
>>In article <86osdi$o5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com writes:
>>>It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
>>>myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
>You're confusing a legal right to rebel (act against the government
>with no fear of legal consequences) with an _ability_ to act against
>the government.
>Rebellions are by definition extra-legal exercises. They may
>or may not be in the right. The 2nd amendment protects
>the ability or potential to act in an extra-legal way, rather
>than immunizing the actors from legal consequences for rebellion.
The American Declaration of Independence lays out the "legal" reasons for
rebellion and claims it as a right, which was reaffirmed by the second
amendment. All subsequent American governments derive their legitimacy
from the Declaration of Independence. That is, if rebellion per se is
illegal, then the present government is illegal.... BTW, it was for this
reason that Lincoln was advised not to try the Confederate leadership for
treason.
Dr P
Peter H. Proctor
>From: "David E. Young" <dey...@up.net>
>Subject: Re: Lingua Franca article on Second Amendment scholarship
>spino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <86or7r$ncs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <86nngu$to6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> xer...@my-deja.com wrote:>
><snip>
>>>
>>> So 14% of the adult male colonists defeated the British Army. Do you
>>> honestly believe that?
>>
>>No, as I have said, Washington's use of trained soldiers who were
>>primarily in it for pay at Princeton, Trenton and Yorktown persuaded
>>the British that the costs of keeping American colonies were too high.
Trenton was just a raid in force. Princeton and Monmouth were attacks
on British armies strung out on the march. After his early defeats around
Manhattan Island, Washington was very reluctant to tangle with the full,
emplaced British army.
Before Yorktown, the most important American victory was at
Saratoga. This very much involved the efforts of militia forces both in
wearing out the British on the march and in the final battle itself.
The same is true with the final victory at Yorktown, where the
British had exausted themselves chasing the colonials all over the Carolinas
and Virginia and could not be evacuated because of temporary French naval
superiority.
>DY: We'll let the "primarily in it for pay" pass without comment. So S is
>claiming that those early Revolutionary War Era Recruiting Posters which
>indicated those wishing to join the Continental Army should bring their own
>gun were just a hoax?
>And what about the fact that the core of the Continental Army was formed
>from the farmers who surrounded Boston on and after April 19, 1775?
And forced the Brits to withdraw from the city and the colonies ( for a
while<G> ).
Dr P
Dan Day
>However, this deep nonsense does show the real program of the gun nuts:
>to rebuild de Old South with an armed white Massah once agin securely
>in control.
Ooooookay.
Friends, we have a serious contender for this month's
"Talk.Politics.Guns Kook Of The Month" award. He's already got *my*
vote.
Curt Howland
Case in point: http://www.pulpless.com/
Do a search for "Kings Of The High Frontier", one of my
favorite books that I've never held a copy of in my hand,
only on floppy.
Curt-
Matt Nichols wrote:
> What are you babbling about? Publishing had become *more* open to
> small unit publications than ever before, and the increasing march of
> technology promises only to increase this trend. Right now, it is
> physically easier and far, far cheaper to publish hardcopy than ever
> before in the history of the process, and this doesn't even begin to
> take into account the infant electronic formats.
--
"Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.
Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there."
---The Warrior Creed, Robert L. Humphrey, USMC
David E. Young
S: The Second Amendment was passed so that
>armed Southerners could prevent slave rebellion.
DY: A couple of points. It is possible that southerners looked at the Second
Amendment as assuring them the means to help prevent slave rebellions, as
well as any other type of rebellions.
Is S actually admitting that the Second Amendment protects an individual
right of southerners to keep and bear arms? Somehow I suspect that is not
what S is trying to get at above. S seems to have intended that the above is
the exclusive reason for the Second Amendment. Isn't that the argument
advanced by Prof. Bogus?
Taken that way, the statement by S, based upon Bogus, is unsupported by and
contrary to the original historical sources, a large number of which must be
ignored to reach such a conclusion. Every one of the existing state bill of
rights in 1789 had a Second Amendment related provision - not just southern
states. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire as well as Vermont,
not yet recognized as a state, had such provisions. Does this support that
Second Amendment type Bill of Rights language is intended to protect only
against slave rebellion?
However, the state bill of rights evidence is indirect. The direct evidence
comes from the constitutional era and is very clear. The first state
ratifying convention where a Bill of Rights proposal containing a Second
Amendment related provision was made, and the entire Bill of Rights proposal
rejected, was in Pennsylvania. Was that proposal for the sole purpose S
claims?
The next consitutional era predecessor of the Second Amendment was another
rejected Bill of Rights by Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying
Convention. Was Massachusetts a slave holding state? Was the proposal for
the purpose S claims?
The THIRD predecessor of the Second Amendment from the constitutional period
was from New Hampshire, which must have been a bastion of slavery if S is
correct. In New Hampshire, the convention adopted this language:
"XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, except such as are or have
been in actual rebellion."
[OSA 446]
Now here we have the first three constitutional era predecessors of the
Second Amendment, all proposed as part of bills of rights, or worded in such
a way as not to be twisted into nothingness by a gun control advocate, and
not one came from a large slave holding state, and thus not one was intended
for the purpose advanced by S.
Next, Virginia proposed a Bills of Rights with a Second Amendment related
provision utilizing the same 'people have a right' languge as internally
adjacent protections for freedom of assembly, speech, writing, and
publishing. It was clearly intended as an individual right protection. S is
suggesting that the Bill of Rights was solely to help southerners prevent
slave rebellions?
New York, another slave state IF S is to be believed, came fifth with a
ratification containing a bill of rights, and including a Second Amendment
proposition utilizing language that the people have a right, just as was
used in the freedom of assembly, and the adjacent freedom of religion
proposal.
All of the material above from non-slave states must be ignored in order for
S's statement to make any sense - unless that statement is merely being made
to support an individual rights argument - and that is something not very
likely.
Read the orginal sources. You will never regret having done so.
spino...@my-deja.com
antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> <yawn>
This pose has to be earned. You haven't addressed the fact that the
central legend of the gun nuts is wrong if only 14% of white male
Colonial freedmen possessed arms. You haven't shown how the standard
model of the RKBA is a self-contradictory right of treason. If you do
not address these issues, your <yawn> is a mere gape.
spino...@my-deja.com
> No, you've got it wrong. The standard model observes that at the
point a
> government ceases to be representative, and becomes oppressive, it no
longer is
> deserving of respect by the people. If that were to occur, it stands
to reason
> that the government would need to be divested of power. If the
government were
> in fact so corrupt, it is doubtful that an election would do the
job. Armed
interpretation of
> the 2nd Am. is all about.
No constitution can authorize a coup d'etat in its name.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment makes legal
either the preparation of a coup d'etat (whether by "the people" or by
a minority) or the actual execution of a coup d'etat.
In the first case, wherein the FBI, say, discovers Dan Day's stockpile
of M1A Abrams tanks and nuclear weapons, does the Second Amendment
require the government to walk away from Dan's garage? It does not and
judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would allow the FBI to
arrest Dan.
As to actually carrying out rebellion, the case against the standard
idiot interpretation of the RKBA is sillier *a fortiori*, as the south
discovered after Fort Sumter. Northern doughfaces and the southern
boys wanted the North to hand over its offshore Federal installations
without a fight. Unfortunately any government which did so would soon
cease to exist: the Limeys would be emboldened by the surrender of Ft
Sumter to boot the Yankees out of any Caribbean pisshole they were in.
Individuals have a right of self-defense, as the gun boys are so fond
of pointing out. But so do states, unless you are an anarchist. Very
few gun nuts are serious anarchists. They after all need garages and
basements to stockpile their weapons, and real property itself is not
secured in a state of nature.
The actual officials, elected and appointment, who toss Dan in jail
have by their lights an equal or greater knowledge and love of their
Constitution as Dan and they in good conscience for the most part
believe (A) the Second Amendment does not authorize realistic
preparations for a coup d'etat and (B) Dan's conduct in preparation for
his coup de Danny boy is threatening to vastly more important
Constitutional freedoms.
For example, as in the case of the so-called Christian militia, they do
not know whether Dan has it in for a minority: for example, suppose Dan
hates midgets, does not think they are men and thus deserving of
Constititutional protection and therefore, after Dan's successful coup
d'etat, Dan proposes midget and dwarf tossing contests, at the finish
of which the midgets will be run over by tanks.
Dan may say, naww, I'm just onea da people. But there is a vicious
naivety, a sort of childhood gone extremely sour, in believing that we
could even KNOW dat da People were arising against da Government in
today's media climate. If we cannot trust the government today, why
should we trust some bunch of new guys? If you meet the Buddha on the
road, kill him. If you meet Da People on most roads in America,
especially if Da People have been sucking Da Bud and are armed, run
like hell.
The Constitution acknowledges the possibility that imperfect men may be
incumbents. But its Fourteenth amendment acknowledges the possibility
that The People, ersatz or even real, may also be full of shit. For
this reason the Constitution does not, cannot and should not authorize
preparations for or execution of a coup d'etat (and a noble mass
uprising of the majority is still a coup d'etat when armed, even if it
has a funny French name.)
In England in 1913, a majority of the people did not want an Irish free
state and sections of the officer class, believing themselves in all
sincerity as representatives of John Bull, da people of England, armed
themselves for a rebellion against the Crown in Ulster. Despite the
fact that these Colonel Blimps felt themselves to be loyal to the
monarch, their conduct was seen to be in violation of the British
constitution, for in 1913 the King in Parliament was moving towards
freedom for all of Ireland. These British officers trumpeted their
loyalty while being, at the crisis, disloyal, as disloyal as "patriotic
southerners" who TODAY think that South Carolina should be able to fly
the stars and bars.
This shows that we should not trust NRA "patriots": they may be as
ready to rebel against our Constitution as the British Army was ready
to rebel against Irish Home Rule. Nor is the truly loyal citizen one
who says he will never revolt. It is the citizen who, like Dr King or
John Brown, acknowledges that his civil disobedience is extra legal and
may have consequences: and it is no accident that the persons blessed
with this level of honesty have never been adherents to a "glorious
cause" or to continued oppression of Ireland. Goodness and truth,
after all, converge.
The People are invited not by Constitutional but by Natural law to have
a go, whether at Waco and Fort Sumter, or Birmingham or Harper's
Ferry. The success of any rebellion in the name of race or religious
prejudice would be a rewrite of the existing Constitution.
The Constitution authorizes its amendment. It does not authorize "the
people" to prepare for armed struggle or to violently overthrow the
government, NOR does it authorize "the people" to overthrow incumbents
EVEN IF those incumbents have trampled on the Constitution. It instead
provides for PEACEFUL means of redress: indeed, that is its whole
purpose, to AVOID a chain of South-American style revolutions "in the
name of the people."
Note that language in founding documents that praises armed revolution
is in the Declaration of Independence, NOT in the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is a philosophical and not a legal
document: it asserts the natural law that the people are permitted to
ignore (in the case of the American colonies) the English constitution,
and rebel against King George.
This wordage does not appear in the Constitution because a law that
asserted its violability would self-destruct. Note that the
Constitution, unlike the Declaration of Independence, does not start
with ringing words about the right of the people to rebel. And the
Second Amendment subordinates the RKBA to the security of a well-
ordered state against an overly professionalized military. That is,
the relatively minor role of the 2nd amendment is to make a distinction
between the government and its armed bully boys.
This was put in because the Founding Fathers were not unlettered NRA
fanataics. They were well aware of how Parliamentary deliberations
were broken up by Charles I's troops, and it wanted to ensure that the
people would be able to physically protect nonmilitary sections of the
government (mostly, the legislature and the judiciary, as opposed to
the executive) against an out of control executive.
A failure in this regard occured in the 1970s with regards to Jack
Ruby: the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to testify as to what
actually had occured in Dallas before the Supreme Court. However, Earl
Warren was not able to protect Ruby physically against members of the
Executive branch, probably the CIA, who did not want the truth about
the JFK assassination to come out. I am not a conspiracy buff, I am
instead an Oliver Stoneite who believes that the truth hasn't been
told: but in the 1970s, while the NRA was telling us about how the RKBA
protects the constitution, where were the armed citizens willing, or
even able, to allow Ruby to testify?
For a legislature to be able to summon the militia IN ITS DEFENSE, or
for a judiciary to be able to summon the 101st Airborne Division to
enforce desegregation, is quite the reverse of a mass uprising of the
people against the entire government. It comes down to the defense of
sections of that government which is, it appears, the boogeyman of the
gun nuts. But how many gun nuts would seriously volunteer to protect
the Congress against Clinton with their little guns? Damn few, I'd
expect, and none came to Earl Warren's aid and protected Ruby. But
this was the purpose of the amendment: to protect physical
deliberations of key portions of the government against hessian-style
mercenaries, Indians, Lynch mobs, ku kluxers, NRA fanatics, and the CIA.
>
> Get it now?
What I "get" is a deep post-Vietnam imaturity in the body politic,
because to insist on either the right of treason or the right to
oppress minorities is just childish.
What I "get" is the male confusion of the word and the thing. There is
just an inability, caused by a mass narcissistic personality disorder,
to see that the Other and his different interpretation may exist,
whether that Other is an FBI man from Fordham who thinks
the "Christian" right is unChristian and full of shit, to the racial
minority.
>
> Andrew "FF"
> Freedom Fetishist and
> Plain 'Ol Citizen
>
>
Matt Nichols
>Lingua Franca is a "review of academic life" with a mass-market
>flavoring. The increasing monopolization of the publishing market
What are you babbling about? Publishing had become *more* open to
small unit publications than ever before, and the increasing march of
technology promises only to increase this trend. Right now, it is
physically easier and far, far cheaper to publish hardcopy than ever
before in the history of the process, and this doesn't even begin to
take into account the infant electronic formats.
>has caused previous fringe topics, with mass appeal,
Contradiction - If a topic has "mass appeal", it is not "fringe".
>to become "respectable" academic topics.
Since the whole point of academics is study and learning, *any* topic
should be considered "respectable" and worthy of investigation. We
pathetic little humans have only just begun to recognize that there is
a surface to scratch when it comes to the advancement of knowledge.
Only fools and imbeciles (and academia is rife with both) discard
subject matter out of hand.
>Thus, Borders backgrounds books
>with a left-liberal tone (notably in its shabby treatment of Juliet
>Schor's 1992 book THE OVERWORKED AMERICAN) and foregrounds right-
>revisionism...such as new "scholarship" on Noah's Ark.
What does Borders have to do with anything academic? It's a
mass-market book chain (and one with a fairly leftist bent, too - if
you think Borders promotes "right-revisionisim", whatever the hell
that is supposed to be, you must consider Marx to be just to the right
of Darth Vader ...)
>This is probably the reason while in recent years the "standard model"
>of the Second Amendment, an essentially silly reading, has become
>academically respetable.
It's no more silly than accepting that the sentence "I am going to eat
this hamburger" does not refer to the consumption of brussels sprouts.
Only so-called "academics" (often merely 'professional students' who
are too incompetent or lazy to make their way in the world and
contribute production to the common good) can argue so vociferously
against the meaning of a sentence structure easily diagrammed by any
fourth grader.
> In the standard model, it is an individual
>right which if interpreted correctly means that individuals can own and
>operate tanks and rocket launchers.
Yes, this is correct. "Arms" is not limited by the text of the
Amendment. While this may be an "oversight", it probably is not, as
private citizens of the time could and did own the equivalent level of
weaponry (and this was not considered a significant problem). I
personally have no qualms with any of the individuals who currently
own fully operational cannon, tanks, heavy machine guns, aircraft, and
other "heavy" military hardware. All these items are perfectly legal
under federal law.
>The strict interpretation of the
>standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
>Constitution and no feasible Constitution, of any state, can
>consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic law
>if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
Er, no. While the Right to self-determination is certainly extant,
it's really not a part of the Second Amendment at all. It may be
considered to be part of the Ninth, I suppose.
However, should the people decide that the government has abandoned
the Constitution and the social contract inherent in the people's free
state, then indeed the people have the Right to replace that
government with one that more properly serves them, by force if
necessary. This is not "treason", as defined by the Constitution,
since no one is taking up arms against the nation, but merely against
the government. The *people* are the nation; the government merely the
servant thereof.
>The Lingua Franca article describes some of the academic malpractice
>that has resulted from the acceptance of the standard model on the part
>of academics like Lawrence Tribe, who may very well just be sick and
>tired of getting email for lo these past ten years from the lunatics on
>talk.politics.guns, and hopes to get these wads off his back.
>
>Fortunately, it also describes the research of brave academics who have
>responded to the standard model by showing that it is a variant of what
>I described, ten years ago, as the Literary Digest fallacy.
>
>In the 1936 election, the Literary Digest predicted a Republican
>victory: their pollsters simply telephoned people at random and asked
>who'd they vote for. Of course, in this Depression year, many people
>did not have phones and those people, poorer and thus more Democratic
>than the Literary Digest sample, voted for Roosevelt.
>
>The Literary Digest was an example of how a democracy can not only
>violate the rights of a minority: it can literally make them not "men"
>to be covered by its constitution. Antebellum slaveowners probably
>believed, not as a matter of metaphor but as a matter of truth, that
>black men were not "men" and Chief Justice Taney announced without
>irony in Dred Scott that a black man had not rights that a white man
>need respect.
>
>The application to the gun issue is direct. By focusing on the second
>amendment the right would restrict personhood to those persons owning
>firearms and willing to use them to take human life, even as the
>pollsters of the Literary Digest were unconsciously or consciously
>biased against people so feckless as not to own phones.
This is such an absurd stretch as to be meaningless. You are proposing
precisely the same wrong as Justice Taney perpetrated with this
implication. In fact, the "standard model" is simple and
straightforward in that *all* individuals are included, whether they
own or carry weaponry or not. That is the whole point of the
Amendment; to specify that the Right belongs to all humans and is
inviolate. Whether or not any given individual chooses to exercise
that Right is utterly irrelevant; they still *possess* the Right.
>The constitutional scholars who have stood against the neo-barbaric
>invasion of the academy by the gun nuts have showed, for example, that
>probably only 14% of white adult males owned firearms in Colonial
>America...which puts paid to any notion that our liberty from King
>George was ensured by an armed citizenry, a notion nonsensical on the
>18th century battlefield in which training and discipline overcame
>armed property owners. George Washington repeatedly complained about
>the low quality of the Colonial militia and could not hire Baron von
>Steuben soon enough to train his regulars in the latest battlefield
>methods of the King of Prussia.
>
>Even at this early date, the key to success on the European battlefield
>was properly synchronized fire, and there was no place here for a mob
>of farmers with a variety of muskets, blunderbusses, arquebuses,
>fowling pieces and crossbows. Pumpernickel and Tommy Atkins were given
>their standard Brown Bess, thank'ee very much and clean the dam' thing
>now.
>
>The legend is that here in America the colonials fought Indian style
>but they simply did not fight Indian style at Trenton, Princeton, or
>Yorktown, to name three turnings of the tide in the American's favor.
>Light troops did maneovre Indian style at Saratoga because the ground
>was forested but the critical territory was not the backwoods, it was
>the Philadelphia-New York axis.
>
>It is thus seen to be nonsense even on the 18th century battlefield to
>pretend that anyone's liberty was secured by a mass uprising of gun
>owning citizens.
It's a philosophical point that a militia comprised of common
citizenry is the moral and proper military force for a nation of free
people. In theory, the military of the US ought to be functionally
identical to the Swiss model, except the manpower is provided by a
universal sense of duty and honor rather than mandatory conscription.
That the militia be "well regulated", that is, properly trained and
disciplined, is a practical necessity as evidenced by the above - the
Revolutionary militias, by and large, were *not* well-regulated in any
sense of the term (hence Washington's frustration).
This is all sort of besides the point, however - from a standpoint of
setting up a governmental structure, the Constitution can and should
concern itself with the militia - but the Right is not in any way
*dependant* on the militia; quite the opposite - in order to ensure a
militia is always available, the Right must be inviolate. The
Constitution does not concern itself with more mundane uses of the
Right (simple self defense, hunting, etc.) because they are not in the
purview of a federal government any more than the use of plows or
horses was in that purview.
> Other scholars have shown that instead the second
>amendment was passed as a sop to the slave-owners, who could control
>slaves with guns even if they ran away from pissed-off redcoats.
This is pure drivel of the most dispicable sort. Politically motivated
trash with absolutely no historical basis in fact, period.
>If the gun nuts had any real respect for the Constitution, they would
>focus on its most important amendment, one purchased in blood at
>Gettysburg: the Fourteenth amendment.
We do; that's what is supposed to ensure the Second Amendment is
applied equally to all states rather than simply to the Federal
Government. "Selective Incorporation" is one of the most perverse
miscarriages of justice of modern times, and the sooner that doctrine
is dispensed with the better.
-Matt
xer...@my-deja.com
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <86nngu$to6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> xer...@my-deja.com wrote:>
in
> > America. The first laws restricting gun ownership (if you don't
count
> > the British) were designed to keep slaves and former slaves
disarmed.
>
> If the anti-revisionist scholars are correct, and Washington felt that
> levees en masse of armed citizens were useless, then the Second
> Amendment was primarily passed for the benefit of slaveowners.
>
You are ignoring the evidence of what the Founders said at the time
regarding gun ownership. They had just fought a war and were interested
in the people being armed as were the Swiss.
> Note that southern codes forbidding ownership of guns by freedmen were
> passed in defiance of the "standard model" of the second amendment:
the
> interpretation that it is an individual right.
On the contrary, they were passed with exactly the "standard model" in
mind. The laws were prosecuted on an individual level. A black seen
with a gun, black arrested or lynched. What seems more likely: that the
Southerns didn't want blacks to serve in the militia, or that
Southerners didn't want the blacks to have the ability to fight back on
an individual level against continued terrorism by Klan types. The
Black Codes, by preventing individual blacks from being armed, achived
both results.
However, the judiciary
> of the late 1860s did not apply the Second Amendment to the southern
> laws. Instead, a Congress dominated by Radical Republicans who
> disliked the South (for good enough reason) passed a NEW amendment to
> the Constitution: the Fourteenth, which stated that the laws already
> existing applied equally to all citizens. By this, Congress did not
> mean the modern "standard model" of the Second Amendment for in the
> 1860s the interpretation was that the Second Amendment allowed a
> citizen militia.
>
Yes allowed it by having the general populace armed, individually.
> The Second Amendment is therefore a weak tool for protecting racial
> rights, since another Amendment had to be passed to at least get a
> start on racial equality.
The Second Amendment wasn't designed to achive racial equality, any
more so than the First Amendment was. It is up to the court to apply
these rights to correct injustices.
The Fourteenth amendment was used by the
> Warren court to desegregate schools in 1954. Of course, much of the
> gun nut lobby hates everything the Warren court stood for. It is
> therefore, again and for the last goddamn time, hypocrisy to point to
> disarming laws of the 1860s and to then claim the high moral ground of
> racial equality.
>
I don't see a connection between supporting the 2nd Amendment and some
imagined claim to a high moral ground of racial equality. The Black
Codes were a violation of a black persons right to arm himself. I also
don't see a connection between school desegregation and the RKBA. I
have never heard anyone from the "gun lobby" make any judgement on the
Warren court's decisions.
> The gun program is that of Senator Calhoun, Congressman of the ante-
> bellum period, who wanted a country in which the winners would lord it
> over the losers in the form of black people, brown people, and women.
> Calhoun's vision simply contradicts the vision of the Constitution and
> the Declaration of Independence.
>
What gun program are you referring to?
> It is therefore hypocrisy to claim that by being a Second Amendment
> absolutist, one is committed to equal rights.
I never made such a claim, even though I am, but not because of the 2nd
Amendment.
> Genuine equality and
> freedom for African-Americans such as exists today came because of
> nonviolent, unarmed struggle.
You are forgetting the Civil War, a very violent and very armed
struggle.
> The Second Amendment was passed so that
> armed Southerners could prevent slave rebellion.
>
Funny I don't recall this as a topic even hinted at in the historical
records of the Bill of Rights adoption. Do you have a quotation from
that time supporting your statement?
> >
> > So my right to self-protection is VIOLATING you? I'm so sorry.
>
> Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, pal.
And you right to a utopian "safe" society ends with my right of self-
protection, pal.
> If the
> gun nuts create a society in which in order to ensure my Fourteenth
> Amendment rights I have to take life, well, they've effectively
revoked
> the Fourteenth amendment (which is the racist program of the right
> wing.)
>
> There is a deep, neo-barbaric desire in the gun lobby to simply revoke
> the social contract,
Baloney. I quite comfortable with the social contract. A contract which
contains the Second Amendment.
> with its freedom AND responsibility, based on
> personal indiscipline, an artifact, in turn, of consumer society.
This
> is a society in which the proud, armed citizenry allows itself
> repeatedly to be sold out by politicians and business and one in which
> an Illinois man, upset because he was not given coffee at a hospital,
> returned to the hospital with a gun and killed several nurses. This
is
> regression to the point of infantility.
>
Richard Speck killed several unarmed nurses with a knife, so what.
> The Lingua Franca article mentions one glorious Second Amendment case:
> a doctor had threatened his estranged wife with a gun. One would well
> ask what the Founding Fathers would think of mere lack of chivalry,
and
> infantile regression, as having anything at all to do with the right
to
> overthrown tyranny.
>
And one could ask them what the First Amendment has to do with screamin
FIRE in a crowded theater.
> The very idea that the armed citizen is the final guarantor of rights
> is deep nonsense. Second Amendment absolutists portray the amendment
> as a guarantor of the right to rebel.
>
In the words of some famous rebels:
"I pray we never go twenty years without a revolution. What nation can
long preserve its liberties if the leaders are not reminded from time
to time that the people hold the power of resistance? Let them take up
arms! The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas
Jefferson, while seving as the first Secretary of State, in response to
Shay's Rebellion.
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave
them."
--George Mason (1725-1792), June 14, 1788, in the Virginia Convention
on the ratification of the Constitution, in_Debates in the Several
State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan
Elliot, ed., v.3 p.380 (Philadelphia, 1836)
" They tell us that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an
adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are
totally disarmed and a British guard shall be stationed in every house?
Three million people armed in the Holy cause of liberty are invincible
by any force which our enemy can send against us. "
Patrick Henry-1775
"The Constitution shall never be interpreted as to authorize the
government to prevent the people, who are peaceable citizens, from
carrying their own arms." Alexander Hamilton, debating ratification of
the Bill of Rights before the New York legislature.
> However, not only does a constitution self-contradict when it contains
> a strong right of insurrection, a clause reading "your right to rebel
> against what you do not like is guaranteed by your little gun": if
> Thomas Hobbes is correct then a constitution does not need this
> verbiage at all. In Hobbes, the "right" of rebellion is embedded at a
> deeper level than that of constitution making because it is a natural
> right.
>
> The Hobbesian right of rebellion, although a natural "right" in the
> sense that a revolutionary ATTEMPT is always physically possible, be
it
> a coup d'etat or a refusal to abide by laws (in the manner, say of Ted
> Kaczynski), the revolution is not guaranteed success. In the War of
> the Southern Rebellion, the Southern states exercised a natural right
> to take a whack against Fort Sumter but of course they did not have
the
> right to be led by Longstreet, and not "Granny" Lee, at Gettysburg,
Only because they didn't win.
and
> even there success was not ensured.
>
> But a constitution does not need to incorporate the right of armed
> rebellion, should not include this right, and our Constitution, in the
> Second Amendment, was not providing this right. The militia of the
> amendment is that which guarantees the security of the state against a
> professional military with its own agenda. To interpret it as an
> individual right to prepare for a coup d'etat is to ask for a
> constitution that self-destructs.
No, one that self-corrects. If the government doesn't play by the
rules "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."
> >
> > So 14% of the adult male colonists defeated the British Army. Do you
> > honestly believe that?
>
> No, as I have said, Washington's use of trained soldiers who were
> primarily in it for pay at Princeton, Trenton and Yorktown persuaded
> the British that the costs of keeping American colonies were too high.
>
> Washington's soldiers did not all bring their own guns to the field
but
> instead were issued guns.
Some did, some brought their own.
Following the Thirty Years War of the 17th
> century it became clear that fire would have to be synchronized. The
> Duke of Marlborough, British victor in several wars in the later part
> of the 17th century, used trained and synchronized fire and consistent
> weaponry, and his military descendants used this fire on Americans
with
> murderous effect at Bunker Hill and Monmouth, an American defeat.
>
> Colonials armed with arquebuses, harquebuses, blunderbusses, fowling
> pieces and what-all could not hope to advance, lay down disciplined
> fire, and advance again: they were scattered by the high military
> technology of the 18th century, the thin red line of the scum of the
> earth.
And the Minutemen armed with their own private guns cut the Brits to
pieces from the trees and rocks as they marched back to Concord.
The men of the British Army, prior to enlistment or
> impressment, typically did not have a pot to piss in, much less their
> own firearm, but when they met Americans in the European conditions of
> Monmouth Courthouse they beat 'em because the Sergeant Major told them
> when to fire their gun, the property of King George.
>
> Structurally, this situation obtains today. Undermotivated but highly
> trained American Marines defeated the citizen army of the Viet Cong at
> Hue in 1968.
>
> The claim that one is for "freedom" by some fantasy of a levee en
masse
> of pre-armed citizens is nonsense, and it is a coverup for a desire of
> white suburbanites to win a race war.
>
You have absolutly no evidence for this claim, but you're entitled to
your opinion.
Pat Hines
These statements are nonsensical. First it was Lincoln that undertook
the first act of war, the Confederacy merely responded to that act by
firing on Ft. Sumter. The "cake and ear it too" really makes no sense.
The Confederacy was a sovereign nation under its' own constitution.
> This tragedy repeats itself as farce in the standard model.
>
> If the MAJORITY believes that the government is in deep and not
> reversible violation of the Constitution it tautologically still has
> the election process in most scenarios. If it loses this then it has
> the Hobbesian right to take up arms. But the Second Amendment is not
> giving this: it is just as absurd for a basic law to add a rider "you
> have the natural right of rebellion" as it is to add a rider "you
> better not rebel, boy." The latter leads, as I've shown, to infinite
> regress: the former leads to self-contradiction.
The Second Amendment protects the natural right of self defense which
includes self defense against the government. It's not specifically
stating a right to rebel, that right could be under the Ninth Amendment.
At any rate, people have the right to self government, and not at the
say so of just 50% plus one.
> It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
> myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
Gun owners aren't asking for such a right, it already exists. We are
demanding that the constitutional protection for these arms BE RETAINED.
> It is equally silly to look to the Second Amendment to guarantee against
> tyranny at some future date, for tyranny BY DEFINITION contravenes the
> Constitution.
Indeed it does, there is plenty of tyranny in America right now, all as
you say in contravention of the US Constitution.
> Finally, it is pragmatically nonsense to say that
> drilling in camo will put the fear of the people in the Beltway: quite
> the contrary: it has lessened actual civil liberties.
Yes it has encouraged those predisposed to usurpation's to act more
strongly, but that just as it was in the twenty years prior to America's
secession from the UK. Every action taken by Americans in response to
the British government brought stronger British government actions such
as quartering troops in private homes. This will undoubtedly continue
here, I hope it does.
Pat
xer...@my-deja.com
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <86pp8t$bmo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > <yawn>
>
> This pose has to be earned. You haven't addressed the fact that the
> central legend of the gun nuts is wrong if only 14% of white male
> Colonial freedmen possessed arms.
You are basing this assumption only on the results of a study of
property disposed of in wills from that time. Would you consider that
method an accurate representation of the current distribution of
possessions if you looked at a snapshot of wills in the late 20th
century? I have never inherited anything, yet I own my own home,
several cars, etc.
> You haven't shown how the standard
> model of the RKBA is a self-contradictory right of treason.
Because it isn't contradictory. The government exists to secure and
maintain my pre-existing rights. Some of these rights are listed in the
Constitution and BOR. (I agree with you that a constitution does not
necessarily need a BOR, but ours does, and has proven to be a benefit).
A citizen has a duty to work within the existing representative
government system in order to make change. If the government becomes
distrustful and destructive to my rights (and others rights by doing
so), I have a duty, and a right, to change that government by force if
necessary. It isn't treason to rebel against a government that is
continually violating your rights. That is the basic lesson of the
American Revolution. I look at the 2nd Amendment as the canary in the
coal mine. If it is suffering, there is something fundamentaly wrong
with the situation.
-Matt
> If you do
> not address these issues, your <yawn> is a mere gape.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
spino...@my-deja.com
ma...@vuent.com (Matt Nichols) wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:44:32 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Lingua Franca is a "review of academic life" with a mass-market
> >flavoring. The increasing monopolization of the publishing market
>
> What are you babbling about? Publishing had become *more* open to
> small unit publications than ever before, and the increasing march of
> technology promises only to increase this trend. Right now, it is
> physically easier and far, far cheaper to publish hardcopy than ever
> before in the history of the process, and this doesn't even begin to
> take into account the infant electronic formats.
This ignores the two sides of the publishing equation: the publisher
and the reader. Esther Dyson has already noticed that as the
opportunities for self-publishing have INCREASED, attention
availability on the part of readers (known crudely as "eyeballs" on the
Internet) has DECREASED.
This attention has been increasingly monopolized by outlets including
Borders and Barnes and Noble. Retailing magazines for insiders refer
to stores like Borders, Barnes and Noble, and outside books Home Depot
and WalMart as "category killers", mass outlets that are explicitly set
up to destroy competition.
"Freedom of the press" is for most people, even in the era of the
Internet, a formal and unused freedom.
Contrast laws that ADD to freedom to produce content the requirement
that a public channel be dedicated to the output of a community
group. "Equal time" laws are falling into disuse but they at least
provide attention in addition to the press itself.
>
> >has caused previous fringe topics, with mass appeal,
>
> Contradiction - If a topic has "mass appeal", it is not "fringe".
It's not a contradiction if personality disorders are common.
Judges up to 1939 were arguably more literate than today's judges
(Clarence Thomas, justice of the Supreme Court, claims proudly to read
only sports and professional digests in the course of adjudication), we
should probably give their reading of the Second strong credence, and
up until 1939 it was read as authorizing a militia.
>
> Yes, this is correct. "Arms" is not limited by the text of the
> Amendment. While this may be an "oversight", it probably is not, as
> private citizens of the time could and did own the equivalent level of
> weaponry (and this was not considered a significant problem). I
> personally have no qualms with any of the individuals who currently
> own fully operational cannon, tanks, heavy machine guns, aircraft, and
> other "heavy" military hardware. All these items are perfectly legal
> under federal law.
And perfectly illegal under most if not all state and local laws.
>
> Er, no. While the Right to self-determination is certainly extant,
> it's really not a part of the Second Amendment at all. It may be
> considered to be part of the Ninth, I suppose.
>
> However, should the people decide that the government has abandoned
> the Constitution and the social contract inherent in the people's free
> state, then indeed the people have the Right to replace that
> government with one that more properly serves them, by force if
> necessary. This is not "treason", as defined by the Constitution,
> since no one is taking up arms against the nation, but merely against
> the government. The *people* are the nation; the government merely the
> servant thereof.
>
Hobbesian "treason" is a NATURAL right but not a LEGAL right that can
be granted by any sensible constitution. It may actually be right to
take up arms against the government, but don't kid yourself that this
is not also taking up arms against the nation. The nation IS the
government, and vice versa. If you think the current incumbents blow
then you simply haven't exercised your freedoms of PEACEFUL redress and
if you talk, sir, about your damn rocket launcher you, sir, are a
TRAITOR.
>
> It's a philosophical point that a militia comprised of common
> citizenry is the moral and proper military force for a nation of free
> people. In theory, the military of the US ought to be functionally
> identical to the Swiss model, except the manpower is provided by a
> universal sense of duty and honor rather than mandatory conscription.
> That the militia be "well regulated", that is, properly trained and
> disciplined, is a practical necessity as evidenced by the above - the
> Revolutionary militias, by and large, were *not* well-regulated in any
> sense of the term (hence Washington's frustration).
>
> This is all sort of besides the point, however - from a standpoint of
> setting up a governmental structure, the Constitution can and should
> concern itself with the militia - but the Right is not in any way
> *dependant* on the militia; quite the opposite - in order to ensure a
> militia is always available, the Right must be inviolate. The
> Constitution does not concern itself with more mundane uses of the
> Right (simple self defense, hunting, etc.) because they are not in the
> purview of a federal government any more than the use of plows or
> horses was in that purview.
This sounds nice (and is literate and spelled correctly, a refreshing
change) but it is a fantasy. As a matter of fact, the military, today,
is comprised not of the best citizens but instead by people too poor to
get civilian jobs. Military writers report that the military is unable
to attract precisely the sort of "libertarian" young people who are
committed to the RKBA in many cases.
The increased popularity of the standard model has coincided with an
increased professionalization of the military which the right has
fostered by being opposed to the peacetime draft. When the Supreme
Court affirmed the traditional, nonstandard model of militia in 1939
United States soldiers were still citizen soldiers and drawn from all
social classes. During the same period of time as the growth of the
NRA and its insistence that an armed citizenry would mean a citizen
army, the Army has grown increasingly isolated from civilian society.
In Tito's Yugoslavia, gun training and conscription were close to the
Swiss model. Nonetheless, the people of rump Yugoslavia (Serbia) have
been unable to dislodge Milosevic. This country also lost each of the
wars it fought in the 1990s because of the low quality of "citizen
soldiers" who'd received gun training in high school. What these armed
citizens were good for was killing innocent women and children.
It may be argued that Yugoslavia was a socialist society but in effect
rural Yugoslavians owned their pieces and in many irregular units they
brought those pieces with them, in order to best terrorize women and
children. It is probably the case that the same scenario would replay
in the United States: NRA thugs, armed to the teeth, would run away
from real, professional, soldiers, and console their goddamn manhood by
slaughtering those who did not choose soon enough to exercise their
Second Amendment rights.
Pat Hines
>
> In article <s91558...@corp.supernews.com> mcg...@otter.mbay.net (Donald R. McGregor) writes:
> >From: mcg...@otter.mbay.net (Donald R. McGregor)
>
> >>In article <86osdi$o5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com writes:
> >>>It's just silly to ask the authorities to give me a legal right to arm
> >>>myself against them when they have no intention of so doing.
>
> >with no fear of legal consequences) with an _ability_ to act against
> >the government.
>
> >Rebellions are by definition extra-legal exercises. They may
> >or may not be in the right. The 2nd amendment protects
> >the ability or potential to act in an extra-legal way, rather
> >than immunizing the actors from legal consequences for rebellion.
>
> The American Declaration of Independence lays out the "legal" reasons for
> rebellion and claims it as a right, which was reaffirmed by the second
> amendment. All subsequent American governments derive their legitimacy
> from the Declaration of Independence. That is, if rebellion per se is
> illegal, then the present government is illegal.... BTW, it was for this
> reason that Lincoln was advised not to try the Confederate leadership for
> treason.
Actually, the Union was advised to drop all charges due to the fact
that they would win in court what had been lost on the battlefield. The
war instigated by Lincoln was widely viewed as unconstitutional, by
those in the North called Copperheads by Lincoln and his cronies.
Clement L. Vallandigham was one of the most successful and well known,
leading an anti-war protest of over 20,000 in Ohio, in 1863. Lincoln
had many of these patriots arrested and jailed without trial under
martial law. Many people don't know that most Northern States were
under martial law for most of the War of Northern Aggression.
Pat
xer...@my-deja.com
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <389001e5....@news.globalcenter.net>,
> d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:13:23 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> respected philosopher. You clearly aren't worthy of it.
> > >
> > >You want the perception of slobs of their "rights" to be coherent
but
> > >it is possible that slobs don't have coherent ideas.
> >
> > sentence that itself incoherent. Would you care to try that again
> > in English?
>
> The sentence is grammatically well formed, and consists only of 22
> words. The "incoherence" is your inability to read. One of the
> reasons for the way in which the academy is now treating the
> idiot "standard model" seriously is the brutalization of the academy
in
> recent years and the disregard for complex thought which changes all
> rights to individual rights.
>
> >
> protecting
> > >is an individual right, as the "standard model" says that it is,
then
> > >everybody has the Constititutional "right" to protect the
> Constitution.
> >
>
> A duty to protect their private interpretation? Not at all. Instead,
> people have a duty to balance their private convictions with those of
> other people, until such a time as they decide that their private view
> of the Constitution has been irredemably compromised. At this point
> they have the natural right (uncodable in law) and arguably the moral
> duty to break out in armed rebellion.
>
> The difference is between an emotionally stunted doctor who wanted his
> threatening of his estranged wife to be treated as exercise of Second
> Amendment rights, and John Brown, who wasted no time in
> demanding "rights" which John Brown knew that the government would not
> give him anyway. The initial act in John Brown's exercising of his
> natural right of rebellion was after all an attempt to seize arms and,
> of course, when Brown was attacked by the government he did not whine
> that they were violating his second amendment rights.
>
The RKBA does not give you carte blanche to murder someone. It is a
recognition of the fundemental individual right of self-protection,
whether against a lone nutcase or a repressive government.
> Under the standard model the RKBA is either a right of treason or the
> right to violate the Fourteenth Amendment by terrorizing subordinate
> groups.
Neither. It isn't treason to rebel against a government that
continually violates recognized and accepted rights. For the Founders,
taxation without representation was justificatoin enough. I don't see
how arming "subodinate groups", (i.e. blacks, indians) would have made
them worse off in history against terrorizing individuals (Klan) and
the government (US Cavalry-Custer). Arming them would be an exercise of
the standard model of the 2nd Amendment.
> This is because a constitution does not need and cannot have
> (without paradox) a clause that addresses its applicability in the
> scenario where the government has trampled on the Constitution.
The Constitution wasn't written for the government's benefit, it was
written for the people's. If nothing else, it's a reminder of the
relationship the people have with the government.
> A
> Constitution cannot do more than pronounce impotent curses on tyrants
> and introduce mechanisms for prevention of tyranny.
>
A constitution is a piece of paper. Without the support of the people,
it is nothing.
> Gun ownership is no such mechanism. Tyrants are not afraid of an
armed
> citizenry when even in the putative hey day of an armed citizenry in
> Colonial America, only 14% of the white male freedmen had guns.
Then why is the first step to totalitarianism the disarming of the
subject people? The British marched to Concord to seize the arms and
gunpowder stored there.
> And,
> again, the lesson of the 1990s is that widespread militia formation
> outside the National Guard only worsens the civil liberties climate
> because it places unarmed peaceful activity under suspicion.
>
What unarmed peaceful activity is placed under suspicion by "militia
formation", and under whose scrutiny? What civil liberties have
worsened other than the RKBA?
> >
> > >But this means that what they are protecting is their
interpretation
> > >and people interpret the Constitution in different ways.
> >
> > Welcome to freedom and self-determination. Do you have a problem
> > with that? Apparently, you do.
>
> Yeah, what ev er.
> >
> > >I am identifying a basket of incoherent ideas, held by slobs.
> >
> > No, you are identifying how incoherent is your own understanding of
> > those concepts. Don't blame your own confusion on others.
> >
> > > The fact
> > >is that the standard model does mean that the RKBA is a right to
> > >treason. What this means is that the standard model is a reduction
> to
> > >absurdity.
> >
> > Only if you insist on being absurd about it, which obviously you
> > do. Yours is like claiming that the right to vote is absurd,
because
> > what if everyone voted for Mickey Mouse?
>
> The very posssibility that Geogre Dubya Bush may be President DOES
> speak to the Founder's fears that democracy would become slobocracy.
> But of course the right to vote is of sufficient importance that the
> citizen (unless he's an emotionally self-indulgent RKBA sort) puts up
> with George Dubya by balancing his distaste for the politicians with
> alternatives to democracy.
> But the RKBA is completely ineffectual as
> compared to the right to vote, so the citizen rejects the absolute
RKBA
> as having anything to do with democracy.
>
As a life insurance policy has nothing to do with life. The RKBA is
there for when the right to vote doesn't work anymore.
-Matt
Jim String
>In article <slrn88uqon....@molly.hh.org>,
> pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:>
>> There is no "right to treason." The purpose of the 2nd is to maintain
>> the means and ability to "remove" the treasonous and to restore and
>> maintain Constitutional government. The RKBA is for maintaining the
>> security of a free state, not overthrowing it.
>
>This assumes that a single interpretation of "treason" can be made.
>
>In Hobbes, the sovereign BY DEFINITION cannot be a traitor: l'etat,
>our system, the "sovereign", an actual personal President, can most
>assuredly be a traitor to the Constitution. Whereas even today in
>Britain the King-in-Parliament, an abstraction referring to Parliament
>substantially and the "King" as something only honorary, cannot be a
>traitor.
In America the people are sovereign, not the state. Government has
no rights, only the powers that we grant.
>However, it is just ignorant to say the the Second Amendment is what is
>available to check and balance an Executive, a Congress, or a judiciary
>that is in violation of the Constitution. Reams of the Federalist
There are four branches of government, executive, legislative, judicial
and the militia, or the people if you will. The whole point of the
2nd Amendment was to make sure that government could not have better
weapons than the people.
>Papers refer to the checks and balances, and the government of laws and
>not men, as being the safeguard against an executive, congress or
>judiciary that is violating the Constitution.
If they are all in collusion in their treason then we blow the shit
out of them. There's only 500 or so.
>It is nonsense to say that the Executive, the Congress or the judiciary
>will check its instincts to trample the Constitution because militias
>are drilling in the fucking woods. Quite the contrary: the actual
>response is to start trampling on real rights in response to "domestic
>terrorism."
Indeed. Check out the martial law situation that resulted from the
WTO situation in Seattle. I had my rifles at the ready and I wasn't
worried about the protestors...
>Instead, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that citizens would
>access the levers that had not already been seized by the constitution-
>violators, and, of course, this is what actually happened as recently
>as 1974: President Nixon was forced to resign or be impeached for his
>violation of the Constitution (not so much the second-rate burgalry,
>instead for war waging without consulting Congress.)
So? Clinton wasn't removed from office and he committed perjury,
wages war without consulting Congress and numerous other crimes.
>If it is the case that the ENTIRE government is in violation of the
>Constitution, then the citizenry have the natural, Hobbesian, right to
>rebel, one which can never be stated, but which exists.
Kind of hard if you don't have arms. That's why the Founders made
all gun control unConstitutional.
>The intent of the Constitution is of course to see that the actual
>executive, Congress and judiciary subordinate themselves to the law.
But they don't.
>But no single clause can ensure this. The safeguard against a King
>Charles I is not in the RKBA, for Cromwell's men took arms up very
>nicely at Naseby and elsewhere without any such right. It is instead
>implicit in tens of clauses of impeachment, recall and election which
>show that at any stage in our system the constitution violators in
>charge can and should be, not shot at, but booted out of town.
It takes arms.
Best,
Jim
spino...@my-deja.com
andr...@aol.comFF (Andrew Colglazier) wrote:
> In article <86oudd$pe0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com
writes:
>
> >
> >In article <slrn88uqon....@molly.hh.org>,
> >
> >c'est moi.
>
> Hair splitting; you can't be serious with this specious argument,
which turns
> on definitions of terminology, and not on the spirit of the
discussion. The
> government, in any form, must be beholden to the people. At the
point it
> begins to serve itself rather than the people, it has lost its
legitimacy, and
> should be removed.
This is in Hobbes, for whom the sovereign was the rightful King of
England. However, the 1688 Declaration of Right, in England, removed
sovereignity from any personal king, and transferred it to "the King in
Parliament", a form of legal mysticism meant to express the full
authority of Parliament over the executive (The Prime Minister, but a
servant of Parliament) and the English judiciary (who have always been
fully subservient to the executive, whether the personal monarch then,
or the "King in Parliament" now.)
It is not resolved in our founding documents whether "the people"
or "the laws" have the role of "the sovereign" where the sovereign is
that entity which cannot, by definition, be a traitor. An American
lawyer would repeat the cliche that "we are government of laws and not
of men" and therefore conclude that the Constitution is our sovereign.
He'd then conclude that you could not interpret the 2nd Amendment as in
any way authorising overthrow of the Constitution as implemented by
imperfect incumbents who may even be trampling on part of the
Constitution.
The ordinary person, or NRA, would say that instead "the people" are
sovereign. If, like many people in America today, this person has a
narcissistic personality disorder, he'd also say that HE (and this
usually a guy talking, typically at SuperBowl half time) is sovereign,
like a little kid who excuses hitting Teacher with a rock because "itsa
free country."
But in fact (and I don't have to agree with this) the Founding Fathers
set up a republic, and not a democracy, not one in the French model in
which *le peuple* are sovereign. In fact, for the Founding Fathers,
the Constitution was a sovereign and for this reason they'd interpret
NO clause as legally justifying preparations EVEN for a justified
rebellion. The rebellion would be morally justified, perhaps, but the
Constitution would not authorize it.
The clear intent of the Founders, after all, was to avoid a series of
violent and bloody uprisings, and for this reason the Constitution
provides tens of peaceful means for changing, most of which have been
subverted in recent times, not by disarming the populace (a fantasy)
but by media manipulation...such as is practised by the NRA.
>
> The Founding Fathers saw that this would not work and in
> >our system, the "sovereign", an actual personal President, can most
> >assuredly be a traitor to the Constitution. Whereas even today in
> >Britain the King-in-Parliament, an abstraction referring to
Parliament
> >substantially and the "King" as something only honorary, cannot be a
> >traitor.
>
> In our system of government, the people are sovereign, and the
government a
> tool for implementing the will of the people. The president is not
sovereign.
> That was a concept thrown out with the development of a representative
> government. A true sovereign, such as a king, can most certainly be
traitorous
> to his subjects, since in monarchical tradition, the king is
entrusted with
> caring for the people in benevolence. If the king is no longer
benevolent, he
> must fear the wrath of the people.
>
Got news for you: this theory of kingship sounds nice and was popular
among mediaeval clerics, but it has never worked. King Charles I, like
King "Louie Louie" XIV some years after, saw clearly that their
authority would not survive rebellion if they were not absolute
monarchs (I am not approving of their conduct, only showing that these
guys had a consistent theory of kingship.) The art of war had simply
advanced to the point where the feudal host, tied to the throne out of
mutual admiration, ran away from disciplined masses of pissed off guys
with pikes and Brown Bess. This meant for Louie Louie that his claim
to the French hexagon, so open both to external and to internal
mischief (as the last of the Valois discovered in the late 16th
century), would not be maintainable unless he was the man, king and
sovereign by right, such that he could not be a traitor, by definition.
King Charles I had no imminent fears of invasion like Louie but the
economic state of his kingdom was in a parlous state: when Cromwell
rebelled, the Scots, of all people, were invading England instead of
t'other way round as it's so often been.
In both cases, like Mae West said, goodness had nothing to do with it.
The fact is that starting with the beginning of the modern era a state
has to have a sovereign. The American, English, and French experience
is that the sovereign does not have to be and should not be a man (and
if Maggie, with her imperious tendencies, is any indication, it had
better not be a woman). The actual personal incumbents, and John Q
Citizen, have to give way to a "thing" (like the Icelanders) or a
document that is imagined as unself-contradictory and incapable of
treason.
Thus one is not exercising a Constitutional right in the high and pure
sense when one has a damn gun cabinet. One is instead showing respect
for the Constitution when one acts in disregard of his personal
prejudices, weighing them against duty. The Marines who retook Hue did
not own their (frequently jammed) firearms, the government did. They
showed respect for their Constitution even if their "superiors" had
already trampled on the War Powers act, because they obeyed orders.
>
> All well and good, and the three branches of government generally are
> sufficient to meet these needs. But what happens when these checks
and balances
> no longer function as planned? This has happened in our history.
I'm afraid
> that I have forgotten the case, but at one point, when the SC handed
down a
> decision that was not liked by the executive branch, the president
said "The
> Court has made its ruling. Now let it enforce it." The SC has no
power except
> that given it by the Executive, and that is true also for the
legislative. If
> the executive branch abuses its authority, it is up to the people to
restore
> the balance, since the executive controls the military power of the
country.
>
I believe your example was good old Abe Lincoln. He'd revoked habeus
corpus because thugs in Baltimore (the great-grandpappies of modern day
NRA supporters) were making it difficult for Washington to communicate
with Philadelphia and New York. Chief Justice Taney, still on the
bench, ruled Abe's order unconstititutional. Abe said, I think, the
above.
Ideally the Executive in war time should not suspend habeus corpus.
However, Abe's insight was that the actions of the South (and that of
the Baltimore plug-uglies) had partly returned the nation to a
Hobbesian state of nature. Hobbes, again, observes that our natural
right of self-defense is logically prior to our obedience to the law in
case of serious conflict. So Abe was real sorry that he had to revoke
habeus corpus.
> But it must be stated. If it isn't stated, then the concept loses
legitimacy,
> and is forgotten or made impossible (as you wish to do).
It is stated in the right place, the Declaration of Independence. It
cannot be stated in law.
Suppose Chicago passes a law in which the use of equipment that renders
parking meters inoperable is allowed, or made into a right, part of the
bill of rights of the people of Chicago. The city would be unable to
collect revenue. Or suppose the state of Illinois says itsa bigod
right to use a radar detector.
Why should the basic law of the entire country be any different? And
of course, the Second Amendment does not encourage formation of private
armies. It instead discourages an overprofessional military such as
King Charles wanted Parliament to fund, in order to use his redcoats
against Parliament.
>
> Yes. And look what happened to Cromwell....... Cromwell's uprising
was not
> legitimized by anything such as the Constitution. The people of
England knew
> nothing except the power of the monarch, and since Cromwell was not
their
> traditional monarch, he lacked legitimacy under English law. The
Constitution
> is a piece of paper. By itself, it can prevent nothing. Only when
backed up
> by the power of the people does it have any meaning.....
The Constitution of England at the time of Oliver Cromwell included the
Magna Carta and common law, so in actuality there was a Constitution.
The fear on the part of Parliament was that the medieval compromise and
consultation of Parliament, to some degree, would disappear in the new-
fangled absolutist model of the Continent. The Constitutional basis of
Parliamentary legitimacy was the acknowledgement of its legitimacy by
King John in the 12th cent.
Cromwell knew he had a shaky basis on which to rebel but considered the
alternative of a Roman Catholic Stuart monarchy to be not acceptable to
Englishmen. This was a constitutional theory, albeit primitive. And
far from revoking Cromwell's action, the British elite affirmed it
strongly by making King William a hired hand in 1688.
>
> It is instead
> >implicit in tens of clauses of impeachment, recall and election which
> >show that at any stage in our system the constitution violators in
> >charge can and should be, not shot at, but booted out of town.
>
> All well and good when things remain civilized. But that doesn't
always
> happen. Pull your head out of the sand.
>
And what? Watch TV? (TV watchers consistently overrate the amount of
violence in society.) The real oppressiveness of life in America is a
result of corporate, not government, dominance. Unless you recommend
workplace shootings as a way of getting the bosses attention, then you
actually need government as a balance to the power of the corporation.
> Andrew "FF"
> Freedom Fetishist and
> Plain 'Ol Citizen
>
>
Jim String
>In article <389b9df8...@news.globalcenter.net>,
> d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:44:32 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >standard model incorporates the "right of treason" into the
>> >Constitution and no feasible Constitution, of any state, can
>> >consistently say, oh yes, and bye the bye, you can ignore our basic
>law
>> >if you so choose and are sufficiently well-armed.
>>
>> and to protect the Constitution, not to destroy them. Your claim
>> is as silly as saying that the police are armed to enable
>> their "right to commit violent crimes", or as the Violence Policy
>> Center so hysterically writes, that a license to carry a concealed
>> handgun for protection is a "license to kill".
>>
>> respected philosopher. You clearly aren't worthy of it.
>
>You want the perception of slobs of their "rights" to be coherent but
>it is possible that slobs don't have coherent ideas.
>
>is an individual right, as the "standard model" says that it is, then
Not precisely. An individual who "protects" the Constitution by
shooting JFK or Clinton is an assassin, terrorist or insurrectionist.
Arms are the means by which the _people_, by popular consensus, retain
the _power_ to protect or restore Constitutional law and government.
Powers and rights are two different things and rights exist only in
the individual. I do not have the right to go and shoot Clinton in
the head because I know he is a criminal and a terrible president
but if the consensus becomes such and there is no other way to get
rid of him then the people have the means to do it, in spite of the
arms that government holds.
>But this means that what they are protecting is their interpretation
>and people interpret the Constitution in different ways.
>
>I am identifying a basket of incoherent ideas, held by slobs. The fact
>is that the standard model does mean that the RKBA is a right to
>treason. What this means is that the standard model is a reduction to
>absurdity.
What fact? There is no right to treason. Arms are the means of retaining
the power of the people to uphold Constitutional law and government.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>In article <389001e5....@news.globalcenter.net>,
> d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:13:23 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> respected philosopher. You clearly aren't worthy of it.
>> >
>> >You want the perception of slobs of their "rights" to be coherent but
>> >it is possible that slobs don't have coherent ideas.
>>
>> sentence that itself incoherent. Would you care to try that again
>> in English?
>
>The sentence is grammatically well formed, and consists only of 22
>words. The "incoherence" is your inability to read. One of the
>reasons for the way in which the academy is now treating the
>idiot "standard model" seriously is the brutalization of the academy in
>recent years and the disregard for complex thought which changes all
>rights to individual rights.
The sentence is grammatically correct but still incoherent. It says
nothing.
snip
>Under the standard model the RKBA is either a right of treason or the
>right to violate the Fourteenth Amendment by terrorizing subordinate
>groups. This is because a constitution does not need and cannot have
>(without paradox) a clause that addresses its applicability in the
>scenario where the government has trampled on the Constitution. A
>Constitution cannot do more than pronounce impotent curses on tyrants
>and introduce mechanisms for prevention of tyranny.
Funny, the Founders didn't write the 14th Amendment. How do you
explain such a large discontinuity on their part, one that you seem
to think needed to be rectified later by the 14th?
Come on, it's perfectly obvious that the Founders fully intended that
anyone could own arms if they wished.
>Gun ownership is no such mechanism. Tyrants are not afraid of an armed
>citizenry when even in the putative hey day of an armed citizenry in
If they aren't afraid they why is Clinton doing so much gun grabbing?
>Colonial America, only 14% of the white male freedmen had guns. And,
Parroting Dan Blather and that probate records crock again. Get over it,
it's a lie fabricated by gun grabbers. Naturally people do not and did
not want legal record of their firearms.
>again, the lesson of the 1990s is that widespread militia formation
>outside the National Guard only worsens the civil liberties climate
>because it places unarmed peaceful activity under suspicion.
Interesting that you note that current times are actually the hey day
of private gun ownership, due in large part to current prosperity
and the apalling corruption in government today. Gun grabbers like to
blame that on Y2K but the truth is people are buying guns because
government doesn't want them to have them. Funny how that works.
snip
>The very posssibility that Geogre Dubya Bush may be President DOES
>speak to the Founder's fears that democracy would become slobocracy.
>But of course the right to vote is of sufficient importance that the
>citizen (unless he's an emotionally self-indulgent RKBA sort) puts up
>with George Dubya by balancing his distaste for the politicians with
>alternatives to democracy. But the RKBA is completely ineffectual as
>compared to the right to vote, so the citizen rejects the absolute RKBA
>as having anything to do with democracy.
And here we get to your fundamental misunderstanding of American
government: America is NOT a democracy, it is a constitutional
representative republic. Constitutional to tell government where it
shall not meddle (such as free speech and arms), representative
because the masses are stupid and half of them have two digit IQs,
and a republic because democracy sucks.
Best,
Jim
Andrew Colglazier
>
>In article <20000127102642.05636.00000368@nso-fv.>
>> No, you've got it wrong. The standard model observes that at the
>point a
>> government ceases to be representative, and becomes oppressive, it no
>longer is
>> deserving of respect by the people. If that were to occur, it stands
>to reason
>> that the government would need to be divested of power. If the
>government were
>> in fact so corrupt, it is doubtful that an election would do the
>job. Armed
>> force might be necessary, and that is what the standard model
>interpretation of
>> the 2nd Am. is all about.
>
>No constitution can authorize a coup d'etat in its name.
Why not? You fail to comprehend that, at the point the government no longer
has the interests of the people as its number one priority, it loses the
people's mandate. The people are free to shrug off a non-representative
government by any means necessary. That is the heart and the history of the
2nd Amendment, and it most certainly is a part of our Constitution.
>Suppose for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment makes legal
>either the preparation of a coup d'etat (whether by "the people" or by
>a minority)
No, Spinoza; only by the people.
or the actual execution of a coup d'etat.
>
>In the first case, wherein the FBI, say, discovers Dan Day's stockpile
>of M1A Abrams tanks and nuclear weapons, does the Second Amendment
>require the government to walk away from Dan's garage? It does not and
>judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would allow the FBI to
>arrest Dan.
If the 2nd Am. were correctly interpreted, the FBI wouldn't be snooping around
in Dan's garage; they would be out attempting to catch criminals. Don't
presuppose your own wishes to make your hypothetical come true.
>As to actually carrying out rebellion, the case against the standard
>idiot interpretation of the RKBA is sillier *a fortiori*, as the south
>discovered after Fort Sumter. Northern doughfaces and the southern
>boys wanted the North to hand over its offshore Federal installations
>without a fight. Unfortunately any government which did so would soon
>cease to exist: the Limeys would be emboldened by the surrender of Ft
>Sumter to boot the Yankees out of any Caribbean pisshole they were in.
You constantly clutter the discussion with this unrelated and absurd reference
to the Civil War. It isn't applicable.
>Individuals have a right of self-defense, as the gun boys are so fond
>of pointing out. But so do states, unless you are an anarchist. Very
>few gun nuts are serious anarchists. They after all need garages and
>basements to stockpile their weapons, and real property itself is not
>secured in a state of nature.
You lost the thread. You started out well, but you lost the thread half-way
through.This discussion has nothing to do with real property. Would you please
attempt to stay on topic.
>The actual officials, elected and appointment, who toss Dan in jail
>have by their lights an equal or greater knowledge and love of their
>Constitution as Dan and they in good conscience for the most part
>believe (A) the Second Amendment does not authorize realistic
>preparations for a coup d'etat and (B) Dan's conduct in preparation for
>his coup de Danny boy is threatening to vastly more important
>Constitutional freedoms.
I'm certain that a would-be dictator would agree with your every word.
>For example, as in the case of the so-called Christian militia, they do
>not know whether Dan has it in for a minority:
Who is talking about a "Christian militia." I said nothing about a Christian
militia; but if they are molesting no one with their stockpile, why should it
concern anybody?
for example, suppose Dan
>hates midgets, does not think they are men and thus deserving of
>Constititutional protection and therefore, after Dan's successful coup
>d'etat, Dan proposes midget and dwarf tossing contests, at the finish
>of which the midgets will be run over by tanks.
And off you go into real flights of ridiculous fantasy. You have fun with your
personal universe, now.
>Dan may say, naww, I'm just onea da people. But there is a vicious
>naivety, a sort of childhood gone extremely sour, in believing that we
>could even KNOW dat da People were arising against da Government in
>today's media climate. If we cannot trust the government today, why
>should we trust some bunch of new guys? If you meet the Buddha on the
>road, kill him. If you meet Da People on most roads in America,
>especially if Da People have been sucking Da Bud and are armed, run
>like hell.
What the hell are you talking about?
>The Constitution acknowledges the possibility that imperfect men may be
>incumbents. But its Fourteenth amendment acknowledges the possibility
>that The People, ersatz or even real, may also be full of shit. For
>this reason the Constitution does not, cannot and should not authorize
>preparations for or execution of a coup d'etat (and a noble mass
>uprising of the majority is still a coup d'etat when armed, even if it
>has a funny French name.)
As you chase your thoughts around inside the bony cavern of your skull,
occasionally they near a portal of exit, so as to be examined by your fellow
man. But upon meeting the harsh glare of the light of day, they shrink back in
true fear of reality, and retreat into the fastnesses of your entrenched
prejudices, to connive together, until even they cannot abide the environs in
which they were first brought into being.
You belong in my killfile.
But I'm a kind fellow, so I'm going to read a little more. A second chance, as
it were.
>In England in 1913, a majority of the people did not want an Irish free
>state and sections of the officer class, believing themselves in all
>sincerity as representatives of John Bull, da people of England, armed
>themselves for a rebellion against the Crown in Ulster. Despite the
>fact that these Colonel Blimps felt themselves to be loyal to the
>monarch, their conduct was seen to be in violation of the British
>constitution, for in 1913 the King in Parliament was moving towards
>freedom for all of Ireland. These British officers trumpeted their
>loyalty while being, at the crisis, disloyal, as disloyal as "patriotic
>southerners" who TODAY think that South Carolina should be able to fly
>the stars and bars.
And what is the relevance of this questionable rendition of one chapter of "the
troubles?"
>This shows that we should not trust NRA "patriots": they may be as
>ready to rebel against our Constitution as the British Army was ready
>to rebel against Irish Home Rule.
Oh. Of course. You are attempting a parallel, a comparison for the sake of
argument. But the two situations are as different as night and day. And why
would you ever assume that the NRA as an organization is currently capable of
being involved in armed rebellion? You are paranoid.....
Nor is the truly loyal citizen one
>who says he will never revolt. It is the citizen who, like Dr King or
>John Brown, acknowledges that his civil disobedience is extra legal and
>may have consequences:
Certainly gun owners know that civil disobedience could have consequences. You
have noted, I'm certain, how so many California gun owners trampled each other
in their rush to turn in recently banned weapons, just to satisfy their state
government?
and it is no accident that the persons blessed
>with this level of honesty have never been adherents to a "glorious
>cause" or to continued oppression of Ireland. Goodness and truth,
>after all, converge.
You really try too hard, and your expressions end up as florid and
unattractively gaudy as a Baroque vase.
>The People are invited not by Constitutional but by Natural law to have
>a go, whether at Waco and Fort Sumter, or Birmingham or Harper's
>Ferry. The success of any rebellion in the name of race or religious
>prejudice would be a rewrite of the existing Constitution.
Or, it could just be the replacement of the old original Constitution back in
its rightful place; as the law of the land.
>The Constitution authorizes its amendment. It does not authorize "the
>people" to prepare for armed struggle or to violently overthrow the
>government, NOR does it authorize "the people" to overthrow incumbents
>EVEN IF those incumbents have trampled on the Constitution. It instead
>provides for PEACEFUL means of redress: indeed, that is its whole
>purpose, to AVOID a chain of South-American style revolutions "in the
>name of the people."
Sorry. It provides for that level of change and resistance necessary to
preserve the Union of States under the umbrella of a representative and
benevolant central government.
>Note that language in founding documents that praises armed revolution
>is in the Declaration of Independence, NOT in the Constitution.
Does that make a difference? They were written by the same individuals, by and
large.
>The Declaration of Independence is a philosophical and not a legal
>document: it asserts the natural law that the people are permitted to
>ignore (in the case of the American colonies) the English constitution,
There is no English constitution....
>and rebel against King George.
>
>This wordage does not appear in the Constitution because a law that
>asserted its violability would self-destruct.
You still don't get it.....
Note that the
>Constitution, unlike the Declaration of Independence, does not start
>with ringing words about the right of the people to rebel. And the
>Second Amendment subordinates the RKBA to the security of a well-
>ordered state against an overly professionalized military. That is,
>the relatively minor role of the 2nd amendment is to make a distinction
>between the government and its armed bully boys.
What does this mean? What are you trying to say, here? Are you attempting to
say that the military is not beholden to the Executive as the commander in
chief? Is not required to follow his directives? Would never be used as a
tool of oppression by a renegade government?
>This was put in because the Founding Fathers were not unlettered NRA
>fanataics.
"......unlettered NRA fanataics." Indeed.
They were well aware of how Parliamentary deliberations
>were broken up by Charles I's troops, and it wanted to ensure that the
>people would be able to physically protect nonmilitary sections of the
>government (mostly, the legislature and the judiciary, as opposed to
>the executive) against an out of control executive.
You don't say.......!
>A failure in this regard occured in the 1970s with regards to Jack
>Ruby: the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to testify as to what
>actually had occured in Dallas before the Supreme Court. However, Earl
>Warren was not able to protect Ruby physically against members of the
>Executive branch, probably the CIA, who did not want the truth about
>the JFK assassination to come out. I am not a conspiracy buff, I am
>instead an Oliver Stoneite who believes that the truth hasn't been
>told: but in the 1970s, while the NRA was telling us about how the RKBA
>protects the constitution, where were the armed citizens willing, or
>even able, to allow Ruby to testify?
And off you go, you galloping goof, on another flight of fantasy... Have fun
there, all alone.
>For a legislature to be able to summon the militia IN ITS DEFENSE, or
>for a judiciary to be able to summon the 101st Airborne Division to
>enforce desegregation, is quite the reverse of a mass uprising of the
>people against the entire government. It comes down to the defense of
>sections of that government which is, it appears, the boogeyman of the
>gun nuts. But how many gun nuts would seriously volunteer to protect
>the Congress against Clinton with their little guns? Damn few, I'd
>expect, and none came to Earl Warren's aid and protected Ruby. But
>this was the purpose of the amendment: to protect physical
>deliberations of key portions of the government against hessian-style
>mercenaries, Indians, Lynch mobs, ku kluxers, NRA fanatics, and the CIA.
Really??? Never heard that theory before.... never will again. You are
unique, Spinoza.... and alone.
>>
>> Get it now?
>
>What I "get" is a deep post-Vietnam imaturity in the body politic,
>because to insist on either the right of treason or the right to
>oppress minorities is just childish.
Nope. You don't get it....
>What I "get" is the male confusion of the word and the thing. There is
>just an inability, caused by a mass narcissistic personality disorder,
>to see that the Other and his different interpretation may exist,
>whether that Other is an FBI man from Fordham who thinks
>the "Christian" right is unChristian and full of shit, to the racial
>minority.
"...the Other...?" How does that killfile sound go? Isn't it... PLONK!!!!!!
Donald R. McGregor
>A failure in this regard occured in the 1970s with regards to Jack
>Ruby: the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to testify as to what
>actually had occured in Dallas before the Supreme Court. However, Earl
>Warren was not able to protect Ruby physically against members of the
>Executive branch, probably the CIA, who did not want the truth about
>the JFK assassination to come out. I am not a conspiracy buff,
Too late; the game is up.
Jim String
>spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <20000126103052...@nso-fu.aol.com>,
>> andr...@aol.comFF (Andrew Colglazier) wrote:
>> > In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com
>> writes:
>> > I guess you need to read the article again.... this time with an open
>> mind.
>>
>> Perhaps I should also, this time, take care to run my index finger
>> under the words and to sound them out, reading in the slow and open-
>> minded way of the freedom fetishist.
>
> <verbose pap snipped>
>
>> Finally: I am certain that it is the case, as it is the case in many
>> neobarbaric venues, that my very literacy now indicates a closed mind.
>> Enlightenment has become the slack-jawed, drool streaked fetishization
>> of what, it is plain, we are not correct in thinking of as a mass
>> uprising of armed citizens, when it is now clear that only 14% of the
>> adult male citizenry of Colonial times had guns.> This guy sounds exactly like Frank Zimring, so much so I'd not be too
>surprised to find that it is him.
>
> An eloquent garbage mouth. Full of whining and drooling, signifying nothing.
Yeah, he is an idiot. He seems to think he is literate too.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:44:32 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>right which if interpreted correctly means that individuals can own and
>>operate tanks and rocket launchers.
>
>correct conclusion is necessarily a reductio ad absurdum.
>It is not. It is now, and has always been, LEGAL for private citizens
>to own and operate tanks and rocket launchers, and many do. And
>yet, the Republic has not crumbled.
>
>Read the following and, if necessary, run your finger along under
>the words:
>
>#### Old post of mine starts here
>
>Subject: Yes, 2nd Amendment protects nukes
>
>People often ask, "well, if the Second Amendment to the US Constitution
>protects the private ownership of arms, then does that mean you have
>the right to own a nuclear weapon?"
>
>Most respondents approach this issue with something to the effect that this
>can be resolved by interpreting "arms" as meaning "personal arms" (i.e.
>those which can be carried and used by an individual against another
>individual). Others "resolve" it by saying that this issue "obviously"
>shows that the Constitution must be allowed to be re-interpreted to
>accord with "common sense".
>
>However, I think both miss the point. First, the writings of the
>people who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment give the clear
>impression that they meant *all* arms, including cannon and privateer
>ships. Second, it's as wrong to "creatively interpret" the Second
>Amendment in order to say that these days it should apply only to
>personal arms as it is to say that it now applies only to the National
>Guard, or even to say that it's entirely outmoded and can be totally
>ignored. Any of these is an arbitrary selective interpretation, and
>all are equally unsupportable, as would be any attempt to limit the First
>Amendment protection of free speech only to, say, distribution methods
>reaching only a limited number of people.
>
>In short, I think the proper approach is to say that yes, the Second
>Amendment was written to protect all arms, and thus nuclear weapons are
>indeed covered by it. Now before anyone has a heart attack, let me
>point out that I, too, think it is a good idea that individuals not
>own nuclear weapons.
>
>So what's the solution? Easy: Just follow the procedure that the
>Constitution itself provides for modifying any provision of the
Unnecessary. I have no problem with you owning a nuclear weapon,
just as I have no problem with you owning as many grenades or 500
lb bombs as you want. However, you _don't_ get to keep your grenades
and 500 lb bombs in your closet in the apartment next to me, you keep
them on appropriately zoned land in properly constructed explosives shacks.
Locked up securely of course.
Same with nukes. I don't care if you own one, but you have to keep it
in the appropriate place. In the case of nukes this would likely be
at the Nevada test site, launch codes in the hands of the President
and you get to pay for the Marines guarding it. You get to explode
it in accordance with whatever laws and treaties are in effect at the
time or not at all, sort of like the completely appropriate laws
regarding the discharge of firearms within city limits.
It's yours, you own it and to prove the point you are entirely free
to destroy the device. Naturally you have to dispose of the materials
properly, just like getting rid of other dangerous waste like old
nicad batteries.
You don't get to drive around with your nuke in the trunk of your Lexus,
just like you don't get to haul your 500 lb bomb around town in the
back of your pickup.
No modification of the 2nd Amendment needed. Zoning ordinances are
completely appropriate when dealing with ordnance and other materials
which are inherently dangerous and unstable, unlike firearms which will
not discharge without human help, appropriate, negligent or criminal as
the case may be.
Besides, what is there to fear about a law abiding citizen who owns
a nuke? Or a dozen 500 lb bombs?
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>In article <86pp8t$bmo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> <yawn>
>
>This pose has to be earned. You haven't addressed the fact that the
>central legend of the gun nuts is wrong if only 14% of white male
This is that probate record hogwash again? Tell me, did you hear it
first from Dan Blather?
>model of the RKBA is a self-contradictory right of treason. If you do
>not address these issues, your <yawn> is a mere gape.
There is no right of treason. Arms are for preserving or restoring
Constitutional government and the rule of law. Arms are for restraining
or as a last resort, killing the treasonous.
Arms are also quite handy to have around for self defense.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:53:31 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>However, this deep nonsense does show the real program of the gun nuts:
>>to rebuild de Old South with an armed white Massah once agin securely
>>in control.
>
>Ooooookay.
>
>Friends, we have a serious contender for this month's
>"Talk.Politics.Guns Kook Of The Month" award. He's already got *my*
>vote.
Ditto. The guy is stark raving mad.
Best,
Jim
Donald R. McGregor
Peter H. Proctor <D...@god.md> wrote:
>>You're confusing a legal right to rebel (act against the government
>>with no fear of legal consequences) with an _ability_ to act against
>>the government.
>
>>Rebellions are by definition extra-legal exercises. They may
>>or may not be in the right. The 2nd amendment protects
>>the ability or potential to act in an extra-legal way, rather
>>than immunizing the actors from legal consequences for rebellion.
>
> The American Declaration of Independence lays out the "legal" reasons for
>rebellion and claims it as a right, which was reaffirmed by the second
>amendment. All subsequent American governments derive their legitimacy
>from the Declaration of Independence. That is, if rebellion per se is
>illegal, then the present government is illegal.... BTW, it was for this
>reason that Lincoln was advised not to try the Confederate leadership for
>treason.
The problem is that "right" is an overloaded term, with multiple
meanings. In one sense it is a matter of law, that which you can
do without fear of government sanction. In another sense it is
that which _no one_ can abridge, but that sometimes is anyway.
Take the dopes in LA during the riots, grabbing big screen TVs
in an "uprising". They can't just claim that they were engaged
in a revolt and because of that they have a get out of jail free
card.
On the other hand, if Clinton used tonight's State of the Union
address to announce that he was crowning himself Maximum Leader
for Life, the freeways would be jammed by pickups with full
gunracks driving up from Virginny to kick some ass. And they'd
be right.
The problem is that there is no way to determine in the consitution
or law when a revolt is legitimate and when it's not. You can't
very well have a Department of Revolutionary Activity handing out
permits. Elections aren't going to work, either. A revolution is
by definition an extra-legal act, conducted outside the framework
of law and constitution, because it is intended to overturn that
very framework. They might be conducted for unjust ends (Bigscreen
TV Rebellion) or just ends (The Great Jefferson Davis Highway Traffic
Jam) but in either case the legal framework can't be used to
further the revolution. In the latter case, police would be
ordered to set up a roadblock; they would have to, _as individuals_,
decide to give their superiors the finger.
The founding problem for new governments fundamentally involves
coloring outside the lines. A revolutionary founding involves thousands
or millions of people making invdividual moral choices like
those policemen sent to stop the pickups. that spinoza guy
is right as far as that goes (though he appears to be a JFK
conspiracy crank). But he's wrong about the 2nd amendment, which
protects the latent ability of individuals to take action once
they've made that moral choice outlined above.
That he's wrong is easy enough to determine; hell, Madison himself,
in Federalist 46, talks about revolutionary activity by states
and individuals against an oppresive government, and a whole
series of institutional structures intended to make sure this
course of action remains viable. spinoza seems to think
that government is able to legitimately use absolute power to
protect itself, a doctrine that went out sometime around the
time the French kings lost their lease on that neat place outside
of Paris.
Donald R. McGregor
>It is not resolved in our founding documents whether "the people"
>or "the laws" have the role of "the sovereign" where the sovereign is
>that entity which cannot, by definition, be a traitor.
Oh, nonsense. Are you completely ignorant of American political
theory?
It's "We the people...", not "I, George Washington,...."
And in any event see Federalist #39, Madison:
"...a government which derives all its powers directly or
indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by
persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period,
or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that
that it be derived from the great body of the society...."
To argue that the constitution is sovereign is to argue that
the government has a right to existence over and above the
desires of the people, which everyone invovled in the founding
would obviously reject that idea (with the possible exception of that
twink Hamilton.)
>An American
>lawyer would repeat the cliche that "we are government of laws and not
>of men" and therefore conclude that the Constitution is our sovereign.
You're mixing up to completely different concepts, one involving
the sovereignty of the people over government, the other involving
the accountability of individual men to the law, no matter what
their station.
>He'd then conclude that you could not interpret the 2nd Amendment as in
>any way authorising overthrow of the Constitution as implemented by
>imperfect incumbents who may even be trampling on part of the
>Constitution.
What is this, some sort of record attempt for number of logical
misdirections in a single post?
>The ordinary person, or NRA, would say that instead "the people" are
>sovereign. If, like many people in America today, this person has a
>narcissistic personality disorder,
OK, I'm on board for voting this guy KotM.
>But in fact (and I don't have to agree with this) the Founding Fathers
>set up a republic, and not a democracy, not one in the French model in
>which *le peuple* are sovereign. In fact, for the Founding Fathers,
>the Constitution was a sovereign and for this reason they'd interpret
>NO clause as legally justifying preparations EVEN for a justified
>rebellion. The rebellion would be morally justified, perhaps, but the
>Constitution would not authorize it.
you segued none-to-artfully from one concept to another. "No clause
legally justifying preparations?" That's the whole point of the militia,
as discussed in the various Federalists. Even under a "state's rights"
interpretation the various militias are kept as, among other things,
a check on the federal government. Once this fact is established,
your whole argument that a similar capability by individuals is
impossible collapses.
>The clear intent of the Founders, after all, was to avoid a series of
>violent and bloody uprisings,
yes, among other things. Among the other things they didn't want
was a tyranical goverment, as any even cursoury reading of the
Federalist Papers shows. It was something of a mania to them,
and rather understandably so. Both were objectives, so arrangments
were made to create or protect institutions that would achieve
both these aims.
--
Don McGregor | Simulate Yourself.
mcg...@mbay.net |
spino...@my-deja.com
andr...@aol.comFF (Andrew Colglazier) wrote:> >
> >No constitution can authorize a coup d'etat in its name.
>
> Why not? You fail to comprehend that, at the point the government no
longer
> has the interests of the people as its number one priority, it loses
the
> people's mandate. The people are free to shrug off a non-
representative
> government by any means necessary. That is the heart and the history
of the
> 2nd Amendment, and it most certainly is a part of our Constitution.
>
We are talking about three different, albeit interrelated, sets of
rights: natural rights, moral rights (and duties) and legal rights.
Natural rights express physical possibility: moral rights express both
physical possibility and moral sanction: legal rights express rights
which perforce must be natural (for the law cannot sensibly permit me
to square the circle) but in an immoral society may be not moral: it
may be positively immoral to allow gun ownership in a violent society.
The people are free AS A MATTER OF NATURAL RIGHT to rebel, and the
sovereign has the equivalent natural right to squash 'em. The trial of
arms decides who's "right."
If the people are correct in their view that the incumbent government
is tyranny, then not only are they free as a matter of NATURAL right
they also have the extra legal MORAL right (nay, duty) to rebel. The
unjust sovereign retains his natural right but does not have the moral
right to squash the rebels.
But in a very real sense no law, *a fortiori* no basic, constitutional
law, can incorporate the right to rebel, or arm to rebel, even against
an unjust sovereign. It would, most perniciously, announce a right
that as soon as exercised as a matter of natural and moral law would be
met by the "legal" codified law itself. It would as such be a waste of
ink.
John Brown, being man of heart if few brains (and as such ten times the
man as compared with the typical NRA member) took a Federal armory at
Harper's Ferry in 1859 because he felt that the founding principles of
freedom and equality were belied by the "peculiar institution" of
chattel slavery. Ossawatomie Brown did not concern himself as to
whether his action was legal and from a practical standpoint did not
plan to bandy with lawyers. Instead he prepared for a showdown with
men whose commanders at least felt that THEY were protecting, if not
the founding principles of the country, the Constitution, since if any
old person, no matter his convictions, could use a Federal armory as an
arms chest, the government would soon be no longer able to "provide for
the common defense" as it is permitted and commanded to do in the
Constitution.
Therefore, even if John Brown was right, and I believe that he was, he
was in violation of the law, the fundamental law, of his country.
When you have the natural right of rebellion, and the moral right and
duty in a just cause, it is just foolish to pretend that the law is
also on your side. The politicians of the Confederacy maintained this
delusion and thousands of men on both sides lost their lives because of
this morally corrupt and conceptually blind way of thinking, for the
South maintained until 1865 the delusion that someone like Sam Grant
would not carry total war into the South in enforcement of the United
States Constitution. Jeff Davis thought the South could maintain an
agrarian society, with massive resources devoted to controlling slave
rebellion and sooner or later the North, Davis apparently thought,
would just give up on enforcing the Constitution.
In the back of his mind was the confusion, which I have pointed out,
between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Yes, the
people have the moral right, nay duty, to overthrow tyranny. But if
the people have to overthrow a tyrant who is acting in the name of the
United States Constitution, then that document is seen to be flawed,
and the rebellion would probably have to be followed by a
Constitutional convention.
The 2nd amendment is NOT the "heart and history" of the Constitution:
the 14th is vastly more important. The Constitution was written
because its preceding document, the Articles of Confederation, did not
signal clearly that the citizens did not have the legal right to rebel
while they had the Hobbesian natural right, and, in a just cause, the
moral right. This resulted in Shay's rebellion by the rural forbears
of today's NRA: thugs who think that because we got rid of King George
then they could refuse to pay excise taxes, or bully the weak.
The American tradition of civil disobedience, of which Dr Martin Luther
King is the shining examplar, sharply diverges from the bogus NRA
misreading of the Constitution. In Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr
King writes clearly that he is violating laws, unjust laws, but laws
nonetheless. He does not engage in the neobarbarism and sheer logical
contradiction that he is not disobeying a law and he accepts like a man
the consequences visited upon him.
Compare the case of Dr King to one of the court cases described in the
Lingua Franca article. A doctor who had threatened is estranged wife
with a fucking gun said that his sacred bigod 2nd amendment rights were
being violated. There was a dignity in John Brown and in Dr King
missing in this court case, and the fact that ANY legal resources are
spent in mounting a constitutional case in defense of this thug is just
obscene.
But in
> >Suppose for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment makes
legal
> >either the preparation of a coup d'etat (whether by "the people" or
by
> >a minority)
>
> No, Spinoza; only by the people.
>
I have often wondered, since Fascism tends to reflect unique social
conditions, what an unique American fascism would look like. Here is
the thing itself: "freedom fetishism" that binds the "people" (actually
white suburbanites) into a fasces that permits nobody to depart from
the will of the people. The Republic, in short, of Gilead.
> or the actual execution of a coup d'etat.
> >
> >In the first case, wherein the FBI, say, discovers Dan Day's
stockpile
> >of M1A Abrams tanks and nuclear weapons, does the Second Amendment
> >require the government to walk away from Dan's garage? It does not
and
> >judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would allow the FBI to
> >arrest Dan.
>
> If the 2nd Am. were correctly interpreted, the FBI wouldn't be
snooping around
> in Dan's garage; they would be out attempting to catch criminals.
Don't
> presuppose your own wishes to make your hypothetical come true.
>
This replaces legal theory by comic book categories. The police,
strictly speaking, do not catch criminals under a legal system in which
every man is innocent, until proven guilty. Instead they apprehend
suspects and confine the inebriated for the latter's own safety. Old
Dan is in violation of any number of state and local ordinances with
old Dan's Home Ordnance Depot, so when and if the G men come to old
Dan's house, they most assuredly are apprehending a highly suspicious
character.
>
> You constantly clutter the discussion with this unrelated and absurd
reference
> to the Civil War. It isn't applicable.
You wish. As it happens, the War of Southern Rebellion is most
applicable because it answered the secesh question. The NRA's case is
an attempt to revive South Carolina's views on secession, and no
marshaling of black support can change the fact that the NRA's cries
are in the words of Samuel Johnson, cries for liberty from the drivers
of Negroes.
>
> You lost the thread. You started out well, but you lost the thread
half-way
> through.This discussion has nothing to do with real property. Would
you please
> attempt to stay on topic.
No, YOU lost the thread. Please reread the post and pay attention this
time. You can't wave a gun in my face, can you?
>
> I'm certain that a would-be dictator would agree with your every word.
>
I don't believe so. American tinpot dictator wannabes know better than
me to use complex thoughts. Their consistent message is NOT
subordination to a mystic entity such as the *Volk*: this would have
limited appeal, only in German sections of the Midwest.
It is instead to calls for freedom which more or less code "kill the
n*rs" in some form or another.
>
> Who is talking about a "Christian militia." I said nothing about a
Christian
> militia; but if they are molesting no one with their stockpile, why
should it
> concern anybody?
>
Hundreds of people had to DIE in Oklahoma City because of one such
militia member, Tim McVeigh. He was enabled to accumulate fertilizer
and build an extremely powerful explosive by exactly this sort of
sloppy thinking.
Investigation of old Dan's stockpile is under our legal system
controlled by search warrant requirements and habeus corpus: it needs
no yapping about Dan's sacred, and nonexistent RKBA. If as it turns
out Dan is planning to kill the midgets, or whatever, with his
stockpile, the G men would do well to check the guy out.
The very thinking "as am not hurtin' nobody with mah gun" is of a piece
with they is just good old boys havin a little fun...with that woman,
or that black person, or that kid.
>
> And off you go into real flights of ridiculous fantasy. You have fun
with your
> personal universe, now.
That dwarf toss and midget crush example was a serious thought
experiment, in a probably vain attempt to show you clowns that despite
airy talk about da people, we have to bring it down to earth and ask
what people and what do they want to do. I detect zero comprehension
of a topic that concerned the Founding Fathers and that is the tyranny
of the majority.
The top men of the NRA are stone cowards and as such would not be
involved in rebellion. However, their yapping encourages foot soldiers
like Tim McVeigh to kill people in the name of armed rebellion.
>
> Nor is the truly loyal citizen one
> >who says he will never revolt. It is the citizen who, like Dr King
or
> >John Brown, acknowledges that his civil disobedience is extra legal
and
> >may have consequences:
>
> Certainly gun owners know that civil disobedience could have
consequences. You
> have noted, I'm certain, how so many California gun owners trampled
each other
> in their rush to turn in recently banned weapons, just to satisfy
their state
> government?
>
This merely shows the hollowness of the slogans about how "free from
tyranny" they are, although it is laudable that they obeyed the law.
However, their big, empty talk, and your big, empty talk, has already
convinced tens of people like Tim McVeigh to take life.
> and it is no accident that the persons blessed
> >with this level of honesty have never been adherents to a "glorious
> >cause" or to continued oppression of Ireland. Goodness and truth,
>
Bzzzt. You just lost who wants ta be a millionaire because there is
indeed an English constitution. There's even a nice book, The British
Constitution, by one Walter Bagehot written about a hundred years ago.
>
> >and rebel against King George.
> >
> >This wordage does not appear in the Constitution because a law that
> >asserted its violability would self-destruct.
>
> You still don't get it.....
>
> Note that the
> >Constitution, unlike the Declaration of Independence, does not start
> >with ringing words about the right of the people to rebel. And the
> >Second Amendment subordinates the RKBA to the security of a well-
> >ordered state against an overly professionalized military. That is,
> >the relatively minor role of the 2nd amendment is to make a
distinction
> >between the government and its armed bully boys.
>
> What does this mean? What are you trying to say, here? Are you
attempting to
> say that the military is not beholden to the Executive as the
commander in
> chief? Is not required to follow his directives? Would never be
used as a
> tool of oppression by a renegade government?
>
> >This was put in because the Founding Fathers were not unlettered NRA
> >fanataics.
>
> "......unlettered NRA fanataics." Indeed.
Indeed indeed/
>
> They were well aware of how Parliamentary deliberations
> >were broken up by Charles I's troops, and it wanted to ensure that
the
> >people would be able to physically protect nonmilitary sections of
the
> >government (mostly, the legislature and the judiciary, as opposed to
> >the executive) against an out of control executive.
>
> You don't say.......!
I do say.
Yeah, I should charge you for this stuff.
>
> >>
> >> Get it now?
> >
> >What I "get" is a deep post-Vietnam imaturity in the body politic,
> >because to insist on either the right of treason or the right to
> >oppress minorities is just childish.
>
> Nope. You don't get it....
>
> >What I "get" is the male confusion of the word and the thing. There
is
> >just an inability, caused by a mass narcissistic personality
disorder,
> >to see that the Other and his different interpretation may exist,
> >whether that Other is an FBI man from Fordham who thinks
> >the "Christian" right is unChristian and full of shit, to the racial
> >minority.
>
> "...the Other...?" How does that killfile sound go? Isn't it...
PLONK!!!!!!
I seem to have hit a nerve. The very word makes you want to kill. But
that's the key issue. It's the projection of narcissism onto politics
which is the land of the Other.
>
> Andrew "FF"
> Freedom Fetishist and
> Plain 'Ol Citizen
>
>
Duane K. Kelly
>
> In article <86nngu$to6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> xer...@my-deja.com wrote:>
> > You need to study a little more on the history of gun control laws in
> > America. The first laws restricting gun ownership (if you don't count
> > the British) were designed to keep slaves and former slaves disarmed.
>
> If the anti-revisionist scholars are correct, and Washington felt that
> levees en masse of armed citizens were useless, then the Second
> Amendment was primarily passed for the benefit of slaveowners.
>
> passed in defiance of the "standard model" of the second amendment: the
> of the late 1860s did not apply the Second Amendment to the southern
> laws. Instead, a Congress dominated by Radical Republicans who
> disliked the South (for good enough reason) passed a NEW amendment to
> the Constitution: the Fourteenth, which stated that the laws already
> existing applied equally to all citizens. By this, Congress did not
> mean the modern "standard model" of the Second Amendment for in the
> 1860s the interpretation was that the Second Amendment allowed a
> citizen militia.
>
> rights, since another Amendment had to be passed to at least get a
> Warren court to desegregate schools in 1954. Of course, much of the
> gun nut lobby hates everything the Warren court stood for. It is
> therefore, again and for the last goddamn time, hypocrisy to point to
> disarming laws of the 1860s and to then claim the high moral ground of
> racial equality.
>
> bellum period, who wanted a country in which the winners would lord it
> over the losers in the form of black people, brown people, and women.
> Calhoun's vision simply contradicts the vision of the Constitution and
>
> freedom for African-Americans such as exists today came because of
> armed Southerners could prevent slave rebellion.
>
> >
>
> gun nuts create a society in which in order to ensure my Fourteenth
> Amendment rights I have to take life, well, they've effectively revoked
> the Fourteenth amendment (which is the racist program of the right
> wing.)
>
> There is a deep, neo-barbaric desire in the gun lobby to simply revoke
> personal indiscipline, an artifact, in turn, of consumer society. This
> is a society in which the proud, armed citizenry allows itself
> repeatedly to be sold out by politicians and business and one in which
> an Illinois man, upset because he was not given coffee at a hospital,
> returned to the hospital with a gun and killed several nurses. This is
> regression to the point of infantility.
>
> a doctor had threatened his estranged wife with a gun. One would well
> ask what the Founding Fathers would think of mere lack of chivalry, and
> infantile regression, as having anything at all to do with the right to
> overthrown tyranny.
>
> is deep nonsense. Second Amendment absolutists portray the amendment
> as a guarantor of the right to rebel.
>
> a strong right of insurrection, a clause reading "your right to rebel
> against what you do not like is guaranteed by your little gun": if
> Thomas Hobbes is correct then a constitution does not need this
> verbiage at all. In Hobbes, the "right" of rebellion is embedded at a
> deeper level than that of constitution making because it is a natural
> right.
>
> The Hobbesian right of rebellion, although a natural "right" in the
> sense that a revolutionary ATTEMPT is always physically possible, be it
> a coup d'etat or a refusal to abide by laws (in the manner, say of Ted
> Kaczynski), the revolution is not guaranteed success. In the War of
> the Southern Rebellion, the Southern states exercised a natural right
> right to be led by Longstreet, and not "Granny" Lee, at Gettysburg, and
> even there success was not ensured.
>
> But a constitution does not need to incorporate the right of armed
> rebellion, should not include this right, and our Constitution, in the
> Second Amendment, was not providing this right. The militia of the
> amendment is that which guarantees the security of the state against a
> professional military with its own agenda. To interpret it as an
> individual right to prepare for a coup d'etat is to ask for a
> constitution that self-destructs.
> >
> > honestly believe that?
>
> No, as I have said, Washington's use of trained soldiers who were
> primarily in it for pay at Princeton, Trenton and Yorktown persuaded
> the British that the costs of keeping American colonies were too high.
>
> Washington's soldiers did not all bring their own guns to the field but
> century it became clear that fire would have to be synchronized. The
> Duke of Marlborough, British victor in several wars in the later part
> of the 17th century, used trained and synchronized fire and consistent
> weaponry, and his military descendants used this fire on Americans with
> murderous effect at Bunker Hill and Monmouth, an American defeat.
>
> Colonials armed with arquebuses, harquebuses, blunderbusses, fowling
> pieces and what-all could not hope to advance, lay down disciplined
> fire, and advance again: they were scattered by the high military
> technology of the 18th century, the thin red line of the scum of the
> impressment, typically did not have a pot to piss in, much less their
> own firearm, but when they met Americans in the European conditions of
> Monmouth Courthouse they beat 'em because the Sergeant Major told them
> when to fire their gun, the property of King George.
>
> Structurally, this situation obtains today. Undermotivated but highly
> trained American Marines defeated the citizen army of the Viet Cong at
> Hue in 1968.
>
> The claim that one is for "freedom" by some fantasy of a levee en masse
> of pre-armed citizens is nonsense, and it is a coverup for a desire of
> white suburbanites to win a race war.
NAACP Joins Ranks With The KKK...
"WASHINGTON, DC -- The NAACP is making a "racist mistake" by filing a
lawsuit against gun manufacturers -- and is following in the shameful
footsteps of the Ku Klux Klan, the Libertarian Party charged today.
"With this lawsuit, the NAACP is not only attacking the civil rights of
African-Americans, but is also continuing the legacy of the KKK and
other racist organizations that have historically tried to keep guns out
of the hands of blacks," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national
director.
"Politics makes strange bedfellows -- and what could be stranger than
the NAACP climbing into bed with the grand wizards of the KKK by
supporting their racist agenda?"
http://www.lp.org/rel/990715-guns.html
Now, from the above stabement by "spinoza9999" (who seems to be spinning
him/herself into a deep dark hole), it would appear that the NAACP is
also in cahoots with the "slave owners", and "gun nut lobby" as well as
the KKK. Gosh damn but this is getting interesting.
--
========================================================
"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks,
coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns
versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a
machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the
chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
--Josh Sugarmann: "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America"
(Washington D.C. Education Fund to End Handgun Violence and New
Right Watch) September 1988, p. 26)
Deception is the name of the gun-grabbers game.
=========================================================
Duane K. Kelly
>
> In article <86nij5$prv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:>
> > What the 2nd actually means is "the people are armed, so YOU better
> not
> > ignore our basic law" and it is directed to the government.
>
> If a MINORITY of the people believe that the government is contravening
> the Constitution, and they believe further that they cannot use
> peaceful means to get the attention of the authorities, they have the
> Hobbesian natural right to TRY to rebel, a right that as I have said
> cannot, and need not, be part of the Constitution.
Such a situation existed in 1775 when the Colonies declared their
independence... spino...@my-deja.com... sometimes a name says it all.
Duane K. Kelly
>
> In article <388F5386...@dev.null>,
> "Duane K. Kelly" <dkk...@dev.null> wrote:>
> > > If the gun nuts had any real respect for the Constitution, they
> would
> > > focus on its most important amendment, one purchased in blood at
> > > Gettysburg: the Fourteenth amendment.
> >
> to
> > abolish slavery is fiction created by the victors. Here's an
> > oft-repeated sentiment by President Lincoln: "I have no purpose,
> > directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery
> in
> > the states where it exists.
>
> This was Lincoln's original intention. However, he had a strong view
> against extension of slavery into the territories: this is why he was
> elected, and the South seceded because of Lincoln's views. And he
> changed his views in 1863.
spino...@my-deja.com... sometimes a name says it all.
"I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing
about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and
black races--that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters
of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having
them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is
a physical difference between the white and black races, which I
suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of
social and political equality [;] and inasmuch as they cannot so live,
that while they do remain together, there must be the position of
superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of
having the superior position assigned to the white man."
--Abraham Lincoln, debate with Stephen F. Douglas, Charleston,
Illinois, 18 September 1858.
> > "A more plausible source of North-South antagonism is suggested in an
> > 1831 speech by South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun where he said,
> > "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is whether ours is a
> > federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one;
> a
> > government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the
> > States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of
> government,
> > as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence and force
> > must ultimately prevail."
[Calhoun rant snip...]
> > "A significant source of Southern discontent was tariffs Congress
> > enacted to protect Northern manufacturing interests. Referring to
> those
> > tariffs, Calhoun said, "The North has adopted a system of revenue and
> > disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation
> has
> > been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds
> > appropriated to the North." Among other Southern grievances were
> > Northern actions similar to King George III's Navigation Acts, which
> > drove our Founders to the 1776 War of Independence.
> >
> The South preferred the basic inefficiency of exhausting its soil by
> planting, year after year, cotton and tobacco. Anything beyond this
> would have demanded free labor. Therefore, boo fucking hoo as regards
> the relative effect of the protectionist tarriffs enacted to help the
> North. The South was free at any time to build her own industries but
> that would have meant, for the good old boys, 16 hour days in the
> office or on the shop floor, with uppity free machinists talking out of
> turn and leaving when they wanted. How much easier it was to exhaust
> the soil with African help, and then to move on to Kansas or points
> south, shoving aside the "dagoes" and sipping mint juleps.
During this same time the cotton gen was invented and the seperation of
the cotton from the seed by machine reduced the need for over 1/2 of the
slaves, and resulting in the loss of labor for the whites (who also
worked the farms for wages). This did give the south the ability to
plant larger fields and transfer the labor to growing from processing.
This increased the amount of cotton produced and opened a bigger market
for the fiber for Europeen countries. Briton and France began exporting
more cotton from the south. As a result, the northern textile mills
found themselve in competition with the European textile mills for the
European market.
The north wanted this cotton for themselves, and the tax was on raw
cotton being exported, (and unconstitutional tax) to drive up the cost
of cotton to France and the English who would look elsewhere for their
fibers, and create a drop in the demand for the souths cotton. Due to
this drop in demand the bottom fell out of the price of cotton whereas
the northern textile mills could purchase their cotton at rock bottom
prices. AS a result the southern farmers were being forced out of
business and the southern economy was clasping. IF the south had quit
producing cotton and opened textile mills there would have been no
fibers to process.
Being us little white boys worked the farms picking cotton along side of
the little black boys, your assertion that the little white boys was
lazy makes your whole argument racist and full of shit. Hell, us little
white boys have been picking cotton for the past 500 years, and 200 of
them has been in this here country along side of the blacks. So stick
your racist BS up your ass.
> > "Though it's not politically correct for our history books to report,
> > black slaves and free blacks were among the men who fought and died
> > heroically for the cause of the Confederacy. Professor Edward Smith,
> > director of American studies at American University, says Stonewall
> > Jackson had 3,000 fully-equipped black troops scattered throughout his
> > corps at Antietam -- the war's bloodiest battle. Smith calculates that
> > between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some
> > capacity. These black Confederate soldiers no more fought to preserve
> > slavery than their successors fought in WWI and WWII to preserve Jim
> > Crow and segregation. They fought because their homeland was attacked
> > and fought in the hope that the future would be better and they'd be
> > rewarded for their patriotism."
>
> These troops were cooks and drovers, a point neatly obscured. And many
> of them were slaves brought to the field by their masters. White
> southern troops would have mutinied had they to fight alongside blacks,
> and the south lost the war because Jeff Davis refused to induct slaves.
I do believe you had better go back and check again... as Jefferson
Davis freed the slaves in the south before Lincoln even enacted the
Proclamation of Emancipation. There was two reasons for this. One being
that with the invention of the gen, slavery was too expensive to
maintain, and the other being that France had already spoke out against
the south for slavery, and the south needed the backing of France. After
Jefferson Davis freed the slaves, and slavery was still active in the
Union, France was starting to enter the war. In fear of this, Lincoln
went against all that he had stated prior to the war and Emancipated the
Slaves which was political in nature only. This can be noted in the fact
that Maryland remained a slave state for over four years after the end
of the war.
The Emancipation was only to trick France into hesitating in entering
the war buying the Union just enough time to cripple the South at
Petersburg and Charleston. Had France entered the war, French ships
would have prevented the landing at Charleston and the growing anti-war
movement in the North would have prevented Lincoln from carrying on the
war for another year.
As for armed black, Jefferson Davis not only had the first black
regiment, but the first integrated armed units in North America. Over
36,000 of these black fought under Andrew Jackson in Shiloh.
> However, this deep nonsense does show the real program of the gun nuts:
> to rebuild de Old South with an armed white Massah once agin securely
> in control.
As for armed black, Jefferson Davis not only had the first black
regiment, but the first integrated armed units in North America. Over
36,000 of these black fought under Andrew Jackson in Shiloh. The
disarming of the blacks in the south took place after the Union took
control of the South after the war. So you have it all backwards, as
disarming the blacks seems to be the objective of the anti-gun nuts, and
we "gun nuts" have been fighting to see that the blacks get to enjoy
their Second Amendment rights along side of us little white boys as it
should be.
However, as I said earlier, "spino...@my-deja.com... sometimes a name
says it all"
--
mag34m_NO...@hotmail.com
>
>You want the perception of slobs of their "rights" to be coherent but
>it is possible that slobs don't have coherent ideas.
I thought you said you were not bigoted.
>
>Of course, if gun ownership for the purpose of Constitution protecting
>is an individual right, as the "standard model" says that it is, then
>everybody has the Constititutional "right" to protect the Constitution.
Not the right; the responsibility. The RKBA enables you to exercise
that responsibility and to protect your other rights.
>
>But this means that what they are protecting is their interpretation
>and people interpret the Constitution in different ways.
Tell me how. The constitution seems pretty specific to me as far as
what rights are granted to the governemnt and how it is formed.
>
>I am identifying a basket of incoherent ideas, held by slobs. The fact
>is that the standard model does mean that the RKBA is a right to
>treason. What this means is that the standard model is a reduction to
>absurdity.
Okay, I've read enough of your overly verbose, condescending,
nonsensical, insulting, sophistic blather. The 2nd Amendment is no
more a right to treason than the 1st is a right to libel. All the 2nd
Amendment does is protect the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear
arms. Find out the definition of a militia, find out the requirements
of a militia then read the US Code clauses regarding the militia.
What does the right to keep and bear arms mean? It enables you to
exercise your natural right to self defense, defense of your property
and defense of your country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It
also keeps the governement relatively honest. After all, "An honest
government has nothing to fear from an armed populace." By having a
susbstantial part of the population armed, any governement would think
twice before becoming tyrannical. The 2nd Amendemnt is not a right to
commit a coup d'etat. It is there 1) as a check on government power
and protection of the legitimate governemnt, 2) as a tacit
acknowledgement of the natural rights to self-defense, defense of
property, and defense of otheres (protected by the 9th amendment), 3)
a means of protecting the country in the form of a militia. The
large peacetime standing army is a fairly recent development in
American history thrust upon the US by world events and the
requirements of national security.
You may be fairly instructed as far as philosophy, but you are bigoted
against and ignorant about gun owners, shooting sports, self-defense,
the militia, and the NRA. Your bigotry shows in your namecalling
("slobs", "gun nuts"), and stereotyping of gun owners, and outright
lies about the NRA. You may want to come down of the rarefied air of
academia on top of your ivory tower into the real world every once in
a while.
1) So called "militia groups" are not the militia nor do most gun
owners cllaim them to be. If they want to drill in the woods wearing
camouflage uniforms, more power to them. It's still a free country.
As long as they don't conspire or act against the legitimate
government (i.e. one that still abides by the Constitution) their
exentricities are none of anybody's business. They surely are not
representative of the millions of gun owners in this country.
2) You accuse the NRA of manipulating the media. Tell me how?
Usually, any ads I see are anti-gun. It's rare for the NRA to be
granted any airtime in a major network except negativley spinned in a
news broadcast. HCI on the other hand has been shown to be outright
liars.
3)The vast majority of gun owners are not slack jawed yokels, maniacs,
bloodthirsty, conspiracy theorists, "slobs", or Walter Mitties. They
constitute a broad range of people accross the whole spectrum of the
population. Indeed, they tend to be more law abiding than average and
in most cases tend to be well educated, responsible individuals.
4)The 2nd amendment's RKBA is an individual right as attested by the
other Amendments in the BoR where "the people" are specifically
mentioned.
5)In this country, The People, are supreme. The governement is the
servant of The People. Or have you forgotten that it is "a government
of the people, by the people, for the people"? Deal with it.
6)The palin fact is that guns are a useful tool in the hands of law
abiding citizens. There are too many people who prey on those they
perceive to be weaker. Guns level the playing field and prevent
crimes. Guns also help put food on the table, are fun to shoot, are
an interesting hobby, many have historical value, and are a great
family activity. If you don't like it that's your problem. When you
try to infringe on my rights, it becomes my problem.
7)My owning whatever guns I want, as long as I don't use them to
commit crimes, and use them responsibly, as intended, in no way
infringe on your rights or are a danger to you.
mag34m_NO...@hotmail.com
<snip>
>>
>Hobbesian "treason" is a NATURAL right but not a LEGAL right that can
>be granted by any sensible constitution. It may actually be right to
>take up arms against the government, but don't kid yourself that this
>is not also taking up arms against the nation. The nation IS the
>government, and vice versa. If you think the current incumbents blow
>then you simply haven't exercised your freedoms of PEACEFUL redress and
>if you talk, sir, about your damn rocket launcher you, sir, are a
>TRAITOR.
You still don't get it do you? An armed uprising is the last resort.
When the government ignores attempts at peaceful redress or answers
them with violence, and continually tramples on the people's rights,
in violation of the Constitution, it ceases to be legitimate. the
members of the governement take an oath to uphold the constitution.
When they break that oath, they break their contract with the people.
the government is not the nation, the people are the nation. The
government is the servant of the people.
>
>This sounds nice (and is literate and spelled correctly, a refreshing
>change) but it is a fantasy. As a matter of fact, the military, today,
>is comprised not of the best citizens but instead by people too poor to
>get civilian jobs.
Your source for this assertion?
The people in today's military are the best educated and brightest in
its history. You are also very ignorant about the military. People
join the military for many reasons. Poverty and the inability to find
a civilian job are very low on the list.
>Military writers report that the military is unable
>to attract precisely the sort of "libertarian" young people who are
>committed to the RKBA in many cases.
The inability to reach recruiting goals last year is due to the
booming economy, and probably in part due to the increased involvement
of US forces in conflicts that aren't perceived as any of our
business, Making civilian jobs look more attractive. That means that
your assertion that people who join the military do so due to an
inability to find civilian jobs falls flat on its face.
>
>
>In Tito's Yugoslavia, gun training and conscription were close to the
>Swiss model. Nonetheless, the people of rump Yugoslavia (Serbia) have
>been unable to dislodge Milosevic. This country also lost each of the
>wars it fought in the 1990s because of the low quality of "citizen
>soldiers" who'd received gun training in high school. What these armed
>citizens were good for was killing innocent women and children.
>
>It may be argued that Yugoslavia was a socialist society but in effect
>rural Yugoslavians owned their pieces and in many irregular units they
>brought those pieces with them, in order to best terrorize women and
>children. It is probably the case that the same scenario would replay
>in the United States: NRA thugs, armed to the teeth, would run away
>from real, professional, soldiers, and console their goddamn manhood by
>slaughtering those who did not choose soon enough to exercise their
>Second Amendment rights.
BULLSHIT! Stop insulting gun owners and lying about NRA members.
Indeed, many members of the military are NRA members, myself included,
and many NRA members are ex-military. The situation in Yugoslavia is
very different from the situation in the States. Yugoslavia was a
country with with a long history of ethnic struggle dating back to the
Ottoman Empire. Indeed, in WW II it was Yugoslavians doing most of
the killing of Yugoslavians. After WW II, the country was held
together by Tito's iron fist and the threat of Soviet invasion. After
Tito's death and the fall of the Soviet Union, all the ethnic tensions
that had been repressed for 50 years flared anew. Indeed, most of the
killing of women and children, in a policy of ethnic cleansing, was
being done by the "professional soldiers". If a governement in the
United States becomes so repressive that popular armed insurrection is
the only choice left, chances are that the vast majority of the armed
forces will throw their lot with their neighbors and families, i.e.
the people. After all, it is assumed that such a government is in
violation of the Constitution they swore to uphold and the military
swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S.against all
enemies foreign and domestic." A scenario as you describe is nothing
but absurd, ignorant balderdash.
David Lentz
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
<anip>
> Suppose for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment makes legal
> either the preparation of a coup d'etat (whether by "the people" or by
> a minority) or the actual execution of a coup d'etat.
>
> In the first case, wherein the FBI, say, discovers Dan Day's stockpile
> of M1A Abrams tanks and nuclear weapons, does the Second Amendment
> require the government to walk away from Dan's garage? It does not and
> judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would allow the FBI to
> arrest Dan.
Suppose for the sake of discussion, the the Federal Bureau of
Investigation does discover Dan's legally purchased Abram Tanks,
and private manufactured nuclear weapons. What is it to the
FBI. The federal constitution gives no power to the federal
government to decide which weapons a private citizen may have in
his private arsenal.
David
antisdolie
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <86pp8t$bmo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > <yawn>
> This pose has to be earned.
You earned a big yawn with each post so far.
> You haven't addressed the fact that the central legend of the gun
> nuts is wrong if only 14% of white male Colonial freedmen possessed
> arms.
Sure I have, at least twice in this thread, you ignored it. For that
quaint little study to have any validity, one would have to assume that
unless property is listed in a will, it was not ever possessed. Tell
me, is your TV and VCR listed in your will?
> You haven't shown how the standard model of the RKBA is a self-
> contradictory right of treason.
I never made the claim. That claim is something gun grabbing monkeys
say to instill a sense of fear and loathing of gun rights activists and
to support the "evil militia" mantra.
> If you do not address these issues, your <yawn> is a mere gape.
Well, if you would spend a little more time addressing, instead of
snipping, the above issues that I already addressed, and a little less
time searching through your "look how smart I sound" thesaurus, you
wouldn't earn the big <yawn>.
Jim
antisdolie
antisdolie
spino...@my-deja.com
mcg...@otter.mbay.net (Donald R. McGregor) wrote:
>
> You're confusing a legal right to rebel (act against the government
> with no fear of legal consequences) with an _ability_ to act against
> the government.
Quite the opposite: I have repeatedly in this thread distinguished
between the natural right of rebellion and some (nonexistent) legally
permitted rebellion of preparation for rebellion.
>
> Rebellions are by definition extra-legal exercises.
My point exactly.
> They may
> or may not be in the right.
Again, correct.
>The 2nd amendment protects
> the ability or potential to act in an extra-legal way, rather
> than immunizing the actors from legal consequences for rebellion.
Bzzt. The law CANNOT protect the ability or potential to "act in an
extra-legal way", otherwise it contains a deontic contradiction
(where "deontic logic" is "the logic of commands.")
A codex that states "do thus and so" and "refrain from doing thus"
CANNOT, without deontic contradiction, also protect the right to "act
in an extra-legal way" when "acting in an extra legal way" means
violating the law.
A smart and unscrupulous attorney could take any deontic contradiction
anywhere in the codex and use this a s adeductive basis for the
disregard of any law, just as a logical or mathematical contradict
implies anything.
That may be the secret program of Second Amendment appeals. The reason
why the Second Amendment appeals to a certain kind of debased
mentality, rapidly reverting to barbarism as a consequence of a deluge
of pop libertarianism, is the hope that by means of the Second
Amendment's "standard interpretation" (which has been shown to imply a
right of treason) the citizen can be granted relief from ay other law.
renega...@my-deja.com
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
<snipped another piece of unsubstantiated, anti-American, liberal,
pansy-ass garbage>
It's sad to realize the vast number of people in the U.S. who have
absolutely no understanding of the Lockian Principles this Nation was
founded on. They consistently wish to tell us that the Second Amendment
does not apply to an individual right, yet none have ever produced a
single piece of credible evidence that supports their view. All of the
relevant evidence concerning the writings and intentions of the Founding
Fathers proves these people are entirely incorrect.
KB
Gun Control: Cowardice with an agenda
spino...@my-deja.com
Note the date: because of the power of the South in national politics
and because of Lincoln's own prejudices, which were universal except
among the abolitionists, Lincoln was both compelled to say the above
and probably believed it.
But the key thing is what Lincoln does not say, and that is that he
supports slavery: for Lincoln did not. The South seceded from the
Union because Lincoln, despite his views on black and white inequality,
opposed, at a mininum, extension of slavery into the western
territories. Until 1863, Lincoln fully supported the maintenance of
slavery in Union border states that allowed slavery and in the
reconquered Southern states. Because of this it is true that remnants
of slavery existed in border states like Maryland until the passage of
the 14th amendment which made slavery unconstitutional. But these
remnants of slavery do NOT imply anything like the complete fantasy of
a nonracist South presented in this post.
>
> During this same time the cotton gen was invented and the seperation
of
> the cotton from the seed by machine reduced the need for over 1/2 of
the
> slaves
This is a lie: the cotton gin (not gen) increased the need for slaves.
>
> I do believe you had better go back and check again... as Jefferson
> Davis freed the slaves in the south before Lincoln even enacted the
> Proclamation of Emancipation.
Big lie. Hitler scale.
There was two reasons for this. One being
> that with the invention of the gen, slavery was too expensive to
> maintain, and the other being that France had already spoke out
against
> the south for slavery, and the south needed the backing of France.
Cloud cuckoo land history. The south did not get the backing of
Napoleon II who was busy in Mexico absent US pressure. You must be one
of those "alternative" or "virtual" history buffs.
> After
> Jefferson Davis freed the slaves, and slavery was still active in the
> Union, France was starting to enter the war.
Perhaps you are confused by pictures of certain Union troops, the New
York Zouaves, who aped the Frogs by wearing red trousers. France was
NOT in any way involved in our civil war. Yankee Navy ships chased
Confederate commerce raiders off Brest and LeHavre and the ONLY French
involvement was that of the Impressionist painter, Claude Monet, who
painted a picture of the scene.
Read your history instead of making up convenient lies. Throughout the
19th century, America was completely safe from any invasion from the
sea because of the British Navy's power, and Whitehall's interest in
the global balance of power. Had the French tried to invade the United
States by sea, the British would have joined the Union side, and owing
to the complete inferiority of the French fleet the French would have
been wiped out.
In fear of this, Lincoln
> went against all that he had stated prior to the war and Emancipated
the
> Slaves which was political in nature only. This can be noted in the
fact
> that Maryland remained a slave state for over four years after the end
> of the war.
Lies.
>
> As for armed black, Jefferson Davis not only had the first black
> regiment, but the first integrated armed units in North America. Over
> 36,000 of these black fought under Andrew Jackson in Shiloh.
>
Lies.
>
> As for armed black, Jefferson Davis not only had the first black
> regiment, but the first integrated armed units in North America. Over
> 36,000 of these black fought under Andrew Jackson in Shiloh. The
> disarming of the blacks in the south took place after the Union took
> control of the South after the war. So you have it all backwards, as
> disarming the blacks seems to be the objective of the anti-gun nuts,
and
> we "gun nuts" have been fighting to see that the blacks get to enjoy
> their Second Amendment rights along side of us little white boys as it
> should be.
Lies. Racist lies, aimed at setting up a Fascist new Confederacy.
Similar to Holocaust denial.
> "Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks,
> coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns
> versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a
> machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the
> chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
> --Josh Sugarmann: "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America"
> (Washington D.C. Education Fund to End Handgun Violence and New
> Right Watch) September 1988, p. 26)
>
> Deception is the name of the gun-grabbers game.
Not as advanced as the bald faced Big Lie. This is probably some
retarded adolescent with a mind corrupted by the virtual reality of
video games who flunked history. Or took history in some school
district too cheap to buy anything but textbooks full of careless
errors...probably in Texas.
>
> =========================================================
Donald R. McGregor
>>The 2nd amendment protects
>> the ability or potential to act in an extra-legal way, rather
>> than immunizing the actors from legal consequences for rebellion.
>
>Bzzt. The law CANNOT protect the ability or potential to "act in an
>extra-legal way", otherwise it contains a deontic contradiction
>(where "deontic logic" is "the logic of commands.")
Why do states have militias? Among other reasons, to act as a
check on the Federal government--a violent body check with a
little bit of high-sticking, if need be. This is not in dispute--
well, you're free to dispute it if you like, but you'll lose;
see Federalist #46, among others. The founders recognized this
institution and provided explicit support for it and its role
in national life. It's an institution explicitly intended to
march on Washington, if need be.
So you have to square the existence of the militia with your
theoretical framework. Why hasn't the FBI arrested the Nevada
militia? They have the _potential_ to storm the Capitol. Yet
they have legal protections against infringement by the government.
The line is crossed, of course, when persons exercise the latent
potential and actually begin to act.
>A codex that states "do thus and so" and "refrain from doing thus"
>CANNOT, without deontic contradiction, also protect the right to "act
>in an extra-legal way" when "acting in an extra legal way" means
>violating the law.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with protecting the _potential_
to act in such-and-such a way. You've slipped from discussing
_potential_ to discussing _acts_.
>That may be the secret program of Second Amendment appeals. The reason
>why the Second Amendment appeals to a certain kind of debased
>mentality, rapidly reverting to barbarism as a consequence of a deluge
>of pop libertarianism, is the hope that by means of the Second
>Amendment's "standard interpretation" (which has been shown to imply a
>right of treason) the citizen can be granted relief from ay other law.
You're pushing hard for KotM, aren't you? It's considered declasse
to campaign for it, you know.
SMS Mike
> If the anti-revisionist scholars are correct, and Washington felt that
> levees en masse of armed citizens were useless, then the Second
> Amendment was primarily passed for the benefit of slaveowners.
<<<<==========================================>>>>
SMS: I have heard a LOT of nonsense in my time, but the (Slave Owner)
theory for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment takes the cake. Such TOTAL
"horse shit" deserves a round of applause!
Slavery wasn't instituted at gun point, and it wasn't maintained that way
either. One does NOT shoot ones slaves if one wants to have any slaves left
to work with. The whip, and total control over every aspect of a slaves
life was ALL that was necessary. Slaves were BREAD into slavery and kept
that way by social norms.. The few that ran away were hunted down with dogs
and horses; NOT GUNS! Dead Slaves do NOT plant or harvest crops. Slave
owners were NOT inclined to shoot their means of production..
Here is the original Second, as written by James Madison.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a
free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
The 2nd Amendment has ALWAYS been about protection of the Country/State by
the PEOPLE. Its roots go back even further than English Common Law and the
English Bill of Rights. Here is an example from a bit of Colonial History
around the year 1631..
"The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1,
ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in
New England-"
"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the
principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all
adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions,
cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied
the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much
attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was
ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might
be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation
of the colony (Massachusetts)."
It's not difficult to see that the Northern Colonies were absolutely
fanatical about the right to keep and bear arms. Initially, the major
fighting in the war for independence was done in the northern colonies.
Arms and Militia Arms was a hot topic well into the early 18 hundreds.
To entertain that southern slavery, or the institution of slavery itself,
played even a small part in the decision to include the 2nd Amendment in
the U. S. Constitution is absolutely ludicrous!
--
_________________________________
SMSgt Mike Eglestone (E-8)
United States Air Force (1966-92)
The NRA interpretation of the 2nd Amendment might be wrong in one respect
only. The Founding Fathers expected each and every Free Man to own a
Military Weapon, and they expected each Free Man to be ready to defend this
nation if called. As such, the 2nd Amendment recognizes a "Responsibility
To Be Armed" as much as a "Right To Be Armed." That, however, is the ONLY
mistake the NRA has made when addressing the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
-SMS Mike
---------
People don't want the facts when making up their minds. They
would rather have one good, soul-satisfying emotion; than a
dozen facts.
-Robert Keith Leavitt
---------------------
Peter H. Proctor
>From: spino...@my-deja.com
>Subject: Re: Lingua Franca article on Second Amendment scholarship
>Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:42:06 GMT
>Read your history instead of making up convenient lies. Throughout the
>19th century, America was completely safe from any invasion from the
>sea because of the British Navy's power, and Whitehall's interest in
>the global balance of power. Had the French tried to invade the United
>States by sea, the British would have joined the Union side, and owing
>to the complete inferiority of the French fleet the French would have
>been wiped out.
The Brit government was largely sympathetic to the Southern cause. Not
least because the South was the Brits largest supplier of cotton and because a
free south would be a good market for British manufactured goods without
Northern-imposed tarriffs. One of the reasons for the emancipation
proclomation was to make abolition of slavery ( at least in the southern
states ) a declared goal of the war. Brtish public opinion might have
supported intervention to help Southern independence, They would not support
it to maintain slavery.
The Russians played a significant role in the US naval startegy.
They had recently fought a war against the brits and French. There were
contiuing frictions. One of these resulted in a "visit" by the main Russian
fleet to New York city, shortly after the start of the war. This released
the US Navy for Blockade work, protected the Ressians in a neutral port and
intimidated the Brits a bit.
Dr P
Curt Howland
mag34m_NO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> You still don't get it do you? An armed uprising is the last resort.
> When the government ignores attempts at peaceful redress or answers
> them with violence, and continually tramples on the people's rights,
> in violation of the Constitution, it ceases to be legitimate. the
> members of the governement take an oath to uphold the constitution.
> When they break that oath, they break their contract with the people.
> the government is not the nation, the people are the nation. The
> government is the servant of the people.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable 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 shown, 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.
--
"Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.
Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there."
---The Warrior Creed, Robert L. Humphrey, USMC
Curt Howland
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>...The Constitution was written
> because its preceding document, the Articles of Confederation, did not
> signal clearly that the citizens did not have the legal right to rebel
> while they had the Hobbesian natural right, and, in a just cause, the
> moral right.
Gee, from what the people who wrote it were saying,
it was more of a "New York is raising trade barriers
to products and labor from Connecticut."
> This resulted in Shay's rebellion by the rural forbears
> of today's NRA: thugs who think that because we got rid of King George
> then they could refuse to pay excise taxes, or bully the weak.
Oh well, you were doing quite well there until the
personal insults, bigotry and slander.
So, you're welcome to rant in silence.
Curt-
Time To Feed The Hogs
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
======= cutting some of the crap ==================
> > So my right to self-protection is VIOLATING you? I'm so sorry.
>
> Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, pal. If the
> gun nuts create a society in which in order to ensure my Fourteenth
> Amendment rights I have to take life, well, they've effectively
revoked
> the Fourteenth amendment (which is the racist program of the right
> wing.)
The fact is it is necessary for someone to kill in order to ensure your
rights. Maybe the police, maybe the military, maybe your next door
neighbor. The fact that you choose to let others do the killing for
you is ok with me.
The anti-gunners are not opposed to people killing people with guns.
They just want to feel all warm and fuzzy about getting to choose who
does the shooting and who gets to die. It's called a socialist police
state.
I, on the other hand, know that my firearms are for killing people, and
insist on the right to keep them for that purpose should the need arise
to defend myself, my family, or my neighbor, from someone else trying
to kill us/them.
Unfortunately it looks like most of the current US populace thinks that
those of use who actually want to take proactive responsibility and
action for such defense to be looney. The world is upside down and
more and more of the inmates are running the asylum.
========== rest of hog feed deleted ===================
-AA
======================
Government is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need
strength in numbers.
It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's
business.
I will gladly face the dangers of liberty. The results of losing it
are much worse.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsel or arms, crouch down and lick the hands that
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. And may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams, Brewer, Statesman, Patriotic American
"Those who are purely self-seeking, who do not think of God or country,
are the raw stuff of every dictatorship. As history shows us, the
method of the dictator is to offer lucrative careers to those who will
cooperate, and poverty or prison for those who do not. And if a man is
purely selfish, he cannot but choose the lucrative career in support of
dictatorship. "
-- J.R. Nyquist
Paul Zrimsek
>What I "get" is the male confusion of the word and the thing. There is
>just an inability, caused by a mass narcissistic personality disorder,
>to see that the Other and his different interpretation may exist,
>whether that Other is an FBI man from Fordham who thinks
>the "Christian" right is unChristian and full of shit, to the racial
>minority.
I don't think the fact that different people have different views has
escaped the notice of anyone here.
Is that your mission-- to teach us slack-jawed, drool-streaked,
infantile, barbaric, lunatic, debased, racist, retarded, adolescent,
narcissistic gun-nut slobs to appreciate the different perspective of
the Other?
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
-------------------------------------------------------------
The point of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to
shut it again on something solid. --G.K. Chesterton
Paul Zrimsek
>Friends, we have a serious contender for this month's
>"Talk.Politics.Guns Kook Of The Month" award. He's already got *my*
>vote.
Second! While this guy rates no better than average in the
Misinformation, Damnfoolishness, and Bad Manners categories, his
unique way with the English language makes him a shoo-in. There's the
ramshackle sentences full of half-understood ten-dollar words (can't
you just picture them trudging down the left-hand side of the KOTM
page?); the lapses into pomobabble; the flogged-to-death pejoratives
("barbaric", "narcissistic"); above all, the author's evident
conviction that he's God's gift to English prose.
Throw in the snarling misanthropy that tries to pass as humanism, and
you've got a Kook for the ages.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------
Every crook will argue, "I like committing crimes.
God likes forgiving them. Really the world is
admirably arranged". --W. H. Auden
Peter H. Proctor
>Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:40:02 -0800
>From: Curt Howland <How...@Priss.com>
>Subject: Re: Lingua Franca article on Second Amendment scholarship
>spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>...The Constitution was written
>> because its preceding document, the Articles of Confederation, did not
>> signal clearly that the citizens did not have the legal right to rebel
>> while they had the Hobbesian natural right, and, in a just cause, the
>> moral right.
>Gee, from what the people who wrote it were saying,
>it was more of a "New York is raising trade barriers
>to products and labor from Connecticut."
It actually started with a conference between Maryland and Virginia at Mt
Vernon on navigation on the Potomac..
Dr P
no one of consequence
]In article <86othq$ouh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, spino...@my-deja.com writes:
]>However, this deep nonsense does show the real program of the gun nuts:
]>to rebuild de Old South with an armed white Massah once agin securely
]>in control.
]
]And there you have it. Spinoza reveals his true prejudices and stereotypical
]thinking about gun-owners as a group, and completely loses any dubious
]credibility he might accidentally garner by making the above argument.
You mean his "neo-barbarianism" slurs weren't a big enough hint? ;-)
--
|Patrick Chester (Now in Elmhurst, Illinois) wol...@io.com |
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
spino...@my-deja.com
renega...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> <snipped another piece of unsubstantiated, anti-American, liberal,
> pansy-ass garbage>
>
> It's sad to realize the vast number of people in the U.S. who have
> absolutely no understanding of the Lockian Principles this Nation was
It's also a cryin' shame that so many autodidacts can't frappin' spell
the name of their favorite philosopher.
> founded on. They consistently wish to tell us that the Second
Amendment
> does not apply to an individual right, yet none have ever produced a
> single piece of credible evidence that supports their view. All of the
> relevant evidence concerning the writings and intentions of the
Founding
> Fathers proves these people are entirely incorrect.
Such as Washington's suppression of Shay's Rebellion?
John Locke's political philosophy does not form a secure foundation for
modern notions of individual rights. That's because Locke restricted
rights to ownership of body and ownership of what private property the
individual was able to wrest from commerce and from the exploitation of
land.
Modern day rights theorists would not apply what is essentially a means
test to the ownership of rights, but that is what Locke did.
As evidenced from their writings, the Founding Fathers were far more
interested in STATE'S, not individual rights, and states' rights
clearly superseded individual rights in the case of slavery. You
therefore can't use them to defend modern notions of rights.
spino...@my-deja.com
renega...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> <snipped another piece of unsubstantiated, anti-American, liberal,
> pansy-ass garbage>
This is great. I post one article about Second Amendment theory,
together with my considered, highly learned, and well-thought-out
arguments. The next thing I know it's Pile On Spinoza, hundreds of
guys inna heap, with Spinoza, still in possession of the ball, at the
bottom. Touchdown!
Oh, and by the way. Spinoza1111 is the nom de plume of none other than
an old favorite in talk.politics.guns, Edward G. Nilges, *monstrum
horrendum* and anti-gun, anti-"freedom" candy ass *extraordinaire*. I
am glad to see that the sons and grandsons of the 1988 posters to tpg
are still at it, blathering on and on about the "Lockian" principles
their nation was founded-upon when it is plain that they don't know a
Locke from a keyhole.
I was especially amused by the poster, can't remember his name, who
presents an entire virtual or alternative history of the Civil War in
which Johnny Reb freed the slaves before Billy Yank.
This Orwellianism got its start in history board games from Avalon Hill
such as Gettysburg in which the military buff could re-fight old
battles. These games, and their massive expansion in the form of
computer games, have really damaged the teaching and learning of
history because for they are reductionistic, making all of history
merely military history, and because they obscure social forces. The
fact is that Granny Lee was not about to win at Gettysburg, because the
Rebs were unclear on the concept of total war in a way that Grant, and
even Meade, was not. Because their society was based on slave labor
and white near-serfdom, the Reb elite was in a real sense leading a
mediaeval host, and when the mediaeval host is confronted with the
modern army, the mediaeval host either runs away or makes a doomed
charge, like on the third day of Gettysburg. Board and computer games
simply obscure this critical, psychological factor and they have
created a generation about whom William Butler Yeats wrote "with hearts
grown brutal, we have fed ourselves on fantasies."
Hundreds of black and white people recently demonstrated in Charleston
SC to get a symbol of treason off the statehouse. Yet our
correspondent would have us believe that black people supported the
Confederacy, in the teeth of the nonvirtual historical record, on tap
at bookstores and libraries all over the nation.
In actuality, along with the usual racist garbage, a number of
interesting points have been made by the posters who have seriously
addressed the extremely interesting Constitutional theory questions
raised by the Second Amendment. For example, we've seen that we're not
a government by the people except in a poetic and extra legal sense and
for this reason we're like any other society: we have no right to
foment treason or to prepare for treason IN LAW, but, as always, one is
welcomed to have a go at it with a heavily armed FBI. Moi, I'd prefer
to gas about Constitutional theory and to use peaceful means of change
to having chaps shooting at me: I played paintball some months ago and
even getting shot with pellets hurts in certain locations.
Ain't I a stinker.
Donald R. McGregor
>As evidenced from their writings, the Founding Fathers were far more
>interested in STATE'S, not individual rights, and states' rights
>clearly superseded individual rights in the case of slavery. You
>therefore can't use them to defend modern notions of rights.
Well, that's certainly news to all those courts that find
First Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, and other
rights from the Bill of Rights.
You're quite a goofball, spin-boy. I think you're head and
neck in front of the KOTM running.
Donald R. McGregor
Man, this is almost spooky. By all appearances spinoza is Ed G. Nilges,
a nutbar from way back, and within less than ten posts he's nominated
for KotM.
Truly, you shall know them by their works.
spino...@my-deja.com
SMS Mike <sms...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> SMS: I have heard a LOT of nonsense in my time, but the (Slave Owner)
> theory for the purpose of the 2nd Amendment takes the cake. Such TOTAL
> "horse shit" deserves a round of applause!
>
> Slavery wasn't instituted at gun point,
News to me. "OK, all you fellows, each of you wants to get a free trip
to the New World, step right up. You'll be a slave but de old Massah
be a fine man."
and it wasn't maintained that way
> either. One does NOT shoot ones slaves if one wants to have any
slaves left
> to work with. The whip, and total control over every aspect of a
slaves
> life was ALL that was necessary. Slaves were BREAD into slavery and
kept
> that way by social norms.. The few that ran away were hunted down
with dogs
> and horses; NOT GUNS! Dead Slaves do NOT plant or harvest crops. Slave
> owners were NOT inclined to shoot their means of production..
>
Glad to see that Massah has Internet access. You seem to be a
throwback to old Southern defenders of slavery who waid that the slaves
had it ever so jolly because they were valuable personal property.
The slaveowners' militia was not primarily aimed at recapturing the
slaves but with preventing a Spartacist uprising.
It is a fantasy, however, that the 17th century Massachusetts mob had
anything to do with securing the liberty of the people from the
government. It is therefore not logical to draw any parallels or any
traditional RKBA as a check on the government.
Armed citizens in Plymouth colony did not defend women accused of
witchery, they instead rounded up the women on the behalf of the
Puritan elite.
The purpose of arming the male citizenry was not as a check on the
government. It was instead in order to prevent Indian attacks in New
England, and slave revolts in Viriginia and point south. In the 1630s,
thousands of colonists lost their lives in King Phillip's war and so it
was expected that each man would be ready to defend, not "the people",
but the colony and the government, against attacks by Indians.
>
> It's not difficult to see that the Northern Colonies were absolutely
> fanatical about the right to keep and bear arms. Initially, the major
> fighting in the war for independence was done in the northern
colonies.
> Arms and Militia Arms was a hot topic well into the early 18 hundreds.
>
Prior to Bunker Hill, the surprisingly few (14% according to one
metric) of colonists that were armed were armed in defence of the
government, NOT as a check on the government as this fantasy would have
it. And, of course, a roughly equal number of Loyalists were armed.
The arms were primarily in defense of whatever government was in
charge.
In The Last of the Mohicans, Deer-stalker refuses to join the Colonial
militia because its purpose is defense of royal authority, and Deer-
stalker sees no reason why he should defend the Elector of Hanover.
Nor did the purpose of the militia in America undergo a magical change
as a result of independence: before and after, its purpose was to
defend the interests of property against uppity Indians, and the
British, classed after the Declaration as one with the Indians as
interlopers.
Since the modern militia is primarily white, and rural, one senses its
real purpose is likewise to keep the uppity in their place. While the
Indians were real, they have been replaced by dose black helicoppers,
piloted by dose feminists.
I suggest that with hearts grown brutal we have fed ourselves with
fantasies.
> To entertain that southern slavery, or the institution of slavery
itself,
> played even a small part in the decision to include the 2nd Amendment
in
> the U. S. Constitution is absolutely ludicrous!
On the contrary, other parts of the Constitution, most notably the
fractional counting of slaves for the purposes of representation in the
lower chamber, had everything to do with the interests of the planter
and slave-holder class. Also, in England in the late 17th century,
abolitionist sentiment was leading to pressure for a British ban on the
slave trade and slave ownership, and many of the colonists were anxious
lest the British force them to stop slave trading.
The research which shows that about only 14% of white colonial freedmen
makes clear that the Constitution and its 2nd amendment was class-
biased. Washington feared the elements who, in the English civil war,
called for true human equality: the Levelers and the Diggers. In
America, the spiritual heirs of the Levelers, such as the Quakers,
preferred to light out for the territories rather than confront the
planter class head on.
Indeed, the bizarre notion that the threat of deadly force can or
should be a part of basic law in a democracy goes completely against
Quaker political theory, and the Quakers were also among the Founders
of this country. Making the 2nd amendment the centerpiece of the
Constitution indirectly states that a Sergeant York whose religion
takes pacifism seriously is not a full freedman because he won't bear
arms, either in rebellion or in service (Alvin York was in modern terms
a "born again" WWI inductee who became a decorated hero.)
NRA slobs yawp about "histery" but what they mean may be a single
reading of histery in which the 14% of armed colonials matter and the
people who came to America to live peacefully are occluded. NRA slobs,
soured as they are by false promises and true miseries, would do well
to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. They'd
learn that their idea of the "people" is oversimplified.
> --
> _________________________________
> SMSgt Mike Eglestone (E-8)
> United States Air Force (1966-92)
>
> The NRA interpretation of the 2nd Amendment might be wrong in one
respect
> only. The Founding Fathers expected each and every Free Man to own a
> Military Weapon, and they expected each Free Man to be ready to
defend this
> nation if called. As such, the 2nd Amendment recognizes
a "Responsibility
> To Be Armed" as much as a "Right To Be Armed." That, however, is the
ONLY
> mistake the NRA has made when addressing the intent of the 2nd
Amendment.
This is the nonsense vision of Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Millions
of people came to America to AVOID being armed, Sarge. Millions of
people came here to avoid Europe's version of Heinlein's Platonic state.
>
> -SMS Mike
> ---------
>
> People don't want the facts when making up their minds. They
> would rather have one good, soul-satisfying emotion; than a
> dozen facts.
>
> -Robert Keith Leavitt
> ---------------------
>
no one of consequence
Paul Zrimsek <pzri...@earthlink.net> wrote:
]On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:41:23 GMT, spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
]
]>What I "get" is the male confusion of the word and the thing. There is
]>just an inability, caused by a mass narcissistic personality disorder,
]>to see that the Other and his different interpretation may exist,
]>whether that Other is an FBI man from Fordham who thinks
]>the "Christian" right is unChristian and full of shit, to the racial
]>minority.
]
]I don't think the fact that different people have different views has
]escaped the notice of anyone here.
]
]Is that your mission-- to teach us slack-jawed, drool-streaked,
]infantile, barbaric, lunatic, debased, racist, retarded, adolescent,
]narcissistic gun-nut slobs to appreciate the different perspective of
]the Other?
You forgot to include his "you just want to resurrect Southern slavery
practices" slurs.
no one of consequence
] renega...@my-deja.com wrote:
]> In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
]> spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
]> >
]> <snipped another piece of unsubstantiated, anti-American, liberal,
]> pansy-ass garbage>
]> It's sad to realize the vast number of people in the U.S. who have
]> absolutely no understanding of the Lockian Principles this Nation was
]
]It's also a cryin' shame that so many autodidacts can't frappin' spell
]the name of their favorite philosopher.
..and spelling flames are not?
Are you becoming weary of paging through your thesaurus, searching for
the most highbrow term to use in your pontifications? Your dialect is
getting slightly more common than usual.
no one of consequence
]In article <86sca1$8qn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
] renega...@my-deja.com wrote:
]> In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
]> spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
]> >
]> <snipped another piece of unsubstantiated, anti-American, liberal,
]> pansy-ass garbage>
]
]together with my considered, highly learned, and well-thought-out
]arguments.
(Or the sophmoric rantings of an imbecile with access to a thesaurus..)
]The next thing I know it's Pile On Spinoza, hundreds of
]guys inna heap, with Spinoza, still in possession of the ball, at the
]bottom. Touchdown!
Um, it may be a surprise to you but this is not email, so you just might
get a lot of responses when you start a thread full of bile cloaked in
psuedo-academic phrases.
]Oh, and by the way. Spinoza1111 is the nom de plume of none other than
Oh, the irony.
]Hundreds of black and white people recently demonstrated in Charleston
]SC to get a symbol of treason off the statehouse. Yet our
]correspondent would have us believe that black people supported the
]Confederacy, in the teeth of the nonvirtual historical record, on tap
]at bookstores and libraries all over the nation.
]
]In actuality, along with the usual racist garbage, a number of
]interesting points have been made by the posters who have seriously
]addressed the extremely interesting Constitutional theory questions
]raised by the Second Amendment. For example, we've seen that we're not
]a government by the people except in a poetic and extra legal sense and
]for this reason we're like any other society: we have no right to
]foment treason or to prepare for treason IN LAW, but, as always, one is
]welcomed to have a go at it with a heavily armed FBI. Moi, I'd prefer
]to gas about Constitutional theory and to use peaceful means of change
]to having chaps shooting at me: I played paintball some months ago and
]even getting shot with pellets hurts in certain locations.
]
]Ain't I a stinker.
An overly verbose troll, at best.
Joe Rickershauser
spino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <86qrqo$72m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>You haven't addressed the fact that the
>central legend of the gun nuts is wrong if only 14% of white male
>Colonial freedmen possessed arms.
Are you asserting that the RKBA is not an individual right because you
allege that only 14% of white men owned guns at the time of the ratification
of the BoR?
Wouldn't a position like that imply that there is no individual freedom of
the press because also at the time of the ratification of the BoR fewer than
1% of the people owned printing presses?
--jcr
Joe Rickershauser
spino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <86r9pf$got$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Judges up to 1939 were arguably more literate than today's judges
>(Clarence Thomas, justice of the Supreme Court, claims proudly to read
>only sports and professional digests in the course of adjudication), we
>should probably give their reading of the Second strong credence, and
>up until 1939 it was read as authorizing a militia.
This is just not true. The only two cases before 1939 said that the right
to keep and bear arms was an individual right, just not one that could be
pressed in federal courts against state law.
In dicta in Dred Scot, they also affirmed an individual right by using 2nd
to "prove" that African-Americans couldn't be citizens.
It's only been since 1939 that appellate courts have misinterpreted Miller
(the '39 case) to say that the 2nd is about a collective right.
And, BTW, the 2nd was never needed for "authorizing a militia". The
original Constitution already authorized the militia.
--jcr
renega...@my-deja.com
spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <86sca1$8qn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> renega...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <86mc5f$sp8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > spino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > <snipped another piece of unsubstantiated, anti-American, liberal,
> > pansy-ass garbage>
> >
> > absolutely no understanding of the Lockian Principles this Nation
was
>
> It's also a cryin' shame that so many autodidacts can't frappin' spell
> the name of their favorite philosopher.
I used "Lockian" as an adjective, and that is precisely the correct
spelling, you ignorant bastard. Anything else?
>
> > founded on. They consistently wish to tell us that the Second
> Amendment
> > does not apply to an individual right, yet none have ever produced a
> > single piece of credible evidence that supports their view. All of
the
> > relevant evidence concerning the writings and intentions of the
> Founding
> > Fathers proves these people are entirely incorrect.
>
> Such as Washington's suppression of Shay's Rebellion?
And such as Jefferson's response.
>
> John Locke's political philosophy does not form a secure foundation
for
> modern notions of individual rights.
You are a friggin' idiot.
That's because Locke restricted
> rights to ownership of body and ownership of what private property the
> individual was able to wrest from commerce and from the exploitation
of
> land.
Locke restricted rights only where they interfered with the life,
liberty, or prpoerty rights of another person. You are extremely
confused.
>
> Modern day rights theorists would not apply what is essentially a
means
> test to the ownership of rights, but that is what Locke did.
>
> As evidenced from their writings, the Founding Fathers were far more
> interested in STATE'S, not individual rights, and states' rights
> clearly superseded individual rights in the case of slavery. You
> therefore can't use them to defend modern notions of rights.
Show one piece of credible evidence for this assertion.
KB
Gun Control: Cowardice with an agenda
>
Paul Zrimsek
consequence) wrote:
>]Is that your mission-- to teach us slack-jawed, drool-streaked,
>]infantile, barbaric, lunatic, debased, racist, retarded, adolescent,
>]narcissistic gun-nut slobs to appreciate the different perspective of
>]the Other?
>
>You forgot to include his "you just want to resurrect Southern slavery
>practices" slurs.
I figured "racist" covered that. To reproduce in full every one of
Spinoza's libels would have resulted in a sentence so bloated and
ill-formed that Spinoza could have written it himself.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
-------------------------------------------------------------
Possible definition of a liberal: Someone who believes the
proliferation of guns is a menace to society, and that murder
rates are dropping because of gun-control laws.
Donald R. McGregor
no one of consequence <wol...@fnord.io.com> wrote:
>You forgot to include his "you just want to resurrect Southern slavery
>practices" slurs.
Well, by all appearances spinozaInt is Ed Nilges, a poster from
waaaay back in tpg. He was sort of an interesting case. He was
reasonably well read, and could rub together two neurons, but
had this weird self-loathing and America-loathing bent that would
send him completely off the deep end. His paragraphs would take
these sudden U-turns into surreal leaps of logic.
RUSSELL J. HARDEN
slaves?
If the armed forces of today are so full of white rural poorly educated men,
why don't you and the rest of your multicultural elitists join the military
and change it?
I for one, would love to see the military draft come back, only with no
exemptions for you liberal, elistists that are going to the universities in
order to make yourselves rich, wealthy, and powerful enough to be able to
tell us poor uneducated gunowners how to live.
RUSS HARDEN
Paul Zrimsek
McGregor) wrote:
>Well, by all appearances spinozaInt is Ed Nilges, a poster from
>waaaay back in tpg. He was sort of an interesting case. He was
>reasonably well read, and could rub together two neurons, but
>had this weird self-loathing and America-loathing bent that would
>send him completely off the deep end. His paragraphs would take
>these sudden U-turns into surreal leaps of logic.
Not quite as weird as you may think! If you track the remnant of the
old fellow-traveling hard Left to their Alpine Redoubt in the
sociology and English departments of American universities, you'll
hear a lot of the same sort of stuff. While I don't know how many of
those people believe, for example, that the Army of Northern Virginia
always ran away or made doomed charges, there are plenty of other
ideas just as odd floating around in the academy.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
There could hardly be a more unbearable-- and more irrational--
world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each
field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realization
of their ideals. -- Friedrich Hayek
mag34m.NO...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I guess that's one piece of parchment that spinoza hasn't read or
taken the time to understand. Nor does he realize that most of the
principles and reasons for the system in our Constitution are derived
fron the Declaraion of Independence.
---
"... the right of the people to keep and arm bears,
shall not be infringed."
0-
mag34m.NO...@hotmail.com
Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power...
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years:
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service
of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...
spino...@my-deja.com
pzri...@earthlink.net (Paul Zrimsek) wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:03:40 GMT, mcg...@otter.mbay.net (Donald R.
> McGregor) wrote:
>
> >Well, by all appearances spinozaInt is Ed Nilges, a poster from
> >waaaay back in tpg. He was sort of an interesting case. He was
> >reasonably well read, and could rub together two neurons, but
> >had this weird self-loathing and America-loathing bent that would
> >send him completely off the deep end. His paragraphs would take
> >these sudden U-turns into surreal leaps of logic.
>
> Not quite as weird as you may think! If you track the remnant of the
> old fellow-traveling hard Left to their Alpine Redoubt in the
> sociology and English departments of American universities, you'll
> hear a lot of the same sort of stuff. While I don't know how many of
> those people believe, for example, that the Army of Northern Virginia
> always ran away or made doomed charges, there are plenty of other
> ideas just as odd floating around in the academy.
That's hilarious! We've got one guy in this thread, a hairy-chested,
non-academic, representative of good old Americanism and the Glorious
Cause, who has told us that "little white boys" worked alongside their
slaves in de hot hot sun and that old Jeff Davis freed de slaves. De
pot be calling de kettle black.
The anti-intellectual rhetoric here is to take ANY positive claim made
by a representative of the opposing group, and to exagerrate it. As a
matter of fact, the south did fight a war of maneuovre because of its
numerical and logistic inferiority. It had ten times the guts, the
cran, the elan vital of the Union but as a matter of grand strategy,
the Southern politicians knew that they did not have to invade the
North and conquer the Yanks, only keep the Yanks at bay until either
the North got tired of the war or an exogenous factor like Britain (not
France, for Pete's sake) tipped the scales.
That is why Southern incursions into the North, including the
Gettysburg expedition, have the character of raids and none of them
have the scale, for example, of Grants' campaign in Virginia at the end
of the war, a campaign that according to British military historian
John Keegan prefigured WWI.
I never said the Rebs ran away. No, the Yanks did that, notably at
Bull Run. To fight a war of maneuovre is not cowardice: Frederick the
Great had done so with great success against superior odds, and the
Southern generals had studied his campaigns at West Point. But on the
tactical level, their charges were doomed against the mass fire of
troops less motivated and courageous than they.
>
> Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> There could hardly be a more unbearable-- and more irrational--
> world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each
> field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realization
> of their ideals. -- Friedrich Hayek
Hayek is here both wrong and dishonest. He is wrong because if the
specialists are interfered with by managers who make a point of being
ignorant of technology and policy, the results are usually a mess:
Vietnam was one example. In the case of Vietnam, the top men did not
have the balls to choose EITHER the striped-pants diplomats OR the
military to EITHER sit down in Geneva OR invade the North, keeping both
sets of specialists on the short leash that Hayek recommends.
Hayek fails to see how real political and technical problems come in
levels, a failure that the computer scientist and philosopher Edsger
Dijkstra noted as well. His "checking" of the "realization of their
ideals" can thus happen unannounced at any level, and his idea can be
and is used by inferior men at top positions to AVOID making
inconvenient choices. Inferior men in top positions may of course be
advised to so do in a debased society: if Oliver Stone is correct, JFK
tried to make a clear choice, the diplomatic track, in Vietnam and got
shot. But confusion of levels always produces a mess.
Hayek is dishonest because his own policies were implemented in the
Reagan "revolution" by ideologically pure specialists, and the country
has yet to recover, despite eight years of Clinton's relatively
competent management.
Hayek is calling, like Henry Ford, for the elimination of high-level
specialists who are independent of the political and business elite.
Like Henry Ford, he does so not out of a committment to the common
person but because the specialist's independence thwarts the goals of
the top dogs, or in extreme cases, the top dog.
Hayek's dishonest anti-specialism was used under that rat bastard
Reagan to force through a quiet variant of the 1966 Chinese Cultural
Revolution. This was an attack on midlevel intellectuals in the name
of the "common man" which in actuality deprived the "common man" of a
buffer zone between his life and the depredations of the men at the top.
Thus, commencing in the 1980s, midlevel managers, technologists, and
university faculty were accused of "having an agenda" and force-
marched, at times with a bizarre array of New Age "sensitivity
training" techniques, into a New Era in which their skills could be
named, almost frivolously, as "nonproductive", using enlightenment-
derived discourse about productivity and about quality as reified
neobarabaric clubs.
The middle manager might point, at different times, to a long workday
or number of memos produced, but at any time and for any reason, this
very activity could receive the dreaded name "unproductive." The
middle manager could try to ape the people above him: this was at times
extremely dangerous. One such IBM middle manager had shipped silicon
chips to Mexico for finishing, trying to ape the racism of American
CEOs who seek cheap brown men to do their work: he was publically
humiliated by Lou Gerstner's henchman Jerome York for "wastefulness."
University faculty who publish much to show their productivity are
criticised for so doing when they work at institutions known charmingly
among the academic elite as "troubled": I have tried to research what
the phrase "troubled university" might mean, with its strange image of
a campus standing on a street corner with the guys, smoking cigarettes:
as far as I can tell, it means a university whose students are working
class, and that attempts to teach them other than corporate-approved
ideology. The head of the philosophy department I was in many years
ago, recently retired from a "troubled" university, told me that his
stellar record of publishing several books was used against him: he was
told that "here, we don't pretend to be Yale." Again, in the Reagan-
Hayek cultural revolution, the bottom line is simply that you don't
gets to define your "productivity": we do, and productivity shall, in a
manner completely unspoken (for dis is America) include ideological
purity that (unlike Political Correctness) shall dare not speak its
name.
In my own business of software development, it has become extremely
dangerous to write elegant, documented, or in some cases even correct
code. It has become politically correct to so reify management's
fiduciary goals and such received wisdom that left to their own devices
the "experts" will be self-serving (as Hayek sems to believe) that the
very appearance of expertise, in this cultural revolution, has become
hazardous, at one and the same time that it is clear to management that
the very incompetent creatures that their Hayekian management ideology
are bumbling fools who cannot do the job.
This is what has happened in the past twenty years: a Cultural
Revolution. And a mass failure, caused by the physical softening of
the populace, to be able to acknowledge that one has been victimized by
a cultural revolution causes people to, at one level, parrot Hayekian
ideologies convenient, not at all to them, but instead to CEOs, and to
take out real anger on targets perceived to be safe, such as your
correspondent.
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>Possible definition of a liberal: Someone who gets upset when
>someone flies a Confederate flag, yet laughs at you for
>getting upset when someone burns an American one.
>>>>
A "liberal's" motto: "Intolerance will not be tolerated!"
-----------------------------------------------------------