PDA

View Full Version : News Flash, Gun Nuts: There is No "Right to Rebel"



IMPress Polly
02-02-2013, 08:41 AM
(I thought this would be the most appropriate place for this thread. It's a guess.)

I'm getting tired of hearing this theory that the NRA has been advancing forever that the Second Amendment constitutes a right to rebel. As someone in the history field who knows something about the era in which the Second Amendment was written, I can guarantee you otherwise. Here is how the Second Amendment reads:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The NRA only reads that last part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They tend to conveniently forget the qualifier inserted before that explaining WHY people were to have such a right. You see, in the olden days of the republic, we had no standing army or state national guards. Therefore, the ability of the new government to call up state militias was viewed as very important in this context. What were the functions of such a militia? Well, they were used to put down slave revolts and rebellions of the poor (who formed the overwhelming majority of society at the time). Inspiring stuff, huh? Aside from these illegitimate, repressive purposes though, they were also viewed as important to securing the new nation from a second British invasion, which wasn't at all an unplausible prospect at the time. National self-defense. Well we've now had a standing army for two centuries; since the War of 1812. The Second Amendment by any standard has thus today outlived its stated purpose by some 200 years. There is no reason to have it anymore.

As you can see from the text and this analysis, far from constituting a right to overthrow the federal government, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment was the exact opposite: to provide for its defense against the masses! It was intended to shore up the government rather than to provide a means of rebellion against tyranny! But if you don't want to take my word for it, take the U.S. Supreme Court's because they've ruled on this subject of whether there exists a constitutional right to rebel. In the early 1870s, shortly after the American Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court, controlled at the time by the Republican Party no less, ruled that there is no right to rebel in the U.S. Constitution. You have no legal right to overthrow the government, period.

I'm just pointing all this out to highlight how absurd the NRA's claims are that the Second Amendment is a constitutionally-enshrined right to rebel. It's not. And it has no purpose in today's America.

Chris
02-02-2013, 08:47 AM
Sorry, polly, but there is a natural moral right and it is stated in the Declaration, the moral foundation, rather than the legal one, of this nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Do you need a reference link?



As for the 2nd amendment syntax, look up nominative absolute.

http://i.snag.gy/Ugl2x.jpg

Did you miss the 25 times this has been discussed in detail on this forum?

Captain Obvious
02-02-2013, 08:49 AM
And in China, you do not have unrestricted access to information like the internet.

Oppressive governmental regimes fear educated and armed citizens.

IMPress Polly
02-02-2013, 08:50 AM
The Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document. The U.S. Constitution is.

Chris
02-02-2013, 08:54 AM
The Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document. The U.S. Constitution is.

It is the moral foundation of this nation. The Constitution depends on it.

Peter1469
02-02-2013, 08:55 AM
I don't think that anyone claims that the 2nd Amendment gives the "right to rebel."

But, Polly, you are right that the young US relied on the militia to defend it. The militia was "the whole people," defined by the States as all abled-bodied males between the ages of 15 and 45 (the ages varied between States).

Nothing has changed under US law- except now we have a standing army and national guard. Those various laws did not outlaw the militia (and of course legislation can't trump the Constitution.)

The Second Amendment is not about rebellion- it is about preserving the Constitution against a government that has abandoned the Constitution. If citizens mobilize to force the government back into the Constitutional fold, it is not the citizens who have rebelled. It is the government that has acted beyond its authority.

Peter1469
02-02-2013, 08:56 AM
The Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document. The U.S. Constitution is.

True. And citizens are the final check against a federal government that ignores the Constitution.

Chris
02-02-2013, 09:03 AM
Rights precede Constitution which was created to defend those right. And the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it is one of those rights. The people certain have the right to abolish what they had a right to create.

Captain Obvious
02-02-2013, 09:08 AM
This is an interesting subject.

What do oppressive regimes do first, like what many fascist countries did during times of military aggression? They take guns away from citizens, they restrict access to information and they engaged in campaigns to kill the occupied countries sophisticated citizens.

Chris
02-02-2013, 09:20 AM
This is an interesting subject.

What do oppressive regimes do first, like what many fascist countries did during times of military aggression? They take guns away from citizens, they restrict access to information and they engaged in campaigns to kill the occupied countries sophisticated citizens.

Exactly. Except in democracies it's done one incremental step at a time.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
~James Madison

zelmo1234
02-02-2013, 09:24 AM
Poly

As someone that know a thing or two about history, you would have thought that you would have taken the time to look at what the actual people that wrote the amendment said about it?

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

Then you would also understand that they took great care in writing the document, and in every other case, the words the people" refer to private citizens. So with these quotes and the words " the people" it is highly unlikey that this was an oversite. being that it is the second, and not the last amendment!

And even today our inlisted military has taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution, even from it own government

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

even making the constitutional defense statement twice before moving on to obeying orders


You will also note that many of the Quotes talk about defense against a standing army and other amendments seek to protect citizens from our own countries armies, not those of invadrers? Again this would lead even the most illogical of people to see that the words "the people" would mean private citizens.

If I were you, I would write you collage and demand some money back as they seem to ahve mislead you to promote an agenda, taht can not be backed up by facts

Chris
02-02-2013, 09:26 AM
I'm just pointing all this out to highlight how absurd the NRA's claims are that the Second Amendment is a constitutionally-enshrined right to rebel. It's not. And it has no purpose in today's America.

Polly, how about a link to the NRA saying this? I just spent time searching for it and find nothing of the sort. Is this just a straw man on your part?

zelmo1234
02-02-2013, 09:32 AM
Polly, how about a link to the NRA saying this? I just spent time searching for it and find nothing of the sort. Is this just a straw man on your part?

Now Chris she is a student of history, which she got intirely wrong, but do you really think she would make something else up too?

I think that you are insinuationg that she might just be telling a fib?

Chris
02-02-2013, 09:38 AM
Now Chris she is a student of history, which she got intirely wrong, but do you really think she would make something else up too?

I think that you are insinuationg that she might just be telling a fib?

I suspect she hears it from her so-called socialist friends but doesn't verify.

I could be wring, that's why I asked for links. Who knows, like with her racist whitey thread, there may be some freakish outliers saying it.

Agravan
02-02-2013, 09:39 AM
(I thought this would be the most appropriate place for this thread. It's a guess.)

I'm getting tired of hearing this theory that the NRA has been advancing forever that the Second Amendment constitutes a right to rebel. As someone in the history field who knows something about the era in which the Second Amendment was written, I can guarantee you otherwise. Here is how the Second Amendment reads:



The NRA only reads that last part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They tend to conveniently forget the qualifier inserted before that explaining WHY people were to have such a right. You see, in the olden days of the republic, we had no standing army or state national guards. Therefore, the ability of the new government to call up state militias was viewed as very important in this context. What were the functions of such a militia? Well, they were used to put down slave revolts and rebellions of the poor (who formed the overwhelming majority of society at the time). Inspiring stuff, huh? Aside from these illegitimate, repressive purposes though, they were also viewed as important to securing the new nation from a second British invasion, which wasn't at all an unplausible prospect at the time. National self-defense. Well we've now had a standing army for two centuries; since the War of 1812. The Second Amendment by any standard has thus today outlived its stated purpose by some 200 years. There is no reason to have it anymore.

As you can see from the text and this analysis, far from constituting a right to overthrow the federal government, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment was the exact opposite: to provide for its defense against the masses! It was intended to shore up the government rather than to provide a means of rebellion against tyranny! But if you don't want to take my word for it, take the U.S. Supreme Court's because they've ruled on this subject of whether there exists a constitutional right to rebel. In the early 1870s, shortly after the American Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court, controlled at the time by the Republican Party no less, ruled that there is no right to rebel in the U.S. Constitution. You have no legal right to overthrow the government, period.

I'm just pointing all this out to highlight how absurd the NRA's claims are that the Second Amendment is a constitutionally-enshrined right to rebel. It's not. And it has no purpose in today's America.
OK, so then where, in the Constitution, does it declare that you have a "right" to have an abortion anytime you want??

Disco Stu
02-02-2013, 10:44 AM
And in China, you do not have unrestricted access to information like the internet.

Oppressive governmental regimes fear educated and armed citizens.

All due respect if the government wanted to kill us off they have the means to squash us like bugs

Chris
02-02-2013, 10:46 AM
All due respect if the government wanted to kill us off they have the means to squash us like bugs

Then where would they get their revenue? :dontknow:

Disco Stu
02-02-2013, 10:54 AM
Then where would they get their revenue? :dontknow:

Good question but I'M just saying they have the means

This notion of a militia in the modern day is a fairy tale

Sure back in the founding days up until World War One standard weaponry was basically a rifle and bayonet so feasibly it was a realistic match for citizenry to take up against the standing armies of that time

But today do you really think a bunch of people with bushmasters is going to take on heavy artillery M-60 belt fed machine guns and the airforce it's just outright silly

Captain Obvious
02-02-2013, 11:00 AM
This notion of a militia in the modern day is a fairy tale

Tell that to the Syrians.

Agravan
02-02-2013, 11:07 AM
Tell that to the Syrians.
And Al-Quaida, and the Afghani and Iraqi insurgets, and the Viet Cong.

Disco Stu
02-02-2013, 11:08 AM
Tell that to the Syrians.

That might be but in America the majority is fat lazy and uneducated things are too good and I think a majority would support the government so long as the status quo remains

In other religious of world people are already starving and disease ridden basically they*ain't gt nothing to lose anyhow heck they'll throw bricks and Molotov cocktails if they ain't got a gun

Chris
02-02-2013, 11:13 AM
See Brafman & Beckstrom's The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. Blurb from amazon.com: "If you cut off a spider's head, it dies; if you cut off a starfish?s leg it grows a new one, and that leg can grow into an entirely new starfish. Traditional top-down organizations are like spiders, but now starfish organizations are changing the face of business and the world."

The tea parties, even OWS, are starfish.

IMPress Polly
02-02-2013, 11:35 AM
Chris wrote:
It is the moral foundation of this nation. The Constitution depends on it.

It's a statement of general principles that the constitution exists to clarify under the conditions of the completed revolution. You see, attempting to overthrow a democratic local government is quite a bit different from ousting a foreign occupying force. Moreover, I could argue through certain real-world examples (e.g. the movement Gandhi led in India) that you don't even necessarily need arms for purposes of ousting a foreign occupying force at that.

Chris
02-02-2013, 11:41 AM
It's a statement of general principles that the constitution exists to clarify under the conditions of the completed revolution. You see, attempting to overthrow a democratic local government is quite a bit different from ousting a foreign occupying force. Moreover, I could argue through certain real-world examples (e.g. the movement Gandhi led in India) that you don't even necessarily need arms for purposes of ousting a foreign occupying force at that.

The Constitution doesn't clarify those declared foundational moral principles, it instantiates them in legal terms.

No one's arguing the rest of your response.

Where's the link to the NRA making the statement you put in their mouth?

Peter1469
02-02-2013, 11:43 AM
That might be but in America the majority is fat lazy and uneducated things are too good and I think a majority would support the government so long as the status quo remains

In other religious of world people are already starving and disease ridden basically they*ain't gt nothing to lose anyhow heck they'll throw bricks and Molotov cocktails if they ain't got a gun

A revolution doesn't have to be a set piece conventional war. What if the militia lived their normal lives during the day, and then set booby traps for the government at night?

What if 40% of the people just stopped paying taxes?

Deadwood
02-02-2013, 11:47 AM
Well we've now had a standing army for two centuries; since the War of 1812. The Second Amendment by any standard has thus today outlived its stated purpose by some 200 years. There is no reason to have it anymore.

Sigh, do you ever do any reading? Research the historical records? The readings of guys like Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams, Jefferson is a little wordy, but they wrote shit down for us to read; first hand accounts of the war, why they had to do it, and what the British were doing to them.

And if you even START any of Franklin's books, one even some of his tracts, you will see that the above post is so absurdly and astonishingly stupid as to make anyone with a high school diploma fear for our very future.

These men had feared the state. They and their neighbors had been arrested and shot without reason; when the British Marines came a trooping their officers had a "right" to your bed, with your wife and daughters in it. They systematically confiscated weapons denying the colonials the ability to hunt and therefore have to pay tax on food to the German King George III. They could no more conceive of a state needing "protection" than they could an atomic bomb.

The bill of rights did not spring up out of some cosmic or spiritually gifted idea, they were written by Thomas Jefferson to accomplish what he and his side of the founding fathers saw was the greatest problem: Too much power to the government, none to the people.

Name one government in the world today needs protection from its people. I can't recall a time ever when humanitarian military support in a civil war was provided to a government.

No, ma'am. Franklin, Hancock, Atkinson, Adams, Washington, Adams, Burr and company would be horrified at that comment of yours....


In most civilized countries, fear of getting voted out is usually enough. You guys have Obama, I suggest you need MORE guns

Captain Obvious
02-02-2013, 11:50 AM
That might be but in America the majority is fat lazy and uneducated things are too good and I think a majority would support the government so long as the status quo remains

In other religious of world people are already starving and disease ridden basically they*ain't gt nothing to lose anyhow heck they'll throw bricks and Molotov cocktails if they ain't got a gun

Fair point.

Deadwood
02-02-2013, 12:03 PM
It's a statement of general principles that the constitution exists to clarify under the conditions of the completed revolution. You see, attempting to overthrow a democratic local government is quite a bit different from ousting a foreign occupying force. Moreover, I could argue through certain real-world examples (e.g. the movement Gandhi led in India) that you don't even necessarily need arms for purposes of ousting a foreign occupying force at that.


Yes, Ghandi's accomplishments were great. But, what you don't know, more people died there than is the US Revolution.

Idealism is like heroin, it gives you a real good feeling all over, but you get hooked and then can't ever see reality again.

FFS, your president is allowing the torture if US citizens in GITMO.

Grow up

roadmaster
02-02-2013, 12:50 PM
Another news flash, we have had a civil war before but this time the south is well armed.

Bigred1cav
02-02-2013, 01:01 PM
We have no rights except those assured by the BOR.

Any person thinking the 2nd is a right to oppose the government or thinks our government is evil or the enemy. Is too fucking crazy to possess a firearm.

Bigred1cav
02-02-2013, 01:03 PM
what an idiot response. Well armed with what? You think you fucking hillbillies won't shit all over yourselves puke and run to hide when mortars and tank rounds start pounding your ignorant hillbilly asses?

roadmaster
02-02-2013, 01:10 PM
what an idiot response. Well armed with what? You think you fucking hillbillies won't shit all over yourselves puke and run to hide when mortars and tank rounds start pounding your ignorant hillbilly asses?

Nah it's only the north and that let gangs run their streets and hide in their houses.

Chris
02-02-2013, 02:19 PM
We have no rights except those assured by the BOR.

Any person thinking the 2nd is a right to oppose the government or thinks our government is evil or the enemy. Is too fucking crazy to possess a firearm.

The very document you cite in support of your argument contradicts your argument: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

No one has argued the 2nd as a right to oppose the government, the OP was a troll.

Chris
02-02-2013, 02:22 PM
what an idiot response. Well armed with what? You think you fucking hillbillies won't shit all over yourselves puke and run to hide when mortars and tank rounds start pounding your ignorant hillbilly asses?

Bigred1cav, this is a warning to stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks under Other Discussions. See the forum rules here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/6236-The-Political-Forums-Revised-Rules-and-Regulations

Disco Stu
02-02-2013, 07:42 PM
Nah it's only the north and that let gangs run their streets and hide in their houses.

Hate to point out reality but the south has some very violent cities Memphis Little Rock and Birmingham come to mind even Nashville has some rotten
ht ghetto parts

Jacksonville Florida rather than a centralized ghetto has ghetto pockets spread across Dual county it's like you can be in a good area drive a few miles the next few subdivisions are ghetto then back to normal drive some more back to ghetto

Peter1469
02-02-2013, 08:00 PM
Yes, Ghandi's accomplishments were great. But, what you don't know, more people died there than is the US Revolution.

Idealism is like heroin, it gives you a real good feeling all over, but you get hooked and then can't ever see reality again.

FFS, your president is allowing the torture if US citizens in GITMO.

Grow up

India had more people to die for freedom.

Guerilla
02-02-2013, 08:12 PM
You don't need permission from the constitution to rebel.

roadmaster
02-02-2013, 08:17 PM
Hate to point out reality but the south has some very violent cities Memphis Little Rock and Birmingham come to mind even Nashville has some rotten
ht ghetto parts

Jacksonville Florida rather than a centralized ghetto has ghetto pockets spread across Dual county it's like you can be in a good area drive a few miles the next few subdivisions are ghetto then back to normal drive some more back to ghetto

I am sure they do but not too much in country towns. People come up missing.

Mister D
02-02-2013, 08:21 PM
Southern cities are as bad as northern cities. The only region of the country where urban life is significantly safer and more congenial is the northwest. Manhattan can be fun depending on your personality but the rest of NYC is scary. Parts of Queens and Brooklyn are OK but overall it's just not a place I would feel safe.

Disco Stu
02-03-2013, 05:20 AM
Southern cities are as bad as northern cities. The only region of the country where urban life is significantly safer and more congenial is the northwest. Manhattan can be fun depending on your personality but the rest of NYC is scary. Parts of Queens and Brooklyn are OK but overall it's just not a place I would feel safe.

Well I'm stuck where I am but if I had real money I would get a nice cabin in the woods like rural New England somewhere hopefully near a stream or where I could drill a well no electric but maybe a battery operated shortwave radio to keep up and use my time to become self sufficient

Instead of a regular job my work would be to chop firewood raise chickens and rabbits for protein tend a garden and hunt and preserve my food and learn and train myself in old pioneer techniques that basically have been lost

I would also buy one of those pods units or a small trailer that I could stock with extra supplies then when things get really bad in this country.
II will have all I need and be able to live comfortably despite

I would also build a wood-fired hot tub and sauna for relaxation I would spend my spare time reading meditating observing the wildlife and just relating enjoying the peace and quiet and tranquility such a setting would bring

I imagine it might get lonely but probably very few people desire to live in such a fashion so finding a companion would probably be a tough sell

Trinnity
02-03-2013, 05:34 AM
It's mentally idyllic, but a hard life. Better if the govt would minds it's own business and leave us alone.

Trinnity
02-03-2013, 05:35 AM
@polly kong. "Gun nuts" in title means I didn't even read the OP. Sorry.

Disco Stu
02-03-2013, 06:00 AM
@polly kong. "Gun nuts" in title means I didn't even read the OP. Sorry.

I don't let political difference discourage me from reading new threads

I always open new threads never know what you might miss out on

zelmo1234
02-03-2013, 06:50 AM
Stu if thing start to get that bad look me up, already have a lot in place.

Let's just hope it does not go that far

Disco Stu
02-03-2013, 07:21 AM
Stu if thing start to get that bad look me up, already have a lot in place.

Let's just hope it does not go that far


I'll keep that in mind

The most difficult part would be finding and buying the land despite the crash real estate still cost lots of money

Montana or Idaho would be nice but all the California people caused even rural land to spike massively

The cheapest spots I've found are new england particularly Upstate New York and Rural Maine

After the deed to land everything else kinda falls into place

Agravan
02-03-2013, 09:15 AM
I'll keep that in mind

The most difficult part would be finding and buying the land despite the crash real estate still cost lots of money

Montana or Idaho would be nice but all the California people caused even rural land to spike massively

The cheapest spots I've found are new england particularly Upstate New York and Rural Maine

After the deed to land everything else kinda falls into place

There's a lot of cheap land here in the Republic of Texas. Come on down.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 09:27 AM
rights precede constitution which was created to defend those right. And the right of the people to alter or to abolish it is one of those rights. the people certain have the right to abolish what they had a right to create.

thank you!!!

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 09:29 AM
All due respect if the government wanted to kill us off they have the means to squash us like bugs

Sure. They can't even subdue Afghanistan, but they'd be able to crush us?!?

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 09:31 AM
what an idiot response. Well armed with what? You think you fucking hillbillies won't shit all over yourselves puke and run to hide when mortars and tank rounds start pounding your ignorant hillbilly asses?

Who's going to drive the tank? Fire the mortars? You?!?

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 09:35 AM
Well I'm stuck where I am but if I had real money I would get a nice cabin in the woods like rural New England somewhere hopefully near a stream or where I could drill a well no electric but maybe a battery operated shortwave radio to keep up and use my time to become self sufficient

Instead of a regular job my work would be to chop firewood raise chickens and rabbits for protein tend a garden and hunt and preserve my food and learn and train myself in old pioneer techniques that basically have been lost

I would also buy one of those pods units or a small trailer that I could stock with extra supplies then when things get really bad in this country.
II will have all I need and be able to live comfortably despite

I would also build a wood-fired hot tub and sauna for relaxation I would spend my spare time reading meditating observing the wildlife and just relating enjoying the peace and quiet and tranquility such a setting would bring

I imagine it might get lonely but probably very few people desire to live in such a fashion so finding a companion would probably be a tough sell

I feel the need to point something out to you. The ideal life you are describing would be very, very labor intensive. I would suggest that if you would work as hard as what you describe above, now, you would indeed have the "real money" necessary to make it a reality...

Food for thought...

Disco Stu
02-03-2013, 09:57 AM
There's a lot of cheap land here in the Republic of Texas. Come on down.

Yeah that's something to look into but my financial situation need drastic changes before I can buy anything anywhere

I've been considering lately about getting rid of everything and going back into trucking and just live in the truck a couple of years and save up 50 grand on the other hand I kinda got more than fill of that in the nineties and I ain't exactly 30 anymore

Disco Stu
02-03-2013, 10:00 AM
Sure. They can't even subdue Afghanistan, but they'd be able to crush us?!?

But remember over there they are trying to be humanitarian and prevent innocent casualties

Now consider if the American people were seriously at war with the government do you think they'd give a damn about casualties

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 10:03 AM
But remember over there they are trying to be humanitarian and prevent innocent casualties

Now consider if the American people were seriously at war with the government do you think they'd give a damn about casualties

Yes, of course I believe that American soldiers would care more about American casualties than they do about Afghani casualties.

In fact, if rebellion broke out, I think what you would see is a pretty immediate military coup. The current government would be ousted, and negotiations would begin.

Chris
02-03-2013, 10:05 AM
Stu if thing start to get that bad look me up, already have a lot in place.

Let's just hope it does not go that far

Are you a prepper? Just curious.

Chris
02-03-2013, 10:06 AM
Yes, of course I believe that American soldiers would care more about American casualties than they do about Afghani casualties.

In fact, if rebellion broke out, I think what you would see is a pretty immediate military coup. The current government would be ousted, and negotiations would begin.

You will see your Lees, Longstreets, and Jacksons.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 10:13 AM
You will see your Lees, Longstreets, and Jacksons.

Sure, if it even got that far.

I don't see the American military serving Barack Obama and murdering conservatives. I just can't see it.

Disco Stu
02-03-2013, 10:21 AM
Are you a prepper? Just curious.

I wouldn't go that far but I keep extra supplies at all times and I read Backwoodsman magazine

About 4 years ago we got hammered for afew days by bad windstorms and derechos and it knocked tons of trees and power lines out fried a main transformer and it took over a week to get power restored

Thankfully I had my lanterns and campstove and a couple cases of bottled water but being without power for a week really taught me how fragile and dependant we really are

That was just a freak storm imagine terrorist attack or solar flare knocking out the grid we literally would go back 100 years overnight

Mister D
02-03-2013, 11:00 AM
Sure, if it even got that far.

I don't see the American military serving Barack Obama and murdering conservatives. I just can't see it.

Nor can I. In the event of a serious revolt and/or insurgency I think this government would all but collapse.

Chris
02-03-2013, 11:26 AM
It's about to collapse economically just like Russia did.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 12:47 PM
Nor can I. In the event of a serious revolt and/or insurgency I think this government would all but collapse.

I think the generals would have to step in and secure our nuclear facilities, etc.

Now, a coup could be a bad thing, of course, but I don't see it playing out that way...

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 12:49 PM
It's about to collapse economically just like Russia did.

It's more fragile every day, every month, every year...

Mister D
02-03-2013, 12:54 PM
I think the generals would have to step in and secure our nuclear facilities, etc.

Now, a coup could be a bad thing, of course, but I don't see it playing out that way...

The hopefully short period of instability is a little frightening to ponder and, yes, I think military figures would probably have to step in. That said, I simply do not see the military turning on Americans. Moreover, if parts of the country desired to break away I think they probably could provided they have the stomach for a fight. The state doesn't. This isn't Lincoln's America.

Trinnity
02-03-2013, 12:59 PM
@polly kong. "Gun nuts" in title means I didn't even read the OP. Sorry. @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399)

Trinnity
02-03-2013, 01:02 PM
I just CANNOT imagine the American military attacking the American citizenry. No way.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 01:03 PM
The hopefully short period of instability is a little frightening to ponder and, yes, I think military figures would probably have to step in. That said, I simply do not see the military turning on Americans. Moreover, if parts of the country desired to break away I think they probably could provided they have the stomach for a fight. The state doesn't. This isn't Lincoln's America.

Agreed.

Morningstar
02-03-2013, 01:08 PM
I'm one of these people that they categorize as a "gun nut".

And, believe me, the last thing I want to see is a breakdown of civilization, and armed conflict across the USA. I'm certainly not hoping for it or wishing for it, but based on the way things are going, I am preparing for it...

Agravan
02-03-2013, 02:22 PM
Yeah that's something to look into but my financial situation need drastic changes before I can buy anything anywhere

I've been considering lately about getting rid of everything and going back into trucking and just live in the truck a couple of years and save up 50 grand on the other hand I kinda got more than fill of that in the nineties and I ain't exactly 30 anymore

I was looking at the paper the other day and saw land at $300 an acre... Not bad at all. Hell, even I could afford that.

Trinnity
02-03-2013, 02:26 PM
I was looking at the paper the other day and saw land at $300 an acre... Not bad at all. Hell, even I could afford that.That is good...where was it (in general - what state)?

Agravan
02-03-2013, 04:14 PM
I just CANNOT imagine the American military attacking the American citizenry. No way.

Unfortunately, I believe that there are some that would. Especially some of the younger ones who are a product of the liberal school indoctrination.

Agravan
02-03-2013, 04:16 PM
That is good...where was it (in general - what state)?
Texas, Kaufman county. Around 40 miles southeast of Dallas.

RollingWave
02-03-2013, 06:42 PM
There is always a right to rebel, that is about as close to "natural right" as it gets.

of course, if you choose to exercise that right, you forfeit the other rights your target promise you. which include gun rights anyway.

And also, the exercise of that right has little to do with gun rights, the majority of tyranny fell sooner or later anyway, most of it internally, and most didn't grant rights to arm .

Disco Stu
02-04-2013, 07:25 AM
It's about to collapse economically just like Russia did.

I don't think that will happen but 10-15 years out I see hyperinflation where prices rise weekly

As for other nations calling in their debt I don't see that happening because to sink us is to also sink themselves especially for China their economy would collapse without American consumers

But the way we print money eventually the dollar will see it's value eroded on currency markets by traders and speculation

Carygrant
02-04-2013, 09:47 AM
I just CANNOT imagine the American military attacking the American citizenry. No way.


Perhaps more a separation of the Sheep from the Goats for their respective good and the good of the country .

Carygrant
02-04-2013, 12:25 PM
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,



Only Democratically .
Or , reap the whirlwind .
What would your billions of Freedom Fighter fans think if you started acting like spoiled brats ?

Chris
02-04-2013, 06:51 PM
Only Democratically .
Or , reap the whirlwind .
What would your billions of Freedom Fighter fans think if you started acting like spoiled brats ?

Huh? Oh, yea, you're British, and we already won that revolution.

Chris
02-04-2013, 06:53 PM
There is always a right to rebel, that is about as close to "natural right" as it gets.

of course, if you choose to exercise that right, you forfeit the other rights your target promise you. which include gun rights anyway.

And also, the exercise of that right has little to do with gun rights, the majority of tyranny fell sooner or later anyway, most of it internally, and most didn't grant rights to arm .

A right to rebel to protect your rights, and form another government that does.



you forfeit the other rights your target promise you

What rights does government grant or promise?

Chris
02-04-2013, 06:54 PM
I don't think that will happen but 10-15 years out I see hyperinflation where prices rise weekly

As for other nations calling in their debt I don't see that happening because to sink us is to also sink themselves especially for China their economy would collapse without American consumers

But the way we print money eventually the dollar will see it's value eroded on currency markets by traders and speculation

But it could, and this government is very close to the edge.

Mister D
02-04-2013, 07:17 PM
Perhaps poisoning the well isn't the best way to begin a discussion? "Gun nuts"

Chris
02-04-2013, 07:23 PM
It is if you don't want to discuss what you can't support. Still waiting for evidence the NRA said anything like what polly claimed.

Mister D
02-04-2013, 07:29 PM
Polly seems make these comments and then abandon the thread.

Peter1469
02-04-2013, 07:59 PM
She does come back and read- just doesn't follow up with posts.

Ivan88
03-04-2013, 02:58 PM
In the 1774 American Declaration of Rights, they stated that the American People never consented to be governed.

In the 20th & 21st centuries, they tell us that the American people consented to be governed.

So, if we consented to be governed, then we have no right to refuse our governors.

Lincoln & Marx knew this and enforced it with a Communist Revolution against all Americans, and we've been living under a communist democratic dictatorship ever since.

1852

geau74
03-04-2013, 09:37 PM
(I thought this would be the most appropriate place for this thread. It's a guess.)

I'm getting tired of hearing this theory that the NRA has been advancing forever that the Second Amendment constitutes a right to rebel. As someone in the history field who knows something about the era in which the Second Amendment was written, I can guarantee you otherwise. Here is how the Second Amendment reads:



The NRA only reads that last part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They tend to conveniently forget the qualifier inserted before that explaining WHY people were to have such a right. You see, in the olden days of the republic, we had no standing army or state national guards. Therefore, the ability of the new government to call up state militias was viewed as very important in this context. What were the functions of such a militia? Well, they were used to put down slave revolts and rebellions of the poor (who formed the overwhelming majority of society at the time). Inspiring stuff, huh? Aside from these illegitimate, repressive purposes though, they were also viewed as important to securing the new nation from a second British invasion, which wasn't at all an unplausible prospect at the time. National self-defense. Well we've now had a standing army for two centuries; since the War of 1812. The Second Amendment by any standard has thus today outlived its stated purpose by some 200 years. There is no reason to have it anymore.

As you can see from the text and this analysis, far from constituting a right to overthrow the federal government, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment was the exact opposite: to provide for its defense against the masses! It was intended to shore up the government rather than to provide a means of rebellion against tyranny! But if you don't want to take my word for it, take the U.S. Supreme Court's because they've ruled on this subject of whether there exists a constitutional right to rebel. In the early 1870s, shortly after the American Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court, controlled at the time by the Republican Party no less, ruled that there is no right to rebel in the U.S. Constitution. You have no legal right to overthrow the government, period.

I'm just pointing all this out to highlight how absurd the NRA's claims are that the Second Amendment is a constitutionally-enshrined right to rebel. It's not. And it has no purpose in today's America.

Actually, your historical context is incomplete in at least a couple of particulars. First, the Supreme Court has also weighed in on the individual right to possess and bear arms in the recent Heller case, and refutes your interpretation of the Second Amendment. Further, there are any number of statements made by the framers of the constitution that reveal their belief in the right to overthrow the new government in the event that it became tyrannical. They firmly believed that no people can remain free absent the ability to change a government that took on a self-dealing life of its own, much as our egotistical and egoistic politicians have become in the past several decades. They should fear the people. We no longer elect these politicians; they are elected by the media and the PR and monied interests.

No constitution would ever contain a provision for its abrogation, however, to remove those in the government is not the same as to remove the form of government.

Dr. Who
03-04-2013, 10:09 PM
Sorry, polly, but there is a natural moral right and it is stated in the Declaration, the moral foundation, rather than the legal one, of this nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Do you need a reference link?



As for the 2nd amendment syntax, look up nominative absolute.

http://i.snag.gy/Ugl2x.jpg

Did you miss the 25 times this has been discussed in detail on this forum?
OK Chris. We get it, but do you really think that even 50% of the people in America have any regard for the Constitution? Do you really think that the desire for gun ownership is really about potentially overthrowing a government that they don't like? IMO it is primarily about about fear of criminals OR the fact that guns are cool and fun to play with. Most people, rather than join an insurrection, faced with the military, would scurry into their homes and bar the door. Probably in the same proportion that they vote - or in terms of putting their lives on the line for an ideal, even less.

zelmo1234
03-04-2013, 10:13 PM
Who! It would seem that president obama and his policies are great for gun sales, and I don't see that he is pro crime

However his is pro opressive government.

And once again you are assuming that all of the military would act against the public! We already know that many of the police departments refuse to take actions against gun ownership.

Dr. Who
03-04-2013, 10:22 PM
Who! It would seem that president obama and his policies are great for gun sales, and I don't see that he is pro crime

However his is pro opressive government.

And once again you are assuming that all of the military would act against the public! We already know that many of the police departments refuse to take actions against gun ownership.
The response was to potentially overthrowing the government. Clearly there would be military involvement in suppressing an insurrection.

zelmo1234
03-04-2013, 11:42 PM
The response was to potentially overthrowing the government. Clearly there would be military involvement in suppressing an insurrection.

Yes there would be military involvment in supporting the insurrection, if it was to surpress a tyrantical government too! That is the point that I was trying to make. I know that there are not many in the military would be for attacking US citizens, that are trying to defend their rights, as provided by the constitution.

I know that there are those that would like to beleive that the Military would blindly follow a presidents orders, but it is simply not the case. You are going to have defectors at all levels, including secret service

IMPress Polly
03-05-2013, 02:27 PM
Mister D wrote:
Polly seems make these comments and then abandon the thread.

I respond when I feel it's necessary or potentially productive and have the time. Believe it or not though, I have other things to do with my life than just hang around here all the time. Participating on this message board falls pretty low on my list of priorities.

Most threads reach a point where I no longer think it productive to continue participating because I've already made my points or because they've turned into proverbial slug-fests or something. So when I get too annoyed or when I have better things to do, I do other things. And sometimes I just quit on a thread because I can't keep up with the volume of posts that have been made in the interim. I have a life.

Chris
03-05-2013, 02:46 PM
OK Chris. We get it, but do you really think that even 50% of the people in America have any regard for the Constitution? Do you really think that the desire for gun ownership is really about potentially overthrowing a government that they don't like? IMO it is primarily about about fear of criminals OR the fact that guns are cool and fun to play with. Most people, rather than join an insurrection, faced with the military, would scurry into their homes and bar the door. Probably in the same proportion that they vote - or in terms of putting their lives on the line for an ideal, even less.


We get it...

Do you? Let's see...


do you really think that even 50% of the people in America have any regard for the Constitution?

No, but since that document frames and legitimizes our government don't you think it's a problem so many don't know about it? K-12 and beyond public education and people aren't educated in something so basic?


Do you really think that the desire for gun ownership is really about potentially overthrowing a government that they don't like?

No, you don't get it. Gun ownership is not about overthrowing a government merely because some don't like it. It is about defending our rights against an intrusive government. Here's another document apparently many are not educated in:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Oh, wait, I already posted that and you even cited but ignore it.

For the rest I think you have a lowly opinion of the people.

Mister D
03-05-2013, 02:50 PM
I respond when I feel it's necessary or potentially productive and have the time. Believe it or not though, I have other things to do with my life than just hang around here all the time. Participating on this message board falls pretty low on my list of priorities.

Most threads reach a point where I no longer think it productive to continue participating because I've already made my points or because they've turned into proverbial slug-fests or something. So when I get too annoyed or when I have better things to do, I do other things. And sometimes I just quit on a thread because I can't keep up with the volume of posts that have been made in the interim. I have a life.

Just stating a fact, Polly. Take it however you will.

Dr. Who
03-05-2013, 04:52 PM
Do you? Let's see...



No, but since that document frames and legitimizes our government don't you think it's a problem so many don't know about it? K-12 and beyond public education and people aren't educated in something so basic?



No, you don't get it. Gun ownership is not about overthrowing a government merely because some don't like it. It is about defending our rights against an intrusive government. Here's another document apparently many are not educated in:



Oh, wait, I already posted that and you even cited but ignore it.

For the rest I think you have a lowly opinion of the people.

Well it turns out that between 50-60% are reasonably well acquainted with the Constitution. The seem to score best on the BoR and and the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution: https://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/funZone/files/2012_Constitution_Day_Survey.pdf?CFID=156233&CFTOKEN=6d3a361935c56f09-3CB433A6-CC43-6F63-3AD6008B0A051755

Whether the Constitution plays much if any role in the majority of gun purchases is debatable.

Dr. Who
03-05-2013, 04:53 PM
Do you? Let's see...



No, but since that document frames and legitimizes our government don't you think it's a problem so many don't know about it? K-12 and beyond public education and people aren't educated in something so basic?



No, you don't get it. Gun ownership is not about overthrowing a government merely because some don't like it. It is about defending our rights against an intrusive government. Here's another document apparently many are not educated in:



Oh, wait, I already posted that and you even cited but ignore it.

For the rest I think you have a lowly opinion of the people.
Well it turns out that between 50-60% are reasonably well acquainted with the Constitution. The seem to score best on the BoR and and the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution: https://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/funZone/files/2012_Constitution_Day_Survey.pdf?CFID=156233&CFTOKEN=6d3a361935c56f09-3CB433A6-CC43-6F63-3AD6008B0A051755

Whether the Constitution plays much if any role in the majority of gun purchases is debatable.

Chris
03-05-2013, 05:00 PM
It shouldn't have to play a role just so long as the second amendment is honored by government.

Ivan88
03-08-2013, 03:07 PM
IMPress Polly is correct. There is no right to rebel.

And, if the American People believe that they have consented to be governed, they better shut up and do what they are told.

On the other hand,
The American People in the 1774 Declaration of Rights stated that they never consented to be governed.

So, if the American People never consented to be governed, the drives of various US regimes to dis-arm the American People have been a rebellion or war by the public servants against the American People.

Lincoln waged full scale war on the American people with his Communist Revolution of 1861. The American People lost. They currently have no means to control their public servants.
The American People currently have no parity in arms with those who seek to control them and kill them.

So any violent effort to control their public servants will end in disaster.

We have been in violation of the Mandates and Will of "nature's God" and are reaping the Curses of the Law, one of which mandates that Those who hate us rule over us. Leviticus 26:17.
So there is no way out unless we make peace with "nature's God" by confessing our sins, repenting, and humbly accepting our punishment.
1891

roadmaster
03-08-2013, 04:12 PM
IMPress Polly is correct. There is no right to rebel.
Wrong people here rebel all the time. Just like when R. King was beat, why didn't you go and tell them they had no right?

Peter1469
03-08-2013, 05:05 PM
IMPress Polly is correct. There is no right to rebel.

And, if the American People believe that they have consented to be governed, they better shut up and do what they are told.

On the other hand,
The American People in the 1774 Declaration of Rights stated that they never consented to be governed.

So, if the American People never consented to be governed, the drives of various US regimes to dis-arm the American People have been a rebellion or war by the public servants against the American People.

Lincoln waged full scale war on the American people with his Communist Revolution of 1861. The American People lost. They currently have no means to control their public servants.
The American People currently have no parity in arms with those who seek to control them and kill them.

So any violent effort to control their public servants will end in disaster.

We have been in violation of the Mandates and Will of "nature's God" and are reaping the Curses of the Law, one of which mandates that Those who hate us rule over us. Leviticus 26:17.
So there is no way out unless we make peace with "nature's God" by confessing our sins, repenting, and humbly accepting our punishment.
1891


You are utterly wrong, of course. But nice pic.

Epiphron
04-29-2013, 05:08 PM
I would gently, respectfully suggest that the OP read both of John Locke's Treatises on Government, Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", John Adams Thoughts On Government, the speeches of Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, the letters of Thomas Jefferson, James Otis's The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, or simply the Declaration of Independence, just to name a few. The entire political element of the enlightenment, particularly the founding of the U.S.A., was absolutely based upon the right to revolt. It is the generative principle behind modern politics.

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 05:40 PM
(I thought this would be the most appropriate place for this thread. It's a guess.)

I'm getting tired of hearing this theory that the NRA has been advancing forever that the Second Amendment constitutes a right to rebel. As someone in the history field who knows something about the era in which the Second Amendment was written, I can guarantee you otherwise. Here is how the Second Amendment reads:



The NRA only reads that last part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They tend to conveniently forget the qualifier inserted before that explaining WHY people were to have such a right. You see, in the olden days of the republic, we had no standing army or state national guards. Therefore, the ability of the new government to call up state militias was viewed as very important in this context. What were the functions of such a militia? Well, they were used to put down slave revolts and rebellions of the poor (who formed the overwhelming majority of society at the time). Inspiring stuff, huh? Aside from these illegitimate, repressive purposes though, they were also viewed as important to securing the new nation from a second British invasion, which wasn't at all an unplausible prospect at the time. National self-defense. Well we've now had a standing army for two centuries; since the War of 1812. The Second Amendment by any standard has thus today outlived its stated purpose by some 200 years. There is no reason to have it anymore.

As you can see from the text and this analysis, far from constituting a right to overthrow the federal government, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment was the exact opposite: to provide for its defense against the masses! It was intended to shore up the government rather than to provide a means of rebellion against tyranny! But if you don't want to take my word for it, take the U.S. Supreme Court's because they've ruled on this subject of whether there exists a constitutional right to rebel. In the early 1870s, shortly after the American Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court, controlled at the time by the Republican Party no less, ruled that there is no right to rebel in the U.S. Constitution. You have no legal right to overthrow the government, period.

I'm just pointing all this out to highlight how absurd the NRA's claims are that the Second Amendment is a constitutionally-enshrined right to rebel. It's not. And it has no purpose in today's America.





There is no right to rule either.

BTW, recycled Marxist garbage has no purpose in today's America either.

Your post, another agitprop FAIL.

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 05:41 PM
I don't think that anyone claims that the 2nd Amendment gives the "right to rebel."

But, Polly, you are right that the young US relied on the militia to defend it. The militia was "the whole people," defined by the States as all abled-bodied males between the ages of 15 and 45 (the ages varied between States).

Nothing has changed under US law- except now we have a standing army and national guard. Those various laws did not outlaw the militia (and of course legislation can't trump the Constitution.)

The Second Amendment is not about rebellion- it is about preserving the Constitution against a government that has abandoned the Constitution. If citizens mobilize to force the government back into the Constitutional fold, it is not the citizens who have rebelled. It is the government that has acted beyond its authority.



Notice she posts no NRA rebellion propaganda.

jillian
04-29-2013, 05:41 PM
Sorry, polly, but there is a natural moral right and it is stated in the Declaration, the moral foundation, rather than the legal one, of this nation

sorry, chris... the declaration of independence isn't law.

and if the right to bear arms was in any way connected to rebelling against the government, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't have been treason. guns were to fight FOR the government as part of a well-ordered militia.

you have no right to commit treason.

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 05:45 PM
Another news flash, we have had a civil war before but this time the south is well armed.



Class war will not be so geographically defined.

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 05:45 PM
She does come back and read- just doesn't follow up with posts.



Would you?

Chris
04-29-2013, 06:55 PM
I would gently, respectfully suggest that the OP read both of John Locke's Treatises on Government, Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", John Adams Thoughts On Government, the speeches of Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, the letters of Thomas Jefferson, James Otis's The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, or simply the Declaration of Independence, just to name a few. The entire political element of the enlightenment, particularly the founding of the U.S.A., was absolutely based upon the right to revolt. It is the generative principle behind modern politics.

Exactly: "...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...."

jillian
04-29-2013, 06:59 PM
Exactly: "...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...."

Read.... Article III


SECTION 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

see how easy that is

Chris
04-29-2013, 07:20 PM
Read.... Article III


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

see how easy that is[/FONT][/COLOR]

Natural rights over right posited law.

jillian
04-29-2013, 07:23 PM
Natural rights over right posited law.

while the concept of 'natural rights' is a nice one for political philosophers to discuss, it is meaningless.

all that is meaningful is that if you do the i'm gonna fight for my rights thing... you will be dead or tried for treason.

poof...

Chris
04-29-2013, 07:27 PM
while the concept of 'natural rights' is a nice one for political philosophers to discuss, it is meaningless.

all that is meaningful is that if you do the i'm gonna fight for my rights thing... you will be dead or tried for treason.

poof...

It's meaningless because what you say so? That's not an argument, jillian, do try harder.



all that is meaningful is that if you do the i'm gonna fight for my rights thing... you will be dead or tried for treason.

Ah, the old might makes right argument. True to liberal authoritarianism.

Problem is, right makes might.


I suppose you condemn the founding of this nation. --By your logic you do.

And they won.

Proof.

jillian
04-29-2013, 07:28 PM
It's meaningless because what you say so? That's not an argument, jillian, do try harder.




Ah, the old might makes right argument. True to liberal authoritarianism.

Problem is, right makes might.


I suppose you condemn the founding of this nation. --By your logic you do.

it is meaningless because the constitution says so.

the rest of your 'natural rights' stuff?

read the section on treason.

good luck.

Chris
04-29-2013, 07:35 PM
it is meaningless because the constitution says so.

the rest of your 'natural rights' stuff?

read the section on treason.

good luck.

Do you mean the Constitution the people created? If they created it, they can alter or abolish it. That's not treason. It is a right, it is a duty.

I see you have no argument with natural rights stuff. That didn't take long.

jillian
04-29-2013, 07:39 PM
Do you mean the Constitution the people created? If they created it, they can alter or abolish it. That's not treason. It is a right, it is a duty.

I see you have no argument with natural rights stuff. That didn't take long.

there is nothing to argue. they are political philosophy having nothing to do with reality.

i see you have no argument about what the constitution actually provides.

Chris
04-29-2013, 07:43 PM
there is nothing to argue. they are political philosophy having nothing to do with reality.

i see you have no argument about what the constitution actually provides.

That's what I said, you have nothing to argue. Thanks for repeating it.

Rights are not philosophy.

The Constitution consists of powers granted government by the people and limitations on those powers to protect the natural rights of the people. The Constitution doesn't provide rights.

jillian
04-29-2013, 07:45 PM
That's what I said, you have nothing to argue. Thanks for repeating it.

Rights are not philosophy.

The Constitution consists of powers granted government by the people and limitations on those powers to protect the natural rights of the people. The Constitution doesn't provide rights.

i deal in reality... not in vigilante fantasies.

you think the constitution doesn't provide rights?

you might want to talk to japanese internees during WWII about what rights really are.

you might want to talk to the gitmo detainees about what rights really are.

you are delusional if you think rights exist absent law.

zelmo1234
04-29-2013, 07:46 PM
sorry, chris... the declaration of independence isn't law.

and if the right to bear arms was in any way connected to rebelling against the government, the only criminal act defined in the constitution wouldn't have been treason. guns were to fight FOR the government as part of a well-ordered militia.

you have no right to commit treason.

Of course it has been a few days since we have posted these so you may have forgoten! So if you really want to know what was behind the second amendment? it is not hard to find it was recorded for a time such as this!

the founding fathers had a real clear idea that government would eventually try to assume the rights of the people! and thus gave them a right to resist such tyranny!

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/second-amendment

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

This is why conservatives don't trust any gun control issue, it is because it is very easy to look at the discussion and the reason for the second amendment We have the record and it is clear that the founding fathers did not trust even themselves with the power of government!

Look at the oaths that our military takes?

http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

It is the politician that would recend the 2nd amendment that has in fact comitted treason, and thus the oath to defend agaisnts all threats forgien and domestic?

It is not hard at all to detirmine!

zelmo1234
04-29-2013, 07:50 PM
i deal in reality... not in vigilante fantasies.

you think the constitution doesn't provide rights?

you might want to talk to japanese internees during WWII about what rights really are.

you might want to talk to the gitmo detainees about what rights really are.

you are delusional if you think rights exist absent law.

The Japanese were definalty the victoms of their rights being taken away! At least those that were citizens! They of course were taken away by a progressive democrat!

Those prisioners at Camp Gitmo are not US citizens and thus are not offered the rights allowed under the constitution!

However I am glad that the Boston Bomber was read his rights as he was a citizen and weather we like it or not, he is due these rights!

jillian
04-29-2013, 07:52 PM
Of course it has been a few days since we have posted these so you may have forgoten! So if you really want to know what was behind the second amendment? it is not hard to find it was recorded for a time such as this!

the founding fathers had a real clear idea that government would eventually try to assume the rights of the people! and thus gave them a right to resist such tyranny!

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/second-amendment

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

This is why conservatives don't trust any gun control issue, it is because it is very easy to look at the discussion and the reason for the second amendment We have the record and it is clear that the founding fathers did not trust even themselves with the power of government!

Look at the oaths that our military takes?

http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

It is the politician that would recend the 2nd amendment that has in fact comitted treason, and thus the oath to defend agaisnts all threats forgien and domestic?

It is not hard at all to detirmine!

you'll forgive me if i find those explanations to be particularly partisan and not based on reality.

when justice warren was asked about a private 2nd amendment right, he laughed.

every supreme court justice laughed.

until scalia and his buddies perverted the constitution.

but your blogs? not very compelling.

and you'll forgive me but that shouldn't be compelling to you either.

read heller... it never discounts reasonable regulation.

and the court has only in the last week or so refused to interfere with handgun restrictions.

Chris
04-29-2013, 08:03 PM
i deal in reality... not in vigilante fantasies.

you think the constitution doesn't provide rights?

you might want to talk to japanese internees during WWII about what rights really are.

you might want to talk to the gitmo detainees about what rights really are.

you are delusional if you think rights exist absent law.




you think the constitution doesn't provide rights?

Show us where the Constitution provides rights.



you are delusional if you think rights exist absent law.

Nice personal attack, what do you want, 3 points for that? lol

Chris
04-29-2013, 08:13 PM
What, still scouring the Constitution for a granting of rights to the people?

zelmo1234
04-29-2013, 08:16 PM
you'll forgive me if i find those explanations to be particularly partisan and not based on reality.

when justice warren was asked about a private 2nd amendment right, he laughed.

every supreme court justice laughed.

until scalia and his buddies perverted the constitution.

but your blogs? not very compelling.

and you'll forgive me but that shouldn't be compelling to you either.

read heller... it never discounts reasonable regulation.

and the court has only in the last week or so refused to interfere with handgun restrictions.

Of course the "blogs" you are talking about are the ACTUALLY THE QUOTES OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS DEBATING THE RESONS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

Now it does not surprise me that you would not care Democrats and Liberals have hated the constitution for a long time!

Peter1469
04-29-2013, 08:47 PM
Back to the OP, I don't think the issue is treason- it is reacting to a government that has lost its legitimacy. I am not giving any opinion about current events. But the Founders would not consider rebellion against an unjust government to be treason. And we know that had our Founders not been successful, they would have been treated as traitors by the British crown.

roadmaster
04-29-2013, 08:50 PM
It's "We the people" not we the government.

Dr. Who
04-29-2013, 10:05 PM
Back to the OP, I don't think the issue is treason- it is reacting to a government that has lost its legitimacy. I am not giving any opinion about current events. But the Founders would not consider rebellion against an unjust government to be treason. And we know that had our Founders not been successful, they would have been treated as traitors by the British crown.
How would the Government in fact react to insurrection? I don't suppose there would be a special convening of Congress to debate the legitimacy of the insurrection - more likely the National Guard and the Army would be called to quell the uprising. Those who did not die, and were captured would be charged with various offenses and after several years in jail pending trial, each would eventually be tried. The Constitution would be debated, but I expect eventually the Judges' sense of self preservation would prevail and the prisoners would be convicted of treason or lesser offences.

Agravan
04-29-2013, 11:03 PM
How would the Government in fact react to insurrection? I don't suppose there would be a special convening of Congress to debate the legitimacy of the insurrection - more likely the National Guard and the Army would be called to quell the uprising. Those who did not die, and were captured would be charged with various offenses and after several years in jail pending trial, each would eventually be tried. The Constitution would be debated, but I expect eventually the Judges' sense of self preservation would prevail and the prisoners would be convicted of treason or lesser offences.

I think it more likely that the majority of troops would side with the rebels.

zelmo1234
04-30-2013, 03:43 AM
How would the Government in fact react to insurrection? I don't suppose there would be a special convening of Congress to debate the legitimacy of the insurrection - more likely the National Guard and the Army would be called to quell the uprising. Those who did not die, and were captured would be charged with various offenses and after several years in jail pending trial, each would eventually be tried. The Constitution would be debated, but I expect eventually the Judges' sense of self preservation would prevail and the prisoners would be convicted of treason or lesser offences.

First let us hope that we never see anything like this in the USA, and that the politicians will always find a way to return freedom to the people!

But what I find interesting is that people all assume that the military will side with the government? I have had the pleasure of spending a lot of time with the men and women of the military, There are no finder people in this nation!

And I think that they take their oaths seriously! And I think that the people that try and shread the constitution, and opress the people will be surprised!

Peter1469
04-30-2013, 04:39 AM
How would the Government in fact react to insurrection? I don't suppose there would be a special convening of Congress to debate the legitimacy of the insurrection - more likely the National Guard and the Army would be called to quell the uprising. Those who did not die, and were captured would be charged with various offenses and after several years in jail pending trial, each would eventually be tried. The Constitution would be debated, but I expect eventually the Judges' sense of self preservation would prevail and the prisoners would be convicted of treason or lesser offences.


If the government became illegitimate enough to cause a rebellion, what makes you think that the military would defend the government?

Chris
04-30-2013, 10:29 AM
What, still scouring the Constitution for a granting of rights to the people?

Ba-bump. You know the Constitution isn't that long and you sounded like you knew what you were talking about.

Greenridgeman
04-30-2013, 10:33 AM
Ba-bump. You know the Constitution isn't that long and you sounded like you knew what you were talking about.



Are you talking to yourself?

Chris
04-30-2013, 01:03 PM
Are you talking to yourself?

Apparently. :cry:

Bigred1cav
04-30-2013, 03:12 PM
(I thought this would be the most appropriate place for this thread. It's a guess.)

I'm getting tired of hearing this theory that the NRA has been advancing forever that the Second Amendment constitutes a right to rebel. As someone in the history field who knows something about the era in which the Second Amendment was written, I can guarantee you otherwise. Here is how the Second Amendment reads:



The NRA only reads that last part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They tend to conveniently forget the qualifier inserted before that explaining WHY people were to have such a right. You see, in the olden days of the republic, we had no standing army or state national guards. Therefore, the ability of the new government to call up state militias was viewed as very important in this context. What were the functions of such a militia? Well, they were used to put down slave revolts and rebellions of the poor (who formed the overwhelming majority of society at the time). Inspiring stuff, huh? Aside from these illegitimate, repressive purposes though, they were also viewed as important to securing the new nation from a second British invasion, which wasn't at all an unplausible prospect at the time. National self-defense. Well we've now had a standing army for two centuries; since the War of 1812. The Second Amendment by any standard has thus today outlived its stated purpose by some 200 years. There is no reason to have it anymore.

As you can see from the text and this analysis, far from constituting a right to overthrow the federal government, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment was the exact opposite: to provide for its defense against the masses! It was intended to shore up the government rather than to provide a means of rebellion against tyranny! But if you don't want to take my word for it, take the U.S. Supreme Court's because they've ruled on this subject of whether there exists a constitutional right to rebel. In the early 1870s, shortly after the American Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court, controlled at the time by the Republican Party no less, ruled that there is no right to rebel in the U.S. Constitution. You have no legal right to overthrow the government, period.

I'm just pointing all this out to highlight how absurd the NRA's claims are that the Second Amendment is a constitutionally-enshrined right to rebel. It's not. And it has no purpose in today's America.

How dare you attempt to educate the low information dummies fed crap by fox liars and the nra? Those dimwits live in fear of some bogeyman and hold guns to defend against a modern Army. My question for these dumbasses has always been how does your 400 yard ar 15 hold up against a M 79 or a drone?

zelmo1234
04-30-2013, 03:23 PM
How dare you attempt to educate the low information dummies fed crap by fox liars and the nra? Those dimwits live in fear of some bogeyman and hold guns to defend against a modern Army. My question for these dumbasses has always been how does your 400 yard ar 15 hold up against a M 79 or a drone?

Not nearly as well as the FIM-92! I usually use the right tool for the job!

Epiphron
04-30-2013, 06:18 PM
i deal in reality... not in vigilante fantasies.

you think the constitution doesn't provide rights?

you might want to talk to japanese internees during WWII about what rights really are.

you might want to talk to the gitmo detainees about what rights really are.

you are delusional if you think rights exist absent law.

The delusional thing would be to believe that positive law absent a grounding in human nature guarantees anything at all. Anything which authority posits, it can withdraw. Your argument is that policy should be made upon the assumption that once one has achieved power, everything is permitted? That the authority of a man is it's own justification? Your logic is circular. You say the government can legitimately crush any revolt and then back up the statement with the fact that government attempts to crush any revolt. Ironically your argument against natural rights is a naturalistic fallacy.

BB-35
05-20-2013, 08:35 PM
The Declaration of Independence is not a binding legal document. The U.S. Constitution is.

RIGHTS aren't dependent upon the constitution,little girl..

BB-35
05-20-2013, 08:42 PM
what an idiot response. Well armed with what? You think you fucking hillbillies won't shit all over yourselves puke and run to hide when mortars and tank rounds start pounding your ignorant hillbilly asses?

What makes you think the whole of the military will be firing on our 'hillbilly asses'?

Chris
05-20-2013, 08:43 PM
RIGHTS aren't dependent upon the constitution,little girl..

Correct, the Constitution is dependent on rights.

Dr. Who
05-20-2013, 09:28 PM
Correct, the Constitution is dependent on rights.Ironic that people always refer to Constitutional rights.

Common
05-22-2013, 10:18 AM
Gun ownership rights has been a contentious issue for along time and the reason imho is that both sides are overbearing and ridiculous about what they want.

Liberals: Want gun ownership abolished and gun purchase illegal. Sorry Liberals never happen there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of guns out there and if you ban them you wont be able to confiscate the millions of the, it will just revive the old import illegal firearms trade.
There was a time there was gun rooms in all major cities secret rooms where you could buy anything you wanted.

Far Right:The are totally absurd in their claims that background checks somehow infringe on gun ownership a background check does not stop a SINGLE american with a clean record and who is not insane from owning a gun.
They are ridiculous in their position about background checks and it makes the entire gun buying owning debate much worse. If they allowed background checks it would take much of the argument out of the equasion.

No one is going to stop gun ownership in america, you might as well forget it and move on to your next want.

Chris
05-22-2013, 10:31 AM
Gun ownership rights has been a contentious issue for along time and the reason imho is that both sides are overbearing and ridiculous about what they want.

Liberals: Want gun ownership abolished and gun purchase illegal. Sorry Liberals never happen there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of guns out there and if you ban them you wont be able to confiscate the millions of the, it will just revive the old import illegal firearms trade.
There was a time there was gun rooms in all major cities secret rooms where you could buy anything you wanted.

Far Right:The are totally absurd in their claims that background checks somehow infringe on gun ownership a background check does not stop a SINGLE american with a clean record and who is not insane from owning a gun.
They are ridiculous in their position about background checks and it makes the entire gun buying owning debate much worse. If they allowed background checks it would take much of the argument out of the equasion.

No one is going to stop gun ownership in america, you might as well forget it and move on to your next want.

Hmmm, the "far right" argument I've heard is that background checks are ineffective and that it puts the burden on law abiding citizens while not stopping criminals. Perhaps the "far right" would listen to a rational argument from "liberals" on effective measures.

simpsonofpg
05-22-2013, 11:36 AM
Just got here on this one but It seems that some like part of the 2nd amendent but not all of it. So we have pick and chose the laws or part of the law that we like and ignore the rest. Neat concept, totally flawed but but convienent never the less.

jillian
05-22-2013, 11:52 AM
(I thought this would be the most appropriate place for this thread. It's a guess.)

I'm getting tired of hearing this theory that the NRA has been advancing forever that the Second Amendment constitutes a right to rebel. As someone in the history field who knows something about the era in which the Second Amendment was written, I can guarantee you otherwise. Here is how the Second Amendment reads:



The NRA only reads that last part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They tend to conveniently forget the qualifier inserted before that explaining WHY people were to have such a right. You see, in the olden days of the republic, we had no standing army or state national guards. Therefore, the ability of the new government to call up state militias was viewed as very important in this context. What were the functions of such a militia? Well, they were used to put down slave revolts and rebellions of the poor (who formed the overwhelming majority of society at the time). Inspiring stuff, huh? Aside from these illegitimate, repressive purposes though, they were also viewed as important to securing the new nation from a second British invasion, which wasn't at all an unplausible prospect at the time. National self-defense. Well we've now had a standing army for two centuries; since the War of 1812. The Second Amendment by any standard has thus today outlived its stated purpose by some 200 years. There is no reason to have it anymore.

As you can see from the text and this analysis, far from constituting a right to overthrow the federal government, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment was the exact opposite: to provide for its defense against the masses! It was intended to shore up the government rather than to provide a means of rebellion against tyranny! But if you don't want to take my word for it, take the U.S. Supreme Court's because they've ruled on this subject of whether there exists a constitutional right to rebel. In the early 1870s, shortly after the American Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court, controlled at the time by the Republican Party no less, ruled that there is no right to rebel in the U.S. Constitution. You have no legal right to overthrow the government, period.

I'm just pointing all this out to highlight how absurd the NRA's claims are that the Second Amendment is a constitutionally-enshrined right to rebel. It's not. And it has no purpose in today's America.

it never had any purpose in america.

there is a reason the constitution defines what treason is and allows for martial law in certain circumstances.

the NRA used to be sane. now it isn't... I would say that if the 75% of its membership that IS sane stopped giving them money, the NRA would get sane again, too. But the reality is that most of the money the NRA gets comes from gun manufacturers

Chris
05-22-2013, 11:58 AM
it never had any purpose in america.

there is a reason the constitution defines what treason is and allows for martial law in certain circumstances.

the NRA used to be sane. now it isn't... I would say that if the 75% of its membership that IS sane stopped giving them money, the NRA would get sane again, too. But the reality is that most of the money the NRA gets comes from gun manufacturers


there is a reason the constitution defines what treason is and allows for martial law in certain circumstances.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

For war, not rebellion.

Trying to find mention where the COnstitution "allows for martial law in certain circumstances". Can you help me out, you know, cite the text?

jillian
05-22-2013, 11:59 AM
RIGHTS aren't dependent upon the constitution,little girl..

ok, little boy. you keep telling yourself that.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZO.html


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0163_0537_ZS.html


http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-bypasses-all-new-detainee-cases/

zelmo1234
05-22-2013, 12:08 PM
Gun ownership rights has been a contentious issue for along time and the reason imho is that both sides are overbearing and ridiculous about what they want.

Liberals: Want gun ownership abolished and gun purchase illegal. Sorry Liberals never happen there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of guns out there and if you ban them you wont be able to confiscate the millions of the, it will just revive the old import illegal firearms trade.
There was a time there was gun rooms in all major cities secret rooms where you could buy anything you wanted.

Far Right:The are totally absurd in their claims that background checks somehow infringe on gun ownership a background check does not stop a SINGLE american with a clean record and who is not insane from owning a gun.
They are ridiculous in their position about background checks and it makes the entire gun buying owning debate much worse. If they allowed background checks it would take much of the argument out of the equasion.

No one is going to stop gun ownership in america, you might as well forget it and move on to your next want.

They were for background checks you could ahve that tomorrow, but that is not what the bill was about?

So you are mistaken in the rights opposition to background checks. The bill was poisoned by Dems!

zelmo1234
05-22-2013, 12:13 PM
it never had any purpose in america.

there is a reason the constitution defines what treason is and allows for martial law in certain circumstances.

the NRA used to be sane. now it isn't... I would say that if the 75% of its membership that IS sane stopped giving them money, the NRA would get sane again, too. But the reality is that most of the money the NRA gets comes from gun manufacturers

Actually it is about 60% and the money comes to the NRA in the form of advertising in their 3 magizines! WOW imagine that gun companies advertizing in hunting shooting and home protections magizines? Who would have thought!

Common
05-22-2013, 10:00 PM
The state of Florida is enjoying the lowest crime rate in 42 yrs, since they passed the stand your ground law and have the most concealed weapon permits in the country. Gun shows are everywhere, I bought a gun saturday at a gun show.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/16/floridas-crime-rate-lowest-in-42-years/

Overall crime dropped 6.5% from 2011 to 2012. Two categories of crime went up, homicides went up 2% which does not mean murder with guns and Forced sex crimes went up, florida because its a warm state attracts legions of pedophilles.

Mr Happy
05-23-2013, 02:19 AM
The state of Florida is enjoying the lowest crime rate in 42 yrs, since they passed the stand your ground law and have the most concealed weapon permits in the country. Gun shows are everywhere, I bought a gun saturday at a gun show.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/16/floridas-crime-rate-lowest-in-42-years/

Overall crime dropped 6.5% from 2011 to 2012. Two categories of crime went up, homicides went up 2% which does not mean murder with guns and Forced sex crimes went up, florida because its a warm state attracts legions of pedophilles.

You really should read your own links before spouting shit (the bold part). From YOUR link:

"Baily attributes the continued drop to improvements in technology and information sharing that has seen a sharp rise in the number of DNA and fingerprint matches, saying solving more crimes means there are fewer criminals on the loose."

zelmo1234
05-23-2013, 03:46 AM
YES but are you saying that your country is not up on technology, because after you ban most guns, you had a huge spike in crime and your rates are just starting to return to where they were before the Gun ban!

While we in this country at the sime time ended our assualt weapons ban, and many states became shall issue conceal carry states and the numbers skyrocketed!

Here is a little crime statistic that you won't read about in the paper! I live in A rural area, one of our law abiding citizens was in a samll gas station in the middle of no where. 3 people come into the store and quickly go to 3 areas of the store, he came out of the restroom at the same time that they entered! they are milling around waiting for him to leave.

Being trained to pick up on thngs like this. He walks over to the counter and starts talking to the gal about how she should start carrying a gun like he has and reveals his concealed pistol, (which is illegal)! He positions himself to confront the 3 if what he suspects starts to go down, and the one says come on guys lets go!

Tehy call the police, and tell the tale. they actually were smart enoung to get a discription of the car and the license number! The police scold the permit holder but tell him that they are not going to prosicute because he just saved the girls life! Three hours later a state poice officer spots the same car in another party store parkinglot, and calls for back up! he pulls in to pretend to get gas while he waits for them to arrive.

they arrest the three, who have comitted dozens of robberies and in many cases killied the clerk in the stores!

but you won't here about it on the news! By the By, do you thing that these find individuals would ahve given up their guns if they passed laws making them illegal?

Mr Happy
05-23-2013, 07:24 PM
YES but are you saying that your country is not up on technology, because after you ban most guns, you had a huge spike in crime and your rates are just starting to return to where they were before the Gun ban!

While we in this country at the sime time ended our assualt weapons ban, and many states became shall issue conceal carry states and the numbers skyrocketed!

Here is a little crime statistic that you won't read about in the paper! I live in A rural area, one of our law abiding citizens was in a samll gas station in the middle of no where. 3 people come into the store and quickly go to 3 areas of the store, he came out of the restroom at the same time that they entered! they are milling around waiting for him to leave.

Being trained to pick up on thngs like this. He walks over to the counter and starts talking to the gal about how she should start carrying a gun like he has and reveals his concealed pistol, (which is illegal)! He positions himself to confront the 3 if what he suspects starts to go down, and the one says come on guys lets go!

Tehy call the police, and tell the tale. they actually were smart enoung to get a discription of the car and the license number! The police scold the permit holder but tell him that they are not going to prosicute because he just saved the girls life! Three hours later a state poice officer spots the same car in another party store parkinglot, and calls for back up! he pulls in to pretend to get gas while he waits for them to arrive.

they arrest the three, who have comitted dozens of robberies and in many cases killied the clerk in the stores!

but you won't here about it on the news! By the By, do you thing that these find individuals would ahve given up their guns if they passed laws making them illegal?

One of the annoying things about being on the internet is that you can't say things slowly to people so it sinks in...but I'll say it AGAIN any way.

Even BEFORE the ban there were fuck all guns down here anyway. Farmers and collectors were about the only people who had them.

Oh, and credible link to stats pre 1996 and post 1996 with regard to crime and how it relates to lack of guns. Take your time....

Ivan88
05-23-2013, 08:10 PM
The 10 Commandments is one of the earliest declarations for the rights of man. He has a right not to be murdered, robbed or hassled or lied against, and society in general has a duty to uphold his rights and to honor Truth, Mercy and Faith, the weightier matters of the Law. It is all based on love of your fellow man rather than coveting what he has and trying to kill or rob him.

Under such a system, a man has full right to be armed against anyone trying to violate those 10 Commandments.

After the American Revolution, which wasn't lawful, the public servants rebelled against the American people and gradually imposed ever more stringent regulations and taxes upon them.
This rebellion continued with Lincoln's Civil War scam & Communist Revolution that greatly increased the power of rebellious public "servants' over their alledged masters.
We are still under this regime of rebellious public servants.