"The Citizen Militias of the United States, their ...." Topic

Natural rights sounds good in the classroom, but missing on the street. It here that the intent, rather than the letter of the law comes into play. Its not easy to make it work. The people who wrote all the philosophy books and laws are not around.

Tulsa, 1921. Nobody seemed too interested in natural rights. Or justice. Wondering what civil war might look like? Plenty of lessons from history.

Of course it is not easy to protect natural rights. It is why we create government, which is generally pretty bad at it, just less bad than anarchy. Government is a necessary evil, and the thing to do with necessary evils is to keep them small, and also checking each other.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
Madison in FEDERALIST 51

Sorry, you dont need guns to assert your rights against this government.

However, we might need guns to protect our rights against the people who want guns to protect their rights.

"Between an armed man and an unarmed man there can be no equality." Machiavelli

Perhaps an American quote would do better here. Take your pick from MLK. The government is the tool which protects our rights. Ours works better than any other system. Not perfect. Just the best.

No, not the best. Ours is the worst of all systems, except the others. MLK was a great man, but he won because the national government finally threw its weight behind him. Put MLK in 1910 and he fails, as men as great -- BTW, WEB DuBois -- failed in the face of a national government either hostile or indifferent. Any government strong enough t give you nice things is strong enough to take your things -- and will, when it chooses. And whose rights did FDR protect when he interned Japanese-Americans?

Quoting Machiavelli in a discussion on American constitutional rights is counter-productive.

The militia is We the People, armed.

No. The militia, as stated in the 2d Amendment, is to be well-regulated, which means by the state or federal governments. It isn't 'We the People.'

And the intent of the Founders was that the militia was to be formed and 'regulated' by law. The armed pseudo-militia, formed by right wing anti-government groups is not that, not even close.

The FBI has been militarized since Waco and Ruby Ridge.

And what is that supposed to mean?

The secondary works that Kevin cites generally do not (and cannot, for length) deal with many of the details of this or many other topics.

Length is not an indicator of excellence in historical writing.

Have you read or even looked at the three sources listed?

Yes it is the best. Not perfect. You then said the same thing, framing it a negative way. We vote. We have a history of voter suppression. But we prevail. We have a system where popular vote is less important than representative balance. But it works.

And note the word "well" in well-regulated. This most certainly means that criminal behavior is not condoned. A constant militarized threat to a duly elected government and domestic peace is a violation of every citizen's rights to life, liberty, happiness.

We cannot take this any further, I think. I cannot say it enough. Listen carefully to your media sources, find out who owns them. Are facts referenced in their arguments? Somebody describing anti fascists in such detail without a single reference to evidence is his First Ammendment right, but is it true?

MLK was a great man, but he won because the national government finally threw its weight behind him.

Right, the national government helped out against the States who were using guns and dogs against him and other civil rights protestors. I notice you don't seem the think the State governments can be oppressors just the Federal government.

Put MLK in 1910 and he fails, as men as great -- BTW, WEB DuBois -- failed in the face of a national government either hostile or indifferent.

So, there has been improvement for the Federal Government. Can all the States claim the same change in attitude?

Any government strong enough t give you nice things is strong enough to take your things -- and will, when it chooses.

Still has nothing to do with guns.

And whose rights did FDR protect when he interned Japanese-Americans?

Again, nothing that guns would solve. Are we suggesting that Asian Americans should've circled the wagons and shot up the authorities coming to take them to camps?

You avoided the largest ever case of paranoids using weapons to defend against Federal "Tyranny". Did the Confederacy achieve its goals with guns? Were they justified? Did they prove that guns were the answer?

No, they didn't.

+1

Well, just one more thought. MLK won because he was willing to take a beating, literally, from armed state officials so we could all see and hear what was going on. He and John Lewis and many others showed us that moral courage is a powerful agent for change.

A government strong enough to take your things is strong enough to protect them as well. It is moral courage and integrity that make leadership in democracy work even when its media enemies have grown powerful and are believed.

I notice you don't seem the think the State governments can be oppressors just the Federal government.

No, that is absurd. Stop putting words in my mouth.

But gentlemen, doesn't your approval of federal power as benign depend on WHO controls that power? When -- not if, but WHEN -- control of DC passes to a party of whose values and policies you disapprove -- mine, say -- are you not then concerned about how it is used? The power is at best neutral (in fact, worse than neutral, as it corrupts). Far better not to have the power so great, regardless of who wields it.

Jim, what??? If there is any such group, I'd agree with you.

But do take a look at the claim clubs of the mid to late 1800s, which existed (among other reasons) to prevent the execution of federal land laws. Sometimes a good thing, sometimes not, but necessary when established government did not do its job,or did it poorly.

link

You guys are so sure you already know what I am arguing that you completely miss my points and imagine me saying things I am not.

Maybe. But a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

But gentlemen, doesn't your approval of federal power as benign depend on WHO controls that power? When -- not if, but WHEN -- control of DC passes to a party of whose values and policies you disapprove -- mine, say -- are you not then concerned about how it is used? The power is at best neutral (in fact, worse than neutral, as it corrupts). Far better not to have the power so great, regardless of who wields it.

I think we could discuss this forever but what does it have to do with guns?

For the third time, the Confederacy had all the guns they needed, aside from designing some cool looking flags, what did it profit them? Wouldn't it have been better to have had to negotiate?

This is exactly the point, the mis-identification of tyranny is a two way street. How does someone know if they're being oppressed vs just overly touchy and unreasonable? Did the Confederacy pull the trigger at the right time? Did they do the right thing? Maybe having guns makes people more, not less, unreasonable, demanding and authoritative.

The test laid down in the Declaration is a long train of abuses all tending in the same direction, evincing a DESIGN.

Maybe having guns makes people more, not less, unreasonable, demanding and authoritative.

Guns give oppressed people the ability to resist corrupt power. See Big Bad Mama II – TMP link

Guns are most effective as deterrent. You are safer in your home when half the homes have guns, even if yours is gun-free, as long as the bad guys don't know which category yours is in. (You COULD put a "no guns allowed here!" sign out front, I guess . . . .) Anybody think thta would make you safer?

It is hard to know numbers, as many instances of defensive gun use are never recorded, but merely showing a weapon often deters a crime.

The same applies at a society level. The US government might WANT to, say, lockdown the whole country, as in Australia, but would never attempt it.