|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 26, 2009, 12:02 AM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
February 26, 2009, 06:51 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Glenn and TG, without going into a long dissertation I'll get right to the heart of my position. While our system of government with its Separtation of Powers does indeed combat and prevent tyranny as well as ensure that our rights remain intact, the inability of government to remove those rights without the overwhelming consent of the people ensures that our system of government with its Separation of Powers remains intact. I'll illustrate this with an example: Suppose the President wanted to use his position as Commander in Chief of the military to, against the will of the people, attempt to seize power from the other branches of the government by force and make himself a dictator. Obviously this would not work because it would be against the will of the people and the people would offer such strong resistance (including likely armed resistance) that such a scheme would be all but impossible (let's face it, neither the military nor police can control the people if the majority of them are armed and unwilling to comply). So, in order to make such a thing work, the President would first have strip the people of their rights (including RKBA) and thereby remove their ability to resist, but he cannot remove the people's rights against their will without first taking sole control of the government. So, the President cannot seize sole power without taking away the rights of the people first, and he cannot do that without sole power thusly making the attainment of sole governmental power by the President against the will of the people impossible. Therefore, both the Separation of Powers and our unalienable rights (including RKBA) prevent tyranny so long as the people have the will to be free from tyranny.
|
February 26, 2009, 06:57 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Webley,
I have spoken to the other parts of your position before so I won't rehash that but I did want to speak to your scenario. That is, any President who tried to use the military in an unlawful way. Speaking as a career military guy I can assure you that would never happen because of this oath: Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 27, 2009 at 12:06 AM. |
|
February 27, 2009, 09:50 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Tennessee Gentleman, if every soldier takes that oath so seriously, why did the army uphold Lincoln's declaration of martial law and suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Why did the military carry out the interrment of Japanese Americans during WWII? As you've already pointed out, both of these acts were tyrannical and unconstitutional, yet the military carried them out anyway. While the oath is definately a good thing, at the end of the day it's only as good as the person taking it and thus is not enough to prevent tyranny in and of itself. Therefore, the responsibility for preventing one branch of the government from seizing power over the other two falls ultimately upon the people. The Bill of Rights ensures that the people are able to prevent such tyranny by ensuring that the balance of power stays intact and the balance of power ensures that the people cannot be stripped of their rights without their consent. Each institution ensures the survival of the other so long as it is the will of the people.
|
February 27, 2009, 10:19 AM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; February 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM. |
|
February 27, 2009, 11:43 AM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
However, in neither case was the military used to overthrow branches of government as your scenario implied and all three branches of our government were complicit in the outrages you mention. Our government made a terrible mistake by interning those Japanese Americans but no armed citizenry either prevented it or righted it. I have not said our government is perfect (as none is) but my point is that the righting of the constitutional ship was done by our democratic institutions not an armed citizenry which had no role whatsoever in the affair. However, my question still stands if you can find a part of our history since our government was formed where an armed citizenry either prevented or overturned governmental tyranny I would be interested to hear about it. PS Once again please not the rural myth of The Battle of Athens TN:barf:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 27, 2009 at 11:51 AM. |
|
February 27, 2009, 11:51 AM | #57 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
I confess a fondness for Jackson's dissent. It is to the point and modest. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; February 27, 2009 at 12:38 PM. |
||
February 28, 2009, 08:09 AM | #58 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
February 28, 2009, 12:25 PM | #59 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
Thank you for addressing TG's strawman argument.
Firearms in the hands of citizens were vital in the expansion of this country, AFTER it was established. The presence of firearms also helped slow incursions from Mexico, attempting to claim Texas, and, I have little doubt have managed to make the Mexican government think twice about invading Kalifornia using force. |
February 28, 2009, 12:34 PM | #60 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 28, 2009 at 12:42 PM. |
||||
February 28, 2009, 12:38 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
However, I think you have presented a strawman by talking about expansion of the country which has nothing to do with government or tyranny or the question posed.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
February 28, 2009, 07:16 PM | #62 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Quote:
On page 233, Hamilton states the following in his arguments attempting to allay fears that the government would use the military for tyrannical purposes: Quote:
Given Hamilton's statements on the issue, it would seem rather clear that the founders did indeed intend an armed citizenry to serve as a bulwark against tyranny, the lack of its use does not negate its purpose. If you would like to argue that the premises upon which the founders wrote the Constitution are incorrect, go right ahead. I will not debate that point because I am of firm belief that those brilliant men probably knew much more about structuring a government that ensures the freedom of the people than you or I will ever hope to. Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
|
||||||
February 28, 2009, 09:24 PM | #63 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
FDR threatened the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment, expanding the court to a larger number, so he could get his socialist issues passed. The court ended up retiring, etc. but, it also didn't do any good for FDR's credibility. That is the closest I can think of, other then the Kali legislature, and government, suspending the US Constitution in this state...
|
February 28, 2009, 11:53 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
|
|
March 1, 2009, 12:23 AM | #65 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Webley,
Good discussion and I am a Hamilton fan. However, as I always say, history MUST be read in context. Hamilton was arguing for a strong central government and the anti-federalists (who ultimately lost the argument) wanted a weak central government. Why? Because we had just thrown off a tryannical government and we were trying a new experiment the world had never seen. The sturm und drang of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist positions helped us craft a system of checks and balances that would make armed insurrection like we had inflicted upon King George unnecessary ever again. Rebellion was the only choice we had against the Crown because there was no other choice available save slavery to the King. At the time Hamilton was writing it was not certain how we would prevent a tryannical despot from taking over. Therefore, his reliance on the idea of an armed citizen militia. Superior in numbers if not in arms to any standing Army. That would change later on as the country grew up and the democratic institutions matured. I will show that later on. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Webley, I am still waiting for historical evidence that an armed citizenry has prevented or undid a tyrannical act by our government.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 1, 2009 at 01:06 AM. Reason: spelling |
||||||
March 1, 2009, 09:53 AM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
In order to illustrate the principle that an armed population is useful in peeling back a the grip of a government force, it should not be necessary to limit examples to the US. The soviet army certainly found its contact with afgans demotivating, and contra use of arms has returned Nicaragua to a multiparty state. The idea is so well demonstrated that arguing against it indicates an agenda. Tennessse Gentleman, you've written often and over a long period that you fear arms in the hands of the population. You've even found a picture of a dozen or so fellows with guns to illustrate your fear. Why is your fear an adequate basis for public policy, while the anxiety of others at being disarmed isn't?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
March 1, 2009, 12:56 PM | #67 | ||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Kleinzeit Quote:
Last edited by Webleymkv; March 1, 2009 at 02:10 PM. |
||||||||||
March 1, 2009, 02:18 PM | #68 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
March 1, 2009, 04:10 PM | #69 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, why is the Revolutionary War example no good to answer the question I posed? Look again at the question. Quote:
On the other hand I have shown in each example of government abuse since our government was formed that in every case, the democratic institutions we have either prevented of reversed the abuse. I now state you cannot show that an armed citizenry has ever in the history of our republic prevented or reversed an abuse by the government. You may believe it (or want it) to be true as you claim John Hamilton did, but have nothing to support that belief. I have shown the efficacy of our democratic system to right those wrongs.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 1, 2009 at 04:21 PM. |
|||||||
March 1, 2009, 04:21 PM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
|
|
March 1, 2009, 05:10 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
The fact that Hitler and Stalin believed it was necessary to disarm the populace doesn't prove that it was, any more than the fact that some people believed it is necessary to not disarm the populace proves that it is. It's quite possible that, if Hitler and Stalin had let the people keep their guns, it wouldn't have made any significant difference to their hold on power.
|
March 1, 2009, 05:46 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
March 1, 2009, 06:55 PM | #73 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
OK then.
After reviewing the OP of both the threads (see my closing remarks here), I've been able to determine that the militia discourse more accurately matches this thread than the other one. The other thread will remain closed for going off topic. |
March 1, 2009, 07:45 PM | #74 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Secondly, whether he is right today or not (that's a separate issue), he gives the most clearly stated purpose for 2A at the time it was written. If you wish to debate wheter or not that purpose is still valid, that's a separate issue which is composed mainly of opinion. Such a debate would likely generate more heat than light. Thirdly, the only aspects of the Militia Acts of 1792 that have been abandoned are the semi-annual requirement to report for active milita duty and the requirement to provide one's own arms. However, it should be noted that two separate types of militia were commonly recognized: the Volunteer Militia and the Conscripted Militia. The Volunteer Militia took part in much more extensive training and drills than the Conscripted Militia were required to and the Volunteer Militia was not abandoned. The Volunteer and Conscripted Militia were defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as the Organized Militia (our present-day national guard) and the Unorganized Militia (all male citizens aged 18-45 who are not members of the National Guard or other branches of the Military). It should be pointed out that even when the abandoned requirements of the Militia Act of 1792 were in effect, the Conscripted/Unorganized Militia was not subject to requirements nearly as demanding as that of the Volunteer/Organized Militia or our present National Guard. Regardless of your obvious disdain for the abilites and/or usefulness of the Unorganized Militia, the fact remains that it does still exist as citizens who meet the criteria for membership in it are still subject to military conscription should the need arise. While the government has always been able to provide arms to the Unorganized Militia upon their conscription into the regular military, there is no guarantee that it will be able to do this in every possible crisis. Likewise, the right of the Unorganized Militia to own and become familiar with arms makes them both more effective and useful should they be needed. Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Webleymkv Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
So, yes I did answer your question. I simply refused to participate in your attempt to qualify away the validity of my answer. However, I will address your question one final time. Many of the colonists did indeed enjoy the right to free speech, free press, and other right that we enjoy today under the governments of their individual colonies and some of those rights, though certainly not all, under British law. So long as the British government left those rights unmolested, it was not viewed as tyrannical over the colonies. It was only after these rights were taken away that the British government was viewed as tyrannical. When this happened, the colonists attemted to use the means afforded to them by British law to rectify the situation, but the British government refused to comply. Only after every other option had been exhausted (not because of a lack of options) did the colonies revolt. While it is true that the governmental system in effect them was not exactly the same as that we have today (very few national governments fuction in exactly the same manner), they are not so dissimilar as to make the comparison invalid. Honestly, a request for another people throwing off a tyrannical government that operated in exactly the same manner that our own does is a loaded question as there is no other government, nor has there ever been, that operates in the exact same manner as our own. However, comparison of events in two similar, though not identical, governments is still valid as the same events have occured in very similar fashions with governments whose operation, and even culture, is more dissimilar that our own and 1770's Great Britain. Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman Quote:
Originally posted by Kleinziet Quote:
Last edited by Webleymkv; March 1, 2009 at 07:53 PM. Reason: spelling |
||||||||||||
March 1, 2009, 08:34 PM | #75 | |||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here's a good quote about it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most historians agree that at least part of the meaning of the Second Amendment was that it specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true. So, yes the Founding Fathers feared tyranny but it was through the militia that they sought protection. The problem comes in when you try to relate that to today when we have no militia and we do have a large standing army. Let me throw another modernistic monkey wrench in your idea. I think a tyrant today wouldn'teven try to use the military to try and control us. Too messy and there are many other ways to do that without firing a shot. So, don't get too cousy with your AR-15 at home. Might not do you any good. Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 1, 2009 at 08:41 PM. |
|||||||||||
|
|