More weapons regulations

Remove all ads!

I'm just curious as to why you would bring up Robert Lee as your example. From all accounts he seems to have been a very decent man with solid principles.

Another advertising LOL moment... Master of Arts in Military History (ONLINE!) from Norwich University.

 

That entirely depends on who you target. If you poison the local water resevoir, then yes, this is domestic terrorism. If you poison the water the Army/Police/Enemy take into the field, that's chemical or bio-warfare.

Despite the oft-romaticized notions we have in the Western world, I am convinced that war is a thing wholey devoid of both honor and civility. The only goals are victory and survival. The only reprehensible actions are betrayal and involving those not already involved (civilians, other nations, etc.), and even those may be considered in extreme times (I have no problem with Hiroshima, and only a little with Nagasaki). If you can disable or kill a large portion of the enemy forces without ever engaging them, so long as you restrict civilian casualties, I generally consider any means acceptable.

The other problem we have with the analogies to the Revolutionary war, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. is that the real situation is different. In all of those, the modern army was a foreign power, with all their bases and supplies basically placed where they were most strategic for their own purposes. Here, we would be talking about a local power, with it's complex and widely dispursed infrastructure in the middle of the battle zone. To be effective, the Gov't would have to defend all of it, or at least most of it, and be sure of it's defenders (which will severely reduce the number of troops, be they army or police or other). The insurgency, on the other hand, does not really need any localized or concentrated structure, certainly not anything readily identifiable, and can strike anything at any time. The insurgency's greatest defence is secrecy, and, between modern cell theory and modern communications, it would be very difficult to effectively break that secrecy. You also have to realize that you probably wouldn't be talking about one organization, but several different ones of varying sizes acting independantly, possibly without even knowing the others exist. On top of all that, the historical analogies are to peoples that are, comparatively, poorly educated and with poor supplies and equipment, whereas many in the right today, and probably more than a few in the left, actually have the capabilities to manufacture most if not all of the things I'm talking about from scratch. Explosives, firearms, ammunition, electronics, transportation, even remote operated vehicles, would all be readily available, with the first two in large quantities and various types.

Basically, how would you defend a modern military base, or even the White House, Capitol Building, and Pentagon from a Mac truck or three fully loaded with the kind of chemical explosives most high-school students could make out of things bought at Wal-Mart? Now consider, how do you defend all of them? The U.S. military infrastructure simply isn't built to face a local conflict, and changing that would take decades of major investments.

 

Just read the blurb on amazon about it & it does look interesting. I'll have to pickup a copy on my next trip to the book store. It sounds like a variation of bladerunner, hopefully done in an innovating &/or unique way.

 

Chick - I brought General Lee into the conversation on purpose, and for two reasons:

1. He is a personal hero of mine. I believe that if there was anything good about the South's rebellion, he epitomizes what was best about it. He was a man of honor, duty and fairness.

I think on the plus side, he elevates the Southern "cause" to a search for fairness, personal integrity and duty. He felt duty-bound to fight for his home and its people. He hated the War and did not believe in the rebellion. He believed, much like I do, that the Civil War was a betrayal of the Founders and the nation that they had crafted with their sweat and blood, in places like Valley Forge.

Nevertheless, on the negative side, he was a traitor and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Arlington cemetery was originally placed in his backyard to remember all the union soldiers who died because of him and the rebellion.

The point is, honor has a price, sometimes an extremely high price. IMO, Lee understood that, and made the choice that he did, based on his own personal sense if what was right. While I cannot fault him, and still admire him, I believe he made the wrong choice.

The second reason I brought him into this is because Lee would never have stood for the killing of innocents in a wartime situation. He and his army (the Army of Nothern Virginia) almost always conducted itself with honor in the field; avoiding damage to civilian property, and taking provisions only when needed, (and then paying in Confederate currency). He was always fair to his enemy, even in victory. Before anyone "entertains" the notion of rebellion against one's own country and fellow countrymen, he should consider the example of General Lee very carefully in that notion.

 

No, it does not depend, and I tell you why. When you shoot up a police station and kill 20 policemen in 'resistance to oppression', and also kill the cleaning woman - only then does it become a crime, terrorism, and not mere honourable 'resistance'? Where do you live, in fairyland? And who are you kidding?

The FBI certainly disagrees with your peculiar ideas about resistance and terrorism. To them, and US terrorism laws, domestic terrorism is in the Code of Federal Regulations:

and to the FBI ...

Having read that I say that it does not depend on the target, it suffices that violence is used, but that it especially depends on the intent to coerce the government. I dare say that that, coercion of an oppressive government, is what armed resistance is all about, is it not?

 

Lee was a helluva man. One of my favorite quotes comes from him

I still don't think anyone should think of the confederates as traitors, as the felt they had legitimate cause to withdraw from the union.
The winners right the history though.
Actually harry turtledove has a book(out of an excellent series of books) on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Few-Remai...=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236858349&sr=1-7

 

Ragusa, any armed resistance would, essentially by definition, be illegal. The French Resistance in WWII was illegal by the laws of the time. The question is, are those laws just? If you are looking at things from a civil standpoint, yes this is criminal, though 'terrorism' requires an intentional element of terror, so that depends entirely on execution. From a war-footing viewpoint, this is a chemical strike against a military outpost. Yes, a military outpost may have a few civilians in it, and that is unfortunate, and efforts should be made to minimize civilian casualties, but civilian casualties happen in war, even when the best of efforts are made to avoid them. This is especially true in any modern war.

Now, if the target is simply a local police station who's sole purpose is to keep peace in the local community, without any serious involvement in the overall opression of the people, then that was an illegitimate target in the first place, but having a cleaning lady doesn't affect that.

 

Treason is illegal. Notice how this thread has gone from the right to bear arms to the right to poison and use chemical weapons against the US military. The very people who keep this nation safe from the Russians and the Chinese are now enemies of whomever feels that they no longer "approve of the government." That's political, thus it's terrorism, and it's treason.

Owning a gun is now immaterial to the discussion, since it's all technology, chemical and biological. It's no longer about needing a gun to protect oneself and family, instead it's how to use Bin Laden-like terror tactics against their own country. Why not just fly planes into buildings? They could be just military installatiion type buildings (like the Pentagon). Or how about the White House? The Capitol building? Hell, they could go back and get what Osama missed. Why not learn from the master of terrorism himself? There's an old expression: "Choose your enemies well, because in the end that is who you will become the most like."

Breaking up the US into pieces will only invite its real enemies to come over and invade what's left. Do you think for a minute that they would not jump at the chance? The Russians are already having wet dreams about the notion. Which sector would you plan to be in? The Russian? Chinese? Mexican? Instead of dreams about a "glorious revolution," your country and your countrymen could be sujected to foreign servitude. And that is treason.

 

We could have a good argument about that -- on another thread.

 

But wasn't the American country, the great experiment, founded on what amounted to treason against their country? It has always been my understanding that the colonists wanted to be treated fairly but that many of them wanted to remain British subjects. The right to bear arms was entrenched in the Constitution so that if a government's policies became reprehensible, the people would have the means to fight back, just as the colonists did. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, all talk of another American civil war is utterly preposterous. Even under Bush, there was still rule of law and the Constitution was never drastically altered or distorted. Peaceful transition of government authority by means of secret ballot elections was never compromised. Taxes were not raised to brutal amounts, and no draft occurred. Major industries were not nationalized, and the crime rate did not skyrocket. Goods and services were available to the population at reasonable levels of service -- there was no rationing. Massive groups of people were not disenfranchised.

In other words, IMHO, none of the drastic conditions that would precipitate revolutionary behaviour in large portions of the poplulace existed. I'm not saying that Bush didn't do some really stupid things and make some serious errors, especially with regards to the Constitution, but people who call him a tyrant or a despot really need to give their heads a shake and look at a history book to what a real despot does. Better yet, hop onto an airplane to Zimbabwe to see Robert Mugabe, a real tyrant in action, right now, today! I agree that when you see things going in a bad direction it is vitally imperative that you speak up, but hyperbole of the sort I'm describing here must be recognized for what it is -- hyperbole.

And I think the same thing about Obama. There's a few whackjobs out there who might talk about armed resistance to the American government, but such a resistance would require the tacit consent of a huge chunk of the population. Things are not that bad yet, and with democratic institutions still in place and the supply of basic necessities still abundent, they're not going to, either. Obama has the support of a lot of Americans, and even those who do not support him do not think that his disagreeable policies are worth revolution. Things would have to be worse by several orders of magnitude for that to happen.

Which brings us back to the weapons regulations. No one with half a brain thinks that the government will come and infringe on their freedoms so severely that armed resistance is necessary. But the possinility of a temporary breakdown in social order due to catastrophe is real. For self defense when the government is temporarily unable to maintain order, I'd own a gun or seven, were I an American. I own 2 right now as it is.

 

LKD, you are right on all points. The US was founded it treason against the crown. Ragusa, illegal or not, do you think that was wrong? Would it similarly be wrong to rebel against a government that shredded the constitution to pieces and began widespread abuses of power?

Also, how exactly do you define terrorism? I generally define it as an attempt, through violence or threat of violence, to provoke terror in a community. Acts of rebellion such as I mentioned are not terrorism because they are never intended or designed to invoke terror in the community, but rather to surgically disable a particular portion of that community.

LKD, of all things, I think the biggest reason we will not see an American Civil War any time soon is that there is far to vast of a middle-ground in US politics. I'd bet the vast majority of Americans are no where's near either the liberal extreme or the conservative extreme. If Obama went berzerk on the Constitution and instituted the extremist liberal dream by force, I'd bet at least 70% of even the liberals would oppose him. There's too much of a spectrum and not enough of a division in the US to see a civil war kind of break.

 

My point is merely, questions of legality aside, that this is a splendid instance, a showcase, of people who, as their cause is just in their fictitious setting - consider all means legitimate, after all it is for a noble goal. The crucial question from a practical point of view is not so much whether the state is oppressive (in the speculative case the state always is, which is also why such thought experiments lend themselves to excess as much as to fallacy or circular reasoning), but whether the people rebelling against the ever oppressing state have been diligent in assessing reality.

People tend to be very subjective in such matters. You will always find a nutter who perceives taxation as an outrageous theft, confiscatory communism or whatnot - and who concludes that the time for resistance is now.

Lack of said diligence, or simply a distorted and radicalised perception, can easily lead to incidents like Oklahoma City, or 9/11. Easily, because for the true believer, as the cause is just, the means to fight for it are always legitimate, and the stronger the (chosen) enemy (is perceived to be), the starker the legitimate means. People have killed inspired by the Holy Bible. It is far from inconceivable that people (ab)use the US constitution to the same effect.

Which means that those fictitious thought experiments lead and nudge us, conveniently perhaps, away from the hard questions. So what about the reality today? What about the use of guns for liberty in the absence of real tyranny (discounting the perceived, putative, hypothetical and imaginary)?

Hey, I defended freedom today - I bought a Glock - in defence of the second amendment!

Yeah, let's fight tyranny at the shooting range. Those bullseyes sure will teach that John Yoo guy the fear of God, of the constitution and of the .45. Maybe the Patriot Act and those vastly expanded commander-in-chief powers will go away if one buys a shotgun, too ... well, to buy a gun, to prepare for a fictitious potential tyranny, is no surrogate for participation in politics, to pre-empt tyranny before armed resistance is necessary. To be gung-ho about that fictitious tyranny 'some day' is a splendid fig leaf for being complacent now, after all, we do something, don't we? Like what? Another clip perhaps? A good deal of America's gun cult is simply consumerism.

 

There's been a lot of confusion over who fired the first shots. I've researched this point, because it is an important distinction. The first shots were certainly fired at Boston, in what is now known as "The Boston Massacare."

The real heart of the Revolution was England's refusal to admit colonial representatives into Parliament. There was active resistance to "policy," not to the King. In fact, even until almost the end, many colonits felt that the King would favor THEIR cause over Parliament. Ben Franklin was one such colonist.

If you want to know more about how staunchly Ben was a Royalist and loyal to the King, see _The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin, by Gordon Wood. He is my favorite historian on the Revolution.

But to return to the situation in Boston, the Massacare was something very similar to what happened in the early 1970s' at Kent State, where unarmed protestors got out of hand and were fired upon by government soldiers. Like at Kent State students were hurling objects and provoking a riot.

The events are a little different, but similar. For a more on the early stages of the Revolution, and if you read only one book on the subject, I recommend this one:

http://shopping.msn.com/prices/patr...s-the-men-who-started-the-american-revolution

But the real incident is Lexington and Concord: For that I have not seen a better book than _Paul Revere's Ride_ by David Hackett Fischer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord

The first shot is in dispute. But there is no doubt according to Fischer, that the militia was ordered to disperse from Lexington Green, and proceeded to do so, when a shot was fired from somewhere, which struck no one. The English then fired into the dispersing crowd and shots were fired back.

It is my opnion, that the first action was taken again by the English regarding hostilities. And further, that the colonists were defending their homes and their families from English aggression in this regard. So while you may be able to technically claim that the Revolution was treason, (and King George certainly believed that they were traitors and the Founders believed they would be hanged as such). Nevertheless, there is a case to be made that hostilities were begun by the English, and Independence was a response to English aggression.

T2 made an interesting, and I believe good point, about what the American military would or would not do in this regard. I believe him when he says that they would not be part of a government plot to usurp either the Constitution or The Rule of Law. If they came to my town and started pointing rifles at my neighbors or my home or family, of course there should be resistance.

http://www.patriotresource.com/events/revere/index.html

BTW, the first hostilities during the Civil War were opened by the South, at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

Again, that's in dispute, because of the openly aggressive nature of the English response to colonial protests against policy.

Yes, I covered this point in an earlier post. And that is not why it was included. But because some of the founders wanted a local militia of armed citizens and not a national army. In fact, Sam Adams, the firebrand of the Revolution, believed that those who took up arms against the government should be executed. See Shay's Rebellion.

You can't get more "Founder" than old Sam Adams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

 

Chandos, who shot first, while far from immaterial, is not an issue. I would never even suggest rebellion against the US Government unless it had taken actions directly against the good of the people and in direct violation of Law and Constitution. Be that firing upon the citezenry or other, the Government must first betray the people. That doesn't change the fact that, legally speaking, what the people do is treason (actually, I seem to recall that, in the US at least, treason can only be declared in times of war, so is it treason?).

As to why the Right to Bear Arms was included in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were very fearful of a powerful central government, and took many steps to limit the power of such. One of those steps was to ensure that each locality had the right to maintain it's own millitia and arms. Is that a precaution against a corrupt and abusive central government, or is it an alternative to a singular national army? The truth is it serves both purposes and I think you would be very hard pressed to prove either of them was not a consideration.

 

This is one of the odd moments in which you just sort of throw up your hands. That's a painful comment. Those kinds of comments may be good for know-nothing internet bloggers who never bothered to crack open a single book on the history of the Constitution and the process by which it came about, but please don't brush me off with that kind of useless rhetoric. I've spent years studying this stuff.

I'll just ask two questions of you, NOG: Which "Founding Fathers" are you referring to in your comment? And why did those who planned the Constitutional Convention, feel the need for it?

[Hint] To begin your inquiry begin with Madison and Hamilton. Why did James Madison feel the need for the Convention?

Spoiler

Though Madison was a shy man, he was one of the more outspoken members of the Continental Congress. He envisioned a strong federal government that could overrule actions of the states when they were deemed mistaken

Even a better site than Wiki. This one really nails down Madison and the Constitution:

Spoiler

To review then, Madison went to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 armed with several convictions. First, that the Articles needed replacing, not amending; second, that a strong central authority was needed to counterbalance the state governments; and third, that an extended republic was the key to arranging the institutions of government in a way that would ameliorate the majority tyranny so prevalent in the states, and therefore protect private rights and promote the public good

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/madison.html

 

Chandos, please go here & read his points.
http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/

I think Mr Young can answer any question you may have about this subject.
His book on the subject
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0962366471

PS - my commenst in post #52 were meant to show how to turn the populace against the government. If they can't provide basic services to the populace they will quickly lose them, unless they crack down on them. In which case they lose a large part anyway.
I also indicated that a part of the military would be under suspicion by the government anyway, as a large part are dedicated to the constitution $ the country not the government.
As far as the FBI, Marshalls, Secret Service goes, every politician would be screaming bloody murder to have protection details. These groups are large but not that large & would be stretched thin just to do these jobs, let alone search for the dissidents.

 

Martaug - I don't have any questions relating to this subject. Especially since Mr. Young seems to support my comments EXACTLY regarding the desire of some of the Founders for a well-armed "state controlled" militia, which was what I believe was a large part of the intent of the amendment. Since Mr. Young and I agree on the basics regarding the points that interest me, I have no need to read his book on the complete origins of the Second Amendment. As I commented in earlier posts, MOST of the Founders did not trust a national, professional army. Of course, there are exceptions to this. One such important Founder who did was Alexander Hamilton.

My main point is that Madison was looking for BALANCED government in his ideas for framing the Constitution. Madison wanted the power of the states kept in check by a stronger central government at the time of the Convention. Many of the Founders - AT THAT TIME - feared the power of the states was too great for a national government to survive for very long. Hence, the reason for the Convention and the framing of the Constitution in the first place.

The important point to understand about Madison at the time of the Convention (1787) is that he was Hamilton's partner, not Jefferson's. That would change, and so would American politics. But that was not until 1791. The nature of Madison's political desires would go off in a different direction.

Edit: I wanted to include Mr Young's basic assertion, which I agree with:

I have no idea which legal case all this pertains to, (and don't really care) but I will say that it's plain that the entire Bill of Rights is a declaration of individual rights. This is an important point. The Bill of Rights is a set of individual protections from any form of government, whether local, state, or federal. As I commented in an earlier post, the Right to Have and Bear Arms is a "fundamental right."

I wanted to add this as well:

You keep making this remark, and it makes little sense. Can you take some time explain this more fully? Or are you really trying to say that some politicans might "take over" the government illegally? Actually stage a coup of some sort? That is something different. The reason your comment makes so little sense is because our Constitution IS our government. When you say the military is loyal to the Constitution you are saying that they are loyal to the government. Can you add some clarity to this?

Is this what you mean?

 

I think what he's talking about,and what I mean, is that government, whether Presidential, Congressional, or some combination, may take actions in violation of the Constitution. The separation of powers provides, well, separate powers, which could act independently and in violation of the Constitution. You could think of the Patriot Act as an example. If that had gone further, if the abuses had become blatant...