The guy falls flat on his ass in Part 1 with this: Inasmuch as no truly constitutional "well regulated militia" were in operation immediately prior to the Civil War in any of the several states..... Whallll, between Georgia and South Carolina alone, there were more that forty militia organizations, at the behest of their state governments, and of course sanctioned by the US Constitution, and State Constitutions, as well as New York, New Hampshire, every state in the Union, prior to Sumter being fired on. Is this jackass for real?
The major cognitive dissonance is the use of top down rather than bottom up thinking when considering the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Thinking that the "free state" refers to the system of governance rather that the individuals condition of existance.
The documents are a set of rules instituted by a group of individuals to constrain the feects of a system of govenance from reducing their individual rights and freedoms to live in a state (or condition - if you will) of freedom ... "a free state" for the individual not a system of govenance which would be enunciated as a 'free country' or a system of freedom.
The banding together of groups of individuals in malitias was precisely what they were doing to ensure their individual freedom prior to the revolution and subsequent establishment of a system of govenance desdicated to preserving individual freedom.
The object was not the establishment of a free system of governance but the protection of individual liberty by banding together to protect that liberty by force of arms as and when needful.
I think Vieira gets it half right. Militias ARE important and they ought to be revitalized, but the individual right to arms exists whether or not militias do. Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights when it speaks of the right of "the people" it's talking about an individual right. If you read the other (not the Constitution) writings of the Founders, you see an express belief in the INDIVIDUAL right to arms. If you read Blackstone, and particularly his section on ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, you'll see that you need the right to defend your life in order to preserve your right TO life. The Founders were well aware of this. Additionally, our rights come NOT from the Constitution, which "merely" recognizes and guarantees them, but from our Creator ("...we are endowed by our Creator with certain unanlienable rights..."), and so the right to defend ourselves from agressors, be they acting alone or with the (illegitimate) force of a tyrannical government, is one of our most basic, indidivual rights possible. Vieira understands that the Militia cannot exist without the individual possessing the right to arms, but he seems to not understand (or, at least, doesn't address) that the individual CAN possess arms without the existence of the organized Militia. Besides, when the "S" really DOES "HTF," you will see just how fast the Militia CAN become organized and "well-regulated" (in the original context and meaning of that term). He can't be so naive as to think that preparations are not already being made.
The author's criticism of the NRA is right on target (although, like him, I reluctantly retain my membership in the NRA).
It might be useful to draw a distinction between supporters of private gun ownership and supporters of the Second Amendment. The latter group is a subset of the former. It is possible to support private gun ownership without supporting the Second Amendment.
Sadly, this describes both the NRA and much of the gun-owning public. Those who support private gun ownership, but not the Second Amendment, believe private citizens should be able to keep guns only for "lawful purposes." These people are heedless of Thomas Jefferson's admonition that "law is often but the tyrant's will."
Those who support the Second Amendment are those who believe that citizens have the right to revolt against their own government, and that this necessitates widespread private possession of sufficiently powerful weaponry.
Unfortunately, even among those who verbally express support for the Second Amendment, there is much cognitive dissonance to be found. Witness the strong support for "our troops" among even the members of the Liberty Movement. Here's a reality check for them: The more effective the US military is at fighting guerrillas overseas, the less safe our freedoms are at home.
Every single development that has increased the effectiveness of US forces against the Taliban and/or the Iraqi opposition must be regarded as a blow to the Second Amendment. If "our" troops can use Superweapon XYZ against brown people overseas, then they can use Superweapon XYZ to disarm and subjugate Americans at home. Indeed, we have already been seeing this for quite some time, as domestic police are supplied with weapons and equipment by the Pentagon. But even if the police were to be demilitarized, there's nothing to stop the military proper from being used against the American people (again) at some future point.
What's the answer to this conundrum? Keep the military weak? Not exactly. It just needs to have the right kind of strength. We need a national defense, but one that focuses almost exclusively on "big" weapons that are suited only for use by one nation against another. Our nukes, subs, jets, and so forth are the basis for true military power in the modern world. "Boots on the ground" are only needed when it is desired to invade and occupy a foreign country -- something that is rarely if ever justified.
"Big" weapons are not a significant threat to our freedom, since the use of such weapons against guerrillas on home soil would be clumsy, inefficient, and counterproductive. Can anyone imagine the US government nuking one of its own cities? Hardly. It would be attacking itself as much as any opposition. But we don't have to imagine the US government sending troops into one of its own cities to put down an uprising, since it has already happened multiple times in our history.
The US armed forces are the most powerful in the world. If they protected our Constitution and our freedom, we would not have lost any of it. If we could trust "our" troops to take our side in any future conflict with domestic tyranny, then what would we even need the Second Amendment for?
It's long past time to retire America's standing ground forces. We can retain the Navy and Air Force, including our nuclear deterrent. It may seem radical and even crazy, but it's also the truth.
The NRA is in business TO STAY IN BUSINESS. If there was a nail sticking out of a board, the NRA would shine and polish the nail head and decorate it and all that fancy stuff. I would take a hammer and pound the nail into the board until there was nothing sticking up. Over and DONE once and for all. Time for the NRA to wake up (except they don't want to). If the NRA had any sort of a back-bone this issue would have been settled years ago. I repeat, In Business to STAY IN BUSINESS.
A "militia" is formed when twenty well armed Ferguson business owners stand in front of the strip mall that houses their places of business to protect it from looters. A "militia" is formed when 500 armed people show up to demand a looting government agency return a man's cattle to him. Etc, etc... These may not be the " well regulated" ones the Constitution refers to, but they are militias none the less.
Please. Enough with the "states rights" arguement. That's the tenth amendment. Those making that case might as well argue that guns are just property and thus dealt with via the fourth Amendment. Heck with the tenth, the fourth and state constitutions, we don't even NEED the Second at ALL! Those are all arguments made by unthinking people who fail to consider the consequences.
The federal constitution, which includes amendments, is a set of rules agreed to by people AND states. The second amendment, for instance, PREEMPTS, states (and local municipalities) from ignoring the right to arms. Because FOOLS refused to just admit this reality, another amendment had to be crafted and ratified. Can you say 14th? See, states ARE free to craft differing statutes and code BUT that authority is LIMITED..... That authority has BOUNDARIES. The founders and framers DID NOT seek to limit the federal government but leave state governments to their own devices. They sought and succeeded in limiting ALL government to form AND power- all focused on protecting and defending the MOST IMPORTANT THING - individual liberty.
As for the NRA- this piece is spot on. I have long thought the NRA stood for Negotiating Rights Away. But I was wrong. It really stands for Negotiating Rights AGAIN! As in never ending negotiation. It's perfect job security! The NRA doesn't want anything settled either way. It wants endless negotiation AND the title of negotiator. That way, it can play both ends against the middle, endlessly. The Fudds can donate money thinking they are doing their part and the grabbers can slam it while using it as a tool to convince the fudds they must concede to "common sense". Background checks are a great example. See, rights can never be stolen, they can only be conceded. The grabbers use the NRA to convince it's own members that gun control is their own best interest. (Group A knows it cannot TAKE something from group B, so it crafts group C to convince group B to concede that something instead. All the while, group A claims to oppose, even despise group C, though in reality it loves it's plot to fool "stupid American voters". Folks, the NRA is the Gruber of Gun Rights.
9 comments:
The guy falls flat on his ass in Part 1 with this: Inasmuch as no truly constitutional "well regulated militia" were in operation immediately prior to the Civil War in any of the several states..... Whallll, between Georgia and South Carolina alone, there were more that forty militia organizations, at the behest of their state governments, and of course sanctioned by the US Constitution, and State Constitutions, as well as New York, New Hampshire, every state in the Union, prior to Sumter being fired on. Is this jackass for real?
The major cognitive dissonance is the use of top down rather than bottom up thinking when considering the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Thinking that the "free state" refers to the system of governance rather that the individuals condition of existance.
The documents are a set of rules instituted by a group of individuals to constrain the feects of a system of govenance from reducing their individual rights and freedoms to live in a state (or condition - if you will) of freedom ... "a free state" for the individual not a system of govenance which would be enunciated as a 'free country' or a system of freedom.
The banding together of groups of individuals in malitias was precisely what they were doing to ensure their individual freedom prior to the revolution and subsequent establishment of a system of govenance desdicated to preserving individual freedom.
The object was not the establishment of a free system of governance but the protection of individual liberty by banding together to protect that liberty by force of arms as and when needful.
III
DUTCH -- Why is the elephant in the room always ignored by all?
State constitutions also guarantee the right to bear arms, but is never mentioned, either in historical or modern context.
How about weighing in on this?
--Johnathan
I think Vieira gets it half right. Militias ARE important and they ought to be revitalized, but the individual right to arms exists whether or not militias do. Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights when it speaks of the right of "the people" it's talking about an individual right. If you read the other (not the Constitution) writings of the Founders, you see an express belief in the INDIVIDUAL right to arms. If you read Blackstone, and particularly his section on ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, you'll see that you need the right to defend your life in order to preserve your right TO life. The Founders were well aware of this. Additionally, our rights come NOT from the Constitution, which "merely" recognizes and guarantees them, but from our Creator ("...we are endowed by our Creator with certain unanlienable rights..."), and so the right to defend ourselves from agressors, be they acting alone or with the (illegitimate) force of a tyrannical government, is one of our most basic, indidivual rights possible. Vieira understands that the Militia cannot exist without the individual possessing the right to arms, but he seems to not understand (or, at least, doesn't address) that the individual CAN possess arms without the existence of the organized Militia. Besides, when the "S" really DOES "HTF," you will see just how fast the Militia CAN become organized and "well-regulated" (in the original context and meaning of that term). He can't be so naive as to think that preparations are not already being made.
The author's criticism of the NRA is right on target (although, like him, I reluctantly retain my membership in the NRA).
It might be useful to draw a distinction between supporters of private gun ownership and supporters of the Second Amendment. The latter group is a subset of the former. It is possible to support private gun ownership without supporting the Second Amendment.
Sadly, this describes both the NRA and much of the gun-owning public. Those who support private gun ownership, but not the Second Amendment, believe private citizens should be able to keep guns only for "lawful purposes." These people are heedless of Thomas Jefferson's admonition that "law is often but the tyrant's will."
Those who support the Second Amendment are those who believe that citizens have the right to revolt against their own government, and that this necessitates widespread private possession of sufficiently powerful weaponry.
Unfortunately, even among those who verbally express support for the Second Amendment, there is much cognitive dissonance to be found. Witness the strong support for "our troops" among even the members of the Liberty Movement. Here's a reality check for them: The more effective the US military is at fighting guerrillas overseas, the less safe our freedoms are at home.
Every single development that has increased the effectiveness of US forces against the Taliban and/or the Iraqi opposition must be regarded as a blow to the Second Amendment. If "our" troops can use Superweapon XYZ against brown people overseas, then they can use Superweapon XYZ to disarm and subjugate Americans at home. Indeed, we have already been seeing this for quite some time, as domestic police are supplied with weapons and equipment by the Pentagon. But even if the police were to be demilitarized, there's nothing to stop the military proper from being used against the American people (again) at some future point.
What's the answer to this conundrum? Keep the military weak? Not exactly. It just needs to have the right kind of strength. We need a national defense, but one that focuses almost exclusively on "big" weapons that are suited only for use by one nation against another. Our nukes, subs, jets, and so forth are the basis for true military power in the modern world. "Boots on the ground" are only needed when it is desired to invade and occupy a foreign country -- something that is rarely if ever justified.
"Big" weapons are not a significant threat to our freedom, since the use of such weapons against guerrillas on home soil would be clumsy, inefficient, and counterproductive. Can anyone imagine the US government nuking one of its own cities? Hardly. It would be attacking itself as much as any opposition. But we don't have to imagine the US government sending troops into one of its own cities to put down an uprising, since it has already happened multiple times in our history.
The US armed forces are the most powerful in the world. If they protected our Constitution and our freedom, we would not have lost any of it. If we could trust "our" troops to take our side in any future conflict with domestic tyranny, then what would we even need the Second Amendment for?
It's long past time to retire America's standing ground forces. We can retain the Navy and Air Force, including our nuclear deterrent. It may seem radical and even crazy, but it's also the truth.
The NRA is in business TO STAY IN BUSINESS. If there was a nail sticking out of a board, the NRA would shine and polish the nail head and decorate it and all that fancy stuff. I would take a hammer and pound the nail into the board until there was nothing sticking up. Over and DONE once and for all. Time for the NRA to wake up (except they don't want to). If the NRA had any sort of a back-bone this issue would have been settled years ago. I repeat, In Business to STAY IN BUSINESS.
I must be missing something - is he trying to display cognitive dissonance?
A "militia" is formed when twenty well armed Ferguson business owners stand in front of the strip mall that houses their places of business to protect it from looters. A "militia" is formed when 500 armed people show up to demand a looting government agency return a man's cattle to him. Etc, etc... These may not be the " well regulated" ones the Constitution refers to, but they are militias none the less.
Please. Enough with the "states rights" arguement. That's the tenth amendment. Those making that case might as well argue that guns are just property and thus dealt with via the fourth Amendment. Heck with the tenth, the fourth and state constitutions, we don't even NEED the Second at ALL! Those are all arguments made by unthinking people who fail to consider the consequences.
The federal constitution, which includes amendments, is a set of rules agreed to by people AND states. The second amendment, for instance, PREEMPTS, states (and local municipalities) from ignoring the right to arms. Because FOOLS refused to just admit this reality, another amendment had to be crafted and ratified. Can you say 14th? See, states ARE free to craft differing statutes and code BUT that authority is LIMITED..... That authority has BOUNDARIES. The founders and framers DID NOT seek to limit the federal government but leave state governments to their own devices. They sought and succeeded in limiting ALL government to form AND power- all focused on protecting and defending the MOST IMPORTANT THING - individual liberty.
As for the NRA- this piece is spot on. I have long thought the NRA stood for Negotiating Rights Away. But I was wrong. It really stands for Negotiating Rights AGAIN! As in never ending negotiation. It's perfect job security! The NRA doesn't want anything settled either way. It wants endless negotiation AND the title of negotiator. That way, it can play both ends against the middle, endlessly.
The Fudds can donate money thinking they are doing their part and the grabbers can slam it while using it as a tool to convince the fudds they must concede to "common sense". Background checks are a great example. See, rights can never be stolen, they can only be conceded. The grabbers use the NRA to convince it's own members that gun control is their own best interest. (Group A knows it cannot TAKE something from group B, so it crafts group C to convince group B to concede that something instead. All the while, group A claims to oppose, even despise group C, though in reality it loves it's plot to fool "stupid American voters".
Folks, the NRA is the Gruber of Gun Rights.
Post a Comment