Militia movement will be packing heat at rally on the Potomac

Source: WaPo

Daniel Almond, a three-tour veteran of Iraq, is ready to "muster outside D.C." on Monday with several dozen other self-proclaimed patriots, all of them armed. They intend to make history as the first people to take their guns to a demonstration in a national park, and the Virginia rally is deliberately being held just a few miles from the Capitol and the White House.

The Atlanta area real estate agent organized the rally because he is upset about health-care reform, climate control, bank bailouts, drug laws and what he sees as President Obama's insistence on and the Democratic Congress's capitulation to a "totalitarian socialism" that tramples individual rights.

"What I think is important to note is that many of the speakers have really threatened violence, and it's a real threat to the rule of law," Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said of the program for the armed rally. "They are calling health care and taxes that have been duly enacted by a democratically elected Congress tyrannical, and they feel they have a right to confront that individually."

Those coming to the "Restore the Constitution" rally give Obama no quarter for signing the law that permits them to bring their guns to Fort Hunt, run by the National Park Service, and to Gravelly Point on the banks of the Potomac River. Nor are they comforted by a broad expansion of gun rights in several states since his election.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802391.html?hpid=topnews

---

These nuts are taking loaded weapons to a "Restore the Constitution" rally. Where were these fuck-bags when W. Bush was wiping his ass with the bill of rights?

This story is immensely disturbing. When Bush was doing his shit and we protested, we were told that he was the legal winner of the election and to just shut up and live with it. (This, even though he got a half-million votes fewer than Gore.) When we challenged the constitutionality of parts of the Bush agenda, were were labeled as seditionists and were asked "who the hell were we to judge what's constitutional. These things have to go through courts and be duly judged..." and that we weren't entitled to make our own judgments about what was constitutional or not and act on it.

Now that a negro's in charge, suddenly we have police and ex-military ready to judge on their own what's constitutional or not and selectively enforce - or worse, resist - those things they themselves judge as un-constitutional.

Someone convince me we're not seeing the beginning of the end of the Republic.

I can't imagine such a thing happening.

Or someone drives by and throws a lit pack of fire crackers out the window.



All I can say is the fact they cannot get in Washington but only as far a VA makes me feel a little better.

What a bunch of (armed) fools.

anybody caught committing any act of violence is "a liberal disruptor/infiltrator bent on smearing the movement!"

Acts of violence are becoming mainstream, as terrorists like the guy who flew his plane into the IRS are hailed as heroes. The media is doing its best to make the fringe the mainstream.

although sometimes AFTER the sign is already printed... which calls for a paste-over (similar to a comb-over but using cardboard)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hi:

I speak only for myself, of course, I don't know how others here will feel.

You make some points that are worthy of being addressed, and if I wasn't on my way out the door, I'd work on it. But... hopefully later. So I'm posting here so I can find this post again when I get back.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Thank you for the response.

and blew the budget surplus Clinton left with no-bid contracts to his & Cheney's pals? Why didn't you care when he pushed the Patriot Act and FISA on us? I don't recall any concern from your fellow Tea Partiers about how much we were borrowing from China then nor do I recall any armed demonstrations when the Bush was in the White House.

No, you guys aren't racist, it's just coincidence that the only thing you yelled about when Bush was president was that anyone on the left who questioned his wars was "unpatriotic" and that now that a Black man is in the White House health insurance pushes you over the edge.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

..if not directly violent.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/24/perriello

http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/89167692.html

Now, I agree that the Tea Partiers are right to be angry. It is whom they are angry at that I disagree with. I am very aware that our government is wholly owned by international corporations, and THAT is the source of our troubles. We need MORE regulation, not less. The rich need MORE taxes, not less.

I agree that rotating door between government and Wall Street is also a huge problem.

I'm curious about this sudden development of political skepticism. I have always been critical of politicians, from both parties, for I believe that those who most want power are least fit to have it. However, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, anyone who disagreed with their policies were shouted down as traitors, by people like you.

Where were you when Reagan and Bush were setting us up for this crash?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=454755&mesg_id=454755

(Clinton bears some responsibility too, and admits as much.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/president-clinton-i-was-wrong-listen )

That's when people started to look around and become concerned. It's not an instantaneous thing, you know. It takes a lot of government fucktardery and time to get the masses agitated. We've merely started to see the acceleration of the curve.

Reagan = 8 years
George H.W. Bush = 4 years
George W. Bush = 8 years

8 + 4 + 8 = 20 years

I understand it's not instantaneous...but 20 years? Add in the 8 years of Clinton's presidency...almost 30 years...before people became aware, concerned, and agitated. That's a long time.

Personally, I would've expected to see a noticeable increase over a number of years, not this sudden dramatic burst of anger over the past year.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and most of us don't agree with "all this spending." However, our issue with the Insurance Bailout bill isn't the cost, it's the fact that it enshrines the for-profit scam that we already have. The cost could even be way higher but it delivered real reform most of us would be fine with it. Our budget problems come from our fealty to Wall Street and our relentless warmongering. Taking care of our citizens isn't exactly what we spend our money on anyway. We could and should do more of that once we stop wasting resources on war and corporate welfare. And once we start really taxing the rich again in a substantial and fair way.

The teabaggers have been deluded by our corporate masters into believing that "socialism" is the issue - that our ongoing collapse is the result of our paltry efforts to help people. The real truth is that our collapse is the result of government by oligarchy. This isn't a socialist authoritarian state. It's a predatory capitalist authoritarian state. Until the the baggers figure that out they are useless.

Maybe you can join Ron Paul in helping the baggers get this shit through their heads? Don't like socialism? Whatever. We can argue about that later. You want to join with liberals to help restore civil liberties, restore fiscal sanity? Maybe reform the financial and monetary system? Maybe political reform to remove "special interest" influence? Fine. Get on board. But it won't make any sense if you still support militarization and endless wars. That just empowers the oligarchy we must remove and negates any talk of fiscal sanity. Don't like Goldman running the US gov? Me neither. But I promise you, Goldman Sacks aren't socialists and they love and need our wars.

I imagine you wont be here long, so I wish you well. But without a clear view of what our problems really are I fear you won't be much help.

No sane person would attempt to read that post.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Constructive criticism is a good thing. I will try and break those up.

In fact, they are orgasmic about anything pro-gun.

not their guns...and pro gun democrats can win elections over right wingers.
The damned gun issue put the radical Bush administration in office, Gore lost Tenn. & WV just because it.

The gun vote did NOT swing that election, and did NOT cost us any states. What DID cost us was the DLC handlers not wanting Gore to take strong liberal stands, so he looked weak and ineffective.

You've bought their propaganda.

eta: Not specifically for the 2k election, obviously, but the same kind of action applied then.

The same targeting of supporters of the 94 AWB happened in 2k.

If Gore had carried his own state, FL wouldn't have mattered.

By running up the gun issue (among others) they made damn sure we'd lose control in 94 with such a political thud that echoed for ten years.

realizing what had happened --

but it wasn't his position on guns that was not liberal enough, it was the other things. I'm from the midwest and I personally know quite a few people who are terrified that the left is going to take their guns away, so I do see evidence in my own circles and it's hard for me to put it all down as propaganda. I was able to convince a lot of my relatives and friends who enjoy hunting and collecting firearms that the Dems have no intention of taking their guns away, and many of them voted for Obama last time. Not all gun owners are like these whackados marching today. But they will not vote Democratic if they think their guns are going to be taken. They have bought into the propaganda, yes. We don't need to feed it by trying to enact a bunch of new gun controls.

over decades they've made them frightened of everyone and everything --

Great way to sell guns -- raise money for the GOP/NRA and target Democrats in

office who would have voted for the issues we're supporting!

Keep asking yourself . . . "Who tells the public that the Dems will take their guns away"?

GOP/NRA -- and right wing propaganda works!

We need gun control and a return to sanity in America --

Frightened people are very easily manipulated as we can see from 9/11 and

"National Security" BS --


I agree that Gore wasn't liberal enough.
but it wasn't his position on guns that was not liberal enough, it was the other things. I'm from the midwest and I personally know quite a few people who are terrified that the left is going to take their guns away, so I do see evidence in my own circles and it's hard for me to put it all down as propaganda. I was able to convince a lot of my relatives and friends who enjoy hunting and collecting firearms that the Dems have no intention of taking their guns away, and many of them voted for Obama last time. Not all gun owners are like these whackados marching today. But they will not vote Democratic if they think their guns are going to be taken. They have bought into the propaganda, yes. We don't need to feed it by trying to enact a bunch of new gun controls.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1



Of course, he got smacked down pretty quickly by the administration and Pelosi, but his statements do play into the reaction in gun sales.

wherein the Party calls for the expansion and "permanent" re-enactment of the so-called "assault weapons ban."

It's STILL THERE. Visit the site. Read it. RECITE it.

You can't go into a garden party, rip wind loudly, and then try to blame someone else.

If so, you're wrong, just as someone claiming his or her right to free speech entitles them to say anything they want in any manner they want in any forum they want. You have a right to keep and bear arms of some kind, not necessarily arms of all kinds.

the post and the Dem platform are very, very specific...the failure known as the assault weapons ban, which didn't ban anything except cosmetics..you know, like banning tail fins on Dodge Neons because it makes them look fast.

There are plenty of gun regulation on the books which aren't being argued, see 1934 National Firearms Act. Your suggestion that opposing the very regulation which cost our party several elections beginning in 1994 are in some way opposition of ALL gun regulation is either based in lack of understanding of this issue or refusal to acknowledge existing regulation.

"it's hard for me to put it all down as propaganda."

It shouldn't be, if you're rational.

Cars, driving and auto fuels/emissions are regulated up the yin yang, yet no one worries about their cars being taken away. So, what it is about the gun folk, if not RW propaganda/hysteria?

Obama has not done a single thing about guns, other than sign a law allowing them in national parks--something neither Ron nor Dummya ever did. So, why are all these folks paranoid about his taking their guns and/or bullets away, if not propaganda/hysteria?

Why do so many gun threads on this board and others get moved to a special place, like conspiracy theory threads, if not propaganda/hysteria?

I would attend armed to the teeth with a sign thanking congress and the Prez and I'd bring all my armed Dem friends with me. Would be a hoot.

I doubt it, it's drifted way to the right in his 8 years as VP, it was basically a lost cause.

Maybe people can't have it both ways.

Besides, your post implies Gore did not and would not think for himself. Presidents should consider advice, but ultimately use their own judgment. So, either Gore did that and made the wrong call, or Gore did not, and maybe could not, think for himself, which is not a great quality for any leader, let alone POTUS.

I think the DLC has done much more than the Rethugs to drag this country as a whole to the right, so I am no fan of the DLC--and I sure ain't happy Dummya got to be President--but I think Gore has to take the hit for his own campaign/judgment calls.

You know right wing propaganda works very efficiently when even our side starts

quoting it as if it is true!!

And it didn't turn out well for the Government...

It's a constitutionally-enumerated right to keep and bear arms. I applaud anyone who exercises such rights.

Guns: that's where those who call themselves Democrats join hands with freepers and sing "Kumbaya".

Plus, as an introductory clause, it really does not provide any usefulness beyond the "Whereas here is one reason among many reasons" floweriness.

An introductory clause sets the stage --

and I'm sure if the Founders sole intent was to ensure that that every citizen could

walk around every day armed to the teeth that they would have stated that clearly --

they didn't . . .

They included the opening clause -- "A Well-regulated militia .... "

(former). Maybe some grenades, det cord, Javelin missile, mk19 grenade launcher, and a shot to shit 240golf. No, didn't think so.

It means citizens can own and carry small arms.

But they also specifically said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not the right of the militia.

You can't really take one part and ignore the rest.

I mean, back when the 2nd amendment was written, how were militias formed? My understanding is they were formed from private citizens (the people) but still with the State appointing officers and rules.

Militias then are not what we think of as militias today.

You can't really take one part and ignore the rest.

I mean, back when the 2nd amendment was written, how were militias formed? My understanding is they were formed from private citizens (the people) but still with the State appointing officers and rules.

Militias then are not what we think of as militias today.

You are exactly correct. Militias were the decentralized military system set up to put the power of the military in the hands of the states, rather than in the hands of the central federal government.

Those militias were usurped by the federal government with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903.

So since the militias are gone, what should we then do about the rest of the amendment and its intent? No doubt this possibility occurred to the founders, which is why the right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the people, and not to the militias.

over the military in the hands of Congress and the President?

Inasmuch as the Constituion vests the federal government with exclusive power over foreign relations, providing for the commond defense, etc., what were the states supposed to do with all that military power? Declare war on each other? Or on the federal government?

Yeah, I don't think so.

Article 1, Section 8

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article I, Section 10

Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 2, Section 2

Section 2.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

people to bear arms is a Constitutional right. Therefore, the right to bear arms has to be analyzed in that context.

Not to mention that every right in the Bill of Rights is subect to reasonable regulation.

regulations which are already on the books and are not the subject of dispute. You do realize there are thousands of arms regulations right?

> and I'm sure if the Founders sole intent was to ensure that that every citizen
> could walk around every day armed to the teeth that they would have stated that clearly

Being armed to the teeth was a option that they wanted to leave open to the individual. And they did state it clearly; see the main clause of the Second Amendment.

> They included the opening clause

As with any "whereas" opening clause, it does not place restrictions on the main clause. It just lists one or more reasons from the non-exhaustive list of reasons leading to the main clause. It intro clause is not even required to be related to the main clause. The removal of the intro clause would not affect the main clause any.

It has at least two usages.

One is to show contrast.

"I came in First whereas my brother came in second"

That usage doesn't make any sense in this case of course.

But the second seems more relevant and most used in legal circles.

It being the fact that, or the reason. because of A, we have B

Whereas to protect my rights, I had a contract drawn up.

The first part of the 2nd amendment is not some throw away line. It is the REASON for the rest of the line. It is the goal that is expected to be met by following the actions set forth in the proceeding words. The people shall have a right to fire arms BECAUSE it is necessary in order to have a functioning militia. The founders wanted a functioning militia so the people having the right to bear arms is how that will be achieved.

The militia is not a reason for the right to bear arms, it is THE reason, the actual goal that the founders were striving to meet. It was not the first part of some grocery list the founders never got around to finishing. There may have been other reasons why the founders thought the citizenry should be able to bear arms, but it was the Militia that they thought important enough to mention in the most important legal document in the country.

When interpreting the constitution, there's an important philosophy that's used. Its the idea that every word in the constitution is important and was put there for a reason. There are no throw away lines. There are no unimportant parts. (maybe some parts that aren't as relevant today as they were then or even made void but that's a whole other topic)

.. is that our rights aren't limited by the Bill of Rights.

*

Abuse of whose powers? Not the people's.

The bill of rights is a "the government can't" document, not a "the people can" document. The opening clause is why the government should protect the pre-existing right to bear arms- because militias were seen as important. That in no way limits the right to militias.

As the court said in US v Cruikshank- "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "

* eta: link: http://billofrights.org/

since the federal gov does have the constitutional power to restrict certain fire arms based on if they serve a military function in regards to the militia.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031900b.htm

So the well regulated militia part is still relevant. The right to bear arms just can't be restricted except that in some context's it can be. Since certain fire arms can be restricted.

We have to look at the whole body of law. Which was my point, we can't just cherry pick which parts we want to see and ignore the rest.

BTW, thank you for pointing out Cruikshank. I didn't know about it before.

Though the wording in regards to the 2nd amendment can be interpreted as saying that there are limits to what the gov can do in regards to fire arms. But then if we add miller, we can say there is a point where those limits end. And apparently determining that had something to do with the militia.

Again we have to look at everything. Since I am sure that the Judges who rule don Miller knew about Cruikshank

here's a link to the actual ruling btw. Your link to thew bill of rights, while nice, doesn't really add to this as we already know what the amendment says. No one is arguing the wording of that.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html

If not, it's a fascinating read.

Miller was dead by this time, and there was nobody to represent that side of the case during oral arguments.

The Attorney General chose the Miller case to test the constitutionality of the 1934 NFA (which is a tax law, btw- congress knew if didn't have the power to outright ban weapons.) The most lazy judge on the court was chosen to write the decision, and the decision itself is disjointed and illogical.

Read Miller, though. By it's logic, I should be able to buy full-auto machine guns or grenades easily, since they do have a connection to maintaining a 'well-regulated' militia.

(Not to mention, short barreled shotguns actually were used in WWI & WWII- see 'trench sweeper'.)

For an interesting take on Miller, see http://volokh.com/2010/02/27/united-states-v-miller/


I included the text of the preamble because so many times I see folks (on both sides) claiming authority for some government restriction or another or some right based on what the constitution says (or doesn't say.)

The natural rights philosophy that influenced the constitution goes against that strict rights interpretation. (Otherwise, the ninth amendment would make no sense whatsoever.)

Unfortunately, there is no legal requirement that the intro clauses be relevant to the main clause. "Whereas the sky is blue, personal automobiles are required to have license plates," is perfectly valid legalese. And unfortunately, far too common.

You are correct in that the militia was A goal of the founders. However, the listing of that one reason in the document did not then, nor now, imply that it was the only reason. It probably was the most important reason. We will never know by what margin. However, placing zero or more reasons in front of the main clause does not change the meaning or limitation of the main clause. Any desire of a limiting clause requires such clause to be phrased that way, which the current intro does not do.

militias are the only reason you have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to keep and bear arms. It does not mean you can't possibly have any other gun rights.


"However, placing zero or more reasons in front of the main clause does not change the meaning or limitation of the main clause."

Absolutely wrong, both under rules of English and under judicially made rules of statutory interpretation.

only reason for the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is because of the militia? In the 1770's? The majority of the population hunted for their food in the 1700's, there were people living in isolated areas who could and would be victimized without weapons. The claims that the founders included the 2nd only for the militia is so far from the reality of the day it is barely worth discussion.

Further ALL of SCOTUS agreed in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is not based on militia service, and is in fact an individual right. The dissent only disagreed with the level of regulation which may be imposed. Read the Heller dissent, it may help.

Because the constitution isn't just a document, it's a LEGAL document.

Which means every part is important because the Founders knew somewhere down the line somebody would decide a matter of law based on what it said.

Again, the writers decided that the militia was important enough that it had to be part of the amendment, that it would influence future generations in regards to the 2nd amendment.

AGain, there are no throw away lines in the constitution. It's not an essay or an editorial, it's the legal document that our government is based upon.

The second amendment isn't even the only one that gives a stated purpose for the reason it exists.

No one argues that the reason we have warrants is so "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

in a contract.

Nothing in the rest of the Constitution supports your claim. It is not a wordy nor a flowery document, replete with meaningless phrases. Nor does anything in the rules of statutory construction support your claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Those rules come to us from the common law of England, in the days of Queen Elizabeth I and earlier. So, there is no reason to assume the Framers--and many of the inhabitants of the colonies--were not aware of them when the Constitution was drafted.

If no part of a statute is presumed to be "mere surplusage," it is even less likely that any RESPONSIBLE court is going to hold that a phrase in the Constitution is mere "floweriness."

Of course, I can't speak for the Roberts Court, which I consider to be as disingenous, partisan and downright dishonest as any in the history of the U.S.

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.

A few things you may not know:

Firstly, "well regulated", in 18th century vernacular, did not mean "subject to regulations". Something that was "well regulated" was meant to be "well operating". For example, highly accurate clocks of the day, such as those used to set the time on other clocks of lesser accuracy, were known as "regulators". So to the founders' minds, a "well regulated Militia" would be a well functioning militia.

Secondly, you will note that the second amendment does not enumerate the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but rather it enumerates the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Thirdly, you no doubt are aware that our entire system of government was set up as a series of checks and balances. This was done to prevent the concentration of power in any one part of the government, for fear that it would become corrupt and oppressive by abusing that power. The military system was likewise set up as a system of checks and balances. The central federal government was not to have any standing army at all, or, at least, a small one that could be countered by the state militias. The reason for this decentralized system was because they feared that a powerful central government with a powerful military at its disposal could oppress the people of the states. So instead, they left the military power to the states, in the form of their militias, made up of the armed people of those states. Not only was this done so as to protect the people from oppression, but no doubt also to prevent the military from being used in external acts of aggression without all the states acting in concert together. Imagine, for example, how the United States might have avoided the quagmires of Vietnam and the Middle East if half the states refused to participate militarily.

These decentralized militias, however, were eliminated in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. With that act, the state militias were federalized, forming the National Guard. These new military forces no longer served (or serve) as counters to federal military power, in fact they enhance it and serve as reserve federal forces. I have little doubt that our founders foresaw this possible corruption, and this is probably why they specifically worded the second amendment to note that it was the right of the people, and not the militias, which could be corrupted or disbanded, to keep and bear arms.

Guns: that's where those who call themselves Democrats join hands with freepers and sing "Kumbaya".

I get this a lot, and all I can say is that yes, sadly the right to keep and bear arms is more seriously taken by people on the right than on the left. I believe this is because people on the right tend to be far more skeptical of government in general, whereas people on the left tend to believe in the benevolence of government.

I myself consider myself left-of-center, though not nearly as progressive, especially in terms of welfare, as many folks here are. Nonetheless I am anti-war, pro-firearm, anti-corporate governmental influence, pro-choice, pro-environment, and pro-single-payer health care. I am staunchly against the Partiot Act and the numerous infringements on civil liberties that have been undertaken in the name of the "war on terror", and see it as a perfect case study of why one cannot trust in the benevolence of government.

And "gun" in 18th century vernacular doesn't mean the same thing either.... so some laws must be enacted to bring things up to par.... in order to make the very 1st thing mentioned (and not a throw away clause.... but "necessary") "well operating"


Jesus.... your interps are lame and so personal as to be useless!

your documentation of your claims! :)

but hardly orgasmic over it. I hate broad brush statements.

"They did it first." :shrug:

If you want to discuss them, pick one or two of the NRA statements.

you're doing it wrong :hide: just kidding :hi:

:eyes:

Found your favorite enemies while you were looking through the toilet stall knothole?

That would make a good Taco Bell slogan :)

used to say, "Guilty dog barks first" LOL

I'm not afraid of those assholes.

*read the tagline*

I am a materials engineer and my wife is a doctor at one of the best hospitals in the world. Both of have NC CCW. We live in carrboro, dont tell my neighbors.

All gun owners are ignorant trailer trash, right. I mean why would people who travel the world, enjoy really tasty food, and looked all over to find a house in NC with a basement for hundreds of bottles of wine bother with owning firearms?

This whole thing is a big who cares for me. NC has pretty loose gun laws and places like Chapel Hill and Cary have almost no violent crime, chicago well not so much.

Their policies and ideology are terrible and they love to mask them by talking about patriotism or the constitution like the Patriot Act, which is wholesome American fascism.

feel the same way. We see people on this forum that would happily see others deprived of their rights as well.

But we don't see the current government doing so, so what is this gun love-in about?

so there you have it...

when you say your rights, which ones? Because as far as I and many others here know, you have more rights in owning arms than I do in protesting right wing maggots publicly. Funny thing, you are allowed to attend a town hall meeting carrying a gun when Democrats speak about healthcare, yet if I hold up a inflammatory sign at some right wing lecture, I get tossed out.

Problem with fanatics owning guns, is they used it the way any bully would... to intimidate, and nothing more because they are really scared shitless without them.

Nobody is taking their guns away, yet we see your meme everywhere... poor, poor gun owners, what would they do without them.

Sorry, but the right to bare arms is way down on the list of rights Americans have, and nobody is taking your right away.

when someone drinks around me. Hey, they may just get in a car and go kill someone. Maybe. OMG, OMG, mommy that man has a beer call the police right now.

My reaction to all this is who fucking cares. Just hurry up and pass a nationwide CCW standard so I can drive to New England without 70 different laws to deal with.

Unless someone pointed a gun at you, why would you be scared. I was stuck with highly armed assholes in a country with no women and no booze for over a year, and no one got shot.

Guess it is how you grow up. Personally I really fear spiders, and dont like yippy dogs. But I deal.

What happened to "disturbing the peace" and "peaceful society" -

pro-gunners love saying that with no regard for our rights to live without guns

And this is terrific . . . !!
when you say your rights, which ones? Because as far as I and many others here know, you have more rights in owning arms than I do in protesting right wing maggots publicly. Funny thing, you are allowed to attend a town hall meeting carrying a gun when Democrats speak about healthcare, yet if I hold up a inflammatory sign at some right wing lecture, I get tossed out.

Maybe Code Pink and other liberal groups protesting war and torture, for instance, made a mistake

in overlooking bringing guns!!??

Problem with fanatics owning guns, is they used it the way any bully would... to intimidate, and nothing more because they are really scared shitless without them.

Exactly my conclusion - !! Paranoids afraid of their own shadow.

Nobody is taking their guns away, yet we see your meme everywhere... poor, poor gun owners, what would they do without them.

Sorry, but the right to bare arms is way down on the list of rights Americans have, and nobody is taking your right away.

And, I'd just add to this that they got their decision from the right wing fanatics on the

Supreme Court who have decided the Bush vs Gore case -- and the corporate "free speech" case!!

It's a right wing decision based on the current power of the court --

That's all!


Thank you!

:)

And by the way, I support EVERYONE's Constitutional rights. You won't see me supporting the loss of Freedom of Speech in any form.

as loudly as I want?

Thank heaven some of our SCOTUS Justices have been sane and reasonable.

and you know that your analogy is both unfair and sidesteps the issue at hand.

Problem solved.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Anyway pardon me if I don't agree with you. Most gun owners are responsible, and not so fucking whackadoodle that they want to carry firearms every damn where.

It's the few paranoid schizo loony-tunes that I'm worried about.

Oh, and don't ever lecture me. Your soap box is made out of straw sir. On edit, only women don't post their gender on DU - it's like a law of nature. So, your soap box is made out of straw, madam.

I will probably spend the entire day figuratively "holding my breath" in fear that another whack job like McVeigh will emerge to wreak havoc!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Virginia is an open-carry state and you don't have to be a Virginian to exercise that right.

Why don't you ask them?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can't get any more patriotic than that.

These events are nothing more than KKK rallies without the sheets and hoods.

Which was the anniversary of Waco.

No coincidence there, right?

with the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the British sent troops to confiscate firearms and arrest revolutionaries.

Concord and Lexington - you remember the 'well organized militia'?

No resemblance.

The militias of the founder's day ceased to exist when they were usurped by the federal government in 1903.

calling "All's Well" while keeping an eye out for fires.

In fact, a great many 18th century institutions have become outmoded and unnecessary - the concept of independent militia being foremost among them. When a 30 man 'militia' today can have the firepower of a 19th century battalion, it is the militias that become the problem. Which is why, with the end of the Indian Wars (during which the volunteer militias had an execrable record of murder and massacre) the militias were formalized into State Guard units, still available as a buffer between the federal government and state sovereignty but generally less apt to be overrun by morons.

Like the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Be mindful of what methods you advocate, lest someone else turn them on you...

The suspension of habeus corpus, enemy combatant status, pervasive domestic surveillance, all of these things accelerated greatly in the name of the "war on terror" and are proof positive that the people cannot rely on the benevolence of government alone.

In fact, a great many 18th century institutions have become outmoded and unnecessary - the concept of independent militia being foremost among them.

But the concept that the people must be ever vigilant and able to resist oppression is one that will never become outmoded, so long as man is ruled by desire.

The only way you can make your claim - that the people have no need today to be able to resist oppression - is if you also claim that we have reached the pinnacle of representative government that will last forevermore and always have the benevolent interest of its people at heart.

I do not share that optimism, and nor do I believe that our founders did.

good fucking luck.

Yeah, I know, Vietnam. Of course, they killed 50,000 of us. The military killed TWO MILLION of them.

So enjoy your militia fantasies. The ONLY weapon that can take on the US government is the ballot.

Usurped? I don't think that's appropriate word usage as the Dick Act was passed wholly within legal means and force of arms were never used to assure its passage (unless it's simply being used simply for the sake of drama, in which case, never mind).

Good thing too-- as the lack of standardized training, poor leadership, and no overall TOEE within the militias led to many less than stellar performances in the Spanish American War. Indeed, it was their wholly unreliable performance that acted as one of the catalysts for the Dick Act of '03.

Seriously.

the word, which is totally proper in use. Simply because you decide to use a more PC word doesn't make any other words less proper.

Top that, oh-so offended one.

And running around with a loaded gun in a "socialist" public park is gonna make him feel better about climate change?


Just pissed because they lost the election... so they want to show they are ready to shoot someone because "they are upset".

He obviously would like it a bit warmer this spring, but that damned Obama and his minions wont turn up the heat...

think Dr.Evil..

She's visiting from out-of-state (we live in northern Virginia). This rally has concerned me for a while and yesterday I was reading a portion of the referenced article to my husband. MIL chimed in with "that's just sensationalism."

I said it was a news article from the Washington Post and that rally leaders were quoted. I explained militia groups to her. I also told her I continually monitor local RW groups. She had this look on her face I just cannot describe. My husband saw that I was losing it and joined the discussion. He had told me the other day that he himself had gotten into an argument with his mom about the teabaggers because his mom was seemingly supporting them. He could understand then how these groups are preying on people's fears because his mom was clearly afraid of something that she could not articulate (we think we don't want to know too much more).

She tried to say that "there are extremists on both sides" and I was so upset I could not coherently respond. Any good advice for countering this point in the future?

Ask her to name them. Name the left wing armed extremists all gathering together this month.

I even explained how someone/some people were recently incited to cut the gas line at a congressman's brother's house here in VA. I explained the whole situation to her and she just nodded her head (meaning she was tuning us out).

There is no equivalency.

There was a huge number of people who protested Bush from 2000 to current, yet very little coverage in the news, like the entire 8 years he befouled the White House was ok. Now a minority of RW extremists with guns, or teabags hanging off their hats are getting coverage every single day, as if, AS IF, their sore losership is a driving force in politics. And they get the headlines, even on so-called liberal news markets, so even if I don't want to see or hear their poison, it is shoved down my throat. They are a stupid, ignorant, dangerous in their stupidity armed mob, on the same side of the law as McVeigh. And yet, they are protected by the same Constitution Bush wanted to wipe his ass on.

these are a whole other group of crazies, not the crazies from before, but probably related...in ALL ways you can think..lol

But as you say, they are probably related-- or at least lend support to each'n others causes.

The "extremists on both sides" argument is specious - the person promoting it is basically trying to establish that his/her side gets to do WHATEVER they want, WHENEVER they want to. It's essentially a "Mommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!! They started it FIRRRRST!" cry from a juvenile mindset that thinks if they can paint the other side as equally bad, then somehow their own side is justified.

Right-wingers pull this one with name-calling and hateful remarks on online forums quite a bit; basically saying they can hurl racial slurs at the Obamas or call Hillary a mysoginistic name, because allegedly someone on the left did this to Michael Steele/Sarah Palin/etc (usually just more lies from them in the first place). The concept of "rising above" such remarks and refraining from making them in kind is, of course, totally lost on these types.

Armed is a separate issue.


I don't know what the left is so damned docile and accepting anymore.

It ends up with a quick hang-up of the phone. My mom and her boyfriend are totally sucked into the fear base of Glenn Beck and there is no convincing her that the world is not coming to an end. My husbands father is worried about my husbands job (Dr) and that his income will go down. I heard my husband reply that he himself just wanted everyone to be able to have health care and that we are getting hit by taxes and less pay but that is okay and that drove my father-in-law crazy. The older generation or so into the "me" generation.

That's encouraging to hear from a physician's perspective. Our conversation with my MIL turned into one on healthcare (this is while she was tuning out) and my husband tried to explain to her why MSM fixations on silly RW talking points like "death panels" prevents people from having legitimate discussions on public policy points. I really wanted to ask my MIL how she felt about her medicare!

The problem is that the people in charge of events such as this "Restore the Constitution" rally know exactly what they are doing in terms of manipulating the fears of low-information voters, or sadly, people with prejudice or anti-government feelings. All it takes is one slightly unhinged person...

I still don't understand why she won't accept the fact that there are people that are actively encouraging violence. Even the WaPo article points out that some gun-rights groups are staying away from this rally because the atmosphere is too toxic.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should, and this particular rally is clearly not right.

supporting the second admendment but not crazy like the rest of him. He even said he tries to stay away from the extreme tea partiers! The sad part about the MSM fixations on crazy talking points like death panels and birthers is that many people take them seriously. I'm a hospice nurse and a few times I have gone to talk to someone about hospice and they give me that look like no way. The sad part is that by not getting the help of hospice many will die a very uncomfortable death (with several admissions to the hospital) without all the wonderful support that hospice offers the patient and their family. Many of these people fighting the government services offered by our government are probably using them more then those of us fighting to keep them. When we have anything going on in our town that is supported by tea partiers it is the Americans for Prosperity representative from out of town who shows up in his fancy suit who is out there promoting their agenda...HELLO... do any of these supporters notice this???? The biggest backer of this organization is Koch industries...a very wealthy family. We live in a very depressed town where unemployment is high and they can somehow think that all there current problems are because of Obama and his socialistic regime. When my mom told me this I said "wow Obama has been very busy and its amazing he did all this in one year"!:banghead:

They only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Focus on the things you agree upon.

;)

Fuckers! :grr:

The "official" line is that they are celebrating the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Which is kind of funny, considering I don't recall many celebrations on this date previous to this one.

the gun folk are in Washington, D.C.

God, as a neighbor of the home where Paul Revere lived when he made his famous ride and of the harbor where the Boston Tea Party occurred, I cannot tell you how offended I am that the Teabaggers are misappopriating the events that led to the founding of this nation.

I cannot wait to read what these people do to each other today.

It will be like Xmas morning.

one step from being certifiably crazy, IMO.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to associate that closely with other people carrying guns, none of whom one knows personally, nor can anyone guarantee that even one of those others won't just start shooting for the fun of it.

To attend an event like this is dancing with suicide, IMHO.

people attending. Our fascist police state will be watching.

Wait what?

10 years.

So you are about to guarantee that no criminal or deranged person will ever show up and use his or her weapon?

Here's a list of SOME DATES of recent mass killings in the USA.

November 7, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/tex...ood.shootings/

"Raw Data: Past Deadly U.S. Mass Shootings"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512480,00.html

March 29, 2009
March 29, 2009
March 10, 2009
Feb. 14, 2008
Dec. 5, 2007
April 16, 2007
Oct. 2, 2006
March 21, 2005
March 12, 2005
March 5, 2001
Nov. 2, 1999
July 29, 1999
April 20, 1999
May 21, 1998
March 24, 1998
Oct. 16, 1991

Shall I go on?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...leducationnews

this in a thread about a month ago.

They dont seem have a problem with this.

I will qualify that to read that SOME there have no problem with it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally-enumerated right.

The whole point of being armed was to serve as a counter and deterrent against oppression, from without AND within.

These people are functioning just as the founders intended.

That's as insane, paranoid and utterly dishomnest a viewpoint as the so called protestors hold

In what way is my viewpoint invalid? What do you disagree with specifically?

Please.

See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Had as one of their duties putting down insurrections.

Not to mention when the situation of a armed rebellion among citizens who thought they were being oppressed came up, the Founders had no issue at all putting it down.

I think I should also add that personally, rights come with responsibilities. There is no need for guns at a demonstration. Bringing them isn't exercising one's rights. it's attempting to intimidate.

So I am not sure I can agree with your statement.

Had as one of their duties putting down insurrections.



And doesn't it say elsewhere in the Constitution that the President is the commander and chief of militias?


from Wiki:

The Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces is the U.S. President. This is pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the United States Constitution which states that the President:
...shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.




really, you've got to read past the 2nd Amendment to get the gist of the whole thing....m'kay?

Except that the militias mentioned in the 2nd amendment Had as one of their duties putting down insurrections.

Of course it did. By working in concert together the militias could counter insurrection. The culmination of this was the American Civil War.

And doesn't it say elsewhere in the Constitution that the President is the commander and chief of militias?

from Wiki:

The Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces is the U.S. President. This is pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the United States Constitution which states that the President:
...shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

really, you've got to read past the 2nd Amendment to get the gist of the whole thing....m'kay?

Yes, the President most certainly could call on the militias, and, if the militias thought his cause just, they would respond. And if they didn't they wouldn't.

Why do you think the founders set up a decentralized military system instead of just giving the President his own army? You see, I have read past the second amendment, and I most certainly do get the gist of the whole thing, which is "checks and balances". The founders feared a concentration of power in any branch of the government for fear that it would become corrupt and oppressive.

Why do you think the founders set up a decentralized military system? How do you interpret the statement that "standing armies are the enemies of freedom"?

You only have an opinion of the founder's intent.... you are not an oracle. And judging from your half-thought-out lame nostalgia for militias (with its contempt for laws established in the way the Founders actually did intend....by voting) and 18th century interps of some words but not others, your opinions are not as absolute as you think they are.

Next you'll be telling us what god intends.

You only have an opinion of the founder's intent.... you are not an oracle. And judging from your half-thought-out lame nostalgia for militias (with its contempt for laws established in the way the Founders actually did intend....by voting) and 18th century interps of some words but not others, your opinions are not as absolute as you think they are.

Next you'll be telling us what god intends.

I don't believe in dieties, so I'll leave that at that.

As for the intent of the founders, I have provided numerous citations over the years here to support my position, and you are free to search this forum to find them. I'm always open to other citations to the contrary; Feel free to provide them.

But really, I have the ultimate nail in your side's argument; to wit: Why do you think the founders set up a decentralized military system? Every time I ask this the crickets chirp. Because the answer is simple: Everything about our government is an example of a system of checks and balances. The military was structured no differently. By keeping the military out of the hands of a single entity, they reduced the risk that that entity would become corrupt and use the military as a tool of oppression. So, they split it up and put it into the hands of the states, figuring it would be difficult to get them to all cooperate in any undertaking that was not just.

But like I said, I'm open to opposing citations.

and a lot of them allow hunting, I guess because you can get more land protected if you compromise with the local hunting groups, but the place I went to yesterday was downright creepy. One access road was controlled by a "legal firm" and the other by some kind of compound headed by an "installation commander". All I wanted was to see some ducks, but in the face of what was either militia or intelligence signage -- no actual names given -- it took the joy out of it for me to say the least. So now with guns allowed even national parks will be bristling with people trying to set up claims on public land. Kind of clarifies in the mind why they were banned in the first place.

Like many, I confess I'm half hoping some Darwin awards are won today in Virginia.

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

Ducks Unlimited protects over 20 million acres of wetlands.

that was after a lot of other animals were hunted to extinction.

But better to learn a lesson late then never.

Though it does seem sad to me that natural habitat isn't seen as valuable unless it contains something somebody can kill in it.

I mean maybe I am weird but I think duck habitats should be preserved and even expanded. I support federal money going to this. Yet I never shot a duck in my life. So maybe I just don't get why we had to kill ducks in order to save them.

So maybe I just don't get why we had to kill ducks in order to save them.

Because the only people who care enough about ducks to pay for saving them are the same people who want to eat them.

Whether you agree with people eating ducks or not, you can't argue the fact that the people who are eating them are the largest financial supporters of them and the wetlands where they live.

The world Wildlife funds also eats pandas?

So the only people who care enough to spend resources to save habitats are the ones looking to kill and eat stuff that's there?

In any event I was not arguing that hunters contribute don't financially to habitat preservation. The system is set up that way. So that is kind of a straw man.

But I was arguing that that might be part of the problem. We don't understand the true value of habitat.

I mean, if anything farmers should be supporting wetland preservation even more. People who drink water should be paying.

Why is the primary value of wetlands based on what can be killed there?

As if these fat-assed retards at the rally have ANYTHING to do with hunting....

I agree, this is purely a political message of armed defiance.

I did not bring hunting into the discussion, I was merely responding to poster #28 who did.

if ever there was argument in favor of the total ban of hand guns , these guys are it.

The way to stop gun violence is to both guns and ammunition. It's time.

Would you give free speech because of one of Palin's talks?

Imagine if Great Britain with all their navy and military might decided they were going to "take back America".

Now put some slack jawed yokel militia in there and try to imagine if the militia with all their loonies and pop guns were going to "take back America".

Both are preposterous, but the militia is just so far preposterous it almost makes you feel sorry for those people being so brainwashed and so stupid and so exposed to the public in all their gap toothed spelling impaired glory.

Now put some slack jawed yokel militia in there and try to imagine if the militia with all their loonies and pop guns were going to "take back America".

There have been numerous cases in modern history where technologically inferior forces prevailed against technologically superior forces. USA vs. Vietnam. USSR vs. Afghanistan. USA vs. Mogadishu. USA vs. Iraq. USA vs. Afghanistan.

It is said that the Japanese did not attempt an invasion during WWII because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

You want a civil war, bring it. I won't be on your side - I'll be leading the feds to your front door.

Most militias are petty dictatorships looking for a country to rule.

Another blanket statement I hope to flame the fire with:

Militias lack any real sense of national community. They are so backwater local it boggles the mind. Most of the "freedoms" they cherish have nothing to do with freedom, even they even comprehend what that means. Left to their own devices most militias would recreate the feudal serfdoms of the middle ages as they started to compete for resources and draftees, so no, I have zero respect for anything a militia could hope to accomplish with a bunch of pop guns and uneducated slack jawed yokels.

You want a civil war, bring it. I won't be on your side - I'll be leading the feds to your front door.

I do NOT want a civil war. But I DO want the people to retain the ability to wage them, should it ever be necessary.

Most militias are petty dictatorships looking for a country to rule.

Another blanket statement I hope to flame the fire with:

Militias lack any real sense of national community. They are so backwater local it boggles the mind. Most of the "freedoms" they cherish have nothing to do with freedom, even they even comprehend what that means. Left to their own devices most militias would recreate the feudal serfdoms of the middle ages as they started to compete for resources and draftees, so no, I have zero respect for anything a militia could hope to accomplish with a bunch of pop guns and uneducated slack jawed yokels.

I agree with you. See this post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4348678&mesg_id=4348931

"It is said that the Japanese did not attempt an invasion during WWII because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"...."





In the case of the U.S. it would be "there would be a bed-wetter behind every blade of grass with his head in the sand..."

I'm sure you're more than aware that it was logistical and strategical problems which led to the failures of the great powers you mentioned (not to mention public perception in the western cases)-- problems which would certainly not exist in there here and in the now.

But I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade into a treatise on insurgency.

As to the other - I have noted, with more than a little disappointment, that there are plenty of people on both sides of the ideological divide that are so spelling/grammar impaired that it's just not worth taking the time to decipher their posts.

I openly despise Teabaggers and everything they stand for. If you have a problem with that then you shouldn't be responding to my posts.

I have read your posts, and come to the supportable conclusion that you are no great instructor, and we are no dreadful children who require instruction and didactive interaction with a self appointed high priest of inclinations, if little else.

:hi:

nice talkin' to ya.

but all the proof you need of their veracity? OK, gotcha.

Buh-bye.

killed innocent people.

I certainly hope they are infiltrated by Secret Service and the government starts watching every single one of them closely for the next couple of decades.

This is NOT freedom of Speech - it's an implied THREAT to this country. Period.

with the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the British sent troops to confiscate firearms and arrest revolutionaries.

And the British surrendered Hong Kong on December 25, 1941, but I doubt too many people think about that on Christmas day... :shrug:

BTW, the colonists's beef was no representation. The Teabaggers really have nothing in common with the colonists. It's just they don't know enough about their nation's history to realize that.

of these people to see if all of them are legal and run background checks in case there are felons among them.

have nothing better to do than run background checks on all those people? And what legal justification would they have for such an investigation?

Did you help draft the Patriot act?

Isn't it great to see these fine Americans celebrating his accomplishment?

That's what they had in mind.

:eyes:

Or are you simply indulging in insinuation and innuendo?

simply indulging in insinuation and innuendo? LOL

Outside of Massachusetts, which actually has been celebrating April 18 and 19. where have all these patriotic celebrations of the start of the Revolution been all these years?

What transparent bullshit.


False equivalency, too. The colonists were fighting taxation WITHOUT REPRESENATION. They were not menacing the representatives they themselves had elected.

And the British surrendered Hong Kong to the Japanese on December 25, 1941, but I doubt that's what people are celebrating come Christmas day...

Like you.

If you say so.

A few right-wing nutjobs with guns does not a revolution make. There is no coherent organizing principle on which to build a revolution; they cannot agree on what they are about. They are merely a few who are addicted to the feeling of power, and like to believe the hype that they have it, and want you to believe it, too. They will disperse, and go home to seethe at the TV as per usual.

They want our black president gone.

The RW's buy into the fear - we have to be careful not to do that too. The MSM makes a big deal out of this, so it appears as if there's more to it than there actually is. This only emboldens them but, if it actually came down to doing anything, they are a bunch of scared little men. They'd probably just end up killing each other.

Rome was more powerful than ever when they eliminated the Consuls and elected a dictator. But that was the beginning of the end which culminated in the elimination of the republic and the start of the empire.

And for most citizens I'm sure it felt like business as usual.

One day you will look around and wonder where your country went.

Most republics are born of revolution, but they don't die of revolution. If you are looking for a revolution against the republic you will not see the republic die.

in reply to Bush Admin policies than anything the teabaggers can muster. Teabaggers are not the beginning of the end; in fact, they are not a beginning of anything because they are unified only by their hatred of Obama. They are not part of an 'end' of anything, either.

Or maybe I don't understand what you're saying. Not entirely sure.

Yes, they are a disorganized rabble now, but they will still be around with all their hatreds and prejudices long after Obama is gone, and that rabble is being deliberately manipulated by people who are using the system to undermine the system.

There are powerful anti-democratic forces at work, and the teabaggers are a tool they are using. The fact there are as many of them as there are bodes ill for the republic. They are not the end of the republic, as you stated in your post (though the OP said they may be the beginning of the end, which is a different thing altogether), but they are not dissimilar from the Know Nothings of the 19th century - and three decades of their politics led to the Civil War.

If they are now only unified by their hatred of Obama, that does not preclude them being used by anti-democratic demagogues in the future, focused on other issues - whether it be immigration or gays or whatever. And they will use our system against itself, to turn our people against our own.

What was Hitler's biggest mistake? Being born an Austrian, instead of an American.

It's time to meet these threats head on with force.

That's just what they'd love to see happen. Then they'd get to shoot at something other than relatives and tin cans.

It's time to yawn, not cover the event except in passing, and make them feel as unimportant as they are. It's time to print in every DC and VA (and national) newspaper and on every news station how much money was wasted and law enforcement detoured to protect these fools from themselves.... and us from them. These children need a time out.... and the adults should insist they stand in the corner and wear a dunce cap.

These people have small minds and small ambitions. They are nothing to worry over. I also think you're right that the correct way to cover any of these silly little events is point out what a drain it is on tax dollars.

By avoiding those backward states if at all possible.

:shrug:

n/t

Take your time...

Does he have PTSD? Sound like it to me. I think his brain is fried. He needs 'forced' help.