Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
GEErnst, the easiest way to remove the problem of people calling you thinking you are someone else is to rename again. I suggest "Liberty Theft, Inc."
What Do We Know About The Potowmack Institute?
- Thread starter Doctor Suarez
- Start date
- Status
I forgot how much fun it is to read Ernie's stuff.
Ernie, you actually put this in your brief? :
"Gun rights claims are part of a larger, very cynical political agenda..."
The Court is supposed to concern itself with constitutional issues, not political agendas. That you think it is a political agenda is not worthy of the Court's speculation.
<>
Rick
Ernie, you actually put this in your brief? :
"Gun rights claims are part of a larger, very cynical political agenda..."
The Court is supposed to concern itself with constitutional issues, not political agendas. That you think it is a political agenda is not worthy of the Court's speculation.
<>
Rick
Last edited by a moderator:
More than a nerve has been struck.
Talk to the moderator.
[email protected]
This is more than some people can handle.
They have to be protected from their thought processes, the plain meaning of words, and especially the hard cold realities of political existence.
GEErnst's access has been revoke but apparently
ineffectively at least at this moment.
Thehighroad.org wins its arguments by silencing its opponents.
Some people need a socialist nanny state to take care of them.
Some people need a fascist nanny moderator to protect them from dangerous thoughts.
We might have to take this up on Google groups.
The last word is what happens in court. You have a civil right
secured by government when.....keep working on this.
GEErnst
Brett Bellmore
Member
"Small, weak minds"? I see Ernest's megalomania has gotten worse over the last few years. LOL
Must be the frustration.
Must be the frustration.
Zundfolge
Member
The internet has plenty of fun to read (but not wise to take seriously) schizophrenic rants.
After you wade thought the Potowmack Institute site, y'all should check out this guy: http://www.timecube.com/
After you wade thought the Potowmack Institute site, y'all should check out this guy: http://www.timecube.com/
Marshall
Member
GEErnst speaks, providing proof of mental masturbation.
Last edited:
fallingblock
Member
Uh, that was interesting.....
Earnest McGill offered a self-analysis of his position:
*********************************************************
"The wild imaginations of small minds who don't have any constitutional arguments in their favor are endlessly entertaining."
*********************************************************
Ol' Earnest is a touchy sort, isn't he.
Earnest McGill offered a self-analysis of his position:
*********************************************************
"The wild imaginations of small minds who don't have any constitutional arguments in their favor are endlessly entertaining."
*********************************************************
Ol' Earnest is a touchy sort, isn't he.
Doctor Suarez
Member
Not a fan of revoking people's speech rights, even if a private forum retains the right to do so.
Still, it wasn't me, bucko. So don't tar everybody because someone didn't want you around.
Still, it wasn't me, bucko. So don't tar everybody because someone didn't want you around.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Personally, I like having GEE around. His insults are rather ineffectual, and he's such a raving lunatic he discredits any cause he attempts to advance.
And, best of all, he doesn't realize he's discrediting his own causes.
And, best of all, he doesn't realize he's discrediting his own causes.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Sure, GEErnst, which is why you still have an active account.
Welcome to The High Road, GEErnst. Unfortunately we don’t get many antis in these parts. Your participation should liven things up a bit
>These days progun means there is civil right secured by government to commit treason against the same government
This fallacy is known as "strawman." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
For example, I adhere to an individual rights perspective on the 2nd Amendment, so presumably I am “pro-gun,” but I do not advocate violence against the republic or its officers.
>Antigun means we resurrect the original militia concept as manifest in the Militia Act of 1792.
“Antigun” can mean many things. Some “antigun” people believe that it should be unlawful to own a semiautomatic rifle that has both a collapsable stock *and* a dreaded pistol grip ("assault weapon"). Others insist that no one besides government employees (police, military, intelligence agencies) should be allowed to possess firearms.
Also, there are actually quite a few people in the gun rights movement who do call for resurrecting the militia concept as manifest in the Militia Act of 1792. Search the archives of The High Road and you will such discussions.
The most disturbing feature of the gun controllers is that they tend to deny a citizen's right to self defense, called by Locke the first law of nature.
Where do you stand on such weighty matters?
>It may be heavy going for weak minds but see Jeffry Rogers Hummel, “The American Militia and the Origins of Conscription: A Reassessment,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2001, published ironically by the very libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute. In a work richly referenced and unusual for honesty in the present environment, Hummel went searching for an individual right and was very disappointed to discover conscription.
Wrong. I have read that article, and it is simply incorrect to assert that Hummel “went looking for an individual right.” Hummel presented his article as a mild corrective to Michael A. Bellesiles’s dishonest book, _Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture_. “Bellesiles’s most arresting claim, and the one for which he has drawn the most criticism, is that very few Americans owned firearms prior to the Civil War. In reaching this conclusion, Bellesiles makes some equally dubious assertions about the insignificance and incompetence of the American militia of the era. His denigration flies in the face of what military historians, whatever their ideological inclinations, have long known about the pervasive historical role and operations of the militia.”
Hummel’s article does wade into the debate over conflicting interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Speaking of that fraud Bellesiles, why does your institute still publish his works? http://www.potowmack.org/mbelles.html
Exactly how much academic dishonesty must one perpetrate before getting kicked out of the Potowmack clubhouse?
>J. Norman Heath also went searching for a individual right and found very confused jurisprudence: “Exposing the Second Amendment: Federal Preemption of State Militia Legislation.”
Here’s what Heath wrote:
“If the lower federal court Second Amendment decisions are founded in Supreme Court militia jurisprudence, then we can reasonably dismiss the ‘individual right’ interpretation of the amendment. Conversely, if the Constitution as expounded by the high court leaves Congress with the power to preempt the states' ability to maintain well-regulated militia, then it would follow that the Second Amendment, (p.42) if it is to have any meaning at all, must refer to a right to keep and bear arms that is held directly by citizens and is not conditional on state sponsorship.”
Digging further, Heath discusses how the Supremes ruled in Houston v. Moore. “After a thorough and divisive consideration of the issue, all three justices who wrote opinions clearly agreed that in event of conflict, state militia regulation must yield to federal law. The Second Amendment, overlooked by most of the Court, was thought to have no important bearing on the matter even by the one justice who bothered to mention it.”
The confusing jurisprudence comes from a federal judiciary that wants to override both state-organized militias and individual RKBA, entrenching the prerogatives of federal power. We used to have a system of delegated powers, carefully delineated, but no longer.
>I would not expect the small, weak minds who show up at a place like this to have original thoughts.
Another fallacy, this time called “ad hominem.” http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>These days progun means there is civil right secured by government to commit treason against the same government
This fallacy is known as "strawman." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
For example, I adhere to an individual rights perspective on the 2nd Amendment, so presumably I am “pro-gun,” but I do not advocate violence against the republic or its officers.
>Antigun means we resurrect the original militia concept as manifest in the Militia Act of 1792.
“Antigun” can mean many things. Some “antigun” people believe that it should be unlawful to own a semiautomatic rifle that has both a collapsable stock *and* a dreaded pistol grip ("assault weapon"). Others insist that no one besides government employees (police, military, intelligence agencies) should be allowed to possess firearms.
Also, there are actually quite a few people in the gun rights movement who do call for resurrecting the militia concept as manifest in the Militia Act of 1792. Search the archives of The High Road and you will such discussions.
The most disturbing feature of the gun controllers is that they tend to deny a citizen's right to self defense, called by Locke the first law of nature.
Where do you stand on such weighty matters?
>It may be heavy going for weak minds but see Jeffry Rogers Hummel, “The American Militia and the Origins of Conscription: A Reassessment,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2001, published ironically by the very libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute. In a work richly referenced and unusual for honesty in the present environment, Hummel went searching for an individual right and was very disappointed to discover conscription.
Wrong. I have read that article, and it is simply incorrect to assert that Hummel “went looking for an individual right.” Hummel presented his article as a mild corrective to Michael A. Bellesiles’s dishonest book, _Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture_. “Bellesiles’s most arresting claim, and the one for which he has drawn the most criticism, is that very few Americans owned firearms prior to the Civil War. In reaching this conclusion, Bellesiles makes some equally dubious assertions about the insignificance and incompetence of the American militia of the era. His denigration flies in the face of what military historians, whatever their ideological inclinations, have long known about the pervasive historical role and operations of the militia.”
Hummel’s article does wade into the debate over conflicting interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Speaking of that fraud Bellesiles, why does your institute still publish his works? http://www.potowmack.org/mbelles.html
Exactly how much academic dishonesty must one perpetrate before getting kicked out of the Potowmack clubhouse?
>J. Norman Heath also went searching for a individual right and found very confused jurisprudence: “Exposing the Second Amendment: Federal Preemption of State Militia Legislation.”
Here’s what Heath wrote:
“If the lower federal court Second Amendment decisions are founded in Supreme Court militia jurisprudence, then we can reasonably dismiss the ‘individual right’ interpretation of the amendment. Conversely, if the Constitution as expounded by the high court leaves Congress with the power to preempt the states' ability to maintain well-regulated militia, then it would follow that the Second Amendment, (p.42) if it is to have any meaning at all, must refer to a right to keep and bear arms that is held directly by citizens and is not conditional on state sponsorship.”
Digging further, Heath discusses how the Supremes ruled in Houston v. Moore. “After a thorough and divisive consideration of the issue, all three justices who wrote opinions clearly agreed that in event of conflict, state militia regulation must yield to federal law. The Second Amendment, overlooked by most of the Court, was thought to have no important bearing on the matter even by the one justice who bothered to mention it.”
The confusing jurisprudence comes from a federal judiciary that wants to override both state-organized militias and individual RKBA, entrenching the prerogatives of federal power. We used to have a system of delegated powers, carefully delineated, but no longer.
>I would not expect the small, weak minds who show up at a place like this to have original thoughts.
Another fallacy, this time called “ad hominem.” http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Last edited:
Doctor Suarez
Member
Well done, Java!
Daniel T
Member
And yet, here you are.
Not only that, but the garbage you vomit forth is not "original" in the slightest bit.
Brett Bellmore
Member
The problem here is that GEE explicitly repudiates the political philosphy *our* government was founded on, in favor of the european model of government as inherently omnipotent, and extending to it's subjects a variety of privileges, not rights.
From his perspective, the right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally contradicted by the nature of government as government, and can not legitimately exist even if the Constitution DOES mandate that it exist.
Oh, and it should go without saying, that GEE doesn't believe in the existance of any other rights, either...
It's not a totally unheard of view, either. It just happens to be a view the founders were trying to escape, not perpetuate.
From his perspective, the right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally contradicted by the nature of government as government, and can not legitimately exist even if the Constitution DOES mandate that it exist.
Oh, and it should go without saying, that GEE doesn't believe in the existance of any other rights, either...
It's not a totally unheard of view, either. It just happens to be a view the founders were trying to escape, not perpetuate.
Who are these "antis"? The "children of [anarchic] darkness" thrive and succeed on a false polarization. I tell people who want to have gun laws that make sense to acquire a gun, hold it up, and demand of the government to know where they go to enroll in the militia and put their private arms on the militia inventory as per the Militia Act of 1792 so they can be available to perform their public duty and fulfill their civic obligation to be called out to enforce the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
We have already addressed these issues in our briefs in Emerson and Parker. You take your argument to these "Patrons of Anarchy". The Constitution defines treason as the waging of war against the United States. The Constitution is not perverted. It does not define treason and they secure a civil right to commit the same.
Sue Wimmershoff-Caplan, a member of the National Rifle Association's National
Board, wrote in "The Founders and the AK-47," Washington Post, July 6, 1989:
"The private keeping of hand-held personal firearms is within the constitutional design for a counter to government run amok, as when the military and police use such firearms against their fellow nationals. As the Tiananmen Square tragedy showed so graphically, AK-47s fall into that category of weapons, and that is why they are protected by the Second Amendment.
"Twentieth-century military machines are far from invincible
when outflanked by armed citizen guerrillas. . ."
Modern military machines are maintained by governments. There is no distinction here among governments. Meanwhile, a proper AK-47 is a machine gun requiring a federal permit. This is the childish political fantasy explicitly, unequivocally, and unabashedly stated.
The NRA's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre wrote in Guns, Crime and
Freedom (1994), p.7:
"...those four words "The Right of the People" [from the Declaration of Independence, a charter for revolution] state in plain language that the people have the right, must have the right, to use whatever means necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government."
If this be treason, let's make the most of it. The people do have a right to use force to abolish oppressive government. It is a natural right, a moral right, a God-given right, but it is not one of those "certain unalienable rights"--not an individual civil right--that can possibly be secured by government.
David Kopel, a prolific individual right advocate, wrote in
"Trust the People: The Case against Gun Control," Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 109 (1988) explicitly in the context of gun ownership:
"The tools of political dissent should be privately owned and unregistered."
Treason by any other name is still treason.
The Second Amendment Foundation asserted in its amicus in US v. Francis J. Warin, 530 F.2d 104 (1976), and sought Second Amendment protection for:
"...a basic right of freemen to take up arms to defeat an oppressive government."
Just like that.
Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich wrote in his book To Renew America (1994), p. 202:
"The Second Amendment is a political right written into our Constitution for the purpose of protecting individual citizens from their own government."
The "political right" he imagines is a right in the State of Nature not a civil right secured by government. This is same baboon who says we lend our sovereignty to government. It says right in the preamble, we the people lend our sovereignty. Of course, we can then call in the loan.
On March 1, 2004, in the debate over S. 1805, Senator Larry Craig said regarding defenders of the Alamo:
My only observation was if that fight had occurred under modern law and with gun control advocates it would not have been a gun fight. It would have been a knife fight.
See Parker amicus draft.
The G. Gordon Liddy, nationally syndicated talk show host, January 25, 2005:
"The way they [the Founders] attempted to guard against the tendency [of a central government] to grow and become tyrannical was twofold. One was to say, the only powers this new central government will have are the ones specifically enumerated herein, everything else is reserved to the states and to the people. Then there was the Second Amendment which was designed so that the people would remain armed so that if once again the central government became tyrannical the people would have the means to overthrow it and free themselves."
Also
"In law language is subject to construction."
I have not written to Liddy yet to challenge him to put his amicus brief in court where his mouth is on the air waves. You don't have to wait for me to give Liddy the challenge. See how brave he is. He does not want the courts give a false construction.
I was at the Million Mom March in 2000. I could not find a single person out of hundreds asked who had heard of US v. Emerson
I was there again in 2004 and could not find a single person who had heard of Emerson, Seegars, or Parker. "The children of [anarchic] darkness" are well served by a false progun/antigun polarization.
Read Russell Weigley's History of the United States Army and Lawrence Cress' Citizen in Arms along side Hummel and Heath.
If he fudged his research on probate records that is reprehensible. He should have known that his work would be taken apart by hyperactive, compulsive "children of [anarchic] darkness." His article at .../mbelles.html and in the Chicago-Kent Symposium mention nothing of the probate records. If I were to fault Bellesiles for something it would be that in his Chicago-Kent article he mention the militia inventory and did not appreciate that that is the central issue in gun rights ideologies.
The probate records are superfluous. There is much other evidence that militia weapons were in short supply. One of the first things John Kenneth Rowland, one of about three reputable PhD historians of the Second Amendment, told me when I first met with him more than ten years ago, long before anyone heard of Bellesiles, was that the reason militia musters were held state-wide on a give day was to get an accurate count. If they were held county by county on different days, the same weapons would show up at each muster. President Jefferson enforced the militia inventory requirement of the Militia Act of 1792 and was sorely disappointed that the provision of private arms was only about ten percent.
If you want to examine fraud, why don't you start with the complete pseudoscholar Stephen Halbrook? In That Every Man Be Armed he gives 1306 footnotes in 197 pages. That is not unusual for serious scholarship. It is requisite for pseudoscholarship. He references Locke, Machiavelli, Aristotle and other. These classic works are available in many editions. He does not give the edition he is using so it is difficult to check the references. His purpose is to seduce week minds. He even suckered in Clarence Thomas.
Joyce Lee Malcolm is actually employed as a professional academic historian. She had the enormous demagogic conceit to tell a House subcommittee in 1995 that there were no historians for her to argue with anymore. .../malcolm.html, .../cong6.html Malcolm has severe critics among historians. See Schwoerer article in the Chicago-Kent Symposium. Malcolm gave one one line in To Keep and Bear Arms to Lawrence Cress who has done much more reputable and voluminous work on arms and militias. He is the pioneer and authority among contemporary historians. She addresses none of his issues.
Neither Hummel or Heath give any constitutional credibility to the "armed populace at large" fantasy that the NRA argues for in court today. The whole collective right/individual right absurdity is another false polarization.
There is a reason why the NRA's efforts are directly so overwhelmingly to defeating gun laws so the courts do not have opportunity to clarify gun rights. The NRA is not a gun rights organization. Its agenda is the agenda of the Libertarian Right which is to dismantle the transformation in the twentieth century that made the United States into a modern nation state capable of managing an industrial economy, performing on the world stage as a great power, and securing liberty and justice for all. The inability to accommodate to a governing authority for guns is the same inability to accommodate to a governing authority. Any viable concept of a government authority becomes a police state. Be careful of you Marxist-Leninist utopian heart's desire. It shall be yours. See Parker draft.
You have a right secured by government when... Let them file their briefs in court.
GEErnst
Last edited:
Brett Bellmore
Member
As I said: GEE simply refuses to accept the possiblity of a government that actually respects rights, ANY rights. This isn't really a matter of history to him, it's just how he defines government.
Doctor Suarez
Member
GEE, your length of text is impressive.
But every single argument you make boils down to "It's treason! It's just treason! You people are crazy!"
How did we become so industrially and socially prosperous during the late 19th-early 20th centuries when Gun Control basically didn't exist for the majority? As you may or may not know, we achieved industrialization and womens' suffrage during a period when the only gun control in America was directed towards Blacks and New Yorkers. Now, it wasn't exactly an enlightened society, but great progress was made in those years on both fronts, culminating in the enfranchisement of half of America's citizens and the creation of an industrial capacity that, more than anything, won the first World War.
And, since gun control began in earnest in 1968, we've seen massive retreats in industrialization, and we've seen a sickness in Black culture that a few brave non-bigots have been willing to address. (No causality, of course, but gun control didn't help.) Also, if you're so concerned about industrialism, why are most of America's anti-industrial, anti-free trade activists also supporters of candidates who push for gun control? And on the flip side, why are America's industrial fat cats always supporting these pro-gun Republicans? Don't they know that the Republicans are trying to destroy our industrial economy?
Oh wait... they don't know that... because it's a silly, baseless assertion.
But every single argument you make boils down to "It's treason! It's just treason! You people are crazy!"
How did we become so industrially and socially prosperous during the late 19th-early 20th centuries when Gun Control basically didn't exist for the majority? As you may or may not know, we achieved industrialization and womens' suffrage during a period when the only gun control in America was directed towards Blacks and New Yorkers. Now, it wasn't exactly an enlightened society, but great progress was made in those years on both fronts, culminating in the enfranchisement of half of America's citizens and the creation of an industrial capacity that, more than anything, won the first World War.
And, since gun control began in earnest in 1968, we've seen massive retreats in industrialization, and we've seen a sickness in Black culture that a few brave non-bigots have been willing to address. (No causality, of course, but gun control didn't help.) Also, if you're so concerned about industrialism, why are most of America's anti-industrial, anti-free trade activists also supporters of candidates who push for gun control? And on the flip side, why are America's industrial fat cats always supporting these pro-gun Republicans? Don't they know that the Republicans are trying to destroy our industrial economy?
Oh wait... they don't know that... because it's a silly, baseless assertion.
cuchulainn
Member
If someone had the time and desire (I sure as bleep don't), he could construct an impressively long list of the logical fallacies found Ernest's Post #40.
Here's a list of fallacies if someone feels up to the task: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
Here's a list of fallacies if someone feels up to the task: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
Carl N. Brown
Member
Chicago-Kent Symposium? Wasn't that the bunch put together
by Cart T. Bogus who had signed an amicus curae in the
Emerson case AND LOST? Backed by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation?
And wasn't discredited "scholar" Michael Bellesiles a participant in
the symposium AND signer of the amicus curae? And did
Escylheimer [phoentic] Ernst complain in the Firearms Policy
Review that Handgun Control Inc. would not take him
seriously? Ooops, I wore out my question mark key.
by Cart T. Bogus who had signed an amicus curae in the
Emerson case AND LOST? Backed by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation?
And wasn't discredited "scholar" Michael Bellesiles a participant in
the symposium AND signer of the amicus curae? And did
Escylheimer [phoentic] Ernst complain in the Firearms Policy
Review that Handgun Control Inc. would not take him
seriously? Ooops, I wore out my question mark key.
kbarrett
Member
GEErnst said:
Read my .sig line.
I would suggest getting some psychiatric counseling for that projection problem.
GEERNST wrote:
If you are an abled bodied Adult male citizen between 18 and 45, you are in the "militia." As the Supremes observed in the 1939 case US v. Miller, the militia "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." It's not like a college where you have to go somewhere and "enroll."
I certainly intend to as soon as the militia is mustered, the adjutant general provides blank forms to the brigade inspector, and the brigade inspector (during the time in which the militia is "under arms") comes around to inspect my arms so that he may provide a return of militia to the adjutant general. As soon as that happens, I will be happy to faithfully fill out whichever blank "return of militia" form is thrust into my hands. In the meantime, I will continue to go out to the range twice a year to practice in the highly unlikely event that, say, there's a collapse of civil authority in my city. I know that's real hard to imagine, but just suppose there were some kind of some terrorist incident or natural disaster of some sort, the police were overwhelmed or went AWOL, the phone lines went down, and the good peopel had to defend their lives, families, property, and sacred honor from rampaging thugs and looters.
As I say, it's highly unlikely. Why that's got to be the most unheard-of situation ever heard of.
Until the militia commander musters the militia, I have no intention of registering any of my firearms so that Hillary, Brady and all the other gun-controllers can more effectively execute firearm confiscation. New Orleans taught us all a lesson - one that the Potowmack Institute and others who worship at the alter of state power refuse to admit.
Javafiend wrote:
GEERNST wrote:
Maybe so, but I am asking you - GEERNST - here and now that question. My question is not posed to the PI's central committee. (Who else is there? Your pet hamster perhaps? Your other personalities?)
GEERNST wrote:
And what, this surprises you? Rampant ignorace of firearms, firearms laws, history, and the gun culture among the Rosie O'Donnell set should surprise no one.
GEERNST wrote:
So what? How does that change the fact that you mischaracterized Hummel's thesis?
GEERNST wrote:
"IF"? You mean that you are not sure? Exactly what kind of evidence for his fraud would you need?
He did far more than "fudge" his reasearch in probate records. He systematically misrepresented and fabricated evidence, and made error after error thoughout his work. For example, he falsely stated that the Militia Act of 1792 orders that "every citizen so enrolled, shall…be constantly provided with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints,' and other accoutrements." That's 180 degrees from what the Milita Act of 1792 actually says. Don't take my word for it. Read the act yourself at http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm. Read Clayton Cramer's detailed analysis of Bellesiles "scholarship." Unfortunately, the same publishing world that published and lauded Bellesiles' work of fiction refuses to print Cramer's answer.
So again, exactly how many times exactly does an anti-gun "scholar" need to be exposed as a fraud before the Potowmack Institute stops publishing his work? (Justed want to clarify.)
GEERNST WROTE:
If you are an abled bodied Adult male citizen between 18 and 45, you are in the "militia." As the Supremes observed in the 1939 case US v. Miller, the militia "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." It's not like a college where you have to go somewhere and "enroll."
I certainly intend to as soon as the militia is mustered, the adjutant general provides blank forms to the brigade inspector, and the brigade inspector (during the time in which the militia is "under arms") comes around to inspect my arms so that he may provide a return of militia to the adjutant general. As soon as that happens, I will be happy to faithfully fill out whichever blank "return of militia" form is thrust into my hands. In the meantime, I will continue to go out to the range twice a year to practice in the highly unlikely event that, say, there's a collapse of civil authority in my city. I know that's real hard to imagine, but just suppose there were some kind of some terrorist incident or natural disaster of some sort, the police were overwhelmed or went AWOL, the phone lines went down, and the good peopel had to defend their lives, families, property, and sacred honor from rampaging thugs and looters.
As I say, it's highly unlikely. Why that's got to be the most unheard-of situation ever heard of.
Until the militia commander musters the militia, I have no intention of registering any of my firearms so that Hillary, Brady and all the other gun-controllers can more effectively execute firearm confiscation. New Orleans taught us all a lesson - one that the Potowmack Institute and others who worship at the alter of state power refuse to admit.
Javafiend wrote:
GEERNST wrote:
Maybe so, but I am asking you - GEERNST - here and now that question. My question is not posed to the PI's central committee. (Who else is there? Your pet hamster perhaps? Your other personalities?)
GEERNST wrote:
And what, this surprises you? Rampant ignorace of firearms, firearms laws, history, and the gun culture among the Rosie O'Donnell set should surprise no one.
GEERNST wrote:
So what? How does that change the fact that you mischaracterized Hummel's thesis?
GEERNST wrote:
"IF"? You mean that you are not sure? Exactly what kind of evidence for his fraud would you need?
He did far more than "fudge" his reasearch in probate records. He systematically misrepresented and fabricated evidence, and made error after error thoughout his work. For example, he falsely stated that the Militia Act of 1792 orders that "every citizen so enrolled, shall…be constantly provided with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints,' and other accoutrements." That's 180 degrees from what the Milita Act of 1792 actually says. Don't take my word for it. Read the act yourself at http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm. Read Clayton Cramer's detailed analysis of Bellesiles "scholarship." Unfortunately, the same publishing world that published and lauded Bellesiles' work of fiction refuses to print Cramer's answer.
So again, exactly how many times exactly does an anti-gun "scholar" need to be exposed as a fraud before the Potowmack Institute stops publishing his work? (Justed want to clarify.)
GEERNST WROTE:
You have offered no evidence that Halbrook committed from. Just accusations without evidence.
Mr.V.
Member
GEErnst--
You seem to be negating most arguments for gun rights by rejecting them as at odds with “treason” as defined in Article 3 section 3 of the United States constitution.
I think you're right. If we did take up arms against the federal/state/or local governments, we would clearly be defined as traitors against the United States.
But then, do we neglect the words of the Declaration of Independence?...and by most accounts in the court of King George, the Declaration of Treason?
There is a clear conflict. The constitution forbids treason, but in an unofficial document, which serves as the jus ad bellum for the revolution and sets the context of the constitution, they tell us we have a right (they go so far as to say "our duty") to commit treason with the provision that our government is despotic enough. They clearly didn't want us to revolting like the French. There's no need to roll out the guillotine every time camembert is taxed. They say we should only act with "prudence" after a “long train of abuses and usurpations” as occurred.
So it isn't hard to believe that the second amendment is a way of preserving individuals' right to bear arms for the express purpose of committing the crime of treason even though treason is a crime specifically forbidden by that document. The second amendment was perhaps the founders' way of ensuring what they clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence/Treason "...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Could the second amendment a "Guard for the future security" and simultaneously also a means for committing treason?
I think so. Perhaps you'd disagree.
In the end, treason will only be a crime if the insurrection fails. Otherwise the point will be moot. There will be no constitution. We'll change the word "treason" to "freedom" because it sounds better.
So for now we should use the "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." to put down insurrections and acts of treason until such time as our government begins "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" and then maybe we should use our borne arms to rid ourselves of tyranny in a most traitorous manner. Then we should ironically forbid future treason of our new better government while enumerating many rights designed to allow treason to occur should this new government begin shopping at the Home Despot.
You seem to be negating most arguments for gun rights by rejecting them as at odds with “treason” as defined in Article 3 section 3 of the United States constitution.
I think you're right. If we did take up arms against the federal/state/or local governments, we would clearly be defined as traitors against the United States.
But then, do we neglect the words of the Declaration of Independence?...and by most accounts in the court of King George, the Declaration of Treason?
There is a clear conflict. The constitution forbids treason, but in an unofficial document, which serves as the jus ad bellum for the revolution and sets the context of the constitution, they tell us we have a right (they go so far as to say "our duty") to commit treason with the provision that our government is despotic enough. They clearly didn't want us to revolting like the French. There's no need to roll out the guillotine every time camembert is taxed. They say we should only act with "prudence" after a “long train of abuses and usurpations” as occurred.
So it isn't hard to believe that the second amendment is a way of preserving individuals' right to bear arms for the express purpose of committing the crime of treason even though treason is a crime specifically forbidden by that document. The second amendment was perhaps the founders' way of ensuring what they clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence/Treason "...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Could the second amendment a "Guard for the future security" and simultaneously also a means for committing treason?
I think so. Perhaps you'd disagree.
In the end, treason will only be a crime if the insurrection fails. Otherwise the point will be moot. There will be no constitution. We'll change the word "treason" to "freedom" because it sounds better.
So for now we should use the "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." to put down insurrections and acts of treason until such time as our government begins "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" and then maybe we should use our borne arms to rid ourselves of tyranny in a most traitorous manner. Then we should ironically forbid future treason of our new better government while enumerating many rights designed to allow treason to occur should this new government begin shopping at the Home Despot.
Mr.V.
Member
While we're mentioning "future guards", I hope we change the 2A to say in its entirety:
"The right of people to keep an bare arms, shall not be infringed. And by arms we don't just mean muskets. Seriously...We get that there will be future 'arms' that aren't muskets. That's why we said 'arms'. If we just meant 'clumsy guns to be shot in silly formations', we would have said that. Okay?"
I think that would read better =)
"The right of people to keep an bare arms, shall not be infringed. And by arms we don't just mean muskets. Seriously...We get that there will be future 'arms' that aren't muskets. That's why we said 'arms'. If we just meant 'clumsy guns to be shot in silly formations', we would have said that. Okay?"
I think that would read better =)
Doctor Suarez
Member
I may have typed this months ago in this same thread, but here it is again.
I think we confuse the government and the Constitution too readily. Our loyalty must be to our Constitutional government. If the government reaches the point where it has violated the Constitution and has attempted to impose tyranny, then the government itself is the traitor, not the people who revolt against it.
Of course, determining that point is the biggest, nastiest puzzle of them all. So too is whether or not the rebels will restore the Constitution or impose a new tyranny of their own. That's why I like the fact that our nation is based on a widely available document and not the dictates of one very lucky family.
I think we confuse the government and the Constitution too readily. Our loyalty must be to our Constitutional government. If the government reaches the point where it has violated the Constitution and has attempted to impose tyranny, then the government itself is the traitor, not the people who revolt against it.
Of course, determining that point is the biggest, nastiest puzzle of them all. So too is whether or not the rebels will restore the Constitution or impose a new tyranny of their own. That's why I like the fact that our nation is based on a widely available document and not the dictates of one very lucky family.
- Status
