This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Reliable sources

Re: Reliable sources

Postby deadwhitemale » 14 Apr 2009, 04:56

Re: the general strike idea, touché.

As for the whole concealed versus open bearing of arms, my state, Kentucky first prohibited the concealed bearing of arms in 1813. That's Eighteen-Thirteen, Napoleon was still breathing then. Many other Southern and southwestern states have or had similar bans on concealed weapons of comparable antiquity. The general thinking behind such laws seems to have gone something like this: "It's a fine, manly thing to go about openly armed, instantly ready to defend the weak or respond to any challenge to one's honor. But only a sneaking footpad or assassin would want to carry his weapon concealed."

Kentucky's flat prohibition on concealed carry by private citizens, even inside their own homes or places of business, persisted from 1813 to 1996. (No permit or licensing system even existed. I mean there was no way to even apply for a permit/license.) Police and certain public office holders (such as, oddly, coroners) were exempt.

During that whole time it was indeed legal, theoretically, on paper, to go about openly armed. Theoretically, you could walk around town all the time with a seven-foot harpoon like Queequeg or a Winchester like Chuck Connors in The Rifleman, and it would have been legal.

The reality was a little different. The police would find a way to make you stop it. Usually you'd be charged with Disturbing the Peace. The other problem with open carry was that it tipped your hand prematurely to any potential aggressors, a certain small percentge of whom were provoked to mindignation rather than deterred by the sight of someone they regarded as their lawful prey going armed. It got worse if you were not very large or tough-looking otherwise. To them you seemed like a small person attached to a large gun, which they figured they ought to be the one holding. "Hey, free gun!" many of them thought as they sneaked up behind some armed citizen standing preoccupied in a check-out line somewhere, writing a check or counting his change.

I'm not actually against open carry. But anyone who does it regularly in public had better have some other tricks up his sleeve in case of a sudden attack and attempted gun snatch. He should also be prepared for frequent tense encounters with multiple heavily armed and jittery police officers.

All in all, I generally preferred to be discreet about it, and to retain some element of surprise, though of course nothing is 100 percent, and there are ways to spot or "make" even someone who is carrying a concealed weapon. Subtle details of dress and posture and bearing, and certain distinctive gestures, may give the game away. This happened to me a time or two, and in at least one case "the other fella" was as indignant at the unfairness of it all as I suppose a wolf would be to discover a rabbit was carrying a derringer in its fur.

I actually had to take some steps to defend myself. This fell short of actually drawing on him, or even threatening him directly. Chiefly I used "tactical movement," suddenly placing a barrier between myself and him, to baffle a sudden charge. He understood he'd been outmanouvered (onemight almost say "check-mated"), and kept his distance, taunting me to shoot. "You ain't got the guts! He bawled. "I can tell just by lookin' at you that you ain't got the guts to look someone right in the eye and shoot!" (qv: Mark "Animal" MacYoung on "Famous Last Words.")

"I always look at my front sight when I shoot," I said.

Finally he stormed off with parting threats of lying in wait outside to ambush me in the dark. However, I had a small but powerful flashlight on me as well, and was able to surveil the likely ambush site before entering it, and he made no attempt to carry this out.

Something I don't think many people quite get is that a pistol is conceptually a defensive arm, made to be carried with no particular expectation of trouble, but just in case there might be. It doesn't necessarily mean its wearer is in any sense "on the warpath" or "gunning for" anyone. A long gun such as a rifle or shotgun, on the other hand, is conceptually offensive in nature, and carrying one in public often means the fight is on, or just about to be.

Huh, I think I am actually paraphrasing someone else here:

' The pistol is the defensive arm. You wear it with no specific action in mind, but when you pick up a rifle you intend to go after something - or someone. Thus the difference in purpose of the two arms is one of concept, and training with either must be carried out with that in mind. The purpose of the pistol is to stop a fight that somebody else started. The purpose of the rifle is to "reach out and touch someone." Thus the objective of the rifleman is to achieve a first-round hit, on an appropriate target, at unspecific range, from improvised positions, against the clock.' -- Jeff Cooper, March 1996

Of course there are exceptions, and many people will use a tool to do a job for which it is poorly suited.

Specialized troops like the Schwarzritters in the European Wars of religion in the late 1500s, and other specialized cavalry units in the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War of the 1600s, did use large wheellock pistols offensively, as "shock" weapons against opposing lance- and sword-armed cavalry, and to break the ranks of infantry pikemen from just outside their reach.

Also, during the American Civil war many cavalrymen on both sides, but especially on the Confederate side, largely abandoned the saber in favor of the revolver (preferably multiple revolvers). This was especially the case with "irregular" cavalry such as Quantrille's Raiders and other "Border guerillas" bands. (qv: the film The Outlaw Josey Wales, and the song "Bad Company," signature song of the 1970s band Bad Company.)

DWM
"It is when we try to grapple with another man's intimate need that we perceive how incomprehensible, wavering, and misty are the beings that share with us the sight of the stars and the warmth of the sun." -- Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim(1899?)
deadwhitemale
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Far Western Kentucky

Re: Reliable sources

Postby Bluegoat » 14 Apr 2009, 17:57

IT kind of depends on what type of offensive you want to commit, I'd think? Personally I'd rather have a rifle any day, since I can't actually hit anything with a pistol (mind you, a nasty old army pistol isn't great for anyone) but if I were trying to be sneaky, a pistol might be just the thing. I'm too short to carry a rifle or shotgun in my coat. Not that one ought to commit sneaky offenses with pistols or anything else.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Reliable sources

Postby archenland_knight » 14 Apr 2009, 18:45

Bluegoat wrote:IT kind of depends on what type of offensive you want to commit, I'd think? Personally I'd rather have a rifle any day, since I can't actually hit anything with a pistol (mind you, a nasty old army pistol isn't great for anyone) but if I were trying to be sneaky, a pistol might be just the thing. I'm too short to carry a rifle or shotgun in my coat. Not that one ought to commit sneaky offenses with pistols or anything else.


To me, the point of packing heat is not to commit an offense, but to prevent an offense from being committed. If I want to commit an "offense" then in general guns are not the best tools for someone with a high degree of intelligence.

Say I wanted to commit "theft" ... well, I'm a software developer for crying out loud. If I'm going to steal money, I'm not going to settle for a measly little amount I could carry. I'm going to steal enough to live like a king in some country with no extradition treaty with the U.S..

Now, if the offense I wanted to commit involved the elimination of a self-contained, sentient, biological entity which was inconveniencing me, then again, guns in general are not the best methods. The best method is to set up a scenario in which you can terminate the offending entity hand-to-hand, and create enough evidence to make a story of "self-defense" plausible.

Of course, you can only do this once. But the third time it happens to you, the police start to get very suspicious. Then you have to move to another state and change you name again, and boy is that a headache ..... :rolleyes:


Or ... I mean .... I would think it would be. :whistle: I mean .... I wouldn't personally know for sure :snooty: I'm just speking hypothetically. :cool: Yeah, that's it. Just hypothetically.



:snow-tongue:
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Reliable sources

Postby cyranorox » 14 Apr 2009, 20:36

DWM, a tip of my hat.

AK, where to start? Rachel Corey was run over by an Israeli in a bull dozer. Recheck your thinking on this one.

RE: images of some thugs attacking me? dont be too sure I would need help. but the nasty fantasy shows you all too clearly. Most of the anger you spewed [alors! not even clean flames to toast a marshmallow]! seems to be based on a misreading. the tech stuff about guns and tanks, the hardboiled jargon of 'carrying' or 'heat', the grimy half-swagger of tough guy details, does not assist in supporting what thought there is in your comments.

RE: honor. Nothing you have written supports a claim that pacifists have no honor, nor that they need never make harder decisions than about their own deaths. I'n not sure what you think the founders were willing to lose, besides their lives; fortunes are trivial in this context [cf that creep Ashcroft and 'our sacred fortunes' a delicious slip], and they intended to keep their honor.

RE: the city hall image. I am somewhat oblique; i used an image of an individual as a metaphor for any person in that position. I meant, should someone of your stripe propose a revolutionary takeover, ie, treason, and I stood to oppose it at the city hall door [or any significant place], what would happen? it seems that you would, or at least like to fantasize that you would, impose your will by force and kill me.

RE: new wars. Fascists will not have an easy time; big lies may die in the light of day. the Confederacy was crushed. you leave it a question which side you might be on should war arise.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Reliable sources

Postby Bluegoat » 14 Apr 2009, 23:00

archenland_knight wrote:
Say I wanted to commit "theft" ... well, I'm a software developer for crying out loud. If I'm going to steal money, I'm not going to settle for a measly little amount I could carry. I'm going to steal enough to live like a king in some country with no extradition treaty with the U.S..

Now, if the offense I wanted to commit involved the elimination of a self-contained, sentient, biological entity which was inconveniencing me, then again, guns in general are not the best methods. The best method is to set up a scenario in which you can terminate the offending entity hand-to-hand, and create enough evidence to make a story of "self-defense" plausible.


Hmm, my training is as a classicist, a library technician, and a soldier. I don't know what kind of crime or murder that would lend itself to.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Reliable sources

Postby deadwhitemale » 17 Apr 2009, 02:22

"Fascism"? I don't think I understand. Unless it is being suggested that wanting to force an overbearing, intrusive government back into its constitutional cage, or even stubbornly clinging to the few tattered rags of liberty we still have, meets some definition of "fascism" with which I am unfamiliar. The general working definition of fascism I go by is as follows (coming as soon as I can find and post the link).

fas·cism

–noun
1. A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

I'm surprised anyone ever got out of anything I ever said that I was okay with any of that. Calling me an anarchist would be far closer to the truth. Of course, I mean anarchist in just about the most literal, literalist sense (much as Tolkien defined it), of someone wanting no or nearly no government, rather than some sort of socialist or communist or "syndicalist" whose beef is with private property and free market capitalism rather than with overbearing government.

"Suppression of opposition." Yeah, people kept accusing the Bush II administration of that for years, but as far as I can find out ... it never happened. Until now. It's really starting to happen now, now that "dissent is no longer patriotic." Indeed, outright criminalization of belief looms large. We've got the Department of Homeland Security basically saying that about half of the population (the half including the "bitter clingers") should be monitored as potential enemies of the state, as FAR greater threats than, say, Jihadist suicide bombers.


Somewhere up above I referenced Mark "Animal" MacYoung on the topic of "famous last words." Even I had some difficulty rediscovering what I meant to cite, so I don't expect anyone else to have found it. But jut to show I wasn't just making something up, here is what I was referring to:

' Quite literally, if the person the bluffer is trying to scare away doesn't scare, the bluffer will try to escalate it further. And in this mindset, there is only one way to go from brandishing a weapon if the other the person doesn't back off. This is quite literally why the most common -- and stupidest -- last words of people shot in these circumstances is "You ain't got the guts (to pull the trigger)." Don't laugh and don't think we're making it up. It is true.

From an outside perspective, it may seem incredible. But for people caught up in having to "win," this is a common response to the increased posturing via a weapon by the other party. It happens -- a lot. It is equally unbelievable that someone waving a gun around threatening to kill someone a second before is now standing there in shock because he just shot someone. But that too happens -- a lot. In the heat of the moment all sorts of stupid things make sense to the participants ... '


http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/homedefense.html

This linked website is a generally good source of advice. From my own observations I could add a few other "classics" to the list of "Famous Last Words." I mean, things anyone who doesn't want to get into a real fight should never say to anyone.

NEVER say "#%&* you" to anyone in public, unless you know them VERY well. NEVER call anyone in public you don't know VERY well a "mother#%&*er." NEVER employ ANY sort of gross sexual insult against anyone in public. NEVER question anyone's manhood, manliness, courage, or sexual preference(s). NEVER insult anyone's mother, wife, sweetheart, daughter, or other loved one whose safety or honor he feels responsible for.

Last but not least (and I know this is a gesture, not a verbal expression), NEVER give anyone in public you don't know VERY well "the finger," "the bird," or whatever it's called in your neck of the woods. NEVER "flip off" anyone, in traffic, or anywhere else in public. That right there provoked at last half of all the really bad "road rage" incidents you heard about. Other obscene and/or rude gestures are generally best avoided as well.

For my part, I try hard to avoid playing any sort of "monkey dominance games" in the first place. I'm not interested in being at the head of the baboon troop hierarchy. I don't want to be a baboon at all, period. Unfortunately, this does sometimes put me at a disadvantage, when other people are playing such games and I don't immediately get it, or they think I'm playing but I'm not, and don't know that they think I am.

Something of the sort occurred in that anecdote about a brief but tense confrontation in my past. I was not threatening that fellow. I never even drew on him. I mean I wasn't holding him at gunpoint. I personally consider it a very unsound practice to threaten anyone with a pistol. Too many of them will assume you're bluffing, if not immediately then eventually. A weapon openly brandished soon loses much of its power to intimidate. It ought not to be used for intimidation to begin with, and I was attempting no such thing.

All it was, was he unfortunately discovered that I was wearing a concealed pistol. He felt threatened by my armed condition, per se, though I had not threatened him. He was evidently of the school which holds that "If there's a loaded gun around, you should be the one holding it."

I found his belligerent reaction so baffling that I almost failed to recognize the danger and react in time. He seemed to think it was all about "looking someone in the eye" or "staring them down," like in a Spaghetti Western. Hence my comment about "looking at my front sight." That was merely a statement of fact. I doubt he even understood what I meant. I mean I doubt he knew much about shooting a pistol.

The problem may have arisen out of my lifelong aversion to look anyone fixedly in the eye, for any reason. (This trait is apparently innate with me, as it was noted in the "Baby's First Year" journal my mother once kept. It seems to be frequently misinterpeted -- in that case interpreted as timidity or indecision, I guess.

Maybe one reason I don't play "simian pecking order" games is that I actually, literally don't know how. I have wondered if it's some kind of sub-clinical form of autism. I am very literal in my speech, for instance. It is usually better to just ignore my "non-verbals" and "body language," and take what I say pretty much at face value. (Except when I'm obviously speaking figuratively or poetically, of course.)

"Big lie"? Who's employing the Big Lie technique these days? Well, we did start off talking about "reliable sources." And a great deal of what I hear on the TV news every day I just happen to know is not so. They can keep on saying "ninety percent of all guns used in Mexican drug war violence are smuggled into Mexico from the USA" as long an loud as they like, but it'll never make it true, and it'll never justify one single further infringement on Americans' rights.


DWM
Last edited by deadwhitemale on 19 Apr 2009, 04:23, edited 1 time in total.
"It is when we try to grapple with another man's intimate need that we perceive how incomprehensible, wavering, and misty are the beings that share with us the sight of the stars and the warmth of the sun." -- Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim(1899?)
deadwhitemale
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Far Western Kentucky

Re: Reliable sources

Postby archenland_knight » 17 Apr 2009, 19:13

cyranorox wrote: AK, where to start? Rachel Corey was run over by an Israeli in a bull dozer. Recheck your thinking on this one.

Your mentioning this incident in connection with Tiananmen square, and your asking what I would have done had I been driving the "tank" (a "tank" has a cannon, not a scraper blade) had me seriously confused. I had never heard of Rachel Corey until you mentioned her. I read up on her a bit, and honestly, I think she just proves my point.
cyranorox wrote: But against that, consider Rachel Corey, who stood unarmed against a killer machine driven by a killer. Pacifism, done right, does require courage, because it expects to take casualties.


Did her just passively standing in the way accomplish anything? Did it save the house she was trying to save? Honestly, I don’t know. I could find no reference to whether or not her actions were successful in preventing the destruction of the house she was trying to save. Either way, she pretty well proved that her tactics were unsuccessful.

And now that I know who she is, referring to the bulldozer, a simple piece of construction equipment as a "killer machine" is ridiculous! Machines can’t be "killers". They might be wielded by humans to cause harm, but to call a mechanical construction a "killer machine" demonstrates a disturbing tendency to anthropomorphise inanimate objects and attribute motives and sentience to them. It is no more a "killer machine" than a falling boulder that lands on someone might be a "killer rock". I assure you, Caterpillar Corp., while making excellent heavy equipment, does not possess the technology nor desire to create machines capable of being morally responsible for being "killers".

As for the machine being "driven by a killer", you are obviously taking the testimony of the ISM witnesses at face value. I’m afraid I just can’t do that. Again, I evaluate the accuracy of Wikki articles by the amount of research and documentation they present, so The Wikki Article for Rachel Corey seems to have been pretty well done. It’s also a good example of trying to present both sides of an issue fairly.

While the ISM witnesses seem certain that the driver could see Corrie, he claims he could not, and there is no way to prove one way or the other. Just because her head was above the blade does not mean that she could be seen. The model Caterpillar used in Gaza is, of necessity, an armoured vehicle, with a restricted field of vision. This is due to the fact that even bullet proof glass gets weaker as the window gets larger, so small windows are an essential. Looking at the design, I can see how a person in the cockpit would have difficulty basically looking straight down the nose of the thing to see some poor girl right in front of the blade. It is not designed to kill, but it is designed to protect the driver from killers, and that makes it more of a problem to see out of.

I don’t know if he did or didn’t see her, but I do know that I believe 100% in the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. I will not believe allegations of intentional murder without alot more evidence than is presented by the ISM testimony. In fact, as the Wikki article states:

Wikki wrote: The IDF produced a video about Corrie's death that includes footage taken from inside the cockpit of a D9. It makes a "credible case", Joshua Hammer wrote of this video in Mother Jones, that "the operators, peering out through narrow, double-glazed, bulletproof windows, their view obscured behind pistons and the giant scooper, might not have seen Corrie kneeling in front of them.


The source cited for this quote is Joshua Hammer’s The Death of Rachel Corrie in Mother Jones (September/October 2003).

Now, I don’t pretend that all this proves the driver’s innocence, but in my mind it does create reasonable doubt. So, I object to calling the driver a “killer” without a whole lot more evidence.

And besides, standing in front of a bulldozer, even one designed to operate in a state-side coal mine, is just plain stupid. A driver having a bad day can really mess up yours.

As for your assertion that pacifism expects to take casualties, I used to agree, but after studying the Corrie incident, I’m not so sure. This quote from a member of the ISM makes me question my previous assumption.

Wikki wrote: Smith recounted afterward; "We were horribly surprised. They had been careful not to hurt us. They'd always stopped before."


So ... they really expected the driver to stop. They were "horribly surprised" when he didn’t. Doesn’t sound like someone expecting casualties to me.

Of course, the Wikki article also presents a pretty good case for the other side. Like I said, I’m not sure which side is right. But that’s kind of my point. We shouldn’t be calling people (and certainly not machines) "killers" without really solid proof.

But in the end, I think Corrie’s actions did much more harm than good. I have to agree with the National Review that "Corrie’s death was unfortunate, but more unfortunate is a Western media and cultural establishment that lionizes 'martyrs' for illiberal causes while ignoring the victims those causes create." Because of her, more explosives were brought in and more acts of terror committed. All she did was stir the hornet’s nest.

So, I just don’t think Corrie is a very good example of the effectiveness of pacifistic measures. Far more effective an example would be the "tank man" of Tiananmen Square, a man whose name and fate have so far only be speculated at. And I sincerely hope that the driver of that lead tank did not suffer for his refusal to squash another human being, but I fear my hope is in vain.

Cyranorox wrote: RE: images of some thugs attacking me? dont be too sure I would need help. but the nasty fantasy shows you all too clearly.


My appologies. I misunderstood. It sounded to me that you were the one fanaticising about violating the rights of others by denying them entry into a place they had every right to be. This, of course, would be inexcusable and anyone attempting this, in my neck of the woods, could expect a scuffle. I would certainly never be so foolish as to try such a violation, even if I didn’t think it dreadfully immoral. Your "don't be too sure I would need your help," line suggests, however, that perhaps you aren't as dedicated a pacifist as you would like to believe. :wink:
Cyranorox wrote: Most of the anger you spewed [alors! not even clean flames to toast a marshmallow]! seems to be based on a misreading.


Indeed, it was based on a misreading. For the misreading, I apologize. But anger at the idea of violating the rights of others by preventing them from entering a place where they have every right to be would be perfectly justifiable. You can make of that what you will.

Cyranorox wrote: the tech stuff about guns and tanks, the hardboiled jargon of 'carrying' or 'heat', the grimy half-swagger of tough guy details, does not assist in supporting what thought there is in your comments.


I was trying to lighten the mood with a little humour. It seems I failed. Again, my apologies.

Cyranorox wrote: RE: honour. Nothing you have written supports a claim that pacifists have no honour,


I think here you may be misreading. I never said pacifism had no honour, only that it never had to risk losing it. If the pacifist lives, he’s a hero. If he dies, he’s a martyr. Honour and glory either way, even if he is totally unsuccessful. Lucky schmucks.

Cyranorox wrote: I’m not sure what you think the founders were willing to lose, besides their lives; fortunes are trivial in this context [cf that creep Ashcroft and 'our sacred fortunes' a delicious slip], and they intended to keep their honour.


You can explain your problems with Ashcroft later and why you consider this a “slip”. I know liberals hate the man, but for the most part, I think he did his job splendidly. Of course, I hate the expanded surveillance, but as I pointed out in another thread, he was only continuing the patterns of his predecessors, just as his successors are doing, and doing so on the orders of the Presidents. Don’t blame Ashcroft for a trend well established in the Clinton Administration if not before.
As far as fortunes being “trivial” ... what a modern way think! I agree for the most part, but still, how modern of you. At the time of the revolution, of course, a "Fortune" was part of a man's identity. Mount Vernon and Monticello were as much a part of who Washington and Jerfferson were as were their very hearts and minds. To have lost these would have been worse than death for these men. When you have worked all our life to build something, then to loose it is often worse than losing your very life. I dare say Washington would have gladly died to save Mt. Vernon, or Jefferson to save Monticello. Why do you think people today risk their lives to save their homes, homes they have worked all their lives for, from floods and hurricanes. With that much of yourself poured into something, it becomes a part of you, and it would be like losing your very self to lose it. No, the reason that "lives" came before "fortunes" was that what was left of their lives were easier to risk than all that they had poured their lives into building.

If a "fortune" is so trivial, then why was Rachel Corrie willing to risk her very life to save a man’s house?

And as for intending to keep their "honour", they would keep their honour only if they won. If they lost, they would be branded as traitors and war criminals. All the deaths of the war would be placed at their doorsteps ... except that they would undoubtedly no longer have doorsteps. They knew that the winners write the history books, and the history books would have said that they were monsters and traitorous murderers, brigands who dared to commit treason against the Crown and for whom hanging was too good. They would have been reviled and despised throughout history.
Again, for them, this would have been a fate far worse than death. They knew that if they lost, all honour would be stripped from them. Sure, they "intended" to keep their honour, just as they intended to keep their lives and fortunes, because they "intended" to win! But they knew that if they didn’t win, they would surely loose all three.

This is basic U.S. History. 11th grade for us. Did your high school not teach this?

Cyranorox wrote:RE: the city hall image. I am somewhat oblique; i used an image of an individual as a metaphor for any person in that position. I meant, should someone of your stripe propose a revolutionary takeover, ie, treason, and I stood to oppose it at the city hall door [or any significant place], what would happen? it seems that you would, or at least like to fantasize that you would, impose your will by force and kill me.


Yes, you were a bit "oblique", but we’ve got it straightened out now. So, about your fantasy of opposing a revolution single-handedly ... a bit grandiose, don’t you think? But let’s start with the basic concept.

The Declaration of Independence wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


The United States was founded on the principle that, should the government ever reach the point where it begins to violate these basic unalienable rights granted to us by our creator, then it becomes our right to alter or abolish said government. This is not, according the the DofE, treason, but our sacred right. It was to enable us to carry out this right that the Second Amendment was put in place.

Now, obviously, we are nowhere near this point yet, and I believe that the electoral process will prevent us from ever reaching it. Still, an election is not impossible to rig, and it is possible, however unlikely, that one day a regime will get itself put into place that will attempt to suspend the Constitution and strip us of our most basic Constitutional Rights. If the government tries to outlaw religion, or start jailing dissidents as they do in China, then yes, armed resistance is precisely what the DofE and the 2nd Amendment are for. I’m not saying a full-scale revolution. But standing up and saying, "No, and if you want to disagree we can shoot it out," may be necessary at some point.

A full-scale revolution on a continent the size of North America ... the logistics would be nearly unworkable. I suppose it’s possible that things could get so bad as to justify this. But before that happens, I think you’ll see some of the more sensible states secede again.

I realize some believe the Patriot Act to, in fact, violate constitutional rights, but when you actually investigate it, it’s an awful lot of very cloudy legalese. I think it does violate some rights, but good luck constructing a legal argument that will hold up in court. And what kind of resistance does one offer against electronic surveillance, except electronic countermeasures which, as far as I know, are perfectly legal.

The Patriot Act is, to me, in a sort of grey area, and I’d like to see us get out of that grey area.

Now, Cyranorox, if things actually got so bad that people were willing to launch and armed revolt ... and think how bad things would have to be for that to happen ... do you really thing they would hesitate to shoot unarmed pacifists who stood in their way? Do you think government loyal troops would have any more hesitation to shoot unarmed pacifists who stood in their way? I would not ever do this, but haven’t you ever seen a mob rip a person to shreds? What do you really think would happen in a situation like this?

If you really want to stop a revolution, help to make sure basic Constitutional Freedoms and Liberties remain in place so that one never happens, and the DofE/Second Amendment argument remains academic.

Cyranorox wrote: RE: new wars. Fascists will not have an easy time; big lies may die in the light of day. the Confederacy was crushed.


I don’t know. The Fascists seem to be doing pretty doggone well. It’s "politically incorrect" to criticize any politician whose not your own race right now. It’s practically forbidden to suggest, even in private, that a particular lifestyle might be inappropriate, even if you aren’t advocating government to interference in the matter. It seems to be the Fascists are doing quite well indeed. Or, is it only "fascism" if it comes from the right? Liberals can be Fascists too, you know? And the basic premise of true conservatism is the protection of individual freedom. To me, true conservatism and fascism are mutually exclusive.

Cyranorox wrote:you leave it a question which side you might be on should war arise.


Really? I do? Well then, let me clarify.

I believe, with all my heart, that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution leaves a state with the power to secede from the Union should it choose to do so. But, like my fellow Virginian Robert E. Lee, I hope with all my heart that this does not happen.

If Virginia were considering it, I would, like Lee, oppose such a thing. I would make a pest of myself to my state legislators with phone calls and letters and emails, and the occasional visit to Richmond. I would do all I could to keep the legislature from passing such a measure. (So few people ever contact their representatives, especially at the state level, about anything that when they do, it can create quite a stir. One person really can make a difference.)

If such a measure came before the people on a ballot measure(I’m not sure if this would be required, but I’m willing to bet our legislature would not take such a step on their own), I would fight it for all I’m worth. I would campaign and work against it as much as I possibly could, for like Lee, I think it would be a dreadful thing.

However, if in the end, Virginia did decide to secede, I would be faced with the same dilemma, except of course that no one would be offering me command of any armies, and no one would even care what I decided. (Both Lincoln and Davis were offering Lee commands, and Lincoln’s army was by far the larger, so if personal power had been Lee’s goal, he would have sided with the Union ... and the war would have lasted about 6 months.)

But like Lee, I would consider that I had the choice between two acts of treason. Either treason against my nation, or treason against my state. And I because I believe that the Federal Government gets it’s power from the consent of the states, and by extension the people, I believe that treason against your state to be the more heinous offense. So, as much as it would rip my heart out, I would have to side with Virginia. I don't know how long it would take before I stopped throwing up over it.

Of course, at my age, I would just slow any armed unit down. No, they will stick me in a bunker somewhere running their computer systems, which frankly would be where I would be of the most service to my side under any conditions. Perhaps John and I might even be matching wits against each other. Unless, of course, Oregan secedes too?

However, even if Virginia secedes, I should think an armed conflict very avoidable. As I said, I believe the 10th Amendment gives states the right to secede. I should hope we would go the legal route first, and sue for our right to secede. I think a president would have to be a tyrant to order military force to hold a state that does not wish to remain. (Yes, I do think that.)

To borrow from Cyranorox’s logic, “If we just refuse to follow orders from the federal government, are you really going to invade Virginia with military force and start killing people?"

I hope we never find out.

Bluegoat wrote: Hmm, my training is as a classicist, a library technician, and a soldier. I don't know what kind of crime or murder that would lend itself to.


Oh, I was just playing about what I would do if I wanted to be a criminal. But your qualifications bring to mind a quote from one of my all time favourite movie charaters:

Farm Boy/Wesley/The Man In Black/The Dread Pirate Roberts from The Princess Bride wrote:Have you ever considered Piracy? You’d make a wonder Dread Pirate Roberts.
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Previous

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 1 guest