A questions as to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[Beretta92FSLady]

Therein rests the real power of the people - a grassroots prairie fire - taking back our government by storm - the force and power of the vote.

I accept that the "real power of the people," to "taking back our government by storm," is, "the vote." So, by this line of thinking you have offered up, Grapshot, Preident Obama being voted in by 9 million plus votes more than McCain was "the people" taking back their government? Or do you only agree that it's the case only if some politician that holds your ideological stance on the way a government system operates is the only time there is a legitimate 'people' taking back the government? Also, what would 'the people' be taking the government back from, considering, 'the people' are the ones who voted the individual into office int he first place - wait, i think I already stated this a couple of lines back.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Therein rests the real power of the people - a grassroots prairie fire - taking back our government by storm - the force and power of the vote.

I accept that the "real power of the people," to "taking back our government by storm," is, "the vote." So, by your line of reasoning you have offered up, Grapshot, Preident Obama being voted in by 9 million plus votes more than McCain was "the people" taking back their government? From who? Wait, the Republicans, Bush. Or do you only agree that it's the case only if some politician that holds your ideological stance on the way a government system operates is the only time there is a legitimate 'people' taking back the government? Also, what would 'the people' be taking the government back from, considering, 'the people' are the ones who voted the individual into office int he first place - wait, I think I already stated this a couple of lines back.

 

[eye95]

Almost sounds like the US is about over due for another revolution. Just MHO though.


.................--Moderator Statement--Rule Violation--

Nah. No one here ever advocates for revolution. [The rolleyes smiley doesn't much look like rolling eyes anymore, but, trust me, I am rolling my eyes in sarcasm for the benefit of those who insist that no one here ever advocates revolution.]

 

[georg jetson]

I accept that the "real power of the people," to "taking back our government by storm," is, "the vote." So, by your line of reasoning you have offered up, Grapshot, Preident Obama being voted in by 9 million plus votes more than McCain was "the people" taking back their government? From who? Wait, the Republicans, Bush. Or do you only agree that it's the case only if some politician that holds your ideological stance on the way a government system operates is the only time there is a legitimate 'people' taking back the government? Also, what would 'the people' be taking the government back from, considering, 'the people' are the ones who voted the individual into office int he first place - wait, I think I already stated this a couple of lines back.

The ONLY government system in this country that is legal is a REPUBLIC. Obama is clearly NOT making decisions within the boundaries of the rules of the REPUBLIC. Of course, those calling themselves republicans are also guilty of the same thing. So the "taking back our government by storm" MUST necessarily imply that the people have educated themselves in the understanding of a REPUBLIC and then use their vote to bring people into office that will be good stewards of the REPUBLIC.

The people are beginning to understand that the contemporary terms "democrat" and "republican" have no useful meaning. The only thing that matters is that we begin rebuilding the Republic we were given.

The "ideological stance on the way (our) government system operates" was decided over 200 years ago. It is a Republic. Any other form of government in this country is ILLEGAL!!

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Abraham Lincoln is purported to have quoted Jefferson to the effect that a free society, in order to remain free, would require a revolution every twenty years or so.

We have an even more direct attributions.

Letter from Jefferson to Madison:

...The late rebellion in Massachusets has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in 13 states in the course of 11 years, is but one for each state in a century and a half. No country should be so long without one...

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s21.html


Then, of course, there is Jefferson's classic watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants. He wrote it in a letter to William Smith. The reference to a rebellion no less than every twenty years comes earlier in the same letter, emphasis mine:

...Yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed...We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

You can see a photo of the letter here:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc105.jpg

 

[Grapeshot]

We have an even more direct attributions.

Letter from Jefferson to Madison:

...The late rebellion in Massachusets has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in 13 states in the course of 11 years, is but one for each state in a century and a half. No country should be so long without one...

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s21.html


Then, of course, there is Jefferson's classic watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants. He wrote it in a letter to William Smith. The reference to a rebellion no less than every twenty years comes earlier in the same letter, emphasis mine:

...Yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed...We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

You can see a photo of the letter here:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc105.jpg

Continued OT discussion/posting advocating or defending revolution rather than lawful change will cause this thread to be locked.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc105.jpg

 

[wrightme]

Continued OT discussion/posting advocating or defending revolution rather than lawful change will cause this thread to be locked.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc105.jpg

This is in the law library, and is discussing the meaning of phrases attributed to the founders. What part of that is "advocating or defending revolution?"

Further, is "advocating or defending revolution" really the same as what the rule actually is about?

•(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

The discussion isn't about breaking the law. It is about meanings.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The "ideological stance on the way (our) government system operates" was decided over 200 years ago. It is a Republic. Any other form of government in this country is ILLEGAL!!

The intent 200 years past is duly noted. Welcome to our Capitalist Military Complex. Are you enjoying yourself?

 

[Clu]

Therein rests the real power of the people - a grassroots prairie fire - taking back our government by storm - the force and power of the vote.

Agreed. The Tea Party movement is a good example of this I think. Regardless of whether you like them or hate them, they are a testament to the power of the people when they decide to stand together to affect change. The trick is to have a lot of people who feel the same way you do.

This poses a problem with regards to our fundamental right to bear arms because there tends to be a generally negative perception about gun ownership.

I blame the media for this primarily, however if we had more shows on television like Sons of Guns... Seriously though, in addition to the campaigns to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights, we need a campaign to re-educate people and to teach them WHY we need to preserve it.

Marksmanship was this countrys national pastime *way* before baseball... and for good reason!

 

[user]

I accept that the "real power of the people," to "taking back our government by storm," is, "the vote." So, by your line of reasoning you have offered up, Grapshot, Preident Obama being voted in by 9 million plus votes more than McCain was "the people" taking back their government? From who? Wait, the Republicans, Bush. ...

That question was directed to Grapeshot, but I can't help pontificating a little, myself. My view is that, at least since the Goldwater era (post-Eisenhower), the Republican party has consisted of a coalition of conservatives and reactionaries. Reagan was a conservative, but there were a bunch of reactionaries in his office staff, including Geo. I as head of the CIA. And, when Geo. I became president, that was the beginning of a period of reactionary dominance in the party. I'd been vice-chairman of the Fairfax, Va. Republican Committee when that happened, but I quit when Bush became the candidate of the Party.

So, you betcha, Obama was promising change, and each of us thought he stood for the sort of change we wanted. And he never did say what he had in mind. Almost no one thought it meant that he was going to capitalize on the reactionaries' changes already started and make it even more of a po-lice state, or that he meant to trash what was left of the Constitution.

We as a nation wanted change; we were desperate for change; and it turns out we still want change, only it's going to require a lot more change than we figured. And if another reactionary like McCain becomes the party's candidate, I'd have to write in "Mickey Mouse" on my ballot and start thinking about what other options are available. (And I voted for Nixon.)

There's a first time for everything.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Continued OT discussion/posting advocating or defending revolution rather than lawful change will cause this thread to be locked.

So quoting Thomas Jefferson or expressing an opinion that something might happen is advocating the unlawful. Possibly, but I don't think so.

I think you picked the wrong post to quote.

:banghead:

 

[Grapeshot]

So quoting Thomas Jefferson or expressing an opinion that something might happen is advocating the unlawful. Possibly, but I don't think so.

I think you picked the wrong post to quote.

:banghead:

Not at all - was not critical of the quote in and of itself.

As there have been several other threads that started this way and then took a negative, rule violating turn recently, I was making a preemptive general warning to not go down that path.

Citizen and others here are held in high regard.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP So quoting Thomas Jefferson or expressing an opinion that something might happen is advocating the unlawful. Possibly, but I don't think so.

Its a tricky subject.

On the one hand, one can say that the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment's real purpose. We can just pretend that purpose isn't there, talking around it by only discussing hunting and self-defense against criminals.

On the other hand, we could just acknowledge it. It really and truly is a legal contradiction. Its the one right designed expressly towards doing something illegal. The constitution gives the federal government the power to put down insurrections*, yet protects the ability of the people to do just exactly that--rebel. So, of course any discussion on the subject will be walking a narrow line.

The trick is to avoid saying things that seem to advocate insurrection. Advocating insurrection is a federal offense known as sedition. A felony if I recall.

So, just use a little caution. Its one thing to quote ol' Thomas Jefferson (deceased) when he was speaking in a general sort of way. Its something else for one of us to call for it in a specific way in a specific time frame against a specific government, or to urge others towards it in those same terms.

Just use a little care when you write. I am sure the moderators can distinguish between sedition and an educational discussion on the subject.


*Article 1, Section 8 (powers of Congress):
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Its a tricky subject.

On the one hand, one can say that the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment's real purpose. We can just pretend that purpose isn't there, talking around it by only discussing hunting and self-defense against criminals.

On the other hand, we could just acknowledge it. It really and truly is a legal contradiction. Its the one right designed expressly towards doing something illegal. The constitution gives the federal government the power to put down insurrections*, yet protects the ability of the people to do just exactly that--rebel. So, of course any discussion on the subject will be walking a narrow line.

The trick is to avoid saying things that seem to advocate insurrection. Advocating insurrection is a federal offense known as sedition. A felony if I recall.

So, just use a little caution. Its one thing to quote ol' Thomas Jefferson (deceased) when he was speaking in a general sort of way. Its something else for one of us to call for it in a specific way in a specific time frame against a specific government, or to urge others towards it in those same terms.

Just use a little care when you write. I am sure the moderators can distinguish between sedition and an educational discussion on the subject.


*Article 1, Section 8 (powers of Congress):
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115
CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
How Current is This?

§ 2381. Treason
§ 2382. Misprision of treason
§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
§ 2386. Registration of certain organizations
§ 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
§ 2389. Recruiting for service against United States
§ 2390. Enlistment to serve against United States
[§ 2391. Repealed.]
Found here: http://law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html

Used these search words: federal sedition law

 

[DevinWKuska]

Its a tricky subject.

On the one hand, one can say that the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment's real purpose. We can just pretend that purpose isn't there, talking around it by only discussing hunting and self-defense against criminals.

On the other hand, we could just acknowledge it. It really and truly is a legal contradiction. Its the one right designed expressly towards doing something illegal. The constitution gives the federal government the power to put down insurrections*, yet protects the ability of the people to do just exactly that--rebel. So, of course any discussion on the subject will be walking a narrow line.

The trick is to avoid saying things that seem to advocate insurrection. Advocating insurrection is a federal offense known as sedition. A felony if I recall.

So, just use a little caution. Its one thing to quote ol' Thomas Jefferson (deceased) when he was speaking in a general sort of way. Its something else for one of us to call for it in a specific way in a specific time frame against a specific government, or to urge others towards it in those same terms.

Just use a little care when you write. I am sure the moderators can distinguish between sedition and an educational discussion on the subject.


*Article 1, Section 8 (powers of Congress):
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

Not to stray too far off topic but isnt it interesting that Constitution gives the citezens the power to overthrow an opressive government. Yet also gives the Govt. the authority and power to crush just such a rebellion/revolt/ect. Its almost a double edged sword so to speak. On one hand you have the 2A giving us as citizens the right bear arms and then you have the current Govt placing some laws in place in what seems to me an attempt to disarm or limit firearms to the public(Some warranted, some are the ones we discuss/fight/appeal)..

It makes me wonder. when you have countries like Sweden that have almost a completely armed scoiety and very low crime. On the other hand you can look at countries like Singapore that have no guns, and low crime as well. Yet the US is somewhere in the middle and we have a crime rate. So it would be interesting to find a "middle ground" that the people could agree to that would result in the 2A still being preserved, as well as lowering crime.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP...isnt it interesting that Constitution gives the citezens the power to overthrow an opressive government. Yet also gives the Govt. the authority and power to crush just such a rebellion/revolt/ect.

Not so much.

Directly contrasting the two points, without having the other information to hand is what makes it seem so.

When you see more of the picture, you'll see what they were thinking.

In one of his letters, Jefferson actually advises somebody they should put down a rebellion. Whoa! Jefferson calling for crushing a rebellion?!?! Not so fast. Slow down. Take a deep breath.

Realize government must have the ability to put down rebellions. Otherwise, any nasty jerk who wanted to take over and tyrannize could inflame discontent, raise an army, and take over.

In his letter, Jefferson makes a distinction between rebels who misunderstand or have false information and those who are led by someone out for personal gain and power.

So, there are degrees and motives here.

 

[eye95]

Not to stray too far off topic but isnt it interesting that Constitution gives the citezens the power to overthrow an opressive government...

The Constitution gives the citizens no such power.

Even the Founders recognized that their revolution was illegal, that what they were doing could only be made "legal" by winning.

The underlying intent of the 2A may have been to arm the citizenry as a final line of defense against tyranny. However, the Framers were very careful not to even mention the use of arms against the government that they helped constitute. Any revolution would be against the law of the US. The question of the correctness of a revolution is an extralegal one.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Not so much.

Directly contrasting the two points, without having the other information to hand is what makes it seem so.

When you see more of the picture, you'll see what they were thinking.

In one of his letters, Jefferson actually advises somebody they should put down a rebellion. Whoa! Jefferson calling for crushing a rebellion?!?! Not so fast. Slow down. Take a deep breath.

Realize government must have the ability to put down rebellions. Otherwise, any nasty jerk who wanted to take over and tyrannize could inflame discontent, raise an army, and take over.

In his letter, Jefferson makes a distinction between rebels who misunderstand or have false information and those who are led by someone out for personal gain and power.

So, there are degrees and motives here.

Interesting that Jefferson advices to put down a rebellion, but for the sake of what? The sake of the Government not being overthrown? I understand that some have framed their respective objection to Government to be that the Government itself is the entity that is levying tyranny, and should be overthrown.

Much of what you have offered-up, such as the terms 'misunderstand', or 'false information' is quit subjective, right? Considering much of whether some concept is true or false is dependent on the individual (or individuals) who hold such things as being 'true', or 'false'.

I question the intent of either side, and the degree to which either side insists we must go-to, because we have strayed-from some 'place'.

What is apparent is that Jefferson was interested in level-headed powers attributed to, and exercised by both the People, and the Government, by the spirit of the statement Jefferson made, which you provided. And at this point it seems that there is neither level-headedness with the Citizens, nor the Government.

For example:

Citizens ask for better road, but reject higher taxes.

 

[user]

---

=====

Treason never prospers.
and what's the reason?
Why if it prospers,
none dare call it treason!

=====

 

[Grapeshot]

Its a tricky subject.

On the one hand, one can say that the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment's real purpose. We can just pretend that purpose isn't there, talking around it by only discussing hunting and self-defense against criminals.

On the other hand, we could just acknowledge it. It really and truly is a legal contradiction. Its the one right designed expressly towards doing something illegal. The constitution gives the federal government the power to put down insurrections*, yet protects the ability of the people to do just exactly that--rebel. So, of course any discussion on the subject will be walking a narrow line.

The trick is to avoid saying things that seem to advocate insurrection. Advocating insurrection is a federal offense known as sedition. A felony if I recall.

So, just use a little caution. Its one thing to quote ol' Thomas Jefferson (deceased) when he was speaking in a general sort of way. Its something else for one of us to call for it in a specific way in a specific time frame against a specific government, or to urge others towards it in those same terms.

Just use a little care when you write. I am sure the moderators can distinguish between sedition and an educational discussion on the subject.


*Article 1, Section 8 (powers of Congress):
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

Could not have said it better myself.