Quote of the Day

"The problem with this new quote is that it borders on anti-democratic. I don’t care how many times you praise the Founding Fathers or talk about your love of the Constitution, if you think that the way to resolve policy differences or personal arguments with the government is not just by trying to get different people elected or waging a campaign to change the laws or filing suits in court, but through the use of violence against the government, you have announced that you have no commitment to democracy. In the American system, we don’t say that if the government enacts policies we don’t like, we’ll start killing people. It’s not clear that Ernst meant this, but it’s fair to ask her to explain what she did mean."

Source

Bad news: You're not really an oath keeper, you're an oath breaker.

We've gone over Article III, Section iii of the US Constitution.  It's also been shown that "Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change."

We need to add in that the Fourteenth Amendment says:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

While you might want to find some authority for your claim to be able to "fight" the United States,  you cannot use the US Constitution, or Constitutional framework, as an authority.

In fact, it makes it pretty clear that you are not a patriot.  Instead, but by the Constitutional definition above, you are a traitor and engaging in treason.

Quote of the Day

Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence.

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

So you really want to take on the US Military...

Think about these videos before you do something really dumb (not that you're too brite anyway)...



The fun begins around 2:40 in the next vid:



So you have sniper fantasies?



How can we forget steel rain?



Just remember the Spartans were wiped out by superior forces.

Have a nice day!

Rehash on insurrection

H.A. Goodman had an article in the Huffington Post called What Gun Advocates Should Remember: You'll Never Overthrow The Government and It Isn't Scared of You. It's pretty much the same thing that gets said over and over, but some people think they are going to be"heroes" when the are actually going to be dead idiots.

I am probably wasting my time trying to talk sense to people who think they know more than other people.

Anyway:

First, not everyone has the same definition of the word "tyranny." Some conservatives view Obamacare as tyrannical while many liberals view it as not going far enough in terms of nationalized health care. Furthermore, a law or tax viewed as despotic by some citizens might also be regarded as a necessity by the government. In the late 1700s, some Americans viewed the Founders in the same manner that many of us view Bush or Obama. Whether it was anger of taxes in the Whiskey Rebellion, or unfair treatment of veterans in Shay's Rebellion, armed Americans have never been able to overthrow their government, even in the early years of the country.

Simple fact: the Founders might have given citizens the right to bear arms, they viewed any rebellion to their authority as a mortal threat to the republic. Also, as Richard Brookhiser, the historian and senior editor at the National Review, states, it's the responsibility of citizens to vote or debate, not engage in violence in order to change legislation.

The real lesson here is that any illusion that owning one gun, or one hundred guns, would frighten or alter the way government behaves is not only unrealistic, but something George Washington would find unacceptable. The view propagated by the NRA that gun ownership keeps the federal government "in check" is not only historically inaccurate, but also contrary to the actions of our Founding Fathers.

Got that?

Try to make this simple for stupid people to try to understand.

One thing that makes the US great is Article III, Section iii of the US Constitution which says:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The Constitution also says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Which means anything like founding father quotes and the Declaration of Independence (and other historical documents) ARE NOT legally binding.

So, you assholes need to live by the document you claim to believe in  or get a brain.

The Second Amendment does not explicitly repeal Article III, Section iii no matter how much your diseased minds might want it to, which means that you have to live by consitutional process, or work to change it through the system as provided in the constitution.

And if you took an oath to defend the nation or enforce the laws: guess what?

You have to do that job whether you agree with the law or nor.

If you are given a lawful order you must obey it, and you are not the final arbiter of what a lawful order is since I doubt you have the intelligence to know what the law is if you belong to an organisation as fucked up as the oath breakers.

So, before you start doing silly shit--you might want to get a handle on what exactly the Constitution says and how it works.

Although, that is probably too late for you and you are already doing some seriously fucked up shit.

What if they gave a revolution and nobody came?

Yes, I'm talking about that 10-30 Million turn out for Operation American Spring, which probably had more people watching it than attending it. And only a few thousand watching it.

And probably most of the people watching it were "libtards" who wanted to laugh at the feebleminded doing what the feebleminded do.

Sorry, but political correctness will never win out over human nature and people love to make fun of feebs--especially if the feebs are making a show of themselves.

I think most of the comments were coming from the "libtard" contingent as well.

I didn't make any comments at the live feeds, but I do have to say that the 97% don't have too much to fear from the III% if this is any indication of their efficacy or intelligence.

In fact, we don't need for the guvment to take you out as you are doing a wonderful job of it yourselves.

Even the Washington Times had this admission from the people who generated this fuck up:

“We were getting over two inches of rain in hour in parts of Virginia this morning,” Mr. Milton said. “Now it’s a nice sunny day. But this is a very poor turnout. It ain’t no millions. And it ain’t looking like there’s going to be millions. Hundreds is more like it.”

Something about not being able to run a piss up in a brewery comes to mind as I watched the sideways footage at the Washington Monument.  On the site where I was making comments with other "libtards" as we watched some real "tards" who were trying to mainstream, another commenter pointed out:

Definition of go sideways
go sideways, verb, to become worse.

In fact, if anything, we are watching your movement self-destruct.

Which, if we are grateful for anything you do--it will be that your movement collapses on its own from your being fuckwits.

Thank you for being yourselves.

Anyway, I'm sure that "the Mainstream Media" will mention you: Rachel Maddow is always up for a laugh at your expense.

See also:

• Twitter looks for Operation American Spring: ‘Where is everybody? I’m confused’
• Operation American Spring, the Right's Crazy Copy of Occupy, Explained
• Operation American Spring falls flat: ‘This is very disappointing,’ Texan says 
• Results for #AmericanSpringexcuses

Tyrannical Government--the reality

This is Homs in Syria:

The headline which accompanied this picture reads:
Syrian army crushes key rebel stronghold in Homs

There is this description of the Syrian Army's attack:

“In every single second you can hear the sound of mortars and rockets and air strikes,” said an activist calling himself Abu Rami speaking from Khalidiya. “The regime is so close you hear the sound of them launching the missile, and then you hear them land.”

The Syrian rebels were armed, but seriously outgunned by a force which had an objective of crushing the rebellion:

Last week one rebel fighter said the outlook was so bleak that he and his colleagues went to battle in suicide belts, to detonate should they be captured.

“If we are captured we use it when we are crowded among the soldiers,” said Adnan, 27.

His voice tired and his tone hopeless, Mohammed, the activist who had just managed to flee, said: “Most of my friends have died fighting in Khalidiya these last years. Now I have no news about the ones that are left.”

A truly tyrannical regime has no qualms about wiping out any rebellion, no matter how much force it takes or what kind of force is needed.

Does Halabja mean anything to you?

If the US were truly a tyranny, you would have quietly disappeared in the night never to be heard from again.

Or,  as Matthew White says about the old gun control=genocide argument:

Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed-- guns or no guns.

Insurrectionism comparison meme

Yeah! Yeah! I don't like memes, but this one is an interesting juxtaposition of two quotes:

What would a real insurgency in the US look like?

OK, you don't know the big difference between the British in the War for Independence or the US in places like Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Let's say it takes a lot more than guns to win a war: not to mention the cost is prohibitive in more than one way.

The problem is that you are fighting a civil war--not a foreign invader.  You will be the person starting the war, not the government.  Additionally, you will be trying to persuade people to join your side after you have made efforts to destabilise society.

Look a the reactions to Oklahoma City and Boston to get an idea of what you will be facing: more Boston than Oklahoma City.

And don't think your opponent isn't more than ready for you.

So, don't say "molon labe" if you can't deal with the reality of that scenario.

Of course, you all know way more than I do about this.  I can see that from your comments.{1}


See also:

• Military Will Defeat Any Militia Type Rebellion On US Soil According To Study
• Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future

{1} I should make this clear that this is sarcasm since you lot are too stupid to catch that on your own.

Josh Horwitz on the Bogus Application of the 2nd Amendment: Insurrectionism

This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct an important hearing to consider the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, legislation introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein that would take military-style firearms off the civilian market and ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. Undoubtedly, claims will be made by some Senators on the committee that assault weapons are merely "scary-looking pieces of plastic" that are functionally equivalent to your grandfather's hunting rifle.

But what are assault weapons really for? Please click here to access the written testimony I submitted for the hearing which comments on the intersection between support for assault weapons and insurrectionist ideology. In this testimony I make two primary assertions: Semiautomatics AR-15s are now the weapon of choice for violent insurrectionists in the United States. Contrary to the assertions of the gun lobby—the taking up of arms against our government by individuals (or armed mobs) has always been considered treason. One doesn't have to look hard to find evidence of the true purpose of assault weapons. Right-wing academic David Kopel—who recently testified before the committee—has written that since “resistance to tyranny or invasion would be a guerrilla war…‘assault weapons’ would be useful and citizen resistance might well prove successful." And none other than NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre told Senate Judiciary Members that the Second Amendment was drafted to allow civilians to fight back against police, the military, and other government officials. Such radical ideology had little standing with our Founders, who made it clear in the Constitution that the role of the Militia was to "suppress Insurrections," not to foment them. But it has proven far more successful in generating profits for the gun industry through a decades-long fearmongering campaign warning Americans about the dangers of forcible gun confiscation and even enslavement by our democratic government. It's time for an honest debate about the role assault weapons play in our politics and culture. I hope my testimony can contribute to that dialogue.

Essay Question--How Does the Second Amendment negate Article III, Section iii?

Actually, this question goes further in depth than just relating to Article III, Section iii of the United States constitution which defines treason.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

The militia’s purpose is to suppress insurrections, not foment them according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

Insurrection being defined by Webster (a good American Dictionary, not that evil OED) as:

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) mentions the insurrectionist theory as being off the table:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Explain how a document that says that the Militia is to suppress insurrections and only lists one crime, treason, which is pretty much the same thing as insurrection, allows for people to commit treason using the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

.