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)

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.

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.

Essay Question on the Second Amendment:

Please explain how a document which states as its purposes is to "form a more perfect Union...insure domestic Tranquility" (Preamble).

Then makes it clear that the role of the militia is "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, clause 15).

We need to add in Article IV, Section 4, the Domestic Violence Clause:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."  

This provision in our Constitution requires that the federal government protect us from harms that we inflict upon ourselves, harms that threaten our health and our survival: in particular domestic insurrections.

Finally, Article VI:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That rules out "natural law" as being legal precedent (as well as other documents such as the Declaration of Independence in addition to misquotations from the founding fathers) .

With the real kicker being Article III, Section. 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution seems pretty clear that insurrection is not a right.

Next we come to Amendment II:

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.

Now, I need to keep reminding you of the rule of construction: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

 "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another."  That is items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."

None of that is present in the above passages.


Simple form since I know the calibre of intelligence here:

• If the statute mentions it--it is covered.

• If the statute don't mention it--it ain't covered.

In this case, we do not see anything in the Second Amendment which mentions "fighting tyranny" (as it also lacks any specific mention of personal uses such as hunting or self-defence).


The rules to this are simple and found here. BTW, using the rules, in particular, Internal and external consistency, where it is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. That is, a  particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act.The Second Amendment applies to the Militia based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 granting congress the power to ARM the Militia.

Please explain how things which are not specifically can be legally covered?  How do you read into the text things which not only aren't present, but are inconsistent with the document?

I can't wait to see the idiotic comments you will make--especially Greg who will show his ignorance of law, yet be all too willing to pontificate despite his lack of knowledge on the topic.

Speaking of Militias.........

Rebellion or Insurrection  - 18 U.S.C. § 2383
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

Seditious conspiracy  - 18 U.S.C. § 2384
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

That sums it up.

Claiming you're a social club, while engaging in paramilitary training, and accumulating firearms and explosives, including illegal materials and weapons for the purpose of insurrection is not credible. It's stupid, and it shows how easily this lot of warrior wannabes cave in on their big talk when they're held accountable for it.

I have no great faith in their courage in combat if they are such lying chicken-livered woosies in a court room.

But it goes to the heart of the idiots who are so ill-educated and ill-informed as to fail to understand what a militia - a REAL militia is and is not.  It's been defined, in the constitution, in court decisions and in law, most notably the Militia Act of 1903.

It is badly misunderstood, including by delusional people who actually find it plausible that invading forces have turned tail in the face of the firearms held by Billy-Bob Tractor Cap and his idiot son John, to borrow a colorful phrase used by a friend of mine long ago in referring to the poorly founded assumptions of some of our less cerebral fellow-citizens.  From an earlier story in the NYTimes, linked in this story:

"The court filing said the group, which called itself the Hutaree, planned to kill an unidentified law enforcement officer and then bomb the funeral caravan using improvised explosive devices based on designs used against American troops by insurgents in Iraq.
“This is an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society,” Andrew Arena, the F.B.I. special agent in charge in Detroit, said in a statement. “The F.B.I. takes such extremist groups seriously, especially those who would target innocent citizens and the law enforcement officers who protect the citizens of the United States.”
The Hutaree — a word Mr. Stone apparently made up to mean Christian warriors — saw the local police as “foot soldiers” for the federal government, which the group viewed as its enemy, along with other participants in what the group’s members deemed to be a “New World Order” working on behalf of the Antichrist, the indictment said. "

Here is the story, courtesy of the great 'Gray Lady', the New York Times :
Michigan Militia Defended as ‘Social Club’ at Trial of 7

Published: February 13, 2012

Monthly training sessions for the group, which called itself the Hutaree, were so casual that they were often called off for rain, snow or cold, the lawyers said in opening arguments. They said conversations involving the group’s leader, David B. Stone Sr., and other defendants about the police and the government were nothing more than harmless “venting” protected by the First Amendment.

“David Stone was exercising his God-given right to blow off steam and open his mouth,” his lawyer, William W. Swor, told jurors.

“These individuals, led by David Stone, wanted a war,” said Christopher Graveline, an assistant United States attorney. “They wanted to start the war, and the war to them meant ‘patriots’ rising up against the government.”

Nine members of the Hutaree were arrested in March 2010, days after Mr. Stone declared, “It’s go hour,” in a voice mail to an undercover federal agent who had been training with the group, Mr. Graveline said. The seven now on trial are charged with seditious conspiracy, attempting to use weapons of mass destruction and various firearm charges. If convicted, they could be sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Stone, 47, his son Joshua, 24, and two other men, Thomas Piatek and Michael Meeks, have been in jail since their arrest. Mr. Stone’s wife, Tina Stone, his son David Jr., 22, and a third man, Kristopher Sickles, have been free on bail with electronic monitoring devices since May 2010.

One of the nine arrested, Joshua Clough, pleaded guilty in December to a firearm charge that carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison. Another defendant, Jacob Ward, was ruled incompetent to stand trial and is undergoing treatment.

Mr. Graveline said the authorities have seized about 100 firearms, including some illegal short-barrel rifles and machine guns, and 148,000 rounds of ammunition from the defendants’ homes. He showed jurors one table covered with guns and held up other examples of evidence collected, including flak jackets, ghillie suits used to camouflage snipers, Kevlar helmets, night-vision goggles and bomb-making instructions.

Much of the evidence was taken from Mr. Stone’s home in rural Lenawee County, about 70 miles southwest of Detroit, where he lived in a conspicuous pair of run-down trailers with appliances and other debris in the front yard. The Hutaree members used the woods behind the trailers for training, sometimes conducting nighttime drills in which the goal was to get as close to neighboring homes as possible while avoiding detection, Mr. Graveline said.

Mr. Swor countered that the training exercises were part of the defendants’ survivalist lifestyles and said the weaponry had accumulated over three decades, not suddenly as part of preparations for an impending attack.

Much of the information that led to the arrests was gathered over a 20-month period by the undercover agent and a paid confidential informer. Todd Shanker, a lawyer representing David Stone Jr., asserted that those two men tried to incite the defendants to act violently but that the Hutaree members did nothing illegal.

“It’s not against the law to prepare to defend your family and to defend your communities,” Mr. Shanker said. “These are not dark-hearted individuals.”

Mr. Shanker said recordings secretly captured by the undercover agent only contain “hypothetical, almost fantasy statements when they’re in the comfort of their friends and want to vent.”

Mr. Swor described Mr. Stone as a preacher’s son who was raised in an “apocalyptic tradition” and studied the Book of Revelation. Mr. Stone, who invented the name Hutaree because he thought it sounded like something from the “Star Wars” movies his sons liked, believed he needed to be able to defend his family from the Antichrist, Mr. Swor said.

Lawyers for three of the defendants plan to give opening arguments Tuesday. The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks.



The Clayton, Mich., property of David B. Stone Sr., leader of the Hutaree, which officials say plotted to kill police officers.