"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787
The above quote has become known in recent years as 'Jefferson's reset button,' meaning that Jefferson and most of the Framers of the Constitution believed that since government--any government--has the tendency to become oppressive as time progresses, true patriots must be willing to engage in the tactic of last resort in order to preserve liberty.
That 'last resort,' of course, is deadly force.
Americans in recent years have become too comfortable and satisfied in their ignorance to recognize that sentiment as one of the most cherished and truly American concepts we have. Most Americans may even be shocked to discover that Thomas Jefferson said such a thing and consider such a notion to be 'treasonous.'
Yet the Founders believed that traitors and tyrants have a penchant for slithering into positions in government unnoticed. There they engage in a covert, patient, and insidious course of action to gradually shift the government away from its core Constitutional principles.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -- Patrick Henry, Virginia's Ratification convention, 1788
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800. Inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial.
"The right to revolt has sources deep in our history." -- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." -- John Locke, 1690
This is one of the reasons the Founders insisted on an armed citizenry as a means of keeping government power in check.
Increasingly I hear more and more voices insisting that Barack Obama and his administration, along with his enablers in Congress, are pushing patriots in the heartland closer to the brink of the type of resistance depicted above in the timeless words of great men.
Perhaps it is time for the arrogant ones in government to back off, step back, take a deep breath, and carefully consider the consequences that their actions and statements may well produce among concerned citizens.
For further commentary, please visit my blog, updated daily, at The Liberty Sphere.
Comments
If only these quotes were taught to more children these days. I am awaiting my next gift day to receive a book of Lockes essays, your list of quotes reminds me why. Thank you again for bring to the conversation of TRUE conservitism, and not the GOP version that has been portrayed lately. Your essay has given me a mission of "research" for the weekend.
Jason
III
Wonderful article!
A year ago I wouldn't have believed it possible to publish such a piece, but then a LOT can change in just a few months!
The legistraitors and Executraitors in DC would be wise to heed Anthony's warning.
In the meantime, all Constitutional Patriots should take the advice of another periodic poster on this forum and read the book, "Un
intend ed Con sequence s" by J o hn R o ss. It provides a scenario with which our goal can be accomplished without need for firefights in the streets which will endanger our fellow citizens and, more importantly, innocent children.
Gob Bless America!
you lose one election and now its time for an armed uprising? what about the 54% of us who VOTED FOR THE PRESIDENT!
if you don't accept majority rule than you are not patriotic Americans. you're traitors just like the Confederate slavers.
This is pure foolishness. A whiny conservative minority upset by the public's recent dissillusionment with conservative ideals. What these traitors are proposing is not armed "liberation" of our country, instead they would have an armed coup to impose conservative law against the will of the voters and in violation of our constitution.
This is article is evil. It's a veiled, cowardly threat intended to incite violence. Bush infringed upon the Constitution more than any President in my lifetime. Where were you then? Obama is actually doing something for those of us who aren't rich and he's not against the 2nd Ammendment. Grow up and take some responsibility for the consequences of threatening editorials like this, that are intended to set the crazies in motion. I don't see any tyranny. If you do, you're paranoid. I have more freedom now, under Obama, than I did under Cheney.
Where were you during the last eight years? At last, an administration is reducing taxes for the workers and increasing taxes on the rich, reining in an out-of-control military-industrial complex, tackling the health-care crisis, and putting everything in his budget (as opposed to ignoring war costs), and you think there's a problem with this? How about the torture and illegal wars of the Bush administration?
Great, where the hell were you when George W. shredded the constitution. Cheering him on obviously.
Where was all this outrage when Bush was in office? Warrantless wiretaps, spying on American citizens, and the suspension of habeous corpus for American citizens seems a lot larger threat to our patriotic freedom than large social programs and a massively high national debt. Perhaps this refound patriotism is a little more politically motivated and less ideologically motivated than its proponents would like to admit
Hi! Racist much?
Heart, Ryan, Phil, Abe, Jim, Liberal, and Anon:
Been drinking the Kook-aid, I see. I'm not surprised. The fact that you can somehow rationalize the actions of this administration to fit with what is Constitutional is only proof of your delusion.
And the 'Bush did this or that' thing is getting old, tired, and irritating, particularly since it has NOTHING to do with what THIS PRESIDENT is doing!
And as I have stated constantly, when Bush made errors, I called him out on it, so that too is nothing but a red herring.
In short, you have no argument, no rationale, no defense. And this is not to mention that you have ZERO knowledge of the Framers.
The notion that Obama is not against the 2nd amendment is an abject barefaced lie. I stated he wanted all handguns banned in America.
I would dismiss each of you as witless buffoons, but that would be way too kind.
Ok. Let's talk about the 2nd amendment. It states:
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
At the time of the founding, the US military was based on a militia idea - that is, our common defense was based on the average person taking up their rifle and defending the country when it was threatened. Ever since WWII, we have had a large standing military and a militia has not defended the country since the Civil War. The purpose for which the 2nd amendment was written has long since become a mute point (are you willing to send your son, your daughter, and all the children in your neighborhood as a militia to Afghanistan to defend our country?). The purpose of the second amendment was to make sure the people have the right to defend the country, not to make sure a hunter can kill a white tail deer with an automatic assault rifle.
You claim that those of us who have posted comments contrary to yours "have ZERO knowledge of the framers" yet all you seem to know about them are some quotes which you dutifully post without any discussion of their context or how that context may have changed in 200+ years.
You claim that the actions of Bush have nothing to do with the actions of Obama. Do you not realize that pretty much everything Obama is having to do right now is in response to the mistakes that Bush made? The increased regulation of Wall Street is in response to Bush's deregulation and the disaster that caused. The massive spending on healthcare is in response to Bush's refusal to spend reasonable amounts of money to continually improve the system over time. The increased troops in Afghanistan are in response to Bush's lack-luster treatment of the issue and his complete focus on Iraq, a country we now know posed no immediate danger to the US.
I must admit that I am disappointed that your immediate response to our criticism of your views is to tell us we have "been drinking the kook-aid" and are thus being completely irrational. Do you really believe that your viewpoint is the only one with any merit at all and that anyone who may disagree with you must be delusional? Are you really that arrogant?
Consider the idea that the Constitution was a contextual document. That is, it was written to address the context of 1787 and only that context. It is not some all-knowing scripture. If it were, we would not have needed to amend it 27 times. The founding fathers had no idea what the world of 2009 would be. To try to rule the current nation according to the specific letter-by-letter definition of the Constitution is naive. I'm not saying the Constitution has no relevance to today or that some of the fundamental principles aren't still important, but amendments clearly aimed to support the formation of small defensive militias clearly do not apply to a world where small defensive militias no longer exist.
On a more sober note, I want you to recognize the effect your language may cause. I don't believe you truly want the country to rise up in a violent rebellion against the government that protects and supports you on a daily basis. I do believe this is a forum for you to vent your frustrations. But realize that this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that incited Timothy McVeigh in 1995. Do you really want to be the one that instigated the next major domestic terrorist attack?
Please recognize that communication on the Internet is not harmless. While you may feel protected getting to voice such extremist views on a forum where there may be no significant reprecussions, that does not mean that the chance for catastrophic events
I support Obama. We all should. So long as his intentions and actions are in the best interest (as formed by consensus of those being governed) of America. However, I do think infringing upon the right to bear arms is not in the best interest of America.
Don't just read the 2nd Amendment...research why the drafters of the Constitution agreed upon the wording. Protection from an oppressive government was one of the reasons. There were other considerations made to limit the power of the government over the people...size of the federal military for example.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"...(Psst...they were refering not only to external threats but to internal threats to freedom and liberty) We do have militias today… formal and informal. How about the National Guard? State funded and directed...yup. BTW...if America was invaded, you would be called to fight my young Militiaman!
The founding fathers did not know what 2009 would look like...but they knew the historical oppressive tendencies of governments and ruling parties (which continues today in other countries throughout the world...you won't have to look farther for examples than the continent of Africa.) Thus, as the founding fathers didn't know what was in store 200 years later....neither do we. Don't remove a key source of protection. Bottomline...You have an opinion. Good for you. Now, go search for an informed one.
Ryan, you have outed yourself as an adherent to the 'living document' school of interpreting the Constitution, I see...which is to say, those like you will use that 'contextual' argument to essentially nullify whatever you deem necessary.
The 2nd Amendment was included, according to the writings of the Framers, to give citizens the right to protect themselves from government tyranny--including their own. And no amount of rewriting history will change that simple fact.
And, their view is just as relevant today as it was when it was written. Tyranny is world-wide and it is slowly choking America as well. The slavish masses simply follow along.
I am not a slave and I don't need government telling me what to think, eat, speak, drink, or smoke.
Only the feebleminded and the infantile hyper-dependent personalities need a government nanny.
anthony, you have way more grace than do I. I cannot stand a hypocrite of any stripe. I do not consider them worthy of courtesy, or a damn thing else. that you managed not to insult their maternal inheritance says, you are, indeed, a courteous man.
As for myself, all of you hypocrites consider your mothers insulted and your unnatural affections for them noted, by me, Heart, Ryan, Phil, Abe, Jim, Liberal, and Anon.
I recognize no protocols regarding the dishonest.
Straightarrow, perhaps I am still delusional enough to beleive that perhaps a few of these knuckleheads can be persuaded with reason...I know, I know, a waste of time...
It's clear that the types like Anthony Martin want the terrorists to win. As long as they're conservative terrorists.
You couldn't even state one instance in which Obama is taking away our rights and yet you're calling for violence simply because you lost the election.
Violence done in the name of political ideology is terrorism. And you're calling for it.
DJ, you are a barefaced liar. Not once have I called for violence against anyone. I am talking about DEFENSE...armed RESISTANCE...not starting a fight.
I am making the point that if government wishes to start a fight with the citizens over their rights, we are more than willing to defend ourselves.
And don't kid yourself. Obama has embarked on a path for government to dominate the private sector. And he HAS spoken of dismantling gun rights and free speech.
If you haven't heard these things, you are an ignoramus.
Yes, I do believe the Constitution is a living document. The needs of an America of the 18th century are vastly different than the needs of an America of the 21st. It makes little sense to adhere to a set of rules designed for a completely different system. Given that, I don't use the argument to "nullify" whatever I don't like but feel a rational discussion of what our current needs are should dictate how we adapt the set of rules by which we behave.
Now, if tyranny does exist in the world, as you so adamantly argue, I must ask if violence is the best way to address that. Any violent revolution will undoubtedly kill those very individuals you are trying to liberate. A peaceful revolution - a revolution where the unhappy masses make themselves heard through methods other than bloodshed is less barbaric, no? I am no bleeding heart liberal who chains myself to trees, but I do feel that intelligent, civilized individuals should be able to make themselves heard in a manner other than through mass slaughter. Whatever tyranny you see in America today, it is still ruled by a democratic system. Would it not be a better solution to campaign for a set of leaders in two/four years that will end this "tyranny" than to rise up in violence?
"I am not a slave and I don't need government telling me what to think, eat, speak, drink, or smoke. Only the feebleminded and the infantile hyper-dependent personalities need a government nanny."
Is this the standard ultra-conservative "personal responsibility" line? Do you mean to say that government has no role in controlling the actions of its citizens? Are we to eliminate laws against robbery, rape, and murder on the hope that all citizens will take on personal responsibility and treat each other well? The truth is that one of the roles of government is to enforce certain controls on how its citizens "think, eat, speak, drink, or smoke." The question is to what degree. An extremist view in either direction - no control or absolute control - is impractical and unrealistic. Rather, our efforts should be toward developing the balance between control and freedom the majority of the citizens desire. Is that not the very definition of democracy?
I am concerned that the strongest defense you can give for your argument is to accuse me of "outing" myself (as if a living document interpretation is somehow socially condemned and I have been living in a closet) and to resort to name calling of feebleminded and infantilely hyperdependent. Should I embrace an extremist interpretation of gun control simply so you won't think I'm feebleminded?
You seem to rely on shocking vocabulary to make your point. Rather than give concrete examples of how you see tyranny overtaking the country, you equate it to 3rd world dictators and call the citizens slavish masses. While such an argument designed simply to evoke an emotional response may win people to your side, it does little to address the issue and develop a solution.
Straightarrow - I guess I fail to see how advocating the control of lethal weapons with no practical purpose implies I have an incestuous relationship with my mother.
"The last resort is deadly force"
Sounds remarkably like a call for violence to me.
Yes, I will agree that Obama has increased government control of the private sector, but his actions are no different than those taken to combat the savings and loan crisis. Record holds that such extensive government control is only temporary and no US government has ever maintained such control for long. Instead, they willingly give it up when the problem is solved. Our government representatives really do have the country's best interests at heart - they are not out to take over the country by force. The evidence to the former greatly outweighs any evidence to the latter.
I can't think of a single instance where Obama has threatened freedom of speech. Guess I'm an ignoramus.
(Anthony, this may be long, so edit as you see fit please.)
I read the fine essay and comments. The first few reactions were probably from some regular readers, then word got out of your topic and statist trolls and Soros types began to jump in. I find it amazing that they do not see the folly of their own arguments.
“GW Bush was bad” but Obama is doing what he said, so he is good. The same action is evil, no matter if it follows on a promise made or a promise broken. Obama has continued the war time policies of GWB an expanded the power of his presidency to take over the private sector. The moonbats on the left continue to shriek that Bush shredded the constitution. Since Obama has taken office, he has championed statehood for DC, seized control of banks (he is now refusing to allow them to repay the ‘loans’ so he may maintain control of the banks) he has seized control of two major auto companies. (The President has authority to fire the head of a private company and order a second to merge with a foreign competitor?)
He has sought authority to control the internet in times of “crisis”.
He promised ‘the most ethical and transparent administration in a generation’ while nominating one tax cheat after another to his cabinet. He has promised to cut the deficit in half, but must first multiply it by a factor of four or five first. He has begun the formation of a vast ‘civilian corps’ to carry out his political directives. (Obama 2.0)
As for the notion of a ‘living constitution’ this fiction is created so liberals can make up whatever meaning they see fit. If words do not have fixed meanings, they have no meaning at all. We have just seen the spectacle of the Obama Justice Department overruling the Office of Legal Counsel to make a political ruling which the AG preferred to the ethical choice recommended by OLC. We also saw the Obama administration argue, in court, that a movie or novel SHOULD be blocked from publication if it contains objectionable political content. So much for the respect for the ‘living document.’
Abe rants about ‘Majority rule.’ Obviously the product of a government directed public school. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, it is not a democracy. We do not have majority rule, we do not have rule of men, we are a nation of laws, or at least we used to.
Ryan goes on about wiretaps, and spying on Americans. The communications intercepts were not new under Bush, and have not been discontinued by Obama. The actual use was communications between two foreign points, routed through a US based server. I am not going to debate the necessity, merely the facts, which he has incorrect. Soros would be proud. His spittle flies when he cries that the Second Amendment does not empower a hunter to “kill a white tail deer with an automatic assault rifle.” Nowhere in the text of the Constitution, nor the Federalist papers which gave birth to it, is there any qualification of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. No matter if you hunt, shoot sporting clays, or paper targets, the purpose is irrelevant, the right is guaranteed. And as for the red meat of “assault weapons”, will someone from the ‘Brady Bunch” please attempt an actual definition—other than ‘a scary looking gun’. Attempts to ban something by appearance rather than function reveal the lack of grounds for those stupid and unconstitutional laws.
Finally “Such control is temporary”. If only that were the case. Once Wilson began his push toward centralization we have never seen the ratchet of increased federal power move backward. FDR was slowed by a Supreme Court which rightly struck down many of his initiatives, until he began to discuss his idea of “court packing” and they rolled over. Since that time the expansion of federal regulatory power under the guise of the Commerce clause has moved relentlessly forward. We see time and again a subservient court agreeing with expanded government power, and where the government does not move fast enough to restrict liberty or ‘reinterpret the Constitution’ non elected judges have essentially made law from the bench and no legislative body has ever seen fit to stand up to them. Marbury vs Madison was to be a brake on executive power, not an expansion of it. The US Constitution is a unique document, with a new concept. Previous conceptions of government proscribed citizens from certain actions only. Our new Republic was founded on the idea of a limited government. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to set that as a bedrock. The founding documents restrained government, not the people. The founders saw free men; living in liberty threatened by an overpowering central government, and sought to restrict that government in order to maximize individual liberty. The current regime (not just the current president) seeks to reverse that and once more put government in the supreme position of power. Thinking Americans recognize the danger, and will continue to speak out against that.
Anthony, I thank you for having the courage and eloquence to do exactly what is needed. Bravo. More Please, MORE!
The Rev.
You lost an election, so now you are arguing for people to get ready to shoot cops ... only in a "defensive action" of course. Like when they answer a domestic violence call in Pittsburgh.
Forget it buddy. If you can't get 51% of the vote, you aren't gonna win a revolution. Maybe next time you could try winning the election, eh?
(NOTE: there is a very good chance this blog is just a honeypot for the ATF, seeking to identify violence-prone wackos. If so: well done, carry on!)
Rewinn, I have no fear of the ATF. Reasonable citizens who believe in the rights of citizens relate to what I say, and support it. I welcome the dialogue with anybody in the ATF.
Rev.--very insightful. And thanks for the support!
Ryan, seriously, your words are the perfect description of enslavement by big government. I happen to believe a free society can do much, much better.
We can debate Obama's actions on free speech in a minute (for the record, Rev, I believe you are discussing the movement to restrict access to the book critical of Hillary during the campaign - and I find such a movement appauling). But getting back to a revision of the 2nd amendment.
Applying the words of the Constitution as they are written means assuming that those words are infinitely applicable. That the founding fathers got it exactly right the first time. Here's a couple of examples where the founding fathers got things wrong (not a criticism of them, just recognition that they were flawed human beings like all of us.
When Washington left office, he vehemently argued against a two party system, claiming it would be the downfall of political free thought. In fact, the two party system has been one of the strongest advocates of free thought. Jefferson continually argued for the appropriateness of slavery, claiming the African races were somehow inferior. Do I have to explain how that is wrong? The political and economic policies of the majority of the founding fathers was based on an extreme isolationism where the new country had nothing to do with European ones. Obviously, our involvement with other countries economically and politically has been the driving force behind our rise to the world's most powerful nation. Perhaps the strongest evidence, though is that the fathers got their rules so wrong the first time, they had to scratch the whole thing and start over. Do you remember the Articles of Confederation?
The founding fathers did a very good job creating the Constitution, but it isn't perfect. That's why they included the provision for amending it. If they thought it was ideal and for all time, why would they feel the need to allow it to be changed? Several of the amendments in history have fixed serious flaws in the original document (the 13th and 19th stand out). Some amendments were extremely flawed and had to be reversed (prohibition). But the end result is that we need to realize the Constitution is an imperfect document and needs to be adapted to address those imperfections.
Rev, when you discuss the increase in government power, much of that power is based in a realization that the free market is not the answer for all economic situations. Government regulation and government intervention is often a much better solution than a laissez faire attitude. Think the US Postal Service. This is based on a recognition that the vitality of the country needs open communication. No private company would deliver mail to Fairbanks, Alaska. A balance between free market and government mandates is the healthiest and safest system (the current economic crisis is a result of to little government mandate). When I say I see Obama relinquishing the control of the free market he has currently taken, I base that on this interpretation of economic regulation, which he seems to share.
And, for the record, my problem is not with wiretaps, but with _warrantless_ wiretaps. No, Obama hasn't specifically repealed that yet, but give him time. He's been kinda busy lately.
Anthony - is that the only response you can give? Telling me I've been enslaved by the government? A statement that can be neither proved nor refuted? You thank Rev for his support. Apparently, rather than trying to discuss these issues and try to develop a mutual understanding, you see this as an us against them. Disturbing.
Ahh, repeating the same argument doesn't make it any stronger. Your changing the subject to the two party system, and the amendment process is a change of subject, and not an answer. There is nothing at all, pro or con to the two party system in the Constitution. And that has nothing to do with the current state of government. 'Warrantless Wiretaps’ have been used by the government for years, following the regulations of the FISA courts. This has been vetted by executive branch and judiciary branch decisions from both parties. This is way too complex a topic for a short reply.
Certainly the Constitution was not (and was not expected to be) perfect. That is why the founders build a mechanism for deliberate and difficult change. They intentionally made it complex and difficult. The original idea was for limited and defined government. As the executive branch grew and accreted power, the principles were eroded and now are all but forgotten. In order to approve various legislative intrusions over the bounds of the Constitution, the courts have reversed the assumptions of the founders. We now have to prove the Constitution prohibits something, rather than that it authorizes it. The current judicial regime has arrogated such power by determining there was a power to 'interpret' the constitution, then reserving that right exclusively to themselves.
Eleanor Holmes-Norton, the non voting member from DC has said repeatedly that she is unconcerned with the constitutionality of the DC statehood bill. Those who have supported her, and the bill, have expressed similar opinions. This, I suggest shows a disregard for the oath they swore upon taking office. It also reveals the current mindset. “We are the government, we will do as we please, and worry about the details later. Just follow our instructions nothing bad will happen.” Well, except that they are undermining the foundation of our nation.
Rewinn: What tangent brought you here talking about shooting cops and the ATF? The criminal in Pittsburgh is exactly that, and deserves whatever legal punishment can be given to him. No sane person does that, and no sane person advocates that. I don’t believe anyone here is advocating violent revolution either. Speaking for myself, I am deeply engaged in the political process and seek to return our government to legal, constitutional principles. Nothing more, nothing less. Take your ATF fantasies and go somewhere else and hide them under your tinfoil hat.
I think, Ryan that you and I are looking at things not so far apart as you seem to think. My hunch is that you do, in fact, want the country to succeed. I believe this can be best accomplished without intrusive federal government. I find it amusing that so many from both parties think government is bad except when their party is pulling the strings. I submit that ANY party which holds such power is dangerous, no matter if they dress like donkeys or elephants. The only protection Americans have is to reinstitute the original Constitutional restrictions on government we have discarded for expediency over our history.
The real issue is the National Debt which will enslave us all.
Rev -
I think you're right. We're closer in agreement than I first realized. And I must commend you for your ability to express the reasons behind your beliefs and support them with specific examples. Both traits our gracious host seems to lack.
I do realize the Constitution says nothing at all about political parties. Instead, this was a comment made by George Washington while he was leaving office. I was using it as an example that the founding fathers were not omniscient and flawless.
Yes, I will agree that the balance of power in the federal government has shifted significantly since 1789. The judicial branch has gained a much stronger power than originally allocated. However, I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. Supreme Court justices (and other high ranking justices) are uniformly highly intelligent individuals with extensive education in legal matters (an area my PhD is not in). Their lifetime appointments removes them from the petty bickering we see from both sides of continually elected politicians. Hence, I'm not so certain that giving them more power is a bad thing.
The Executive branch is also significantly much stronger. This is in reaction in part to the country moving much faster than when it was founded - and thus needing a much faster response. As you state, the design of the government - especially the legislative branch - is to be slow and difficult. That does not mean that all of those new found executive powers are good. The executive branch now controls the powers of war - a scary thing, well demonstrated with the needless Iraqi war.
Should the executive branch give some of those powers back to the legislative? Yes. Will that happen? Don't know. I echo my earlier comment that Obama has been rather busy lately and we might want to give him some more time. He is a Harvard-trained Constitutional lawyer. I am sure he understands the implications of this transfer of powers from legislative to executive. Yes, power is a hard thing to give up for anybody, but Obama does seem to be an ethical and reasonable man. I hold out hope that he will weaken the role of the executive branch.
I will eagerly agree that large government is not the solution to every problem. But that doesn't mean that it isn't the solution to any problem. We should keep an open mind to using large governmental powers for areas which have shown to fail under a capitalistic system such as healthcare. While government shouldn't be created simply for the sake of government, the axim government=bad is childishly naive.
Under the fear that I may be repeating my argument once again, when we consider issues like the specific balance of powers between the branches or the regulations of high powered assault rifles (automatic or semi-automatic rifles designed for military use - not rifles that look scary as an earlier poster accused), we need to consider that the constitution was not designed to rule the most powerful nation in the world (both militarily and economically). While there might be some good ideas in there, it doesn't mean that it is the answer to all of our problems. Perhaps (and I emphasize perhaps!) we should consider redistributing governmental powers. It is a conversation worth having - and one I will readily admit I don't have the credentials or education to voice a strong opinion in.
No, I don't think you want a violent revolution. But reread the article that started this thread. Our host specifically calls for violent uprisings if an individual doesn't agree with his/her government. The word "blood" appears in the title of the article! Such an attitude scares me.
ronbok -
A comment about the national debt. It's received a lot of attention recently and many people are up in arms because Obama is adding to it. A national debt is not generally a good thing.
However, any economist will tell you, the best policy for nations in regard to national debts is for a nation to acquire one in times of crisis, such as large wars or economic recessions/depressions. A prudent government then pays down that debt in times of prosperity. Obama adding to the national debt now is not a failing or a crime - it is, in fact, what he should be doing. We just need to make sure that when prosperous times return, we take actions (including maintaining high tax rates) to pay down the debt needed to get us through our problems).
If you want to be angry with someone about a national debt, blame the government (both executive and legislative) of the past 8 years who compiled a massive debt during a period of great affluence. A wiser government would have compiled, instead, a national surplus to deal with problems like we have today.
"Straightarrow - I guess I fail to see how advocating the control of lethal weapons with no practical purpose implies I have an incestuous relationship with my mother."
I don't know that your advocacy does. I was merely responding to the lack of honesty, character and morality I see in your writings. Therefore, I merely wanted to insult you, much the same way you insulted me by presenting such lame, false, and traitorous arguments for your position. You had to know you were lying. So, I repeat, I just wanted to make sure I insulted you and those who didn't raise you any better.
I told you, I don't hold with protocol for hypocrites.
However, I did take a page from your book to use against you. I assume you are too stupid to see it. Get a grown-up ot explain it to you.
Ryan, why do the words of the Founding Fathers of this nation 'scare' you? That alone speaks volumes. The word 'blood' in the title is a direct quote from Jefferson, whom you obviously disdain since you are quick to disregard and dismiss the Framers.
The Rev. is way too kind to those of your ilk. People who scare me are NOT those brilliant men who forged this nation of LIBERTY, but people like YOU who are obviously diamtrically opposed to their beliefs.
Anthony -
You cling to the words of the Constitution and the ideas of the founding fathers as if they were biblical. You assume that because they advocated for armed revolutions, that obviously must be the ideal form of revolution. Do you really think they were that special? What about their advocation of slavery? Their denial of women the right to participate in the political process? The basic assumption of theirs that this country would perish if it got involved in European politics? Since the founding fathers advocated these positions, should we cling to them as well? They were humans, meaning that they were flawed and could only understand their time and location. Arguing that their rules should be adapted to changing times is hardly treasonous. In fact, it is exactly what they wanted us to do.
At what point have I been "diametrically opposed to their beliefs"? I simply argue that their beliefs should be qualified and understood in the context in which those beliefs were formed. I do not disregard and dismiss the framers; instead, I respect them and understand their humanity.
"I was merely responding to the lack of honesty, character and morality I see in your writings. Therefore, I merely wanted to insult you, much the same way you insulted me by presenting such lame, false, and traitorous arguments for your position"
Ok, straightarrow. Where have I lied? Where have I been amoral? If I am so flawed, I would appreciate you showing me those two flaws in my arguments. Somehow you equate me expressing my views toward an issue of concern for the nation (I am here exercising my right to free speech - is that not in the Constitution?) with incest? I wonder, who is the child here? It is traitorous to argue that we should be able to discuss how to change the nation, but it is not to advocate a violent overthrow of that nation?
Anthony, you routinely claim that you only argue for armed defense (your post earlier today echoes that). Yet, your primary qoute from Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion - specifically advocates a military offensive. Do you see no discontinuity here?
Yeah, whatever, Anthony. You weren't saying this when Bush was in office and he was taking a crap on the Constitution. Now that a Democrat is running the show suddenly committing armed rebellion (i.e., terrorism) is fine by you.
Why not just turn yourself into the FBI and save taxpayers the trouble.
Ok, Ryan, here you go. Though I know you will disregard anything I say here, because basically you have no moral rudder,perhaps it will help others see the amorality you display.
You construct a false premise, attribute it to us, then excoriate us and the bedrock principles of liberty by associating the false construction, of your invention, to us whom you think you have proven evil.
I merely did the same for you and your mother. Although, I plead innocent of suggesting incest. That again was your invention. I merely suggested you had an unnatural affection for her. You built the rest to prove what a despicable person I was and therefore all I say should be ignored. Just exactly as you do in the debate over liberty.
You have a facility with words, but fall pretty much below par with thought. And don't touch the scale with morality. Case in point: "I wonder, who is the child here? It is traitorous to argue that we should be able to discuss how to change the nation, but it is not to advocate a violent overthrow of that nation?"
How many ways can one sentence be a lie? I believe you found them all. Nobody has tried to stop the discussion of how to "change" the nation. However, you leave out a lot. A great many of us debate also how to preserve the nation. Some changes would not be desirable. Some obviously are and many have taken place. That was the genius of the founders. They knew they didn't get it perfect. Many of them held against slavery, and some of the things you mentioned, but they also were aware of their times and knew what they could do "now", while placing a mechanism in the constitution to enact necessary change. Yet making that mechanism unwieldy and difficult to operate so as not to place it at risk of fads and whims, but leaving it well worth operating over matters principle.
Now, along comes you and your ilk, intimating that somehow because of our loyalty to the constitution and the liberty it represents, we are somehow racist, misogynist, and anarchist. As I said you left out a lot.
Further, no one here or on our side of this is advocating the overthrow of the nation. Yet, you claim that is our aim, so you can knock it down. What we do advocate is the preservation and restoration of this nation, to a nation of laws and a constitutional form of republican government with democratically elected officials. A Damn far cry from the overthrow of the nation. So how much lie did you get in that one sentence? Quite a lot. And it wasn't your only sentence, but representative of most of what you say. Am I to assume that you think the Deacons of Defense intended to overthrow the nation? Or could it have been they were merely trying to get it to live by its written principle? We believe the latter, you believe the former if we are to believe what you have written. Those men took up arms to protect their families and their neighbors from racist marauders and yes law enforcement too. Their cause was just and they were successful. They didn't destroy anything worth keeping but the did restore something we should never have lost once gained. And they did it by assuring violence to predators.
Did I forget to mention that as well as placing a false burden on us you then intimate we are cowards for not acting on it? Or maybe that wasn't you. It is so hard to tell one of you from another.
As for violence being an option in the preservation of the nation, of course it is. Anybody who tells me they don't believe in violence or utters that very old and very tired inanity "There is never any excuse for violence." is a liar and a coward. It takes not much effort to prove it either.
Honorable men would always prefer violence be used in a just cause, paradoxically it is always used unjustly by trespassers first because that is the trigger for its justifiable use.
If violence were not a viable option for honest and moral men, mankind would still be living in caves eating raw meat so the fire wouldn't give away their location to the marauders.
Therefore it is always beneficial to good people to warn the other kind that the option to do them violence exists if they abuse others and will not cease. That is my position and I think attributable to most of us on this side of the table. We are much unlike the bloodthirsty savages you try to paint us. I can only assume liberty and its responsibility and its risks scare you. Else you wouldn't have so much trouble with the truth, nor difficulty recognizing principle.
Excuse me if any of this has been said, but so many posts were too long to read them all, and i just had to comment.
Ryan,
The Militia was for defense of the nation, here. It was not meant for invasions, or foreign war. We have no business having troops in any other country.
The Militia is not dead, and is not mute. Just because it is not open, and active does not make every male ages 17-45 not a militia member. If you are male, aged 17-45 you ARE the militia. Everyone here should watch the TV series Jericho, there is a prime example of Government tyranny, Why we need firearms, Just how easily that right could be taken away, and how we will have to fight for it.
Cordially,
Joel Stoner, Mayor
City of Macks Creek, Missouri
The only Libertarian Mayor in Missouri
Straightarrow -
Your comment is nonsensical. You claim that I am an immoral lier because I didn't make the claims that make you so angry? Since I didn't say them, I must have implied them. Since I have a contrary opinion than you toward gun control, obviously I am on the other side that you hate so very much and you then credit all of those arguments from the people you hate to me, specifically because I didn't state them. You can then accuse me of being like those individuals and then call me amoral. Is it not possible that this is not an us/them thing where we all have to take a side, but instead a complex issue with a wide range of opinions?
You concede that the Constitution is, and should be, adaptable, yet when we raise the issue of adapting that document in regard to gun control, we are suddenly traitorous and you need to restore the government to a republican, constitutional system (I guess republicans are constitutional and democrats are anarchists?).
As for violent overthrows of the government, the quotes from Jefferson and the like that are the crux of this page specifically advocate such violence. By embracing the quotes as a guideline for our actions, both you and our host embrace the attitude that the violent overthrow is not just necessary, but desirable. Shouldn't civilized people be able to find a better way to change how government operates than threatening armed resistance.
Yes, armed resistance got us out of the caves, but peaceful negotiation allowed us to form into cohesive societies.
"Honorable men would always prefer violence be used in a just cause" I disagree strongly with this statement. Violence should be a last resort in every case. Defaulting to violence when we don't like something is the easy way out. It is much more difficult to sit down with the people we disagree with, rationally discuss the issues, and come up with a solution amenable to both parties. Isn't that more desirable than bloodshed?
Please try to realize that complex issues like we are discussing are not an us-them thing where I either completely agree with you or I am evil. You attribute attitudes and beliefs to me even though you have no way of knowing whether I subscribe to them. Is it not possible that I may agree with you on some points, but not on others? Does your reaction to someone with whom you disagree have to be so divisive and vindictive?
Mayor-
Yes, I would agree that the fundamental ability to form a militia is still available, but that mindset left the country a long time ago. Very few in this country truly think of themselves as militia members (and those few tend largely to embrace an extremist opinion).
Instead, we have switched to a large standing military as our method for both offense and defense. If we want, we can discuss the benefits of such a military, but recognize that militias and large standing armies are pretty much an either/or situation. It is very difficult to pull off both of them at the same time. In fact, the militias of the revolution were specifically formed to combat a large standing army.
ryan, you did it, again. i'll not let you off the hook. you lied with almost every word, but i'm not going to parse it again. you simply are not worth it. i do consider you my enemy and i know never to negotiate with you, because you are dishonorable. th best thing you can do for yourself is leave honest men alone. for you will not be tolerated
Ryan says:
Straightarrow -
Y"our comment is nonsensical. You claim that I am an immoral lier because I didn't make the claims that make you so angry? Since I didn't say them, I must have implied them. Since I have a contrary opinion than you toward gun control, obviously I am on the other side that you hate so very much and you then credit all of those arguments from the people you hate to me, specifically because I didn't state them. You can then accuse me of being like those individuals and then call me amoral. Is it not possible that this is not an us/them thing where we all have to take a side, but instead a complex issue with a wide range of opinions?"
Some of the things you didn't say are lies. You know how propaganda works. One can be as misleading by what one doesn't say as he can by what he does say. And you play it both ways.
"You concede that the Constitution is, and should be, adaptable, yet when we raise the issue of adapting that document in regard to gun control, we are suddenly traitorous and you need to restore the government to a republican, constitutional system (I guess republicans are constitutional and democrats are anarchists?)."
The above is a perfect example of how you lie both by what you said and what you didn't say . What you said is "when we raise the issue of adapting that document in regard to gun control,..", you lied. You are not attempting to adapt the constitution, you are attempting to violate it. The Constitution says the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment "shall not be infringed". NO WIGGLE ROOM.. Yet, you speak of passing laws and erecting policies that violate the constitution, that in itself makes you traitorous.
Were you really interested in adaptation rather than usurpation, you would be working toward repealing that amendment or altering it, with a further amendment. That is the mechanism provided for "adapting that document". But you did not say that, thus leading the stupid to believe that what you propose is right and proper, when it is, in fact, a violation of the constitution. That is a lie of omission.
But you do not believe you can change the constitution under the only legal and constitutuional way of doing so,, so you advocate violating it with laws and policies repugnant to it. That makes you traitorous.
"As for violent overthrows of the government, the quotes from Jefferson and the like that are the crux of this page specifically advocate such violence. By embracing the quotes as a guideline for our actions, both you and our host embrace the attitude that the violent overthrow is not just necessary, but desirable."
I do embrace those quotes. Absolutely, I do. We have never advocated it as a first response, or a second response, nor have we advocated violence as a means to "overthrow" the government. We do advocate for maintaining the ability of the citizenry to protect the country and preserve it. Defending it, if necessary, from any governmental entity that would violate the principles upon which it was founded and the concomitant liberty that goes with them.
Further, we do not embrace violence and actually abhor violence. That is exactly why we know we must convince those who will not cease their depredations against liberty and law that violence is an option and the option of whether or not it is used is in their hands.
Again, something you didn't say, though I know this isn't the first time you have heard it. Another set of lies by commission and omission.
" Shouldn't civilized people be able to find a better way to change how government operates than threatening armed resistance."
Absolutely they should. but it takes civility on both sides of the negotiating table. No matter how good his manners a negotiator who will take all he wants at the threat of force is not civilized and leaves only one recourse, because force is his fallback position. Your question reveals another disingenuity on your part because it was written in a manner to make it appear that my side of this question was the first to threaten force. Which absolutely is not true. If we do as a society what Anthony or adherents to his philosophy think we should, what have we taken from you? Or anybody?? Can't say the same if we do what you wish, because you do want to take something of mine,and everyone else's. And you would use the violence of the force of the state to make it happen. This lie of yours is a real corkscrew, isn't it?
"Yes, armed resistance got us out of the caves, but peaceful negotiation allowed us to form into cohesive societies."
That statement just makes you look remarkably ignorant of history. And I am not going to spend the next week giving you lessons. Go read.
"Honorable men would always prefer violence be used in a just cause" I disagree strongly with this statement."
Ok, another lie on your part. The full statement was; Honorable men would always prefer violence be used in a just cause, paradoxically it is always used unjustly by trespassers first because that is the trigger for its justifiable use.
You knew the statement referred to use of violence justly after it had been used unjustly, not as you seemed to intimate that I thought it was a response of first resort. Nowhere in there could you have gleaned that it was advocated as a solution for simple disagreement. You simply and dishonorably lied.
" Violence should be a last resort in every case. Defaulting to violence when we don't like something is the easy way out. It is much more difficult to sit down with the people we disagree with, rationally discuss the issues, and come up with a solution amenable to both parties. Isn't that more desirable than bloodshed? "
My immediately preceding response is also the answer to this pretense on your part that you are the only one who advocates for rational discussion. The only problem is, as we have seen so far, you have lied, twisted and contorted others' positions in order to make you seem rational. So the conference table would have to be one that didn't include you or others like you. Because we understand rational accomodation of the rights of all is not what you want. What you want is your way. Otherwise you needn't lie so much. And you would do anything to get it. Hence the inevitability of violence if you try to abuse people who love liberty more than they care to "go along to get along".
"Please try to realize that complex issues like we are discussing are not an us-them thing where I either completely agree with you or I am evil. You attribute attitudes and beliefs to me even though you have no way of knowing whether I subscribe to them. Is it not possible that I may agree with you on some points, but not on others? Does your reaction to someone with whom you disagree have to be so divisive and vindictive?"
You are the one who doesn't understand the complexity of the situation. Because if one side of the issue is comprised of people like you then it is "us versus them". Because you can't be trusted.
No, I am not generally divisive and vindictive. I have some long-standing vehement disagreements with people I greatly respect. But they never lied to me or played me for a fool with false humanity. You did.
You hate me because I didn't say lies. Dude, get a grip
No Ryan, I hate you because you are a liar who advocates stealing my citizenship.
Worse than my hatred of you is the fact, I will not let you do it, whatever it takes. That goes for your fellow travelers, too.
I can hate you without harming you. Just as long as you do not harm me. Violate that simple covenant and all bets are off.
It only took 3% of the population to win the last Revolution.
However, we don't need to target LE (unless they come to our homes to attempt confiscation or the like). All we need do is target the criminals in Congress. No need to endanger innocent children and their mothers with firefights in the streets.
Where's that hog pen?
The problem with whiny fringier minority of a what is left of the fringe GOP that screech this stuff is that they are the tyrants that were chased from power in disgrace. If you cranky babies are going to try to pee on the tree of liberty, don't be surprised when the winds of change blow it back in your faces.
Just so you know... Jefferson had your ignorance in mind when he wrote this:
"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. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
The era of GOP lies are over. And we will never let the majority of people become ignorant to that reality again.
"Kill all the lawyers"..... William Shakespere
Lol!!! I have more to say, but i just might want to fly on a plane again!
"Freedom" is a four letter word. Football, Charlie Brown.... Such simple words in an e-mail or phone conversation will get you flagged by the NSA (Nazi Sheepheads for Amerika). How sad that freedom of speech should be used against Americans.
Power to the people
Jefferson and the framers were LIBERALS. The quotes in your editorial were meant warn rich, anti-democratic conservatives like you. If you want to twist their intended meaning then go ahead but don't be surprised when you discover the tyrants Jefferson was referring were political parties like the Republicans and political movements like the Tea Party.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!