30 Percent of Republicans Say True Americans May Have to Resort to Violence to Save U.S.

Correct.

The Weimar Republic was unable or unwilling to keep control of the streets. We don't want to go that way.

 

I think a major problem is that people have no idea of the actual history of the USA as a colony of Great Britain or even what a colony is. A colony was then what we call an "autonomous region" today. The USA did not suddenly spring into being fully formed in 1776 having been an overseas province of Old Blighty sort of like a much bigger and more distant version of the Channel Islands. The 13 Original Colonies were pretty much complete governments and it is VERY important to note that it is THESE the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence NOT any individual colonist or even any unauthorized groups of colonists. The Colonial Assemblies, the famous House of Burgesses in Virginia and elsewhere; THESE were the ELECTED bodies that the FF thought should have miltias and the right of an armed response to a tyrannical government, NOT every Yahoo who can swing a sling. The concept of "individual sovereignty" is a pernicious addition to American Discourse that only came up in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It is very recent with little real philosophical base.

 

Then why are the amendments we fight over all directed at individual freedoms.

 

With all due respect I must note that if you truly believe this then you are a large, steaming and malodorous pile of whatever I definitely am NOT calling you as you are a respected fellow member of this august body of political savants and entitled to all the honor and felicitations such fellowship deserves. If indeed such talking points were ever sent they must have missed me and everyone who knows me will attest to that being impossible as I am simply incapable of being overlooked by anyone reasonably observant of Nature's oversights, blunders, gaffes and miscalculations as they apply to humanity. Must be a typo.

 

Individual sovereignty and self defense aren’t implied the the 2nd Amendment? Not even a penumbra formed by emanationsof a penumbra? How about the 9th Amendment?

 

Because the Constitution, and indeed all government, is directed at the protection of those individual freedoms, from others and from itself.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I'm quite sure that bizarre run on sentence was not in any way some talking point that you are cribbing. I'll give you full credit.

 

Not the slightest shadow of the smallest occultation is stated or implied in any of these things. Self-defense is never discussed by the Founding Fathers as it goes without saying, being the universal right of any living thing; indeed it can be said to define living in the Lockean sense. The ninth amendment is simply a defense against pernicious persons who might say the Bill of Rights was exhaustive rather than prescriptive.

The FF were not fools, they were going to be making up the government they would apply their precepts to. Do you really think they would write in a clause giving people the right to murder them if they disagreed with their decisions?

I put the question to you: WHO CHOOSES when any individual person has the right to revolt against a tyrannical government?

 

Glad to know it.

 

Self defense is not murder.

 

The 9th Amendment is intended as a guard against exactly what you’re doing, suggesting that if a right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution it doesn’t exist.

Do you agree the Griswold v. State of Connecticut was correctly decided? That decision based on “a penumbra formed from an emanation” insured the right of marital privacy on contraception decisions which was then used as a basis for the Roe v. Wade decision which guaranteed the right to abortion. As far as I know neither of those “rights” were ever discussed by the founding fathers. I agree with the Griswold decision but not the Roe decision. Yet both, I think can be covered by the intent of the 9th Amendment.

 

Why don't you agree with Roe? It seems to follow naturally from Griswold.

And what right am I suggesting doesn't exist?

 

Yes, Roe does follow Griswold. I don’t think the Court was wrong building on the precedent, I just think the result is immoral.

I am not a lawyer, I’m just interested in these cases for what possibilities can arise from the underlying legal reasoning. In their dissenting opinion in the Griswold case Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart based their reasoning on the belief that the decision could lead to other state efforts to consider morality in their laws would also eventually be found unconstitutional. In Lawrence v Texas Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion made a similar argument.

I’m a libertarian so I value individual rights ver highly, but these dissenting arguments make me reconsider.

 

I got off track and babbled on about my concerns about the possible negative consequences of the 9th Amendment. I didn’t mean to suggest you were denying certain rights don’t exist.

 

You seem that odd creature that actually answers questions honestly.

So I will put this one to you again. If the 2nd amendment truly is to protect us from tyrants then who chooses when and how to go to war against a government once just that has become tyrannical? Why and who will take up the guns?

 

I don’t think we can know that until the circumstances arise.

 

Yes I realize there are POGs that never saw combat. But anybody who did is not raising their hands against their own people.

 

Absolutely false.

 

Codswallop. The most abused, misused, and improperly used language in the entire document. If you can use that clause to create a Dept of Education (which, as your OWN article mentioned, is not something that is even mentioned in the actual Constitution itself), you can basically use it to do, well, anything. Which is pretty much what has happened in the past 75 years or so. It's well past time for the Supremes to tell Congress that, or, even better, but even less likely, to repeal it via Amendment. But that would strip Congress of it's stolen power, so they're highly highly unlikely to pass such an idea.

I don't believe for even half a second that the founders intended for we the People to never be able to own our homes free and clear, including from that annual rent we call property taxes that mostly goes to fund OPKs education. They should fund their own kids education, and property taxes, at least on primary residences (to start, anyway) should be Constitutionally banned.

 

There are leftists who act as if the General Welfare clause and Commerce clause negate the entire rest of the Constitution. If fact, neither clause creates any stand alone power at all.

 

Thank the old gawds and the new that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is smarter than you are. A third grader could read the text of the 2nd Amendment and rightfully conclude that it applies to all persons as individuals. I am looking forward to the weeping and gnashing of teeth when they release their decision about the current NY case stating unequivocally that individuals ALSO have a right to arm themselves in public, not JUST in their homes. "May Issue" licenses in NYC means "friends of the Mayor and celebrities". If you ain't one of them, or a body guard that routinely guards one of them, you ain't getting a carry permit, period. Hell, even an "on premise" (meaning your home) license doesn't even allow you to take your weapon to a shooting range, OR to leave the City bound for elsewhere. I do think they dropped that last law, however, when it became clear they were going to lose in the Supreme Court, but I'm not counting on them voluntarily going to a "shall issue" policy for the same reason. For that matter, I don't expect them to honor the Court's ruling when it comes down, they'll find (or think they've found) excuses to get around it in so many ways, for so many BS reasons, that even if you have a carry permit, it won't be good for much of anything.

BTW, in the event you would like to argue that to have the RKBA you must be a member of a militia, every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 49 already is, whether or not they know it or not, according to federal law. Equal protection would then strip that law of it's gender, disability, and age requirements which essentially means every adult in the country is already a militia member. So either way, you lose.

Reaching beyond the words on the paper, I don't understand people who think they can, or should, deprive others of the right to defend themselves from others who mean to do them harm. Perhaps you can start by explaining that!

 

YES!!! Didn't they just get finished "murdering" (though completely justifiably) many British soldiers for the exact same reason? You think they magically stopped thinking revolution could be a necessary approach from time to time??

 

But that's always the case when cracking down on dissent.

 

Well yes, you CAN use the Constitution to do almost anything. It was meant to be a document of general government after all. The enumerated powers were meant to be prescriptive, not exhaustive, and there is ample evidence, both in the other parts of the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) and other writings of the Founding Fathers, that this was their intention.. The FF were NOT, as I have said once here and many times in other places total, fracking, fools They were trying to create a working democratically based REPUBLIC, not the world's first (and almost certainly last) documented anarchy. The idea was for the GOVERNMENT to protect the citizens's rights, not to leave citizens to do that on their own.

 

They thought that Revolution was more than justifIed IF THEIR OWN ELECTED AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BODIES SAID SO.

I put the question to you again, Who decides when and under what circumstances revolution is justified?