dagblog - Comments for "Fighting 'The Government' by Killing Your Neighbors"

I appreciate your offer. I

moat — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:48:17 +0000

I appreciate your offer. I was and am sincere when I say that I decline it with respect for it being made. It misrepresents my intention to say I offer acrimony in return.

I have not been confronting you for purposes of revenge or because I want to humiliate you. I have only gone to the trouble because I strongly disagree with many of your statements and decided it was intellectually irresponsible to let them go unchallenged. So there is a level of respect being expressed by the fact that I made that decision and have made the effort to follow through.

When I see you wrestle with my words in the same way; making it important to accurately portray what I have said rather dismissing it out of hand, calling it something it is not, or just ignoring it entirely, then I will know you have accorded me the same courtesy I have already extended to you.

Happy are the Peace

Resistance — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:39:33 +0000

In reply to You are repeating yourself;

Happy are the Peace makers.

So be it, civility and forgiveness, start with forgetting the past.

I offered an olive branch and you offered a continuation of acrimony.

You are repeating yourself;

moat — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:38:46 +0000

In reply to Moat I?d prefer to be your

You are repeating yourself; word for word, for the most part. I not only understand your position but could now write it if for you if need be.

This return to where the discussion began does nothing to support your view that the Bill of Rights was intended to be an instrument outside of the work of self governance. Beyond the question of how to read that document, your descriptions of the impending collapse you foretell does not illuminate what your connection to your neighbors is supposed to be if all forms of authority axiomatically negate communal life. Your response to Doctor Cleveland's post goes a long way toward proving his statement:

The modern focus imagines a private individual, perhaps with a few friends, motivated by his own conviction of righteousness, rather than a group of volunteers representing the community at large.

As for your offer to be friends, I respectfully decline. Whenever I have engaged in conversation with you in the past, there is always at least one moment when you make it obvious that you do not consider me to be your peer. Without equality, we cannot even be enemies.

Moat I?d prefer to be your

Resistance — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:53:25 +0000

In reply to It is odd that you call my

Moat I’d prefer to be your friend, who has a differing view.

To all of you and Moat, I hope you all have a good year.

To proceed with our discussion

when you insist that the government is not us.

I empathize with the poor Frenchmen, behind the barricades; who may have asked; “If the government was them (us), why was King Louis XVI firing on his citizens.

Except we know, they had no vote. So the king had no regard for his subjects.

I empathize and remember the citizens at the Boston Massacre; who were shot upon, by our government at the time. Did they ask “the government is us, why are they shooting us?”

But we know, the king had no regard for his subjects.

What we have now, is Democracy in name only; it wasn’t always that way though. But little by little, we have regressed and have been reduced to servants.

For many it is obvious the plutocracy, the oligarchy or whatever name you want to attach to those of privilege, controlling what used to be, the Government of We the People.

But again, the day has arrived when those in power, have no regard for their subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

French society underwent an epic transformation, as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside.[1] Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy–of monarchy, aristocracy, and religious authority–were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights.

Look around Moat, the powerful, have retaken control.

Look around, despite the restless crowds, at the Statehouses; equality and what we thought were inalienable rights, are being taken away

Income equality, how do you propose to turn it around? You think the haves give a crap?

Who do you think is going to get hurt, when the fiscal crisis is resolved?

Whose benefits are going to be cut, to solve the debt problem, created by two wars, the common people didn’t want?

Who can deny the incompetency of the seat of government, in Washington D.C.; or the decadency of the rich political donors, who like their earlier counter parts, the rich, French aristocracy, controlled the masses of the working class.

Or think about the English Lords, who taxed the American common people heavily, to pay for England’s expansionism.

Like everyone else, I want peace and equality; I want a government to respect our inalienable rights, so as to avoid confrontation. But history has shown time and again, the disgruntled masses will rebel, if they are constantly ignored.

In our history, we already had a civil war, and already in some States today, they are again talking secession.

There’s something going on below the surface, something I’m afraid, will be the end of civility.

Who knows when, but it would be a bloodbath, to leave the masses, only pitchforks.

Misrepresentation Definition: falsehood,

So to set the record straight; I don’t know who is to be feared more; the government or the desperate people?

When principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights, are attacked,

IMHO, the people wont stand for it very long.

It is odd that you call my

moat — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:30:34 +0000

In reply to You have been arguing that

It is odd that you call my statement a lie. If I have misrepresented you, why not simply say as much?

I got my impression that you were preparing for war from your statement upthread:

Our forefathers knew, it's not a matter of "if the police state would occur" but how will the citizens defend themselves, when that day comes, as it has always happened, with other governments before us. Knowing this as a fact, they made provisions for the citizenry, to be able to protect themselves when that day comes.

You then go on to suggest that this 'moment' the forefathers knew was coming is very near.

So, whether you actually have to shoot agents of the state or just people who want what is yours when all hell breaks loose, it is hard to see how your preparations are consistent with the ideal of a citizen's militia when you insist that the government is not us.

Now it so happens that you are misrepresenting my views by stating that I wish to "dissolve the contract" or that I have a plan that will 'ensure everyone's safety'. You may infer that is the result of my challenges to your point of view but you present these ideas as if I were actively promoting them. This is not the case. Come to think of it I do not see any of the points I originally made on the Doctor's post in your replies except where you agree with me that the Constitution is not an insurance policy.

Your command for me to run along would make sense if I was a dog and you were my master. But I am neither of those things.

You have been arguing that

Resistance — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:51:48 +0000

In reply to You have given up on

You have been arguing that the Second Amendment is principally for the sake of fighting the government.

That is a lie; it is not my principle reason.

If the government chooses to ignore the basic individual right "to have and bear arms shall not be infringed. Does it make it clear, they no longer which to honor the contract and by doing so, they have usurped power that was not granted to it.

Thereby making itself, an enemy of the citizens, when it swore by oath, to defend the Constitution and now it wants to brush aside, because it has convinced some of the foolish citizens to join them, to trust them.

The courts have held, in the case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically

capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in

order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms,

so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately

followed the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals

that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms."

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Run along Moat; I and many others are not interested in dissolving the contract, and entrusting you with our freedom and safety.

You have given up on

moat — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:28:04 +0000

In reply to You have made it abundantly

You have given up on participating in governance through self determination. Your abandonment of the role of citizen is more of an attack upon the reasons why the Bill of Rights was drafted than anything I have put forward. You are in the absurd position of dissolving the very instrument you are purporting to defend.

I am not advocating the primacy of central authority. We disagree with how to deal with it. None of my comments above promote weakening local authority. You are the one who dismissed any discussion of it when addressing the Doctor and Ramona.

You have been arguing that the Second Amendment is principally for the sake of fighting the government when it inevitably becomes your enemy. For you, it is a built in suicide clause that kicks in whenever citizens reject central authority. This reading ignores the fact that the Framers viewed the idea of state based militias as an alternative to the negative consequences of maintaining a standing army. For better or worse, we have the standing army that the amendment was hoping to avoid. I think the change is a significant challenge for the continuance of a democracy. Your preparation for war against that army is not advancing anybody's efforts to meet that challenge. On the contrary, your withdrawal from the public weal strengthens the hand of central authority.

You have made it abundantly

Resistance — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:03:14 +0000

In reply to You have made it abundantly

You have made it abundantly clear, you have no understanding of the promised reward, of self determination. rested upon the foundation, of the Bill of Rights.

What's the next attack; on the Bill of Rights, religious freedom?

As to the rest of your clearly one sided commentary

I could use your own words

For those victims, (of religious or racial persecution ) however, that do not share your comfort level with the blank check you carry, (or the self righteous do-gooders assurances, they'll prevent such persecution) the exercise of your right (the self righteous do-gooders, baseless promises will decide your rights )begins to look like a privilege (of the self righteous do - gooders superior foresight, in the ways of preventing persecution ), that intrudes upon other people's rights (to Freedom from tyranny and persecution ).

Our forefathers protected us from so called faithful of the self righteous do- gooders, who were willing to sacrifice the countless hundreds, who died at the hands of those seeking for themselves Self Determination.

Ask the blacks in the South, about the self determination of the Southern Plantation States. If self determination was such the panacea you proclaim.

Self- preservation is our foremost right, it is not yours, to compromise away, because YOU think it best.

Moat you can't assure anyones safety.

You have made it abundantly

moat — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:47:38 +0000

In reply to The 'insurance policy' that

You have made it abundantly clear that you have abandoned all hope in the experiment of self-governance that propelled the formation of our Republic. To imagine that the Framers of said Republic had also given up on the project is an absurd flight of fancy.

The dreams that decorate your bunker are your affair but the apathy you embrace does have a cost we citizens outside must bear. Your willingness to have any price paid in human lives to preserve an unconditional right to accumulate deadly force is fine if the only ones paying it share in your beliefs. I have confidence that if you were to become the next innocent victim of gunfire, you would maintain consistency with your convictions and not come back to complain or retreat from your previously stated positions.

For those victims, however, that do not share your comfort level with the blank check you carry, the exercise of your right begins to look like a privilege that intrudes upon other people's rights.

The 'insurance policy' that

Resistance — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 05:06:44 +0000

In reply to Good post, Dr. Cleveland. The

The 'insurance policy' that was supposed to keep me free is turning into a standoff between shooters and the Police State the shooters said they would never let come into existence.

No one ever promised you freedom. Our soldiers on the front lines are defending it. There is no guarantee.

Also, the shooters never said, they would never, ever let it come into existence.

Our forefathers knew, it's not a matter of "if the police state would occur" but how will the citizens defend themselves, when that day comes, as it has always happened, with other governments before us.

Knowing this as a fact, they made provisions for the citizenry, to be able to protect themselves when that day comes.

Our forefathers knew about the French revolution, and in their wisdom, had THE BILL OF RIGHTS secure a means, for our citizens to be able to defend ourselves, against indifference and decadence

1789

Amidst a fiscal crisis, the common people of France were increasingly angered by the incompetency of King Louis XVI and the continued indifference and decadence of the aristocracy. This resentment fueled radical sentiments, and the French Revolution began in 1789

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. ...............The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789,[1][2] formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

I wonder; if we go off the fiscal cliff, will the aristocracy that displays indifference and decadence, take a cut, in pay or benefits?

PS........ People keep assuming, the people who want to have arms, are going to fight the government.

NO! it's anarchy, their going to defend themselves, against.

You're seeing first hand, a dysfunctional Washington government, unable to cope with a fiscal crisis and a self inflicted one at that.

What makes you think they'll do better when another crisis confronts them?

It would be foolish, to put faith in a dysfunctional government to protect you.

Do you need more proof, than what we're seeing now take place?