Armed Protest

You can talk about anything here

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Macabee
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Macabee »

Having guns in the US is built on a US premise about the potential tyranny of government. Some could claim that times have changed, but most people were actually subjected to government tyranny at the time the Constitution was written. Women, Blacks, Indians, anyone without land wasn't allowed a voice in the government at the time. Kind of adds meaning to the commonly heard phrase today that "we should return to the America the founding fathers intended", whatever that means. There's a good argument to be made regarding possible government tyranny, the last president (Bush) pushed through the patriot act along with illegal taking of freedoms that we learn about every day, as well as the John Warren National Defense Auth that overthrew posse comitatus thereby taking away freedoms once taken for granted, such as limitations short of martial law.

It's also interesting that when Bush was president, people were arrested outside Bush's speaking area for wearing shirts with anti-Bush slogans. Now, People bring their guns to Obama's town halls and scream things we know to be false like the birthers, death panels or that if Stephen Hawking had to endure British healthcare, he'd been dead a long time ago.

Mac
Image
User avatar
Kaiser_von_Nuben
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: New York, NY USA

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Kaiser_von_Nuben »

Congress played a substantial role in dismantling constitutional liberties during Bush's term, too. It also gravely unbalanced the necessary checks between the Executive and the legislature. On September 17, 2001, Congress passed the utterly shameful Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) "against anyone he believes was responsible in any way for the 9/11 attacks." In essence, this Act authorized Bush to be a tyrant. "His belief" about "who was responsible" for the attacks (and every other "problem" in American society) led the way, not the democratic process. He waged war without a declaration of war (stepping on Congress' constitutional authority to declare war). He detained people without trial or access to counsel for years (stepping on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to the Writ of Habeas Corpus and Due Process Clause). He "surveilled" domestic telephone communications without warrants or court orders from a special court created for that purpose (stepping on the Fourth Amendment). And of course he ignored American treaty obligations by torturing terror suspects. Worse, he even brought in hack lawyers (Al Gonzales et al.) to disingenuously say that "torture is not wrong."

In short, we don't need to go back to the "Nation at the time of our Founding" to see tyranny. Bush engaged in utterly lawless, unchecked power grabbing only a few years ago. And in these examples we see REAL TYRANNY, namely, the fact that other, constitutionally-responsible branches merely stood by and let these outrages happen. Worse, the Republican-dominated Congress of 2001-2006 even authorized and encouraged this unconstitutional behavior. All they had to say was "Homeland security" and they could pass anything, even laws that clearly violated the Constitution or obliterated the Separation of Powers.

But our Constitution allows this. The Executive branch has a dangerous tendency to overwhelm the other two branches because the Executive has the guns and the troops. The Executive tends even more to dominate the other branches in so-called "emergencies." Congress just has papers and grandstanding local demagogues. The Court just has hot air and rhetoric. Real power comes from force, not principle. In any event, if Congress wants to authorize away all its institutional power to the President, it can. Justice Robert Jackson said: "We tolerate rulers only if under rules." But he also noted that Congress is free to let the President do whatever he wants, if it is dumb enough to do so. Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952).
"The German Army will not stand for it!"

-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
User avatar
Soccerman771
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Sachse, Texas (near Dallas)
Contact:

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Soccerman771 »

[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]Congress played a substantial role in dismantling constitutional liberties during Bush's term, too. It also gravely unbalanced the necessary checks between the Executive and the legislature. On September 17, 2001, Congress passed the utterly shameful Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) "against anyone he believes was responsible in any way for the 9/11 attacks." In essence, this Act authorized Bush to be a tyrant. "His belief" about "who was responsible" for the attacks (and every other "problem" in American society) led the way, not the democratic process. He waged war without a declaration of war (stepping on Congress' constitutional authority to declare war). He detained people without trial or access to counsel for years (stepping on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to the Writ of Habeas Corpus and Due Process Clause). He "surveilled" domestic telephone communications without warrants or court orders from a special court created for that purpose (stepping on the Fourth Amendment). And of course he ignored American treaty obligations by torturing terror suspects. Worse, he even brought in hack lawyers (Al Gonzales et al.) to disingenuously say that "torture is not wrong."

In short, we don't need to go back to the "Nation at the time of our Founding" to see tyranny. Bush engaged in utterly lawless, unchecked power grabbing only a few years ago. And in these examples we see REAL TYRANNY, namely, the fact that other, constitutionally-responsible branches merely stood by and let these outrages happen. Worse, the Republican-dominated Congress of 2001-2006 even authorized and encouraged this unconstitutional behavior. All they had to say was "Homeland security" and they could pass anything, even laws that clearly violated the Constitution or obliterated the Separation of Powers.

But our Constitution allows this. The Executive branch has a dangerous tendency to overwhelm the other two branches because the Executive has the guns and the troops. The Executive tends even more to dominate the other branches in so-called "emergencies." Congress just has papers and grandstanding local demagogues. The Court just has hot air and rhetoric. Real power comes from force, not principle. In any event, if Congress wants to authorize away all its institutional power to the President, it can. Justice Robert Jackson said: "We tolerate rulers only if under rules." But he also noted that Congress is free to let the President do whatever he wants, if it is dumb enough to do so. Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952).[/quote]

And yet we are safer because of these acts. Find me one person that was wrongly accused/tortured/reprimanded because of these actions...

Only criminals/terrorists should fear these acts.

^^@ Karamazov - every law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun. Handguns kill far more people than rifles.

If we're going after things that kill people then lets out-law cheeseburgers. They are by far more deadly than guns......
jtackel@hotmail.com

"Do you know how difficult it is to micro Napalm?" - Lazy_Tuga

"This isn't going to work. I've picked a water deck and there isn't even a pond on this map." - Blackadderthe4th
User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: Armed Protest

Post by IndyBrit »

We can't have a good system that prevents tyranny, e.g. the right words within or a proper interpretation of the Constitution, or maybe the right checks and balances in govermental branches. Prevention of tyranny requires action and vigilance, as any system is subject to abuse.

If someone gives you a pipe wrench for your birthday, there is nothing inherent in a pipe wrench that will prevent you from going and smashing your neighbor's car windows with it.

Interestingly, if the "founding fathers" had meant what they said, they would have provided black men with guns and slavery would have ended 80 years earlier. Of course, in my artificial example, they would have also just freed black men if they meant what they said... None of which is to say that they didn't say really cool, inspired stuff. I think they did, they just didn't really mean it for anyone outside their social circle.
User avatar
Macabee
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Macabee »

[quote=""Soccerman771""]
And yet we are safer because of these acts. Find me one person that was wrongly accused/tortured/reprimanded because of these actions...[/quote]

Maher Arar

[quote=""Soccerman771""]
Only criminals/terrorists should fear these acts.[/quote]

There seems to be those who believe that a politician was infallible. Not only was he so blessed and holy in his infallibility, but all those people he knew or didn't know (like government bureaucrats) were infallible themselves as well. Innocent people were never picked up and denied habeas corpus or even sent to a nation known to torture like Syria. Never once did employees of Homeland Security record conversations of US troops in Iraq talking with their wives and laughingly pass CD's amongst themselves, and never once did pedophile Brian Doyle, the 4th ranking spokesman for Homeland Security, use his office to hunt for underaged kids, and not once did Americans use illegal techniques used in the Spanish Inquisition, or by Imperial Japan against an American airman of the Doolittle Raid or by several communist countries for the sole purpose of achieving false confessions.

A loud and flailing group is angered today by such things as increased government powers. They're still a bit foggy as to against whom or why they should be angry, but when they fully awaken and clear their heads they should put away their misdirected and false claims (see above) and instead replace them with the realization of the freedoms they've lost, if it's not too late.

It's my opinion the authors of the US Constitution saw imperfection in people and governments and sought ways to minimize said imperfections. I concur.


Mac
Image
User avatar
Soccerman771
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Sachse, Texas (near Dallas)
Contact:

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Soccerman771 »

I never said that a certain politician was infallible. You are now putting words in my mouth. In fact, I disagree with many things that the Bush administration did. In fact, I can go back 50 years and find at least 1 major scandal in EVERY Presidential administration.

As to Arar, if he was treated so wrongly and such a good person, then why has Napolitano said that his status according to the US is not in a position where it should be changed?

I'm neither loud nor flailing and I take offense to being called as such. I also know who I'm angry with - almost every politician for putting themselves or their party first and not the American people. This goes for both parties. Yes I'm opposed to increased government, but not even close to the point of radicalism. I don't even go to protests nor marches nor town-halls nor etc. I do write my governement officials however and I let them know how I feel on certain issues. Government should help to solve problems, not be the solution to problems. The government has never taken over anything and made it more cost efficient or more productive.

But then again, I don't read and I only copy and paste from websites and things that agree with my position. ;)
jtackel@hotmail.com

"Do you know how difficult it is to micro Napalm?" - Lazy_Tuga

"This isn't going to work. I've picked a water deck and there isn't even a pond on this map." - Blackadderthe4th
User avatar
deadhanddan
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1507
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:38 pm
Location: OHIO
Contact:

Re: Armed Protest

Post by deadhanddan »

[quote=""Soccerman771""] Government should help to solve problems, not be the solution to problems. [/quote] +1,000,000!
power should reside in the people , not big government. we do not exist to serve the government, but instead the government should exist to serve the will of the people and not themselves. $ is the only thing they care for , while our economy suffers and the people lose more and more the big wigs vote themselves raises and take taxpayer funded vacations
- Dan
User avatar
Macabee
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: Armed Protest

Post by Macabee »

My comments related to two unqualified and absolute statements regarding the losses of freedom due to these unconstitutional acts:

[quote=""Soccerman771""]Find me one person that was wrongly accused/tortured/reprimanded because of these actions...[/quote]

and

[quote=""Soccerman771""]Only criminals/terrorists should fear these acts.[/quote]

Part of the problem is that statements like these clearly represent a view that government is infallible in matters of police powers. I just cannot agree and I don't think the framers of the US constitution did either. In fact, the US constitution protects even the guilty from unconstitutional government powers.

That police powers once taken unto the government are difficult to remove is supported by my statement "if it's not too late" and not persuasive, like in the case of Arar remaining on the no-fly list - even now. Arar was picked up without the right to habeas corpus and sent to Syria where he was tortured for a year. The evidence? Another man being tortured said Arar was in Kabul, but it is well known that he was not. Even his torturers in Syria agree Arar wasn't there. As I've said before, these methods of interrogation are notable because their sole purpose was to gain false confessions against the US or others and used as propaganda.


Mac

On the other hand, I'm glad the street in front of my house is government owned (for one thing).
Image
Post Reply