Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
62. So predictable.
Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:32 AM
Jan 2013

You leap right to some sort of pitched battle with the 82nd Airborne. A friend of mine was a DI in the 82nd and served in Desert Storm. You know what his attitude toward armed conflict with a hostile invading force is? Upgrade. He is perfectly willing to take a Ruger 10/22 or a knife and kill the other guy for his weapon.

You don't seem to understand it's not just about the gun. People fixate on the gun way too much. While I expect that it's true that repressive regimes don't immediately unleash the military on people, but rather use disappearances, selective enforcement of the law, irregular paramilitary "thugs" and other assorted unpleasantness to subjugate recalcitrant populations, it's not about the fight itself but the continuum of force that leads up to it. Because in the end whether it's a common criminal, a government thug, or a professional soldier you have to face the stakes will be the same. But the path you take to that moment may well determine whether or not you actually have to face it.

Has it occurred to you that the Bill of Rights implies a continuum of force?


First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment
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.


The people have a right to speak out against injustice, to collectively speak out, to physically make their presence and their demands heard, and document their grievances. Failing those options, the people have a right to fight. You have a right to fight against a common criminal, and you have a right to fight against a criminal government. There are no guarantees you will win, but you have the right to try.

From The Lion in Winter
Prince Richard: [the sons - in the dungeon - think they hear Henry approach] He's here. He'll get no satisfaction out of me. He isn't going to see me beg.
Prince Geoffrey: My you chivalric fool... as if the way one fell down mattered.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all there is, it matters.


You're a lot less likely to get assaulted if your assailant thinks he will get his brains blown out. If he expects a serious fight, he probably won't engage but rather seek easier prey. That's because bullies don't want a fight, they want an easy victory. But if you walk around advertising that you won't resist or expect to lose a fight, every bully in town will come looking for you. You have already been defeated by your own attitude.

And another interesting quote from Lion in Winter.

Henry II: I found out the way your mind works and the kind of man you are. I know your plans and expectations - you've burbled every bit of strategy you've got. I know exactly what you will do, and exactly what you won't, and I've told you exactly nothing. To these aged eyes, boy, that's what winning looks like!


When you announce to the world exactly what your limitation are, your adversaries will know exactly how far to go to defeat you. When you tell the world you will never fight, a fight is exactly what you will get. Or, more specifically, an ass whipping is what you'll get.

How do you feel about the New Deal? These events and many more helped set the stage for it.

Battle of Blair Mountain
Pullman Strike
Streetcar strikes in the United States
Colorado Labor Wars
1905 Chicago Teamsters' strike
Pressed Steel Car Strike of 1909

There's plenty more here. Those workers battled the police, mercenaries hired by industrialists, and the military. They weren't fucking around, and those events were living memories for a lot of people when FDR was elected. People fought and died for social progress on American soil, and anyone who calls themselves a Progressive would do well to remember that.

If you're satisfied to be a keyboard commando go right ahead. If your idea of ultimate political action is "occupying" a public space you have a lot to learn. If you think the oligarchs that want to own this country and everything and everyone in it will stop with squirting a little pepper spray you may have a rude surprise in your future. We have begun to turn a corner and I hope we will keep turning it. I am very interested to see what kind of liberal sits in the Oval Office after the Biden presidency. But success is by no means assured, and it seems that not a few of our fellow Democrats have opted to take precautions no matter whether they will work or not.



Hmmmmm, rrneck Jan 2013 #1
no, not the people to have themselves a militia. *the state* to have a militia. unblock Jan 2013 #2
Close...the federal government declared who must serve. jmg257 Jan 2013 #5
Yes, that is the meaning of "state" in this context unblock Jan 2013 #8
I think state meant 1 of the 13 states. They shared the jmg257 Jan 2013 #14
State != government fingusernames Jan 2013 #47
I used to think that, just not so much any more. jmg257 Jan 2013 #49
If you want to be a constittional originalist rrneck Jan 2013 #15
I'm not an originalist unblock Jan 2013 #23
Well rrneck Jan 2013 #25
I see you disagree with the SCOUS JohnRebel Jan 2013 #69
i didn't say anything about that. unblock Jan 2013 #71
Nope. Militia were ALWAYS governmental entities. jmg257 Jan 2013 #3
The right of the people... rrneck Jan 2013 #13
That's the way I see it derby378 Jan 2013 #16
Ain't it the truth. rrneck Jan 2013 #19
You're trying to broaden a term that was well understood & defined as a govt entity. jmg257 Jan 2013 #17
The government can create a militia rrneck Jan 2013 #18
Well see, now you are making different point. And one I have not argued against. jmg257 Jan 2013 #20
It just doesn't seem all that complicated to me. rrneck Jan 2013 #22
To me either. But I find it interesting as hell!... jmg257 Jan 2013 #24
I heard that! nt rrneck Jan 2013 #26
Don't selectively highlight. Loudly Jan 2013 #29
Psst...the states had already ratified the Constitution. nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #30
Right. The Bill of Rights was not an inducement to ratify. Loudly Jan 2013 #32
"Free state" wasn't part of the bill of rights at that point, it didn't exist yet. jmg257 Jan 2013 #35
I don't agree, it means exactly that. Loudly Jan 2013 #37
I see..you are just making an observation. Thought you were referring to jmg257 Jan 2013 #39
Explain how rrneck Jan 2013 #34
Seriously? That is a balance eternally sought by jurisprudence. Loudly Jan 2013 #36
So explain it. rrneck Jan 2013 #38
You don't get to choose which words you want to ignore..... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #40
Okay rrneck Jan 2013 #41
Here's my opinion... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #43
So rrneck Jan 2013 #44
It doesn't IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #45
The national guard was federalized in 1903. rrneck Jan 2013 #48
And your collection of pea shooters is gonna stop the 82nd Airborne? IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #60
So predictable. rrneck Jan 2013 #62
Good luck to you in your battle.... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #63
I don't anticipate a battle nor would I welcome one should it occur. rrneck Jan 2013 #65
Yup JohnRebel Jan 2013 #70
You are making a claim about what the original purpose of the second amendment was. Vattel Jan 2013 #4
Yes it was. The entire Bill of Rights protects citizens from our government. banned from Kos Jan 2013 #6
The preamble clears that up.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #10
That is not clear at all. Would you elaborate? banned from Kos Jan 2013 #21
The Bill of Rights is a 'the government shall not' document.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #28
Well then we agree in full. banned from Kos Jan 2013 #31
*nod* Card-carrying member here too. n/t X_Digger Jan 2013 #33
The method for overthrowing the gov't is called ELECTIONS. IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #42
Are you saying that the founders regjoe Jan 2013 #50
Careful - the founders did not give the people anything. jmg257 Jan 2013 #51
Oh, I understand regjoe Jan 2013 #52
Good luck with that! :) nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #54
The right to bear arms was predicated IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #53
Oh, I have regjoe Jan 2013 #72
The Militias already existed. The Congress already had the duty jmg257 Jan 2013 #7
does it really matter? bossy22 Jan 2013 #9
Great point. The whole notion of Militias of the several States was obsoleted by the jmg257 Jan 2013 #11
Does it really matter what the "original intent" was? Shouldn't we focus on ... GodlessBiker Jan 2013 #12
Yup it's the preamble which deals with that. TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #27
Interesting, but can we address how the Lanza and 27 dead kiddies and educators situation libdem4life Jan 2013 #46
Agree IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #56
Standard boilerplate gun nut bargle. Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #55
Militia's were for external threats - elections for internal threats. nt Old and In the Way Jan 2013 #57
"The state" includes towns, neighborhoods, households, families, and individuals slackmaster Jan 2013 #58
with your definition of what constitutes the "security of a free state" IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #59
Yes, the system we have now is far from adequate slackmaster Jan 2013 #61
Actually yes it was logicnreason Jan 2013 #64
And how was it intended the 2nd accomplish that? jmg257 Jan 2013 #66
I don't understand why people think that their guns would protect them from a tyrannical government. catpuke9000 Jan 2013 #67
I see you have not done your homework JohnRebel Jan 2013 #68
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 2nd Amendment was not...»Reply #62