OT: Seriously????

[Askold]

Since this thread is already all over the place...

On the caliber wars, particularly concerning pistol and revolver calibers:

I will be the first one to admit that I am an armchair general on this issue as I have not used pistols in real combat (or been in real combat for that matter. I hope that remains the case in the future as well.) but I have read my share of studies and "studies" on "stopping power."

The fact is that all the studies have to rely on guesswork or make up parameters since it is impossible to study the effectiveness of weapons on humans in laboratory quality experiments. Perhaps if we had Josef Mengele to help things would be different, but as it is we have to use material that is less relevant to real battle.

Still, the impression that I have gotten (and I admit that I may be wrong) is that hit location is the most important factor and honestly the differences in energy between 9mmPara, .40 S&W, .45ACP and the other most common calibers is quite small. With modern hollowpoints most values that can be measured are not that far from each other (with recoil and magazine capacity having some differences but modern pistols do have fairly large magazines for each caliber available.)

In the end, I seem to have the impression that the hit location is the number one deciding factor on the effect on live target and penetration comes in second. Everything else falls far behind (at least with pistols and revolvers.)

There are stories from shootouts where certain "gun" failed to stop a hostile person while another had a "one shot stop" but even then the location and ammo seem to be the factor in these.

If I had to choose one pistol to defend myself with I would pick one in 9mm caliber but that has more to do with the cheap ammo and large capacity magazines available than the actual "stopping power" in the gun. With cheap ammo I could afford to train more and with more training I would be better with the gun. I still wouldn't trust myself to shoot perfectly in a high stress situation so bigger magazine is a bonus and a manageable recoil means better followup shots.

These advantages (in my opinion) outweigh any improvement in stopping power that other cartridges might offer. 10mm hole in the wall beside the attacker is not guaranteed to stop him. (and if a warning shot or merely revealing the gun does the trick the 9mm will work just as well.)

[stormlion1]

And to think I started this thread as a sarcastic rebuttal to moronic conspiracy theories. I love this forum!

I'm curious, what were they doing with AK's in the SP armory Were they for OPFOR exercises

Not a clue. I remember them showing up in the armory. Stayed there for six months. Then in a rush we were all qualified on them and they then were cleaned up and stocked away and just sat there. Probably had a bright idea and someone got an order, took forever to implement it. All done in a rush just so something could get checked off and they were forgotten about.

For on-base exercises we were using spray painted orange cheap airsoft guns and rubber training aids. Remember because we used them for three months, someone complained and they were all shipped out except the rubber pistols which we still used.

[.45cultist]

Not a clue. I remember them showing up in the armory. Stayed there for six months. Then in a rush we were all qualified on them and they then were cleaned up and stocked away and just sat there. Probably had a bright idea and someone got an order, took forever to implement it. All done in a rush just so something could get checked off and they were forgotten about.

For on-base exercises we were using spray painted orange cheap airsoft guns and rubber training aids. Remember because we used them for three months, someone complained and they were all shipped out except the rubber pistols which we still used.

I remember a pair of guys in civvies wanted to "steal" the vehicle we would leave for the Wing King while we washed his car. We told them we couldn't do that.

[Webstral]

Thanks for that great feedback, swaghauler. Your commentary aligns with my research on the subject and the very little shotgun training I have received.


While I intended to cover my ideas on classifying firearms by type such that firearms optimized for self-defense, hunting, and combat could be separated, I think I will go into a different direction for right now. The 800lb gorilla in the room is rebellion against domestic tyranny. In my experience, this is where arguments about the Second Amendment tend to break down. Would-be patriot revolutionaries (WBPR, or oeWhoppers as I like to call them) insist that they have a right to resort to arms to protect their rights against domestic tyranny. Moreover, they claim, the Second Amendment enshrines their right to have unfettered access to the tools for the job. Going further, Whoppers often maintain that having their names appear on any sort of government list associated with gun ownership would violate their right to resort to armed violence against the State by allowing the State, often denigrated at Big Brother, to round them up at will and/or confiscate their weapons of revolution. Safety and efficacy, the argument goes, are to be found in anonymity. Hidden from the agents of Big Brother during the time leading up to revolution, true patriots will come together like salt crystals in a saturated fluid when the circumstances mandate action by true patriots.


There are two issues that have to be addressed in order to expose the Whopper argument as part logical fallacy and part self-serving myth. The first, the logical fallacy, is the idea that the State can guarantee the citizenry access to the tools needed to behave in a way the State considers a) illegal and b) unjustified. The second item is the myth that the Framers might think masses of anonymous and otherwise unrecognizant armed civilians would be a better guarantee of republican liberties than an organized, trained, and (hopefully) disciplined force of reservists operating under the command of a popularly elected chief executive. In both cases, the question is what the Framers could be expected to believe, not what individual citizens in modern America might prefer to believe.


Whopper ideas about rising up against Big Brother beg the question of conditions. When is it okay for a private citizen to engage in offensive killing of police and soldiers By oeoffensive killing, I mean use of lethal force (whether anybody dies or not) when the citizens physical well-being is not under imminent threat. We may argue about the so-called natural right to overthrow a tyrannical government by force of arms. I happen to think that people have a right to overthrow tyranny by force of arms. However, the Second Amendment is part of the US Constitution. Whatever my natural rights might be, the Constitution is a contract between the State and the citizenry. Access to arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, not God or natural law or any other force. This distinction is all-important. Whether God has decreed that any American should have access to an AR-15 is a matter for clergy to decide. The State is bound by the Constitution, which is a contract written by men describing a legally binding arrangement between the State and its citizenry.


The Constitution has established means by which individual citizens may find redress for their grievances. The judiciary interprets law. The legislature, in whose selection a citizen has a voice, creates the laws. The creation of laws or their repealing is accomplished by convincing the legislature of the virtue of said creation or repeal or by simple electoral power at the ballot box. Representative government being what it is, one could argue that the legislature of a republic can become a tyranny of the majority. For this reason, the judiciary exists to rule on challenges to the law or whether charges by the People that an individual has broken the law are valid. In short, there is a process by which individuals or even groups may influence the corpus of law and may seek redress of unjust laws. These means logically preclude the legitimacy of resort to violence by aggrieved individuals or groups. As a practical matter, violence is always an option. As a matter of law, the State is under no obligation to make provision or allowances for citizens to resort to violence when and if their options for legal redress of grievances havent panned out for them. At the risk of belaboring the point, the Second Amendment is part of the corpus of law of the United States. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted as making allowances for citizens to take the law into their own hands (such as launching a revolution on whatever scale) on their own initiative and on their own recognizance or to guarantee access to arms designed for the purpose of engaging in combat with professional forces (law enforcement, soldiers) pursuant to taking the law into their own hands or launching a revolution on whatever scale.


Looping this back to what kinds of arms are covered by the Second Amendment, the fact that the State doesnt protect private ownership for the purposes of executing violent revolution in the name of redress for individuals or groups doesnt impact free access to arms for the purpose of self-defense. Arms for self-defense certainly may be misused, but they are not designed to make a citizen[-soldier] the equal of a professional soldier.


At this point one could be forgiven for asking whether the issue of revolution has not become a conundrum. I assert that the State isnt obliged to tolerate either the equipping of civilians for revolution by arms or the act of revolution by whatever means comes to hand. Yet without a doubt the Founding Fathers believed in violent revolution as the vehicle of reform of the last measure. I agree with their position. How are these two ideas to be correlated


The answer, I believe, comes back to the militia. Operating under the command of an elected chief executive and regulated by the elected legislature, formations of citizen-soldiers derive their authority to execute violence from the electorate. The will of the electorate is the basis of authority in the republic. Individuals legally may not take it upon themselves to execute violence against agents of the State except under extraordinary circumstances. They certainly are not authorized to take up arms against the State based on their personal beliefs about violations of their rights. They may do so, but they will be considered common criminals at best and traitors at worst in the eyes of the law. The militia, on the other hand, may take to the field against agents of the State"the federal republic"imbued with the authority delegated them by the electorate of the state republic through the chief executive. In other words, the taking up of arms against the federal government must be an act executed by the state chief executive and state legislature on behalf of the body politic of the state. Presumably, this bold act will signify a systemic violation of the rights of the citizenry by the federal government such that violent overthrow of the federal government by the militia manifests the will of the electorate. Where the electorate of a single state or a few states put their troops into the field against the federal government, the federal government is sure to triumph. Thus the systemic violation of rights causing one electorate to call its troops into action for redress may not be as systematically systemic as the citizens of the state in question believe. See again: the US Civil War.


The matter of efficacy requires a good deal more attention. Ill come back to it later. Before leaving off, I want to look at why efficacy matters. The question is simply whether one believes the Framers of the Constitution cared about success. Was the next revolution going to work or not If we believe the Framers cared about success, then we must ask whether they cared about cost. Revolution can take many different paths. I argue that the Framers wanted revolution, when it came, to be quick and decisive. Indeed, moral men and patriots could hardly desire anything else. The Whoppers of the nation believe that the Framers would have been enthusiastic supporters of something along the lines of Red Dawn or what the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan currently. I propose that the Founding Fathers would have seen Red Dawn as a modus operendi of last resort. They would have wanted a coup de main"a swift and decisive blow executed by an overwhelming mass of organized, trained, and disciplined citizen-soldiers rising up more-or-less simultaneously to execute the will of the citizenry to overthrow a despot and his followers among the professional military. It should go without saying that only a real militia can accomplish this, not anonymous gunmen in any number.

[Raellus]

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

What a lot of people don't understand is that the "Founding Fathers" were, by and large, opposed to the idea of rule by the masses. They were largely patrician in their socio-economic status, education, and outlook. They, by and large, believed in the Enlightenment ideals of natural rights, but they didn't necessarily believe in universal suffrage. To avoid what they called the "Tyranny of the Mob" is why they created a republic instead of an Athenian-style direct democracy. Landless citizens were precluded from voting in most states until the early 1800s (black men didn't get the vote, technically speaking at least, until the passage of the 15th Amendment in the early 1870s and women didn't get the vote until 1920). The idea that the common citizenry should be armed so that it could oppose government tyranny is a bit of modern myth-making. To illustrate this point, consider two early internal rebellions in America's national (post-colonial) history. Shay's Rebellion (a rebellion of farmer-debtors in W. Pennsylvania) put a nail in the coffin of the Articles of Confederation (our first national constitution)/Confederation Congress and prompted the creation of our current U.S. Constitution and a much stronger federal government. The more plausible reason that the Founders created the Second Amendment is that it was a proactive/preemptive response to continued British and Native American agitation on the Northwest Frontier. The earliest use of militias in our national history was in Indian-fighting. A "well-regulated militia" was needed to defend our seminal national borders from hostile Indians and a major foreign power with which we had a history of armed conflict. Instability in that region of the growing country would, in part, lead to the War of 1812 just 20 or so years later.

If one wants to further explore the early Federal government's attitude towards armed citizenry- both rebellious mobs and organized militia- one needn't look much further than the Whiskey Rebellion. The latter case is the only one in our history in which a serving president has led troops in the field. In this case, none other than George Washington led federal troops and state militia to put down a rebellion of frontier farmers who didn't want to pay a federal excise tax on distilled spirits. Now tell me that the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow the common citizenry to oppose governmental tyranny.

Most Americans know at least a bit about the Revolution but they know very little about the formation of our early national government. For example, my high school juniors have never heard of Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. Hence, the perpetuation of self-serving myths regarding the Second Amendment.

[swaghauler]

There are two issues with the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a "states right" by the original framers. The first is that the First Amendment involves a personal right to "Free Speech and the Practice of Religion." The Third Amendment specifically forbids the quartering of soldiers in a citizen's home without their consent. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments also address personal rights with regards to due process and illegal search and seizure. The original framers would not have stuck a "State's Right" in the middle of so many "Personal Rights." I believe the original framers made the Second Amendment such a prominent right because they believed that the Army would be comprised of "Citizen Soldiers" raised from the states. They made it apparent from several of their writings that they did not want a large professional army to exist (except in time of war). This would also be indicated in the limitation on Congress to fund a war for only two years at a time. This was (and I'm guessing not by coincidence) the average length of time the average conflict lasted. I believe that the original framers would be rolling over in their graves at the size of the Modern US Military.

The Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own any firearms but the Framers were not fools. There was a check on both Government misuse of force and Individual misuse of force. This check was the Judiciary. The primary goal of the Judiciary is NOT TO PUNISH OFFENDERS (punishments are laid out by Congress in Laws). The primary job of the Judiciary is to determine whether an Individual's (or the Government's) Actions are "Legal" (within written law) using the "Reasonable Man's Standard." The flip side of this job is to determine if a law (as written by Congress) is "within the bounds of reason" as it sits on the book. The Judiciary is a sort of "double check against tyranny." The first (and most well known)check is the Judiciary's ability to check the power of the Government based on writings in the Constitution. The second check (the one that really makes the US a Republic) is the check on "Mob Rule" (Rome is the Mob and the Mob is Rome). By directing how trials are conducted; The Judiciary keeps "The Mob" in check and protects the rights of the minority. This is the MOST IMPORTANT job of the Judiciary. The fact that a judge "oversees" a jury of your peers is a sure indication that power in the US was supposed to emanate "from the people" but was to be "guided" by educated and therefore "more reasonable heads." This is indicated by the design of Congress as well.

It is important to consider that when the Constitution was written; There was no real modern (existing at that moment) Democracy or Republic for the Framers to examine for inspiration. The Roman Republic and Greek Democracies were long extinct and France had yet to establish it's Republic. The Framers had always been "Subjects of the Crown" and so had every other nation around them. The fact that they wrote a document as far reaching as the Constitution with the proper balance of both depth of powers and enough "openness" for interpretation is simply amazing. Think of how hard it is to balance RPG game rules. Now imagine doing that with a new nation's laws. You really have to respect what the Founding Fathers achieved in the Constitution.

[Raellus]

It is important to consider that when the Constitution was written; There was no real modern (existing at that moment) Democracy or Republic for the Framers to examine for inspiration. The Roman Republic and Greek Democracies were long extinct and France had yet to establish it's Republic. The Framers had always been "Subjects of the Crown" and so had every other nation around them. The fact that they wrote a document as far reaching as the Constitution with the proper balance of both depth of powers and enough "openness" for interpretation is simply amazing. Think of how hard it is to balance RPG game rules. Now imagine doing that with a new nation's laws. You really have to respect what the Founding Fathers achieved in the Constitution.

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.

The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.

Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.

[Targan]

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.

The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.

Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.

I like to think that Australia and New Zealand have a fair and robust system of Parliamentary democracy under our versions of the Westminster System. And we gave women the vote a couple of decades before the US

[.45cultist]

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.

The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.

Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.

Actually, the reigning monarch has one important power, no law is in effect unless they sign it. The down side is that they know a wrathful parliament could abolish their rule over refusal to sign.

[Webstral]

Swaghauler, your comments on the judiciary are well-written. The idea of the well-educated guiding and presiding over the mob fits well with the outlook of many of the Founding Fathers, as outlined above by Raellus. I agree as well that the size and power of the US military would distress those Founding Fathers who were constitutionally opposed (pun intended) to a large professional force. The Constitution is a remarkable document. I wonder if its like could emerge today. Its always a pleasure to read commentary that is thoughtful and informed from both of you gentlemen.

As an aside, I recommend all thinking Americans read oeAmerican Nations by Colin Woodard. Seen as men of Tidewater, the American oenation covering eastern Virginia, eastern North Carolina, southern Delaware, and a slice of Maryland, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson make much more sense.

We should bear in mind that many of the Founding Fathers were classically educated men. Greece and Rome were not contemporary, but men like Washington and Jefferson knew the dynamics of Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism as well as anyone of the day reasonably could be expected to know them. Distrust of the masses was part of their Tidewaterish cultural heritage. Knowledge of Athenian democracy would have reinforced their distrust of democracy. At the same time, their understanding of how the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire would have reinforced their mistrust of standing armies based on the conduct of George III.

I must respectfully disagree with the characterization of the Second Amendment as a oestates right, based on or independently of my commentary. Clearly, individuals are guaranteed access to military grade small arms. Said guarantee is made with specific limitations and for a stated purpose. Limitations exist for all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. For instance, the definition of oeunreasonable search and seizure is left to the courts. If one were so inclined, one could argue that this is a states right to search and/or seize as long as a warrant gets issued first by a friendly judge. I dont take this view, but Im aware that a certain persuasion of libertarian sometimes advances this thesis. The First Amendment may guarantee free speech, but it doesnt protect the right to stand in the town square screaming obscenities at 3:00am, even if the screamer occasionally throws in political commentary. The State may not restrict freedom of worship, but it can intervene when those worshipping freely are on the verge of sacrificing a virgin to Baal (for instance) even if all the participants are consenting adults. While some individual liberty advocates may argue that any limitations or conditions imposed on a right represent a tyrannical nullification of that right, the unhappy fact is that every right comes with certain operant conditions. No right in the Bill of Rights translates into oeDo what you want, when you want, how you want. Of course, no one here is going to argue in favor of unlimited license. I raise the point because conditions on an individual right, even when associated with responsibilities to the state as a condition of exercising that right, do not transform said individual liberty into a states right.

Again, I have to agree that the US Constitution is a remarkable document. When one reads what kind of wrangling went into producing it, the quality of the finished product becomes even more astonishing. I wonder if this document would not have been produced in its original incarnation without the tensions between the constituent oenations underlying the representation from the various states.

[Rainbow Six]

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

A minor piece of trivia, but the English Civil War also defined the English Army as being under the control of Parliament not the Crown. That in turn passed onto the British Army following the Act of Union between Scotland and England in 1707 as a result of which whilst we have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force we do not have a Royal Army - the Army is only known as the British Army (although some Regiments and Corps have Royal in their title, e.g. the Royal Artillery).

[Webstral]

In case I dont say it often enough, gentlemen, your feedback is invaluable. You guys are awesome beta testers. Every disagreement obliges me to find a different way of connecting the dots of my position, which makes me think of saying things in a better way.

The Founding Fathers created a federal republic. They did not create a monarchy, an autocracy, or a democracy. Those among them who participated in combat operations waged war for 8 years to create the opportunity to build a republic. Generally they seem to have believed that they were freeing themselves from tyranny. Generally they seem to have believed that future Americans might also need to free themselves from tyranny. To these men, tyranny could have been Athenian democracy, which would have seemed half-reformed mob rule to the Founding Fathers. Tyranny could have been autocracy under its various forms.


Men who had fought, sacrificed, and risked their futures in order to establish a republic would hardly be expected to equip future would-be rebels (through the Second Amendment) to overthrow the republic. By the same token, the Founding Fathers cant be imagined as supporters of the idea that in the process of overthrowing tyranny future would-be patriot revolutionaries would establish a new non-republic form of government. They viewed autocracy as tyranny and democracy as tyranny. How can we imagine that they would endorse revolution against tyranny to establish a different type of tyranny In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, the purpose of a legitimate Second American Revolution, waged to secure the rights and liberties of the people as recognized by the Constitution of the republic established following the First American Revolution, would be reestablishment of a republic recognizing the same rights and liberties with a similar if not identical structure.


It follows then that a new republic, mirroring the old pre-despotic republic, would be an end derived from the means employed to revive it. Unrecognizant gunmen roaming the countryside imposing their will on a hapless citizenry is not a promising seed for the rebirth of a republic. Its not impossible for a republic to emerge from such origins. Doubtless many advocates of the Red Dawn scenario fancy themselves ardent patriots. Yet their method"deriving their authority from possession of the means of violence and not the will of the body politic"surely would contaminate the end product. While it is possible that a strong and highly principled leader would come to power over a band of gunman operating in opposition to a despotic American State, the commitment of such a warlord to republican principles is far from assured. While we might imagine that a conglomeration of such warlords might yield a supreme leader committed to republican principles, this idea seems more hopeful than sober and pragmatic. The longer a war of popular liberation"for all intents and purposes a guerilla conflict similar to that waged by Mao or Castro"goes on, the greater the likelihood of mantle of republicanism slipping from the shoulders of the guerillas. If this be the only way for the nation to throw off the yoek of tyranny, the Founding Fathers probably would prefer this mode of revolution to no revolution. But their preferred choice would be a revolution that promptly restores American rights, liberties, and governance.


The most promising modality of armed revolution in regards to reestablishing the republic is the militia. Organized, trained, and disciplined citizen-soldiers operating together because the abuses of tyranny have compelled the electorate of the various states to act through their state elected officials en masse are far more likely to deliver a coup de main against the powerful federal forces than masses of anonymous civilians with guns. Without organization, training, discipline, supply, or anything approaching a master plan, a mass of armed civilians is very, very highly unlikely to deal a death blow to a despotic regime in control of the federal government and its military machine. Instead, millions of armed Whoppers will be subject to prompt annihilation wherever the federal government chooses to strike. Just as our politics and petty rivalries divide us today, so Whoppers will be divided into infinite factions"even if they can manage a more-or-less mass spontaneous uprising. Coordination of their activities would be all but impossible. Their mass would be meaningless without unity of command. Prompt efforts at cooption and amnesty by the despotic government would bleed the disorganized Whoppers of their manpower in short order. Without proper organization, training, and discipline, Whoppers would turn to settling local scores as always happens when the social contract breaks abruptly and violently.


Accustomed to operating under the command of the state chief executive through his chain of command, the militia can have its activities coordinated. Its challenges of logistics can be thought through ahead of time and on a scale to be militarily useful. Most importantly, the militia fights as a part of a system whose vitality and authority originate in the electorate. They are the troops of the little republics that are the various states. Armed revolution by these men is so much more likely to yield a restored American republic that it is silly to imagine that the Founding Fathers would have preferred armed revolution in any other way.

[pmulcahy11b]

A minor piece of trivia, but the English Civil War also defined the English Army as being under the control of Parliament not the Crown. That in turn passed onto the British Army following the Act of Union between Scotland and England in 1707 as a result of which whilst we have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force we do not have a Royal Army - the Army is only known as the British Army (although some Regiments and Corps have Royal in their title, e.g. the Royal Artillery).

I've always wondered why it was British Army and not Royal Army -- thanks for the explanation. (And I'm a history BA, no less! Embarrassing...)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

--snip--
It follows then that a new republic, mirroring the old pre-despotic republic, would be an end derived from the means employed to revive it. Unrecognizant gunmen roaming the countryside imposing their will on a hapless citizenry is not a promising seed for the rebirth of a republic. Its not impossible for a republic to emerge from such origins. Doubtless many advocates of the Red Dawn scenario fancy themselves ardent patriots. Yet their method"deriving their authority from possession of the means of violence and not the will of the body politic"surely would contaminate the end product. While it is possible that a strong and highly principled leader would come to power over a band of gunman operating in opposition to a despotic American State, the commitment of such a warlord to republican principles is far from assured. While we might imagine that a conglomeration of such warlords might yield a supreme leader committed to republican principles, this idea seems more hopeful than sober and pragmatic.
--snip--

The first thing that struck me as I was reading this, is this is probably the way New America was born.

[swaghauler]

That's not entirely accurate. Great Britain may have had a king, but it was also, to a large degree, a republic. The king's power was limited by English law (going back all the way to the Magna Carta in 1215). England had an elected law-making body (the House of Commons). English subjects had rights guaranteed by law (i.e. the English Bill of Rights, 1689). The English Civil War established the primacy of the Parliamentary system. By 1776, the English monarch, although political more powerful than today, was essentially a figurehead.

One of the reasons the American colonists rebelled is because they believed- rightly so- that their constitutional rights as Englishmen were being violated. The main reason was that, unlike other Englishmen, they had no direct representation in Parliament, hence the rallying cry "no taxation without representation". The idea that the colonists came up with democracy out of thin air is, unfortunately, a myth.

The rebellious colonists focused their criticism of this system on the king, since monarchy during and after the Enlightenment was associated with tyranny. This was a canny political move designed to garner the support of the Whigs in the British Parliament, while not alienating their English brethren in the Isles.

Once again, the whole "democratic colonists rebelling against British monarchical tyranny" is not entirely the case. The Founders had a much more recent (than classical Athens and early Rome) example of constitutional government to look at: their mother country, Great Britain.

You do not have a Republic until all of your leaders are elected. This is not an indictment of the British Empire. It simply explains my earlier statement about Republics. The Founding Fathers could not go to "Country X" and ask them; "How's that Republic thing working out for you" Reading about or imagining something is VERY different from doing it. The British EMPIRE was not yet a "Republic." It was an evolving Oligarchy (which is an unusual and interesting event in and of itself). I agree that the Founding Fathers probably did use British Documents to write the Constitution. There were a couple of big differences between your documents and the Constitution. In your English bill of rights; you secured your rights from the Monarchy like you would with a contract. The Constitution outlines rights which are "The Natural Rights" of all men, and do not "derive" from an agreement with Government. If Government were to violate an individuals right's; the individual can go to the Judiciary for redress. I cannot even envision someone in England suing King George III. This is important in so much as it allowed certain classes of people (African-Americans and Women) to "seek redress" for a violation of those rights later in our country's history (over the VEHEMENT objections of certain people both in and out of Government). English rights did not include certain classes of people (Catholics) and there really was no mechanism in your Bill of Rights for the "affected Parties" to seek redress. In the Constitution, The Judiciary was conceived as a mechanism for individuals to seek "redress" against the Government or each other. It is this aspect (and other mechanisms in the various articles) that make The Constitution a "living document." A living document is one that can be changed or modified over time without changing it's fundamental meaning. Most rule books are living documents. The English documents are not entirely living documents because they include no mechanism for modifying the document without a complete "rewrite" possibly bringing the new document into conflict with existing law. While you could write new documents with more refined rights (thus leaving the older document intact); This newer document could then come into conflict with the older document in accordance with your national laws. This is one of the most important features of the Constitution. When a law comes into conflict with it, the Judiciary hears a case and either rules that law "Unconstitutional," or the Constitution becomes "modified" by the newer law without changing a significant amount of its original intent. A "nonliving document" (a closed or unmodifiable document like a contract) may be rendered "void" if it is found to be "in violation" of a law.

However, a "living document" can only be created by a consensus and can be "undone" by either excessive physical force against the document's founders (the reason Great Britain was not a Republic-King George HAD to sign all laws) or by "apathy" from the governed. Unfortunately, I don't believe that we could write as elegant a document today. To give fair credit where it is in fact due; the English Documents were elegantly written "contracts" between the populace and the monarchy. I just don't see them as "living documents" because they didn't include a proper mechanism for redress against the monarchy in their writings.

My writings about The Second Amendment were general in nature. They were not "aimed" at anyone in this forum and used to illustrate why I believe The Supreme Court ruled it to be an individual right in the recent court cases. This also shows the "power" of the check that the Judiciary wields. Hundreds of laws were rendered "Unconstitutional" with a single ruling. This is also an example of a living document and how it can affect a Government.

Unfortunately; I see our Republic quickly becoming an Oligarchy controlled by individuals who "buy votes" not in the best interest of the Republic from corrupt Government officials. The power of "Public Opinion" which opposed this power is slowly being replaced by public apathy. This could easily come back to haunt us if those individual "power brokers" inadvertently start us down the road to WWIII.