OT: Seriously????

[CDAT]

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

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

...
snip

So from my experience (three sand box tours of about a year and half each, bit more than eight years as federal police officer, ten years on fire department) Yes most of is guess work, if you can find it the testing that they did in 1910 on pistol cartridges is interesting read, and not as involved but there is the new standard that the FBI put out. But yes the shot placement is the most important. There are stories of just about every round not having one round stops. For military where you can only use non-expanding bullets it is very different than law enforcement or civilian use, for with of the latter I think that a 9mm with a good hollow point is not a bad choice, but if you can not or will not use a hollow point than I say that larger is better. You may ask why you would not use a hollow point, I had a boss in the past that did not want any of his officer to carry hollow points so that if we were involved with a shooting he thought that it would look like we wanted to kill them, so he made us carry full metal jacket rounds, my next boss did a 180 on that as he was more worried about the rounds over-penetrating (something the 9mm is know for and that was what we carried). The last thing that I would say if you are going to carry a round you need to make sure that it works in your firearm, so yes this may cost some money but put a couple hundred rounds of you carry ammo through the weapon to make sure that it functions with out fail, as some are really set up only for FMJ's.

[Raellus]

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).

Perhaps not on a national level. I'm afraid we disagree as to the degree to which the British government c. 1776 could be considered a republic. Considering that only landed white males could vote in the new U.S.A., it was closer to an "evolving oligarchy" than most would like to admit. On a local level, the FF had plenty of experience with republican government. Nearly all of the colonies had elected law-making bodies, for example, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in which many of the FF served. They had direct, personal experience in "state-level" republican government, and models in empires both ancient and contemporary. My point is that they were not creating a radically new system of government in a vacuum.

[CDAT]

Perhaps not on a national level. I'm afraid we disagree as to the degree to which the British government c. 1776 could be considered a republic. Considering that only landed white males could vote in the new U.S.A., it was closer to an "evolving oligarchy" than most would like to admit. On a local level, the FF had plenty of experience with republican government. Nearly all of the colonies had elected law-making bodies, for example, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in which many of the FF served. They had direct, personal experience in "state-level" republican government, and models in empires both ancient and contemporary. My point is that they were not creating a radically new system of government in a vacuum.

Now I may be wrong on this but as I understand it you could also look at from a different way, that being only landed white males had to pay taxes. My understanding is that at the start the only (federal) tax was property tax and if you did not pay it, you did not vote.

[swaghauler]

Perhaps not on a national level. I'm afraid we disagree as to the degree to which the British government c. 1776 could be considered a republic. Considering that only landed white males could vote in the new U.S.A., it was closer to an "evolving oligarchy" than most would like to admit. On a local level, the FF had plenty of experience with republican government. Nearly all of the colonies had elected law-making bodies, for example, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in which many of the FF served. They had direct, personal experience in "state-level" republican government, and models in empires both ancient and contemporary. My point is that they were not creating a radically new system of government in a vacuum.

I never said that the Founding Fathers created the Constitution in a vacuum. Nor was that my intention. My point was that there was no true living Republic to examine or ask guidance from. The examples you put forth still cannot be called Republics because there was no method of "Redress" for the Colonists (or they would have taken it and not rebelled). As CDAT pointed out, you had to pay property taxes to vote initially. This was challenged and changed in the Constitution during the early 1800's. You know the history of Black and Women's Suffrage. These were also changed using the "Methods of Redress" originally written into the constitution. This is why I view the Constitution as a living document. My only fear today is that the apathy of the public at large will allow the concepts in the Constitution to be gutted and a great document will die "the death of a thousand cuts." We should remember what we were told at the birth of this nation; (in response to the question "what kind of government did you create for us") "A Republic sir, If you can keep it."

[Raellus]

There were other forms of taxes besides property and poll taxes in the early U.S. republic. Excise taxes and tariffs were both commonly used to generate federal revenue, and both were unpopular enough to spur rebellion (the Whiskey Rebellion in the case of the former) and talk of secession (South Carolina and the Nullification Crisis).

I wish that one of our British members would chime in regarding "methods of redress" in British government, especially during the time period in question (c. 1754-1776). I suppose I will have to dig in and do the research myself but, IIRC, there were checks and balances in the British government. But then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "methods of redress". Are you referring to the ability to amend the Constitution, or are you referring to the federal judiciary

I could be misunderstanding what you deem "methods of redress", but at times you seem to be referring to the federal judiciary. Keep in mind that its powers evolved after the ratification of the Constitution. A federal judiciary was established under Washington, by Congress, with the Judiciary Act of 1789, after the ratification of the constitution. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's greatest power, that of judicial review (i.e. the power to declare legislation unconstitutional). That didn't happen until 1803, over a decade after ratification of the USC. Only the Supreme Court, as an entity, is explicitly written into the Constitution. It's powers, and the rest of the federal judiciary, were established by law.

In terms of the franchise/suffrage, acts of Congress (i.e. laws) were the prime mover in enacting change. The judiciary didn't play much of a role in that. In fact, at times, it worked against expanding suffrage, both upholding slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford) and, later, segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson).

So that's what I don't understand. There were checks and balances in the British government, and Parliament, which, in part, was an elected legislative body, with the power to create, annul, and amend laws. To me, that's one major "method of redress".

As I said earlier, perhaps I'm just not understanding your points. I hope that I'm not coming across as oppositional or confrontational.

[swaghauler]

There were other forms of taxes besides property and poll taxes in the early U.S. republic. Excise taxes and tariffs were both commonly used to generate federal revenue, and both were unpopular enough to spur rebellion (the Whiskey Rebellion in the case of the former) and talk of secession (South Carolina and the Nullification Crisis).

I wish that one of our British members would chime in regarding "methods of redress" in British government, especially during the time period in question (c. 1754-1776). I suppose I will have to dig in and do the research myself but, IIRC, there were checks and balances in the British government. But then again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "methods of redress". Are you referring to the ability to amend the Constitution, or are you referring to the federal judiciary

I could be misunderstanding what you deem "methods of redress", but at times you seem to be referring to the federal judiciary. Keep in mind that its powers evolved after the ratification of the Constitution. A federal judiciary was established under Washington, by Congress, with the Judiciary Act of 1789, after the ratification of the constitution. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's greatest power, that of judicial review (i.e. the power to declare legislation unconstitutional). That didn't happen until 1803, over a decade after ratification of the USC. Only the Supreme Court, as an entity, is explicitly written into the Constitution. It's powers, and the rest of the federal judiciary, were established by law.

In terms of the franchise/suffrage, acts of Congress (i.e. laws) were the prime mover in enacting change. The judiciary didn't play much of a role in that. In fact, at times, it worked against expanding suffrage, both upholding slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford) and, later, segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson).

So that's what I don't understand. There were checks and balances in the British government, and Parliament, which, in part, was an elected legislative body, with the power to create, annul, and amend laws. To me, that's one major "method of redress".

As I said earlier, perhaps I'm just not understanding your points. I hope that I'm not coming across as oppositional or confrontational.

No, you don't sound Confrontational. I actually enjoy your posts in this discussion. When I refer to "Redress," I'm referring to an individual's right; not the creation of a law. The original power for "Redress" came from the articles that created The Supreme Court as established by our Constitution. The creation of the Federal courts was an "oversight" of our Constitution that was addressed in the stated act. My point about "Redress" in the US is that if an individual or group feels "slighted" by a law made by our Government; They can "sue" the Government to force a change in the law and/or seek "damages" for the improper law. If a law is found "Unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court, it is immediately rendered void by that ruling. Any similar laws would also be void as well. Could an individual (say a farmer) in the 1700's "sue" The King of England to get compensation from him, or to cause the removal of a law by legal action That's my point about the Constitution verses the English Bill of Rights. Under the English Bill of rights, The King couldn't interfere with a trial; But there is nothing that enabled a singular individual or an unprotected class (Catholics) from "suing" the King or the Government to change a law or to receive "Redress" for the King's/Government's conduct. This is the difference I have been trying to point out. The Constitution is written to empower individuals, not just a class of people. That is the primary "evolution" of the Constitution verses earlier documents.

[Targan]

I wish that one of our British members would chime in regarding "methods of redress" in British government, especially during the time period in question (c. 1754-1776).

I'm not a Brit, sorry But I would point you in the direction of the Magna Carta (the 1215 version and it's many amended versions), that was an important early document in the evolution of English Common Law. Of particular interest in this discussion is the section in the above wiki article titled Use in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States.

Also worth a look is the Bill of Rights 1689.

[stormlion1]

There were a few attempts on the part of parliament to address issues in the American Colonys, most of which were window dressing on huge bleeding sores and actually would of done nothing so were shot down by the representatives sent. Other representatives that were sent (The Colonys had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.) actually had orders to shoot down any concessions Parliament made because they wanted to paint the Brits in a bad light.

Just so you know, most of these representatives were from New England.

[swaghauler]

There were a few attempts on the part of parliament to address issues in the American Colonys, most of which were window dressing on huge bleeding sores and actually would of done nothing so were shot down by the representatives sent. Other representatives that were sent (The Colonys had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.) actually had orders to shoot down any concessions Parliament made because they wanted to paint the Brits in a bad light.

Just so you know, most of these representatives were from New England.

This wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure we did our fair share of "agitating."

[unkated]

Here you hit upon a main problem about redress:

The Colonies had no permanent representation, they had the right though to send a embassy to petition parliament though.

This is the center of that "no taxation without representation" stuff. There was no seat for the "Borough of Boston", Massachusetts Bay colony, New York, Virginia, etc.

There was no one who could stand in the midst of legislative body (Parliament) and speak for and VOTE for the interests of those British citizens living in the colonies.

So, at least from the view of those living in the colonies, they certainly were not served by a British republic.

I will remind our readership that particularly at the time, who actually got to vote for their Member of Parliament varied widely across England; in many (non-urban) districts, a few wealthy landholders selected among themselves; in more urban settings, the vote was still rather limited.

I'll suggest that at the time, England considered herself a Monarchy, with the King wielding some actual power, and the Prime Minister performing the bulk of the heavy lifting.

However, the American Revolution gets sticky for other reasons. Recall that initially, it was a confederation of states (the former colonies) with only weak
central ties. The problems with that led to the Constitution; it's initial shortcomings led to the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment...

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - W. Churchill, House of Commons, 1947

Uncle Ted

[stormlion1]

One of the biggest loyalist for the crown had been Benjamin Franklin. He had also been a good friend to many in parliament who did speak up on occasion for the colony's. The issue is the King (who Franklin expected to be given a reward for his service) had no interest in the Colony's as anything other than a tax base and Parliament only wanted the minimal effort in the colony's so they could be a tax base. Ben Franklin hadn't been to thrilled about his lack of reward from the Crown and did a one-eighty on his views. To the detriment of the British. Because the French loved him.

[Raellus]

The issue is the King (who Franklin expected to be given a reward for his service) had no interest in the Colony's as anything other than a tax base and Parliament only wanted the minimal effort in the colony's so they could be a tax base.

And for all of the other reasons European powers wanted overseas colonies- cheap/free raw materials, mercantilism, and to counter the imperial expansion of continental rivals. That's quite a long list.

-

[simonmark6]

Right to redress

Hoping not to offend our American posters, please dial irony meters up as far as they go.

I haven't weighed in on this so far as I am really no expert whatsoever but I have always been of the opinion that the American Revolution was totally and utterly legal and justified by British Law. I know that probably makes you feel less guilty about it all so I'm happy to say that...Like you needed permission to take your own country.

However, I'm referring to Article 61 of the Magna Carta. The article refers to the right of redress enshrined in our Laws since that time. I'm paraphrasing horribly here: it refers to the fact that any person who feels that the authority of the King or Government is infringing on their personal right to freedom of liberty, property, religious freedom or freedom of thought has the right to redress: an effective sueing of the state for said redress. It also enshrines the right to rebel against the Crown or said authority if the individual deems that their request for redress have been ignored. This includes seizing the Crown's property and armed rebellion. The only thing proscribed is physical harm to the Monarch or their immediate family.

This seems similar to the Fifth Amendment and indeed may be a lift from the original article in the Magna Carta.

Therefore, the Founding Fathers exercised their right to redress by declaring "No taxation without representation" and when these concerns were ignored or insufficiently redressed, they were practically required by law to revolt against the tyranny and establish a state where they were allowed to be free in the way they considered right.

Most of the time though, it never gets this far because Common Law relies on precedence and interpretation of an independent Judiciary which whilst it isn't perfect, tends to work on the principal that it is better to let an unlimited number of guilty people free rather than oppress a single innocent one. Most of the time this muddling along seems to work, and for those times when they aren't, Article 61 is whipped out.

Whether this works or not is a matter of opinion. I think it does but it is only as strong as the people in the system. There again, show me a system, even the American one, that isn't.

As to the Question if anyone ever sued King George for redress I'd give you this example: A group of colonists sought redress for taxation that they felt was unfair and believed that they were not given this redress, they therefore took up their right enshrined in English Law to rebel against the Crown until that redress either came or they freed themselves from tyranny. These people were rebels but rebellion is enshrined in English Law so the system was working as planned.
Hope that this helps somewhat and that it isn't too controversial.

[Webstral]

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

How interesting that New America came up! New America was in the back of my mind, too. They are the penultimate so-called Constitutional militia. (Going forward, Im going to abbreviate oeso-called Constitutional militia as CONMIL.) Although New America is fictional, they provide us with a window on the problem of CONMIL in particular and the idea that the government is obliged to guarantee access to military grade small arms so that citizenry can make up their own minds how to employ violence without any reference to the body politic.


New America uses their Second Amendment rights (as commonly interpreted) to purchase military grade small arms. Once things fall apart, they use their firearms to rebuild the United States in their own image. And theres the problem. New America deliberately does not recreate the Constitution-based federal republic within their own sphere. If they conquer the whole country, the previous republic is a dead letter. Racism run amok will be the order of the day. The law will serve an elite handful. Slavery will return, albeit in the form of the Elsies.

So one has to ask if the Second Amendment is serving its intended purpose if the Amendment is equipping a private army which exists to create a racist autocracy. New America is fictional, but CONMIL are not. Whatever ideas the CONMIL may have about the republic or individual liberties, they are contrary to the spirit of the republic if the CONMIL operates independently of the electorate.

[swaghauler]

Hoping not to offend our American posters, please dial irony meters up as far as they go.

I haven't weighed in on this so far as I am really no expert whatsoever but I have always been of the opinion that the American Revolution was totally and utterly legal and justified by British Law. I know that probably makes you feel less guilty about it all so I'm happy to say that...Like you needed permission to take your own country.

However, I'm referring to Article 61 of the Magna Carta. The article refers to the right of redress enshrined in our Laws since that time. I'm paraphrasing horribly here: it refers to the fact that any person who feels that the authority of the King or Government is infringing on their personal right to freedom of liberty, property, religious freedom or freedom of thought has the right to redress: an effective sueing of the state for said redress. It also enshrines the right to rebel against the Crown or said authority if the individual deems that their request for redress have been ignored. This includes seizing the Crown's property and armed rebellion. The only thing proscribed is physical harm to the Monarch or their immediate family.

This seems similar to the Fifth Amendment and indeed may be a lift from the original article in the Magna Carta.

Therefore, the Founding Fathers exercised their right to redress by declaring "No taxation without representation" and when these concerns were ignored or insufficiently redressed, they were practically required by law to revolt against the tyranny and establish a state where they were allowed to be free in the way they considered right.

Most of the time though, it never gets this far because Common Law relies on precedence and interpretation of an independent Judiciary which whilst it isn't perfect, tends to work on the principal that it is better to let an unlimited number of guilty people free rather than oppress a single innocent one. Most of the time this muddling along seems to work, and for those times when they aren't, Article 61 is whipped out.

Whether this works or not is a matter of opinion. I think it does but it is only as strong as the people in the system. There again, show me a system, even the American one, that isn't.

As to the Question if anyone ever sued King George for redress I'd give you this example: A group of colonists sought redress for taxation that they felt was unfair and believed that they were not given this redress, they therefore took up their right enshrined in English Law to rebel against the Crown until that redress either came or they freed themselves from tyranny. These people were rebels but rebellion is enshrined in English Law so the system was working as planned.
Hope that this helps somewhat and that it isn't too controversial.

Very nice post. I have learned more than a couple of things during this "swerve" in the basic thread. This History lesson has pushed my Political Science (law/civics) education to the limits. My professors would "touch on some of these arguments" but most were fairly loose with history. They tended to focus more on modern law (probably because most of us were also attending the Police Academy at that time).