OT: Seriously????

[swaghauler]

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.

The singularly most dangerous group I personally ever dealt with during my career were a group known as The Sovereign Citizens. They were known for attacking members of Law Enforcement at the drop of a hat. The problem was that they "invited" interaction with us by putting HAND WRITTEN license plates on their vehicles, driving without licenses, and doing other things to "demonstrate" their status as a "Sovereign State unto themselves." If these guys were the basis for New America; The post war future would be bloody indeed.

[unkated]

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.

<snip>

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.

The problem, of course, is that while English Law may grant the right to rebel as a form of redress (and the philosophy of using a 'well-ordered' militia as a counter-weight to the military might of a tyrannical central government in the United States), it does not preclude punishment for those who rebel, rightly or wrongly.

From Watt Tyler forward, rebels against the Crown, once caught, are treated as criminals - imprisoned, transported, and/or executed, with their goods and property forfeit to the Crown (or to Parliament during the Interregnum).

So, rebellion against the Crown, or against the US Government (or any sovereign governing body I have heard of, from Pharaoh forward), is only unpunished if you win. :-)

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Article 61 of the Magna carta

Magna Carta Article 61

Hmmm. Actually, (and please correct me if I am wrong), it seems to say that you need to take your complaint to a body of some 25 Barons, and if they say your reasons are legitimate, and the Crown or its Justiciary has not offered redress within 40 days, then you may rebel - but only under the leadership of these Barons, or a subset of at least 4 of them.

Hmm But if you don't convince these Barons that your cause is just enough to require redress, you appear to be scrod (a New England past tense form).

Oh, and you have to give all crown property back after the rebellion, once the grievances have been redressed.

It could make for an interesting alt-fiction 18th century court-room drama:

Peoples of the United Colonies vs. King George & Prime Minister Lord North, tried before the House of Lords (at least 25 Barons attending...)

• subplots involving trying to remove some of the Barons from London on one pretext or another by the Crown
• the colonists are trying various offerings moral or immoral on various barons ('this is called "corn whiskey"...'; 'well, this stuff grows like tobacco, but tastes a bit different. has a remarkable effect on one's mind...'; 'how about 10,000 acres of land granted in Kentucky')
• months of argument about the various other titles vs "Baron"
• John Adams as an extremely combative attorney representing the United Colonies (Franklin: "No, John, I don't think you should deliver our closing statement. You're obnoxious and disliked at this juncture. Perhaps Mr. Lee of Virginia could read it out to them...")

Hmmm. Perhaps I should not stay up to watch 1776 at 1 in the morning...

Uncle Ted

[simonmark6]

By the time of the Revolution, the Barons had been replaced by the Courts. That didn't preclude the Courts from being corrupt of course and much of the development of civil liberties in the UK came from principled men and women who refused to bend to said corruption.

In this way, the Magna Carta has become a series of guiding principles rather than specific laws. gain, that doesn't mean that English Law id right and American wrong or that I have an opinion that one is intrinsically better than another. There was however a specific method of gaining redress through the courts and Parliament. Whether it worked or not was another matter but that would be the same in any country where the method of redress is held in the hands of the power brokers.

[Raellus]

Hmm But if you don't convince these Barons that your cause is just enough to require redress, you appear to be scrod (a New England past tense form).

But the same holds true of the United States' federal court system. Just ask Dred Scott and Homer Plessy. In the case of the former, the Supreme Court ruled that he couldn't sue or even testify in court because he wasn't a citizen (by virtue of his status as a slave). They compounded this by declaring him to be the personal property of his owner, thereby upholding slavery, on principle and in practice, not only in the states, but in the territories as well. Yeah, so just having a system of redress doesn't guarantee that justice will be done.

[simonmark6]

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. When researching my post I read teh following leture. It is dated and for me too self-congratulatory, but one of its conclusions I thinks sums British Justice up (or what it used to be, don't get me started on what it is today)

https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/schoolofhumanitiesandsocialsciences/law/pdfs/Freedom_Under_the_Law_1.pdf

In making these comparisons, we no doubt think
our system is better but we ought always to remember
that it is the system which suits the temperament of
our people. It would not necessarily be the best
system for other peoples. Remember that the jury
system has proved a failure in France. But one thing
is quite clear.
The system which has been built up
by our forefathers over the last 1000 years suits our
people because it is the best guarantee of our freedoms.
The fundamental safeguards have been established,
not so much by lawyers as by the common people of
England, by the unknown juryman who in 1367 said
he would rather die in prison than give a verdict
against his conscience, by Richard Chambers who in
1629 declared that never till death would he
acknowledge the sentence of the Star Chamber, by
Edmund Bushell and his eleven fellow-jurors who in
1670 went to prison rather than find the Quakers
guilty, by the jurors who acquitted the printer of the
Letters of Junius, and by a host of others. These
are the men who have bequeathed to us the heritage
of freedom. It is their spirit which William
Wordsworth interpreted so finely when he wrote :"
' We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake ; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held : In everything we are sprung
of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.'

[unkated]

Yeah, so just having a system of redress doesn't guarantee that justice will be done.

That wasn't the point. The question was the legality of rebellion against the English Crown in the event of the failure of redress from the Crown.

Simon held up Article 61, that said you could seize Crown property and hold it until the King or his bailiffs provide redress. However, you cannot seize Crown property unless (and only under the leadership of) a body of Barons.

Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) said that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Political systems that allow the population to own weapons are those that trust that they are creating a happy enough society that the population that they will not rebel, and well-off (or policed) enough that banditry will not flourish.

Attempts in the United States to impose controls on weaponry - usually in an attempt to control banditry (armed crime) - are pushed back by political movements from the population decrying it as an attempt at tighter political control. Whether these are legitimate efforts against tighter political controls or disguised efforts to increase access to arms for criminal purposes is another question.

With a disorganized but armed population, it is in the interest of a government to satisfy the population that it has no need to from an organized opposition.

Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis--vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

Compare these two lists. I know that it's Wikipedia, but it was the first hit and looks pretty reasonable.

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

The list above is for civilian-owned firearms. Considering the nebulous nature of various African "armies", "militias", etc., I reckon their ratios of guns to people would be a lot higher on the list.

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

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

As an exception that proves the rule, in Mexico, gun ownership is strictly limited by law, but look at what goes on there. If every Mexican citizen was constitutionally permitted to bear arms, would the violence likely be any less I don't know. I'm looking forward to watching this doc. Perhaps it will change my mind.

http://www.vice.com/read/watch-the-trailer-for-the-sundance-award-winning-doc-cartel-land-115

[swaghauler]

I don't see legalized firearm ownership as being a "system of redress", if that's one of your arguments. I'm not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, but I don't buy into the whole "firearm ownership is a counter to tyranny" argument. What about the tyranny of gun violence There are at least a dozen countries in Africa where firearm ownership- legal or otherwise- is widespread, and those are some of the most violent, horrific, unsafe, and unstable countries in the world (Somalia, anyone). These "republics" routinely bounce from one tyrant to another and the proliferation of military-grade weaponry there means that anyone who can muster a few dozen supporters can launch a new armed rebellion/revolution/coup/putsch/liberation movement, etc. Does it really matter if these guns or uprisings are "legal" or not More or less could also be said for the so-called Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

And I'm going to go back to the Whiskey Rebellion again. Armed frontiersmen couldn't stand up to a federal army- and that was when the disparity in weapon types available to one party or the other was much smaller (i.e. the rebels had muzzle lading muskets; the federal troops had the same, plus a few canons, plus some cavalry). Heck, look at the American Civil War. One of the reasons that the South lost is because of the North's overwhelming industrial capacity. The South was confident that its citizens' gun ownership/experience and fieldcraft, vis--vis the more urbanized, less well-armed Northern citizenry, meant that the rebels would win the war. In the end, the correlation of forces was just too much for the South to withstand. In a worst-case scenario, are mobs of citizens armed with assault weapons going to be able to stop federal tyranny Assuming blanket military support, the feds can bring to bear incredible firepower (Apache gunships, Predator drones, M1 MBTs, etc.) which armed citizens are going to be hard pressed to stand against. Best case for the rebels would be a long, drawn out guerrilla war (like what's been going on in Syria for the last 3 years, or Afghanistan for over a decade). The idea that armed citizenry is a guarantee against tyranny is really a macho fantasy.

Compare these two lists. I know that it's Wikipedia, but it was the first hit and looks pretty reasonable.

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

The list above is for civilian-owned firearms. Considering the nebulous nature of various African "armies", "militias", etc., I reckon their ratios of guns to people would be a lot higher on the list.

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

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

As an exception that proves the rule, in Mexico, gun ownership is strictly limited by law, but look at what goes on there. If every Mexican citizen was constitutionally permitted to bear arms, would the violence likely be any less I don't know.

I served in Somalia (RESTORE HOPE) and I can tell you that most African Nations are not "republics." They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful enough to assume control. Before and during the collapse; the populace were generally not armed as was the tradition in all Italian colonies. The primary perpetrators of the violence were former soldiers and policemen who "took their toys with them" when the country imploded. The arms that came into the country later were provided "en mass" to the clans by Al Qaeda working in Yemen in exchange for drugs like "chault" (the pronounced "shalk" or "caulk" depending on what region your in).

Your example of the Whiskey Rebellion is a poor example because it involved a small number of PA farmers WITHOUT the support of the local populace. It should be viewed more like the incident at the Bundy Ranch a couple of years ago than an actual rebellion. Guns do prevent Tyranny because a government has to ask itself if it could survive frequent and possibly "long term" attack on it's infrastructure from well hidden "rebels/insurgents" within the population base. The US did not technically "win" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Taliban were "dispersed," but immediately "reformed" as soon as the US troop withdrawls began. This is the one "Truth" of The War on Terror; IT CAN NEVER BE WON. Like the War On Drugs, and The War On Crime; There is now way to win without completely suspending ALL RIGHTS and engaging in a genocide against anyone you even SUSPECT of being involved. There is no other way to win the war. If just one or two individuals begin to perform the activities that you were trying to eradicate; Those individuals will find someone who is sympathetic to their cause.
Without trying to sound too harsh; Your assumptions about the North during the Civil War are wrong. The North OUTGUNNED THE SOUTH in both cannon and manpower in EVERY major battle of the war. What caused the North to lose so many battles was, in two words, poor leadership. The Northern commanders would "hesitate" and give the South time to take the "high ground." The North would then be forced into making an attack on well defended positions with good "interior lines of communication and supply."
The one time the North was lucky enough to take the "high ground" and hold it until the main body of the Army could arrive (Gettysburg); The North won and the South was put on the defensive from then on. It wasn't until strong commanders like Sherman arrived on the scene that the South had truly lost the war. This does highlight a point of war. Without GOOD leadership, victory will be elusive, no matter how well equipped you are.

[simonmark6]

They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful

Hm...

[Raellus]

I don't think that it really matters that much how the guns got there, Swag. Once they're there in great quantities, they're almost impossible to get rid off. The cycle of violence in many parts of Africa has been repeating itself for the last 50-60 years; in some cases the very same weapons used in the seminal post-colonial independence movements are still being used today.

Guns do prevent Tyranny because a government has to ask itself if it could survive frequent and possibly "long term" attack on it's infrastructure from well hidden "rebels/insurgents" within the population base.

I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa There are plenty of guns there.

Without trying to sound too harsh; Your assumptions about the North during the Civil War are wrong. The North OUTGUNNED THE SOUTH in both cannon and manpower in EVERY major battle of the war.

How am I wrong when that's exactly what I said "Correlation of forces" means manpower and war-making material (existing and capacity). I clearly stated that the North enjoyed superiority in the correlation of forces. It's a perfect example. At least 1/3 of the national population, much of which was already armed (thanks, directly, to the 2nd Amendment), rebelled against, and was defeated by, the Federal Government (in only four years). The idea that 100% of the civilian population would actively support any armed rebellion is simply not realistic. If that was indeed the case, then yeah, governments wouldn't ever behave tyrannically.

[Damocles]

They are Juntas. Somalia is exactly what would happen in England (or most of Europe) if your country suddenly collapsed and there was nobody powerful

Hm...

For the record, I'd assume you guys would still have better queuing and ale.

[swaghauler]

"I don't think that it really matters that much how the guns got there, Swag. Once they're there in great quantities, they're almost impossible to get rid off. The cycle of violence in many parts of Africa has been repeating itself for the last 50-60 years; in some cases the very same weapons used in the seminal post-colonial independence movements are still being used today."

It matters because who supplies the guns determines which party (not political, just a reference) has the upper hand in the violence. Several Muslim sects got very powerful very quickly thanks to Al Qaeda. This is also important elsewhere in Africa. Boka Haram can match the new Nigerian government gun for gun. Christian's in the Central African Republic are better armed; Muslims are dying in droves there.

"I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa There are plenty of guns there."

Because there has been no clear winner. The evolution of politics in Africa works like this. Party one is very strong and takes over the country. Parties Two and Three decide, "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend" in order to prevent defeat and subsequent extinction. They defeat party one and form a new government. Someone decides the time is right for a change, and parties two and three begin fighting each other again or another party altogether. This continues because (pick one) 1). Outside forces such as Al Qaeda or The US begin/continue to meddle with the country for political reasons of their own. 2). The now ruling faction is too weak to hold the country together. 3). The now ruling faction in the country is oppressive to other factions within the country. Guns have nothing to do with the violence in Africa, politics does. In 1994 the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda by Hutu tribesmen was carried out mostly with machetes. The country was under a UN Arms Embargo and those Tutsis still died only because they were Tutsis.

"How am I wrong when that's exactly what I said "Correlation of forces" means manpower and war-making material (existing and capacity). I clearly stated that the North enjoyed superiority in the correlation of forces. It's a perfect example. At least 1/3 of the national population, much of which was already armed (thanks, directly, to the 2nd Amendment), rebelled against, and was defeated by, the Federal Government (in only four years). The idea that 100% of the civilian population would actively support any armed rebellion is simply not realistic. If that was indeed the case, then yeah, governments wouldn't ever behave tyrannically."

I'm sorry for not being clearer here. I was in a hurry as I was next to unload. You state that the Northern Army was comprised of mostly "urban dwellers with a lesser amount of firearms experience." Most of the units in the Civil War were composed of units from Maine and PA. The bulk of these soldiers were farmers who had extensive shooting experience. The New York units were at least half comprised of farmers from Western New York until later in the war. the riots in New York City really did happen just about as they were depicted in the movie The Gangs of New York.
The South was "Outgunned" (artillery), and "Outmanned" (soldiers) from day one of the war; Yet, THEY WON EVERY MAJOR ENGAGEMENT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE WAR. It was only when the Union brought in commanders like Sherman that the Union began to defeat the outnumbered South. They fought a larger and better equipped army to a standstill until the Battle of Gettysburg. If General Lee had listened to General Longstreet instead of "believing his own press" (Lee's), The Confederate States of America might still exist today. This was a very effective demonstration of a military force being outmatched but still prevailing anyway. The Union performance (at least early on) shows us that even if you have superiority in numbers and firepower; Poor leadership will often result in defeat on the battlefield. Strong Leaders often act as a "force multiplier" for military forces in the field.

[swaghauler]

For the record, I'd assume you guys would still have better queuing and ale.

LOL. This would be true until the supplies run out. What I meant by "it could happen in England and Europe" was; What would your civilian population do if your military was broken into factions and released upon the population with no government control, weapons, and a need to eat. I could see a 28 Days Later scenario occuring. How would your civilian populace stop it Most of the fighting in Africa and the Middle East is based on the need for resources. In Somalia, the warlords would force cooperation from the populace by denying them access to food and water if they didn't "tow the line" for the warlord. I remember watching members of the 2nd MEU and the 24th Mechanized Division disarming land mines that the local clan fighters would put around the wells in the Moge. they would then leave a singular path to the well unmined and collect "Tribute" from the local population for water.

[Raellus]

Guns have nothing to do with the violence in Africa, politics does.

OK, I see that we're done here. Seriously, I really enjoy an intellectually honest, thoughtful, well-informed debate. I am willing to concede when I am wrong and not argue every single point. I trust my opponents to hold to the same standards. However, I can't think of any way to respond to the above quote that isn't dismissive, snarky, or preachy, so I'll just stop right here.

Or here:

The South was "Outgunned" (artillery), and "Outmanned" (soldiers) from day one of the war; Yet, THEY WON EVERY MAJOR ENGAGEMENT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE WAR.

Dude, how do you define "MAJOR ENGAGEMENT"

Shiloh (1861) was a MAJOR ENGAGEMENT, and a Union victory. Find me a legit historian who disagrees.

http://www.americancivilwarstory.com/list-of-civil-war-battles.html

There are others as well.