Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Posse Commitatus, what do you think

...Sorry I am not schooled in how these computer keyboards work,and don't know how to make it break/space my posts into paragraphs. I try to do it by placing multiple .........between what should have been a paragraph devision....................Yes indeed laws CERTAINLY do maintain freedom ,if enforced. That is precisely why I and fellow patriots here in Georgia have suceeded in getting law passed that "prevents our state" from taking the free exercise of many of our rights from us. We suceeded in repealing the digitalized fingerprint law (the feds are now pushing bio-metric requirements for a national ID-- it's a never ending battle).........The concealed carry permits aren't a choice i'd make. Why should we need such judicial permission to exercise our 2nd ammendment right? Still, such permits are a step preferable to the prohibition of carry.............. Washington DC has PROHIBITED the pocession of handguns within the city for many years. But a couple of days ago, THANKS to ONE patriot who bucked that law,and fought all the way to the federal district court,that prohibition has been found UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The DC mayor says the city will appeal,so we'll be watching that.DCs position was that the second ammendment applied only to 'militias' like the "National Guard",the federal court rejected that arguement saying it applied to the people. You won't see that verdict featured in the mainstream media! ..............Yes Barak It should be clear, I DO believe in participating in the system. I see anarchy(sp?),or apathy,as a poor substitute for working with the law in the effort to get laws passed that limit govt intrusion in our lives........Finaly to define freedom,i'd say look to wilderness, it is in greater fullness there than we'll ever find in civilization. Of course the practical considerations of living communaly in neighborhoods,cities,states,ect. DEMANDS a governing force to deal with the protection of the group as a whole. Neither you, I, or any individual, could ever protect the decent amoung us from being plagued by crime without police and jails to house those who prey upon children,elders,women ,and the off guard amoung us.By all means our best defense is individual SELF defense,but then communal living demands a larger control and rehabilitation effort to address crime in society.All this should be self evident,we don't live like the wild animals, and civilization couldn't exsist if we did................Barak you speak as if you feel no govt would be much better for our true freedom. Well ,yes, freedom of that kind still exsists too. In the wilderness!(What is left of it) But not many,human beings are finding living in the wild a workable answer for thier families. Rather we've choosen to build this thing we call civilization.............. The passing of law,the writing of our constitution,and govt as a SERVANT, is a noble attempt to create a system to grant the advantages for our human family that civilization can offer,and yet limit it's greatest fault,that of destroying the freedom of the good and decent amoung us................To compare the efforts of hitler and his ilk with a effort to put into law a means of preserving individual rights and freedom is ludicrous. Dictators pass laws restricting the free expression of our inalienable rights, True American patriots, as modeled by our founders,pass law that LIMITS GOVT! Your comparison attempts to paint them both the same. NOT SO!............There are of course areas of compromise,it is indeed a long way back ,since we've allowed more and more big brother control in the promise of comfort and security,we've gotten into a quagmire of govt regulations that need a roll back........Barak, you don't want to see my point.That is evident when you,for example,characterize the constitutional ammendment we got passed here in Georgia that Garantees that hunting and fishing will always be allowed on public lands , as a law that insures govt control of it.......................You have no plan,no means at all offered,for people to control the destiny of freedoms expression in a civilized society. I'd rather be accussed of being hitler,i'd rather be accused as you've accused our founding fathers, and religion , of being an evil, than a do nothing,that has no more than words to resort to when the thief is at the door..............People in Georgia are today living with a greater measure of free expression,than before the efforts of a group of citizens willing to fight for freedom.I'm proud to say that our system does work,it isn't broke,so long as there are a few willing to work it! With more concerned citizens greater gains re-gaining our bill of rights could be realized, eliminating many more unconstitutional laws already on the books.................The Baraks will always seek to put down patriots as evil. I suppose because some, like his favorite example hitler, called themselves patriots,thus all patriots get smeared as to thier character.Church going folks,who try to live more GODly lives fall into sin at times. Should all religion be discarded and dismissed for those human failings? The truth is there, for those who'd see it. The names of our greatest patriots aren't written on stone alone. Thier accomplishments were so meaninful they've freed the enslaved, and forged benefits that passed on to thier children and beyond! Thier names are written in the hearts of those who cherish freedom everywhere.........................That 'patriot' Barak most likes to re-call (if indeed hitler should be called a patriot by any but those who warp it's meaning)was taken down by the valiant effort of a great many patriots!...........................................................I wish I knew how to encapsulate quotes from some of Baraks questioning posts. When he says that preserving freedom for ALL people is no more difficult than securing the white races future (securing our future isn't necessary individualy,we'll all return from whence we came),or consolidating black power(i'll leave that to the racists),or building empires, he's the one who needs to read history! The wreakage of empires lay upon the shores of historys oceans,yet these empires came and went.Empires haven't been so tough to build,there have been quite a number of them. BUT, securing freedom for all people,reguardless of race,as if ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL,Thats something civilization is still working on. I believe the founders were right when they said it'd take CONSTANT VIGILANCE!

Okay, I'll throw my 2 cents in on this conversation.


First, in the post 9/11 world we banty the word "patriot", much like the word "hero", around way too much. And as often as it's used to describe somebody who truly upholds the interest of this country it is used to describe somebody who only upholds the interests of his party, or what the latest poll says to do. And in contrast, those who argue against the current stream of movement are quickly and loudly dismissed as "unpatriotic".

Second, the Founders were some of the biggest anti-patriots in American history. The majority of them considered themselves British, yet after exhausting all legal means to right the mistreatments of the Crown and Parliment they decided to become seccessionists, rebels, and traitors. The "patriotic" thing to do in 1775 would have been to walk to your local British Rgt HQ and volunteer for service, a choice many in the colonies did make.

Finally, I would love to sit down and talk to Hamilton, Madison, and Jay; the writers of the Federalist Papers. From 1787 to 1789 they argued so vehemently and eloquently for the Constitution (a document created by a convention established to repair the Articles of Confederation, not to create a new form of government), and how this new, stronger government would be held in check by the States and the People. Yet today we find the opposite true, the rights of the People and the powers of the States are subservient to the power of the Federal Government. I would really like to hear their take on the past 220+ years and the state of our government today.

Bob

....Bob, I'd sure enjoy sitting in on that meeting with you!.......The struggle for the maintenance of individual liberty isn't so much one of Anti-govt stance but, realizing the absolute need for governing authority in civilization,one of struggle to preserve a LIMITING of govt authority,a struggle to maintain a SERVANT govt,rather than a MASTER govt........... ... Realizing that goverments natural tendency is to constantly increase control over its citizens, it takes an active populace to command control over such a tendancy.....................The great war of northern aggression (civil war*wink*) was a landmark point in our federal govt's increased control as master of it's people,and left our constitution trampled in it's wake.Of course the speed of slavery's disolution was thankfully acellerated by that war,but the resultant increase in central govt power has made us all slaves on a 'new' 'plantation'................Many people have taken the anti govt stand (like Barak)but those who realize that civilization itself requires some governing in "order to exsist",prefer to be pro-govt,govt as "servant",limited in it's power,with enforced laws preserving individual liberty to the greatest extent possible.......................Even the smaller societies of early American indian culture acknowledged the absolute need for governing in order to live together in populous groups. To condemn all govt is living in "fantasy" if any civilized society is to exsist.The American indians therefore had thier appointed leaders and counsels,which answered to the whole of it's people..................Defending goverment's exsistance ought not require much effort. It is he who lives in a fantasy world, blind to the benefit of society to himself, and to his children, who calls those who strive for "better governing" the kin of hitler,ect.ect. Such folk may sit at thier dinner table benefiting from the nourishment grown by others, kept warm by thier robes made by others,with light to see generated by others,and on and on. Yet denighing civilizations benefits, and the benefit of having govt that makes civilization itself possible............................And to barak directly, you are wrong again to claim that Christ or Gandi,simply lived for themselves using thier lives "ONLY" as the example for others to follow. On the contrary, both Christ and Gandi "spoke exaustively" to inspire others to action in living.Each left reems of advice on proper living,as guideposts for humanity. Remember,AS Christ forgave and healed others,HE also CHARGED them to "go forth and sin no more" They both modeled more GODly living to be sure,but so also did they "charge" others with the personal responsibility of taking up thier way and following them. Thiers were lives lived as "leaders",not solely "models"! In the case of Christ HE left us with a COMMAND to spread to all men, the great message of the redeemer,through personal action and word,not by living the way only for ourselves.But by ACTIVELY promoting it to others. WE are indeed ARE our brothers keeper if we care about each other as family ought.

Heh...I'm surprised that you would imply that I'm not sufficiently clear or voluble about how I think other people should run their lives. I have definite opinions, even if I'm not willing to use the mailed fist of government to enforce them.

In general, though, we both seem to be doing an awful lot of revisiting of old points. Given that, I tend to think the usefulness of the exchange is drawing naturally to its close. So...I appreciate the time and effort you put in responding to me, and thanks for your attention.

Oh--one other thing. To get paragraph divisions, just press the Enter key more than once. Twice will get you standard-size divisions; ten times will get you really wide ones. Forty times will honk everybody off.

Tanstaafl, Yes our founding fathers became rebels in relation to the king they deemed a tyrant,and in so doing became the great AMERICAN patriots we recognize them as historicaly. The form of govt they sought to create with that constitution was indeed one where the central govt' power was limited to the protection of the nation as a whole,while as you've pointed out,the states & "we the people" would keep central power subserviant to state power. It was when the Southern states began seeing the federal level issue mandates to the states, that they chose to seceed. Up till then such a right to desolve union with the central govt. was considered granted to any state accepting entry to the union of states.

So began the, so called, civil war. During the third year of the war, Lincoln declared slavery's abolition to be one of it's purposes,(up to then slavery was not an issue of the war). Lincoln was wise to do that,since it positioned the north as the champion of right,while that wicked old south was fighting to preserve slavery (actualy already passing from the scene before the war began over states rights).

The really lasting good that the war had was an acelleration of slaverys demise,but at the cost of enormous gain in central govt's control,and loss of the original constitutional govt wrought by our founders.Thus it is we find that instead of a true abolition of slavery,a new form of slavery was put in its place, which enslaved us all on the federal 'plantation'.

Still our fundamental govt form,and the supreme law of the constitution is there,it's just not followed by the feds,UNLESS WE THE PEOPLE make a federal case of it, and force them to abide,as happened during the civil rights movement.

Check out the sad state of our precious 2nd ammendment. Carry laws are everywhere, instant registration mascarading as background checks,some guns banned,with other state and local 'hoops' to clear, in many areas, before we're 'allowed' to exercise what our nations HIGHEST law garantees is an untouchable,inalienable, right granted by GOD to every law abiding citizen.Today only the state of Vermont allows freedom of possession and carry, as written in the 2nd ammendment,no licensing of a "RIGHT" as if it were a privilege.

The supreme court is in 'cahoots' with the central authorities,since they have for many years now, refused to hear a case focused directly on this aspect of the 2nd ammendment.Therefore allowing MANY unconstitutional laws to be written , settling into law,aided by their refusals of 2nd ammendment issues.

It appears that this may change soon, (MAYBE) since the DC district court just ruled that the 2nd ammendment applies to INDIVIDUAL citizens,not the national guard or state supported militias! Apparently DC will appeal on up to the supreme court. If they refuse to hear the case,the district court ruling will stand....... We'll see.

You are a man after my own heart.......but it may get you flogged on this forum. And you actually know American Revolutionary history to boot.

Casey

I'm sorry, I don't respond as quickly or often as many here, I find it much more interesting to read than post.



There are 2 issues here that I will address quickly; first, since the US was successful in seceding from Britian we get to call the Patriots whatever we want, and our government run schools will only teach us that which supports their goals. Second, although I agree with your position that secession from the US was legal, and have argued that point myself, the reality is that Constitutional scholars are still debating the issue.




The rich, white property owners that created the US had 3 chances to eliminate slavery, and failed at each opportunity. By the mid-1820's northern state interference in southern affairs, not just slavery, pushed the south to threaten secession long before the Civil War. Coupled with that the newly formed Republican Party grabbed onto abolition as a primary plank in it's platform by the mid-1850's. Then, as now, the Republican Party was more than happy to use the power of the government to enforce their version of morality on the rest of the population. (I don't want to get into a moral discussion of slavery, as I said the issue should have been decided long before 1860, but for more information I might suggest Struggle for a Vast Future.) When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation he only freed slaves in the secessionist States, those slave states that had stayed in the Union were rewarded with the maintenance of slavery. And yes, the Civil War was the tipping point in State's Rights.



The constructionist in me agrees with you completely, but the libertarian disagrees with your methodology. By working within the system to pass laws as you have done in GA all you've done is tell the government they have authority over something they should have had nothing to do with from the start. Instead you should be working to have the offending laws repealed as unconstitutional (as we all hope will happen in DC). I would never go as far as Barak, as the character Jubal Harshaw says in Heinlein's book Stranger in a Strange Land; "Government is a necessary evil", but I would like to see every US law taken to the Supreme Court to determine it's adherence to the Constitution. There will always be a few, and very few, things that government does better than the free market, or that if left to the free market will impact my freedoms negatively. Yet we must always be wary of the slippery slope, the concept that since something is good or just there should be a law, we run the risk of allowing government to believe it is doing what is in our best interest (the Patriotic thing) and eventually we end up with majority rule, the dictatorship of the masses.

Suffice to say that you are preaching to the choir, our only difference of opinion seems to be in methods to attain the end.

Bob

Dang I'm liking what you say! Although I am not sure the present school of thought in the state/fed courts and legal system will create any better view of the statutes than the legislatures/congress that created them in the first place. The court and legal system--even though many members will deny it--have too often become a rubber stamp for government policy--the only debate that exists in the courts is whether it should it be a "social conservative" Republican Party or "progressive" Democrat Party policy version of government authority. They are on parallel paths to government authority--they just use slightly different issues to get there.

Casey

...Yes Bob, I too find myself in agreement with the great portion of your thoughts. I don't see need of exchange so much as a word of encouragement. I hope you stay active and influence as many as possible to do the same!

........ It's a long way back,dumping all the standing unconstitutional laws that have been passed. So difficult to make them all a federal case,and the incredible $costs$ associated with that approach for me. WOW! you could spend 100s of millions of dollars on the gamble that the supreme court might actualy hear your case (they've refused cases bearing DIRECTLY on the 2nd ammendment garantee since 1939). The second ammendment is, and has long been, my main focus.Quite a bit on the restriction of it's free expression here in Georgia has been preserved with legislature.

........I certainly agree with going directly to the 'root',and overturning all unconstitutional law. I wish I could see a practical way to achieve that, given the limited number of patriots willing to be 'cannon fodder' these days.Really without some way to prosecute our legislators for violation of thier oath of office (pledging to protect and defend the constitution),it seems only demonstrations & rioting with big numbers might get the ball rolling a bit faster.(as with the civil rights movement).

......... Having struggled against the odds for so many years, what little progress i've made with freedoms salvation,was by the means i've recounted.There are wealthier folks than I who have tested 2nd ammendment cases,and abortion cases,but so far they've only made lawyers more wealthy. I'm praying for the day when that will change,and work for a president who'll be sucessfull in puting together THE supreme court that would make a difference.If we had "FULLY INFORMED" juries as we did in years gone by, THAT could really make a difference in overcoming unconstitutional law! But the process of requiring that the jurors be advised that they must judge the "facts" AND the "law" was eliminated years back by a supreme court ruling that it could be "assumed" that jurors knew that.Thus that instruction was removed, and juries have been the more easily manipulated since . Still Jury nullification is probobly the single greatest tool in the hands of one who gets on the jury of a pertainent case.Laws that the juries refuse to enforce,don't stay on the books!Check out the FIJA website for much more on this important fight for freedoms salvation!

Sadly the libertarian party has been less and less effective,drawing a diminishing vote since thier high,what, nearly 20 years ago now.They typicaly draw less than one percent of the vote.Doesn't look to promising there.Maybe forcing one of the parties in power to tow the line might be a better bet.

However it plays out i'm thankful you're out there,and haven't dropped out like many, who seem to have given up on America,judging from thier lack of participation,and apathy...Good fortune to you Bob,thanks for your efforts!.


...............ALSO Thanks to Barak for the info on how to make paragraphs with this computer stuff.......

Just by way of reiteration, the purpose of third parties (any third party, not just the Libertarians) is not to win elections: it's to make parties that abandon their base constituencies lose elections.


You're welcome. It's looking much better.

But Barak, there is nothing to prevent third parties, or members of third parties, to win elections (or 4th and 5th parties). Indeed, I think that is precisely what is needed at a state, and eventually--although less important--federal level. A significant minority in a state legislature I believe would have significant benefits--a entirely new kind of coalition and dynamics would emerge, I think for the better.

Casey

Alpinecrick, there is just one little thing that will stop a presidentual election from ever being carried by a third party and that is the electoral college. the popular vote means exactully zip, nada, zilch.....

Bullwnkl.

Just lurking, but can't resist posting these thoughts.

Very good discussion gentlemen, well made points, courtesy was used wisely, but the end result (for me at least) is your discussion made me think. I thank all the participants for that.

As you say, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. However, I think it's pretty unlikely. I think something like this is a bit more likely:

Election #1: The Republicans are in power. The bosses of the Republican political machine are concerned by the anti-conservative rhetoric coming from the mainstream media, and are afraid that it's going to cost them votes. So they pick somebody to run who is noticeably to the left of the constituency, hoping that they can keep the votes from the Republican base (they are, after all, the only Republican choice: what are they going to do, vote for a Democrat?) as well as stealing a few votes from the conservative edge of the Democrat base as well.

Republican pundits complain long and loud about the liberal policies of the candidate, but in the end he wins, because after all, he's the only Republican choice: what are they going to do, vote for a Democrat? The Democrats are happy, because they weren't expecting to win, but at least now they don't have to deal with a conservative.

Election #2: The Republican party bosses are happy with the results of their strategy and decide to carry it further and maybe pick up a few more Democrat votes, so they pick an even more liberal candidate this time. The conservative base complains bitterly, but the bosses pay no attention. After all, he's the only Republican choice: what are they going to do, vote for a Democrat? Plus, it worked so well last time: the liberal Republican candidate got all the standard Republican votes (what were they going to do, vote for a Democrat?), and stole a few from the Democrats as well. It stands to reason that an even more liberal candidate will steal even more Democrat votes, plus collect the same number of Republican votes. (What are they going to do, vote for a Democrat?) So there's a lot angst in the ranks about the lesser of two evils, and much loud dissatisfaction.

This time, a small third party edges slightly into the public awareness, with a candidate who is much more amenable to conservative causes than the Republican candidate. There's not much fanfare, because the bosses keep him out of all the public debates, and declare loudly that a vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat. It's not that anyone should be kept out of the political process, of course, but you see, this particular election is so vitally important to the future of the Republic itself (look how many Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the winner, for example!) that it's not the time to play around with third parties.

And in the end the even-more-liberal Republican wins, the third party gets maybe 2% of the vote, and the bosses are happy. (After all, a vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat. What were they going to do, vote for a Democrat?) And of course the liberals are happy too: everybody but the conservative base is happy.

Election #3: This time there's a bit of disagreement between the Republican bosses. Most of them want to go even further in the liberal direction, but a couple are concerned about the third party. But these concerns are pooh-poohed: a vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat. What--are they going to vote for a Democrat? Drifting liberal has been winning them a string of elections; it's a proven strategy. So they continue with it, using terms like "inclusiveness" and "big tent" and "bipartisanship."

This time, though, through talk radio and the Internet, the third party gains a much higher profile. Their candidate sits almost squarely where the old conservatives are, and says a lot of what they like to hear. There's a big fight in the Republican base between those who say, "The party has left us; this guy is getting everything right!" and those who say, "A vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat!" The bosses hear about the fight, but don't pay too much attention: they simply declare again that it's not that anyone should be kept out of the political process, of course, but this particular election is so vitally important to the future of the Republic itself that it's not the time to play around with third parties.

There's no way the third-party candidate can possibly win, because he's not well enough known, he doesn't have much of a war chest, and he's again kept out of all the debates, but this time he takes a solid 19% of the vote, most of it from the Republican base, and the Republicans disappear in a Democrat landslide. The liberals are happy, and the Republican bosses are thunderstruck. How could this have happened? they ask. Our base abandoned us!

Among the conservatives, one side of the debate says, I told you a vote for a third party was a vote for a Democrat. You voted for a third party, and we all got a Democrat. The other side says, well, there's very little real difference between this Democrat and the Republican the party was running.

Election #4: Suddenly the Republican party bosses are being very attentive to the desires of their base. They're running polls and focus groups; they understand that they can't survive in the middle, with other parties chewing away at both sides, and they want to make sure they take the conservative end of the spectrum back away from the third party this time. Their candidate choice this time is very carefully made and uncompromisingly conservative. They understand that they may not win this election, but if they're ever to win another election, they're going to have to get the conservative base back: the middle simply won't cut it.

So the third party sinks back down into obscurity, having accomplished its purpose, that of making the Republican Party conservative again. If there had been no third party, there would have been nothing to keep the party bosses from continuing to go liberaler and liberaler.

...Barak, AHH, that the libertarian party was effective in influencing the major partys. Drawing as they have,much less than one percent of the presidential vote,they've become a non factor going back to Ross Perot's era. It would lately be as effective to write in your next door neighbor! The writein vote of late could account for near equal portions of the vote count.I believe the Libertarian party could achieve better results,(particularly with the fine canidate they have today with Ron Paul )if they'd abandon thier legalization of drugs plank. Just one man's opinion of course..

That's perfectly natural. It means one or more of the following three things:

1. The Republican base doesn't like the Libertarian Party.
2. The Republican base doesn't mind the Republican Party.
3. The Republican base has been successfully snookered by the "A vote for a third party is a vote for a Democrat!" propaganda.

In any case, the people are getting exactly what they deserve, which is appropriate.

Yeah, and Christians would be a lot more socially acceptable if they'd just drop that embarrassing believing-in-God shtick. Neither's going to happen, and in both cases it's for the best.