🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael T Shinn wrote:
> 
> <3366211C.72D2AD7F@clark.net> <3366332a.12703712@news.gmu.edu><5k5guu$s7s@portal.gmu.edu> <33667a92.1160658@news.gmu.edu> Organization:
> George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Distribution:
> 
> John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
> : %: Frankly, whether I agree or not with your politics, you have the right
> : to do
> : %: whatever you please, as long as it is accord with the US Constitution.
> : Armed
> : %: insurrection will get me and a lot of like-minded fellows in uniform out
> : hunting
> : %: you down.
> : %
> : %Posse Commitatus.  No you won't.
> 
> : Funny, I thought that was what happened to the last violent insurrection.
> : Seem
> : to recall something about the US Army expanding to it's largest size up until
> : that time (primarily by Federalizing militia regiments) and hunting down a
> : pack
> : of insurgents known as the Army of Northern Virginia.  I could swear they
> : mentioned it in history class somewhere. . . And of course my batallion was
> : one
> : of the huntees.
> 
> Yep, except that my friend was a declared War.  Still doesn't change the
> fact that the Army doesn't the legal authority to go hunting down American
> Citizens.  Hate to rain on your parade, but you'd need a clearly defined
> state of war to do that again, and in the Case of the Civil War you had a
> defined and declared WAR.  American Citizens have a constitutional right
> to safe in homes from the Army.  The Army does *not* have power to police,
> and that includes hunting down American citizens.

Yes, and though I cannot find the citation, it seems to me that _posse
comitatus_ was passed after the WBTS.

> 
> : And the annual civil disturbance training is mandated for a reason.  And the
> : reason I got told was that when civil authorities loose control of an area,
> : they call for National Guard backup.  Are you going to suggest that's not
> : what would happen in case of armed rebellion?
> 
> Not at all, but whos to say the armed rebellion wouldn't be against a
> tyrannical federal government?  Its not like history isn't full of such
> things happening.  But if you recall your CD training you don't have
> police powers - you defer to the LOCAL authorities.  Only in extreme cases
> of martial law do you have the latitude to not defer, and even then you
> are constatly operating under the constraint of: These are AMERICAN
> CITIZENS NOT THE ENEMY.

Thank GOD someone had the nerve to stand up and say that. I for one am
sick and tired of people bending over backwards to tell American
Citizens that they had better cower before the might of the US Military
like the Russians under the KGB. I only wish I thought for a minute that
most of the military remembered they are intended to keep the borders
secure or carry out the national will _ABROAD_.

> 
> I have no doubts where the US Military will take sides, if the Oath we all
> took is any indicator, we should be standing with the constitution FIRST.

Absolutely and with no arguments whatsoever. In fact if there is a
single reason to frag your lieutenent stateside, that is it - him giving
an order to execute Americans, or any order that is clearly prefatory to
such an action. Leave that sort of thing up to the BATF.

> So if that armed insurrection were to overthrow a government which was
> trashing the constitution, I hope it would be lead by the defenders of
> that piece of paper.

Sorry, I think that the military may be sufficiently restructured that
most soldiers would, like "good germans" simply follow orders if given
the appropriate pep-talk first.

It is essential that the public retain the means to at least convey
their displeasure at the notion of the military being turned against
them. While they might get the shit stomped out of them for expressing
their displeasure, still if you only have a pop-gun or molotov-cocktail
against artillery, it's better than only having harsh language as a
resort. Cause a "good german" soldier has got his ears all full of that
pep-talk, and he can't hear your harsh language.

> 
> : %And so do the state Police, so does that make them a militia?
> 
> : Your point was that the Guard doesn't fulfill that mission.
> 
> No, my argument was that the guard is not "THE Militia" <- Your words, not
> mine.  Which logically to me makes no sense, for several reasons which
> I've outlined - not the least of which is that Guard didn't come into
> being until 1903 - and for 400 years the term "well regulated militia" has
> meant THE PEOPLE, with PRIVATELY (not federally) owned weapons, led by
> officers chosen by THEMSELVES, not the federal government.  Therefore, the
> guard is NOT THE militia.
> 
> "The militia of the United States" is defined under federal law to include
> ALL able bodied males and females (10 USC 311;32 USC 313).  So your
> statement that the guard is THE militia is not only semmantically wrong
> within the context of the law, but its patently and arrogantly misleading.
> 
> Further, since the Guard is subject to ABSOLUTE federal control (Supreme
> Court, Perpich v. Dept. of Defense) it is thus not the militia envisoned
> by the Framers of the constitution (George Mason).  Its part of the
> federal army.
> 
> Finally, the term "the people" in the constitution has been ruled by the
> Supreme Court to have the same meaning in the Second amendment as it does
> in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth amendments - these are individual
> rights, NOT collective rights. (US v. Cruikshank 1876), PResser v.
> Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), US v. Miller (1939) and US v.
> Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).  The Court said, the term "The people" refers
> throughout the constitution to all persons in our national community, so
> the contention that Guard is the militia is further debunked.
> 
> Therefore, its been my argument all along that the Guard is not the
> militia.  The Militia is the people, all of them, lead by themselves,
> armed by themselves and not answering to an absolute federal authority.

Absolutely. I realize that the Declaration of Independence hasn't the
force of law attaining to the Constitution, but "... to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power
from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and institute new Government, laying the
foundation on such principles and organizing such powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The point being that is is we the people who are the legitimate source
of Federal power. We empower them. They do not empower us nor has the
Federal Government the right to attempt to remove from us the source of
our empowerment. Thus, we have every right to assemble, and we have the
right to keep and bear arms, and we have every right and indeed duty to
regularly combine those to rights in the maintenance of a well-regulated
militia which is of by and for the people, lest _that_ form of
government vanish from this nation.

> 
> M. Shinn

-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
------ � copr 1997 TJH Internet SP all rights reserved  ------------
Usually I work within the system when it's not trying to get me killed.