The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

by ROB Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:06 am

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law
https://www.youtube.com/v/U5ut6yPrObw

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/U5ut6yPrObw

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law

The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.

Specific materials in this video are copyrighted and fall into 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, The Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw

The Battle of Athens

I. Introduction

On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud — forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff’s deputies — by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans’ absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state’s Constitution – Article 1, Section 26 – recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few “gun control” laws had been enacted.

II. The Setting

These Americans were Tennesseeans of McMinn County, located between Chattanooga and Knoxville, in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah.

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=173883

Battle of Athens (1946)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation.

Background
Citizens of McMinn County had long been concerned about political corruption and possible election fraud.^[1] The U.S. Department of Justice had investigated allegations of electoral fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944, but had not taken action.^[1][2] The wealthy Cantrell family essentially ruled the county.

Battle
As the polls closed, deputies seized ballot boxes and took them to the jail. Opposition veterans responded by arming themselves and marching there. Some of them had raided the National Guard Armory, obtaining arms and ammunition.^[5]

Aftermath
The recovered ballots certified the election of the five GI Non-Partisan League candidates.^[6] Among the reforms instituted was a change in the method of payment and a $5,000 salary cap for officials.

References
1. Lones Seiber (February/March 1985 Volume 36, Issue 2). "The Battle of Athens". American Heritage. http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens. Retrieved October 15, 2007.
2. "The Battle of Athens, Tennessee". Published in Guns & Ammo. October 1995, pp. 50–51. http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm. Retrieved October 15, 2007.
5. Brooks, Jennifer E. (25). "Battle of Athens". The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture. http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=43. Retrieved 17 December 2012.
6. Williams, Kate. "Riots in Tennessee". Tennessee State Library and Archives. http://www.tn.gov/tsla/exhibits/disasters/riots.htm. Retrieved 17 December 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

The United States Constitution states that “We the People of the United States, in Order to… establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”, thus affirming the truth, eloquently stated in the Declaration of Indolence, that “Governments are instituted among Men” to “secure these [Creator-endowed unalienable” rights… deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Amendment 2, United States Constitution, ratified 15 December 1791, forbids infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, as a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Well said, founding fathers.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:12 am

There are European examples of corruption in its traditional form of nepotism, even today. Several of the smaller independent States are run as a personal fiefdom of two or three established families. It's all very civilised, Foreigners simply never get a Licence to Trade there without reaching an accommodation with a local "sponsor".

by Guest Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:20 am

These patriots of Tennessee, imperfect righteous men gender inclusive, upon viewing and experiencing evil unrighteousness, took up arms to eradicate unrighteousness and advance democracy in Europe and America USV. A century before, their Tennessee ancestors, along with a few friends from “Sous Cah’line’ah”, Scotland, Eire, and a few more places, brought democracy to Texas.

The barrel of a gun, when said gun is pointed by righteous men, can bring about good.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:08 am

Some people, not confined to those of a religious persuasion, consider that the use of force, or the mere threat of such, demonstrates the flawed nature of an argument.

by Guest Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:27 am

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers 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 to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

by Guest Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:56 pm

The text:

The United States Constitution, Amendment 2, ratified 15 December 1791

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

United States Constitution, Amendment 2, exposited:

Who: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”;
What: “shall not be infringed”;
When: From 15 December 1791 onward;
Where: In the United States of America, its territories and possessions;
Why: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”;
How: Excellent question.

I believe that the pertinent issue is “how” the Second Amendment ought to be applied. As a part of the United States Constitution, and thus the supreme law of the land, the Second Amendment can neither be ignored, nor “legislated away”, nor “executive ordered away”; any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional and patently illegal.

by boatlady Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:29 pm

I'm not really sure what this thread's about, being woefully ignorant of the historical event under discussion.
There seems to be some point of principle being debated - is it the question as to whether the use of force is ever justified?

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:12 pm

" I'm not really sure what this thread's about, being woefully ignorant ..."

Oh, never mind that. It is a situation in which I find myself on just about every thread and it doesn't put me off! If I had to find a subject on which I was articulate, I would never post at all... Very Happy

by oftenwrong Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:53 pm

Me neither. Pass the Port to the LEFT.

by Shirina Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:55 am

It would seem that, for many Americans, their guns are more important than their children. After all, the 20 innocent victims of Sandy Hook have been all but forgotten in this fanatical fervor centering around gun control. There appears to be no "cooler head" on the pro-gun side. It's all so irrational and paranoid, filled with vague conspiracy theories of how and when the government is going to start kicking down doors and taking weapons. The internet is filled to bursting with posts from people just itching to shoot someone from government agents to thieves who steal so much as a pencil. This apparent desire for vigilanteism means only one thing - that anyone killed by an overzealous "guardian angel" has denied the victim one of our Constitutional rights, the right to a trial by our peers. I fail to understand why I should trust one of these gun-toting yahoos any more than I should trust the government. Most of them are right-wingers anyway, as most anti-government loons are, which means I wouldn't want the militant theocracy they would ultimately impose upon me if, by some miracle, they managed to overthrow the democratically elected government so that they may install a "generalisimo" leader to govern America.

What happened in Athens, Tennessee was a rare and isolated event and does not justify, in any way, private citizens owning military-grade weaponry. I'm not at all against private gun ownership, but where does it end? Here, in the city where I live, police pulled over a car. Inside the car, the police found a significant drug stash along with several assault weapons, and M72 LAW anti-tank weapon, and a crate of hand grenades. The local gun nuts here began posting about how the police should have confiscated the drugs but left the weapons alone. I mean ... seriously? So we want the 2nd Amendment to extend even to allowing drug dealers to haul around military weapons to use against the police? Wow, yeah, THAT will make me feel safe knowing that our police force could be rendered ineffective by criminals and gangs sporting overwhelming firepower.

The abject and unthinking fanaticism shown by our adolescent culture when it comes to guns is what places us all in danger. Civilization has striven to avoid a society where might makes right, where the rule of law is enforced by the biggest gun, and where barely trained vigilantes and modern day lynch mobs war with the common criminal.

I want to stress this point because it is often overlooked when discussiong this issue: I am NOT in favor of banning all private ownership of weapons. It's far too late for that now, anyway. What I AM against is the immaturity displayed by our youthful nation, still filled with angst and rebellion, a culture just barely responsible enough to have a .22 hunting rifle much less an M16A2 assault rifle or, God forbid, an M72 LAW anti-tank weapon. If you hear the gun nuts talk as I have, and realize just how much our existing gun laws have been rendered toothless by NRA cronies in Congress, you may think that Americans want a Mad Max society where everyone is responsible for defending their own property from gangs and criminals - a sort of low key urban warfare. Honestly? If you think that, you just might be right.

by boatlady Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:44 am

Thanks, Shirina - puts Rock's post in some sort of context for me.
This is so far removed from anything I know in my daily life that I was having a bit of a problem getting my head around it.
I'm still struggling with the notion of citizens in a civilised country even wanting to take the law into their own hands in this sort of way, and if that's the way it is where you are, I'm not entirely surprised if you sometimes feel you want to get away.
This thread is sort of about the issue of whether it's ever OK to resort to violence, which I guess is something we need to think about when we're faced with a corrupt government whose actions are against the interest of the majority of the people.
Personally, I'm always with Ghandi.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:47 pm

Now who can we think of in Government right now that might respond favourably to "Passive Resistance" from amongst the general population?

errr, or ummmm, or why not ???

by Shirina Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:22 pm

This thread is sort of about the issue of whether it's ever OK to resort to violence, which I guess is something we need to think about when we're faced with a corrupt government whose actions are against the interest of the majority of the people.

I will admit that sometimes violence is necessary in the defense of one's self, one's loved ones, or one's home. This is especially true in rural areas where the police might need to travel considerable distance to arrive at your doorstep. I even considered buying a gun when my two roommates were thinking about becoming long-haul truckers, which would leave me alone in an unfamiliar city for months at a time. However, many gun nuts here wish to extend this to using violence in the defense of one's property, as well. I am thoroughly against that. Just recently the gun nuts were praising a citizen who shot and killed someone trying to steal his car. I am against this kind of lawlessness for several reasons:

1) We all have a protected Constitutional right to a fair trial by our peers. Citizens do not have the right to usurp that right by being judge, jury, and executioner right there on the street.
2) Theft of any kind is not considered a capital offense. Even states allowing the death penalty do not execute prisoners over property theft. Therefore, why should private citizens have the right to summarily execute someone for merely stealing property?
3) In this particular case, as well as many others, the thief was not posing a threat to the vehicle owner. Using lethal force against a non-threatening opponent is immoral.
4) The thief was not inside the vehicle owner's home nor was he even on his property. The vehicle was parked on the side of a public street.
5) Last, but not least, the vehicle owner claimed he "thought the suspect had a gun." Yeah, he just thought the suspect had one. I have issues with this sort of thing because I could claim "I thought he had a gun" about anyone I see anywhere. If the laws regarding the use of lethal force become so lax that I only have to think someone has a gun in order for me to legally shoot someone, I would suggest never reaching into a pocket for any reason anywhere in public. It may be the last thing you ever do.

Yes, owning a gun is fine as long as we have laws that at least make an attempt at outlining very specific circumstances in which guns can be used against another human being. Because of the dangerous nature of guns, those laws have to be tight and stringently enforced. Instead, pro-NRA politicans have been adding amendments to bills that effectively limit just what law enforcement agencies can do in regards to gun ownership, gun sales, inventory tracking, gun ownership registration, how long lists of gun owners can be kept, and a wide variety of other gun-related activities. In addition, many states - especially in the south - are making it increasingly easier to shoot and kill someone without facing any legal consequences. Stand Your Ground laws, Castle laws, and many others are passing the responsibility of law enforcement from trained police and government agencies to inadequately trained and woefully inexperienced civilians.

Why is this happening? Primarily because America has a very active industry that sells fear and paranoia of the government to the American citizen. The entire idea is stupid prima facie. Obama, for instance, just yesterday was reaffirmed as the President of the United States. His was the 69th inauguration of an American president. Americans have been successfully transferring power from one president to the next, from one congressman to the next, in an unbroken chain for over 260 years. While there have been issues with civil rights for certain groups like blacks, women, etc., Americans have never truly known tyranny. We have never had to face an Adolf Hitler or a Joseph Stalin in the White House. We have never had a despotic king or dictator like Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot. We have never needed to wage a coup d'etat or languished under a military junta, or even suffered under an oppressive monarchy.

Yet, despite all of this, millions of Americans are convinced that our "evil" government is going to turn rogue any minute now, so we HAVE to arm as many citizens as possible. This fear is wholly irrational, a fear that has been created and perpetuated by the right-wing anti-government propaganda machine. (Of course, it will only be anti-government until a theocratic Republican conservative is elected). Even with such things as slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, and soon, gay rights, Americans always manage to do the right thing, the moral thing. It may take awhile. There might be some bumps and bruises along the way. But we always find the right path eventually.

But these gun nuts ... no, they're convinced that our government, especially Obama, is tyrannical. Because they have no conception of what true tyranny is. Most of them aren't even black or Native American or even Asians put into internment camps during WWII. No, they are mostly southern white boys who have enjoyed the privileges of their race and their gender for several centuries and are scared to death that the days of their superiority may be numbered. Nothing could symbolize this more than the two-time election of a black president which, in my opinion, is one of the root causes of this anti-government hysteria so prevalent in some circles. I think it can be summed up in one sentence said by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. In response to Obama's re-election, O'Reilly said, "This is the end of the white establishment." What more proof does anyone need?

But it's more than just southern racists and the official propaganda networks. It's also the internet. If you're curious, go to YouTube and search under headings such as "police brutality" or "police violates rights." What you'll see will be hundreds of videos filmed by citizens trying to prove to you that we live in a Nazi-style police state. We do? Wow, that's news to me. Essentially what these anti-government, anti-police whackos are doing is provoking the police and then crying about it when they get into trouble. They are actually trying to get arrested just so they can pretend to be martyrs for the anti-government cause, "proof" positive that the police are out of control. It's such an obvious ploy, yet millions are believing it.

Oh sure, the police are simply human beings doing a tough job. Not all of them are perfect and some should have never been police officers to begin with. Once in awhile, you'll see a video where a bad cop really IS out of control. But that's rare. The majority of these videos are engineered to provoke the police to take action. The idea seems to be to convince people to distrust the police and, instead, to place our trust in the hands of civilian vigilantes who can operate without the same constraints, training, or psychological testing that a police officer has. Why would anyone do that? It just becomes a ridiculous form of escalation as now people have to arm themselves against the vigilantes!

At any rate, this is an exceptionally complex issue that goes WAY beyond the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment. For a great many people, holding a gun makes them feel powerful, and we all know what power can do to a person - even good people. Other nations with private gun ownership have far more mature cultures than we do, and it shows.

by Guest Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:39 pm

United States Constitution, Amendment 2, partially exposited:

Why: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

The veterans and other disenfranchised citizens of McMinn County, Tennessee were not deprived of their vehicles by petty thieve; they were stripped of their citizenship by criminal conspirators intent upon permanently stealing the democracy (see Constitutional guarantee below) which justly belongs to We the People of McMinn County, Tennessee.

United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

“Let us teach the children, Freedom’s never been free”, New World Order – Curtis Mayfield, 1996
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/KUyfMLZl_Dw

None Of Us Are Free - Solomon Burke
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/87PJHQGAx38

by boatlady Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:15 pm

I think I'm still with Ghandi

by Guest Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, 2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948), commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi, was the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism in British-ruled India.

Partition and independence, 1947
On 14 and 15 August 1947 the Indian Independence Act was invoked. In border areas some 10—12 million people moved from one side to another and upwards of a half million were killed in communal riots pitting Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs.^[107]

Stanley Wolpert has argued, The "plan to carve up British India was never approved of or accepted by Gandhi...who realised too late that his closest comrades and disciples were more interested in power than principle, and that his own vision had long been clouded by the illusion that the struggle he led for India's freedom was a nonviolent one."^[109]

Citations

107. Metcalf, Barbara Daly; Metcalf, Thomas R.. A concise history of modern India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 221–222. ISBN 978-0-521-86362-9.
109. Stanley Wolpert, Gandhi's Passion p. 7

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

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s methodology of nonviolence did not prevent the violent displacement of ten to twelve million people and the violent deaths of five hundred thousand plus people. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a visionary failure.

The McMinn County veteran’s methodology of violent confrontation resulted in restoration of citizenship to the citizens of McMinn County through the liberation of the ballot box at the barrels of guns.

Curtis Mayfield, “Let us teach the children, Freedom’s never been free” (second verse, 2:02-2:06).

“Let us teach the children, Freedom’s never been free”, New World Order – Curtis Mayfield, 1996
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/KUyfMLZl_Dw

by Guest Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:35 am

United States Constitution, Amendment 2, exposited:

Who: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”;
What: “shall not be infringed”;
When: From 15 December 1791 onward;
Where: In the United States of America, its territories and possessions;
Why: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”;
How: Excellent question.

The Ballot or the Bullet
Malcolm X, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz
April 3, 1964
Cleveland, Ohio

The question tonight… [in] my little humble way of understanding it, it points toward either the ballot or the bullet.

Before we try and explain what is meant by the ballot or the bullet, I would like to clarify something concerning myself. I'm still a Muslim; my religion is still Islam. That's my personal belief… I myself am a minister, not a Christian minister, but a Muslim minister; and I believe in action on all fronts by whatever means necessary.

Now in speaking like this, it doesn't mean that we're anti-white, but it does mean we're anti-exploitation, we're anti-degradation, we're anti-oppression.

If we don't do something real soon, I think you'll have to agree that we're going to be forced either to use the ballot or the bullet. It's one or the other in 1964. It isn't that time is running out -- time has run out!

I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate.

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/malcolm_x_ballot.html

The Ballot or the Bullet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Ballot or the Bullet" is the name of a public speech by human rights activist Malcolm X. In the speech, which was delivered on April 3, 1964, at Cory Methodist Church in Cleveland, Ohio,^[1] Malcolm advised African-Americans to judiciously exercise their right to vote, but he cautioned that if the government continued to prevent African-Americans from attaining full equality, it might be necessary for them to take up arms.

Malcolm described how potent a weapon the ballot could be, if it was exercised with care:

A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.^[10]

Malcolm X addressed the issue of "rifles and shotguns"… He reiterated his position that if the government is "unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes", African-Americans should defend themselves.^[17] He advised his listeners to be mindful of the law — "This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks ... that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal" — but he said that if white people didn't want African-Americans to arm themselves, the government should do its job.^[17]

Malcolm X referred to "the type of Black man on the scene in America today [who] doesn't intend to turn the other cheek any longer",^[7] and warned that if politicians failed to keep their promises to African-Americans, they made violence inevitable:

It's time now for you and me to become more politically mature and realize what the ballot is for; what we're supposed to get when we cast a ballot; and that if we don't cast a ballot, it's going to end up in a situation where we're going to have to cast a bullet. It's either a ballot or a bullet.^[18]

References
1. Malcolm X Speaks, p. 23.
7. Malcolm X Speaks, p. 25.
10. Malcolm X Speaks, p. 38.
17. Malcolm X Speaks, p. 43.
18. Malcolm X Speaks, p. 30.

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

"The Bullet or the Ballot"
by Malcolm X, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz
Speech delivered in Detroit, April 4, 1964

It'll be the ballot or the bullet. It'll be liberty or it'll be death.

Malcolm X's Audubon address, � Dr. Betty Shabazz, under license authorized by Curtis Management Group, Indianapolis, IA.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2008/election/wvote/x.html

The Ballot or the Bullet, Malcolm X, audio
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/CRNciryImqg

United States Constitution, Amendment 2, exposited and applied:

Who: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”;
What: “shall not be infringed”;
When: From 15 December 1791 onward, including 1946 and 1964, the years of the ballot or the bullet;
Where: In the United States of America, its territories and possessions, including McMinn County, Tennessee and wherever Black citizens might choose to reside;
Why: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”;
How: Still an excellent question.

The veterans and citizens of McMinn County, Tennessee told the Cantrell Criminal Cartel that in August 1946 that it would be liberty or it would be death.

The veterans and citizens of McMinn County, Tennessee told the Cantrell Criminal Cartel that 1946 was the year of the ballot or the bullet.

by Shirina Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:50 am

If Americans want assault rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, and God knows what else, they can join the National Guard or the Army Reserves. Otherwise, give them all muskets and muzzle loaders. After all, those weapons were what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:47 am

The NRA effectively demand the right to display a penis-extension, so a muzzle-loader may only serve to confuse them.

But it's worth a try.

by Guest Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:09 pm

Shirina wrote:
… give them all muskets and muzzle loaders. After all, those weapons were what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Here’s “what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment”:

The United States Constitution, Amendment 2, ratified 15 December 1791

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Who: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”;
What: “shall not be infringed”;
When: From 15 December 1791 onward;
Where: In the United States of America, its territories and possessions;
Why: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.

The text reveals that “the Founders” mentioned neither “muskets” nor “muzzle loaders… when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.”

Shirina wrote:
… give them…

Americans do not wait upon anyone to “give them” the rights guaranteed unto them by the United States Constitution; they demand and secure the rights guaranteed unto them by the United States Constitution by any means necessary.

by Shirina Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:32 pm

The text reveals that “the Founders” mentioned neither “muskets” nor “muzzle loaders… when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.”

They didn't have to mention muskets or muzzle loaders ... because there was nothing else to mention. That's all there was. You certainly didn't see militiamen pulling artillery cannons home with them after their weekly muster. The Founders could not have made exceptions because there were no exceptions to make. There is simply no reason why Americans cannot be satisfied with handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Those are deadly enough without having people running around with AKs and M16s ... much less anti-tank weapons. Should we allow private citizens to purchase Stinger SAMs, too? I'm sure passengers on commercial airliners will feel very safe with those floating around.

As weapons become more sophisticated and deadly, we HAVE to draw the line somewhere. We just have to.

they demand and secure the rights guaranteed unto them by the United States Constitution by any means necessary.

Not one of our Constitutionally protected rights are infinite. Except the 2nd Amendment, and that needs to change.

by boatlady Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:27 pm

I'm still with Gandhi.
I find the principle of civil diobedience very much more appealing and more moral than any recourse to violent resistance.

by Guest Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:49 pm

Shirina wrote:
They didn't have to mention muskets or muzzle loaders ... because there was nothing else to mention.

They didn’t mention muskets or muzzle loaders; thus, your contention is unsupported and incorrect.

Shirina wrote:
Not one of our Constitutionally protected rights are infinite.

Not one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution can be “legislated away”, “executive ordered away”, or infringed in any legal way by anyone. The text of Amendment 2 is clear: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

by Guest Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:53 pm

boatlady wrote:
I'm still with Gandhi.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s methodology of nonviolence still did not prevent the violent displacement of ten to twelve million people and the violent deaths of five hundred thousand plus people. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was still a visionary failure.

by Shirina Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:49 am

Not one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution can be “legislated away”, executive ordered away”, or infringed in any legal way by anyone.

Oh yes they can. And they have - all the time. I've even outlined a few. Perhaps the biggest violation is the 1st Amendment that is frequently ignored by religions quacks who constantly slip laws into play that try to get intelligent design taught in the classroom. Take a look at Louisiana which just passed an "Academic Freedom" bill that was already ruled unconstitutional yet was still passed by the Louisiana state legislature. Yeah, who cares about that Constitution when the Bible is at stake?

At any rate, we all know that the 1st Amendment is not finite. You can't incite violence or rioting, for instance - the 1st Amendment does not protect that kind of speech. By the same token, yes, the government CAN decide which arms a private citizen is allowed to possess. Just like the government can decide just what types of speech is not protected under the 1st Amendment.

I'll ask you again: Do you think American citizens should have free access to shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? How about main battle tanks? Biological weapons? And how many of those people who might purchase such extreme weaponry actually belong to a "well regulated militia?" Yeah, the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment is quite often ignored, and for good reason. It's ignored because having a "well REGULATED militia" means, well ... that the government can REGULATE it. And if the entire US population fashions itself as one big militia, well guess what ... it means the government can REGULATE what kinds of arms that big militia can have access to. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about an UNregulated militia?

by boatlady Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:45 am

Rock - My OPINION, based on the facts I am aware of is that I'm still with Gandhi - just because you say otherwise doesn't make me wrong - you are not the fount of all wisdom on any topic.
My OPINION, which no-one here has changed, is that there is no justification in any circumstances for resorting to violence.

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:28 am

Facts: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s “nonviolent” methodology failed to prevent the violent displacement of ten to twelve million people and the violent deaths of five hundred million plus persons (see below).

Conclusion derived from evaluation of facts: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a visionary failure:

Opinion: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was far more successful at making a name and creating a reputation for himself than at preventing violent displacements and violent deaths.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law
by RockOnBrother on Tue 22 Jan 2013 - 23:31
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 14 and 15 August 1947 the Indian Independence Act was invoked. In border areas some 10—12 million people moved from one side to another and upwards of a half million were killed in communal riots pitting Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs.

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

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:00 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Not one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution can be “legislated away”, “executive ordered away”, or infringed in any legal way by anyone. The text of Amendment 2 is clear: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Shirina wrote:
Oh yes they can.

No they cannot. Not one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution can be “legislated away”, “executive ordered away”, “opinioned away”, or infringed in any legal way by anyone. There are, of course, persons that advocate that the government ignore the United States Constitution; by so advocating, those persons advocate that the government engage in illegal behavior by violating the supreme law of the land.

Shirina wrote:
… yes, the government CAN decide which arms a private citizen is allowed to possess.

This is my country. In my country, We the People own our government, instituted to secure our rights via our United States Constitution, Amendment 2 of which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ”, and Article 4 Paragraph 2 of which states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

In my country, the rule of law places our government under the supreme law, which, once again, states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed .”

Shirina wrote:
I'll ask you again:

You cannot ask me again that which you have not asked me previously.

Shirina wrote:
Do you think American citizens should have free access to shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles? How about main battle tanks? Biological weapons?

What I think is irrelevant. What I have sworn, of my own free will, is to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States; thus, I have sworn to protect and uphold Amendment 2 thereof.

Shirina wrote:
And how many of those people who might purchase such extreme weaponry actually belong to a "well regulated militia?"

The McMinn County veterans, bearing arms to restore and secure democracy in and for their county, constituted a well regulated militia.

Shirina wrote:
Yeah, the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment is quite often ignored, and for good reason.

I have not “quite often ignored” the well regulated part of Amendment 2.

I have stated the “well regulated” part of Amendment 2 in at least five posts, including my post of Wednesday 16 January 2013 at 4:06 in the initiating post (click here to see full post):

RockOnBrother wrote:
The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law
by RockOnBrother on Wed 16 Jan 2013 - 4:06

Amendment 2, United States Constitution, ratified 15 December 1791, forbids infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, as a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Well said, founding fathers.

Shirina wrote:
It's ignored because having a "well REGULATED militia" means, well ... that the government can REGULATE it.

The McMinn County veterans constituted a well regulated militia that the illegal government of McMinn County (the Cantrell Criminal Cartel) did not regulate.

Shirina wrote:
And if the entire US population fashions itself as one big militia, well guess what ... it means the government can REGULATE what kinds of arms that big militia can have access to.

The McMinn County veterans constituted a well regulated militia that had the support of We the People of McMinn County as they used arms to liberate their County from government established by the Cantrell Criminal Cartel.

Shirina wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about an UNregulated militia?

Where in the video and written accounts of the The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law (see below) with which I initiated this thread does anyone say that the McMinn County veterans were an unregulated militia?

RockOnBrother wrote:
The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law
by RockOnBrother on Wed 16 Jan 2013 - 4:06

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law
https://www.youtube.com/v/U5ut6yPrObw

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=173883

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

by Guest Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:40 pm

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm

McMinn A Warning — By Eleanor Roosevelt
New York, Monday

We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions.

… you can be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning, and one which we cannot afford to overlook.

SOURCE: The Daily Post-Athenian, Athens, Tenn., August 7, 1946; pages 1, 6.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm

Historical reference:

Articles of Confederation, Article VI, Paragraph 4 (1778)

… every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Amendment 2:

The United States Constitution, Amendment 2, ratified 15 December 1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
United States Constitution, Amendment 2, exposited:

Who: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”;

What: “shall not be infringed”;

When: From 15 December 1791 onward;

Where: In the United States of America, its territories and possessions;

Why: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”;

How: Excellent question.

by oftenwrong Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:50 pm

In any discussion of the impact which Ghandiji may or may not have had on the violence which inhabited (as it still does) India, his incremental effect on the ruling British was as valuable as a couple of Battallions. He made the British feel ashamed of themselves, and wearied by World War 2, the entire Raj packed its solar topees, Gin Slings and POSH culture; leaving behind at Partition in 1947 only their Anglo-banglo miscreants and considerable chaos.

by boatlady Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:18 pm

Can't help but feel anything that makes a violent and repressive regime feel ashamed of itself is no bad thing - British shame was overdue since the Indian Mutiny, as far as my understanding of the history goes.
Have started reading Ghandi's autobiography - so far (at age 19) he is coming across as idealistic, not too bright and a bit naive, but essentially a decent and fairly self- aware individual.
Haven't yet come across anything in my reading that leads me to conclude he was anything but sincere and genuinely desirous of a better life for his countrymen.
I know there are two schools of thought, but I still feel he was an inspirational figure, although, like the rest of us, not perfect.

by Guest Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:52 pm

PersonalLiberty.com, America’s #1 news site for independent-minded individuals is conducting an urgent poll to find out if Americans think stricter gun laws would decrease or eliminate these tragedies. We want to know if you think more gun control is the answer.

Take the poll, more: https://poll.personalliberty.com/Poll.aspx/stricter-gun-laws-2013?SC=P01228803&utm_source=Bing&utm_medium=SearchResults&utm_content=StricterGunLaws&utm_campaign=2013

by Shirina Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:51 pm

Teen slain after performing at inaugural: 'Happiest day of her life and then she's gone'

A 15-year-old Chicago girl gunned down a week after she performed during President Obama’s inaugural festivities was remembered Wednesday as a “walking angel” – the last person her family could imagine dying by a bullet.

Hadiya Pendleton was an honor student, a marching-band majorette, and a doting big sister who thought about becoming a journalist or a pharmacist or even getting into politics after she witnessed history in Washington last week.

“I couldn’t ask for a better child,” her mother, Cleo Cowley, said through tears at her Chicago home. “She didn’t give me any hard time at all. She had a heart of gold.”

A sophomore at Chicago’s selective King College Prep High School, Pendleton was walking with fellow members of the volleyball team in a park Tuesday afternoon when the skies opened. They ducked under a canopy to get out of the rain, joining other teenagers.

At that moment, Chicago police say, a gunman came running down an alley behind the park, opened fire and then darted into a waiting vehicle and took off. No arrests have been made.

LINK

Yet another involuntary martyr for the NRA.

by ROB Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:49 pm

Shirina wrote:
Teen slain after performing at inaugural: 'Happiest day of her life and then she's gone'

[Chicago^• selective King College Prep High School student Hadiya] Pendleton was walking with fellow members of the volleyball team in a park Tuesday afternoon when the skies opened. They ducked under a canopy to get out of the rain, joining other teenagers.

At that moment, Chicago^• police say, a gunman came running down an alley behind the park, opened fire and then darted into a waiting vehicle and took off.

LINK

Underlined by RockOnBrother.

'Gun Culture' - What About the 'Fatherless Culture'?
Larry Elder

posted by RockOnBrother, Friday 18 January 2013 at 21:01 in “Gun violence culture”: A red herring?
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t761-gun-violence-culture-a-red-herring#32904

The face of gun violence is not Sandy Hook. It is Chicago.^•

In 2012, President Barack Obama's adopted hometown had 506 murders, including more than 60 children. Philadelphia, a city that local television newscasters frequently call 'Killadelphia," saw 331 killed last year. In Detroit, 386 people were murdered.

Of the 11,000 to 12,000 gun murders each year, more than half involve both black killers and black victims, mostly in urban areas and mostly gang-related. The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young black men is not auto accidents or accidental drowning, but homicide.

What happened?

Dads disappeared. Or, more precisely, to use Bill Cosby's term, the number of "unwed fathers" exploded.

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action." At the time, 25 percent of black children were born out of wedlock, a number Moynihan called alarming. Fast forward to the present, 72 percent of black children are now born out of wedlock.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2013/01/17/gun-culture--what-about-the-fatherless-culture-n1490940/page/full/

Underlined by RockOnBrother.

The “gun culture didn’t murder Hadiya Pendleton. Gangsters born of and nurtured by the “fatherless culture” that infects, infests, and poisons South Side Chicago murdered this Black teenager. One again, the “gun culture” is offered as a red herring, effectively diverting focus from the causative phenomenon: “In 1965… 25 percent of black children were born out of wedlock… Fast forward to the present, 72 percent of black children are now born out of wedlock”, Larry Elder, http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2013/01/17/gun-culture--what-about-the-fatherless-culture-n1490940/page/full/

by Sponsored content

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns

Re: The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law at the barrels of guns