Soup's Auntie OxyMoron: Resist/Revolt/Insurrection...Tyranny? Prove It!

Friday, February 8, 2013

Resist/Revolt/Insurrection...Tyranny? Prove It!

---from huffpo comment re: insurrectionist theory/ "jay carney drones"

Jack Davies on Feb 5, 2013 at 20:51:41

“And yet we got the 2nd, with much thanks to the likes of Alexander Hamilton.

The point was not that we should rise up whenever we don't like something, but that the government be always discouraged from ever ruling by force, knowing that we are armed as well. It's a fine distinction, but one that needs be made, and every last founder would have agreed, if the government ever gets that bad, then yes, turn to the guns to resist. Resist, not revolt.” “You are confusing the concepts of "revolt" aka "insurrection" with "resistance". The first implies rising up against the government for whatever arbitrary reason, which OF COURSE people have a problem with, but the second implies that the government in question has already broken their contract with the people, and are attempting to impose unjust tyranny at gunpoint, which is EXACTLY why we have the 2nd. The founders went to great lengths to avoid such a possibility, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment and the constitutional provision that we not have a standing army.

You cannot have an honest conversation about this while confusing the two.”

“Dear Jack,

Um- "...every last founder would have agreed, if the government ever gets that bad, then yes, turn to the guns to resist." ? No. This is an ignorant statement.

"With few exceptions, the Founders were never insurrectionists in the sense that they believed the people should take matters into their own hands by force of arms. Garry Wills notes that even as late as 1775 John Adams denied that the Continental Congress was engaging in rebellion.[453] "[T]he people of this continent have the utmost abhorrence of treason and rebellion," he said.[454] Wills explains that the Founders took great care to stress that they were engaged in "revolution," not rebellion. They associated the word revolution, derived from astronomy, with ordered and prescribed movement and considered themselves engaged in an orderly and legally justified endeavor.[455] And Gordon S. Wood notes that the Founders repeatedly stressed that American resistance was supported by "both the letter and the spirit of the British constitution."[456]"

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

Try Again!

Love,
Soup”

Jack Davies on Feb 6, 2013 at 03:17:14

“Way to miss the point. Read what i wrote again, and then what you posted, and then get back to me. Also, bear in mind, they DID take up arms against their government, and the exact " letter and the spirit of the British constitution" was a huge influence on our own, most certainly when it came to the 2nd.

I strongly advise you to go read the wiki entry on specifically "the second amendment" before arguing further.” 2 seconds ago (12:32 PM) HUFFPOST SUPER USER

1 second ago (12:32 PM)

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

Dear Jack

"...which is exactly why we have the second? The level of your denial is astounding.
("... the Second Amendment was written to assure the South that the militia ¾ the very same militia described in the main body of the Constitution ¾ could be armed even if Congress elected not to arm them or otherwise attempted to "disarm" them...the Amendment deals with keeping and bearing arms in the militia, subject to federal and state regulation." from link) http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm
We have a second amendment to prevent states from being unable to shoot slaves should they ever be freed. Read. It isn't that hard. :-/
We cannot have an honest conversation if you aren't willing to read and consider thoughtfully the UC Davis Law Review (Peer Reviewed Research, Buddy) paper upon which I based my dialectic.

to be continued-

--cont.

Question for ya, Jack...who gets to say when the "government in question has already broken their contract with the people, and are attempting to impose unjust tyranny at gunpoint,"-- What's the justification for action? What is 'unjust tyranny'? Is it different than 'just tyranny?" When will you know beyond a doubt that the time for violent action against your government? If not now, when? I keep hearing 'tyranny' but find no-one willing to say which action would prod them to violently overthrow their legitimate government. American government remains legitimate.

Do you see a gun pointed at you as you read this? Then stop bitching about tyranny.

Again, has our 'proper governmental structure' so far provided us with the process by which to maintain peaceable transfer of power? When exactly would you propose abandoning that process? How exactly do you propose, in that light, someone 'resist'?

Is Christopher Jordan Dorner a resister? Or a revolter?

Love,

Soup

No comments:

I breathe. I am your tax dollars at work.

Consider these two quotes in succession:

While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
Lenin, "State and Revolution", 1919
Russian Communist politician & revolutionary (1870 - 1924)
In a featured column on flashreport.org, Grover Norquist clarifies and defends the default conservative position, making clear that any vote to send tax increases to the ballot is a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge. Further he publicly admonishes any Republican pledge signer who has any doubt about the consequence of wavering: “There is nothing subjective about the determination that voting to refer higher taxes to the ballot is a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge. A vote for tax hikes on the ballot is clearly and indisputably a failure to ‘oppose and vote against any and all efforts to raise taxes’” (“Featured Column”).

...(...)...In Response to Kings essay on Meeting Oppression---:  King states that he favors nonviolent resistance over the other two ways of meeting oppression. Look closely at the words he uses to describe nonviolent resistance and those he uses to describe acquiescence and violence. How does his choice of words contribute to his argument? Show examples.
The weakness of giving in and submitting to an immoral authority is that you make yourself inferior by choice, and this is the choice of a “coward.” This is the nature of man craving inferiority because he is still filled with “falsehood, malice, hate [and] destruction.” All is not lost; nobility is reached in the practice of nonviolence. Because all men of good will are indeed bound together, asserts the Reverend, a conscience educated to the consequences of violence or acquiescence will turn away from the inferior position (the weakness of man is to give in or fight with force) and toward the superior position (the strength of man lies in his nonviolent reaction to oppression).

Why do you suppose King discusses acquiescence, violence, and non-violent resistance in that order?
The consequences of each failure are staggered so as to outline clearly for the reader the reality of each successive failure. As individual bitterness becomes community discontent, the oppressed must be cautious as their calls for justice escalate. When the choice is made-unbeknownst to anyone until the choice is made- it must be for nonviolence, or the line will become a circle again. That choice is both individual and community, so each of us must be aware of our nature.

...(...)... Please forgive my "Show Your Work" Style.

I am not a Socialist, a hippie looking for a hand-out, or a lazy hypocrite. I want to pay taxes so I have something to vote about. I believe my paying taxes entitles me to support those who are using their Constitutional Rights of Redress (first amendment)and demanding that America admit She is not Broken. Those who say She is need say no more! I prefer Democracy over Theonomy. I am not fighting Capitalism, only ignorance and those who hate America. I Demand A Redress as Guaranteed by the Constitution!

The richest four hundred families, jointly owning the majority of the most profitable corporations and in their sixth or seventh generation of landed gentry are depending on a Third Wave of Reformation in Christianity and a voting bloc determined to end Democracy's Evil Hold On God's Sphere of Authority (Rj Rushdoony, etc.). Having disguised themselves as American, their ultimate goal is to soon separate us from our primary rights. Through the manipulation of media backed by corporate funding, they seek to influence the government to create hysteria such that the people will Want to or find they Have replace civil law with biblical law- regardless of the fact that it violates the First Amendment- by imposing the theory of theonomy. Those one-tenth of one percent that own the 40 percent or so of America’s printed money and access to all the keys of the Kingdom ARE the Corporatocracy we are Fighting. Same fight. Not a different fight.

The problem for All groups, as the Revolting Randian Calvinist Class sees it, is government. You have the right to be your own state and gave to the government by will alone- otherwise, the gov is only a gang, and those opposed to it are a family. This is according to them, not me...so...

Grover believes gov. taxes by force, and builds coalitions-

I Pledge Allegiance To the Flag. Full Stop. Please Get Your Elected Official On The Record re: Authority...

Man Has Authority to govern Man, the Dominionist Believes Only God Has Authority- they hold the Constitution as Biblically based and allow local law to become “theonomic” ---this TREASON---this is the reason for my animus. Christianity has Become an argument against itself by supplanting the Authority of the Document We share, believer and non-believer alike. End the Pledge. End the Influence.
Tax the Church.
Get the Money out of elections.
End Corporate Personhood.
Same fight.

I hope readers are following their own trail---this is an archive (soupsauntie) designed to position stories in a way that allow MY further investigation— ‎,"No, it's a messy soup...fair enough. It's Google Search results, pasted from my Facebook Page (posted as status updates so I know where and when I read something)", and this is to allow anyone to see how I came across the info (not by biased searches but by multiple sources and key words) followed by pasted source material. This, of course, would be helpful info for the 'About' section there...:-/ :-)"