"Gun Toters at City Hall"

[Virginiaplanter]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

If you think you are going to settle this argument with firepower after the war has been over for 150 years, then you must be of the mindset that there are 75 virgins waiting for you in heaven. Because in case you have not noticed you are outgunned by the government, unless you happen to have a few blackhawks and B1 bombers in your garage you are not telling us about.. The issue of secession WAS settled, it does not matter 150 years later the means. Recognizing that does not make a person less brave, or less willing to resist, it makes them more intelligent. At this point in time intelligence MUST prevail over bravado and posturing before it is too late.

It occurs to me that the issue could not possibly have been settled.

As the old timers used tosay, "A man persuaded against his will is of his former opinion still."

I recall no amendment to the constitution after the War of Northern Agression saying the federation was perpetual.

The only thing that got settled was that some men were willing to kill lots of others to enforce their political and economic opinions without legal authority. That question definitely got answered.

But, as far as I know, the question of secession is still open topersuasion, economic bargaining power, and force.

I am sorry. Refresh my memory, which of the states that lawfully suceded from the union are still independent states?

Now I would agree that a state or a number of states could try it again. Do I think they can do it lawfully? No I do not because it requires a vote. So how long do you think secessionists will last in the face of embargo and armed intervention? Also remember that a lot of people are still asleep and would not support this sort of thing. They will be on the other side. This is not like 250 years ago when most of the people supported these concepts.

You and I have talked long enough for you to know that I am not any happier with current events than you. I am just as willing to resist as you, and I am not afraid to do what I must when I see the elephant. However I am not a kamikaze. Martyrs do not win wars, survivors do.

I have been seeing a lot of people who have no clue what insurrection would actually be like blowing a lot of bravado around. Usually they have not gone to the lengths to settle matters peacefully and lawfully that the founding fathers they like to quote did. In most cases they are letting their little brain overpower their littler brain. I know you are not one of those, but I also know that you know that settled lawfully or not, for all practical purposes the issue is moot.

Regards

Can you explain the State of West Virginia? Was it lawful? Did not part of the state want to remain with Virginia but they were swallowed up at the point of a bayonet by the Union? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

All I'm really trying to say is that the issue has not been legally settled.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

All I'm really trying to say is that the issue has not been legally settled.

In court. Under the constitution? No you are correct. But it is still moot.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Just as a side note, I recently read an essay/article by a libertarian who pointed out that Lincoln was guilty of treason. The constitutional definition--making war on any of the states.

It was an interesting theory; but it fell short because the states being warred upon were no longer members of the union. I woulda thought the author would have noticed that little point.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

All I'm really trying to say is that the issue has not been legally settled.

In court. Under the constitution? No you are correct. But it is still moot.

OK. Its moot.

How about nullification, then?

Anybody notice how far RealID got?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Just as a side note, I recently read an essay/article by a libertarian who pointed out that Lincoln was guilty of treason.  The constitutional definition--making war on any of the states. 

It was an interesting theory; but it fell short because the states being warred upon were no longer members of the union.  I woulda thought the author would have noticed that little point.

This is a very enticing subject that historians frequently disagree about. The fact is that a few states consider this every year and every year they fail to pass the required legislation. Colorado floats to mind.

But the idea the a civilian force armed with what we have at out disposal would be able to resist in an armed confrontation is crazy.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

All I'm really trying to say is that the issue has not been legally settled.

In court. Under the constitution? No you are correct. But it is still moot.

OK.  Its moot.

How about nullification, then?

Anybody notice how far RealID got?

You are too fast.

Yes that would work legally. But remember we are talking about ENFORCING secession, not just lawfully sanctioning it.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

The concern is that you folks will perceive THEM as a threat. From their attitude, perhaps they ARE the actual threat.

Clearly these people are aware that the purpose behind the second amendment is to provide the citizens a means to cast off a tyrannical government. Since they clearly fit that description, why would you expect them to act in a way different then they have.

Of course they are afraid of you. They are the virus and you are the cure.

I wonder.

Is it a case of "we are tyrranical and therefore afraid for the citizenry to have guns."

Or, is it maybe more a case of, "Boy, if the people ever really find out how we operate, we are in deep $hit"? They know they walk all over law and rights, twisting, stretching, lyingto get what they want.

I just wonder if it isn't as much or more a matter of being afraid of the consequences of "getting caught" once enough people find out and object.

Or, maybe that has been the underlying fear of the tyrants all through history.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

The concern is that you  folks will perceive THEM as a threat.  From their attitude, perhaps they ARE the actual threat. 

Clearly these people are aware that the purpose behind the second amendment is to provide the citizens a means to cast off a tyrannical government.  Since they clearly fit that description, why would you expect them to act in a way different then they have. 

Of course they are afraid of you.  They are the virus and you are the cure.

I wonder.

Is it a case of "we are tyrranical and therefore afraid for the citizenry to have guns."

Or, is it maybe more a case of, "Boy, if the people ever really find out how we operate, we are in deep $hit"?  They know they walk all over law and rights, twisting, stretching, lying to get what they want.

I just wonder if it isn't as much or more a matter of being afraid of the consequences of "getting caught" once enough people find out and object.

Or, maybe that has been the underlying fear of the tyrants all through history.

Wonder no more! That is the nail and you just hit it dead center. They fear your power to catch and stop them.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:

...SNIP
Can you explain the State of West Virginia? Was it lawful? Did not part of the state want to remain with Virginia but they were swallowed up at the point of a bayonet by the Union?  Sounds like a double standard to me.

Well yes I can. They did not want to leave the union and they broke off from Virginia. Technically one could take the view that West Virginia is illegal as there is no provision in the constitution to subdivide an existing state. However after Virginia left the union the Constitution no longer applied to Virginia, so the formation of West Virginia did not have to be lawful under that convention.

Regards

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

The concern is that you folks will perceive THEM as a threat. From their attitude, perhaps they ARE the actual threat.

Clearly these people are aware that the purpose behind the second amendment is to provide the citizens a means to cast off a tyrannical government. Since they clearly fit that description, why would you expect them to act in a way different then they have.

Of course they are afraid of you. They are the virus and you are the cure.

I wonder.

Is it a case of "we are tyrranical and therefore afraid for the citizenry to have guns."

Or, is it maybe more a case of, "Boy, if the people ever really find out how we operate, we are in deep $hit"? They know they walk all over law and rights, twisting, stretching, lyingto get what they want.

I just wonder if it isn't as much or more a matter of being afraid of the consequences of "getting caught" once enough people find out and object.

Or, maybe that has been the underlying fear of the tyrants all through history.

Wonder no more! That is the nail and you just hit it dead center. They fear your power to catch and stop them.

Hey - just like at Richmond City Council. By George, I think I've got it!

Yata hey

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Wonder no more! That is the nail and you just hit it dead center. They fear your power to catch and stop them.

Thank you for the validation.

I think they fear beyond just being stopped. More than a few possiblydeserve the abrupt stop at the end of a rope.

It makes sense, though. (I always make sense to myself. Fortunately. )

The more "sins" they have stacked up against the people, the more things they are afraid we would find out about,thenthe more worried they are going to be about how the people might react.

Maybe, instead of arguing with Senator Saslaw and the like, we should be in their face demanding, "What have you done that you don't want us to know about?"

Looking at it from another angle is a little hair-raising: The harder certain people in government work to disarm the people, the worse their misdeeds. Or the greater the extent of their misdeeds.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Wonder no more! That is the nail and you just hit it dead center. They fear your power to catch and stop them.

Thank you for the validation.

I think they fear beyond just being stopped.   More than a few possibly deserve the abrupt stop at the end of a rope.

It makes sense, though.  (I always make sense to myself.  Fortunately. )

The more "sins" they have stacked up against the people, the more things they are afraid we would find out about, then the more worried they are going to be about how the people might react.

Maybe, instead of arguing with Senator Saslaw and the like, we should be in their face demanding, "What have you done that you don't want us to know about?"

Looking at it from another angle is a little hair-raising:  The harder certain people in government work to disarm the people, the worse their misdeeds.  Or the greater the extent of their misdeeds.

You are generally well read and intellegent in your arguments (I can't believe I am saying this:banghead It amazes me that you do not realize that this is the fundamental emotion underlying the entire anti gun movement. People do not fear the gun itself, they fear that someone will shoot them for what they say and do. Why? Because that is what THEY would do if they had a gun. They are generally irrational and they expect you to be.

Most anti gun people are also anti rights. What keeps them in check is armed citizens. Why do you think these people all seem to be centered in GFZs like DC, NY, and Chicago? Just watch the most prominent Senator from NY when he talks about guns. Watch Bloomy when he talks about this. He fears Virginia guns because a NYer might get one and use it on him. You can see the fear in his eyes. Not fear of the gun, but fear of the people who possess them.

It matters not that you or I are law abiding, they still consider you a threat because you might catch them some day.

Regards

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Wonder no more! That is the nail and you just hit it dead center. They fear your power to catch and stop them.

Thank you for the validation.

I think they fear beyond just being stopped. More than a few possiblydeserve the abrupt stop at the end of a rope.

It makes sense, though. (I always make sense to myself. Fortunately. )

The more "sins" they have stacked up against the people, the more things they are afraid we would find out about,thenthe more worried they are going to be about how the people might react.

Maybe, instead of arguing with Senator Saslaw and the like, we should be in their face demanding, "What have you done that you don't want us to know about?"

Looking at it from another angle is a little hair-raising: The harder certain people in government work to disarm the people, the worse their misdeeds. Or the greater the extent of their misdeeds.

You are generally well read and intellegent in your arguments (I can't believe I am saying this:banghead It amazes me that you do not realize that this is the fundamental emotion underlying the entire anti gun movement. People do not fear the gun itself, they fear that someone will shoot them for what they say and do. Why? Because that is what THEY would do if they had a gun. They are generally irrational and they expect you to be.

Most anti gun people are also anti rights. What keeps them in check is armed citizens. Why do you think these people all seem to be centered in GFZs like DC, NY, and Chicago? Just watch the most prominent Senator from NY when he talks about guns. Watch Bloomy when he talks about this. He fears Virginia guns because a NYer might get one and use it on him. You can see the fear in his eyes. Not fear of the gun, but fear of the people who possess them.

It matters not that you or I are law abiding, they still consider you a threat because you might catch them some day.

Regards

Yes, but according to your argument in the other sub-thread here, they don't have to fear us, because the fact that we're armed means nothing, since their side, the side of illegitimate authority by force, won the Late Unpleasantness and to this day has B-52 bombers and so forth.

The only thing they really fear from us is that we will become more politically powerful. Carrying guns in front of their faces in view of the public makes them look politically weak, which is why they squirm over this.

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

Jero1987 wrote:

http://www.richmondfreepress.com/contact.html

"The Richmond Free Press respects the opinions of its readers. We want to hear from you. We invite you to write the editor."

Why don't we listen to the Richmond Free Press and contact them with our opinion?
I mean for all we know we might be able to teach them a thing or two.

James

They obviously don't respect the rights of their readers, why would they respect their opinions?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

...SNIP

Yes, but according to your argument in the other sub-thread here, they don't have to fear us, because the fact that we're armed means nothing, since their side, the side of illegitimate authority by force, won the Late Unpleasantness and to this day has B-52 bombers and so forth.

The only thing they really fear from us is that we will become more politically powerful. Carrying guns in front of their faces in view of the public makes them look politically weak, which is why they squirm over this.

There is nothing inconsistant here at all. There is a big difference between defending against an individual and an army.

The fact that they can crush a rebelion has nothjing to do with fear of their own individual demise at the hands of a disatisfied constituient. Moreover, very few "gun haters" are in a position to actually command an army (Govenor, President).

No ... these people see your possession of arms to be a personal threat against their individual safety, their individual ideas, their individual free speach, their agenda. Even if they know that they can win a larger armed conflict on the scale of a war, they fear they will individuallynot be around to enjoy the victory.

Regards

 

[Pagan]

imported post

...Carrying guns in front of their faces in view of the public makes them look politically weak, which is why they squirm over this.

Very good observation.

 

[Jero1987]

imported post

Saying that no one is "allowed" to succeed is like saying, we put up a "No Rioting" sign in the jail or the proverbial "Gun Free Zone". If conditions get worse enough, people will rebel.

I thought I would put my two cents in here. I do not believe that the fed government could just "crush" a rebellion. IMHO there are factors on our side.

1. We would fight guerrilla style, just like the enemy in Iraq is.
2. Bombing our own people would not only be political suicide, but morale on their side would absolutely hit rock bottom.
3. Good portion of the military would not fight.

...BUT all that is besides the point. I think what we are forgetting is, that we are all here for the same thing... defending and discussing our rights. Yes, some of us have varying political views, but we really don't need to be having fighting among the ranks.

Just my two cents..... carry on. :lol:

 

[wylde007]

imported post

Jero1987 wrote:

Saying that no one is "allowed" to succeed...

You have discovered the secret Obamanomics agenda!

NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO SUCCEED!

OK... just had to get that out.

We would fight guerrilla style, just like the enemy in Iraq is.

Oh, you mean like the colonists did against the British? That makes our forefathers and the original secessionist movement a TERRORIST GROUP. We're all terrorists. Just like the gubmint says!

Good portion of the military would not fight.

Does the term "Army of the Potomac" mean anything to you?

They'll fight. Or they'll be starved, hunted, imprisoned, hanged or whatever a military tribunal suggests as proper punishment for declining to follow illegal orders en-masse.

defending and discussing our rights.

Agreed. However some of us consider certain things to be "rights" that other consider privileges that government has the authority, through force of arms, to suspend, revoke or disavow at THEIR option. This is simply not the case.

The carrying of arms is but one of the ways... and the MOST IMPORTANT... in defense of liberty and the RIGHT of self-governance and self-determination.

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.

<snip>

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.

We are closer again to this precipice than we have EVER been at any other time in history. Ignore the warnings of our founders at your own peril. I plan to heed them when the time is right.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Jero1987 wrote:

Saying that no one is "allowed" to succeed is like saying, we put up a "No Rioting" sign in the jail or the proverbial "Gun Free Zone". If conditions get worse enough, people will rebel.

I thought I would put my two cents in here. I do not believe that the fed government could just "crush" a rebellion. IMHO there are factors on our side.

1. We would fight guerrilla style, just like the enemy in Iraq is.
2. Bombing our own people would not only be political suicide, but morale on their side would absolutely hit rock bottom.
3. Good portion of the military would not fight.

...BUT all that is besides the point. I think what we are forgetting is, that we are all here for the same thing... defending and discussing our rights. Yes, some of us have varying political views, but we really don't need to be having fighting among the ranks.

I'm not sure why we have these discussions here. This is Opencarry.org, not the Virginia Militia.
Most of the people here, myself included, are sick of most things our government is doing...but are trying very hard to change it from within the system....and having good success.

While I'm proud of my Heritage, I also know what it took to win that fight. It was the standing army here that won the war. The militias only kept the eney busy and a little disorganized,

The simple fact is, Militias were not trusted by our military leaders. They wouldn't follow orders and had a tendency to cut and run when things got rough.

Discussing this type of thing on a public forum is silly.

Let's try to keep this board on the issues that can be discussed here and dealt with by the majority of the members.

How I feel about possible armed resistance is irrelevant since the last place I'd talk about it is on the internet.