Archive for the ‘tyranny’ Category

Lots of thoughts

I am really annoyed with the level of virtue signalling/pandering I’ve been seeing as the reaction to the riots. My particular gripe is with “Juneteenth” which was pretty much unknown until fairly recently, especially the last few days. This is true even amongst “people of colour”.

The fact it has eclipsed Odunde in Pennsylvania, let alone Philadelphia, is more than enough to demonstrate to me that recent attention has been pandering and not very sincere. I would be truly insulted if I were black at how this event has suddenly received attention. But I doubt it will be a thing in another news cycle.

Which gets me to the riots, which they were. The fact that the peaceful demonstrations turned violent should have led to a distancing from the violence. Instead we receive virtue signalling that the looting is somehow OK. Toss in that defunding/abolishing the police can even be considered, let alone discussed.

The riots have helped gun sales go through the roof. We can pretty much forget ever having an “assault rifle ban”. Any buyback would make the Covid-19 economic relief look like a drop in the bucket. It’s possible.

But so is becoming a billionaire by winning the lottery.

The “Gun Violence Protection” crowd is showing how out of touch they are with the current state of events. Case in point is something I saw from Everytown where they were talking about how the Gun Rights crowd talked about fighting tyrannical government. Of course it also tried to paint recent events as “peaceful protest” neglecting the curfews and lockdowns in many US cities.

I’ve been wanting to talk about option 2 for why a someone would need an assault rifle, which is the exact opposite of “tyrannical government”.  That is when your country has become a failed state.

A failed state is a political body that has disintegrated to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government no longer function properly (see also fragile state and state collapse). A state can also fail if the government loses its legitimacy even if it is performing its functions properly. For a stable state it is necessary for the government to enjoy both effectiveness and legitimacy. Likewise, when a nation weakens and its standard of living declines, it introduces the possibility of total governmental collapse. The Fund for Peace characterizes a failed state as having the following characteristics:

  • Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
  • Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
  • Inability to provide public services
  • Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has an inability to raise taxes or other support, and has little practical control over much of its territory and hence there is a non-provision of public services. When this happens, widespread corruption and criminality, the intervention of state and non-state actors, the appearance of refugees and the involuntary movement of populations, sharp economic decline, and foreign military intervention can occur.

There were a few commenters who were pointing out the United States was a failed state prior to the Covid-19 lockdown, but the recent riots have shown that the US is indeed a failed state.

In that case, who is going to protect you?

I am not going to debate the wisdom of owning a firearm or other weapon during such a time. But I do understand why people would want them.

The virtue signalling crowd needs to step back and assess where the US happens to be at this point, because the US is not in good shape. And pandering to the mob is the wrong course of action.

More of the Widom of Matthew White

From his FAQ: Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century

Q: Is government responsible for most of the deaths by violence and oppression in the 20th Century?

A: Well, yeah. Of course. Organized thugs kill more efficiently than disorganized thugs.

Wars and oppressions are collective endeavors, and whenever humans work collectively, they work through government. Whether wars are fought using citizen militia, standing armies, hired mercenaries, tribal warriors, corporate security teams, street gangs, paramilitaries or feudal levies, there’s always a ruler or governing body to determine who does what to whom. Call it a cabinet, junta, council of elders, general staff, board of directors, politburo or capo de tutti capi — it’s a government.

Unfortunately, blaming war and tyranny on government is like blaming house fires on oxygen. Strictly speaking, it’s true, but no fire marshal would ever get a good performance review if that’s his answer to everything. To understand house fires, you’ll have to look at wiring, storage, smoking, materials and cooking, and not just insist, “It’s oxygen, I tell you! Oxygen is evil! Why won’t anyone listen to me?”

Most attempts to blame government for democides depend on a kind of circular reasoning. They define “government” as any organization capable of mass violence, and then are amazed when all mass violence is produced by government. If they were to instead define “government” as, say, any organization that delivers mail or builds roads, then at least they would be moving away from obvious tautologies.

He makes a point that most people miss about the “militia”, especially if they believe that being a part of an “Unorganised militia” qualifies them for dick. This is partially because they are ignorant that the “unorganised militia” is a draft pool of potential militia members. As I like to say, it’s the equivalent of saying you are in the army because you have a draft card.

The really salient point is that the militias, especially during the War for American Independence, were under some form of government control. Despite the common criticism that they were as effective as a mob with sticks. The reality was that the militias and ultimately the Continental Army was under the Control of the Continental Congress and other forms of rebel government.

They weren’t just some people who got together with weapons and beat off the British. In fact, the War for American Independence was both a civil war, in that the Loyalists had their own militias, and an actual war in that the British, French, Spanish, and various other countries were involved in fighting it.

So, you had both revolutionary miltia units and Loyalist militia units which were under some form of government control. They wern’t unorganised bans of people who just struck out at “British tyranny” or “Rebel tyranny”.

This puts the modern “militia” pretenders and Libertarian loonies in a quandry about the insurrection theory since how can one have tyranny in a democracy when one is technically the government? As Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts points out in regard to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

So, there is no right to armed rebellion and one cannot make an argument that such a right exists where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.

Got that???

Incorporation of the Second Amendment

We have seen the gradual erosion of the Second Amendment right by DC v. Heller’s failure to take notice of the precedent in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which I paraphrase as to make it comprehensible to less-educated, modern minds.

The entire text of the Second Amendment was made with the obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the forces created under authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. It must be interpreted and applied in consideration of that purpose. Without evidence that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ is reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment of the body organised under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution or that its use and possession would contribute to the common defense.

The majority in Heller was willing to trash the first half of 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. The second part also is now subject to regulation.

That means the text as interpreted by Heller should actually read, the right of the People to keep and bear arms may be reasonably infringed. See this, this, this, and this.

In case you missed it, while granting an individual right, Heller was able to own a handgun providing he passed the registration requirements. Heller was rejected for a permit to register one of his guns!

The question that needs to be asked isn’t whether this is a civic, individual, collective, or right for dogs alone, but what is the scope of the right?

Which gets to the point of this post.

It is called “the true palladium of liberty” because the Second Amendment is a guardian of states’ rights within the federal system. Federalism the concept that the states (meaning the sovereign people of each state) had delegated only particular powers to the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights was intended solely as a limitation on the Federal Government. That’s why the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” without any mention of state legislatures.

There is also the precedent of In U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1875) where the Court wrote:

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the “powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,” “not surrendered or restrained” by the Constitution of the United States.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a gun control case and affirm the traditional principle of states’ rights which was written into the Constitution but mostly ignored during the 20th century. Unfortunately, the Court doesn’t really feel bound by precedent or proper legal method, as Heller pointed out. So, stare decisis and the correct interpretation of the precedent is not something to be hoped for.

Got that?

Illinois has not abolished self-defense and has not expressed a preference for long guns over handguns. But the municipalities can, and do, stress another of the themes in the debate over incorporation of the Bill of Rights: That the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule. Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.

Did you miss my thing on Taxation without representation? In this post, it’s not about taxes, but the ability for localities to make their own legislation free from British or Federal interference that was considered tyranny. Let’s just turn the Second Amendment on its ass and use it for tyrannical purposes.

Do you agree that the Federal government should have the right to interfere with local legilsation? Are you willing to give up your rights to Washington? Do you realise that by invalidating Chicago’s gun laws, that is precisely what will happen?

The poor citizens of DC are subject to Federal tyranny since they are a federal colony, but why should the Citizens of Chicago see their local legislation trashed by five ignorant justices?

I find it amazing that people can speak of individual liberty, yet are so ignorant that they can’t see what is being done underneath they noses.

It’s amusing the amount of ignorance I see from the gun cretins. They talk about resisting government tyranny and how the Second Amendment will bring them freedom, yet it is doing more to erode their liberties.

They talk of freedom and kinship to the Rebels of the War for American Independence, yet are freely willing to subject themselves to the tyranny the rebels feared. They are willing to give their freedom to unelected judges who are responsible to no one.

P.T. Barnum, a man who should know, said that “no one went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” A corellary of which is that the Loyalists had the better arguments during the War for Independence, but they went over the heads of the masses.

I find it as ironic as Meleanie Hain’s being shot to death with a gun they owned for protection that the Second Amendment, which was created to be a guardian of states’ rights within the federal system, will be destroyed by placing it within Federal jurisdiction.

Ever wonder why I say the Second Amendment is a historical relic?

If this were socialism…

I have to disagree with one thing Tiernan says:

September 18, 2009 — Tiernan O Faolain

If it were socialism, its critics would be unheard from, in jail, in Siberia, under heavy sedation or other psychiatric drugs… or dead.

How soon we forget.

I think he means tyranny, not socialism.

As I said in another post, if the yahoos want to talk about tyranny, they need to get out of the USA and visit someplace where tyranny DOES exist, such as North Korea or Iran.

Posted 09/10/2009 by lacithedog in Socialism, tyranny

Wait a minute!

From: Texas, other states file 2nd Amendment amicus brief

The amicus brief reads in part: “The right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is not just a ‘fundamental’ liberty interest. In the Anglo-American tradition, it is among the most fundamental of rights because it is essential to securing all our other liberties. The Founders well understood that, without the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, all of the other rights and privileges ordinarily enjoyed by Americans would be vulnerable to governmental acts of oppression.

Government oppression in a democracy? Are these people listening to themselves?

As I just pointed out in my previous post, in a democracy, the people are the government!

Anyway, Tyranny to the founding fathers would have meant a large standing army used to waste money by some pointless excursion, say invading Iraq.

So much for the Second Amendment protecting me from Tyranny.

Tyrants don’t fear an armed populace, they just bomb the fuck out of them.

Posted 09/07/2009 by lacithedog in democracy, Second Amendment, tyranny


OK, isn’t tyranny where people who are not local enact unpopular laws upon people without a vote? Isn’t tyranny where people are spied upon for their political views? Isn’t tyranny where people talk about Freedom, yet advocate policies which eliminate freedom?

Funny, but I am thinking about a group that runs around saying it protects America’s First Freedom, yet works to overturn locally enacted laws enacted by locally elected officials. In particular, those of Washington, DC.

As I like to point out, Washington, DC’s gun laws were popular among the people who enacted them: the citizens of Washington, DC.

But they sure pissed off people who didn’t live there!

Now, it seems that the NRA wants to tell the US legislature how to draft Washington, DC’s gun laws.

Funny, but the “Patriots” (or “traitors” in my opinion) during the War for American independence were protesting just that kind of action. Legislators from far away creating legislation for a populace without a vote. The United States would be much better off taking its legislation from Britain if that is the way it wishes to act.

I won’t get into the spying aspect, but I will reiterate something I like to quote, Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary:

One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Posted 08/09/2008 by lacithedog in NRA, radical right., tyranny