Martial Law Will Replace Constitution

[sk]

scott.... do you realy think that is ALL they were thinking? even a malitia needs FOOD

Edited November 21, 2003 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer

[scott_harpell]

Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said:

scott.... do you realy think that is ALL they were thinking? even a malitia needs FOOD

 

OMG! are you serious? haha and yes it is. their rationale is that the militia of the people be in place as a final checks and balance of the people. try to bastardize it all you want but that is what it says.

[sk]

scott_harpell said:

Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said:

scott.... do you realy think that is ALL they were thinking? even a malitia needs FOOD

 

OMG! are you serious? haha and yes it is. their rationale is that the militia of the people be in place as a final checks and balance of the people. try to bastardize it all you want but that is what it says.

YOU ARE SO MISING MY POINT

[scott_harpell]

Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said:

scott_harpell said:

Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said:

scott.... do you realy think that is ALL they were thinking? even a malitia needs FOOD

 

OMG! are you serious? haha and yes it is. their rationale is that the militia of the people be in place as a final checks and balance of the people. try to bastardize it all you want but that is what it says.

YOU ARE SO MISING MY POINT

 

no i am not. i see your point and it has nothing to do with the reason it was added. if 'food' was the dominant reason, wouldn't it be included in the wording? as you stated earlier these were smart men. why would they include the militia rationale but neglect to include the 'food proviso'... when it is clearly the dominant issue?

[scott_harpell]

Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said:

scott.... do you realy think that is ALL they were thinking? even a malitia needs FOOD

 

farms.

[scrambler]

Spirit of the law refers to intent. So a reinterpretation of the law must be consistent with its spirit or intent. I made a mistake when I mentioned it earlier.

 

Seems some people have a kneejerk reaction when reminded of the intent of the 2nd amendment, which I believe refers to the right to use lethal force to protect your interests, ideally those same interests that dovetail with those of your community. These people seem to get confused that talking about the intent equates to treasonous action. Far from it. Today the idea of forceably opposing government is absurd considering the overwhelming firepower of law enforcement and military. The Freemen and like were misguided fools.

 

The 2nd amendment seems like an artifact of a distant time, not with respect to its intent, but due to complications yielded by change in weapon technology and its effects on society. Objections are raised when an individual or group uses firearms to commit crimes against the public at large. This, and the fact that the use of firearms to oppose gov't is seemingly absurd provide the impetus for gun control advocates to restrict this right out of existence.

 

I don't believe that the need to obtain animal protein had anything to do with the 2nd amendment. A fellow could fish, trap, etc. to get meat on the table. Besides, wasn't most of their caloric requirements provided by grains and other plant sustenance?

 

I thought it very interesting that on reading the Franks' article that he mentions intent as primary in the decision to strike Saddam. But it seems that intent would have to be coupled with capability to constitute grounds for pre-emptive strike.

[scott_harpell]

if a time for militia came to pass, th government would have a very difficult time indeed to put it out. 'they got the guns, but... we got the numbahs!'

[Ratboy]

What I find amusing is that the 2nd Amendment seems to be the only ones conservatives care about these days. The others hare going to hell in a handbasket.

[sk]

perhaps it is just me, but I tend to think FREEDOM also includes being able to feed my family in a way that I see fit. maybe it is just me though.

[scrambler]

Right, Muffy. I'm with you on that. But once you get beyond basic needs for shelter, clothing, food, etc. then there's another world of priorities (Maslow's hierarchy of needs). The freedom to think about your place in the world and your vision of how the world should be, that to me, exemplifies some of what the founders wanted to preserve. It's almost like the climber's ethic of wanting to challenge the world in yourself or of the world at large.

[Fairweather]

scott_harpell said:

if a time for militia came to pass, th government would have a very difficult time indeed to put it out. 'they got the guns, but... we got the numbahs!'

 

I'll have to disagree with you on this point, Scott. There is NO WAY that 150,000,000 armed citizens could hold out against a gone-tyranical government. Armies sieze control NOT by going door-to-door, but by controlling the institutions and infrastructure that hold together a society. Wanna' eat?...turn in your guns. Wanna' job?...turn in your guns. Want a home loan?... Hey look!...Your name is on the NRA membership roster we recently siezed! Go to jail! Many right wingers that think they could withstand a tyrant with small arms. I beg to differ. IMO, the best defense against tyrants is a well educated military officer corps that would not stand for the blatant subversion of the political process. I think we have that right now.

[Fairweather]

....a well educated officer corps, that is! I think our military is our best defense against political wanna-be tyrants....internal and external. (And please spare me your predictable leftist reply, "but Bush is a tyrant"...blah, blah, blah. It just aint so.)

[scrambler]

Well educated. Would that include Rhodes scholar?

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

scrambler said:

Well educated. Would that include Rhodes scholar?

 

 

 

 

I assume you're referring to Wesley Clark. In my statement above, I didn't allude in any way to the ideology of officers, just their allegance to, and understanding of our constitution.

 

But since you brought it up, a 1998 survey estimated that only 15% of the US military officer corps identified themselves as Democrats. I recall reading that this was a big concern for Clinton and Gore at the time.

[Jake]

Yeah sure a educated officer corps is a good way to keep things in check. I think most people are under the impression that the military wants to go to war. This is generally wrong. Most of the time, the military wants peace since they are the ones that are gonna be doing the dying.

 

As for the second amendement, forget the food crap. That is total BS. Have you ever studied this shit? "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."

It is all about the citizens being armed in order to resist a tryrannical government in the last line of defense - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Yes, today, given the substantial technological revolutions that make the military much more advanced than the average citizen, things are different. However, that is no reason to strip citizens of their rights to own guns. If citizens have no firearms at all, that would make it much easier for a crazy government leader/faction (read James Madison for the danger of factions) to take power.

 

Also, it is worth noting that guns aren't necessarily the problem. Canada allows guns and there aren't nearely as many murders etc up there. Is has something to do with the people. Personally, I was raised from day one to understand guns, but also realize that they are very dangerous - so I am careful with them, but also understand how they work and how to use them.

I think many people who have never shot or aren't familiar with guns have bad opinion of them based mostly on the media/press. If you know what they are and how they work, then you you realize much more. Make people take gun tests -that is fine. Kids under 18 have to take a hunter safety course, for instance - that is good. I think everyone should have to shoot a gun and take a course on them - they are prevalent in our society and people should understand the basics behind them.

People generally don't understand firearms, though. For example, I have read stuff saying semiautomatic firearms should be illegal cause that is what the miliary uses. Of course, too many people don't realize that not only is a regular pistol semi auto, but also a regular shotgun too that people use for hunting waterfowl. The M-16s the army issues these days are generally all semi-auto too, but there is a big difference between a high velocity .223 cal/5.56mm with a 30 round mag and a 5 round semi-auto shotgun.

Getting rid of guns is an uniformed kneejerk reaction. Tougher gun control laws (such as background checks for all purchases) and eduaction programs are the answer. Also, if you are convicted of using gun in a crime, you should sit in the cooler for a long time, not just a couple years. It isn't the gun, it is the operator.

Edited November 22, 2003 by Jake

[olyclimber]

Fairweather said:

....a well educated officer corps, that is! I think our military is our best defense against political wanna-be tyrants....internal and external. (And please spare me your predictable leftist reply, "but Bush is a tyrant"...blah, blah, blah. It just aint so.)

 

No...Bush is an idiot, not a tyrant.

[scrambler]

Fairweather said:

scrambler said:

Well educated. Would that include Rhodes scholar?

 

 

 

 

I assume you're referring to Wesley Clark. In my statement above, I didn't allude in any way to the ideology of officers, just their allegance to, and understanding of our constitution.

 

But since you brought it up, a 1998 survey estimated that only 15% of the US military officer corps identified themselves as Democrats. I recall reading that this was a big concern for Clinton and Gore at the time.

 

And, by inference the other 85% would be Republican, Independent or nonaffliated. The general conception is that Repubs are strong on defense thus the assumed support. The elephant is a strange creature though. It shouldn't automatically be identified as having a Neocon face.

 

Interesting to see how the big players are shaking out. Hugh Shelton has (is serving?) served as an advisor to John Edwards campaign though Shelton has not officially endorsed Edwards ( one link). This morning I read this headline: Former Air Force chief backs Dean candidacy : Retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak of Lake Oswego helps bolster the presidential hopeful's military credentials. Here's a little snippet: "Retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, the former Air Force chief of staff who endorsed George W. Bush in 2000, has left the Republican fold and is backing Democrat Howard Dean in the 2004 race for president."

 

Seems these big guys are jockeying for position. Nearly all of these military higher-ups sit on multiple boards of corporation, "easy money".

 

In all fairness, every one of the candidates has dirt in his past. The ability to continue in political life is a testament to his strength. It takes a powerful man to steamroll his way beyond these mistakes, admirable in a way too. But how that person dealt with a problem in the past should be an indication of how that person will deal with it in the future.

 

[Fairweather]

Don't get me wrong, Jake. I support the right of private citizens to own firearms for any type currently allowed. And I hope the current, ridiculous "assault weapons bill" is allowed to expire. And yes, the 2nd amendment is, and was about keeping the govt in check, but thinking that an armed citizenry will stop a tyrant who is supported by our military is just a romantic idea held by folks who think their Mini-14 and a couple of 30 round magazines hold more power than they actually do.

[Jake]

Yes, fairweather, I agree with you. The guys in the militias who go out and "train" or whatever aren't really gonna stop anybody who is determined to get rid of em. But, as you say, private citizens should be allowed to own firearms.

 

 

[catbirdseat]

Fairweather said:

Don't get me wrong, Jake. I support the right of private citizens to own firearms for any type currently allowed. And I hope the current, ridiculous "assault weapons bill" is allowed to expire. And yes, the 2nd amendment is, and was about keeping the govt in check, but thinking that an armed citizenry will stop a tyrant who is supported by our military is just a romantic idea held by folks who think their Mini-14 and a couple of 30 round magazines hold more power than they actually do.

Just for kicks, Fairweather, would you explain to us what is ridiculous about the Assault Weapons Ban?

[Fairweather]

A determined individual could kill more people with a 30.06 bolt-action hunting rifle than he could with an "assault rifle". Remember the Texas "clock tower" guy?

 

"Assault rifle" is a label invented by the press to describe only certain types of weapons. The label as the current bill uses it, for example, applies only to specific brands of rifles and not others.

 

The ban on hi capacity magazines if inneffective. Go into any gun shop and you can still purchase a "pre-ban" magazine.

 

Semi-automatic rifles account for less than 1 percent of firearms crimes committed each year in this country.

 

The assault weapons bill was a "feel good" measure passed by lawmakers and their constituents who don't understand firearms.

[catbirdseat]

So then it appears that your objection is that the Assault Weapons Ban is ineffective because it doesn't go far enough in banning high capacity, rapid fire weapons?

 

My take is that is was law enforcement who were behind it. They don't like being outgunned in drug busts, which is where weapons of this sort are most likely to be encountered.

[Fairweather]

Then I'm sure those drug dealers will turn their rifles in by the truckload at the nearest Miami police precinct.

[chelle]

Back to the original thread topic...

 

Back in Nov/Dec 2001 the the Center for Pulic Law and Health (a committee under the CDC formed in 10/00) met to create legislation to help the government deal with bioterrorism threat. They came up with the Model Emergency Health Powers Act. This is a scary piece of legislation that the federal government has been encouraging states to adopt. Basically it is a legal framework that allows a governor to declare martial law if there is belived to be a bioterror threat in his/her state. Here's a synopsis from an article published last year on a larger topic :

 

"After working only 18 days, on Nov. 23 CLPH released a 40-page document called the Model Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA). This was a "model" law that HHS is suggesting be enacted by the 50 states to handle future public health emergencies such as bioterrorism. A revised version was released on Dec. 21 containing more specific definitions of "public health emergency" as it pertains to bioterrorism and biologic agents, and includes language for those states that want to use the act for chemical, nuclear or natural disasters.

 

According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), after declaring a "public health emergency", and without consulting with public health authorities, law enforcement, the legislature or courts, a state governor using MEHPA, or anyone he/she decides to empower, can among many things:

 

- Require any individual to be vaccinated. Refusal constitutes a crime and will result in quarantine.

 

- Require any individual to undergo specific medical treatment. Refusal constitutes a crime and will result in quarantine.

 

- Seize any property, including real estate, food, medicine, fuel or clothing, an official thinks necessary to handle the emergency.

 

- Seize and destroy any property alleged to be hazardous. There will be no compensation or recourse.

 

- Draft you or your business into state service.

 

- Impose rationing, price controls, quotas and transportation controls.

 

- Suspend any state law, regulation or rule that is thought to interfere with handling the declared emergency.

 

When the federal government wanted the states to enact the 55 mph speed limit, they coerced the states using the threat of withholding federal monies. The same tactic will likely be used with MEHPA. As of this writing the law has been passed in Kentucky. According to AAPS, it has been introduced in the legislatures of Arizona, California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. It is expected to be introduced shortly in Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin. MEHPA is being evaluated by the executive branches in North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington, DC."

[scott_harpell]

muffy! read it! its kinda important.