Althouse: "Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government."

June 17, 2010

"Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government."

"In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

194 comments:

kent said...: If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?; 6/17/10, 9:56 AM
Anonymous said...: All of the above?

(Good one, Kent, LOL); 6/17/10, 9:59 AM
KCFleming said...: "“She needs to assure us she’s not advocating violence against our sitting government or those serving in the sitting government,” he said."

Bullshit.
The sitting gummint is out to destroy me and you and all that we hold dear.
It is they who need to assure us they're not doing so.

But they can't, because it is exactly what's happening.; 6/17/10, 10:00 AM
New York said...: It's disturbing, but the MSM has already been misrepresenting her remarks.

I'd like to wait and see if she claims she was misquoted or misrepresented.; 6/17/10, 10:02 AM
Big Mike said...: The question is more basic than that. Do people have an inherent right to self defense? If yes, then people who have some reason to fear attack should have an absolute right to buy a gun and be trained in its use.

It seems to me that the anti-Second Amendment folks are really answering my question in the negative, but know good and well that they'd be run out of town forever if they came right out and said it.; 6/17/10, 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: We had a revolution of sorts in the late 1960s. It wasn't terribly violent, but there was violence.

The 1960s revolution ended the draft, put Feminism in place within the Establishment, and over time brought about the corruption of both parties.

Me thinks the Establishment fears another revolution like the one from the 1960s. It'll come from the conservative/libertarian side this time, though, like America hitting the giant cultural UNDO button.

Those conservatives/libertarians are the ones who pay attention to the second amendment.; 6/17/10, 10:04 AM
KCFleming said...: "It seems to me that the anti-Second Amendment folks are really answering my question in the negative"

Our city attorney said at a neighborhood meeting (about a number of recent drive-by shootings and break-ins) that if we used a gun to shoot an intruder "We'd becoming after you".; 6/17/10, 10:06 AM
traditionalguy said...: An interesting angle here is that once more we see that a woman can make such statements and get away with it today, but a man must take the high road of diplomacy or he is seen as unstable. It is like a rock breaks scissors, etc. game. and we see now that a fighting woman image breaks a diplomatic man image in the game of politician's images. We watched diplomatic man break fighting man in 2008. The next duel may decide whether diplomatic woman can break fighting woman. Bachman's election may be that example, or Fiorina/Boxer unless both are seen as fighters.; 6/17/10, 10:07 AM
Tank said...: I always thought that Second Amendment thingy was about my right to kill my own venison.; 6/17/10, 10:10 AM
kent said...: (Good one, Kent, LOL)

Not of my own minting, but thanks nonetheless. ;); 6/17/10, 10:12 AM
Phil 314 said...: I've heard the full quote. At best poorly worded, at worst, disturbing.

Disclaimer: I'm not a "gun" person. I understand this is a "hot button".

Never push the hot button of an armed individual; 6/17/10, 10:17 AM
Hagar said...: The Second Amendment comes out of Blackstone's "Commentary on the Laws of England" with the added language to discourage another Shay's or Whiskey Rebellion.

In the 18th century the government and the citizens were fairly equal in terms of the effectiveness of their armaments.
Today - have you watched the news footage of what the Government can do with with C-130 gunships and Apache attack helicopters?

Still, the 2nd Amendment has a powerful symbolic value, plus there really is no good reason why citizens in good standing should be prohibited from owning and using civilian firearms.; 6/17/10, 10:20 AM
Unknown said...: Interesting how the Lefties love to invoke the Founding Fathers, but can't stand it being done to them.

And the lady is correct in her statement.; 6/17/10, 10:21 AM
garage mahal said...: I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.

Bet she won't be saying this anymore if she's elected!; 6/17/10, 10:21 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/17/10, 10:22 AM
Mick said...: Read the Declaration of Independence.
This merry band of traitors in our government gave us 2 ineligible candidates to vote on (McCain--Born in Colon, Panama, is not a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama's father was never a US Citizen so Obama 2is not a Natural Born Citizen). What does that tell you?
They are gradually invalidating the US Constitution, and our sovereignty. They need to be aware that we will not stand for it. Of course people like Chrissy Matthews and other MSM enablers paint those that are aware as nutjobs. Someone needs to walk on the set and take the mike out of his girly hands.; 6/17/10, 10:25 AM
Bart DePalma said...: This statement is only shocking to the historically illiterate. Our Founders were revolutionaries who led a rebellion of an armed citizenry. It would be interesting to bring the Founders to the present day and ask them whether the People should rise up again in rebellion against our current government.; 6/17/10, 10:26 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Bet she won't be saying this anymore if she's elected!

Probably because her goal is to move Congress in a different direction. That being, one that won't drive us into the ground which is where we're currently heading with President 'Put-It-On-My-Tab'; 6/17/10, 10:26 AM
Blue@9 said...: Dumb. Democratic mechanisms exist already. What can you fix with guns that you can't fix with an educated vote? If we have a shitty government with shitty leaders and shitty laws, we only have ourselves to blame. So what are we going to do, shoot ourselves?; 6/17/10, 10:27 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: It would be interesting to bring the Founders to the present day and ask them whether the People should rise up again in rebellion against our current government.

Well I would argue that the Founders would say: "Um..we provided you the foundation to change the government without resorting to violence which we didn't have at the time of the Revolution. Maybe stop electing community organizers and get someone who actually knows something about governing, economics, leadership..."; 6/17/10, 10:29 AM
Blue@9 said...: This merry band of traitors in our government gave us 2 ineligible candidates to vote on (McCain--Born in Colon, Panama, is not a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama's father was never a US Citizen so Obama 2is not a Natural Born Citizen).

Merry band of traitors where? Tell me again how they got to be the candidates? Oh, yeah, right, they won primaries where people voted for them. Are you suggesting we try and punish as traitors the millions of Americans who voted for them?; 6/17/10, 10:30 AM
KCFleming said...: "What can you fix with guns that you can't fix with an educated vote?"

A man coming at you with a knife.
Just off the top of my head.
I have more.; 6/17/10, 10:30 AM
Irene said...: NPR's "Political Junkie" used this story yesterday to imply that Angle's political inexperience resulted in a statement that could have an unfortunate interpretation. At the end her observations about the Second Amendment, Angle said: "My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? And I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

The hosts linked this comment to the angry conservative Tea Party atmosphere and suggested that, "[I]t's just so it's just once again, the Republicans thought they had a very interesting nominee - they do have an interesting nominee, but it may not be a successful one."; 6/17/10, 10:30 AM
Blue@9 said...: A man coming at you with a knife.
Just off the top of my head.
I have more.

C'mon, don't be obtuse. You know I'm talking about political violence and revolutions.; 6/17/10, 10:32 AM
KCFleming said...: " You know I'm talking about political violence and revolutions."

Every socialist and communist country has confiscated the weapons of the proles precisely because they knew that you can in fact fix with guns what you can't fix with an educated vote.; 6/17/10, 10:39 AM
Mick said...: Blue@9 said,

"Merry band of traitors where? Tell me again how they got to be the candidates? Oh, yeah, right, they won primaries where people voted for them. Are you suggesting we try and punish as traitors the millions of Americans who voted for them?"

Congress is supposed to vet the candidates that that come from their ranks and run for office. They held sham hearings (Resolution 511) that concluded that McCain was a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in US Controlled territory of 2 citizen parents (of course that is against what the Naturalization Act of 1795 said, and besides he was born in Panama proper (Colon) not the base, at a time when Panama gave birthright citizenship. McCain basically made a deal that he wouldn't talk about Obama's lack of eligibility if McCain were allowed to pass through.
Whether a Candidate gets the votes or not, he/she still must be eligible. That's why there is the 20th Amendment (if the president elect shall have failed to qualify) and the Electoral college.
Are you another clueless lawyer?; 6/17/10, 10:39 AM
Pastafarian said...: Blue, garage, c3, anyone else who finds her statement to be wrong, ill-advised, or "disturbing":

What did she say that was wrong, exactly?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."

All quotes from Jefferson, of course.

Could it be any more clear that what she said about Jefferson and the founders' purpose for the second amendment is correct? These founding fathers didn't just think we had the right to keep and bear flintlocks -- some of them owned frigates, complete with cannon loaded with grapeshot (the 18th century version of a machine gun) right out in the harbor.

And she goes on to say that she hopes that this isn't where we're going. Do you disagree with this hope?

And she worries that if "congress keeps going the way it is", then they might provoke an armed revolt. Do you disagree that the trend has certainly been toward a bigger, more powerful government? Have you detected a certain disdain on the part of the governing for the will of the governed as of late?

So IF THIS TREND CONTINUES...say, if Obama just says the hell with it and declares martial law and suspend habeus rights and cancels the 2012 election and takes over every business in the country, which is the direction that things have been headed...then we might see an armed response.

Do you disagree with that?

Are we to the point that we can no longer speak the truth, even when it's apparent on its face?; 6/17/10, 10:42 AM
holdfast said...: "if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies"

It could also be taken as a caution rather than any sort of threat, but it is not really what you want to hear from political candidates. As much as I think that the US government has gone off the rails, especially in terms of spending, I don't see it as being near to that territory that would legitimize armed uprising, though I am reminded of the old saying:

Why does treason never prosper?

For when treason prospers, none dare call it so.; 6/17/10, 10:42 AM
former law student said...: First the government has to be tyrannical:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

To prevent a worse tyranny, however, rebellion requires a leader of Washington's stature:

"The moderation and virtue of a single character [i.e., George Washington] have probably prevented [the American] Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784. ME 4:218, Papers 7:106; 6/17/10, 10:42 AM
Mick said...: The second Amendment ensures the bill of rights.; 6/17/10, 10:42 AM
sunsong said...: What a sad, sad outcome if Harry Reid keeps his seat because this woman has a tin ear. She seems as bad as Harry at saying stupid things - well maybe almost as bad :-); 6/17/10, 10:44 AM
Pastafarian said...: MadMan, what makes you think Angle would disapprove of either of those two Jefferson quotes?

Because she's a Republican, she must be a Christian fundamentalist? Guess I'll change parties.

Because she's running for elected office, she must relish the idea of holding power over her fellow citizens? Guess anyone who believes in small government, then runs for office, is a hypocrite.; 6/17/10, 10:45 AM
KCFleming said...: @fls; "First the government has to be tyrannical"

Criterion met.; 6/17/10, 10:47 AM
Pastafarian said...: holdfast, did angle say we were "near" that point? I missed that.; 6/17/10, 10:47 AM
John henry said...: Edward Mandell House was an avowed socialist, though more in the fascist than the Marxist model as far as I can see. he was the eminence grise behind Woodrow Wilson.

He also wrote a book "Philip Dru Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow" which can be downloaded free from Gutenberg.org
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6711 as a text file.It is one of those books I've heard about for years but, until I got my Android had never read. I have about 20 books downloaded to my phone to read.

I am currently about halfway through it. Not exactly high literature but rather interesting.

Senator Selwyn carries out a coup, semi-legally by manipulating elections, taking over the entire government under his puppet, President Rockwin.

Dru gathers an army and defeats the army of the US. At this point in the book he is in DC and about to take over as "dictator" (House's and Dru's word)

I don't know what happens next.

It looks like House thought that the takeover of the government by armed force and the imposition of a (socialist fascist) would be a good thing.

Read the book. Rather scary, especially considering how much power and influence House had at the time.

John Henry; 6/17/10, 10:50 AM
former law student said...: Our Second Amendment, like others in the Bill of Rights, appear to originate in similar provisions in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (during the interregnum between James II and William of Orange and Mary:

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

...

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

At that time in England, only yeomen and above could own firearms. The US eliminated England's discrimination by faith and class, allowing all to own firearms.; 6/17/10, 10:50 AM
Pastafarian said...: "What can you fix with guns that you can't fix with an educated vote?"

Blue, had more Jews in Germany had guns in the 30s, had their weapons not been confiscated by the government, then they might have fixed quite a bit. Their educated votes didn't do much good.; 6/17/10, 10:50 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: say, if Obama just says the hell with it and declares martial law and suspend habeus rights and cancels the 2012 election and takes over every business in the country, which is the direction that things have been headed...then we might see an armed response.

I wonder whether or not the oath of the Armed Forces would obligate the military to remove him from office if such a blatent usurpation of the Constitution was attempted. If memory serves, those who enlist take an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It also requires them to obey the orders of the President which I suppose could be interpreted as enforcing his will but I'd argue that the oath is to the Constitution and not a single individual.; 6/17/10, 10:53 AM
garage mahal said...: Probably because her goal is to move Congress in a different direction.

She said it's perfectly legitimate to take out someone in Congress via the 2nd Amendment. I don't know how else you could interpret that statement. I'd love to hear that question posed to her if she were elected.; 6/17/10, 10:53 AM
MadisonMan said...: Because she's a Republican, she must be a Christian fundamentalist? Guess I'll change parties.

I'm thinking more of the people who are likely to vote for her. You can agree with me, I hope, that Christian Fundamentalists -- if there are any in Nevada -- are more likely to vote for a Republican? Will they still do that if she starts exuding a Jeffersonian Atheistic vibe?

Live by the Jefferson quote, Die by the Jefferson quote.; 6/17/10, 10:54 AM
Bart DePalma said...: HD:

Soldiers are sworn to obey only lawful orders of the President.; 6/17/10, 10:54 AM
MadisonMan said...: I'd love to hear that question posed to her if she were elected.

I'd love to hear it when she's elected.; 6/17/10, 10:54 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Blue, had more Jews in Germany had guns in the 30s, had their weapons not been confiscated by the government, then they might have fixed quite a bit. Their educated votes didn't do much good.

Neither would the guns. There were a lot more Germans who supported the Reich than there were Jews to resist it in any meaningful sense.; 6/17/10, 10:55 AM
Mick said...: Hoosier Daddy said,

"I wonder whether or not the oath of the Armed Forces would obligate the military to remove him from office if such a blatent usurpation of the Constitution was attempted."

The Officers Oath is to the Constitution.; 6/17/10, 10:56 AM
Blue@9 said...: Blue, garage, c3, anyone else who finds her statement to be wrong, ill-advised, or "disturbing":

What did she say that was wrong, exactly?

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was dumb. The threat of popular uprising is always ever-present. But it's one of those things that, IMO, you shouldn't suggest unless you're ready to go for it.

It's especially lame for a politician who is running for political office to say that. Is she running for office or trying to destroy it?

I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and sure I believe it's a bulwark against tyranny. But should a political candidate suggest that people may revert to violence if things don't go their way?

Let me ask you this, how would you have felt if Obama in October 2008 started saying that the country was a mess under the Republicans, that Democrats also had guns, and that they might take things into their own hands if the country didn't change course? Is that an affirmation of Constitutional values or an implied threat?; 6/17/10, 10:59 AM
Mick said...: former law student said...
Our Second Amendment, like others in the Bill of Rights, appear to originate in similar provisions in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (during the interregnum between James II and William of Orange and Mary:

I can see why it's former. Our bill of rights is Natural Law. The government doesn't give us those rights, they are Inalienable Rights given by god.; 6/17/10, 10:59 AM
Pastafarian said...: garage, here's the quote:

"I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Now, does that sound like she's calling for Reid to be murdered?

Or does it sound like the first thing you'd do if you wanted to keep things from reaching the point of armed insurrection would be to "take Harry Reid out", by defeating him in an election, because she is, you know, running against him in an election, and not facing off against him in a fight to the death?

To quote Jeremy: Duh.; 6/17/10, 10:59 AM
Scott said...: For the Second Amendment to come into play, we would need a situation pretty much like Mexico's or the Philippines', where you have a massively corrupt government that has only a fingernail grip on the territory it's trying to govern. Both countries have gun laws that are more restrictive than those in the United States, but the more lawless the state, the more available the guns.

We have the right enumerated in the Second Amendment. It's a good thing. But if Sharon Angle really means it when she says that we're close to needing to exercise that right, then she's a wee bit paranoid.; 6/17/10, 11:00 AM
garage mahal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/17/10, 11:01 AM
Pastafarian said...: MadMan, I don't think Jefferson was an atheist -- I think he was a deist, but not a Christian, and he respected skepticism.

I can see your point, though.; 6/17/10, 11:02 AM
Blue@9 said...: Blue, had more Jews in Germany had guns in the 30s, had their weapons not been confiscated by the government, then they might have fixed quite a bit. Their educated votes didn't do much good.

Again, I support the 2nd Amendment. What I don't support is politicians talking about people rising up in revolution if things don't change. If normal citizens want to have that conversation, fine. But this lady is running for a public office. It's fucking retarded for someone running for office to talk about running people out of office with guns. Why even run for office if you don't think the ballot box is good enough?; 6/17/10, 11:03 AM
garage mahal said...: Pasta
What is a "2nd Amendment remedy"? What does that mean? I'm not saying it's the worst sentence ever uttered, but just reckless from a public servant.; 6/17/10, 11:03 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: She said it's perfectly legitimate to take out someone in Congress via the 2nd Amendment. I don't know how else you could interpret that statement.

I wasn't interpreting her statement, I was indicating her implied desire to move Congress in a different direction than it it currently heading if she was elected.

Funny but back in the sixties, it was the nutball Lefties who were calling for and in the case of Obama's friend Bill Ayres, were actively trying to overthrow the government by these very means. Now all of the sudden the Left is getting the vapors because the Right is stealing the No Justice No Peace mantra.

Then again garage, maybe she's just worried that we're on the road to financial collapse and will end up like these guys.; 6/17/10, 11:04 AM
Pastafarian said...: Hoosier, wouldn't have taken very many men with bolt-action rifles and decent optics to take out quite a bit of the Nazi high command at one of their rallies.

But we digress.; 6/17/10, 11:04 AM
former law student said...: The Weimar Republic had strict gun control, which made rounding up Jewish guns remarkably easy for the Nazis.

The Warsaw Ghetto fighters were able to hold on thanks to weapons the Polish Underground smuggled in. From one of Korbonski's books:

the Home Army delivered to the Jewish Fighting Organization 1 light machine gun, 2 submachine guns, 50 handguns (all with magazines and ammunition), 10 rifles, 600 hand grenades with detonators, 30 kilograms of explosives (plastic, received from the air drops), 120 kilograms of explosives of its own production, 400 detonators for bombs and grenades, 30 kilograms of potassium to make the incendiary "Molotov cocktails," and, finally, great quantities of saltpeter, needed to manufacture gun powder. The Jewish Fighting Organization also received instructions on how to manufacture bombs, hand grenades and incendiary bottles; how to build strong-holds; and where to get rails and cement for their construction.; 6/17/10, 11:05 AM
Calypso Facto said...: @ Bart: Emphasis on LAWFUL ("according to regulations", actually). Note too that this "obey the President" language is not found in the officers' oath. Also, all soldiers swear an oath to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."; 6/17/10, 11:06 AM
former law student said...: OK, Mick, if you think God wrote the Second Amendment, I'm not going to argue with you. I did think that former English colonists might reasonably copy provisions from English law into their American Bill of Rights, but whatever.; 6/17/10, 11:09 AM
Pastafarian said...: Scott, again, I missed that part where she says we're "close" to that point.

And if we didn't have the second amendment from the beginning, then we wouldn't have any of the other rights by now. It's the only reason we still live in a (nominally) free (semi-) republic.

Is the citizenry outgunned by the government in terms of quality of weaponry? Yes. And this would horrify Jefferson.

But does a potential army of 100 million (albeit with deer rifles and shotguns) provide a disincentive for the government to decide to go door-to-door and round up weapons, like Germany did in the 30s? Ya'betcha.; 6/17/10, 11:10 AM
traditionalguy said...: Angle's angle is that the USA is a republic based upon elected representatives. But in elections it is a well known Dictator's truth that all that really matters is who counts the votes. Ask the Iranians whom Obama dissed when he supported as legitimate the Mullahs who had a pre-programmed in the vote count before the show "election day".; 6/17/10, 11:10 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I'll go on record and state that, barring alien invasion, nuclear attack or some other national cataclysmic event, until such time as the President declares martial law, suspends the Constitution and starts rounding up our personal firearms, the ballot box is where the people have to go to change things. If we continue to send back the current crop of inept morons then as others have said, its our fault.

But yeah garage, what she said is pretty dumb if she's running for office and I'll assume it was a gut response and not all that well thought out. Since you voted for the Won and Joe The Biden, I would assume you would be used to half assed utterances by now ;-); 6/17/10, 11:11 AM
Mick said...: former law student said...
"OK, Mick, if you think God wrote the Second Amendment, I'm not going to argue with you. I did think that former English colonists might reasonably copy provisions from English law into their American Bill of Rights, but whatever."

Didn't say god wrote the bill of rights. I said the Bill of Rights are Natural Rights given by god and based on Natural Law. Read the Declaration of Independence.
English Common Law is what caused the colonies to revolt.; 6/17/10, 11:13 AM
Pastafarian said...: Garage said: "What is a "2nd Amendment remedy"?"

I'm sure that she's talking about armed insurrection here.

But she's talking about how she fears that it might come about, at some point in the future, if current trends continue. And she's discussing how we might avoid that bloodbath, by removing people like Reid from office. Before we reach that point. So she's talking about defeating him in an election.

I think people are reading into this quote what they want to see.; 6/17/10, 11:13 AM
KCFleming said...: "It's ...retarded for someone running for office to talk about running people out of office with guns. Why even run for office if you don't think the ballot box is good enough?"

Mebbe so.
Economic declines make people nervous, and violence often results. Governments fall. Wars begin.

The ground has shifted beneath us. This isn't 1992, where some bland feckless leader can be waited out.

Are we near revolution? I hope the hell not.
Can the US recover from the socialist body blows to the economy? I hope the hell so.

But I am scared for the future, and her statement doesn't even raise an eyebrow.; 6/17/10, 11:14 AM
Mick said...: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/16/maj-gen-paul-e-vallely-we-need-to-demand-resignations-of-obama-his-cabinet-and-members-of-congress/; 6/17/10, 11:15 AM
Blue@9 said...: And seriously, to those people saying we're living in a tyranny now, grow the fuck up. You're no better than the twats on Democratic Underground or HuffPo saying that we live in a fascist state. We're not even close to real fucking tyranny.

What is that you're typing? Oh, right, you're on the internet saying this shit and no jackbooted thugs are busting down your door. What's that in your closet? Oh, right, guns. Where's that check going? Oh, right, the NRA, which has millions of members and is a political juggernaut.

Go look at actual tyrannies and authoritarian regimes and tell me if the US looks anything like those places. It doesn't.

And guns aren't going anywhere. If any political trend in the last 20 years is clear and definitive, it's that the gun control people lost. Shit, we're having debates about open carry now. No one would have thought that plausible 20 years ago. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats nowadays, so it's not even a purely partisan issue.

So yeah, the guns will be here if tyranny comes. But until that time comes, quit the fucking machismo violent revolution talk. It's fucking pathetic.; 6/17/10, 11:15 AM
KCFleming said...: "But until that time comes, quit the fucking machismo violent revolution talk. It's fucking pathetic."

Or else!!!!; 6/17/10, 11:19 AM
Pastafarian said...: Blue, I agree with you. It's not time to threaten revolution. And when commenters here (Florida, NewHam [maybe the same guy]) do that, it's counterproductive.

But I don't think that she is making a threat. And I don't see anyone here threatening that in this thread (so far).

I think what Angle said here is that, at some point, if trends continue, then we might face this worst-case scenario of having to fight off our own metastasized over-reaching all-controlling federal government.; 6/17/10, 11:20 AM
former law student said...: Note that gun registration was the necessary prerequisite to gun confiscation, in the UK and Australia as well as in Nazi Germany. Hard to argue with the authorities when they have a list of gunowners and every gun each one owns.; 6/17/10, 11:20 AM
Alex said...: That sure sounds like incitement for a violent overthrow of the government.; 6/17/10, 11:21 AM
Alex said...: If Harry Reid is smart he will run with that quote - "What does Angle mean?". What an idiot.; 6/17/10, 11:21 AM
Alex said...: What is a "2nd Amendment remedy"? What does that mean? I'm not saying it's the worst sentence ever uttered, but just reckless from a public servant.

It means she is calling for his assassination.; 6/17/10, 11:23 AM
Blue@9 said...: Is the citizenry outgunned by the government in terms of quality of weaponry? Yes. And this would horrify Jefferson.

All the tanks and airplanes in the world won't mean crap if there's an armed insurrection and guerrilla insurgency. Shit, look at Afghanistan. You think the Taliban are half as resourceful as rebelling Americans would be?

Besides, our armed forces are so closely knit with the general populace that I can't imagine even a quarter of American soldiers agreeing to go to war against their own citizens.; 6/17/10, 11:23 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Besides, our armed forces are so closely knit with the general populace that I can't imagine even a quarter of American soldiers agreeing to go to war against their own citizens.

Although I would say that is a given, I'm glad you pointed it out.; 6/17/10, 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: What steps toward the abolition of elections is "this Congress" supposed to have taken?; 6/17/10, 11:27 AM
Roger J. said...: re Ms Angle--I think the good people of Nevada will make their decision, and what non-Nevadans think is not worth a fart in a whirlwind.

They elected Harry Reid; that couldnt do any worse by replacing him with Ms Angle.; 6/17/10, 11:27 AM
KCFleming said...: "Blue, I agree with you. It's not time to threaten revolution. "

Ditto.

But I still fear for our future, like I never have before.

I do not know whether I will even be able to afford to live here once Obamacare starts, and failing to see any remaining free states, will have to go where I can still make a living. And that won't be the US.

It all makes me very sad.; 6/17/10, 11:29 AM
KCFleming said...: "What steps toward the abolition of elections is "this Congress" supposed to have taken?"

Amnesty.
ACORN.
Black Panthers.
Al Franken.
Soros' Secretary of States Project.; 6/17/10, 11:33 AM
Unknown said...: Never forget that the Bill of Rights was added because people were afraid of the possibility of a strong national government becoming tyrannical and wanted protections against it.

Some here have talked about a manufactured 'crisis' by The Zero that would enable him to suspend the fall elections. I don't think it will happen, but that is why there's a Second Amendment. So the states would have the power to defend themselves against such an eventuality.; 6/17/10, 11:34 AM
Pastafarian said...: Pogo -- here's one more Jefferson quote for you:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Pretty prescient -- that was from the late 1700s.; 6/17/10, 11:34 AM
Alex said...: Amnesty.
ACORN.
Black Panthers.
Al Franken.
Soros' Secretary of States Project.

hahahahahaha. Is that the best you've got? No wonder the teabaggers are tanking in the polls - nobody wants them. Obama the Great is taking off again(sticking it to BP) and he will be our President for life.

Barack Hussein Obama. mmm mmm mmm!; 6/17/10, 11:35 AM
Simon Kenton said...: Pogo -

"Our city attorney said at a neighborhood meeting (about a number of recent drive-by shootings and break-ins) that if we used a gun to shoot an intruder "We'd becoming after you."

We had some city attorneys who talked and acted like that; the result was our Make My Day Law. Some of them still grumble about their inability to charge self-defending residents, but they don't do it very loud or very explicitly.; 6/17/10, 11:35 AM
Blue@9 said...: The other thing that amuses me about people talking about Federal gov't tyranny-- Have you seen who's in charge of the Executive branch? Unless Obama turns things around, he's getting real close to become a lame duck President not even halfway through his first term. The guy can barely command the Coast Guard in a Federally-controlled water body. He's barely even the leader of his own political party--nobody wants him to campaign for them. Does anyone think he has the political mojo to effect a tyranny over us? Him and what army?; 6/17/10, 11:36 AM
KCFleming said...: Oh. It's Alex/Titus again.
Are you a liberal, or a conservative, or a moby today?
Sometimes it's hard to tell.; 6/17/10, 11:37 AM
Pastafarian said...: edutcher -- I agree, they're not going to suspend elections in 2012.

But I get the impression that this movement, currently led by people like Bill Ayers and George Soros (with figureheads like Obama and Pelosi out in front), is just going to grind on relentlessly. They're fighting the long war.

And I can imagine, in my fevered little Republican brain, a time when our children, or our children's children, will be well-served by the second amendment.; 6/17/10, 11:37 AM
Joe said...: I think where Angle and others, some here, go wrong is in thinking that violence will work….My “hero” is Saul Alinski, and yes I’m a Conservative GOP member. Alinski pointed out that in his time there were those seeking to reform, radically, Amerikkkka. And that some of them, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, were seeking to use VIOLENCE, to make this radical transformation. Alinski, correctly, pointed out that these people were wasting their time, that the government had more than enough resources to CRUSH them. He, instead, offered ANOTHER path to radical change, hence Rules for Radicals. This was his prescription for defeating Da Man, add in Piven and Cloward, and you have the means of bringing down Liberal Capitalist America.

Now you can hate Alinski’s goal, but still agree with his prescription and proscription. Violence today, just like, then is pointless. And to discuss is foolishness in the extreme. Instead let us adopt Alinski’s Rules for own use and turn them upon the New Authorities, the Ayers and the Vann Jones’, in power. Bottom-line: more organizing and less talk about “resistance” please.; 6/17/10, 11:38 AM
lemondog said...: Seems every generation has its revolution, not necessarily a violent upheavel. The Fourth Turning is a fascinating book on generational cycles. Rather than a linear continuum I now view things in cycles, considering time and age.

Mao **ugh** advanced the theory of permanent or continuous revolution to purge society of capitalist or 'unhealthy' ideas. His Cultural Revolution was violent.; 6/17/10, 11:40 AM
KCFleming said...: @Joe: Well said.; 6/17/10, 11:40 AM
Blue@9 said...: Mao **ugh** advanced the theory of permanent or continuous revolution to purge society of capitalist or 'unhealthy' ideas. His Cultural Revolution was violent.

Yup, and now China has no problem churning out cheap trinkets for hard cash and Mao is just a face on a t-shirt. Laff riot.; 6/17/10, 11:43 AM
Hagar said...: Mick,

What caused the colonists to revolt is that Parliament claimed that the Common Law did not run in the colonies, and that parliament could therefore legislate whatever it wished.; 6/17/10, 11:43 AM
Mick said...: Blue@9 said...
"The other thing that amuses me about people talking about Federal gov't tyranny-- Have you seen who's in charge of the Executive branch?"

Both sides of the aisle are the same. They both conspired to give us 2 ineligible candidates for POTUS, with another waiting in the wings (Jindal- non Natural Born because his parents were not citizens when Bobby was born). They hate the Constitution because it defines the limits of their power over we the people, so they are progressively whittling it and our sovereignty away. Both sides are power mad, and that equals tyranny.
You sound like the people who say that their is nothing to fear from Islamists.; 6/17/10, 11:44 AM
Mick said...: Hagar said...
"Mick,

What caused the colonists to revolt is that Parliament claimed that the Common Law did not run in the colonies, and that parliament could therefore legislate whatever it wished."

Nonsense. They were seeking to assert their Natural Law rights. Read the Declaration of Independence.
Here's a clue:
"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."; 6/17/10, 11:47 AM
Phil 314 said...: Now, does that sound like she's calling for Reid to be murdered?

Well...yes. Did she mean that? No

So if you have to parse a statement to confirm that a threat of violence/assassination was not intended, you have spoken poorly.

But as others have commented, its not for me to judge, its the voters of Nevada.

It was a sign IMHO of political inexperience. As all politicians should now know, everything you say, everything you do will be recorded and played back.

And every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
Ill be watching you; 6/17/10, 11:51 AM
Blue@9 said...: Both sides of the aisle are the same. They both conspired to give us 2 ineligible candidates for POTUS, with another waiting in the wings (Jindal- non Natural Born because his parents were not citizens when Bobby was born)

Dude, I am not even going there. Jindal was born in LA--he was natural born. McCain was born of two citizen parents in an American-controlled territory. Obama was born of one citizen parent in Hawaii. But what makes them all American in my book is that they believe they're American.

You know what, I'm a naturalized citizen, born in Korea. I dare anyone to say I'm less of an American than someone who was American at birth. There's nothing magical about being a natural born citizen, there's no special gene or substance flowing through your veins, nothing that makes you racially American. What makes me American is that I believe in our Constitution and in American values. That's it. Tell me, am I less of an American than Bill Ayers because he was born here and I was not?; 6/17/10, 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: "If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"

Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns.

Archie Bunker (to Meathead): Would you rather they were pushed out of windows?; 6/17/10, 11:57 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Archie Bunker (to Meathead): Would you rather they were pushed out of windows?

See the Defenestration in Prauge in 1618 ;-); 6/17/10, 12:05 PM
Mick said...: Blue@9 said,

"Dude, I am not even going there. Jindal was born in LA--he was natural born. McCain was born of two citizen parents in an American-controlled territory. Obama was born of one citizen parent in Hawaii. But what makes them all American in my book is that they believe they're American.

You know what, I'm a naturalized citizen, born in Korea. I dare anyone to say I'm less of an American than someone who was American at birth. There's nothing magical about being a natural born citizen, there's no special gene or substance flowing through your veins, nothing that makes you racially American. What makes me American is that I believe in our Constitution and in American values. That's it. Tell me, am I less of an American than Bill Ayers because he was born here and I was not?"

First of all, it doesn't matter what your "book" says, it matters what the Constitution says. Eligibilty for POTUS is not a "right". Natural Born Citizen is a circumstance of citizenship, and has no more "rights" than a Naturalized or native born citizen. McCain was born in Colon, Panama, not on the base, and it would not matter anyway read the the Naturalization Act of 1795 versus the NA 1790. He is a US citizen by statute, not natural law. It has nothing to do with being racially American. The requirement ensures the highest PROBABILITY of allegiance and attachment by requiring 2 generations of Citizenship of the Commander in Chief. Natural Born Citizens are born in the US of US Citizen parents. They are Natural Law citizens at birth. No statute is required to make them a citizen. Bobby Jindal's parents endowed him with dual allegiance at birth, and you were made a US Citizen by statute. Neither one of you is Natural Born and eligible for POTUS. Obama's father was Kenyan and endowed him with British Citizenship at birth (by the British Nationality Act 1948). As such he was born with dual allegiance and is not eligible.; 6/17/10, 12:11 PM
Synova said...: I notice that the woman is from Nevada.

I don't think that the rest of us really understand just how furious people are in some of the Western states about the destruction of their economies by people in Washington who have nothing at all to do with their State but to occupy their land and prevent the economic development of the parts that are still supposedly theirs.; 6/17/10, 12:14 PM
Joe said...: Ahhhh, a "Birfer"...yesirree bob, neither McCain NOR Obama could be POTUS...I will give you crazies this, some of you are consistent.

So the fact that Obama was born in HA to a US citizen makes him NOT a Natural Born Citizen? OK.

You know the origin of that Constitution Clause has more to do with Founder dislike of Hamilton than then anything else.; 6/17/10, 12:18 PM
Synova said...: As for the MSM... that would be an actual *journalistic* inquiry and area of reporting to do.

Not, gasp, is this lady advocating violence, but just how tightly strung is the situation between these states and the federal government?

I googled it, already knowing that the numbers were ridiculous, and I was utterly shocked.

84.5% of the State of Nevada is owned by the Feds.

The next highest state is Alaska. Utah, Oregon and Idaho are all greater than 50% owned, occupied and controlled by the federal government.

Add to that the laws and restrictions on developing resources that *aren't* owned outright by an occupying state and the utter disregard for sovereignty and economic well being and yeah... people are buying guns.

There's a story there for the MSM, but will they research it and tell it? Or will they play politics with it?

I'll give you one guess.; 6/17/10, 12:23 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I'm thinking more of the people who are likely to vote for her. You can agree with me, I hope, that Christian Fundamentalists -- if there are any in Nevada -- are more likely to vote for a Republican? Will they still do that if she starts exuding a Jeffersonian Atheistic vibe?

Live by the Jefferson quote, Die by the Jefferson quote.

I'm not a Fundamentalist, but I am a Christian. I don't see anything wrong with that quote.; 6/17/10, 12:25 PM
Synova said...: "She said it's perfectly legitimate to take out someone in Congress via the 2nd Amendment. I don't know how else you could interpret that statement."

It is legitimate. Absolutely.

And we again see the limits of shoddy thinking because in no way does legitimate mean anything but legitimate. Legitimate and advocating are not synonyms. Legitimate doesn't compel anyone to take that course. Legitimate doesn't say anything whatsoever about whether or not something is a good idea.

It's Statist garbage based in the notion that anything good must be compelled through law and anything bad must be forbidden through law. Thus anything lawful, legal or legitimate is GOOD, and not only good but must be compelled.

Complete Statist garbage.; 6/17/10, 12:33 PM
garage mahal said...: It is legitimate. Absolutely.

Any restrictions? It's "legitimate" to shoot and kill Dems and Republicans? Just Dems? How many per year I wonder. Is there a quota? POTUS too?; 6/17/10, 12:38 PM
Mick said...: Joe said...
"Ahhhh, a "Birfer"...yesirree bob, neither McCain NOR Obama could be POTUS...I will give you crazies this, some of you are consistent.

So the fact that Obama was born in HA to a US citizen makes him NOT a Natural Born Citizen? OK.

You know the origin of that Constitution Clause has more to do with Founder dislike of Hamilton than then anything else."

You have no idea what you are talking about. Hamilton would have been grandfathered in by the "grandfather clause" (A2S1C5--"...or a citizen". He was a citizen of his state on the day the USC was ratified, so he would have been eligible and NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Obama was also born a British citizen, like the founders, problem is he was born after 1787.
Natural born citizens are born solely citizens of the US and no other foreign power.
Panama granted birthright citizenship at that time. His birth in Colon, Panama provided him with Panamanian citizenship. Jindal was born with Indian citizenship, and is likewise ineligible as a non Natural Born Citizen. He became a US Citizen, subject to the jurisdiction of no other foreign power when his parents naturalized. He is a citizen by statute, not natural law.; 6/17/10, 12:45 PM
garage mahal said...: I meant bag limits, not quota. Like a bag limit when bird hunting.; 6/17/10, 12:47 PM
Synova said...: And Mick is the worst, hanging his life on legalistic twisting completely divorced from any need for moral consideration. He would make military service a sacrifice of one's children's citizenship status... serve your country and become second-class. Serve your country and you don't only give up a bunch of your rights for the duration, you tear your children from their rightful heritage and the bosom of their nation forever.

This is destructive on a fundamental level. It's not just a semantics game and Mick gets to be right, he gets to be right and self-righteous without caring what he is attempting with so much vigor to rend and destroy. The nationalistic claim is made a lie by the fact that this utterly destroys the heart of nationalism, of identity and citizenship.

Just follow to the logical conclusions... that the child of immigrants isn't an American... that the child of those Americans who sacrifice and serve isn't an American...

It's not a legal question in service of a higher ideal.

It's the destruction of what America *is*.

Nothing less.; 6/17/10, 12:48 PM
Synova said...: Garage... you know better. I'm disappointed.

Go play with Mick.; 6/17/10, 12:49 PM
Joe said...: Mick, Hamilton was born in Bermuda...and the clause was to prevent him from becoming POTUS.

And as long as you're born in HA to a US citizen, you can be POTUS....sorry. You lose, but continue to fight this fight if you want.....you might also want to abolish the Federal Reserve and reestablish the Gold Standard.
I mean if you're going to be a Politcal Don Quixote, why stop and ending the careers of the only two men who would have been POTUS in 2008?; 6/17/10, 12:50 PM
garage mahal said...: Synova
You're the one that went there! You said it was "legitimate". Sheesh.; 6/17/10, 12:54 PM
Synova said...: 84.5% of the State of Nevada is owned, occupied and controlled by a foreign state.; 6/17/10, 12:54 PM
Blue@9 said...: Natural born citizens are born solely citizens of the US and no other foreign power.

You are aware that many nations that are ethnically or racially-based deem you a citizen whether you're born there or not? For instance, an American citizen of Korean descent, born in the US to American citizen parents, is still considered a Korean citizen by the Korean government?

Besides, how absurd is it to say that John McCain, born to American citizens, one of which was a US Navy Admiral, in American territory, is not a natural born American citizen?; 6/17/10, 12:56 PM
AC245 said...: Garage... you know better. I'm disappointed.

Garage is just wishing that Angle would start acting like the only sane Republican, Pat Buchanan, and start blaming the Jews for taking over D.C.

That would make garage feel a lot safer.; 6/17/10, 12:56 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: One angle she is missing is that these Second Amendment remedies can work both ways and it is not always just against the government. Take a look at the fine armed American citizens who recently tired to enter our army bases. Or maybe we should just have shoot outs at the polling places--now that would be democracy in action.; 6/17/10, 12:58 PM
garage mahal said...: Hi Ace!; 6/17/10, 12:58 PM
Mick said...: Joe saiid,
"Mick, Hamilton was born in Bermuda...and the clause was to prevent him from becoming POTUS.

And as long as you're born in HA to a US citizen, you can be POTUS....sorry. You lose, but continue to fight this fight if you want.....you might also want to abolish the Federal Reserve and reestablish the Gold Standard.
I mean if you're going to be a Politcal Don Quixote, why stop and ending the careers of the only two men who would have been POTUS in 2008?"

No you are wrong. A2S1C5 made anyone who was a citizen in 1787 a statutory natural born citizen. As a citizen in 1787, Hamilton, or anyone for that matter would have been eligible. The last one grandfathered in (was a citizen of, or born before 1787 in America) was Zachary Taylor, b.1784 in Va.; 6/17/10, 1:04 PM
Joe said...: Well Mick, Natural Born Citizen covers Obama AND McCain, courts gonna argue against you...and yo know what, no matter how much you protest, they'll win. Someone gotta make the call and you'll lose.

Now Obama's Mom was a US citizen and he was born in US territory...makes him a "natural born" citizen. Sorry Buckooo, you can squirm and cry all you want, but I do believe you'll lose.

But thank you for playing.; 6/17/10, 1:09 PM
Mick said...: Blue@9 said,

"You are aware that many nations that are ethnically or racially-based deem you a citizen whether you're born there or not? For instance, an American citizen of Korean descent, born in the US to American citizen parents, is still considered a Korean citizen by the Korean government?"

Blah blah. I have seen this silly argument many times. You guys think of really creative ways to disprove me, but NO ONE has, including Gonad, er Synod. Born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents makes one a Natural Born Citizen of the US. No allegiance (like if in your example, if the father was a Korean citizen) is rightfully owed to the other country, as their citizenship law is against the laws of nature (or law of nations, see A1S8C10).; 6/17/10, 1:10 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You're the one that went there! You said it was "legitimate". Sheesh.

garage did you read her entire post or just the part that allowed you to play your snark card?

Sheesh is right.; 6/17/10, 1:10 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Guys, don't throw birther wood on the Mick fire. Its like arguing with Rosie on fire doesn't melt steel.; 6/17/10, 1:12 PM
Mick said...: Joe said...
"Well Mick, Natural Born Citizen covers Obama AND McCain, courts gonna argue against you...and yo know what, no matter how much you protest, they'll win. Someone gotta make the call and you'll lose.
Now Obama's Mom was a US citizen and he was born in US territory...makes him a "natural born" citizen. Sorry Buckooo, you can squirm and cry all you want, but I do believe you'll lose.
But thank you for playing."

I notice that when you are proven wrong, because you have no clue what you are talking about, you just try to declare victory. NO ONE here can prove me wrong, Natural Law is the truth, and the truth sets me free.
No, when Arizona's citizenship law reaches the SCOTUS they will decide in favor of the correct reading of the Constitution, and in dicta will defacto declare Obama ineligible. The 14th Amendment never made anchor babies citizens, and the definition of Natural Born Citizen never included one born in the US of 1 citizen parent. If so where is it?; 6/17/10, 1:16 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Actually here is a hypothetical for the liberal faction. At what point does the liberal agree that armed resistance is legitimate? When they ban abortion, outlaw flag burning? Establish a state religion?

Its a serious question because I don't think any nation is exempt from the possibility of becoming a totalitarian dictatorship. I assume all the freedoms that liberals hold dear are worth fighting for so I'm curious as to what the gag point is for you guys?; 6/17/10, 1:16 PM
Cedarford said...: Hoosier Daddy said...
I'll go on record and state that, barring alien invasion, nuclear attack or some other national cataclysmic event, until such time as the President declares martial law, suspends the Constitution and starts rounding up our personal firearms, the ballot box is where the people have to go to change things. If we continue to send back the current crop of inept morons then as others have said, its our fault.
=====================
That is a traditional argument. Which works if people believe the system is honest, not rigged.

The problem in America is that at times, democracy was subverted by the Ruling Elites. On a state level, by land and railroad interests, by party machines.
On a national level, by law and banking interests, by cabals who served other nations interests, or cabals bent on preserving a mass flow of illegal aliens, no matter what the people wished for.

The question for today is whether or not your vote is worth anything.

Bush had his Wall Street crowd, inc. Goldman Sachs. While Barack has his Wall Street crowd, inc. the other half of Goldman Sachs.

If you voted for McCain, you knew your vote meant cap and trade, trillions in bailouts, Amnesty for all illegals, closing Gitmo, etc.

Ditto with Obama.

Both served Ruling Elite agendas.

Ruling Elites also count on their lawyers as "firewalls" to any resurgence of something like Jacksonian Democracy. Lawyers that worked hard to craft laws for the Elites saying you CAN'T throw the rascals out, not legally..not without years in court and fair and proper compensation for all rascals.; 6/17/10, 1:20 PM
Mick said...: Hoosier Daddy said...

"Guys, don't throw birther wood on the Mick fire. Its like arguing with Rosie on fire doesn't melt steel."

So where is that SCOTUS case or founders definition that says a Natural Born Citizen is anything less than Born in the US of 2 Citizen parents? NO ONE here can prove me wrong, and if some of you are lawyers, that makes you pretty pitiful. But it is also the reason why we deserve a Non Allegiant, Non Natural Born POTUS. You refuse to see the truth before your eyes.
In Arizona, they are about to take away "birthright" citizenship, what will that say about Obama?; 6/17/10, 1:20 PM
Blue@9 said...: Born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents makes one a Natural Born Citizen of the US. No allegiance (like if in your example, if the father was a Korean citizen) is rightfully owed to the other country, as their citizenship law is against the laws of nature (or law of nations, see A1S8C10).

You didn't say "allegiance," you said "citizen." If I had been born in the US and both my parents were already naturalized, I would still be a citizen of Korea as far as Korean law is concerned. There's nothing I could do about that, it's merely the fact that I'm of Korean ancestry that makes them recognize me as a Korean citizen.

And seriously, their citizenship is against the laws of nature? WTF?; 6/17/10, 1:23 PM
AC245 said...: garage mahal said...
Synova
You're the one that went there! You said it was "legitimate". Sheesh.
6/17/10 12:54 PM

Synova said...
It is legitimate. Absolutely.
And we again see the limits of shoddy thinking because in no way does legitimate mean anything but legitimate. Legitimate and advocating are not synonyms. Legitimate doesn't compel anyone to take that course. Legitimate doesn't say anything whatsoever about whether or not something is a good idea.
It's Statist garbage based in the notion that anything good must be compelled through law and anything bad must be forbidden through law. Thus anything lawful, legal or legitimate is GOOD, and not only good but must be compelled.
Complete Statist garbage.
6/17/10 12:33 PM

As Hoosier alludes to, Synova anticipated and rebutted garage's shoddily thought out Statist garbage a good 20 minutes before he even typed it.; 6/17/10, 1:24 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: What a sad, sad outcome if Harry Reid keeps his seat because this woman has a tin ear.

Have you ever BEEN to Nevada? And I don't mean just Las Vegas or Reno.

I would hazard a guess that the majority of Nevadans are armed either outside or inside their homes. Away from the 'touristy' areas you commonly see pickups with loaded rifle racks and people with open carry in holsters. People carry for self protection against predators both human and animal as well as for hunting purposes.

Just because it doesn't play well in with the urban lattee sipping crowd doesn't mean she has a tin ear for the people of Nevada. After all.....THOSE folks are her audience. Not you.; 6/17/10, 1:24 PM
Blue@9 said...: So where is that SCOTUS case or founders definition that says a Natural Born Citizen is anything less than Born in the US of 2 Citizen parents?

Dude, that's your claim. Show us the law that says a natural born citizen can only be one born of 2 citizens in the US.; 6/17/10, 1:25 PM
Moose said...: What our dear government needs to consider is what is motivating people to discuss this seriously?

Sully's clear disgust of the Tea Partiers aside, people are really, seriously fed up with a government that no longer seems to listen to them. It then follows the concept of "no taxation without representation" applies.

I don't like it, but shit people - when are you going to listen?; 6/17/10, 1:25 PM
Synova said...: 84.5% of the State of Nevada is owned, occupied and controlled by a foreign state.; 6/17/10, 1:30 PM
caplight said...: If Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn had said that a fashionable New York party it would be quoted in the NYT Style section as the new expression of radical chic.; 6/17/10, 1:31 PM
Mick said...: Blue@9 said,

"You didn't say "allegiance," you said "citizen." If I had been born in the US and both my parents were already naturalized, I would still be a citizen of Korea as far as Korean law is concerned. There's nothing I could do about that, it's merely the fact that I'm of Korean ancestry that makes them recognize me as a Korean citizen.

And seriously, their citizenship is against the laws of nature? WTF?"

True citizens owe allegiance to the country of their citizenship, that is the basic nature of the compact. Citizens get protection and give alegiance. No allegiance would be owed to Korea in your example. In the eyes of Natural Law, as codified by Leibniz and Vattel in "Law of Nations", a Natural Born Citizen, born in a country of parents who are it's citizens, owes no allegiance to any country but that of his/her birth. Law of Nations or the body of natural law that is embedded in
our constitution (@ A1S8C10), is our common law of internatuional relations, which includes citizenship issues. If The father was a Korean citizen and the child was born in the US then the child would owe allegiance to the father's country. If the father traveled with that child to China, he would be subject to the jurisdiction of the father and Korea, on a Korean passport. At the age of majority that child would could be naturalized by election in the country of his domicile, be it the US or Korea.
In your scenario there is no recipricosity, and no adherence to law of nations.; 6/17/10, 1:33 PM
Tank said...: Recently, my daughter and few friends went to Las Vegas. The FIRST thing they did, before even gambing a dime, was go out into the desert somewhere and shoot various weapons, including fully automatic (ie. machine guns) firearms.

I'm thinking this [quote] is no big deal there.

If you don't come from some liberal enclave, the northeast, or a handful of other places in America, most people view firearms pretty matter of factly.

They do not wee wee at the first sign of Ka Boom.

wv: asertz - Yes that is what I asertz.; 6/17/10, 1:35 PM
garage mahal said...: garage did you read her entire post or just the part that allowed you to play your snark card?

I read it. Angle brought "revolution" and "2nd Amendment remedies" to this current Congress. So if that's legitimate, then sorry, you're crazy.; 6/17/10, 1:38 PM
Unknown said...: Um, Mick, you can't base anything legally on Natural Law, because it's not written down anywhere. I have just as much claim to say that Natural Law means that I'm the sole dictator of all I can see. Trying to govern a country by 'Natural Law' is like trying to govern a country by 'Communism', it sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in real life.

Still, enjoy your opinion, but I'm gald to know that the vast majority of my fellow citizens disagree with you, and I think one of hte basic tenets of Natural Law is: Majority Rule.; 6/17/10, 1:39 PM
Mick said...: Blue@9 said, (because he has no answer),

You're a little late to the party, but I'll give you a brief synopsis.
(not that facts in front of you will mean anything).

SCOTUS Cases:
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1934)

Example of SCOTUS quoting Vattel,
Minor v. Happersett and repeted in Wong Kim Ark:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

And notice that it says that the definition isd not in the USC. That being 1874, it means that it is not in the 14th Amendment (1866) either.

How about the writer of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham. Here's what he said:

"“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

Source – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)); 6/17/10, 1:43 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: A couple of things to keep in mind.

First, Ms. Angle is running in Nevada. This is serious gun country. At least up here in Northern Nevada. I know several Constitution loving attorneys here with arsenals and federal firearms licenses. This is red meat for the people of Nevada.

Secondly, her opponent knows this. Which is why he was meeting with the NRA president at a shooting range in Las Vegas while the Tea Party Express was protesting down in his home town of Searchlight.

Third, the saying should be, "When guns are illegal, only the government will have guns". I think that most who have considered violent overthrow from the right draw the line at the point where the government tries to perpetuate itself by suspending portions of the Constitution, de jure, or de facto, and in particular, the point where either elections are suspended, or have been so corrupted that they might as well have been. As long as there is a real possibility of democratic change of government, you aren't going to see violent overthrow of this government, at least from the right.

Finally, I would suggest that the Declaration of Independence condones self-defense against criminals, as well as violent overthrow of a tyrannical government.; 6/17/10, 1:45 PM
Synova said...: And again, Mick's fatuous claim to "natural law" is in direct conflict to the doctrine he advocates because it places the children of those citizens dedicating their lives and often risking or sacrificing their lives for their country in the category of not having a natural allegiance.

When something flies in the face of common sense it can not be supported by the claim to natural law.; 6/17/10, 1:46 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I read it. Angle brought "revolution" and "2nd Amendment remedies" to this current Congress. So if that's legitimate, then sorry, you're crazy.

I was referring to Synova's post garage.; 6/17/10, 1:48 PM
Mick said...: The Great Snark said...
"Um, Mick, you can't base anything legally on Natural Law, because it's not written down anywhere. I have just as much claim to say that Natural Law means that I'm the sole dictator of all I can see. Trying to govern a country by 'Natural Law' is like trying to govern a country by 'Communism', it sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in real life."

And of course you are wrong. It was codified by Vattel in "Law of Nations" (1757), and heavily referenced by the framers. That body of law of international relations is embedded in the USC @ A1S8C10. As a matter of fact that 225 year overdue book that was discovered recently, checked out to G. Washington was, you guessed it, "Law of Nations"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100520/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_book_library_washington

Of course Yahoo failed to report the significance of this find, but it was Washington speaking from the grave. Althouse could've done a great blog post on this but alas, she has been silenced by the "birther" smear. I don't know what authority or who counted those that disagree, but they are simply wrong or confused.; 6/17/10, 1:52 PM
garage mahal said...: Hoosier
I was too. Synova's shifted gears into something nobody was arguing.; 6/17/10, 1:55 PM
Unknown said...: So anything that influenced the framers is something we have to follow? What about the opinions of their wives and friends? Vattel cannot codify Natural Law any more than you or I can. He can have an opinion. He can have a concept that influences a bunch of guys who wrote our laws, but he doesn't have any mystical knowledge of a 'Natural Law' that binds all beings.
You are absolutely welcome to belive this, but you're never going to get anywhere with it, thankfully. Enjoy being pissed off and self righteous about something. My advice? Let it go and enjoy life. I somehow don't think you're going to take my advice though.; 6/17/10, 1:56 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Recently, my daughter and few friends went to Las Vegas. The FIRST thing they did, before even gambing a dime, was go out into the desert somewhere and shoot various weapons, including fully automatic (ie. machine guns) firearms.

I fly through the Las Vegas, and in particular, Reno, airports on a regular basis, and can guarantee you that you can find advertisements for such shooting activities at both airports, along with the ubiquitous slot machines and show advertisements.

One advertisement I routinely see in one of the airports shows a very buxom woman holding a raised submachine gun, with a belt fed medium machine gun (probably a M60 or M240 - I don't follow this that closely) down below. I have also seen advertised an M249 SAW and fully auto versions of M16 and AK47 assault rifles. I have also heard that it is possible in Nevada to fire a M2 heavy machine gun (which cannot be cheap, given the cost of the ammunition).; 6/17/10, 1:58 PM
Big Mike said...: Finally, I would suggest that the Declaration of Independence condones self-defense against criminals ...

Yup. I appreciate how much the notion of self-defense rankles Democrats. What I have trouble with is why it bothers them so much.

Even in this thread I see liberals trying to make this about armed insurrection against a benign government that only wants what's best for you. How about it you left-wing lunatics? In your opinion should people be allowed to have a gun to defend themselves? Yes or no? How about it, garage?; 6/17/10, 1:59 PM
Mick said...: Synova said...
"And again, Mick's fatuous claim to "natural law" is in direct conflict to the doctrine he advocates because it places the children of those citizens dedicating their lives and often risking or sacrificing their lives for their country in the category of not having a natural allegiance.
When something flies in the face of common sense it can not be supported by the claim to natural law."

And of course you are wrong, and misquoting. Natural Law is certainly common sense. The purpose of the requirement of the POTUS is to ensure the highest probability of allegiance. Never did I say that they were not allegiant.; 6/17/10, 2:00 PM
Synova said...: "I read it. Angle brought "revolution" and "2nd Amendment remedies" to this current Congress. So if that's legitimate, then sorry, you're crazy."

In which case what you meant was advocating. That Angle was advocating 2nd Amendment remedies to the current situation.

Clearly she wasn't. Clearly she was advocating the ballot box. More, she advocated the ballot box explicitly rather than merely implicitly by virtue of the fact she's trying to get elected. Which is also true. The mere fact that she is trying to get elected proves her preference for the ballot box, even if she hadn't explicitly explained her preference, which she did.

I would point out, because it's a curious and true thing...

Here, again, we have someone willing to talk about the theory of government and taking fire for it (not, probably actually getting burned by it.)

Why is it only the crazy right-wing nut-cases who are willing to talk about the proper relationship between the State and the People?

And why does the left try to destroy them with this "weapon" whenever they do?; 6/17/10, 2:01 PM
Mick said...: Big Mike said

"Yup. I appreciate how much the notion of self-defense rankles Democrats. What I have trouble with is why it bothers them so much."

Because you are imposing common sense on a person with none.; 6/17/10, 2:01 PM
garage mahal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/17/10, 2:06 PM
garage mahal said...: In your opinion should people be allowed to have a gun to defend themselves? Yes or no? How about it, garage?

I have a pretty nasty surprise for any intruder trying to gain entry in my house. That is self defense. Quite different than taking out democratically elected members of Congress for policies you don't like. Don't you think?; 6/17/10, 2:07 PM
Mick said...: The Great Snark said,

"Vattel cannot codify Natural Law any more than you or I can."

But of course he did, and so did Leibniz, and so did Plato, and so did the Bible. The last gasps of the logically defeated, brain torgued into a pretzel Liberal. "there is no truth, everything is relative."
It is a FACT that Natural Born Citizen came from Vattel.
It is a FACT that law of nations, the natural law body of international relations is embedded in our constitution at
A1S8C10.
You can continue your insults, doesn't bother me, the truth sets me free and makes me happy. The truth is like acid in the face to a liar.; 6/17/10, 2:09 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: How about it you left-wing lunatics? In your opinion should people be allowed to have a gun to defend themselves? Yes or no? How about it, garage?

I asked the same thing upthread and noticed the silence was thunderous.; 6/17/10, 2:09 PM
Synova said...: "The purpose of the requirement of the POTUS is to ensure the highest probability of allegiance."

And the children of those US citizens in military service who are born overseas as a direct result of their parents dedication to their nation have a low probability of allegiance?

Do you know what legalism is? It's replacing trust in the judgment of people or even the ownership of your own reason with the slavish adherence to the letter of misapplied law.

But you do it even without the law.

This is an accomplishment.; 6/17/10, 2:10 PM
Synova said...: "I have a pretty nasty surprise for any intruder trying to gain entry in my house. That is self defense. Quite different than taking out democratically elected members of Congress for policies you don't like. Don't you think?"

The notion that a democracy is incapable of tyranny is... quaint.; 6/17/10, 2:11 PM
AC245 said...: garage mahal said...
This guy really is an arrogant dick with eyes. I usually some soft spot for most Republicans, whatever it may be, but this righteous twerp just makes me want to punch him right in the fucking face.
5/19/10 3:08 PM

I guess certain violence against politicians is acceptable.; 6/17/10, 2:15 PM
garage mahal said...: Synova
We could parse this all day. Angle brought "revolution" and "2nd amendment remedies" to the current congress. She obviously thought those types of solution were relevant in our discourse, otherwise she wouldn't have brought them up.

Again, she was talking about this congress, not that a future congress could be incapable of tyranny in the future. I don't think she was advocating it either, just a dumb statement from a public servant as I said upthread.; 6/17/10, 2:17 PM
Unknown said...: Pastafarian said...

edutcher -- I agree, they're not going to suspend elections in 2012.

But I get the impression that this movement, currently led by people like Bill Ayers and George Soros (with figureheads like Obama and Pelosi out in front), is just going to grind on relentlessly. They're fighting the long war.

And I can imagine, in my fevered little Republican brain, a time when our children, or our children's children, will be well-served by the second amendment.

You get no argument from me on anything you said.

Interesting piece on the Tea Party movement in that regard (I think on Big Government) that the Party may not outlast this election cycle, but the movement will. There's the counter to Ayers' and Soros' long war.

I do believe that the day will come (consider the venom of many of our National Socialists when they comment) that one day, sooner than we think perhaps, the Red and the Blue will go the route of the Blue and the Gray. The Blues will try to use the state's forces, but, due to the 70 - 30 split in this country, I think it will end like the French Revolution.; 6/17/10, 2:23 PM
Mick said...: Synova said,

"Do you know what legalism is? It's replacing trust in the judgment of people or even the ownership of your own reason with the slavish adherence to the letter of misapplied law."

It's not misapplied law. Read the difference in Naturalization Act of 1795 Vs. NA 1790. Congress took out the words "Natural Born" out in 1795 because they had amended the USC w/o the Amendment process. That is the last time the words Natural Born appeared in any Naturalization Act. The reason is because it is a CIRCUMSTANCE of birth, not a "level" of citizenship.
In Resolution 511 Congress LIED and said that McCain was born in US Controlled territory of 2 US Citizen parents. He was born in Colon, Panama, across from the base, and by Panamanian birthright citizenship law at the time was born a Panamanian citizen. They had to LIE because they KNOW that dual citizenship at birth negates Natural Born Citizenship. AND they quoted the Naturalization Act of 1790, when they KNOW it was rescinded by the NA 1795, because it contains "Natural Born" citizenship for children of the military born abroad. Now why would they lie on those 2 accounts?
The truth sets me free, and is acid in the face of a liar.; 6/17/10, 2:25 PM
Blair said...: I don't think she should be writing checks with her mouth that her guns can't cash.

If you want to start a revolution, you'd better be prepared to finish it. Or STFU.; 6/17/10, 2:31 PM
Big Mike said...: Quite different than taking out democratically elected members of Congress for policies you don't like. Don't you think?

So let's ignore Angle, a lady whose main value is increasingly restricted to the fact that she's not Reid. As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, may I take that you and I agree that laws restricting gun ownership are in violation of the inherent right of self-defense?; 6/17/10, 2:32 PM
Unknown said...: Yes, Vattel can write a book, but that doesn't make it 'Law' that everyone has to follow. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you believing that he's right and that the founders were influenced by him means that his words are our laws. That's not the case. What's written in the Constitution and in our state and federal statutes is law. You use Vattel like God to back up your arguments, but in the end, he has as much standing to decide what's right than you or I. He's just a guy with a concept. Nothing more, nothing less.; 6/17/10, 2:37 PM
garage mahal said...: As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, may I take that you and I agree that laws restricting gun ownership are in violation of the inherent right of self-defense?

You would have to let me know what laws you're talking about that are restricting yours or my inherent right to self defense. I haven't been restricted in any way.; 6/17/10, 2:47 PM
Synova said...: "Again, she was talking about this congress, not that a future congress could be incapable of tyranny in the future."

84.5% of Nevada is owned, controlled and occupied by a foreign state. The remaining few percentages of land that is sovereign to Nevada is economically hamstrung by laws passed by people who live comfortably in states that control all but minute percentages of their own territory.

I don't think any of us understand what that means, and I don't think you want to bother.; 6/17/10, 2:50 PM
Mick said...: The Great snark said,

"What's written in the Constitution and in our state and federal statutes is law."

And SCOTUS definitions of Natural Born citizen are LAW. They have described it EXACTLY as Vattel (even citing the exact wording and attributing it to him in The Venus (1814), 27 years after ratification of the USC). But of course relativists like you will argue over the definition of "is".
WHERE does it say that a Natural Born Citizen is anything less than Born in a country of parents who are it's citizens (SCOTUS, founding father, statute). It doesn't.; 6/17/10, 2:52 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You would have to let me know what laws you're talking about that are restricting yours or my inherent right to self defense. I haven't been restricted in any way.

Lets play a game garage. There is a law passed that says you being the law abiding garage mahal can't own a gun of any kind and you cheerfully give the nice government official your gun(s).

Then there is Big Bad Leroy Brown who is a criminal, which by definition don't need no stinkin laws so he breaks into your home and threatens you and your family with a gun.

Now unless you hold the belief that harsh language is self defense, I'd say your right to self defense has been restricted.; 6/17/10, 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick said: "And SCOTUS definitions of Natural Born citizen are LAW."

Actually, they're not. For all you non-lawyers out there, what Mick's quoted is what we call "dicta." It can give guidance in interpretation of questions of law, but it has no inherent power of law in itself. Only actual decisions (i.e., in this case, if SCOTUS had been asked and answered "what is a natural born citizen?" as the deciding question in a case) have the actual power of "LAW."

All of the things that Mick is quoting are things that a judge could use for guidance if determining the question (and, presumably, the opposing attorney would provide similar items that counter Mick's theories as well), but none of them have the actual power of law.

- Lyssa; 6/17/10, 3:04 PM
garage mahal said...: That would be a definite restriction Hoosier. No question about it.; 6/17/10, 3:05 PM
Unknown said...: Hey Mick, this is a quote from the Naturalization Act of 1790: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens"

So how is McCain not a Natural Born citizen again?; 6/17/10, 3:06 PM
Hagar said...: "Because you are imposing common sense on a person with none."

Now go stand before a mirror and repeat that 3 times.

And do not conflate the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, original or as amended.
The Declaration was a wartime propaganda screed - agitprop - drafted by a man who bred slaves to sell and later became the leader of the opposition to adopting the Constitution.; 6/17/10, 3:12 PM
Opus One Media said...: Perhaps if the evolution of the 2nd amendment's wording were read by some of you there might be a different take on things.; 6/17/10, 3:31 PM
Mick said...: The Great Snark said...
Hey Mick, this is a quote from the Naturalization Act of 1790: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens".

Apparently you can't read. I said that the NA 1795 rescinded the NA 1790 and took out the words "Natural Born". Of course congress knows that why would they lie?

From NA 1795:
"SEC. 3... and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as CITIZENS of the United States:"

Of course everytime you are proven wrong will be forgotten, and a new silly argument brought forth.; 6/17/10, 3:33 PM
Blue@9 said...: How about the writer of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham. Here's what he said:

"“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

So you agree that McCain is a natural born citizen?

And what of Obama? Oh, right, for persons born abroad between 1952 and 1986, there are only three requirements: (1) One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born (2)The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth (3)
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

So Obama was a natural born citizen too.; 6/17/10, 3:36 PM
Mick said...: Hagar said...
""Because you are imposing common sense on a person with none."

Now go stand before a mirror and repeat that 3 times.

And do not conflate the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, original or as amended.
The Declaration was a wartime propaganda screed - agitprop - drafted by a man who bred slaves to sell and later became the leader of the opposition to adopting the Constitution."

Ah the relativist, "Founders were slave holders so the constitution means nothing" nonsense argument rears it's head. Along w/ the typically childish "I know you are but what am I?" from the little children on the left.
WHERE does it say that simply being born in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? (SCOTUS, founder, statute); 6/17/10, 3:37 PM
Mick said...: Blue@9 said,

So you agree that McCain is a natural born citizen?

And what of Obama? Oh, right, for persons born abroad between 1952 and 1986, there are only three requirements: (1) One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born (2)The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth (3)
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

So Obama was a natural born citizen too."

I love it when people like you get all indignant with the "what do you mean I can't be POTUS, I was born here", or "I'm just as American as you". It's all about self interest with you, when the purpose of the requirement is National Security. Naturalization and Citizenship Laws have nothing to do with Natural Born Citizens. Natural Born Citizenship is a circumstance of birth, not a level of citizenship. They have no more "rights" than a Native born or Naturalized citizen, but only they are eligible to be POTUS.
The only time the words "Natural Born" appeared in US Naturalization Acts was in 1790 about children of military parents born abroad, and that was rescinded in the NA 1795. A Natural Born Citizen is not a "Born Citizen" of the 14th Amendment as Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett pointed out. Those that are made citizens by the 14th Amendment or by Naturalization statutes are citizens by statute. No Statute is neccessary to make a Natural Born US Citizen a US Citizen.
As for McCain, he was born in Colon, Panama, and was given birthright Panamanian citizenship at birth. So by Bingham's definition he is certainly not a Natural Born Citizen.
The only way to change the well established original meaning of Natural Born Citizenship is by Amendment, which Obama's friends have tried multiple times w/o success. They know he isn't eligible, they are committing treason, as is McCain, Ron Paul, and all the rest.; 6/17/10, 3:51 PM
former law student said...: Have you ever BEEN to Nevada? And I don't mean just Las Vegas or Reno.

Yes, I have. The bulk of Nevada is a desert wasteland. Apart from towns that started as railroad camps, the vast majority of Nevadans live along the CA border.; 6/17/10, 3:56 PM
Big Mike said...: @garage, how about the DC law that got overturned in Heller? Or the Chicago law that Mayor Daley defended by threatening to ram a rifle barrel up a reporter's butt and pull the trigger?; 6/17/10, 4:07 PM
Unknown said...: Mick, I've decided that when the constitution refers to " a natural born Citizen" they mean't children that were born out of a uterus. If you were a C-section child, you are not eligible to be president of the US. Can we at least agree on this?; 6/17/10, 4:12 PM
Mick said...: The Great Snark said...
"Mick, I've decided that when the constitution refers to " a natural born Citizen" they mean't children that were born out of a uterus. If you were a C-section child, you are not eligible to be president of the US. Can we at least agree on this?"

You think that's the first time i've heard that? You still have not disproved me, nor have you pointed to what SCOTUS decision, statute, or founding definition makes anyone born in the US a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS.; 6/17/10, 4:17 PM
Unknown said...: Mick, you haven't disproven me either. So we're agreed that only people born out of a birth canal whose parents are both US citizens and are on US soil at the time of birth can be pres.; 6/17/10, 4:20 PM
Mick said...: The Great Snark said...
Mick, you haven't disproven me either. So we're agreed that only people born out of a birth canal whose parents are both US citizens and are on US soil at the time of birth can be pres.

Sure I have. You didn't produce a scintilla of evidence that supports Native born equals Natural Born, which is typical.; 6/17/10, 4:24 PM
Opus One Media said...: 2nd Amendment Drafts.; 6/17/10, 4:28 PM
Opus One Media said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/17/10, 4:28 PM
Unknown said...: You still haven't proven that they didn't mean non C-section babies. I demand to see proof that all presidents were natural born.; 6/17/10, 4:32 PM
Synova said...: The legal definition that differentiates between a natural born child and one who from his mother's womb is untimely ripped is well established.; 6/17/10, 4:51 PM
Synova said...: Right House... because "the people" comprising "the militia" is not the government, which issues weapons from an armory.

What you're suggesting is that the 2nd Amendment does nothing more than enact universal compulsory military service on everyone not eligible for a religious exemption.; 6/17/10, 4:56 PM
Lawler Walken said...: This kind of statement plays better out West than in other, more genteel parts of the country. At least those parts of the West that aren't on the coast.; 6/17/10, 5:01 PM
Opus One Media said...: @Synova

You draw your own conclusions but it appears that the version we enjoy now and then had a different set of parents then previously thought.

I just thought it interesting that we depend a lot on (the then) contemporary langauge and debate in so much of what goes on in the constitution except here.

Frankly, I'm rather surprised that everyone doesn't know of this.; 6/17/10, 5:27 PM
Opus One Media said...: "What you're suggesting is that the 2nd Amendment does nothing more than enact universal compulsory military service on everyone not eligible for a religious exemption."

Nothing of the sort. What the earlier versions seem to be trying to avoid was that in a call up of the militia, those with religious issues didn't have to participate...I think that is clear as day.; 6/17/10, 6:00 PM
Phil 314 said...: I just figured it out. There is only one Natural Born Citizen

It's Mick

He's like the last living human in a country of flesh-eating zombies. That's got to be terrifying.; 6/17/10, 6:55 PM
Opus One Media said...: Mick said...
"Read the Declaration of Independence.
This merry band of traitors in our government gave us 2 ineligible candidates to vote on (McCain--Born in Colon, Panama, is not a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama's father was never a US Citizen so Obama 2is not a Natural Born Citizen). What does that tell you?"

1. Well for starters, the Declaration of Independence has zip to do with the Constitution

2. That you appear to be a walking time bomb, and,

3. You are the best argument for mental health testing as a requisite for gun ownership.; 6/17/10, 7:55 PM
Big Mike said...: @garage, your response to Hoosier's gedanken experiment takes you almost all the way there.

In pre-Heller Washington, DC, it was illegal to own a handgun, and if you owned a long gun then under the law it had to be kept unloaded and basically inoperable.

And that's the sort of thing that ordinary citizens find reprehensible. No handguns, which I think you will agree are better for home defense than a long gun that might hit a door frame if you see the intruder and try to bring the weapon to bear, and no long guns unless you can keep the intruder(s) at bay for the three or four minutes (yes minutes) needed to remove the locks that the law required, load it, and get it ready to be aimed and fired.

So basically in DC you had no right of self defense against an armed intruder unless you owned a shotgun and the intruder moved with a walker.

Or at least not until Scalia and his majority agreed that self-defense is a right.; 6/17/10, 10:21 PM
Jason said...: @garage:

Any restrictions? It's "legitimate" to shoot and kill Dems and Republicans?

In defense of the Constitution? Yes. Absolutely. A thousand times. Yes. We've done it before.

My oath of office, upon commissioning as an officer in the Armed Forces of the United States, was to defend the Constitution AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."

That "domestic" part isn't in there by accident.

You libtards have an awfully sheltered, naive, and simplistic view of the Republic.; 6/18/10, 1:13 AM
Mick said...: c3 said...
"I just figured it out. There is only one Natural Born Citizen

It's Mick"

No actually Natural Born Citizens are the largest portion of the citizenry, as it is the most naturally occurring citizen; 6/18/10, 6:23 AM
Mick said...: HDHouse said...
"Mick said...
"Read the Declaration of Independence.
This merry band of traitors in our government gave us 2 ineligible candidates to vote on (McCain--Born in Colon, Panama, is not a Natural Born Citizen, and Obama's father was never a US Citizen so Obama 2is not a Natural Born Citizen). What does that tell you?"

1. Well for starters, the Declaration of Independence has zip to do with the Constitution

2. That you appear to be a walking time bomb, and,

3. You are the best argument for mental health testing as a requisite for gun ownership."

Ah the last refuge of the unkowing, insult. That's OK I always consider the source. The Declaration of Independence shows you that our country, laws and Bill of Rights are based on Natural Law. No One here can disprove me, only throw around insults, jokes. That is because I speak the truth, and it sets me free.
You still can't (no one can) tell me WHERE does it say that anyone born in America is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS. Also, if Arizona doesn't allow birthright citizenship to anchor babies (it is against the law to give citizenship to children of aliens anyway, but I digress), how would that jibe with your belief that Native born equals Natural Born. Would Native born equal Natural Born everywhere but Arizona?; 6/18/10, 6:31 AM
JackWayne said...: My 2 cents is that I am in the complete minority in this country. I have no vote because nearly no one represents my views. And that is: the federal gov't is about 90% larger than I want. The original 5 departments are plenty. I also believe we will be bankrupt in 4 years and that's when violence will happen. It will not be "political" like Angle thinks. It will be desperation, hunger and greed.; 6/18/10, 10:08 AM
amba said...: Go look at actual tyrannies and authoritarian regimes and tell me if the US looks anything like those places. It doesn't.

Thank you, Blue@9.; 6/20/10, 7:50 AM
amba said...: That's not to say eternal vigilance needn't be exercised. Both the preceding administration and this one have shown us why.; 6/20/10, 7:54 AM

What do you think of that statement by Sharron Angle?
	It's a solid, straightforward statement of traditional American values.
	It's an troubling statement that suggests the candidate is violent or unstable.
	It's political rhetoric that works on some people but is unwise because it will be used against her.
	It's clever bait that invites her opponents to flaunt their antagonism to guns.

pollcode.com free polls

Althouse

June 17, 2010

"Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government."

194 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Blog Archive

Althouse

June 17, 2010

"Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government."

194 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Subscribe To Althouse

Blog Archive