View Single Post
      06-14-2019, 01:13 PM   #124
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1835
Rep
4,319
Posts

 
Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
Yes, we have some common ground between us, and also some disagreements. It's not moot now, regardless of the National Guard. The whole point is that an armed citizenry creates the possibility of armed resistance against the federal government. The point is that it makes the consent of the governed essential. If the federal government lost popular support, or attempted to govern by force, individual armed citizens have the capacity to organize militias and resist. If the National Guard were captive of the Federal Government, then they too could be resisted by the citizenry at large. The argument in Federalist 46 was that the existence of subordinate (non-federal) governments produced the additional advantage of organizational capacity that individual citizens lack on their own. This is no less true today than it was in the eighteenth century. Bob's Patriot Militia is more relevant than you think, IMO.
Bob's Militia is relevant, but not as a liberator. The problem is Bob and his subordinates feel it is their patriotic duty do bring arms to bear against the federal government for any slight. We have seen this in the last decade. That mob rule might work fine in the deserts of Nevada or the mountains of Montana but not in a nation of 350 million people.


It's actually a little bit insulting to the rest of the Constitution that for some reason the 2A has been put on this pedestal as THE amendment that guards our democracy. It's patently false. Our country, like the Constitution is about the sum of its parts not just one piece of it.


The ironic thing about all of this is those state militias (national guard) would be the first to quell an armed uprising under Title 32 long before the federal government got involved. Those state militias Madison wrote so fondly about would be the ones called upon to enforce the law.


You do not have to consent to everything the government does nor does it need your consent on everything. That's why we are a Republic. Good luck arguing where that line is. Do you get to bring arms against if 51% of it you don't consent? 42? 60?


The last time this blew up it was the states oppressing people and the federal government who said stop that. The states were the oppressors and the federal government was the liberators. Odd.