« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
AZ Assault Rifle-Wielding Man And Gun-Toter In NH Belong To Same Right-Wing Group
The group is committed to "restoring Freedom and Constitutional Order through the exercise of popular sovereignty by all possible non-violent means."
Kostric, whose residence on the chapter page is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, has reportedly moved to New Hampshire because he thought Arizona's gun laws were becoming too strict.
Broughton, whose full name was reported today by the Arizona Republic, told the newspaper he "wasn't seeking a personal spotlight by arming himself and strolling through crowds of Obama supporters."
"I don't want to be Joe-the-Plumber. ... I'm hoping my 15 minutes are over," said Broughton, who walked around outside the Obama health care event with a loaded AR-15 and a pistol, and took part in a pre-planned interview that was put on YouTube.
Ernest Hancock, who conducted the interview with Broughton at the event and is also tied to the 90s-era Viper Militia, later cited the Kostric episode in his explanation for the show of arms-bearing.
But the apparent connection between Kostric and Broughton was not previously known.
TPMmuckraker has reached out to both men seeking comment.
The We The People organization exists to fight a government that "continues to systematically plunder our People's wealth, ignore constitutional checks and balances and destroy the last vestiges of Freedom."
The group's seeks to develop a "constituency committed to a nationwide, pro-active, non-violent, mass-movement, with the goal of achieving ordered Liberty through citizen vigilance and government accountability. As an organized force of 'constitutional activists,' the WTP Congress is organizing into 'ward republics' in every county, with a "Citizen Vigilance Center" in every State Capitol." The centers' architecture would be based on Monticello.
Dude looks like guy from Humpty Dance with those glasses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj9_yW8tZxs
AmIrite?
August 21, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I haven't heard that song in forever.
August 21, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if the lyrics were 'guns or gtfo'.
August 21, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The proliferation of guns is one of the reasons former Digital Underground roadie Tupac Shakur is in the ground.
August 22, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone else have a problem seeing a black man as part of a white supremacist movement?
August 23, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait for the film version of "Chris and Bill's Excellent Adventure" in which our madcap buddies decide to take their gun totin' show to Washington.
Will Farrell is an obvious choice for Bill, but I'm on the fence about Chris. Mario Van Peebles? Taye Diggs? Or, my personal favorite choice, Chris Rock.
Presumably the film will be a comedy and not a horror documentary.
August 22, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"A well-regulated militia being necessary ..."
What's missing from this picture?
August 21, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry, they're interested in restoring Freedom to those words.
What does the word "militia" mean in their understanding? ANSWER: Nothing, the framers put it in there for no reason whatsoever. Equivalent of ", um,"
What about "regulated." What did the framers mean by "regulated" in their understanding? Again, they just spat it in there, they used the word to mean precisely nothing. "Regulated" is the equivalent of ", uh,"
Other aspect: "Well" regulated. The militia should be regulated "well." What can this mean? The best understanding from them again is that it means nothing at all. That was the framers purpose in using this clarifying word, it means exactly nothing. That's why they put it in, for the purpose of conveying no meaning whatsoever. Like "ya know."
What about the reference to the militia providing "security?" Again, the use of the word was intended to express precisely nothing. This is why the framers picked the word "security," for the purpose of conveying nothing whatsoever. This is the meaning they would ascribe. Like "whaddya call".
So the 2nd Amendment, with these textual interpetations, means something like "Um, the whaddya call, uh, being necessary to uh, a free state, ya know, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." It's a totally novel approach to legislative interpretation, unique in all the world, but they believe it should be used to interpret this single amendment to the Constitution and no other provision.
Makes you wonder if somebody should start the
American Security Foundation for Regulating the Militia Well. And we need to start calling them the McVeighists.
August 21, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was think about starting an organization like that. We can found the A.S.F.R.M.W., and start regulating. First regulation is no make of gun produced after 1776.
August 21, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grumpy, grumpy, grumpy!!
August 22, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Militia" was essentially all able-bodied white men of a military useful age--typically 17 or 18 to age 45. "Well regulated" meant "trained" and "capable of military or organized action".
So, to translate, given the terms of the times:
"A trained body of healthy and militarily useful men capable of obeying orders is needed to maintain the state's order and ability to function as an independent body. Therefore, the people have the right to own and carry weapons."
Their phrasing is much more elegant than mine though.
Additionally, one other factor to remember is that police--as we know then today--were generally not a common thing. Instead, it was the militia, summoned as needed by local authorities, that provided for capturing and deterring criminals. Also, when there were problems early on--like the Whiskey Rebellion--it was the militia that was summoned...
Have to remember that language and meanings do change over time.
August 21, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you almost had me going there!
This is NRA talking points time, isn't it?
Well-regulated means "trained"? On planet NRA?
Mercy me! The *REAL* history of militia in Whiskey Rebellion is that a bunch of insurrectionists didn't want to pay a tax. So, like these modern-day McVeighists, they took up arms against the United States government, i.e., a terrorist "militia." The United States used well-regulated troops (*not* seditionist wackaloons) under George Washington, fortunately, to successfully put down the treasonous "militia."
Bet they didn't tell you *that* in the NRA disinformation jubilee, though, did they?
August 22, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the well-regulated troops were the LEGITIMATE militia, Federalized prusuant to Art. I., s. 8, c. 16, and the "Militia Act" of 1792, which was amended for the occasion to implement a draft.
And the insurrections were called by the Founders/Framers not "patriots" but "common criminals".
Those convicted were sentenced to be hanged, but Washington pardoned them because of "mental weakness".
August 22, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for filling us in a bit more; much appreciated.
August 22, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of whatever idiocy dude may have spewed elsewhere on this site, unless this code has been repealed, he's actually correct about the definition of militia.
August 22, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude: that section is not the whole statute. So fucking what if he has the statutory defintion of "Militia" correct --
The rest of his bullshit leaves out all other sections of the statute, most especially those that REGULATE the Militia UNDER the law, NOT in spite of it.
August 23, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note this bullshit:
"Well regulated" meant "trained" and "capable of military or organized action".
_____
1. The Constitution stipulates that Congress "shall make the laws". In other words, Congress does what it does by MAKING LAWS.
2. The US Constitution stipulates that and how the states' militia will be REGULATED at Art. I., s. 8, c. 16:
"Congress shall have the Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appoinment of the Officers*, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
_____
*How officers are appointed is stipulated in the respective State's constitution/bill of rights, as part of, or one of, the MILITIA clause(s) in the State's constitution. In all cases the appointments are amde by the governor and or the legislature, and approved by the legislature.
All the States, at the "suggestion" of the Continental Congress, adopted their constitutions/bills of rights during 1776-77, and 1780.
_____
3. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes -- and Congress is in the statute-making business. Implementation of Art. I., s. 8, c. 16 was done with the "Militia Act" of 1792 (now "Title 10"). A statute is a law; law REGULATES; REGULATION is a synonym for LAW.
So how does Congress "prescribe" the "discipline" under which the well REGULATED Militia is to be REGULATED? By making LAW, that being "Militia Act" of 1792.
The bullshitt quoted, and which you are "overlooking," is the FALSE claim that a legitimate militia can operate OUTSIDE the law, that falsehood based upon and an effort to advance the falsehood that there is a "right of revolution". That underlying falsehood is revealed as being false by Art. I., s. 8, c. 15 of the Constitution, which stipulates three purposes for the Militia:
"Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
The suppression of Shays' rebellion, in Western Massachusetts-Bay, which occurred under the Articles of Confederation, was suppressed by the state's militia, under the state constitution-stipulated commander-in-chief (CoC), and the state's "Militia Act". The CoC, as so stipulated, was the state's governor. The state's governor was John Hancock.
Part of the effort of suppressing the Shaysites was passage, by the General Court, of a draft, to increase the number of men in the militia. Subsequent to the suppression, the General Court enacted a statute granting pardons to several of the Shaysites, in exchange for their doing two things:
1. Turning in their guns.
2. Swearing an oath of loyalty to the government.
Some say Shays' was the "cause" of the Constitution, but that's an exaggeration. At any rate, the Constitution was ratified, and the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution framed the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was drawn from the existing state constitutions/bills of rights. The Second Amendment phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was drawn from the "Militia Clauses" of FOUR of those constitutions.
In some cases -- and certainly in the debates of the framing of the Second Amendment -- the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is directly associated by a phrase the equivalent of, "standing armies being dangerous to liberty," and continuing on after "bear arms" with "for the defense of themselves and the state.
Ratification of the Bill of Rights was completed December 15, 1791. SUBSEQUENTLY, on May 8, 1792, Congress enacted the "Militia Act," the purpose of which is to REGULATED the well REGULATED militia of the Second Amendment. This point is important as refutation of the sucker-swallowed lie that the Second Amendment protects that which falls within its scope FROM rule of law/REGULATION. That lie is also the basis for the falsehood that any and all gun control is unconstitutional. Not even hack Scalia buys that lunacy.
The state is the gov't. The purpose of the militia has always been to protect, first, the community; the stability of laws and gov't; and push come to shove, to protect the gov't from armed overthrow.
The Whiskey Rebellion occurred under the US Constitution, and was suppressed by Federalized milita. The Congress added amendment to the "Militia Act" of 1792 authorizing a draft. George Washington lead the suppression effort. Those convicted and sentenced to hang were tried not as "patriots" but as "common criminals". Washington pardoned them for "weakness of mind".
August 23, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yours have to be the most comprehensive, intelligent posts I've seen on any forum about this subject, and American history in general.
Since the whole presidential campaign I have been slowly educating myself more to civics and history, being a product of piss-poor Catholic school education. Besides the Boston Massacre book you cited below, can you recommend other books that I might gain better insight to the drafting of the constitution and beyond?
I found myself reading about the Kansas-Nebraska Act and other incidents leading up to the Civil War after following links from the Southern Poverty Law Center's report on extremism. This whole topic is frightening to me. I fear it is being ignored, just like it was before Oklahoma City. If Democracy depends on an informed citizenry, then I fear we are doomed.
August 24, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been dealing directly with these issues, and the nut-fringe, for over twenty years. Up to OK City, one could count the number of persons doing so on one hand -- and we were constantly being undercut by others who thought the whole thing funny. Only with OK City did they wake up and cease being destructive assholes.
I've also been warning about the nut-fringe for as long, but with turtle-slow increasing credibility as the media has increasingly given them a platform from which to spew their lunacies.
This time it seems more are standing up against the nut-fringe without needing a second lesson.
As for these issues and the fundamentals I use these four (other volumes I use are of colony law, first laws of the states beginning with the first constitutions, and more obscure related materials). The first three are musts, but the fourth is invaluable. Alas, the fourth is also quite expensive. All are available from Amazon, though searching around for best prices is suggested:
The Birth of the Bill of Rights 1776-1791 (various publishers), Robert Allen Rutland.
This shows the beginning establishment of state constitutions, and illuminates how it happens that they have so many of the same clauses.
Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, paper, 1991), Edited by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Charlene Bangs Bickford.
These are the debates, from the first Congress, of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties (Madison, WI: Madison House, paper, 1992), Edited by Patrick T. Conley and John P. Kaminski.
This shows the sources of the Bill of Rights in the state constitutions/bills of rights.
The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins (NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), Edited by Neil H. Cogan.
This is a chapter-by-chapter arrangement, one Amendment to a chapter, of the debates and contemporary materials, including newspaper reports which coincidentally verify the accuracy of the language in the debates.
_____
Again, a full bibliography would include texts which are more difficult to find, but which are the legal history which evolved and eventuated in Constitution and Bill of Rights. Perhaps most important about the legal history is that the various themes -- gun control; militia being kept in "exact subordination to the Civil Power" (Sam Adams) -- are consistent and unbroken to, and through, and after, "revolution," and ratifications of Constitution and Bill of Rights.
August 24, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition, from what I understand, there is no written record from the hearings involving the Second Amendment that places the right to bear arms outside the context of a militia.
The right was never intended to apply to Americans who were only individuals with no militia connections.
August 24, 2009 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, as the Second Amendment is exclusively about the states' militia. It's important to note that the militia is a PUBLIC institution, whereas the private individual obviously is not.
The portions of the debates concerning that which became the Second Amendment began with an undifferentiated mass, all of which was about MILITARY issues. The first differentiation was Standing Army v. Militia. And as the state constitutions/bills of rights from which it was drawn ALREADY asserted, "standing armies being dangerous to liberty," it was difficult to decide the alternative -- Militia -- was preferable.
From there most of the debate concerns the "conscientious objection" clause -- the only "individual right" proposed concerning that Amendment.
One effort to deal with all of that -- to make it equitable -- was to add and debate a clause requiring a person who wanted to get out of militia duty to pay a fixed amount of money. That ulimately went nowhere.
Though all that actually matters is that it was ultimately voted down, resulting in an Amendment with NOTHING "individual" about it, it appears it was voted down over "religion":
One congressman asserted the belief that religion would "eventually fade away," so the clause wouldn't be necessary. But what seems to have won the day was the concern that, during war time, a whole lot of citizens would conveniently "get religion," and one half of the population would end up defending the other half.
Tangentially: the view and treatment of "religion" during that era is surprisingly different than claimed by the religionuts. As example, GA's first constitution prohibited active clergy from holding public office. And religious preaching was protected, so long as not seditious against the state, in which instance it was prosecutable as treason.
August 24, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of that is law-illiterate BULLSHIT perpetuated by America-hating domestic enemy liars. As example:
"Militia" was essentially all able-bodied white men of a military useful age--typically 17 or 18 to age 45. "Well regulated" meant "trained" and "capable of military or organized action".
____
By contrast, each of the colonies, from their beginnings, had what were alled "Militia Acts". They were statutes BY and UNDER which the militia was REGULATED. REGULATION is a synonym for LAW.
An example is MA-Bay's "Militia Act," which dates to 1629/30, when the colony was founded; and that, as it had evolved through amendment to 1645, was repealed and renacted with amendment in January, 1776.
The bit about the policing is also hogwash: the MA-Bay/Boston Town police force was established in 1629/30.
Further: the "Minutemen" at Lexington-Concord consisted of ENLISTEES who operated UNDER law, not in spite of it.
And the US Constitution contains three references to "militia," the first of two "Militia Clauses" stipulating its purposes:
Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
The second reference is Art. I., s. 8, c. 16, which stiuplates how the militia is to be REGULATED, which is done BY MEANS OF LAW:
Congress shall have the Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers*, and the Authority of training the Militia ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.
_____
*How the militia is to be officered is stipulated in the state's constitution -- the standard is that the governor nominates, and the legislature approves -- or not -- the appointees.
And also stipulates that the commander-in-chief of the militia is the state's governor. Which obviously refutes the bullshit that the purpose of the militia is to "defend against" gov't/RULE OF LAW.
And how does Congress "prescribe"? In the form of LAW, and the second militia clause was implemented -- as is the norm for constitutional provisions -- by means of the "Militia Act" of 1792.
Exactly as the militia clause in one's state constitution is implemented by means of a state "Militia Act".
And this is a statement by a famous Founder which makes clear how the process worked AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED:
"SPEECHES
of
His Excellency the Governor
and
Messages Transmitted by His Excellency to the
General Court During the Legislative Year
[May Session, 1792.]
Wednesday, June 6.
. . . .
GENTLEMEN,
I have directed the Secretary to lay before you such Acts & proceedings of the Congress of the United States, as have been forwarded to me: Among them, is an Act for regulating the Militia of the States. That Act appears to me to be quite consonant to the Constitution of the General Government, & I shall, as commander in Chief of the Militia of this State take every measure within my power to render the Militia respectable under it. . . .
JOHN HANCOCK.
Council Chamber, June 6th, 1792."
"Deathbunny" is at best law-illiterate and full of shit.
August 22, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The provision about arming the militia also indicates that they were not relying on everybody carrying their own.
There is also a limitation on the right to assemble which is more than an 'um': Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If carrying guns is done with the intent to intimidate that is not peaceable.
August 22, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The provision about arming the militia also indicates that they were not relying on everybody carrying their own.
_____
Exactly right. There is a vivid anecdote about Sam Adams making a speech at either the "Townhouse" (this was a two story building, the upper floor being the gov't, the first floor being open-space market) or Faneuil Hall. The speech was given during the "revolution".
He was a sufficiently good speaker that he could arouse a crowd emotionally (he is called "Pioneer of Propaganda"). He also apparently suffered "palsy," so as he got going one of arms/hands would visibly tremble.
Arrayed along the front of the stage, end-to-end, stood the PUBLIC ARMS -- part of his "hot" propaganda effort. Immediately after he finished his speech, the PUBLIC ARMS were gathered together and ruturned to the PUBLIC STORES.
The "revolutionary" laws of that era are rife with "Militia Acts," gun control laws, and related -- all indicating a matter of routine. And it was routine.
August 23, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deathbunny, I may have partly misinterpreted your meaning, and to whatever extent I may have, I apologize straightaway.
The Supreme Court says that Uncle Sam can drag us all into national defense in case of an emergency, but even that "unorganized" militia is still well-regulated. Meaning not only trained to whatever extent but also existing for the purpose of defending the common good and subject to orders from a State governor or more likely, Commander-in-Chief in an emergency. It's fine for them to train in their individual states if they like, and it's fine for the government to reasonably tell them what kinds of weapons they can and can't have, and at any time they may get called up/ "Federalized" as noted below.
What they can't do is mobilize for purposes other than the common good or determine what that common good is. That's all implicit within "well-regulated" and so interpreted by the Supreme Court. There is no right to have a militarized force that decides its own purposes or decides what's best for it and the citizenry (which would more likely amount to a "domestic enemy"), although I realize maybe you didn't mean to say there was.
August 22, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think that this was limited to white men rather than to all free citizens? During the colonial period there were a few free black individuals who owned white slaves before that got organized by race.
From http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/BLACKS.HTM:
Colonists, both black and white, worked together to fight what they saw as British injustices. Interracial mobs rioted against the Stamp Act of 1765 and other despised regulations imposed on the colonies throughout the 1760s. American protests targeted British officials and soldiers. In 1770 Crispus Attucks, a fugitive slave of mixed African and Native American descent, led an interracial crowd of sailors and laborers in attacking the British guard at Boston's customs office. They threw snowballs, chunks of ice, and stones; in response, the soldiers fired into the crowd, wounding six and killing Attucks and four others. For rebellious Americans, the Boston Massacre, as this event was named, symbolized Britain's armed determination to deprive them of their rights.
When the American Revolution began in 1775, all but 25,000 of the 500,000 African Americans in British North America were enslaved. Many were inspired by American proclamations of freedom, and both slaves and free blacks stood against the British. The black minutemen at the Battle of Lexington in 1775 were Pompy of Braintree, Prince of Brookline, Cato Wood of Arlington, and Peter Salem, the slave of the Belknaps of Framingham, freed in order that he might serve in the Massachusetts militia. Prince Estabrook, a slave in Lexington, was listed among those wounded in this first battle of the war. African Americans also served in the Battle of Bunker Hill, where former slave Salem Poor received official commendation as "a brave and gallant soldier."
citing
Horton, Lois E. and James Oliver Horton, "African American History," Encarta Encyclopedia 99.
Next time you decide to post anything Google first.
August 22, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 1770 Crispus Attucks, a fugitive slave of mixed African and Native American descent, led an interracial crowd of sailors and laborers in attacking the British guard at Boston's customs office. They threw snowballs, chunks of ice, and stones; in response, the soldiers fired into the crowd, wounding six and killing Attucks and four others. For rebellious Americans, the Boston Massacre, as this event was named, symbolized Britain's armed determination to deprive them of their rights.
_____
That's the self-flattering myth -- propaganda.
You said "freemen," this says Attucks was a "fugitive slave". And he did not "lead" anything, as the mob was of anywhere from 500 to 800 individuals. He only happened by chance to be at or near the front of the mob -- with others -- near the Brits.
There were five Brits, with their backs to a wall.
And not only did the mob throw "snowballs, chunks of ice, and [cobble]stones"; members of the mob also yelled, "FIRE!" in effort to get the Brits to fire.
One soldier's arm was sliced by one in the mob who had a sword. Attucks, who was physically large, had a large club, apparently a tree branch.
Finally the troops did fire.
The incident was labeled a "massacre" by propagandist Sam Adams, and he set to stirring up the hotheads by demanding these "murderers" be convicted and hung.
His cousin John Adams undertook the defense of the Brits -- not because he favored the Brits; in fact he despised them; but because no man charged with a crime should lack for competent defense.
Many of the so-righteous "revolutionaries" hated John Adams for doing so. His response: "Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics."
Sam Adams almost destroyed his career by committing perjury: he persuaded one of the wounded, who would die, to sign an affidavit that the Brits were in the wrong. Problem is, the wounded teenager only spoke French, and the affidavit was in English.
As well, another of the wounded was an Irish teenager who said that the Colonists were in the wrong. Sam Adams managed to drown him out: he was Catholic, and the Colonists had a long history of bigotry against "Papists"/Catholics, so he stirred up anti-Catholic bigotry against the teenager, and that successfully distracted from that evidence.
The definitive history is Boston Massacre (Norton, 1976), by Hiller Zobel
Otherwise, the idea that there was some sort of equality -- warm and chummy -- between the white colonists and African-Americans is seriously questionable: slavery was not abolished in Massachusetts-Bay until the 1780s.
August 23, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So indeed part of what I quoted was myth-making and the sausage making of a revolution not necessarily edifying. What I am interested in is whether or not free blacks participated in the revolutionary side of the American Revolution.
August 25, 2009 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm interested in the reality that not all of the good was on one side, and all of the evil on the other.
Sam Adams, as example, didn't really intend "revolution". Rather he wanted to reestablish "Puritan virture" -- which had never actually existed. And he rarely missed opportunity to foment and murder toward that end.
August 26, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too sensible to make sense to those who need it the most.
August 22, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The McVeighists is very, very good. As in "There's way right, and then there's McVeigh right."
Or, if that's too subtle: " The McVeighists. Polite society brought to you by the people who blew up a day care center full of kids."
August 22, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Erica, that we need to go there. That's who these people are. With their watering the tree of liberty by killing people. Domestic enemy is good, too. Let's try some honesty. "The McVeighists and our other domestic enemies."
August 22, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would expect these nuts to ignore the relevant language in the Constitution. What you don't expect is for Supreme Court Justices who talk about extreme adherence to the Constitution to ignore the same language in the 2nd amendment like they did in their latest ruling about gun control. They didn't even mention the part about "a well regulated militia...". The founding fathers put this in because they didn't have an army at the time, in fact they argued about whether there should even be a federal army. Since we no longer need a "citizen militia", isn't it about time we stop using the 2nd amendment to justify the nuts arming themselves to the teeth? What part of "well regulated" don't they understand?
August 24, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The debate on the issue was between standing army and militia. Standing army -- which the Continental Army had been -- they viewed as "dangerous to liberty," so they chose militia instead for the reasons detailed in the debates. I have in mind typing in and posting the initial umndifferentiated mass which eventuated in the Second Amendment so the full context can be seen.
Otherwise, I took a bit of time typing in about two-fifths of an example "Militia Act," this from the "Royal Colony of New Jersey," dated 70-plus years before the "revolution". This portion of it, by itself (I've not yet proofed it), refutes all the nonsense about militia being some sort of informal feel-good gathering:
_____
Laws of the Royal Colony of New Jersey 1703-1745, Third Series, Volume II
-----
Second Assembly, First Session
13 Nov. - 12 Dec. 1704
Burlington
All acts passed 12 Dec. 1704
[*15]An Act for the Settling the Militia of this Province
Whereas the Security and Preservation of this Province greatly depends upon the Militia being put into such Methods & under such Rules, that may make the same most useful for the Support and Defence thereof, and that the Inhabitants should be well armed and trained up in Art Military, as well for the Honour and Service of her most sacred Majesty, as the Preservation of their own Lives and Fortunes.
Be it Enacted by the Governour, Council and Assembly, and it is hereby Enacted and Ordained by the Authority of the same, That no person whatsoever from sixteen to sixty years of Age remain unlisted by themselves; their Parents, Masters, Mistresses or Imployers, under the Captains of their respective places of abode, in Foot or Horse, the space of one Calendar Moneth after their attaining the said Age of sixteen years, or after their arrival or coming to reside or sojourn in any place within this Province on Penalty of ten Shillings, and so for [*16] every Moneth such Person, after notice thereof given, shall remain unlisted. And that every Foot Souldier be provided with a well fixed Musquet or Fuzee, or if the Officer so appoint, with a good Pike & Sword, or Lance and Pistol; each Musqueteer or Fuzileer half a pound of Pow[d]er and twelve sizeable Bullets, and one Cartouch-Box, Flask or Powder-horn, and shall so appear when required, upon Penalty of five Shillings for his default in not appearing, and three Shillings for want of each charge of Powder, Gun, Pike, Sword, Pistol or Cartouch-Box, so as the whole Penalty for any Person at any time, exceed not five Shillings. And that every Souldier belonging to the Horse shall when and where commanded, appear, and be provided with a good serviceable Horse of his own, covered with a good Saddle, with Holsters, Brest-plate, Crupper, and a case of good Pistols, Hanger, Sword or Rapier, and half a pound of Powder, with twelve sizeable Bullets, on penalty of ten Shillings for each times absence, and ten Shillings for default of the particulars above-mentioned, so as the whole penalty for one time exceed not fifteen Shilling. And that every Foot Souldier shall have at his Habitation or abode half a pounde of good Powder & twelve sizeable Bullets; and every Trooper shall have at his usual place of abode a well fixed Carbine, with Belt and Swivel, and two pounds of fine Powder, with six pounds of sizeable Bullets, on penalty of ten Shillings for every default, and that each of them shall bring the same into the Field when commanded, upon penalty of answering the same at a Court-Martial. And for the supply of such Troops of Horse as his Excellency shall think fit to appoint, whensoever any of the said Troops shall not compleat the number of Fifty, it shall be in the power of the Collonel or other chief Officer to present tribble the Number, instead of such are dead, removed or wanting, out of the principal Inhabitants of the two Divisions of this Province, unto the Governour for the time being, who may from time to time list and order so many of them to be of the respective Troops, as may compleat the Number of Fifty, for her Majesties Service and the Security of this Province; and such person and persons so presented to the Governour for the time being, and by him listed and ordered to be of the said respective Troops, shall be and are hereby obliged to serve in the said respective Troops, upon the penalty of five pounds.
And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no person, so listed as aforesaid, shall depart thence without a discharge from the Commander of the Company or Troop where listed, on penalty of Forty Shillings, and that no Commander of any Company or Troop shall refuse, when desired, to give a Discharge in writing to any that hath removed his aboad out of the Precinct or Province, under the penalty of five pounds.
And be it further Enacted and Ordained by the Authority aforesaid, That all Captains of Companies of Foot or Troops of Horse, shall within twelve Moneths after the publication of this Act, provide for their Companies & Troops, Drums and Colours, Trumpets and Trumpeters and Banners at the proper Charge of the respective Officers, Troops and Companies, under the penalty of Ten Pounds, and so for every Four Moneths after such Commanders shall remain unprovided. And that all the Collonels of the respective Regiments, or next chief Officer in their absence, shall once every year, at least, issue out [*17] their Warrants to their inferiour Officers, commanding them to make diligent search and enquiry in their several Precincts, that all be duly listed, armed and equip't, and to return to them such Defects as shall be found, to the end the same may be Reformed, on penalty of Twelve Pounds, & that once every three Moneths, or oftener, as occasion shall require and command be given by the Captain General and Commander in Chief, for the time being. The several Companys and Troops in each Regiment, shall meet at the next and most convenient places to be appointed by the respective Officers, to be then and there by them Mustered and Exercised.
And be it further Enacted and Ordained by the Authority aforesaid, That during the time the said Officers and Souldiers are in Arms, they shall observe and keep all and every the Laws and Articles of War, and give all due Obedience to their superiour Officers; which Laws and Articles the Captain General and Commander in chief, with the advice of a general Council of War, is to make and establish; and the Commanders of the serveral Regiments to give out Copies of the said Articles unto the respective Officers, that the same may be publickly read once every three Moneths unto the Souldiers, whilst they are in Arms, that all persons may the better know and observe their Duties. And if it shall happen, that if any of the Officers or Souldiers, shall, when they are out of Arms, endeavor to take Revenge by force, for any thng his or their superiour Officer lawfully did, in pursuance of his or their Duty and this Act, the said Officers & Souldiers shall be brought to a Court Marshall, and there punished, as if the Offence had been done in time of Service or Exercise, provided that the said punishment do not extend to Life or Limb. . . .
-----
August 26, 2009 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris, I'm going to help you out with this one because you seem like a "nice guy". If you don't want to be in the media spotlight, stop doing interviews. Really, it's that simple.
August 21, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would think that members of this group, including Kostric and Broughton, by their idiotic actions near a Presidential town hall, have invited themselves to be under surveillance by the FBI and Secret Service for a very long time.
August 21, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
lisast -
I only hope you are correct and that they are watched closely from now on -- as well as their group. The thought of these guys anywhere near our president scares me. The thought of being in a crowd where we are protesting is also frightening. Their actions are more intimidation of opposing viewpoints than expression of second amendment rights.
As pointed out by many others, this never would have happened with Bush, where the cowardly philosophy was "Wear a t-shirt, go to jail."
August 21, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The deliberate purpose was to infringe the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with their unAmerican authoritarianism.
Not-so-by-the-way: these crazies are "Libertarians" who are Ron Paulists and worshippers of the tyrant Ayn Rant.
August 22, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
cath and lisa y ou are wrong.. I'ts the leftists who are being watched.. They are the ones who attacked NOT Kostric!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxjahek0f8
They did nothing illegal.
what is wrong with you idiots?
August 22, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Your video was really a "smoking gun"---no pun intended.
Dude. You have zero credibility when you spout the tin foil hat crowd talking points about "paid union thugs". And posting it here reeks of you just trying to spam TPM to get views.
August 22, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have yet to see ANY SUBSTANTIATION that they acted legally.
That law enforcement doesn't arrest and prosecute does not mean no laws were broken.
Because sane societies are not gun-nuts, they don't leave dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated. Public safety SUPERCEDES the "right" of the individual, or the individual armed gang, to delibeately threaten other citizens.
Tere is no RIGHT to INTIMIDATE.
And there is no RIGHT to tell others that they AREN'T being intimidated in order to ignore it.
August 23, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thing they weren't doing anything REALLY dangerous, like wearing a t-shirt. THAT got you arrested at Bush rallies.
August 21, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to this:
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Broughton&fname=Christopher
Chris is an apprentice mold maker for a Tempe company named Tech Mold. Wonder how this company likes the idea of one of its employees being under Federal surveillance cause he was carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle at a POTUS protest site?
Think he brings his AR-15 to work????? Ya know...protecting himself, Constitutional rights, etc? Didn't he say in an interview that the only time he takes his holstered gun off is when he takes a shower? Bet his annual employee reviews are kinda interesting!
August 21, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's precedent for that in Arizona. Wasn't one of the Mc Veighists there, in the mid 90s, a donut-maker? & if donut-shoppes are war-zones, can you imagine what the shoppe-floor of a mold-maker is like?
August 22, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What planet does he reside on? Bringing an assault rifle to a presidential event shouldn't get attention? Maybe Broughton is really as paranoid as he appears. He said in the interview that he has a gun nearby when he showers. Talk about a bitter man clinging to his guns.
August 21, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So these morons are committed to restoring "popular sovereignty" to the States.
One of those racist code words the fanatic right has revived:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act_of_1854
August 21, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you some kind of idiot? What racist code words?
If you want to see who the violent ones are, why not admit it is your SEIU thugs who beat up a black man?
Or that Kostric was kneed in the groin and then spit on by another Kool-aid drinking KOOK communist from Obama's army, but had wonderful restraint and did not do anything back?
I think you all need to shut up or get your facts straight.
OOOOOH I'm so scared of Bill and Christ, NOT!
This thughowever from YOUR SIDE is who I AM Scared of including the big communo-fascist in the WH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxjahek0f8
August 22, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where were your guns when Bush gave his speeches?
Or did the PATRIOT Act suspend the Second Amendment, too?
August 22, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "black man" was not beat up. He tripped over someone lying on the ground, got up, and walked away with no apparent injuries only to turn up later in a wheel chair for a photo op.
August 24, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are the same anti-tax Hollywood "Wild West" cowboys from the late-1980s and the 1990s. Every rationale they spew is the same, except the words are changed to hide that fact.
Then they jabbered about "sovereign citizen" -- which meant "exempt from the rule of law". Now it is "self-ownership" (sounds like a perverse form of slavery) -- which means, "exempt from the rule of law".
They wer loons then, they are loons now.
August 23, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
citizen vigilance and government accountability
I guess that last part about 'accountability' was just added to the creed after George W. Bush left the White House.
August 21, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, an interesting connection in their little web of groups is the John Birch Society. Who knew they were still alive and kicking? I followed Hancock's site to theirs (jbs.org) this a.m. (I was hoping to see if Hancock had left any clues - guess I shoulda checked the Republic.)
August 21, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out freekeene.com.
(Kostric and his ilk congregate in Keene, NH. And it appears they are engaged in the usual efforts to cost the taxpayer unnecessarily by tying up the courts, etc., with their "leans" and other forms of pseudo-law gibberishings. The last group to gain national attention that did that is now serving long sentences for wire fraud and the like. It's my hunch that these loons are seeking to either obtain Three-Hots-and-a-Cot welfare -- making the license plates they claim a right not to put on their cars -- or burial at public expense.)
August 22, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
JBS is a wonderful organization. You ought to read their research and learn something for a change instead of applying ignorant, worn out cliches about them when you know nothing about them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxjahek0f8
Watch the video - Working for the thug in chief.
August 22, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you knew how crazy you are you'd be really entertained by it.
August 23, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
BOO!
August 21, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Washington Post:
"Both Obama and Bill Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama's judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
August 21, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
Give it UP.
August 21, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
TROLL ALERT! 123easyABC
Check his short TPM history, a gun wacko, aren't they all?
August 21, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poverty is a form of voilence - the worst kind of voilence. - Gandhi
Being involved in an anti-poverty group would be a form of positive guilt by association in my book. Perhaps Ayer's is making amends. Perhaps Obama's just a good guy.
Thanks for bringing this up. I feel much better about Obama now. As for Ayer's he's obviously making amends with the living God.
August 21, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE know who the violent thugs are, and always have been.
Obama, Ayers, Dohrn, et al...
Frank Jones, admittedly did time, and is a communist.
This is the kind of sickness the left worships.
Meanwhile someone belongs to We the People to support the Constitution and that's supposed to be scary?
What a sick joke you people are.
Don't forget your clown president was a member of the socialist party up to 1996.
August 22, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Frank Jones, admittedly did time, and is a communist."
You'd be fun iif you weren't instead stupid.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of belief. That includes Communism.
Why do you hate other people having rights?
August 23, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't forget your clown president was a member of the socialist party up to 1996."
The US has staunch allies with political systems consisting of:
1. Monarchy.
2. Democratically-elected parliament.
3. Socialist economy.
Several of those staunch allies have strange and weird foreign names such as:
1. Britain.
2. Denmark.
3. Norway.
4. Sweden.
Last but not least, Winston Churchill, to whom Hitler was an enemy, was a Socialist. And among the groups demonized, and marked for extermination, by Hitler were:
Communists.
Socialists.
Trade Unionists.
Liberals.
August 24, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right Wing Group....
Sometimes referred to as the Republican Party....
There are, of course, a few unknowing members who are just involved peripherally and have little concept of the true goals and desires of the leadership.
August 21, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
aka unindicted criminal class.
August 22, 2009 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may start a new patriotic group; Howitzers for All. Our slogan shall be "A Howitzer in every garage and a capital gains tax cut for all."
August 21, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every plantation had at least one...
August 21, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah- what's with this guy being black? I am not, but have known black Republicans personally and as commentator/journalists. Hey, whatever, we talk about it. But a militia member? That's new to me. Anyone have any knowledge or experience with that?
August 21, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT answered your question for you.
August 21, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Vipers gave him a gun to exploit him (no one can say he is white supremacist racist), he is not allowed to 'carry' at the 'We the (White) People' Clubhouse.
August 21, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. I knew a very nice black guy who was a member of Posse Comitatus in the early '80s. He was mostly interested in not having to pay federal taxes and tended to gloss over the white supremacy foundations of that group.
I also work with a gay Republican. I think he objects to his own lifestyle.
August 21, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black people didn't use to be serial killers either. Or commit suicide. But times change. Now no one is immune to the crazy.
August 22, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's something very, very suspect about a black showing up at a townhall rally with a semi-automatic rifle angry about "big government" controlling our lives. Fringe groups like the teabaggers are 99.999999999 % white. You didn't see a lot of blacks at the GOP convention or at Sarah Palin rallies either.
Why was there was a pre-planned interview involving this black guy? I'm convinced that he was just being used by the right-wing loonies to give the impression that the "grassroots" revolt against big government isn't just limited to the White Wing. It's similar to the cynical ploy of putting a black in charge of the RNC.
August 22, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord, do I agree with this. Dude was the token black face.
August 22, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And all this time I thought Erkel was dead!!
August 21, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
The Colt AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
Look, I realize this is a minor point to make in all of this, but it's one of the reasons why so many people who own guns take any gun control measures proposed by Dems seriously: so many of us have no idea WTH we're talking about regarding guns, and throw around terms with no regard to their accuracy. This makes us look foolish, and gives those who would be dismissive of gun control efforts the rationale to do so.
An assault rifle is a rifle manufactured for military use, capable of 3-round bursts and/or fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon that is not capable of either burst or fully-automatic fire. It has no higher a rate of fire than any other semi-automatic weapon: it fires once every time you pull the trigger.
One of the big contributing factos to the backlash against the 'assault weapons ban' is that it did nothing whatsoever to actually address assault weapons. Instead, it banned weapons based on their form and visual resemblance to military ordinance. The Chinese-made NHM-91, for example, is a semi-automatic weapon suitable for hunting (comes with a really nice thumb-through grip on the stock, and a good bipod for setting up on a salt lick, even). It too is not capable of burst-fire or automatic-fire, but it's based on the Kalashnikov design line, and so was lumped in.
M-16: assault rifle.
AR-15: not an assault rifle.
Words have meanings, and using terms where they are not correct makes us look ignorant and stupid. Let's not do that, huh?
August 22, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why they *don't* take gun control measures seriously, that is. Damned fingers.
August 22, 2009 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks. important points.
August 22, 2009 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
How are they important points? If we "cleaned up our act" as suggested, so they had no reasons to oppose reasonable gun control, they'd lie new reasons for opposing gun control into existence.
Never try to please a crazy man: the result will be two crazy men.
August 23, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting paradigm: First amendment guarantees "freedom of expression", which is further defined under the 2nd, wherein ownership rights of guns is necessary to the "security of the state."
What's missing and yet to be seen again is someone connecting the dots between the strong emotions being expressed in the healthcare debate and the belief by some that something has to be done to "protect the security of the state."
Is this what the founding fathers designed?
August 22, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting paradigm: First amendment guarantees "freedom of expression", which is further defined under the 2nd, wherein ownership rights of guns is necessary to the "security of the state."
_____
The "state" is GOV'T, not "area of land".
That's a good reason for the fact that the Commander-in-Chief of the Militia is the state's governor: it's not likely he will "defend against" himself.
August 23, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broughton, whose full name was reported today by the Arizona Republic, told the newspaper he "wasn't seeking a personal spotlight by arming himself and strolling through crowds of Obama supporters."
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?"
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
August 22, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do these sling-shot idiots all look like they would actually use their penis (sorry gun) rather than go find a girlfriend / wife?
Do we have a new breed of ....... somewhat confused strokers? (sorry strokes)
Or do these grade school play along cowboys expect the penis (sorry pistol) to bring in the sex and bypass the foreplay?
Or,....... do they have a clue what they are doing this for?
In 60's we all know these people would be immediately shot many times over. Right away. No question. For sure in raygunz land.
What happened to the con fear of everything? Do people like to stand next to these.......mmmmmmm semi conscious .....maybe 1/2 dudes??
Why don't the normal people grab them and haul them down! Now that would be news ya know? Like protecting the pres by a citizen! Since the feds can't move......
August 22, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
They tried, but uh, that's called violence and someone is currently being IDd and will be charged, the one who attacked Kostric.
August 22, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Had Kostric been attacked, liar, he would have been whining and blubbering about how he was an armed victim during the Chris Matthews interview, and we still wouldn't have heard the end of it.
Let me guess: you're William Kostric, who in the photo looks stone pot-wasted.
August 24, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, if they'd shown up with a copy of the Bill of Rights and their ACLU membership cards, demanding repeal of the "patriot" act, nullification of the "protect America act", and the 9/11 resolution giving the President the power to arbitrarily name anyone of us (or any country) a terrorist - THAT'S a movement I could get behind. But my right to kill (what else is a gun good for?), I can forego.....
August 22, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the problem with these people. Where was all this rage before?
If you seriously have anti-state principles, then you don't care who is in charge. If you can't be bothered unless The Man is a Democrat, then you're a friggin' moron.
August 22, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't want to be Joe-the-Plumber. ... I'm hoping my 15 minutes are over"
______________________________________________
Was it worth it selling your race out to send a dog whistle to racist get the President killed?
Congratulations, your name will be along side Clarence Thomas and Jesse Lee Peterson as the biggest sell out of your race ever.
August 22, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The argument is that the founding fathers were perfect in their judgement, and the rights should not be abridged. The "arms" referred to in the 2nd amendment generally designated flintlock muskets, pistols with poor aim and really slow loading rifles. As canon, submarines, ballista and catapult were existant weapons at the time, but citizen ownership of these was not designated as a divine right, why are more modern "arms" of much higher order magnitude lethality considered legal? Don't they believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing? Anyone who disagrees, can fight it out with me in paintball, I'll get the paintball AR-15 version, you can have the paintball flintlock.
August 22, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing prevented citizenry from owning cannon except the ability to get their hands on them. Most significant field pieces were held by the government, and it would have been quite expensive to go about getting one made - probably as much or more than a new church bell, which often took entire communities pooling their resources to afford them. Especially considering the folks making the cannon would be, well, the bellmakers, as they were the fellows with the experience and facilities for casting that much iron into that kind of shape. But there weren't any laws against it, and by the mid-1800s a few wealthy landowners did have small field-pieces for celebrations and other occassions where they wanted to make a lot of noise.
A skilled shooter with a Kentucky rifle would have no problem killing a man with a single shot. In that regard, modern arms are no more lethal: dead is dead. The principle, however, was for there to be a ready pool of capable adults who were able to use weapons, and able to provide their own - reducing government expense should they need to field a small force at a moment's notice. The weapons they were expected to be able to provide were the equivalent of the weapons used by the rank-and-file members of standing armies the world over. Really, until the advent of the submachinegun in the first quarter of the 20th century, and the assault rifle in the second half, the only major advances from the musket had been the rifled barrel and the self-contained cartridge... both of which actually existed, in primitive form, during the 1770s (the Kentucky rifle, as evident in its name, used a long, rifled barrel for superior accuracy, and paper-enfolded cartridges were often pre-packed and then stuffed in onto a much smaller pour of black powder for speed of loading).
I'd argue it's not so much the efficiency of the modern firearm that the Founders failed to take into account, but the adoption of the professional army. Universal 2-4 year service would likely have been their preference: to ensure every man/woman was capable of, and ready to, defend the country, and to prevent the rise of an isolated, increasingly disconnected professional military caste.
August 22, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the history/ technical specs, interesting.
I don't disagree on universal military service, with possibly an option for alternative National Service like the Israeli system. The draft also has the benefit of democratizing and humanizing people from other walks of life.
I'm still not sure that if a rich landowner/bellmaker were to take a stroll while having his servants nonchalantly roll a cannon outside Congress or near a presidential appearance, that the Founding Father's bodyguards/servants would not have had conniptions.
August 22, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
In general, I think they'd have been far less jumpy about the issue than we are, for a very unfortunate reason:
They didn't devote as much energy to self-deception with regard to the illusion of safety.
Modern Americans are insane creatures. We really are. We operate every day in an almost constant state of denial about the level of danger in which we exist. To go to work, a man will think nothing of strapping himself into a ton-and-a-half projectile carrying a semi-pressurized tank of explosive liquid attached to not one, but usually 4-8 devices intended specifically to cause sparks used to ignite that liquid. He will then attempt to race at over a mile a minute along a congested roadway filled with other explosive-laden projectiles.
And that's not really that bad a move.
I've seen people step out in front of moving cars because the law in their town says pedestrians always have the right of way.
Maybe it's not just us, but Americans do this kind of idiotic crap all the time: we like to pretend that the social order we live in is somehow actually all-pervasive - that it's not possible that someone might snap and go on a killing spree. It's completely unthinkable that you could get hit by a bus. People die here on Long Island every year because they simply assumed that they could get across the railroad tracks safely with no problem.
Every day, there are a thousand things that could kill you. You never think about them. You aren't even aware of most of them, even if you're surrounded by them. We've succeeded in creating, in the modern world, an illusion of safety, a feeling that our neighborhoods, our home towns, aren't dangerous, aren't places we could well die. And it's the things that remind us of that potential for our own mortality that tend to get the antipathic reaction.
I'd be willing to bet that as men living in a time when the world was still considered a dangerous place, even walking down the streets of Philadelphia, they would have been far more sanguine about a small (3-4" bore) field artillery piece being used as a noisemaker.
August 23, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The principle, however, was for there to be a ready pool of capable adults who were able to use weapons, and able to provide their own - reducing government expense should they need to field a small force at a moment's notice."
Absolutely ahistorical horseshit.
The militia members were ENLISTEES, asshole. They didn't "volunteer" to crawl on their bellies and shoot hapless squirells as training. They were a MILITARY FORCE, not a fucking weekend barbeque. They TRAINED AS MILTIARY FORCES, UNDER OFFICERS WHO ACTUALLY GAVE THEM ORDERS THEY WERE REQUIRED TO OBEY.
And as they were REGULATED UNDER LAW, there were punishments UP TO AND INCLUDING COURTS MARTIAL. (One militia officer who was subjected to courts-martial was Paul Revere.)
I wish you gun-nuts would take as much pride in actually KNOWING the ACTUAL history as you take pride in defending your stubborn non-existent right to be dumber than fucking dead rocks.
"The weapons they were expected to be able to provide were the equivalent of the weapons used by the rank-and-file members of standing armies the world over."
The weapons they were expected to USE -- PROVIDED BY THEIR STATE GOV'TS -- were stipulated IN THE FUCKING LAW. READ the "Militia Act" of 1792 so you MINIMALLY BEGIN to know what you're talking about.
August 23, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nothing prevented citizenry from owning cannon except the ability to get their hands on them."
Except, of course, the rule of law.
It's amazing how you Constitution-loving and -defending law-illiterate freedom-loving patriots always leave out the reality of law. By contrast, the Founders/Fraemrs were for "ordered liberty" -- liberty WITHIN the law, NOT in spite of it.
Oh, right: the Founders/Framers were gun-nuts who opposed all gun control and wanted everyone to be armed to the teeth in order to prove what good Christians they were. Check this out as support for that feel-good fantasy:
_____
C H A P. VII.
An Act for the executing in the Colony of Maffachufetts-Bay, in New-England, one Refolve of the American Congrefs, dated March 14, 1776, recommending the difarming fuch Perfons as are notorioufly difaffected to the Cause of America, or who refufe to affociate to defend by Arms the United American Colonies, againft the hoftile
Attempts of the Britifh Fleets and Armies, and for the reftraining and punifhing Perfons who are inimical to the Rights and Liberties of the faid United Colonies, and for directing the Proceedings therein, Whereas on the fourteenth of March One Thousand feven Hundred and Seventy-fix, a certain Refolve was made and paffed by the American
Congrefs,
-----
Congrefs, of the following Tenor, viz. : Refolved, That it be recommended to
"the feveral Affemblies, Conventions and Councils, or Committees of Safety
"of the United Colonies, immediately to caufe all Perfons to be difarmed
"within their refpective Colonies, who are notoriously difaffected to the Caufe
"of America, or who have not affociated and refufe to affociate to defend by
"Arms thefe United Colonies, againft the hoftile Attempts of the Britifh Fleets
"and Armies ; and to apply the Arms taken from fuch Prfons in each re-
"fpective Colony, in the firft Place, to the arming of the Continental Troops
"raifed in faid Colony ; in the next, to the arming fuch Troops as are raifed
"by the Colony for it's own Defense, and the Refidue to be applied to the
"arming the Affociators ; that their Arms when taken, be appraised by indiffe-
"rent Perfons, and fuch as are applied to the arming Continental Troops, be
"paid for by Congrefs ; and the Refidue by the refpective Affemblies, Con-
"ventions or Councils, or Committees of Safety" ;
Be it therefore enacted by the Council, and Houfe of Reprefentatives in General Court affembled, and by the Authority of the fame, That every Male Perfon above fixteen Years of Age, refident in any Town or Place in this Colony, who fhall neglect or refufe to fubfcribe a printed or written Declaration of the Form and Tenor herein after prefcribed, upon being required thereto by the Committee of Correfpondence, Infpection and Safety for the Town or Place in which he dwells, or any one of them, fhall be difarmed, and have taken from him in Manner herafter directed, all fuch Arms, Ammunition and Warlike Implements, as by the ftricteft Search can be found in his Possession or belonging to him ; which Declaration fhall be in the Form and Words following, viz. . . .
_____
And in January of that same year, the Continental Congress adopted "The Tory Act," which "suggested" to the states that the Tories "be disarmed" -- which it is obvious the states did becasue there wasn't a counter-"revolution".
Is it the lead, or the powder, that so damages the brain and lowers IQ that one is obsessed with denying the rule of law existed and exists?
August 24, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Freddie Johnson of Cleveland went on TV and said he as registered to vote 72 times by ACORN his life changed forever.He lost his job. He was thrown out of his house. His family had to get police protection.
Why?
August 22, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's really disappointing to see TPM's reporting on this "issue".
Y'all did a great job on Bush, a variety of corrupt politicians from both parties, and have begun learning about the bailouts and have a lot of potential to help there.
But these are just two citizens. Yeah they apparently don't share all of TPM's more liberal views, but they have a right to protest, and though you may disagree with it, many people share the view that they have the right to bear arms.
So how about we stop beating up on fellow citizens just because we don't share politics, and get back to fighting corruption?
August 22, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure they have a right to protest, but to do it toting guns???
We also have the right to protest them bringing guns to a political debate, Matty. We have a right to protest their veiled threat to President Obama. We have a right not to have our children see this kind of stuff at a democratic forum.
I don't give a hoot what the Second Amendment says. Nor do I recall seeing armed headcases openly displaying guns at any presidential event in the 60 years I've been on this planet. This is madness and if Josh and the folks at TPM stop covering it, I'll stop supporting them.
August 22, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
purplehawk you absolutely have the right to protest and debate that gun rights should be more stringent or even eliminated. I never said otherwise. I would bet both of those men would do everything in their power, through debate if at all possible, and through force if necessary, to defend your first amendment rights to argue against them.
I think you'd also be shocked to find that many of these "right wing extremists" share your views on many other issues and want to see a more honestly run government as well. They work hard to learn how their government works and take time off to make their voices heard. I wish more American would do the same. Why do you want to assume the worst in them?
If TPM wants to be a political site that is their call. I certainly have never come here to have my political viewpoints validated though. There are plenty of political sites and networks for that--from Rush Limbaugh, to the Huffington Post, to FOX, to MSNBC. I come to the Muckraker for objective, apolitical journalism into genuine corruption in our country.
It would be a disturbing loss to this country if TPM begins filtering and/or adding stories based on people's political affiliations.
August 22, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't know shit how the gov't works, that's why they see it as they are told by the right wing to see it: intrusive, and out of control.
And the only "hard work" they do is sit on their asses, smoke pot, and imagine their idiological nihilism is some sort of clever "philosophy".
They are secessionsistse who preach exemption from the rule of law, and exprssly say they will use force to advance their minority views in order ultimately to impose them on the majority.
They are not good Americans; the are unAmerican domestic enemies.
August 23, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would bet both of those men would do everything in their power, through debate if at all possible, and through force if necessary, to defend your first amendment rights to argue against them.
_____
You're kidding, right? And they show up armed to "protest" a non-existent "anti-gun agenda," even though none of that had anything to do with the purpose of the presidential appearance town hall: health insurance reform.
And one who does that holds up a placard with a direct threat to the president, based upon lies against the president that he is a "tyrant".
I'm sure they'd defend to YOUR death YOUR right to differ with them, exactly as they are VIOLENTLY OPPOSED to a president who was elected BY THE MAJORITY, and who is endeavoring to implement that THE MAJORITY wants: health insurance reform.
August 24, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful..That means they will have no problem sharing the same jail cell!
August 22, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is Obama that should be in jail Winski.
The level of moronic discussion here is funny if not pathetic.
watch?v=sUxjahek0f8
August 22, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read the comments on your stupid You Tube video and you are calling the discussion *here* moronic?
You and your teabaggers are deluded. First of all, like people said before, if this had been done at a Bush event, they'd be in jail. As it was, any liberal anti-Bush protestors were coralled blocks away to avoid a scene. People wearing anti-Bush t-shirts were removed from auditoriums. And you have the BALLS to complain that YOUR rights are being suppressed? Cheney and Bush eavesdropped on our own people, had illegal prisons... the Patriot Act pretty much covered them to look into what library books you borrow, and you are paranoid over Obama and the Democrats imposing some fascist takeover?
Go back to Keene and play Daniel Boone with your Free State friends. I hope the FBI and DEA and up going all Waco on your ass. Freak. And I have read into the whole Free State concept.
August 22, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, while Eric Holder might consider Janet Reno a friend & mentor, he lacks the stones to get things done.
August 23, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to worry about the books he borrows being scrutinized and cataloged in his dossier:
He doesn't read.
August 24, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No..The secret service that's assigned to protect EVERY president...If this had happened at a Chimpy bush rally, these two guys would now be in solitary, in shackles at GITMO under 24-hour water boaarding regiment.
August 22, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope these whackos realize that The Second Amendment has no language in it that specifically says that "Just Republicans" can own a firearm.
One shot and we could be back in the 60s all over again.
Not to mention the TPM article about the "Viper Militia" and how they own "ammonium nitrate fertilizer".
Great! Just Great! Another whacko group that could go around blowing up buildings in the US; just like Timothy McVeigh used to blow up that Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City.
These clowns that run these groups lit the long fuse a long time ago. It's just a matter of time, the way they are acting, before it unfortunately explodes on innocent bystanders all over again.
I pray to GOD that I am very, very wrong.
And I do hope The Secret Service has them under real, real close scrutiny - 24/7 !!
August 22, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you expect from disgraced failed teabaggers? Or racist birthers etc., etc., etc. One lame attempt after another has only made these fools look even more foolish, like Olympic dumb. Escalating to guns & guns near the president is the obvious next bluff (they're bluffing, right?).
August 23, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in awe of how uninformed some are here. You think these people are Republicans? You think they were supportive of Bush policies? You think the past 10 months have made them angry, but that they were totally fine with everything before that? You think they weren't upset at people being arrested for wearing T-shirts? You think they support PALIN??!!??
You compare non-violent DEFENSE-MINDED people to Mcveigh, a man who killed 168 people--- repeat, 168 men, women, and children, a crime that occured 20 minutes from where I lived and grew up. You who beleive this dribble pouring out of your fingers are offensively ignorant of what liberty/freedom means. Violent people are criminals. What crime/violence did these people commit? Remember, they can't control what offends or scares you.
point: there were a lot more people with guns at those protests, but the guns were concealed. We all pass people carrying guns all the time, but we just aren't aware of it. And, like it or not, we're safer for it.
question: let's imagine a world in which, say, 10% of the people took it on themselves to be regularly armed and trained. How many lives might've been saved at the Virginia Tech of this imaginary world? Guns at a school?? Crazy, right?
August 23, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You compare non-violent DEFENSE-MINDED people to Mcveigh, a man who killed 168 people--- repeat, 168 men, women, and children, a crime that occured 20 minutes from where I lived and grew up."
Attending a VOLATILE political event to "protest" against a non-existnt gun agenda when the topic is health insurance reform is not about REASON.
Nor is it about "gun rights"; it is about THREATENING those who are there FOR the reform.
And don't give us the shit that wearing a gun, backed by avowed intent to use it, where it isn't needed for the claimed purpose -- "self-defense" -- isn't a THREAT.
THREAT of violecne is VIOLENCE.
"You are offensively ignorant of what liberty/freedom means."
Tell that to the 168 casualties of gun-nut McVeigh: he too had the only correct view of "liberty/freedom" -- and therfore the right to murder wholly inocent civilians in effort to advance that TYRANNY.
"Violent people are criminals. What crime/violence did these people commit? Remember, they can't control what offends or scares you."
1. They DON'T have a RIGHT to INTIMIDATE -- which is EXACTLY what they were there to do.
2. They DON'T have a RIGHT to tell others that they are NOT intimidated -- as means by which to IGNORRE their rights in the matter.
3. And they CERTAINLY don't have a RIGHT to stick a gun in our faces and ORDER us NOT to be intimidate by means of horseshit "argument" which boils down to these words:
"Fuck you if you're intimidated. I'm here to bully you into silence, and that's what's going to happen! And I will ignore all reasoning to the contrary of everything I want."
August 23, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wackos with guns are right wing conservatives whose ideology aligns with the GOP. For 8 miserable years, we didn't see these wimps show up at Bush's speeches. Why? Because they had their man in the Big House. Get these guys on a shrink's couch and the "little penis" issues will pour forth. Toting guns makes 'em feel like big powerful men; something they lack within themselves.
Lest you wingnuts think we don't see through the sham of having a "black guy" tote a gun, think again. That little effort to make it look like "even black guys (like Obama) carry guns, so don't accuse us of being racist thugs" is so transparently laughable that even the mouth breathing wingers should know better.
Right wing militants/extremists are indeed a threat to our nation's security. The only reason there has not been more outrage about them is because law enforcement is vastly right wing too. How many cops do you know who go around professing to be liberals? How many sheriff's deputies did you see "Marching on Selma"?
If liberals had brought guns to a Bush speech, they'd have been arrested and put in the slammer. Hell, people who wore T-SHIRTS were arrested at Bush's cult meetings.
I'm sick and tired of right wing a-holes somehow turning everything around so they are suddenly the victims. They are such whining losers. Always playing the victim. Always the down-trodden patriots getting a bum rap from Washington. Waaaaa, waaaaa!
And what happens when the GOP rules all houses of Congress and the White House? The right wing gas bags controlled our entire national government for essentially 8 years under Bush and look what a complete failure that was. I say, "shut the f*&k up", right wing. We'll gladly give you a real reason to whine. Take your militaristic crap and get the hell out of our national discourse. You had your turn and blew it. We don't want to hear from you. We don't need your bigoted ideas. We don't need your racist desire to rid out nation of everyone except white people. Why not be the real tough guys you profess to be and go to fight the war in Afghanistan!?! Why, because deep down, you're a bunch of chicken hawks. You don't even have the stones to fight a real war. You just parade around like little punks showing off your guns. Bite me.
Now, let's all go get our health care system fixed.
August 23, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
tabularasa, you're painting with an awfully big brush there. More of a firehose.
"Now, let's all go get our health care system fixed."
Agreed.
August 23, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right: Let's pretend that gun-nuts who protest a non-existent "anti-gun agenda" while spewing far-right lunatic fringe/GOP talking points aren't actually that, and aren't actually doing that.
Let's LIE based upon moral superiority.
August 24, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Several things:
1) You're afraid of a guy with a rifle ON HIS BACK, and he's the one with a little penis?
2) Calling people names (a-holes, babies, losers, etc.) and telling them what to do often makes people feel powerful.
3) You're the one who brought up race. What does that say?
4) Again, you're suggestion that liberty folks "had their turn," as though people who are liberty-minded/constitutionalists favored Bush and his policies. This is simply wrong, and couldn't be more wrong. You are preaching to the choir when you talk of the problems in the Bush administration. By all means, preach away, but don't expect to have any effect. Your goals there are already met. Probably met before you even knew what the problems were.
5. Apparrently you don't wanna to hear from anyone who doesn't agree with you. Sounds like Bush to me. The two primary political parties use the same tactics. Doesn't matter if these policies effect everyone, only some people should be allowed to speak.
6) How many times is "non-violent" in the quoted charter of the "right wing" group that this artlicle names? Not violent, not militaristic, no matter ho many times you say it is.
7) I have no interest in killing in, dying in, or paying for a war in Afghanistan. Don't know why you would suggest such a thing. Visiting, yes. Shooting the people, no.
7) ooohhh. I have to admit, I was a bit angry at first reading of these posts, but I realize now that many of you simply don't understand the views of these types in the article. They probably agree with you on a lot mre than you realize. I'd also be mad if I were you and had these misconceptions. Neo-cons bad, ok?
August 23, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to waste much time dealing with your whining post, again you're the victim, but here goes:
Maybe YOU would not agree with some of these wimps from the militias, but the ones who ARE indeed part of these ridiculous organizations equate owning and showing off guns with some sort of macho, American, "I'll show you who can brandish a gun and make some stupid point" thing. The point is, who needs to carry guns, period? What purpose does it serve, regardless of it's legality? It's stupid and it IS a show of potential VIOLENCE and MILITARISM. Just admit you want all the symbolic benefits of strutting around with a gun, but you don't want the deserved scorn from people who don't want EVEN THE POTENTIAL for violence to pollute the public square. Leave your guns at home. We don't need to see that you possess a tiny wang and compensate for it by lugging a gun to a public meeting.
Next, try to revise history all you want, but the GOP and conservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, et al, did in fact have the vast support of the right wing. The reason: because right wingers simply hate liberals. Right wingers would fight liberals regardless of the topic, regardless of the merits. Bush was LOVED! LOVED! LOVED! by the right wingers for all the wrong reasons. So, don't try to cop some "we're all a bunch of reasoned, measured patriots trying to intellectually make a very serious point". You're not. Period.
Most of these gun-toting punks are chickens deep down. They would never actually fight the very wars they so dearly support. Your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, most of the right wing craps its pants the minute someone mentions "the terrrrrorrrrrists". It's unbelievable how frightened right wingers are of "the brown".
I, for one, am not some wilting liberal. I'm a stand up and tell the right wing to go "Cheney" itself liberal. For 8 years under the despotic rule of an idiot named George W. Bush, liberals sat like weaklings, afraid to stand up to the likes of Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Bill Frist and the other maniacal ideologues who were all too happy to cut off debate by Democrats. Well, now Obama supporters are running things. And, I think they should crush the right wing like the roaches they are. Take no prisoners. Take no crap. Let's roll!!!
I repeat, I don't want to hear from you. I want the Democratic leadership to wield power EXACTLY like Bush/Cheney/GOP Congress did: with total disregard for the opposition party. I want to correctly demonize the GOP and conservatives for being the anti-freedom jerk-offs they are. I want the evangelical kooks who rule the GOP to be cut out of the debate so we don't end up with Jesus freaks making policy. GOP ideas suck. Nearly every politician tried and convicted for corruption over the last 9 years was from the GOP. The GOP is yesterday's party. It's now a regional collaboration of anti-science, anti-education, anti-intellectual, evangelical, bigoted extremists. Go check the latest map on the remaining GOP strongholds. It's a bunch of red "puddles" in the deep south, home of the dumbest, fattest Americans. Go ahead, check the REAL data on where the fattest, least-educated Americans are concentrated and you'll see a perfect correlation between those areas and strong GOP followers. You can have the south. You can have your guns. Just shut the F&*K up.
August 23, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm a New York liberal, and I want my guns for the express purpose of defending myself and those important to me, should it become necessary. Let me give you an example of what I mean:
I was at a truck stop in New Hampshire a few years back, when I saw a man trying to get into the passenger-side of a car a row or two away. He was unsuccessful, and began trying to get into another car. He was disheveled and wild-eyed, and I'm not the only person who saw this and called the police.
Before they arrived, however, he'd found a car with an old woman in the driver's seat and a young girl in the passenger's seat. The driver's door was unlocked, as they'd just come out and were getting into the car. He opened the door, yanked the woman out, pulled a knife from his jacket pocket, and lunged in at the girl. And got no farther, as gramma pulled out a Colt M1911A1 .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol from her purse and shot him dead from where she lay on the ground.
Do you think she should have waited for the police? The Sheriff who arrived first collected granny's gun, looked it over, took down the serial number along w/her driver's license info, and handed it back.
You cannot always wait for the police. Sometimes, you have to be responsible for your own well-being. As for the other bit...
You want the Democratic leadership to wield power 'exactly' like Bush/Cheney did? With no regard for the law, with no regard for civil liberties, with no regard for the truth, seeking only to wield power for power's sake?
They never, not once, operated with total disregard for the opposition party. Instead, they used moles like Lieberman and tactics like vague and confusing briefings w/out the benefit of note-taking or corroborating witnesses to actively undercut the opposition party. Many of the tactics they used to geld the Dems were of questionable morals, if not not legality, as well.
And believe you me, I was bitching about it then, too. If you want the Democrats to wield power 'exactly' like Bush/Cheney? Then you're damned right I want my guns, just like I wanted them from 1/2001-1/2009. I want them because I refuse to trust my government. I might trust each and every man to act as he feels is best, and yet... whn it all comes together, somehow power has only ever been gotten away from the Executive branch by aggressive conflict instigated by the Legislative.
Government is a necessary evil, and it can be a great tool for addressing social ills and difficulties, but any time one man is placed in power over another, it is still an evil.