• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Black Guns Matter

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
See their website at https://blackgunsmatter.myshopify.com/

Philadelphia resident Maj Toure organized the movement in order to promote the right to self defense for everyone in America. I've always maintained that the basic reason that Washington D.C. and adjacent Prince George's County, Maryland, had such high crime rates was precisely because "The Plantation" won't allow black folks to have the means for self-defense. (Local residents, especially federal workers, have referred to what Conservatives call "the Swamp", "the Plantation", for as long as I can remember, having lived nearby all my life.)

What we are seeing in a general way is "lockdown" on a vast scale, the fascists are battening down their protective hatches and hiding behind barriers and thugs. Obviously scared. But what are they scared of? Us. The American citizenry. So what does that situation indicate is really going on here? The Democratic Party elite, whom I refer to as rascists and fascists, know perfectly well that what they've been engaged in since the Wilson administration is wrong and injurious to our country. That's why they're scared of us, generally. It used to be that they were mainly scared of black folks, hence the Democratic "Jim Crow" laws, and later "gun control" (1968 Omnibus Safe Streets and Crime Control Act - Johnson administration crackdown on blacks with guns resulting in attempts by black folks to arm themselves in California to protect themselves from tyrannical Democratic party bosses - the Black Panthers).

If black lives mattered to the Democratic Party fascist elite, they'd allow the folks in D.C. and P.G. County to defend themselves. Mr. Toure is battling tyranny by means of his public education movement. I am very much in support of that effort. Unless all of us are free, no one is.

By the way, I use the word, "fascist", not as an epithet but in its original meaning of a cohesive insular cultural group that identifies only with itself and which militates against those outside the exclusive group whom it regards as inferior through violence and intimidation. See Wikipedia on the subject.
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
696
Location
Washington Island, WISCONSIN. Out in Lake Michigan
At a glance, ‘fascism’ is one of the most heavily edited pages at the Wikipedia, 16,000+ since its inception. I did not examine its history to see how long its editing has been locked.

I have contributed to Larry Sanger’s Knowledge Standards Foundation / Conservapedia effort, now five years aborning.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,842
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
History lesson.

Lets look at United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 553 - Supreme Court 1876:
“The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Now read Heller. Heller affirms Cruikshank by stating:
“United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” 92 U. S., at 553.”

Heller also said:
“The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.”

Also, now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S._742), they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.

Even though the USSC usurped power they didn't have by declaring that an absolute is not absolute. That being a legal fraud, how far does regulation get to go? Well, it has gone way too far.

For some reason the courts have joined the other two branches, in that, it's us (the government) against them (the people).

Guns in courthouses or jails seems to be reasonable, but only from a safety aspect. Everything else is an infringement on an inalienable right, and that infringement is unconstitutional, period.

But remember, he who has the biggest army rules. The problem is The People don't realize they are the biggest army.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,842
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Let’s continue the history lesson.

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

“Shall not be infringed” is not unambiguous.

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution. See Heller footnote 22 citing Cruikshank: "[t]he second amendment declares that it [i.e., the right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose] shall not be infringed." 92 U.S., at 553.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.

Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

“Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.

The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.

The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Sure the Court said all that, but the question for the enlightened citizenry is, "Does any of that square with the plain meaning of OUR Constitution?" I suggest that the answer is no. I'm saying that the Supreme Court of the United States has been just plain wrong about a lot of that, and I further suggest that some of their opinions are intentionally obtuse for the purpose of undermining the sovereignty of both the states and the people vis-a-vis the corporate entity created by them by the Constitution. When they lie to us about what the Constitution means, do they continue to have any credibility at all?
As you said earlier, Color_of_Law, "But remember, he who has the biggest army rules. The problem is The People don't realize they are the biggest army.". And there's no question that the potential for the exercise of sheer unprincipled coercive force (such as that exerted against Peter Navarro, perhaps?) will overcome objections like mine. Which makes our present government appear to have adopted Mao's aphorism that "Political power is a flower that grows from the end of a gun."
I regard myself as a Constitutional fundamentalist. I.e., the Bill of Rights is applicable to Congress, and only Congress and thereby to those federal officer holders who act on the authority of Congressionally approved legislation. Thus, the phrase, "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" is a matter of state law only. And the people of each state have the absolute right to establish their own system of rights and privileges, and to punish violations of state law both civilly and criminally, which would be invalid if approved by Congress. Thus, "defamation" is a legitimate cause of action under state law notwithstanding the First Amendment, but the United States has no authority to punish for "sedition" or "hate speech", let alone for refusing to speak to the House of Representatives (Navarro should have gone to the meeting, that's what the subpoena commands, but they can't make him talk). That is all subject to the constitution of the state, of course, and many have the same strictures in their own bills of rights.
By the way, the idea that the U.S. had law enforcement powers is a very recent development, brought about by the "crisis" created by prohibition. But that defeats one of the principle "checks and balances"; the U.S. is supposed to be dependent upon the states to enforce its laws as a bulwark against federal tyranny. The police power is exclusively a state power, and except in the "seat of government" and properly acquired military reservations, the U.S. has no such power. J.Edgar and Roosevelt cleverly managed that "crisis" in order to set things in motion - which required a trick. The trick was that they said the FBI was only going to assist states in investigations, not enforcement. It was just another lie. (By the way, Navarro was arrested inside the District of Columbia - National Airport is not in Virginia, it's just on the other side of the boundary channel.)
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
outstanding dialogue and quite fascinating per se.

thanks to you both for sharing your perspective(s)...
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
By the way, one of my pet peeves has been activated by the mention of Marbury v. Madison. They like to tell school children that this case established the principle of judicial review. Nonsense. The principle of judicial review was established a couple of hundred years earlier in England in a suit against the king on a theory of private nuisance. In that case, the principle of sovereign immunity was overcome in favor of the law established in Magna Carta to the effect that the king is not allowed to encroach on subjects' lands without proper reason (most commonly, "treason", which at common law, simply meant disloyalty to one's superiors).

That's part of the trick, pretending that the case said something important, that really wasn't that big a deal, while burying the meat of the case. What Marshall said, in effect, was that the Constitution of the United States was merely a matter of federal law, and therefore means whatever the Court says it means. And that bit of sleight of hand converted the Constitution from having been the corporate charter issued by compact among the states, outlining the purposes and powers of the corporate entity thus created. That bit of circular reasoning takes this path: the Constitution creates the federal judiciary and gives it the power to apply the laws created pursuant to Constitutional authority; The Constitution itself is not a charter limiting the powers and authority of the entity as it would a business corporation, but just another chunk of federal law. The created entity now says that it owns its own creator and has plenary power to control the creator; the implication is that the intellectually honest application of law has gone out the window and been replaced by "interpretation", as though the Constitution were an ancient artifact written in an obscure tongue, like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

What a scam! Though on the one hand, the Constitution is written in literate and highly educated English, and from my point of view, any dictionary printed after 1933 is worthless in reading it, but that's because, from my point of view, there haven't really been any dictionaries printed since then - the fascists replaced them with summaries of vulgar usage. I use the 1933 Oxford English Dictionary when in doubt what the words in the Constitution mean - they really didn't change much in the intervening years. But on the other hand, it is a document that the average person can read and understand. Simply reading the document would be so informative to all those people from whom it has been hidden away from them in their publicly-provided "educations". Why do they have a book that's an inch and a half thick to teach "government" in high schools but fail to actually have the kids read the Constitution? Wouldn't it be better to have that be the textbook? But what they get is propaganda and come away from the class thinking that the government is hierarchically structured with the U.S. on top, the states in the middle and the people on the bottom. That's not a republic, that's an oligarchy. And because they've made people believe it, it's become true.

"Feet of iron, mixed with clay."
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
696
Location
Washington Island, WISCONSIN. Out in Lake Michigan
I too cherish my old printed dictionaries, a micro edition of the OED and Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 1971. Of the Constitution I have The Exhaustive Concordance to the United States Constitution with Topical Index and Rapid Reference Constitution edited by Dennis L. Bizzoco (1994, Firm Foundation Press, Chattanooga).

I appreciate the printed word, truths or untruths forever. I appreciate old truths. Here is Dietrich Bonhoeffer‘s Of Folly, an excerpt.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, Prologue After Ten Years. A Reckoning made at New Year 1943.

Of Folly

Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than [is] evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction, as it makes people, at the least, uncomfortable. Against folly we have no defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use; facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved - indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel; we shall never again try to convince a fool by reason, for it is both useless and dangerous.

If we are to deal adequately with folly, we must try to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is a moral rather than an intellectual defect. There are people who are mentally agile but: foolish, and people who are mentally slow but very far from foolish - a discovery that we make to our surprise as a result of particular situations. We thus get the impression that folly is likely to be, not a congenital defect, but that one that is acquired in certain circumstances where people make fools of themselves or allow others to make fools of them. We notice further that this defect is less common in the unsociable and solitary than in individuals or groups that are inclined or condemned to sociability. It seems, then, that folly is a sociological rather than a psychological problem, and that it is a special form of the operation of historical circumstances: on people, a psychological by-product of definite external factors. If we look more closely, we see that any violent display of power, wether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind; indeed, this seems actually to be a psychological and sociological law: the power of some needs the folly of others. It is not that certain human capacities, intellectual capacities for instance, become stunted or destroyed, but rather that the upsurge of power makes such an overwhelming impression that men are deprived of their independent judgement, and - more or less unconsciously - give up trying to assess the new state of affairs for themselves. The fact that the fool is often stubborn must not mislead us into thinking that he is independent. One feels in fact, when talking to him, that one is dealing, not with the man himself, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like, which have taken hold of him. He is under a spell, he is blinded, his very nature is being misused and exploited. Having thus become a passive instrument, the fool will be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical exploitation that can do irreparable damage to human beings.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Or, put another way, wisdom requires awareness - people who have insulated themselves from the God's reality because of their shame, fear, and guilt are, as Jesus put it, without "eyes to see and ears to hear" - he compared them to the walking dead (Luke 9:59-60). With all this talk of fools, though, we sometimes forget that the dead can rise, the sleepers can awaken. For me, it's all a matter of individuals, not groups. Most important thing for those who do have awareness is to tell the truth, regardless of what power group may hate you for it and want to "cancel" you.

I'm not sure I buy Bonhoeffer's argument completely, though, because he makes a comparison between foolishness and evil. As a radical monotheist, myself, I don't see "evil" as a representation of anything other than "things people don't like or dislike". I do agree wholeheartedly, though, with the conclusion that fools are much more dangerous than people who are malicious and obtuse. Have you noticed how much of the comedy in the television shows over the past fifty years has centered on the actions of fools? I call it the "I Love Lucy syndrome"; someone should call Chuck Schumer and say, "Looosey??? 'Splain!!!".
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
Bonhoeffer, was an ordianed Doctoral level theologian who was from the beginning of Hitler's being appointed führer, against the man's beliefs but while harrassed for his outspokenness against Hitler, he ultimately joined the regime's military intelligence organization.

This document was his realistic perception and sent to his friends in the resistance that they might fail and his own realization he will not meet his life's goal(s) as well as 'what if' of his life's choices during the last ten years under the Nazi regime.

this out of context snippet from his larger tome should be read from that perspective per se., where he apparently questions why the olde orthodox "church" has done nothing to stop the holocaust in his country.
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
696
Location
Washington Island, WISCONSIN. Out in Lake Michigan
That Bonhoeffer ”joined the Abwehr“ is not so simple, as related in Sifton and Stern’s The Tragedy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hans von Dohnány (2013, NY Review). Dohnány thought that it would protect Bonhoeffer from conscription. Bonhoeffer struggled with the ethics of being a double agent (involved in the assassination plot) in his Ethics, unfinished and published posthumously in 1949.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
That Bonhoeffer ”joined the Abwehr“ is not so simple, as related in Sifton and Stern’s The Tragedy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hans von Dohnány (2013, NY Review). Dohnány thought that it would protect Bonhoeffer from conscription. Bonhoeffer struggled with the ethics of being a double agent (involved in the assassination plot) in his Ethics, unfinished and published posthumously in 1949.
to quote a tome 'created' 68+/- years after the life verses the man's own words while incarcerated prior to his death bears a bit more meaning as well as credibility, so as i previously stated in this thread:

"This document was his realistic perception and sent to his friends in the resistance that they might fail and his own realization he will not meet his life's goal(s) as well as 'what if' of his life's choices during the last ten years under the Nazi regime."
 
Top