Armed defense?

[erisian]

if one reads the main body of the US Constitution, it gives grounds for the action of the government.

In what Article and Section?
I'm not finding anything that says that the president may, at his sole discretion, selectively suspend any part of the Constitution that he finds inconvenient.
All I found was this:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

But that says nothing about suspending rights.

[erisian]

Flag of truce?? lot's of luck, they are dishonorable pieces of shit and they won't respect a white flag. If you don't immediately surrender they will open fire with automatic weapons.

Most likely. That's why nonviolent noncooperation probably wouldn't work. But soldiers would eventually get sick of killing citizens, and realize that they had been lied to by their commanders. I think it would just be a matter of time before they started switching sides and protecting the people against the government. It's just a question of how many bodies it would take to smarten them up, and whether or not one of those bodies is yours. Of course, if they hire Blackwater again, all bets are off.

[Free libertarian]

Indeed, a rather insightful post Tom Sawyer.  A bit off topic but I gotta ask...what the heck is a "Leetninja" ?  Ever since I saw the name it's been bugging me. No really, it has. 

Probably a tongue-in-cheek reference to the oldschool BBS days when warez and r0dentz abounded, and being "L337" (elite) was kewl.

so when did this become a pick on me thing? really??? this is how you handle opinions you dont happen to agree with? 

and still would love to know what kat meat by

I don't think Russell should make leetninja leave.

is that to say that i will be deleted and removed any minute now for voicing an opinion and belief?  if that is the case, believe me you dont need to force me to leave ...

I don't think you understand. I REALLY did wonder what a Leetninja was. Not picking on ya, so don't leave on  my account. I never said I don't agree with you or not. And if I did disagree with you I'd respect your right to disagree. 

[Lloyd Danforth]

im done.

See Ya!

[John Edward Mercier]

if one reads the main body of the US Constitution, it gives grounds for the action of the government.

In what Article and Section?
I'm not finding anything that says that the president may, at his sole discretion, selectively suspend any part of the Constitution that he finds inconvenient.
All I found was this:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

But that says nothing about suspending rights.

Article Four Section Four.
Its activated with a request for physical federal assistance.

[Russell Kanning]

so since the cops are armed and violent ... non-violent opposition cannot work?

I am asking this because I really don't want to hang out with folks on this forum who think my way of living is useless ... I am attempting to attract those non-violent non-cooperators with evil out there. I don't have the time or inclination to hang out with or call friends those that make violent threats against wrongdoers.

This sound a litle like previouse dictator speech "either you are with us or you are with terrorists..."

I am wondering if you think that non-violent opposition cannot work when the government is very bad.
I am interested in being around people who live non-violently every day. It is a lifestyle, a frame of mind, and the means to a non-violent society.
If you are thinking something differently, I would prefer if you were not hanging out on this forum, since we do not have some critical things in common. I am not threatening to do something bad to you. I might ignore you, or delete offensive posts that i see. I am sure you can find a forum full of people that more closely share your motives and actions.

[Fluff and Stuff]

The 3/5th provision was for national Census, and most likely the downfall of slavery. Very hard to suggest that slaves were property then should be accounted for in the division of representation... unlike other domesticated animals of the day.

I've never a view like yours before.  Legalized slavery ended because lots of pressure coming from lots of directions tried to end it.

[Russell Kanning]

like i said there are scenarios where noncompliance and non cooperation are wonderful tools.  especially in a victimless crime circumstance i.e. handing out flyers.

isnt this what our forefathers meant by the right to keep and bear arms, and armed militia?

I think non-violence is the right method in all the situations I am in. How much I resist or cause trouble for the bad guys changes with the situation.
I do not agree with the violent american revolution. I am not interested in repeating it.

[Russell Kanning]

is that to say that i will be deleted and removed any minute now for voicing an opinion and belief?  if that is the case, believe me you dont need to force me to leave ...

I am not interested in have any and all opinions or beliefs posted on this forum. I didn't think I would have to "force" you to leave. I am sure you will be happier somewhere else.

[Russell Kanning]

So for as long as they're not afraid, so long as there are no consequences for their crimes, and for as long as you're unwilling to stand up and defend your rights by force when necessary, things will get worse for people who should be free.

So are you saying that I am hurting your situation or everyone else's because I will not use force, since never find it necessary?

[Russell Kanning]

and now that i think about it ... SO WHAT IF I DID?!  Call someone stupid or dont agree with them and he is going to forcibly make a member leave?  Wow, that is really mature ...

I guess the Constitution and out freedoms granted by it only apply when the King and Queen want them to and when they see fit ... real nice

I try not to use force. I also try not to hang around people who are calling me stupid. I do not think it is a sign of maturity that I willingly put up with written abuse.
The US Constitution is not about freedom. It was created by kingmakers to rule over others.
I have found I have very little in common with those that clutch a constitution in one hand and a gun in the other. Is it a problem that I am choosing my companions? This forum was not meant to be a big tent for everyone to join. I am sure there is another one that will fit you.

[Russell Kanning]

i think if one believes in the Constitution, that one believes in al of it, and therefore believes in freedom of speech as well.  I also believe that it should be a universal belief. 
... if that is how this board, group, and movement etc are then i really dont wish to be a part of it any longer. 

I don't think you have a right to freedom of speech with no limits.
This forum has at least one moderator who does hope you will leave. I don't know what group or movement you think this forum embodies. For me I am part of a non-violent revolution. Maybe you are in a different movement.

[erisian]

I do not agree with the violent american revolution. I am not interested in repeating it.

So is there any part of this that you disagree with?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Ryan McGuire]

So is there any part of this that you disagree with? [meaning the Declaration of Independence]

For me, most of it.

I had long held that the declaration of independence was a virtuous and moral creed. I used to send it to all my friends and coworkers on independence day in the hopes that they would see the true spirit of America and how much America had fallen. The DOI was one of the very last vestiges of government that I parted ways with, once I realized that it was full of statist and aggressive propaganda. There's still an awful lot in there that I agree with, but its so mixed up with the (often unseen) violence of the state that I don't rely on it for any of my arguments for liberty any more.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I'm all for overthrowing governments, but I'd stop there. Once the state was overthrown, I wouldn't replace it with another one. The DOI makes the assertion that you can only replace government with government, and not just any government, but one based on whatever principles will make "the people" (a pluarlity, non-individual, mob-like group) safe and happy. This reinforces the concept of democracy, which is abhorrent to me.

If the DOI really wanted to drive the point home that a person, individually, has personal liberty it would have said that an individual person has the right to ignore government entirely. Instead of this, it implies that an individual does not have this right, that they must instead suffer government and go through some formalized process of altering or abolishing the government as a collective. Both altering and abolishing require groups of people to act, not individuals, which in the context of government, always harms individuals. In contrast, a stalwart individual, who of his own volition, refuses to obey the state, can persuade others to do the same, and over time render government irrelevant and ineffectual without resorting to any aggressive acts of altering or abolishing government.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

So I don't have the right to stop the violent thugs from stealing, manipulating, and killing me as long as they're only doing it a little bit? This clause reinforces the concept that people should indeed suffer a little, or even moderate amounts, of violent intrusion in their lives. Only if the government controls some extreme percentage of your life are you then supposed to throw them off. But even then you're supposed to re-institute government through collective means.

I do not agree with the violent american revolution. I am not interested in repeating it.

Neither am I. All of the statist principles found within the DOI, no matter how well intentioned, have led people to justify violence against otherwise free and peaceful individuals.

[erisian]

Article Four Section Four.
Its activated with a request for physical federal assistance.

Thanks for the citation.
But that still requires a request from the state. The federal government is not given the authority to act on its own to defend a state against "domestic violence". Of course, if no one is getting violent, then there is no cause to call in the feds. If they show up uninvited, they should expect to encounter noncooperation of various forms.