It's not about guns...
The Potowmack Institute
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation
4423 LeHigh Road, Suite 273
College Park, MD 20740
leave out then's and spaces.
The e-mail address is presented this way to defeat the spam miscreants
[PotomackForum], Interactive Posting
[ARCHIVE], Potowmack Institute files
[RESOURCES], Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links
The Potowmack Institute
Assaulting Jim Zumbo
The NRA on Extremists
NRA scams its members
The Lionel Show
AirAm Radio's ignorant, crude, ugly,
air waves barbarian
Dear John Ashcroft
The armed populace doctrine at the DOJ
The Washington Post
Gun Policy News
news stories compiled daily.
Failing its Mission
NPR's Diane Rehm
Civilized without Substance.
A longstanding dereliction.
Violence Policy Center
The public health agenda
falls in line with the NRA.
Getting it right but
failing its mission in the
Militia Act of 1792
To enroll conscript, register
Return of Militia
Inventory of private weapons in
the early Republic reported to the
President of the US
John Kenneth Rowland
John K. Mahon
The Quotes, the Quotes
Fabricating the armed populace doctrine
Tenn. Law Rev., 1995
Chicago-Kent Symposium, 2000
What does the NRA want?
VII. Adolescent insolence, insurrectionist fantasies, and personal soveigntyIn the midst of the struggle over the modern state and the political economy of capitalism, adolescent insolence proclaims anarchic, insurrectionist fantasies on hundreds of internet bulletin boards. The adolescent insolence controls political outcomes. There is no political leadership to tell some people they cannot have their childish political fantasy. The gun rights militants need not worry. There is no constituency in the present political culture for the rule of law, civic obligation, and the contours of citizenship. We are all libertarians now. To raise these issues is like going to a assembly of over-sexed fraternity louts and preaching that the only permissible context for sexual expression is lifetime commitment in monogamous marriage. They might listen politely but would be quietly giggling. It is not as if there are not many lives and whole communities at risk. This is who we are.
Scroll down to July 2 or go to the archive box:
*** Mandatory licensing to purchase firearms;
*** Bans on the open and concealed-carry of firearms;
*** Bans on private sales of firearms;
*** Bans of so-called assault weapons and other "unusual" weapons (that's the actual language Scalia uses);
*** Bans on firearms on government property;
*** Bans on certain calibers of ammunition;
*** Bans on high-powered hunting scopes;
*** One-month waiting periods;
*** One-gun-a-month schemes;
*** Mandatory ammunition fingerprinting.
Public necessity and civic obligation have serious consequences for citizens under law and government and, by historical practice, for their private weapons.
This showed up on
The Potowmack Institute does not know what PSH is.
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. The people who argued out and wrote and signed this took this idea very, very seriously. They were fully aware that just by attending the meetings they were committing acts that the Crown would happily have them arrested and imprisoned- quite possibly executed for; by signing their names to this document, their lives were forfeit to the Crown if captured. ‘Forfeit’ as in ‘hanged until dead’ or ‘stood against a wall and shot’ if lucky: hanged, drawn and quartered if not.
And it’s been pointed out before: they were declaring rebellion which would have them facing the most powerful, best-trained, best-equipped military force in the world. When the Colonies had been deliberately kept as weak in some ways as possible. England considered that the Colonies should be forced to buy virtually all manufactured goods from Britain, including iron, powder, shot and firearms. Which means not much in the way of materiel to fight with. But they signed anyway. You can’t say they were not aware of what was coming, many of them had fought before, knew the noise and horror of battle.
And signed anyway.
And yet, according to blank [must be the Potowmack Institute], it’s unthinkable that they would write a document noting the importance of the people A: having arms and B: being, in extremis, able and willing to use them against the government.
‘Fraid not, guy.
This one line, to me, shows how he just doesn't(or won't) get it:
Enough to make you need a drink.
Of course, it says right there in the Second Amendment that the right of the people is the right to personal or individual sovereignty, a right in the State of Nature before there is law and government. The Founding Generation must have been in serious conflict with itself. It has been lost today that the Constitution is a frame of government not a treaty among personal sovereigns. A sovereign gives law. It does not accommodate to a law giving authority. We have no political or intellectual leadership that addresses what we have become.
And it's this simple truth:If you f**k with me bad enough, I'll kill your ass.
So, what is it? I thought about it long and hard.
And it's this simple truth:If you f**k with me bad enough, I'll kill your ass.
What both of these quotes illustrate is the concept of personal sovereignty.
What is it? Here's a good definition:
Personal sovereignty is an issue which affects each of us as individuals and as a society, whether we realize it or not. Understanding it can help us to interpret what is going on within us and around us. Increasing it can radically transform our existence.
The word "sovereign" means to be in supreme authority over someone or something, and to be extremely effective and powerful. Therefore, it is usually applied to gods, royalty and governments. We speak of kings and queens as sovereigns (even when they are figureheads), and of the sovereign rights of nations and States.
Personal sovereignty, then, would imply the intrinsic authority and power of an individual to determine his or her own direction and destiny. If that sounds suspiciously like free will, it's because personal sovereignty and free will are the same thing.
It is, in fact, the polar opposite of statism. It is the thing that statists fear above all [link to Potowmack Institute] a population that won't do as it's told by its betters...
Or, its worsers. Are they citizens bound by law or individual sovereigns in the State of Nature which is the state of anarchy before there is law? The Supreme Court has nudged us along ever so slightly and except for right here completely without contradiction in the direction of anarchy. Socialism, with important policy implications as stated above, is the most common word used to denounce infringments on personal sovereignty. Statism, which has more theoretical implications, is the second most common word.
This appeared October 27 on http://blog.joehuffman.org/
Their most glaring flaw in the above is they seem incapable of distinguishing between violently overthrowing our constitutional established republic (as Ayers attempted) and defending the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution from a tyrannical government attempting to infringe those rights.
As near as I can tell the person or persons at the Potowmack Institute regard all governments as equally valid and deserving of having a monopoly on the use of force. This is a false assumption. The truth is that no government is deserving of a monopoly on the use of force. No government can legitimately claim to possess powers that the individual also does not have and were granted to the government by the individuals. The individuals may grant the government a monopoly on the use of force in certain circumstances such as when declaring war on a foreign state, enforcing contracts, or punishment of criminals. But those are limited monopolies and are subject to revocation by the people.
There are other uses of force the government may never have a legitimate monopoly on such as the use of force to defend ones self and other innocents against imminent serious injury or death. Any government that claims to have a such a monopoly on the use of force is an illegitimate government.
The Constitution defines treason as the waging of war against the United States. Williams Ayers certain thought and seems to still think that he was defending through violent means freedom as defined by him and other disaffected types that he was associated with. Ayers is no different from others who will act out the childish political fantasy that they will defend through forces of arms "the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution [as interpreted by them] from a tyrannical government attempting to infringe those rights." Timothy McVeigh tried that and was executed by the same tyrannical government he sought to defend himself and everyone else against. It is not explained how the people are to keep and bear arms for insurrectionist purposes when the Parker/Heller opinions of the courts say we can have registration of gun ownership for militia call up for public duty. One such constitutional public duty is to suppress insurrections. Unfortunately, we cannot get anyone to demand that our candidates for public office clarify where they stand on this childish nonsense and commit themselves to the rule of law which means that the exercise of violence is authorized or permitted by law. The rule of law, the state's monopoly on violence and the state's internal sovereignty all mean the same thing. We have an inalienable right, a natural right, a moral right, a God-given right to take of arms to defeat a tyrannical government. It is not a civil right that can possibly be guaranteed and secured by government.
[PotowmackForum] interactive posting