It's not about guns...

It's about citizenship

The Potowmack Institute
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation
4423 LeHigh Road, Suite 273
College Park, MD 20740

potowmackinstitute
then
at sign
then
verizon(dot)net.
leave out then's and spaces.
The e-mail address is presented this way to defeat the spam miscreants

PayPal Paybox


http://www.potowmack.org/indexVII.html
revised 09/08/2008


[PotomackForum], Interactive Posting
[ARCHIVE], Potowmack Institute files
[RESOURCES], Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links

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
cultivating ignorance.
Gun Policy News
news stories compiled daily.
"Sixty Minutes"
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.
AFL-CIO
Getting it right but
failing its mission in the
larger struggle
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
History
John Kenneth Rowland
Lawrence Cress
John K. Mahon
Others
Pseudohistory
LaPierre's list

The Quotes, the Quotes
Fabricating the armed populace doctrine
Libertarians, Conservatives

Tenn. Law Rev., 1995

Chicago-Kent Symposium, 2000
What does the NRA want?

VII. Adolescent insolence, insurrectionist fantasies, and personal soveignty

In 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.
But, really, it has not sunk in yet that the courts have denied the very right the gun rights ideologies have to have— the right to be armed outside of the knowledge and reach of law and government. What has come out of the courts is not what they thought and hoped for.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to July 2 or go to the archive box:
    Among other things, all the following anti-gun laws are A-OK according to the Supreme Court:
    *** 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
http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com/2008/07/other-day-kevin-linked-to-this-place.html
on July 4, 2008:

The Potowmack Institute does not know what PSH is.


The Potowmack Institute has some people worried. Notice that the only people who are paying attention are the gun rights militants. We have not heard anything about the most vital and fundamental issues of political life from the DC government, the lawyers, the mayors, the gun controllers, our shallow, lazy news clowns, or least of all our cowards under oath of public office.
The Declaration of Independence was a charter for Revolution. It asserts a right in the State of Nature outside of law and government. The Constitution is a frame of government. Civil rights enumerated and secured in a constitution have to be consistent with what a constitution is. The people do have an unalienable right to take up arms against oppressive government. It is a right in the State of Nature outside of law and government. It is not one of those "certain unalianable rights" that can possibly be secured by government. The Constitution defines treason as the waging of war against the United States. The Constitution is not perverted. It does not then secure a civil right to commit the same.
How are they going to take up arms against oppressive government when they and their private weapons are on the militia inventory to fulfill a civic obligation to suppress insurrections? It is, of course, possible when there is a real revolutionary situation and revolutionary movement not a childish political fantasy. When there is a real revolutionary movement, there is no need for a civil right to armed resistance. The American Revolutionaries had a revolutionary movement. They did not have secured under the British Constitution the kind of insurrectionist right that is read into the Second Amendment today. Our present adolescent insolence does not get the logical absurdity. It is very true that the King denounced the Declaration of Independence as treason and sent an army to defeat the Revolution. The libertarian fantasy is that we can be individual sovereigns and just levitate ourselves out of political existence by clutching the gun that big bad government does not know about.
The childish fantasy does not need to worry that we will see the political leadership that tells some people they cannot have their childish fantasy and enforce it with a civic obligation to serve and not destroy.


Here is a treatise on Personal Sovereignty

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/:

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.

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.
See Ronald Reagan on the socialism

This appeared October 27 on http://blog.joehuffman.org/

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


[ARCHIVE], Potowmack Institute files
[RESOURCES], Newspaper, magazine, journal articles, books, links

© Potowmack Institute