Technically correct, but the Founding Fathers were pretty explicit that it also included the government, even if they didn’t explicitly write it down in the Constitution. I mean if we were all truly fed up enough, we could call a Constitutional Convention
I believe the Whiskey Rebellion put down by our first President George Washington pretty much clarifies how our founding fathers felt about arm Rebellion. It’s only cool if the tyrant lives on a separate continent.
Pretty much. Keeping and bearing arms is one thing; USING them against the state is quite another. Ask South Carolina, c. 1860.
It looks like people voting. It looks like people supporting grassroots campaigns for people, for referendums. It looks like people becoming well-informed and helping their friends and neighbors to become so, as well.
It also looks like going to court to file suit for your rights. It looks like lawyers working pro bono to help defend the constitutional rights of the less powerful. It looks like the media shedding light on government abuses.
It does not, however, look like armed rebellion. We are past the point in our democracy where shooting police, soldiers or civilians is a legitimate form of protesting anything. And I’m not sure why this has to be explained.
This jury, I don’t know.
So all i have to do is think because i am not instantly arrested things must be aok?
They seem to get stuck on the conspiracy portion of the charge, but… I am not sure i buy that. This looks like they gave them the benefit of the doubt because they were white.
The idea of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of citizens to rebel against it is something of an absurdity, no? Right of rebellion is guaranteed by nothing more or less than the laws of physics. And I think Mr. Lincoln’s precedent of how that would be handled by the Federal Government was pretty emphatic.
I think we can separate the ‘within the Constitution’ means of redress of grievances (peaceable assembly, voting, etc. – like, y’know, how grownups like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference got it done) from the Founders’ acknowledgment, being themselves actual revolutionaries, that actual revolutions may happen from time to time, may even be desirable from time to time. These are distinct things. Once you decide to have a revolution, you take the matter to force of arms and roll the dice. As the Founders did, at the hazard of their own lives.
Pretty much. Though the Founders would probably balk at the disparity between the government and the citizenry as far as firepower. Well, that and the whole standing army we’ve had for quite a while now.
Though I think they’d also balk at how much firepower technology has wrought in general and see it as a threat to freedom.
You know what’s really strange to me? Everyone. And I mean everyone, seems to be in support of the Sioux in North Dakota. Raging Hillary hating, racist as fuck Trump lover? Totally against DAPL. Usually I find someone who supports the other side, but no one in any of my feeds seems to back the oil company here.
I admit to having thinned the worst of the bunch out, but I still have some crazy family members who blame Obama for literally everything. And I mean they blame him for this of course, but they’re on the same side as everyone else: against DAPL.
Someone has to be supporting this thing right? I mean nothing seems to be happening to stop it and the deal got made, so presumably the powers that be are in favor of it some where along the line.
I think they’d be more like, “holy shit, witches!”
Heh, nah. The Founders were a very pragmatic bunch, and a far cry from Cotton Mather and his ilk. Many were seasoned veterans of various campaigns from the French and Indian War as well as the Revolution, not to mention the usual frontier skirmishes with the indigenous peoples. They’d seen enough war, and were familiar enough with the tools of the trade to, I think, extrapolate much of modern technology. I mean, a modern assault rifle is fundamentally just a faster firing, more accurate, and smaller version of their old muskets. Now, sure, helicopters might freak 'em out at first, but I doubt they’d lose much time figuring out how to use 'em.
I mean, it’s gonna make a small number of people a lot of money, and that’s a fabulous way to guarantee something happens. . .
Is that horse fake or something? It looks sick.
According to this article, it was originally being hosted on a Facebook page and a GoFundMe site. I’m not sure whether there’s any photo-shopping going on, but I’d believe it. It’s still poignant as heck and a brilliant image, regardless.
“A concrete truck driver pulled a gun on water protectors while trying to ram his way thru a crowd!” said Dallas Goldtooth, a Native American campaign organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network. “Our protectors were peacefully marching on a dirt road towards a DAPL operations base. And somehow WE are designated as the violent ones.”
There have been at least 2 reports of police officers turning in their badges acknowledging that this battle is not what they signed up for. You can see it in some of them, that they do not support the police actions. We must keep reminding them they are welcome to put down their weapons and badge and take a stand against this pipeline as well.
Good for them.
Link to a graphic image showing a woman who was hit in the arm by some sort of weapon, possibly a projectile grenade:
I believe they said a concussion grenade, which is basically a stun grenade. I guess it went off while touching her or something?