The Captain's Journal » Crazy Gun-Toting Insurrectionists

Crazy Gun-Toting Insurrectionists

BY Herschel Smith

11 years ago

I had previously commented on the various names we’re called, from Stone Age Vigilantes, to Tinfoil Hat Bircher NRA Peckerwood With A Long Gun, to the realm of people without much education or any sort of consistent dental care who live in trailers with 30 cats and have an NRA sticker on their $400 car, to finally gun paranoiacs.

But I think I’ve found the one I like the very best in all the world. Crazy gun-toting insurrectionists. Well, I’m not crazy, but if believing in the right and duty under the second amendment to prevent tyranny makes you an insurrectionist, then there are a lot of us around.

In the same spirit, panty waist Dominic Tierney thinks he has us in a logical paradox.

In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military — exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It’s the great gun gobbledygook.

[ … ]

Of course, the American people can always play the Red Dawn card and launch an insurgency. But guerrillas usually need external support to win. Britain could be an option as an ally, except that, last summer, Mitt Romney insulted London’s preparations for the Olympics.

Tierney has no earthly idea what an insurrection in America would look like, and I’m not going to waste time explaining it any more than I already have. But there is nothing great, or gun, or gobbledygook about his alleged paradox. Tierney has a small mind.

Military fathers and gun owners like me (and Mike Vanderboegh) might tell Tierney that we have no problem with arming our men in uniform to fight Islamic totalitarians overseas rather than our own soil (if only we would decide to win the campaigns), while also preventing the armed forces from ever taking up arms against the American people.

I would also point out that the Marine Corps was created 10 November 1775 by an act of the Second Continental Congress, who created the Corps before the declaration of independence and after the pattern of the British Marines as an imperial force. These are the same fathers who gave us the constitution and its bill of rights.

They saw no paradox and neither do I. But its important to ask the men the important questions just in case we have an evil, totalitarian dictator at the helm.

Guns Tags: Insurrectionists —

Comments

On April 2, 2013 at 6:54 am, SWIFT said:

Tierney misses a rather large point in his beliefs about crazy gun-toting insurrectionists. The fact is, several million pro-2nd amendment gun owners are former members of the massive U.S. military. While not stated, most members of the jack-booted thugs agencies, presumably who will follow orders from a totalitarian dictator, are not veterans. Most never realized they were “patriotic” until there was the potential for a six figure salary. So, when push comes to shove, it will be a paycheck v. principle. We’ll all have to wait and see how that turns out. My money says Tierney and everyone like him, won’t show up. Courage and principle, if he ever had any, will be on holiday.

On April 2, 2013 at 9:25 am, Paul Bonneau said:

“arming our men in uniform to fight Islamic totalitarians overseas rather than our own soil…”

A facile justification for imperialism and crony capitalism.

Tierny is correct on this point. Where he is wrong is his collectivist notion that all “crazy gun-toting insurrectionists” support imperialism, and that insurrection needs external support.

“…while also preventing the armed forces from ever taking up arms against the American people.”

Wow, you have that much control over what Obama’s armed forces do? I’m impressed!

On April 2, 2013 at 9:34 am, Herschel Smith said:

Paul Bonneau,

I said as much, genius, if you would read more closely. I said that the U.S. Marines were created as an imperial force. The very concept of Marines is imperial.

Dumbass. Slow down. Listen. Read. Study history. You don’t have to charge me with it … I outright said it very directly. The Marines are an imperial force. As for crony capitalism, the armed forces don’t engage in that, nor did we win any points for our campaigns. You’ll have to talk to Obama about companies like Solyndra, tax breaks for GM and other payoffs the President has made to get a clear view of cronies.

Teirney is a panty waist.

Finally, I don’t have the capability to prevent the U.S. military from taking arms up against the American people, but the Congress can pass laws to that effect (and already has) thus making any such orders unlawful. Furthermore, several million armed Americans can indeed prevent a lot of things.

On April 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm, sean said:

He’s right about one thing: the founders didn’t want a standing army….and freedom lovers should be very cautious about them as well.

On April 2, 2013 at 1:34 pm, Herschel Smith said:

But we had a standing army during the revolution, and having a Marine Corps is the same as having a standing army (there is no time limit on Congressional mandate that the MC exist). The issue is whether it is lawful for them ever to turn their weapons on American citizens.

Answer: no.

On April 2, 2013 at 3:33 pm, Jim said:

“As for crony capitalism, the armed forces don’t engage in that…”

I didn’t just read that, did I? If I did, then we’re both in the Twilight Zone.

On April 2, 2013 at 4:59 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Senators demand weapons programs for their states, and officers at the Pentagon oblige, but the boys in the fight don’t engage in that. So I guess that’s a bit of clarification.

The whole issue is that Paul supplied a misdirect to take attention away from the subject because he doesn’t like what was said. The subject isn’t cronies, but the relationship between the U.S. military and the requirement to hold tyranny accountable (without the military).

On April 2, 2013 at 5:26 pm, James Antley said:

“But we had a standing army during the revolution ….”

You obviously don’t understand the meaning of “standing army”, Herschel. I like your site, agree with 95% or more of your writing, but this shows some ignorance of history and the US Constitution.

A standing army is one that stays formed even during peacetime. The “continental army”, was made of of many militias from the various colonies, some providing more and some less. It was formed specifically to fight the British and disbanded after the Revolutionary War.

I agree with Paul and Sean.

On April 2, 2013 at 6:02 pm, Herschel Smith said:

And we also had a standing army during WWI and WWII and the Korean War and Vietnam and ….

The point is that war time never goes away, whether draft or volunteer. And the Marines have always existed after the act of the Continental Congress. The government could always use the Marines for nefarious purposes if those boys would fire on American citizens. And that’s the salient question.

There is no such thing as peacetime. It has never existed.

On April 2, 2013 at 7:31 pm, James Antley said:

“There is no such thing as peacetime. ”

Yes, and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, I mean Oceana, I mean Whereverthefukistan.”

On April 2, 2013 at 8:16 pm, Redleg said:

Actually Herschel you are wrong. It is clear that you neither understand the original concept of a “standing army” nor the points being made by commentators above when you wrote the following:

“And we also had a standing army during WWI and WWII and the Korean War and Vietnam and ….

There is no such thing as peacetime. It has never existed.”

As others have stated, a standing army was only intended during wartime, you know the time when congress declares war per Article I, Section 8. Just because we no longer follow the Constitution on the declaration of war (since Korea) does not negate the vast majority of U.S. History. Of course there was a standing army during the Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, etc. because congress declared war and then raised a large army of regulars (in addition to activating the militia) as a result.

If you look at U.S. History, the army drastically contracted (to almost non-existence in our early history) between all the major wars up until the latter half of the 20th century. I would go sa far as to state that this permanent standing army which we have become all to familiar with in our lifetimes also corresponds with the fact that we no longer declare war like the Constitution dictates. Government attempts to paint our current state as perpetual war to justify our permanently standing army. When I look at both my VFW and Legion cards they definitively list war time service as limited periods of time and then we come to today and they state “Gulf War/War on Terrorism from August 2, 1990 – Present.” Those dates are generated by the government. It really is quite absurd to go from the 72 hour FTX straight through to the GWOT but then since congress never formally declared war they can get away with BS like that and convince people like yourself that we are in a perpetual state of war against Eastasia, or is it Eurasia?

As far as peacetime, it has traditionally been accepted as those time periods between the declared wars (I’d be happy to send you a copy of my VFW card with them all listed). The majority of U.S. History can be defined as “peacetime” since the total years between declared wars are far more numerous than the total years during declared wars. The way things are going these days though that will probably soon change though.

Finally, why do you think the Constitution states in Article I, section 8 regarding congress that one of their functions is “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:”

The army budget must be renewed EVERY TWO YEARS! Now why do you think that is? It has something to do with a standing army. The army’s existence needs to be re-justified every two years for a reason; it was just one more of multiple checks against tyranny. It’s near impossible for tyranny to gain a foothold without troops to enforce the tyrant’s will so if you don’t pay the troops they disband. Nowadays they just pass continuing resolutions in perpetuity but if we would actually follow the Constitution we wouldn’t be in such a sorry state today.

Your comment above is remarkable for its complete and utter lack of historical knowledge. I have liked all of your articles and commentary up until this post but I just couldn’t let the falsehoods you wrote today stand unchallenged.

On April 2, 2013 at 10:18 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Your disagreement is fine with me, it’s a privilege I give to my readers. It isn’t necessary to agree with me on everything, or I you.

But I think we’re getting wrapped around the tree on the definition of “army.” Let’s forget about branches of the service for a moment.

When the continental congress established the USMC it was intended to be in perpetuity. There was never supposed to be a time when the USMC didn’t exist, and there hasn’t been.

So whether you call it army or Marine Corps, the U.S. has always had active military since its inception. You can dislike that if you wish, but it’s history.

On April 3, 2013 at 6:52 am, James Antley said:

Herschel, I never disagreed with you on your point about the Marine Corps being around since the shores of Tripoli, but that just goes along with the establishment of the Navy. You know the word “marine”, right? (“Mariner”, “water”). The founders wanted to make sure American merchant sailors could be defended from pirates and conduct business around the world the way the British could. The Marines were the guys to leave the boats and kick some camel-jockey ass on land. (This didn’t always go very well – I read an interesting book about the battles over in N. Africa back then, but I can’t for the life of me remember the name.)

I’m not sure that was a very wise idea either, but I do realize their point was that a nation could not get a Navy together just it time for a war (of Defense, that is) as it could get an army formed from State and local militias.

On April 3, 2013 at 6:54 am, James Antley said:

Anyway, that was a great post, Redleg, especially regarding the declaration of war by US Congress. Ron Paul brought this up a lot, but too many Americans are too dumb to understand what his point was.

On April 3, 2013 at 11:50 am, Herschel Smith said:

The problem, James, is that my point remains unassailed.

I didn’t argue that the Marines were “Mariners.” I argued that the Marines were always armed since the beginning. As it were, they are “soldiers of the sea.” They have always had an infantry. Always.

By arguing that they weren’t intended to be used against the American public you have borrowed from my own point (or a less gracious way of saying it is that you stole my point to fit your own narrative).

Indeed they aren’t intended to be used against the American people, and never were, although some tyrant may have put them to nefarious usage if he chose to. And that’s the point. Same thing with the army. Lincoln may never have been elected if he had not used the army to stop elections in certain areas.

The problem isn’t that we have a Marine Corps or army. And there has always been armed infantry by whatever name. It’s how they are used and whether they allow themselves to be used against the American people.

I understand your broader points about Ron Paul and declarations of war,but that isn’t my point, and my point about having armed infantry since the inception of our republic remains.

On April 3, 2013 at 1:29 pm, James Antley said:

Herschel, I’m not borrowing any point of yours. I understand that the Marines have been around since just after the founding of this country, but my point is that Marines were always thought of as part of the Navy, as the idea is that they are seaborne troops. Said Navy was indeed specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. A “standing army” was expressly forbidden by the US Constitution, which nobody in FED-gov’t even pretends about following anymore (I hope we can all here agree on that last part!)

I did not mean to argue that the Navy is different in that they can not be used against Americans. They could be (see American Revolution II, won by the bad guys). My one sentence above meant that this idea of a Navy specified by the Constitution was possibly a bad one. (The founding fathers were very smart folks, but maybe they could not have imagined that the US Navy would ever get so powerful as to be used the way it is now.)

The big question is indeed your question of what Army (and any other branch) soldiers will do if ordered to “keep order”, fire on Americans, etc. However, your side point about a standing army was wrong, and we have not always had a standing army. There was a reason that our founders did not want the Fed-Gov to be in charge of a standing army; the President was to be the Commander-in-Chief of any forces supplied by the states to defend the various states if attacked. In peacetime, aka times between congressionally-declared wars, they did not want soldiers around America at all, as they could be used in just the ways you were discussing, before Paul, Sean, and I so rudely corrected you ;-)

On April 3, 2013 at 6:30 pm, jdkchem said:

“Yes, and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, I mean Oceana, I mean Whereverthefukistan.””

Sorry chief but when you’re a jarhead you’re in a state of war 24/7 regardless of what the rest of the military and the world are doing.

On April 3, 2013 at 6:31 pm, Faneau Laneau said:

Actually the name Marines precedes 1775 by eons. Marines are followers of Mars, god of war. March, month of war, month of Marines. Martes-Tuesday, day of war., day of Marines. And of course, the Marines have a planet named after them- Mars! So as long as there is war, there will be Marines.

On April 3, 2013 at 7:08 pm, Josh said:

I think that as Herschel’s audience has grown and broadened, its ability for nuanced critical thinking has waned. I definitely see an inverse relationship.

But I guess when you have people cherry picking sentences to argue about, you’re probably doing something right.

On April 3, 2013 at 8:01 pm, James Antley said:

Jd, I meant the country has not been in a state of war throughout it’s history, not the state of mind of any troops. I thought that was pretty easy to understand from what I wrote.

Not the fuckin’ word Marines, Faneau, the US Marines. Geez, I’m talking about our country, so when I say “Marines”, one would figure I mean “US Marines”.

It’s an important point Josh, as to what the US Constitution says about a standing army. If one ignores one section, I don’t see him as someone who supports the whole document. Might as well give in on a Department of Education, the Motherland Security Department … oh, wait, too late now.

Too many neo-cons here, it looks like, but, I appreciate your intelligent responses, Herschel.

On April 3, 2013 at 8:06 pm, MarineOfficer said:

There can be no argument that there have been armed forces at the disposal of our government since its earliest founding. The size has ebbed and flowed over time, but they have always been there. The concern about their misuse was also always there, concerns evident in the Whiskey Rebellion, and other early challenges to the new continental government and the eventual United States.

Herschel’s point has become somewhat distorted. It is however, rather simple (in my own interpretation)
1. support for a fully armed and equipped combat force to decisively engage and defeat America’s enemies abroad before they can strike at home
2. opposition to militarized law enforcement and the use of the force named in point 1 for law enforcement duties

Let us take these in reverse, because my comments on this here blog tend to be a combination of stream of consciousness and coherent thought. Sir Peele, the father of modern policing said that “the evidence of good policing is in the absence of crime.” Policing in most american jurisdictions is therefore rather poor. What we frequently have instead is a large group of armed thugs who under the rubric of “officer safety,” the war on drugs, and with funding from DHS and other federal entities abuse citizens and trample the constitution. We have a primarily reactive policing system, which relies on the deployment of force to incidents to respond to them as quickly as possible to achieve “clearance,” usually through arrest. It is symptom treatment, without addressing root causal issues, and at the core of societal decay.

On the flip, our military has never been more lethal or capable. There are people who should not be there at level of DoD, but overall the men and women in uniform have never been better trained, more experienced, better equipped, and supported then at this very moment. And all that has to go somewhere. It will not go into another land war in a foreign nation. Small parts of it will go into remote outposts in shit hole countries around the world, spreading our drone blanket and training the local rag tags to hold it together to the best of their abilities. The rest will come home.

And there you have that intersection. SWIFT started us off with his comment that most federal thugs never served. That’s total nonsense. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are overrun with veterans. NYPD, LAPD, Chicago, DC Metro, Atlanta, etc are all havens for veterans. The FBI, DEA, ATF, and DHS likewise. Having once served in uniform is no magic elixir to following the constitution. Swearing an oath to defend the document in no way, shape, form, or fashion requires that you have actually read it, read its history, or educated yourself about the intent of our forefathers.

Similarly, the argument made by Redleg that we have been at peace between declared wars. I take it that the Marines who died in the banana wars were not at war? I take it that the Marines who died at Chosin were not at war? The VFW recognizes Korea as a war, but it was not a declared war. Similarly, your constitutional argument is flawed. There are plenty of procurement programs (Land Warrior comes to mind, the F-35 is another) that are allocated money for longer than 2 years. Note here that the Supreme Court has struck down tax payer standing (US v. Richardson), so even if you think Congress should not allocate money for more than 2 years, there is nothing you can do about it. And since Congress usually can’t get its act together to pass even one year budgets, this is a muddled argument, at best.

Every November, Marines gather to celebrate the Marine Corps birthday. Part of the ceremony is to read General Lejeune’s birthday message. Written in 1921, it reads in part “during 90 of the 146 years of its existence the Marine Corps has been in action against the nations foes.” We have been in action every year since. And the leviathan has only grown.

All this underpins the question Herschel asked in the post he linked to at the end. Will these troops fire on American citizens? I answered then that I think some will, some will not, and some will aim high when they pull the trigger. That answer has not changed. Again I point to systemic issues. I’ve worked in recruiting for the Marine Corps. The young men and women we pull in come from broken school systems that do not teach our constitution, or any moral or ethical foundation for that matter. They frequently come from broken homes, or places that do not really rate the term “home.” They are frequently made whole by the service. And they derive everything they have from it. They live on remote bases, marry at a young age, and have children that grow up on these bases. They are frequently a class apart from the civilians they serve.

So let us go back to how Herschel started. Crazy Gun Toting Insurrectionist. After Katrina, there was a massive federal response, including the deployment of federal military assets. They all came armed. They patrolled the streets. They entered homes. They confiscated private property. You can argue the legality of this until you are blue in the face. The reality is that such a situation, properly presented and briefed to the troops will result in American troops entering an area, and dominating it. And if they encounter resistance, if one of the young people I described above is killed because a citizen feels his rights are being trampled and he is fighting back…ask yourself. What have you done today to make sure that the young men and women standing over their dead comrade have the moral fiber, the ethical grounding, and the educational foundation to understand that the error is not in that citizen, but in their leadership?

On April 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm, Chuck said:

Marine Officer covered it all very nicely, so I won’t add to his point about the perils of a large standing “army” in whatever form that takes. I will, however, as a soldier and infantryman of many years point out that the Constitution most certainly does NOT forbid a standing army, notwithstanding our forefathers justifiable fear of such. It merely attempts to limit a LARGE standing army by making it difficult to fund it. Clearly that didn’t work, at least not in this century or the last.

Finally, I will point out that since June 14, 1775 when the Continental Congress authorized the raising of ten companies of riflemen to form the core of the Continental Army, there has, for all intents and purposes, ALWAYS been a Regular Army. For most of the 18th and 19th Centuries, it was a very small Army, but it has always been there. And Jarhead snark notwithstanding, it was nearly always at war during that period, mostly fighting Indians, when not fighting the big battles in the Revolution, 1812, the Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, Philippine Insurrection, etc. The Marine Corps is a fine organization, but it most certainly has NOT done the lion’s share of the fighting over the last 237 years.

On April 4, 2013 at 6:51 pm, MarineOfficer said:

Chuck, I meant no disrespect to our sister services long history of conflict. I am just not as familiar with it, and therefore do not rely on it in argument. I do agree with your point about the constitution. It is unlikely that the founding fathers intended to not have a standing army, as they were well aware that the England had just such a thing, as well as France, Spain, etc. If we are to believe that those men had the foresight we frequently ascribe to them, then they must have anticipated future armed conflicts, and realized the necessity and utility of having an armed force immediately and readily available, to speak nothing of the Native American threat you mention.

And as for doing the lions share of the fighting…there’s a reason Congress settled on 2 companies of Continental Marines and 10 companies of riflemen. To this day America still understands that quality means Marines, quantity means Army.

On April 5, 2013 at 9:00 am, Chuck said:

Marine Officer, I see what you did there…

On April 8, 2013 at 11:23 am, Draco said:

In response to Marine Office and the later contributers I would like to say this. The schools that are run by the socialists do not and will not teach individualism and self relaince, thus they will not teach the Constitution nor the anticedant documents that provide a basis for the reasoning in constructing the document. My prime example you folks have just stated.

We can safely say that your comments show no actual knowledge of the Federalist Papers or The Debates of the Constitution. If you had actual knowledge you might see that the Federalist did discuss a standing army and it waas generally agreed upon to have a reactionary force able to hold off an invasion until the militia could be mustered. The ratio was as stated 30,000 men in the standing army and about 500,000 “armed citizens”. I SAY THIS NOT TO OFFEND BUT TO POINT OUT A OBVIOUS TRUTH HERE!!!!!

Time has certainly changed but more importantly conditions have changed. It is now possible for an enemy to attack the United States in a matter of hours. The reactionary force needs to be quite larger and more able to respond to the threat. But the principle behind haveing a small standing army is so that the “armed citizens” are able to stand against it should the army be used in an attempt to usurp the rule of law and for tyranny to proliferate. But this is not the message I want to convey….

The failure is the system of education and the ability of a group of individuals to so control the indoctrination of the people as to nearly eliminate the resort to our organic law. The Marine Office very aptly expressed this. We would have no problem if the men and women in the armed forces knew and understood the Constitution and that their ultimate duty is to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Of course an unlawful order would not be tolerated and anyone who broke this law or gave an unlawful order would at once be suspect and the order would not be obeyed.

So it is up to the citizens to educate themeslves, since we have an educational system that is subverting the Constitution and the laws of the State and the United States. If you folks were as well armed with knowledge as I assume you are with arms you might consider this. The United States is to guarantee a Republican form of government to the states, Article IV Section 4. This does not means republican party.

That being said and duly noted every school supporting any other type of education proffing a socialist, marxist or communist form of government is using Federal Funds and in violation of the mandate in Article IV Section 4. Now the use and mis appropriation of public money is a heavy crime. So do your duty and force these public servants to obey the law or have the funds cut off. The Federalist also states that the States are to have Republic Constitutions and if not they can no longer be part of the union….. I think you can see where I am going with this. One may use this situation to attack the use of state funds to promote a communist or socialist form of government. This must be a grass roots effort. The militia system was to be grass roots, the Republican States a grassroots system and in the grass boots on the ground is where we function best.

So we could demand that the funds from taxes going to the Department of Education be used to support Article IV Section 4 or sue the Secratary in a Bivins Type Constitutional Tort or a 42 USC Section 1983 type action. A doctrine from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Ellis v Blum, proposed this ame situation and applied vicarous libility all the way up to the Secratary of Health and Human Services on exactly the same styled premises. This would get their attention at the very least. Do we have standing to sue… well if we have the right to resist tyranny armed we have the right to sue to enforce the Constitution. After all Bivins did exactly thiis very thing. The 6 unknown federal narcotics agents violated his rights and he successfully sued their butts. Tis is called using their own sword against them…. Time we out our boots on the ground and close on the enemy boys.

By the way I clerked for a Federal Judge for a time and know exactly what I am talking about. In fact I find that the system educated attorneys don’t have a clue but Gerry Spence is a man that I would suggest going to see. This could be great fun as well. I would like to see their red asses run completely out of the country. Afetr all subversion is a cowards way of being a bully… and I hate bullies….

On April 8, 2013 at 12:33 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Draco, et. al.,

Yea, my brother is a lawyer and clerked for a federal judge too. I asked him once, “Are all lawyers evil?” He responded, “No, 99.999999999% of all lawyers give the rest of us a bad name.”

Trotting out credentials usually doesn’t impress me very much. Try something else.

Like maybe … reading a little more deeply?

Herschel sighs, rolls his eyes and wonders how the point could have been missed so badly by so many people for so long?

Do try to slow down some. Do try to read between the lines. Do try to be more circumspect. When you read my prose, at least sometimes think to yourself, “Hmmm … what deeper point is Herschel trying to make that he doesn’t want to come right out and say because he wants us to develop the syllogism or train of thought ourselves?”

The issue about standing army doesn’t matter. In the absence of a standing army, the U.S. has always had standing Marines, infantry Marines, training and garrisoned more often on U.S. soil than anywhere else. And the founders intended it that way. The fact that they weren’t “thought of” as being used against American citizens (as someone said above) makes my point exactly without acknowledging that it was my point. Neither are law enforcement “thought of” that way.

But in the absence of army, the .gov has Marines. In the absence of Marines, the .gov always has state and local LEOs who will arm and act as army, and thus was have a standing army anyways. Don’t respond “Yes but the constitution says … derp … they cannot be used that way … derp … they aren’t to enforce federal law … derp … etc., derp, etc. That makes my point.

Listen to me carefully. If the national character has disintegrated, no words on a piece of paper mean anything. The problem isn’t that no one knows what the founders said, or what the founders said is a very mixed bag. The problem is that the national moral character has dissipated. It’s gone.

What was it John Adams said: “Our constitution was made only for ________ people.”

You fill in the blank. Or do I have to do that for you too?

On April 2, 2013 at 6:54 am, SWIFT said:

Tierney misses a rather large point in his beliefs about crazy gun-toting insurrectionists. The fact is, several million pro-2nd amendment gun owners are former members of the massive U.S. military. While not stated, most members of the jack-booted thugs agencies, presumably who will follow orders from a totalitarian dictator, are not veterans. Most never realized they were “patriotic” until there was the potential for a six figure salary. So, when push comes to shove, it will be a paycheck v. principle. We’ll all have to wait and see how that turns out. My money says Tierney and everyone like him, won’t show up. Courage and principle, if he ever had any, will be on holiday.
On April 2, 2013 at 9:25 am, Paul Bonneau said:

“arming our men in uniform to fight Islamic totalitarians overseas rather than our own soil…”

A facile justification for imperialism and crony capitalism.

Tierny is correct on this point. Where he is wrong is his collectivist notion that all “crazy gun-toting insurrectionists” support imperialism, and that insurrection needs external support.

“…while also preventing the armed forces from ever taking up arms against the American people.”

Wow, you have that much control over what Obama’s armed forces do? I’m impressed!
On April 2, 2013 at 9:34 am, Herschel Smith said:

Paul Bonneau,

I said as much, genius, if you would read more closely. I said that the U.S. Marines were created as an imperial force. The very concept of Marines is imperial.

Dumbass. Slow down. Listen. Read. Study history. You don’t have to charge me with it … I outright said it very directly. The Marines are an imperial force. As for crony capitalism, the armed forces don’t engage in that, nor did we win any points for our campaigns. You’ll have to talk to Obama about companies like Solyndra, tax breaks for GM and other payoffs the President has made to get a clear view of cronies.

Teirney is a panty waist.

Finally, I don’t have the capability to prevent the U.S. military from taking arms up against the American people, but the Congress can pass laws to that effect (and already has) thus making any such orders unlawful. Furthermore, several million armed Americans can indeed prevent a lot of things.
On April 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm, sean said:

He’s right about one thing: the founders didn’t want a standing army….and freedom lovers should be very cautious about them as well.
On April 2, 2013 at 1:34 pm, Herschel Smith said:

But we had a standing army during the revolution, and having a Marine Corps is the same as having a standing army (there is no time limit on Congressional mandate that the MC exist). The issue is whether it is lawful for them ever to turn their weapons on American citizens.

Answer: no.
On April 2, 2013 at 3:33 pm, Jim said:

“As for crony capitalism, the armed forces don’t engage in that…”

I didn’t just read that, did I? If I did, then we’re both in the Twilight Zone.
On April 2, 2013 at 4:59 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Senators demand weapons programs for their states, and officers at the Pentagon oblige, but the boys in the fight don’t engage in that. So I guess that’s a bit of clarification.

The whole issue is that Paul supplied a misdirect to take attention away from the subject because he doesn’t like what was said. The subject isn’t cronies, but the relationship between the U.S. military and the requirement to hold tyranny accountable (without the military).
On April 2, 2013 at 5:26 pm, James Antley said:

“But we had a standing army during the revolution ….”

You obviously don’t understand the meaning of “standing army”, Herschel. I like your site, agree with 95% or more of your writing, but this shows some ignorance of history and the US Constitution.

A standing army is one that stays formed even during peacetime. The “continental army”, was made of of many militias from the various colonies, some providing more and some less. It was formed specifically to fight the British and disbanded after the Revolutionary War.

I agree with Paul and Sean.
On April 2, 2013 at 6:02 pm, Herschel Smith said:

And we also had a standing army during WWI and WWII and the Korean War and Vietnam and ….

The point is that war time never goes away, whether draft or volunteer. And the Marines have always existed after the act of the Continental Congress. The government could always use the Marines for nefarious purposes if those boys would fire on American citizens. And that’s the salient question.

There is no such thing as peacetime. It has never existed.
On April 2, 2013 at 7:31 pm, James Antley said:

“There is no such thing as peacetime. ”

Yes, and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, I mean Oceana, I mean Whereverthefukistan.”
On April 2, 2013 at 8:16 pm, Redleg said:

Actually Herschel you are wrong. It is clear that you neither understand the original concept of a “standing army” nor the points being made by commentators above when you wrote the following:

“And we also had a standing army during WWI and WWII and the Korean War and Vietnam and ….

The point is that war time never goes away, whether draft or volunteer. And the Marines have always existed after the act of the Continental Congress. The government could always use the Marines for nefarious purposes if those boys would fire on American citizens. And that’s the salient question.

There is no such thing as peacetime. It has never existed.”

As others have stated, a standing army was only intended during wartime, you know the time when congress declares war per Article I, Section 8. Just because we no longer follow the Constitution on the declaration of war (since Korea) does not negate the vast majority of U.S. History. Of course there was a standing army during the Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, etc. because congress declared war and then raised a large army of regulars (in addition to activating the militia) as a result.

If you look at U.S. History, the army drastically contracted (to almost non-existence in our early history) between all the major wars up until the latter half of the 20th century. I would go sa far as to state that this permanent standing army which we have become all to familiar with in our lifetimes also corresponds with the fact that we no longer declare war like the Constitution dictates. Government attempts to paint our current state as perpetual war to justify our permanently standing army. When I look at both my VFW and Legion cards they definitively list war time service as limited periods of time and then we come to today and they state “Gulf War/War on Terrorism from August 2, 1990 – Present.” Those dates are generated by the government. It really is quite absurd to go from the 72 hour FTX straight through to the GWOT but then since congress never formally declared war they can get away with BS like that and convince people like yourself that we are in a perpetual state of war against Eastasia, or is it Eurasia?

As far as peacetime, it has traditionally been accepted as those time periods between the declared wars (I’d be happy to send you a copy of my VFW card with them all listed). The majority of U.S. History can be defined as “peacetime” since the total years between declared wars are far more numerous than the total years during declared wars. The way things are going these days though that will probably soon change though.

Finally, why do you think the Constitution states in Article I, section 8 regarding congress that one of their functions is “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:”

The army budget must be renewed EVERY TWO YEARS! Now why do you think that is? It has something to do with a standing army. The army’s existence needs to be re-justified every two years for a reason; it was just one more of multiple checks against tyranny. It’s near impossible for tyranny to gain a foothold without troops to enforce the tyrant’s will so if you don’t pay the troops they disband. Nowadays they just pass continuing resolutions in perpetuity but if we would actually follow the Constitution we wouldn’t be in such a sorry state today.

Your comment above is remarkable for its complete and utter lack of historical knowledge. I have liked all of your articles and commentary up until this post but I just couldn’t let the falsehoods you wrote today stand unchallenged.
On April 2, 2013 at 10:18 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Your disagreement is fine with me, it’s a privilege I give to my readers. It isn’t necessary to agree with me on everything, or I you.

But I think we’re getting wrapped around the tree on the definition of “army.” Let’s forget about branches of the service for a moment.

When the continental congress established the USMC it was intended to be in perpetuity. There was never supposed to be a time when the USMC didn’t exist, and there hasn’t been.

So whether you call it army or Marine Corps, the U.S. has always had active military since its inception. You can dislike that if you wish, but it’s history.
On April 3, 2013 at 6:52 am, James Antley said:

Herschel, I never disagreed with you on your point about the Marine Corps being around since the shores of Tripoli, but that just goes along with the establishment of the Navy. You know the word “marine”, right? (“Mariner”, “water”). The founders wanted to make sure American merchant sailors could be defended from pirates and conduct business around the world the way the British could. The Marines were the guys to leave the boats and kick some camel-jockey ass on land. (This didn’t always go very well – I read an interesting book about the battles over in N. Africa back then, but I can’t for the life of me remember the name.)

I’m not sure that was a very wise idea either, but I do realize their point was that a nation could not get a Navy together just it time for a war (of Defense, that is) as it could get an army formed from State and local militias.
On April 3, 2013 at 6:54 am, James Antley said:

Anyway, that was a great post, Redleg, especially regarding the declaration of war by US Congress. Ron Paul brought this up a lot, but too many Americans are too dumb to understand what his point was.
On April 3, 2013 at 11:50 am, Herschel Smith said:

The problem, James, is that my point remains unassailed.

I didn’t argue that the Marines were “Mariners.” I argued that the Marines were always armed since the beginning. As it were, they are “soldiers of the sea.” They have always had an infantry. Always.

By arguing that they weren’t intended to be used against the American public you have borrowed from my own point (or a less gracious way of saying it is that you stole my point to fit your own narrative).

Indeed they aren’t intended to be used against the American people, and never were, although some tyrant may have put them to nefarious usage if he chose to. And that’s the point. Same thing with the army. Lincoln may never have been elected if he had not used the army to stop elections in certain areas.

The problem isn’t that we have a Marine Corps or army. And there has always been armed infantry by whatever name. It’s how they are used and whether they allow themselves to be used against the American people.

I understand your broader points about Ron Paul and declarations of war,but that isn’t my point, and my point about having armed infantry since the inception of our republic remains.
On April 3, 2013 at 1:29 pm, James Antley said:

Herschel, I’m not borrowing any point of yours. I understand that the Marines have been around since just after the founding of this country, but my point is that Marines were always thought of as part of the Navy, as the idea is that they are seaborne troops. Said Navy was indeed specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. A “standing army” was expressly forbidden by the US Constitution, which nobody in FED-gov’t even pretends about following anymore (I hope we can all here agree on that last part!)

I did not mean to argue that the Navy is different in that they can not be used against Americans. They could be (see American Revolution II, won by the bad guys). My one sentence above meant that this idea of a Navy specified by the Constitution was possibly a bad one. (The founding fathers were very smart folks, but maybe they could not have imagined that the US Navy would ever get so powerful as to be used the way it is now.)

The big question is indeed your question of what Army (and any other branch) soldiers will do if ordered to “keep order”, fire on Americans, etc. However, your side point about a standing army was wrong, and we have not always had a standing army. There was a reason that our founders did not want the Fed-Gov to be in charge of a standing army; the President was to be the Commander-in-Chief of any forces supplied by the states to defend the various states if attacked. In peacetime, aka times between congressionally-declared wars, they did not want soldiers around America at all, as they could be used in just the ways you were discussing, before Paul, Sean, and I so rudely corrected you ;-)
On April 3, 2013 at 6:30 pm, jdkchem said:

“Yes, and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, I mean Oceana, I mean Whereverthefukistan.””

Sorry chief but when you’re a jarhead you’re in a state of war 24/7 regardless of what the rest of the military and the world are doing.
On April 3, 2013 at 6:31 pm, Faneau Laneau said:

Actually the name Marines precedes 1775 by eons. Marines are followers of Mars, god of war. March, month of war, month of Marines. Martes-Tuesday, day of war., day of Marines. And of course, the Marines have a planet named after them- Mars! So as long as there is war, there will be Marines.
On April 3, 2013 at 7:08 pm, Josh said:

I think that as Herschel’s audience has grown and broadened, its ability for nuanced critical thinking has waned. I definitely see an inverse relationship.

But I guess when you have people cherry picking sentences to argue about, you’re probably doing something right.
On April 3, 2013 at 8:01 pm, James Antley said:

Jd, I meant the country has not been in a state of war throughout it’s history, not the state of mind of any troops. I thought that was pretty easy to understand from what I wrote.

Not the fuckin’ word Marines, Faneau, the US Marines. Geez, I’m talking about our country, so when I say “Marines”, one would figure I mean “US Marines”.

It’s an important point Josh, as to what the US Constitution says about a standing army. If one ignores one section, I don’t see him as someone who supports the whole document. Might as well give in on a Department of Education, the Motherland Security Department … oh, wait, too late now.

Too many neo-cons here, it looks like, but, I appreciate your intelligent responses, Herschel.
On April 3, 2013 at 8:06 pm, MarineOfficer said:

There can be no argument that there have been armed forces at the disposal of our government since its earliest founding. The size has ebbed and flowed over time, but they have always been there. The concern about their misuse was also always there, concerns evident in the Whiskey Rebellion, and other early challenges to the new continental government and the eventual United States.

Herschel’s point has become somewhat distorted. It is however, rather simple (in my own interpretation)
1. support for a fully armed and equipped combat force to decisively engage and defeat America’s enemies abroad before they can strike at home
2. opposition to militarized law enforcement and the use of the force named in point 1 for law enforcement duties

Let us take these in reverse, because my comments on this here blog tend to be a combination of stream of consciousness and coherent thought. Sir Peele, the father of modern policing said that “the evidence of good policing is in the absence of crime.” Policing in most american jurisdictions is therefore rather poor. What we frequently have instead is a large group of armed thugs who under the rubric of “officer safety,” the war on drugs, and with funding from DHS and other federal entities abuse citizens and trample the constitution. We have a primarily reactive policing system, which relies on the deployment of force to incidents to respond to them as quickly as possible to achieve “clearance,” usually through arrest. It is symptom treatment, without addressing root causal issues, and at the core of societal decay.

On the flip, our military has never been more lethal or capable. There are people who should not be there at level of DoD, but overall the men and women in uniform have never been better trained, more experienced, better equipped, and supported then at this very moment. And all that has to go somewhere. It will not go into another land war in a foreign nation. Small parts of it will go into remote outposts in shit hole countries around the world, spreading our drone blanket and training the local rag tags to hold it together to the best of their abilities. The rest will come home.

And there you have that intersection. SWIFT started us off with his comment that most federal thugs never served. That’s total nonsense. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies are overrun with veterans. NYPD, LAPD, Chicago, DC Metro, Atlanta, etc are all havens for veterans. The FBI, DEA, ATF, and DHS likewise. Having once served in uniform is no magic elixir to following the constitution. Swearing an oath to defend the document in no way, shape, form, or fashion requires that you have actually read it, read its history, or educated yourself about the intent of our forefathers.

Similarly, the argument made by Redleg that we have been at peace between declared wars. I take it that the Marines who died in the banana wars were not at war? I take it that the Marines who died at Chosin were not at war? The VFW recognizes Korea as a war, but it was not a declared war. Similarly, your constitutional argument is flawed. There are plenty of procurement programs (Land Warrior comes to mind, the F-35 is another) that are allocated money for longer than 2 years. Note here that the Supreme Court has struck down tax payer standing (US v. Richardson), so even if you think Congress should not allocate money for more than 2 years, there is nothing you can do about it. And since Congress usually can’t get its act together to pass even one year budgets, this is a muddled argument, at best.

Every November, Marines gather to celebrate the Marine Corps birthday. Part of the ceremony is to read General Lejeune’s birthday message. Written in 1921, it reads in part “during 90 of the 146 years of its existence the Marine Corps has been in action against the nations foes.” We have been in action every year since. And the leviathan has only grown.

All this underpins the question Herschel asked in the post he linked to at the end. Will these troops fire on American citizens? I answered then that I think some will, some will not, and some will aim high when they pull the trigger. That answer has not changed. Again I point to systemic issues. I’ve worked in recruiting for the Marine Corps. The young men and women we pull in come from broken school systems that do not teach our constitution, or any moral or ethical foundation for that matter. They frequently come from broken homes, or places that do not really rate the term “home.” They are frequently made whole by the service. And they derive everything they have from it. They live on remote bases, marry at a young age, and have children that grow up on these bases. They are frequently a class apart from the civilians they serve.

So let us go back to how Herschel started. Crazy Gun Toting Insurrectionist. After Katrina, there was a massive federal response, including the deployment of federal military assets. They all came armed. They patrolled the streets. They entered homes. They confiscated private property. You can argue the legality of this until you are blue in the face. The reality is that such a situation, properly presented and briefed to the troops will result in American troops entering an area, and dominating it. And if they encounter resistance, if one of the young people I described above is killed because a citizen feels his rights are being trampled and he is fighting back…ask yourself. What have you done today to make sure that the young men and women standing over their dead comrade have the moral fiber, the ethical grounding, and the educational foundation to understand that the error is not in that citizen, but in their leadership?
On April 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm, Chuck said:

Marine Officer covered it all very nicely, so I won’t add to his point about the perils of a large standing “army” in whatever form that takes. I will, however, as a soldier and infantryman of many years point out that the Constitution most certainly does NOT forbid a standing army, notwithstanding our forefathers justifiable fear of such. It merely attempts to limit a LARGE standing army by making it difficult to fund it. Clearly that didn’t work, at least not in this century or the last.

Finally, I will point out that since June 14, 1775 when the Continental Congress authorized the raising of ten companies of riflemen to form the core of the Continental Army, there has, for all intents and purposes, ALWAYS been a Regular Army. For most of the 18th and 19th Centuries, it was a very small Army, but it has always been there. And Jarhead snark notwithstanding, it was nearly always at war during that period, mostly fighting Indians, when not fighting the big battles in the Revolution, 1812, the Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, Philippine Insurrection, etc. The Marine Corps is a fine organization, but it most certainly has NOT done the lion’s share of the fighting over the last 237 years.
On April 4, 2013 at 6:51 pm, MarineOfficer said:

Chuck, I meant no disrespect to our sister services long history of conflict. I am just not as familiar with it, and therefore do not rely on it in argument. I do agree with your point about the constitution. It is unlikely that the founding fathers intended to not have a standing army, as they were well aware that the England had just such a thing, as well as France, Spain, etc. If we are to believe that those men had the foresight we frequently ascribe to them, then they must have anticipated future armed conflicts, and realized the necessity and utility of having an armed force immediately and readily available, to speak nothing of the Native American threat you mention.

And as for doing the lions share of the fighting…there’s a reason Congress settled on 2 companies of Continental Marines and 10 companies of riflemen. To this day America still understands that quality means Marines, quantity means Army.
On April 5, 2013 at 9:00 am, Chuck said:

Marine Officer, I see what you did there…
On April 8, 2013 at 11:23 am, Draco said:

In response to Marine Office and the later contributers I would like to say this. The schools that are run by the socialists do not and will not teach individualism and self relaince, thus they will not teach the Constitution nor the anticedant documents that provide a basis for the reasoning in constructing the document. My prime example you folks have just stated.

We can safely say that your comments show no actual knowledge of the Federalist Papers or The Debates of the Constitution. If you had actual knowledge you might see that the Federalist did discuss a standing army and it waas generally agreed upon to have a reactionary force able to hold off an invasion until the militia could be mustered. The ratio was as stated 30,000 men in the standing army and about 500,000 “armed citizens”. I SAY THIS NOT TO OFFEND BUT TO POINT OUT A OBVIOUS TRUTH HERE!!!!!

Time has certainly changed but more importantly conditions have changed. It is now possible for an enemy to attack the United States in a matter of hours. The reactionary force needs to be quite larger and more able to respond to the threat. But the principle behind haveing a small standing army is so that the “armed citizens” are able to stand against it should the army be used in an attempt to usurp the rule of law and for tyranny to proliferate. But this is not the message I want to convey….

The failure is the system of education and the ability of a group of individuals to so control the indoctrination of the people as to nearly eliminate the resort to our organic law. The Marine Office very aptly expressed this. We would have no problem if the men and women in the armed forces knew and understood the Constitution and that their ultimate duty is to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Of course an unlawful order would not be tolerated and anyone who broke this law or gave an unlawful order would at once be suspect and the order would not be obeyed.

So it is up to the citizens to educate themeslves, since we have an educational system that is subverting the Constitution and the laws of the State and the United States. If you folks were as well armed with knowledge as I assume you are with arms you might consider this. The United States is to guarantee a Republican form of government to the states, Article IV Section 4. This does not means republican party.

That being said and duly noted every school supporting any other type of education proffing a socialist, marxist or communist form of government is using Federal Funds and in violation of the mandate in Article IV Section 4. Now the use and mis appropriation of public money is a heavy crime. So do your duty and force these public servants to obey the law or have the funds cut off. The Federalist also states that the States are to have Republic Constitutions and if not they can no longer be part of the union….. I think you can see where I am going with this. One may use this situation to attack the use of state funds to promote a communist or socialist form of government. This must be a grass roots effort. The militia system was to be grass roots, the Republican States a grassroots system and in the grass boots on the ground is where we function best.

So we could demand that the funds from taxes going to the Department of Education be used to support Article IV Section 4 or sue the Secratary in a Bivins Type Constitutional Tort or a 42 USC Section 1983 type action. A doctrine from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Ellis v Blum, proposed this ame situation and applied vicarous libility all the way up to the Secratary of Health and Human Services on exactly the same styled premises. This would get their attention at the very least. Do we have standing to sue… well if we have the right to resist tyranny armed we have the right to sue to enforce the Constitution. After all Bivins did exactly thiis very thing. The 6 unknown federal narcotics agents violated his rights and he successfully sued their butts. Tis is called using their own sword against them…. Time we out our boots on the ground and close on the enemy boys.

By the way I clerked for a Federal Judge for a time and know exactly what I am talking about. In fact I find that the system educated attorneys don’t have a clue but Gerry Spence is a man that I would suggest going to see. This could be great fun as well. I would like to see their red asses run completely out of the country. Afetr all subversion is a cowards way of being a bully… and I hate bullies….
On April 8, 2013 at 12:33 pm, Herschel Smith said:

Draco, et. al.,

Yea, my brother is a lawyer and clerked for a federal judge too. I asked him once, “Are all lawyers evil?” He responded, “No, 99.999999999% of all lawyers give the rest of us a bad name.”

Trotting out credentials usually doesn’t impress me very much. Try something else.

Like maybe … reading a little more deeply?

Herschel sighs, rolls his eyes and wonders how the point could have been missed so badly by so many people for so long?

Do try to slow down some. Do try to read between the lines. Do try to be more circumspect. When you read my prose, at least sometimes think to yourself, “Hmmm … what deeper point is Herschel trying to make that he doesn’t want to come right out and say because he wants us to develop the syllogism or train of thought ourselves?”

The issue about standing army doesn’t matter. In the absence of a standing army, the U.S. has always had standing Marines, infantry Marines, training and garrisoned more often on U.S. soil than anywhere else. And the founders intended it that way. The fact that they weren’t “thought of” as being used against American citizens (as someone said above) makes my point exactly without acknowledging that it was my point. Neither are law enforcement “thought of” that way.

But in the absence of army, the .gov has Marines. In the absence of Marines, the .gov always has state and local LEOs who will arm and act as army, and thus was have a standing army anyways. Don’t respond “Yes but the constitution says … derp … they cannot be used that way … derp … they aren’t to enforce federal law … derp … etc., derp, etc. That makes my point.

Listen to me carefully. If the national character has disintegrated, no words on a piece of paper mean anything. The problem isn’t that no one knows what the founders said, or what the founders said is a very mixed bag. The problem is that the national moral character has dissipated. It’s gone.

What was it John Adams said: “Our constitution was made only for ________ people.”

You fill in the blank. Or do I have to do that for you too?

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Crazy Gun-Toting Insurrectionists

Comments

Leave a comment