Make your own free website on Tripod.com
« February 2010 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
and now, Benton?
Chamish
Constitutional
Economy, what's left of
General politics
general rant/rave
Kennewick Illegal
Legal actions
Richland illegal
Seattle illegal
Second-Amendment
WA Illegal
WA media anti 2A bias
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Dave's 2A Blog
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Critical observations from "Defensive Arms Vindicated" Stephen Case, 1782
Topic: Constitutional

I could not have the bandwidth to comment on this writing, nor the ability or authority to do so. These men were there, at the time and witnessed what happened, and invented a new form of SELF Government while clearly having in sight, the failures of all previous forms.

http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=76759  

Three critical things to notice:

1.) First Concession, paragraph 12. The doctrine of obedience to a King was rooted in the failure of the kings of Israel, to paraphrase an old rhyme:

"when the king was good, he was very good, and when he was bad, he was awful."

And SO WENT THE PEOPLE. And there WE go.

We are not under a King or monarch, the War for Independence broke that mold in favor of LIMITED SELF GOVERNANCE. We do  not have a government to govern us. No one rules us. We broke that mold of the Kings and went back towards the ideals of Moses - back towards direct rule by God.

And now we have 'government' full of un-godliness. The source of our present problems, and the source of the American Revolution are the same - A-THEISM. From France then, from everywhere now.

2.) Sixth. I condemn all rising to revenge private injuries, whereby a country may be covered with blood, for some petty wrongs done to some persons great or small.

3.) "I once read of a good old general that was walking through his army, when, at length, he saw a young prodigal officer beating an old soldier unmercifully: O! says the general, lay on, for you know that he dare not strike you again! Which reproof, though very modest, covered the officer with blushes, and caused him to desist—and, in fact, it is a sure sign of a coward, to be beating a man that we know dare not, for his life, resist."

Think about that a day. "Lay on" is directed to the one being beaten, and not to, or though, the beater. The meaning is that after being beaten enough, that one having the might to resist dare not be resisted, because he has a power from somewhere higher.


Posted by Dave at 10:21 AM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 10:22 AM PST

View Latest Entries