Jump to content

Andrew Marshall

Member Since 02 Jul 2003
Offline Last Active Jun 11 2007 02:59 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: In Memory Of John Nye & Bud House

25 May 2007 - 01:31 PM

Hmmm, I kind of thought the dispute was that Bogner committed manslaughter by using police powers to intimidate people into foregoing their right to safe harbor during Hurricane Katrina.

Instead the article makes John out to be some fringe criminal lunatic - and leaves out entirely that the money found on John was an inheritance his brother left him. I wrote to the reporter about the real issues, but evidently he didn't think it was newsworthy.

In Topic: FDEP Responds to Marshall's Request to Reconsider Dismissal

25 May 2007 - 02:48 AM

There are common and cliché techniques for confrontation and while the "lead projectile" approach has had its positive and negative impacts on history, the scenarios in which it has been successful have depended almost exclusively on broad popular support.

Impact history…? The Constitution bestows no right to “impact history.” The 2nd Amendment concerns defending liberty. Most people believe it’s justified to defend one’s life, liberty, and property from a thug on the street – and historical impact or the overall impact on crime isn’t considered. But we’ve been brainwashed to think that defending life, liberty, and property from government thugs is necessarily limited to “due process” (even under circumstances where the courts are corrupt) and impacting history. The question is, do government thugs have the right to destroy lives with impunity?
The problem is much deeper than Government's unwillingness to facilitate public process. The fault lies just as much with the "by the people" side of the equation.

That’s true, which makes this sort of a win-win situation. If the Anchorage prevails, people living there are free to live their lives and there will be less money in the generals fund for corrupt government thugs to steal for future abuses. If due process isn’t afforded and the Anchorage doesn’t prevail, apathetic self-centered people living there will end up homeless to die on the streets, and otherwise get their just deserts. It might just wake someone up, and that's how the ranks grow.
Any moron can brandish a weapon. Few can wield a pen. Wielding either to any great effect is a difficult challenge. It is rational to think about adopting a "brute-force" approach when other remedies have been tried and exhausted. However, I have no sound reason to transmogrify my broken idealism about the legal system into a false idealism about the justifications or effectiveness of forceful confrontation.

Five years ago, while working as a carpenter for the City of Miami, a City of Miami coemployee ran me over in a motor vehicle. For five years the City's played its fraudulent games to deny me medical care and the Court's been complicit by denying me a hearing for those five years while affording an attorney I had working on the case 3 hearings on his attorney fees in which he was awarded $40k. My health is deteriorating and I'll be damned if I'm going to crawl quietly into some corner to die because corrupt government thugs deem me unworthy.

But to respond to your pen v. the sword anology in historical terms, the two work best in conjunction. The eloquence of one Martin Luther King didn't result in enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - enforcement came from the threat of civil unrest from a “ballot or the bullet” attitude advocated by the likes of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. The pen calls people to action, peaceful or otherwise, but its arms that gives the pen teeth.
Coming back around to marketing, I think there are new and better ways to bring about changes in perspective and awareness.

I've been thinking about marketing too. The federal court recommended dismissal on the basis that it has no jurisdiction over state denials of due process – which effectually nullifies the 14th Amendment and any safeguard against due process violations by states. This legal precedent is exceedingly newsworthy about it on anti-government internet sites that cover police state and constitutional rights issues. Some of these sites have have hundreds of thousands of viewers. The injustice has been documented – so might as well have some fun with it.

In Topic: FDEP Responds to Marshall's Request to Reconsider Dismissal

12 May 2007 - 08:43 PM

You are really off base here Bricker.

The 2nd Amendment does provide, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

But what a “free state” consists of is a state in which hunting and shooting at targets for sporting purposes is not restricted. The 2nd Amendment concerns hunting and target practice period. It does not afford an individual the right to due process - it only affords him or her the right to mame or kill animals and punch holes in paper targets.

Lest my viewpoint be considered frivolous, I fully acknowledge that Thomas Jefferson said., “The most important reason for the people to retain the right to own and bear arms, is as a last resort against tyranny in government.”

But what Jefferson meant by this is disputable. Its all interpretation after all. Perhaps what he meant to say is that it would be tyrannical if government deprived individuals of their right to hunt and shoot at paper targets. It doesn't follow that intentional government denial of due process is indicative of tyranny.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention due process - much less guarantee it - nor does the US Constitution expressly guaranttee due process to the "rabble" in any Amendment, Article, Section, Subsection, Chapter, Subchaper, Verse, or Melody.

Besides, the Courts mostly disregard the law and constitutional rights nowadays, and their precedent and example must be followed. So even if the 2nd Amendment once concerned tyranny related to denial of due process - the law itself doesn't hold any significance anymore. Nowadays its mostly a means of raising revenue and stratifying the social classes. What's significant in this day and age is clever word games, power, money, influence, and prestige - and anyone who says otherwise is seriously maladjusted.

In conclusion, shooting tyrants is not a legal right. Its a natural right - the exact same right the powerful and influential have to destroy and kill the rabble - if they can get away with it.


Andrew Marshall

[Note: Picture of me with a firearm was edited out of this post - not on the basis that I'd lose credibility, as some suggested - but because a friend pointed out that the timing was wrong with the Virginia Tech massacre. The post is probably funnier and more thought provoking without the photo anyway.]

In Topic: FDEP Responds to Marshall's Request to Reconsider Dismissal

06 April 2007 - 10:17 PM

Ya suppose these guys got fucked over by the FDEP/City of Miami too?



In Topic: Discovery Request Results

26 March 2007 - 07:59 PM

"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."

Is history repeating itself or what...?