Was the founding of the USA legal?

[Billy_Kinetta]

This is a silly thread. Of course rebellion against a tyrant is unlawful to the tyrant.

Know how many silly classes I had to sit through in school because a larger point was being imparted?

What was the larger point?

Think it through for yourself. If unwilling that's fine. Is the flame group to amuse yourselves in with the literary equivilents of burp and fart-noises.

What is there to "think through"? Who gives a rat's ass if it was illegal in George III's view?

 

[TNHarley]

This is a silly thread. Of course rebellion against a tyrant is unlawful to the tyrant.

Know how many silly classes I had to sit through in school because a larger point was being imparted?

What was the larger point?

Think it through for yourself. If unwilling that's fine. Is the flame group to amuse yourselves in with the literary equivilents of burp and fart-noises.

Like thinking rebelling against tyranny is bad? Like thinking that a tyrant having a law that says people shall serve and obey is some sort of "gotcha"? This is fuckin stupid. Go back to your faggot threads. You do better with them.

 

[TNHarley]

What was the larger point?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This is a silly thread. Of course rebellion against a tyrant is unlawful to the tyrant.

Know how many silly classes I had to sit through in school because a larger point was being imparted?

What was the larger point?

Think it through for yourself. If unwilling that's fine. Is the flame group to amuse yourselves in with the literary equivilents of burp and fart-noises.

Like thinking rebelling against tyranny is bad? Like thinking that a tyrant having a law that says people shall serve and obey is some sort of "gotcha"? This is fuckin stupid. Go back to your faggot threads. You do better with them.

That you're unable to think critically or abstractly is hardly my fault. You're the moron. I wasn't your educator. Though perhaps you should follow your own advice and limit yourself to other sorts of threads where you don't actually have to think and can take everything at face-value.

 

[TNHarley]

This is a silly thread. Of course rebellion against a tyrant is unlawful to the tyrant.

Know how many silly classes I had to sit through in school because a larger point was being imparted?

What was the larger point?

Think it through for yourself. If unwilling that's fine. Is the flame group to amuse yourselves in with the literary equivilents of burp and fart-noises.

Like thinking rebelling against tyranny is bad? Like thinking that a tyrant having a law that says people shall serve and obey is some sort of "gotcha"? This is fuckin stupid. Go back to your faggot threads. You do better with them.

That you're unable to think critically or abstractly is hardly my fault. You're the moron. I wasn't your educator. Though perhaps you should follow your own advice and limit yourself to other sorts of threads where you don't actually have to think and can take everything at face-value.

Dude, your goddamn thread is about whether it is legal for people to rebel against a tyrant. Fuckin think. If your point was something else, elaborate. Because you have yet to say or even imply it.

 

[irosie91]

Was founding the USA as British subjects lawful? If not, isn't everything that is now the USA the result of high crimes including treason and just as a criminal today may not profit from their crimes (selling movie or book rights and the like,) then isn't all federal and state government null and void?

Crimes don't cease being crimes because the criminal claims they're not crimes. Am I wrong?

It was not lawful......in British law. In british law the signers of the Declaration of Independence were
traitors and should have been hanged. In fact, history reveals that the country was founded on
terrorism against the loyal subjects to the British crown----------If there were a just "god" in heaven
Benjamin Franklin would have been struck with lightening whilst had flew his kite

 

[Pogo]

Yes, because savages had laws. Dummy
You do realize the Indians were always fighting each other over land, right? Didn't teach you that?

Wow. Broad-brush generalization of the day right here.

"Indians" did that monolithically , did they? No diversity among them? Did they all look alike?

"Savages"...

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, because savages had laws. Dummy
You do realize the Indians were always fighting each other over land, right? Didn't teach you that?

Wow. Broad-brush generalization of the day right here.

"Indians" did that monolithically , did they? No diversity among them? Did they all look alike?

"Savages"...

I didn't feel the need to list every indian battle that is known, for the semantics addicts

 

[M14 Shooter]

Was founding the USA as British subjects lawful? If not, isn't everything that is now the USA the result of high crimes including treason and just as a criminal today may not profit from their crimes (selling movie or book rights and the like,) then isn't all federal and state government null and void?
Crimes don't cease being crimes because the criminal claims they're not crimes. Am I wrong?

Treaty of Paris (1783) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/ Thread

 

[Spinster]

I doubt the Native Americans though it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them.

No one in history thought it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them, but that is the way mankind expanded.

Them's the breaks. Hence the need for overwhelmingly superior military power.

Yep, but the Europeans came with firearms. Compared to Native American bow and arrows, it was hardly a fair fight. The Europeans also came equipped with their distilled liquor, so let's get the natives drunk and blow their heads off. And these were Christain people fleeing religious persecution?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I doubt the Native Americans though it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them.

No one in history thought it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them, but that is the way mankind expanded.

Them's the breaks. Hence the need for overwhelmingly superior military power.

Yep, but the Europeans came with firearms. Compared to Native American bow and arrows, it was hardly a fair fight. The Europeans also came equipped with their distilled liquor, so let's get the natives drunk and blow their heads off. And these were Christain people fleeing religious persecution?

Who cares about a "fair fight"? You stomp your opponent until he doesn't get up again. End of conflict.

That's a recent problem with the West and American leadership specifically. They play by rules while the enemy does not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I doubt the Native Americans though it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them.

No one in history thought it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them, but that is the way mankind expanded.

Them's the breaks. Hence the need for overwhelmingly superior military power.

Yep, but the Europeans came with firearms. Compared to Native American bow and arrows, it was hardly a fair fight. The Europeans also came equipped with their distilled liquor, so let's get the natives drunk and blow their heads off. And these were Christain people fleeing religious persecution?

Who cares about a "fair fight"? You stomp your opponent until he doesn't get up again. End of conflict.

That's a recent problem with the West and American leadership specifically. They play by rules while the enemy does not.

That's because we're "enlightened".
:blech:

 

[regent]

What of God? Weren't kings appointed by God, and didn't kings rule by divine right or was that pretty much gone by the 1770's? In any case most of the colonists did not support the revolution so Jefferson had to do a good job on the Declaration trying to recruit colonists and foreign support to aid the revolutionists.

 

[Iron Head]

The op is fundamentally wrong because he is applying the paradigm of domestic law to the formation of nations. There is no analogy.

 

[Spinster]

I doubt the Native Americans though it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them.

No one in history thought it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them, but that is the way mankind expanded.

Them's the breaks. Hence the need for overwhelmingly superior military power.

Yep, but the Europeans came with firearms. Compared to Native American bow and arrows, it was hardly a fair fight. The Europeans also came equipped with their distilled liquor, so let's get the natives drunk and blow their heads off. And these were Christain people fleeing religious persecution?

Who cares about a "fair fight"? You stomp your opponent until he doesn't get up again. End of conflict.

That's a recent problem with the West and American leadership specifically. They play by rules while the enemy does not.

How terribly Christain of you, Billy boy. Are you related to the Clintons?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I doubt the Native Americans though it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them.

No one in history thought it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them, but that is the way mankind expanded.

Them's the breaks. Hence the need for overwhelmingly superior military power.

Yep, but the Europeans came with firearms. Compared to Native American bow and arrows, it was hardly a fair fight. The Europeans also came equipped with their distilled liquor, so let's get the natives drunk and blow their heads off. And these were Christain people fleeing religious persecution?

Who cares about a "fair fight"? You stomp your opponent until he doesn't get up again. End of conflict.

That's a recent problem with the West and American leadership specifically. They play by rules while the enemy does not.

How terribly Christain of you, Billy boy. Are you related to the Clintons?

What do you know of Christians?

 

[barryqwalsh]

I doubt the Native Americans though it was lawful to have their country invaded and snatched from them.

So, what is now the United States was a country before Europeans arrived?

 

[Agit8r]

Was founding the USA as British subjects lawful? If not, isn't everything that is now the USA the result of high crimes including treason and just as a criminal today may not profit from their crimes (selling movie or book rights and the like,) then isn't all federal and state government null and void?

Crimes don't cease being crimes because the criminal claims they're not crimes. Am I wrong?

It was alright, because they got a lawyer to draw up a legal argument in support of it (a.k.a. the Declaration of Independence).

 

[MisterBeale]

Was founding the USA as British subjects lawful? If not, isn't everything that is now the USA the result of high crimes including treason and just as a criminal today may not profit from their crimes (selling movie or book rights and the like,) then isn't all federal and state government null and void?

Crimes don't cease being crimes because the criminal claims they're not crimes. Am I wrong?

Don't confuse what is "lawful" and "legal" with what is "just."

Those who understand justice really don't care if it was "lawful" or "legal." If the only thing you are interested in is a statist point of view, take your monarchist ass to Canada.

 

[MisterBeale]

King George III speaks to Parliament of American rebellion - Oct 27, 1775 - HISTORY.com

"On this day in 1775, King George III speaks before both houses of the British Parliament to discuss growing concern about the rebellion in America, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Great Britain. He began his speech by reading a “Proclamation of Rebellion” and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies.
...
Unfortunately for George III, Thomas Paine’s anti-monarchical argument in the pamphlet, Common Sense, published in January 1776, proved persuasive to many American colonists. The two sides had reached a final political impasse and the bloody War for Independence soon followed."

We were a colony, had a king, and a lawful government. And we didn't want to be bound to that government any more, rebelled, commiting treason and murder and other crimes in the process, then fought a war over it. When the war was concluded and we'd won presumedly we pardoned ourselves making it legal from our own point-of-view, if not also the king's.

So if that was fine and dandy, why are militia groups say not allowed to do the same thing? We made it legal to commit treason and rebellion and armed insurrection for ourselves, but have since made it illegal for anyone to do it again to the government now.

Huh?

If the government that the citizens set up, the contract agreed to by the citizens and the ruling class, AKA, the constitution, is not adhered to, then yes, of course, you are correct, the citizens can resort to measures to redress this. However, there are means to address this that have been put in place that can be use BEFORE rebellion is necessary.