JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
Messages
565
Reactions
204
A few days ago, Jack Minzey sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written.

Jack passed away last 8 April 2018.

Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.

This is the last of his works:


Civil War

How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge. That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That's a civil war.

There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship.

Your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without his say so, that's the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.

Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That's not a free country.

It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.

Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.
 
The only real question is when will the two sides actually start shooting, or looting, or rioting? Oh wait..... We already have that from one side. But so far, the other manages to simply let them continue without shooting back. So far.
 
Alas a regurgitated fictional tale from 24 may's prepper's forum Jack Minzey, sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books.....

or should it be attributable to Civil War by The Late Dr. Jack Minzey – The Daily Rant

Or attributable to Roy Exum: Is This Civil War II?

Or Civil War - Some will agree, some not so much
http://iowadawg.com/civil-war-some-will-agree-some-not-so-much/
A myriad of others also post the tale...

Interesting the saga appeared on multiple sites within a day or two, a month or so allegedly after the death of the good Dr Minzey, a University department head, yet Dr Minzey, retired in 1992.

The saga says Dr Minzey wrote, yet there is nothing out on the WWW of earlier material.
Sorry, found two educational tomes on amazon one about community education while the second one is about public schools. Not one iota about prepper fiction.

Me thinks the fake newspeek tribes are alive and well and ye have been sucked in the vortex and I find it fascinating...
 
Last Edited:
Alas a regurgitated fictional tale from 24 may's prepper's forum Jack Minzey, sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books.....

or should it be attributable to Civil War by The Late Dr. Jack Minzey – The Daily Rant

Or attributable to Roy Exum: Is This Civil War II?

Or Civil War - Some will agree, some not so much
http://iowadawg.com/civil-war-some-will-agree-some-not-so-much/
A myriad of others also post the tale...

Interesting the saga appeared on multiple sites within a day or two, a month or so allegedly after the death of the good Dr Minzey, a University department head, yet Dr Minzey, retired in 1992.

The saga says Dr Minzey wrote, yet there is nothing out on the WWW of earlier material.
Sorry, found two educational tomes on amazon one about community education while the second one is about public schools. Not one iota about prepper fiction.

Me thinks the fake newspeek tribes are alive and well and ye have been sucked in the vortex and I find it fascinating...

Maybe it would be more beneficial to take the words at face value than try to make some point about someones personal wisdom.

okay, so discredit the source, who cares? What is the intent of the dissertation? Is there any semblance of current events in it? If not so be it. If yes, accept it at face value!!!
 
Maybe it would be more beneficial to take the words at face value than try to make some point about someones personal wisdom.

okay, so discredit the source, who cares? What is the intent of the dissertation? Is there any semblance of current events in it? If not so be it. If yes, accept it at face value!!!

NO there isn't the slightest semblance of current events; or the '60's civil unrest; or the '29's recession; or the '08 recession; or the crap that when down when Obama was first elected of "OMGoodness they are going to take the guns, or the ammo shortage is his fault"; or, or, or!

Discredit the source...there is nothing to discredit as it is fiction pure and simple. To preface the fiction under the shock and awe headline as gospel...really!

But to be honest, what concerns me is you believed the recently departed 89yo, who was retired for the last 20 years, Dr. Minzey wrote it; that you didn't notice it suddenly popping up all over the place on the prepper and off the wall internet sites; that you believed the propaganda fake news as viable and earth shattering; that you believed the rhetoric espouse fits this county's normal ebb and flow since it's conception; and that that you failed read the 1949 Orwell script outlining this current modality is what disturbs me.
 
I guess that's in your NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION. I'm glad we have such an erudite individual such as yourself here to keep us in line. Especially one who is so opinionated!
 
The democrat party hasn't been the other party for decades. They tell us they want to make us safe by taking the tools used to keep us safe. Their answer to the mass shootings in gun free zones is more gun free zones. With even crazed killers knowing the safest place to mass a large body count with little chance of harm coming to himself are the gun free zone these democrats only motive to disarm us is a no brainer.

The Second Amendment was made by our founders to protect us from democrats. The Dick Act passed in, I think 1913 gave us the three bodies to protect the nation. 1 Our active military. 2 Our National Guard. 3 All men between 18 and 47, these men are to have in their homes up to date military arms with the rounds needed to repel invasion.

So every gun law that has prevented us from owning these weapons is not only illegal but the ones writing and voting for these laws guilty of treason or at the least violating the oath they took to defend the Constitution. Since the other two branches of government or are military has failed to uphold the Constitution it falls on the people whose duty is to remove these violators from office, select citizen groups to try these people and dish out punishment.

Jefferson said to keep government honest there would need to be a revolution every 20 years. Who but a criminal would spend millions on a job that pays thousands? A lot of Republicans have jumped on the democrats disarming America train. The left has singled out 11 million Americans naming them Super Gun Owners, anyone owning 10 guns or more. These 11 million represent the largest army on earth and I don't think any will disarm so who will the tyrants get to disarm them. This isn't Britain or Australia and I can't see our military killing Americans and I sure don't see these Leftist doing anything but what they always do whine, cry and wet their self in protest so who will be suckered into disarming America? A civil war would be short lived as from what I have seen of armed leftist they would shoot each other by accident marching into any battle. If you doughty this go to youtube and search for the John Brown Gun Club. It will also give you a good laugh.
 
Alas BB85037, forgive my familiarity for calling you by your first name, but if I might make a point of clarification:

First, let's clear the air and state unequivocally the august Mr. Jefferson never said what you wrote!

What Jefferson said in a letter that was expressing worry that Shays' Rebellion would be be used as a reason to justify a conservative Constitution (the letter has him commenting on Shays' rebellion, the Constitution which is then in draft form, and the British propaganda claiming the colonies where anarchistic). ..."a little rebellion now and then is a good thing," he was expressing the idea that a little rebellion is healthy for a democracy and shouldn't be punished too harshly by the state (it should be punished, as it was illegal, but not too harshly). Thomas Jefferson Called for Rebellion and Revolution - Fact or Myth?

Nelson Lund, George Mason University School of Law, quote:

1. ... the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to make most provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. When it was enacted, the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, which left the states free to regulate firearms in whatever ways they saw fit.

2. No court has yet held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to the state governments, which have been the source of almost all of the most restrictive regulations on guns. Except in the District of Columbia, federal law has created relatively few serious obstacles to civilian possession and use of firearms.

3. A great deal has changed since the Second Amendment was adopted. The traditional militia fairly quickly fell into desuetude, and the state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. For its part, the federal military establishment has become enormously powerful in comparison with eighteenth-century armies, and Americans have largely lost their fear that the federal government will use its power to oppress them politically. And whereas eighteenth-century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons that they would need if called to war, modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those that are commonly thought appropriate for civilian uses. unquote

As Lund brought up, it isn't the federal government but rather it is the individual States who are restricting, for example, FL, NM, OR, WA, RI, MD, CT, MA, CA, IL, ad nauseam, who are imposing the restrictions on citizens' firearms.

So this nation's citizens do not have a bone to pick with the feds but rather their State representatives.
 
I would certainly hope that the Republican party steps up. However the democrats might not shoot back. They don't like guns. So prepare yourself to a volley of arrows from their longbows.
 
Alas BB85037, forgive my familiarity for calling you by your first name, but if I might make a point of clarification:

First, let's clear the air and state unequivocally the august Mr. Jefferson never said what you wrote!

What Jefferson said in a letter that was expressing worry that Shays' Rebellion would be be used as a reason to justify a conservative Constitution (the letter has him commenting on Shays' rebellion, the Constitution which is then in draft form, and the British propaganda claiming the colonies where anarchistic). ..."a little rebellion now and then is a good thing," he was expressing the idea that a little rebellion is healthy for a democracy and shouldn't be punished too harshly by the state (it should be punished, as it was illegal, but not too harshly). Thomas Jefferson Called for Rebellion and Revolution - Fact or Myth?

Nelson Lund, George Mason University School of Law, quote:

1. ... the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to make most provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. When it was enacted, the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, which left the states free to regulate firearms in whatever ways they saw fit.

2. No court has yet held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to the state governments, which have been the source of almost all of the most restrictive regulations on guns. Except in the District of Columbia, federal law has created relatively few serious obstacles to civilian possession and use of firearms.

3. A great deal has changed since the Second Amendment was adopted. The traditional militia fairly quickly fell into desuetude, and the state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. For its part, the federal military establishment has become enormously powerful in comparison with eighteenth-century armies, and Americans have largely lost their fear that the federal government will use its power to oppress them politically. And whereas eighteenth-century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons that they would need if called to war, modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those that are commonly thought appropriate for civilian uses. unquote

As Lund brought up, it isn't the federal government but rather it is the individual States who are restricting, for example, FL, NM, OR, WA, RI, MD, CT, MA, CA, IL, ad nauseam, who are imposing the restrictions on citizens' firearms.

So this nation's citizens do not have a bone to pick with the feds but rather their State representatives.
Thanks for pointing out my misquote from Jefferson. As far as the militia The Dick Act of 1903 there are s different armies protecting the United States. The US Armed Forces, the National Guard, and the armed militia. Any restrictions put on any of the three by state or federal gun law is an act to restrict the armed militia. Any elected official introducing a bill restricting gun rights or voting for a bill restricting those rights is breaking Federal law and violating their oath and the Constitution. The Senate and House at both the Federal and State level have given any enemy attacking America a clear advantage and there is only one word for that and it's treason.

I don't believe up to date military weapons in every honest citizen's home would increase crime. America's murder rate is 4.5 per 100,000 and was falling this past decade. That puts America in the middle of a list of all countries in murder rates. If you take the murder rates of the ten murderous cities, between 35 and 65.5 per 100,000 away from that average it would drop America to second from the bottom of that list. These 10 cities have other things in common besides high rates of murder. They have high poverty. They have restrictive gun laws that have disarmed the honest and set up safe work places for the criminal and all have long histories of being under Democrat control.

No one can show a gun law that has stopped a single crime and even a crazed killer know a Gun Free Zone is a place he can mass a large body count with little worry to his own safety. So why is these politicians answer to these mass killings more gun free zones and more disarming of honest citizens? Are they that stupid or are they tyrants? From the way they lie and use emotions my bet is tyrants. Either way they are unfit to rule a free people.

Governments in the last 100 years have killed between 200 and 300 million people. Many times more than murder, accidental death, medical deaths and war put together. There are just as many Federal laws as state. There hasn't been a single gun bill that my Rep hasn't voted for and every time he can use emotions you can bet he will scream for more. No time in my life have I been able to trust government and as time goes by trusting them seems more crazy than foolish.

When a boy my vacations were spent in a deer camp or a duck blind Both my mother and father hunted It didn't matter if it were hand gun, rifle, or bow. My first .22 was at 12 when I passed the NRA Safety Course at the local school. My friends and I would strap them on our handle bars and go hunting or shooting almost every weekend. That really helped me out in the military. Some how I don't think a boy from California would have any advanced help with that now. That's one of the reasons I moved to Arizona when I discharged.

There are 11 million what the Left call super gun owners. Sound scary? It's suppose to. I figure their background is some what as mine. i also think they would react to being disarmed as i would. The rank and file law enforcement is on my side. The military only a few would fire at American citizens. The National Guard will never fire on their neighbors and families. So if these oath breaking, tyrants with no honor or morals along with their useful idiots ever get a gun ban who will they get that is that stupid to disarm 11 million Americans, the largest armed force on Earth with a common cause, freedom and liberty? You know what they say "Give me liberty or I'll kill ya till your'e dead".

Again sorry about the misquote and thanks for pointing it out.
 
Last Edited:
I suggest you all read what was going on in this country in the 1850's to get an Idea of where we are at now. Both sides were polarized and no longer talking they were refusing to hear each other and Just Screaming at each other! I place us about 1858 on the it might happen scale!
 
2. No court has yet held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to the state governments, which have been the source of almost all of the most restrictive regulations on guns. Except in the District of Columbia, federal law has created relatively few serious obstacles to civilian possession and use of firearms.

Need to reread the Constitution as it was written the Bill of rights is applicable to all Citizens in the Country the 10th amendment states :The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So the Second Amendment applies to all us Citizens and it is not to be decided by any Judge! As it is clearly Stated in the Constitution that The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it is not within the preview of the states to determine. And by the Constitution the Militia consists of all male citizens between the ages of 16 to 60 this has never been resend ed and since the National Guard can be Federalized it is not a Militia but a part of the Federal Government. We have let people chip away at our rights for a very long time but all those laws are unconstitutional things are slowly coming to a head as related in the topic of this thread.
 
2. No court has yet held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to the state governments, which have been the source of almost all of the most restrictive regulations on guns. Except in the District of Columbia, federal law has created relatively few serious obstacles to civilian possession and use of firearms.

Need to reread the Constitution as it was written the Bill of rights is applicable to all Citizens in the Country the 10th amendment states :The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So the Second Amendment applies to all us Citizens and it is not to be decided by any Judge! As it is clearly Stated in the Constitution that The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it is not within the preview of the states to determine. And by the Constitution the Militia consists of all male citizens between the ages of 16 to 60 this has never been resend ed (sic) and since the National Guard can be Federalized it is not a Militia but a part of the Federal Government. We have let people chip away at our rights for a very long time but all those laws are unconstitutional things are slowly coming to a head as related in the topic of this thread.

RetiredArmy, first and foremost, thanks for your service to our great country, it is truly appreciated by this nation's citizens.

Now, I am sorry to disappoint, but this nation's constitution, as written by the white founding fathers, was written for the nation's White male aristocratic society; therefore, this fledgling nation's Women, Natives, Negros, etc., were not even considered by the founding father's constitutional construction.

The militia mentioned in our new country's guiding document was again designed for the white male populace of the new nation.
 
RetiredArmy, you are of course right to say my statemet was "wrong" without posting any rebuttal; but your leap of faith comment "it is obvious..." is disappointing to see coming from an individual with such a presumed broadbased life experiences you surely enjoyed while serving in this Nation's Armed Forces.

I truly hope you will engage in critical thinking and do further historical examination of our Nation's guiding documents from the Founding Father's timeframe perspective instead of the incorrect hyped up current interpretation.

Remember, as Zepplin sang, 'sometimes words have two meanings...'
 
Last Edited:
Typical of a left leaning individual a closed mind and a bigot as you blame the nations problems on Whites that offends me buddy so back off or we will have issues! You are no where as intelligent as you feel and you lose when you play the race card it is an old used up trick not does not fly!
 
Sorry Targetshooter but his type really gets me upset I never could abide bigotry in any form. Will try to refrain from feeding this Troll in the future but spoutin his form of bigotory would get you banned from most sites he just clothes it in a thinly Veiled argument.
 
Typical of a left leaning individual a closed mind and a bigot as you blame the nations problems on Whites that offends me buddy so back off or we will have issues! You are no where as intelligent as you feel and you lose when you play the race card it is an old used up trick not does not fly!

Sorry Targetshooter but his type really gets me upset I never could abide bigotry in any form. Will try to refrain from feeding this Troll in the future but spoutin his form of bigotory would get you banned from most sites he just clothes it in a thinly Veiled argument.

Alas now the name calling begins, eh, retiredarmy, your expressed misperceptions are kinda distrubing to say the least, again based on your purported career, but thank goodness my pappy taught me, as a youngster, a very good life lesson bout 'sticks & stones'.

Quote:
Followers of originalism believe that the Constitution should be interpreted at the time that the Framers drafted the document. Followers of original meaning, including Antonin Scalia, believe that the clauses and words of the Constitution should be interpreted based on definitions to those (framers) who crafted the document at the time. Justice Burger...used early historical examples from the nation's First Congress to interpret how the Founders would have examined the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The 4 Ways To Interpret The Constitution: Originalism, Textualism, Pragmatism And Stare Decisis

Equality is hard to define because its meaning keeps changing. Jefferson's restrictive definition, that "people are of equal moral worth, and as such deserve equal treatment under the law", made distinctions for free men vs. slaves, men vs. women, property owners vs. debtors, et cetera (Patterson 132). On the one hand, most Americans' notion of legal equality makes no such distinctions. De facto equality, on the other hand, is, as Martin Luther King, Jr. has said, still a "dream". Unquote The Slave Pen – Matt Brundage

So, retiredarmy, et al., left/right when a citizen interprets the constitution from an originalism perspective further insight is gleaned.

You have a good day retiredarmy...
 
Gentlemen, a good debate is a great thing but when it falls to personal barbs no one is served. Lets keep this about us vs. the anti-gunner, remember we're all on the same team pulling the same rope.
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Crossroads of the West Gun Show
Las Vegas, NV

New Resource Reviews

Back Top