At the link.
Very long, and by far the most cogent essay I have read on the subject so far. Can't find anything there to disagree with.
Here is a link that might be useful: the second amendment is still needed
reasonable and common sense. But your about to hear the same old, same old from the other side.
And the clip with Feinstein kinda says it all.
That is interesting.
I have no desire to do away with the second amendment.
Militia: As used by the Congress of the United States--
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are:
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Well Regulated: As described in the Federalist Papers--
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
It is indeed very long.
Let me ask a couple of questions: if you didn't have the Second Amendment - if, like almost all other civilised Western states, you had never had it - would you consider writing it now?
Secondly, do you think that other Western societies would be better off if they had the equivalent? Do you think any of them would implement a similar statute? Do you think that any of their populaces want such a statute?
Leaving out the contentious subject of 'American exceptionalism' - why is it that just you, out of all these largely similar democracies, feel the need to protect yourselves against your own government? How is that 'democracy'?
And lastly, I just simply do not believe the writer when he states that being for the control of firearms is really about being against the Second Amendment. In fact, on this forum I have not heard any pro gun control people say anything against the Second Amendment.
Quite honestly, I think you people have legislated yourselves up your own fundament and don't know how to climb back down.
"...if, like almost all other civilised Western states..."
But we're not "like" them; and I for one have no wish to be, thanks just the same :)
"Quite honestly, I think you people have legislated yourselves up your own fundament and don't know how to climb back down.
Those are truly best wishes; thank you Jon.
Re the link in the OP: It was VERY well-reasoned and eloquently stated. Thanks for posting.
probably that little stickler that says" shall not be infringed" is what is getting the folks riled. Its been infringed enuff.
fancifowl the left also seem to forget word "peaceably" in first amendment to.
Hmm, I remember it. It's important; keeps rowdy Tea Partiers from getting out of hand, for example.
Do you think it's Contitutional to have segregated public schools?
I'm having trouble loading the OP link.
Very well thought out piece. This is very germane to the HT discussions on gun control:
"The vast majority of American liberals -- like persons of all other groups -- while they want to live peaceful lives, free of violence, for themselves and everyone else in the world, support the use of armed force in defense of themselves, their loved ones, and some political agenda or another. While they actually hold a position that accepts legitimate uses of armed force, a lot of American liberals like to imagine that they are living in some kind of sympathetic identity with their edited, angelic versions of King and Gandhi, and they are shocked, shocked, and react with utter revulsion, at the discourse of people who proclaim upfront that they are not."
The vast majority of American liberals -- like persons of all other groups -- while they want to live peaceful lives, free of violence, for themselves and everyone else in the world, support the use of armed force in defense of themselves, their loved ones, and some political agenda or another. While they actually hold a position that accepts legitimate uses of armed force, a lot of American liberals like to imagine that they are living in some kind of sympathetic identity with their edited, angelic versions of King and Gandhi, and they are shocked, shocked, and react with utter revulsion, at the discourse of people who proclaim upfront that they are not."
And then at the bottom of the article:
Former college professor, current man-about-town, native New Yorker. Blogging at www.thepolemicist.net, aiming to be intellectually rigorous, politically challenging, and occasionally snarky, from a left-socialist perspective.
So as a self-described liberal, would I ever describe my views as left-socialist? As a self-described liberal would I ever presume and present a particular view as "a lot of American liberals" supposedly would?
Yeah...very well thought out piece of bullcrap.
Cogent? Germane? Bullcrap!
I guess you guys really do think we're dumber than dirt.
These passages ring true for me:
" Liberals have to recognize that, when you ban guns, you are not just eliminating a right, you are creating a criminal offense -- in fact a whole set of new crimes. How many months or years will you have to be confined by the armed guards of the state for having a rifle with a pistol grip or a 10-round magazine? How many of those fifty million gun owners are you going to lock up, after raiding their homes? You better have stiff sentences, right? Every prosecutor running for office will tell you so.
One has to be kind of obtuse not to understand that a War on Guns, no matter how liberally inspired, will end up like all other such campaigns. It will create crime and pre-crime, and "take the level of police statism, lawlessness and general social pathology up a notch in the same way Prohibition and the Drug War have done. [It will] expand the volume of organized crime, " to empower criminal gangs fighting over control over the black market, " lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, further militarization of local police via SWAT teams, and further expansion of the squalid empire of civil forfeiture, perjured jailhouse snitch testimony, entrapment, planted evidence, and plea deal blackmail." (Kevin Carson)"
"I guess you guys really do think we're dumber than dirt.
No, Ron. I don't think you are.
I could live without the third amendment, the one which proves that all amendments aren't legit to the times, though.
Maybe Cob and ff will arm up and protect it for all those who think all the amendments are of equal importance and all are still applicable to all of the times.
Elvis, why are conservatives on this board so out of touch with the majority of Americans? Do you think there is any real hope that conservatives are capable of re-grouping and becoming a modern, competitive party in 2016?
Do you believe the conservatives and their reps have to drop those who aren't unifying for most Americans, far from the center, ignore the ignorant filled statements made by conservatives and their reps (show me your papers, birth certificate, school transcripts, vaginal probing, legit rape) and become a party of "lets find a way together?" - or risk another embarrassing defeat, despite gallup poll promises that most here embraced, despite warnings of odd, strange results from that polling company?
what is embarrasing about defeat? I lost, I'm hardly embarrased.
The issue is not hardly about bearing arms; as the essayist points out, it's about creating a counter-balance of some kind, any kind, to government power.
So yes, I would want to write some sort of Amendment to the Constitution allowing for that, if the Second did not already exist. Speaking of which, we greatly need an Amendment now to create status and standing for the rights of natural environments at a Constitutional level. If G-dammed corporations have such, then surely the rest of creation should.
So what could that 'some kind, any kind' be? Assuming - as surely you must - that individual citizens are not going to have access to the full war panoply of advanced weapons systems, armies, navies, strategic air power, as a balance to the 'government power' that could be wielded against them, what do you suggest?
The only way I could see as possible would be the institution of 'community militias' which could band individuals together and perhaps obtain and hold centrally a higher level of weaponry than a couple of dozen wheezing, obese weekend hunters with their treasured popguns could afford. (No offence meant) Hang on - isn't that what many people think the Second Amendment addressed, anyway?
In fact, as the Second Amendment must be enforced by law - shouldn't the government even pay for such militia's weapons stores and their maintenance?
This would ensure that the letter of the Constitution regarding the establishment of a well-regulated militia was observed, and at the same time remove the need for individual citizens to own more than those weapons they keep for their hobbies.
Seems like a sound plan :) Of course, the other route is to make democracy work and find a way to have a form of government which half the population isn't terrified of.
Government of any kind must be guarded against through various avenues, because it either is elite power without pretense or is co-opted by elites to some extent sooner or later.
another part of seroius gun debate:
weapons and ammunitions manufacturers are beginning to have some misgivings about selling arms and ammo to those cities and states who ban their goods. There is no movement under foot to restrict sales, not yet anyhow. But that would make sense. Why feed those who try to starve you.
I will have to read this at least once more and probably want to discuss some points with the author of the essay but for the most part, I say hallelujah!!!Someone out there understands!!
Read the last section of the essay, the part with the heading:
"Gun Rights and the Problematic of Mass Killings and School Shootings
Don't we have to save the children?"
Whether or not you agree with everything that was said before this part does not distract from the importance of what was written in this particular section. When you understand this part and can admit it is truth then you can quibble about political points later. This section should be the only thing under discussion.
We KNOW in almost every case the persons who do these horrifying acts are mentally or emotionally impaired and are taking medication. Maybe they are self-medicating. We KNOW the medications can be dangerous and that person needs to be under observation, especially when their meds are being changed. We KNOW psychoactive drugs can be unpredictable and that some mental health professionals and other physicians for some reason are not following up by reporting threats or putting a patient on at least a 72 hour hold or until they are stable even if it takes a week or more. The legal 72 hour hold is almost never going to be enough to judge all the effects. We need to be able to hold the patient until those chemical changes have stabilized. That takes time. What we DON'T know is how a drug will affect a particular individual. If you disagree, read the script that comes with the medication. It may open your eyes and may even save a few lives.
I have witnessed two suicides in my life. With the best will in the world I could do nothing to stop them. In both cases the person had been on antidepressants. I will always be grateful my two young sons missed seeing the woman jump from the bridge. Unfortunately, I will never forget the shiny white purse she left sitting on the stone railing and the pretty pink and white suit she had worn to church that morning. I have always wondered why she was alone.
It is impractical to put every person in America who takes medications (anti-depressants and others) on a banned list--can't buy or own a gun. That would be a good portion of America! Millions of people on antidepressants and other medications like that. Then add all the people on medication for schizophrenia and for everyother diagnosed condition. We would end up with most of America on the banned list. I don't think you realize how many people take medications for any number of reasons.
Add to that that a large number of those taking medications have not been legally declared "insane" or some other diagnosed condition that might put them on a banned list. Everyone who is depressed will be on that list even if they have no recognized condition?
Add to that, several of the recent cases involved young men "borrowing" the family gun to commit their massacres. They didn't buy any guns, so no one would have found them on a banned list anyway.
REally, if we start labeling a good portion of our country as "crazy" in some way or another, we will have an rebellion on our hands--and there will be more of them than there are of "us" (assuming you and I aren't on that banned list also).
Kate you are missing the point. The medications are most dangerous at particular times such as when you are going off of them and starting a different medication. Once that is over and the patient is stabilized the odds are there will be no problem. There are medications that are more problematic than others and the psychoactive drugs can be really bad. Some people cannot take certain meds at all. For instance, I have problems with anesthesia. Some have little or no effect, others are too much in even the smallest doses especially ether. That will knock me out for 2 days. But I drive anesthesiologists crazy because I will be wide awake in the middle of surgery and they have trouble knocking me out. They have to find out what works before surgery. It is apparently a genetic quirk.
The medications are most dangerous at particular times such as when you are going off of them and starting a different medication. Once that is over and the patient is stabilized the odds are there will be no problem.
So how would you handle this situation and a person's access to their own gun?
And let me reiterate: I have no desire to do away with the second amendment.
The guy needs an editor. And what he considers 'truths' are far from it.
he says: There's no way around it: The net effect of eliminating the right of citizens to possess firearms will be to increase the power of the armed capitalist state. Well, no, the more and more powerful guns the citizens possess, the stronger and more powerful the police state becomes to deal with it. And deal with it they do - evacuate entire neighborhoods "for your safety" making it so you get arrested if you cross a police line to go to your house. Swat teams in every podunk county sheriff dept. Armored cars for the police, snipers everywhere you look.
Pat: The issue is not hardly about bearing arms; as the essayist points out, it's about creating a counter-balance of some kind, any kind, to government power.
Its an illusion. I ain't buying it. Someone give me a good example. The union wars in the coal mines? His examples of the Black Power guys carrying fully legal weapons on the state capital protesting the poor treatment by the cops - did that do anything for advancing civil rights? Or did MLK and Rosa Parks or the scenes all over the country of the efforts to integrate schools with the military protecting school children advance civil rights? They were able to get better treatment by the police by having all kinds of people show up and watch, take pictures when a black guy was being arrested - not because some guys showed up on the state capital steps with guns.
So lets look at what happens when someone does 'take on' the gvt with weapons - working backwards..... try posting something on Facebook with threats against the president/gvt and you'll have a visit from the feds in a hurry - we had some local lightbulb threaten the president and - it turns out - thats against the law! Jail!!
And then we have Waco, Ruby Ridge, the race riots of the 60's, the civil war, the Indian wars to conquer the west - lots of good waving guns around did anybody.
I can see gun ownership as some mythological / vestigial means of taking on an oppressive govt, but anytime any ~maybe~ serious threat pops up to the powers that be - see his example of the armed guards with the fully automatic weapons guarding the parties of the truly wealthy - or the folks wishing to protest a political convention. What would the reaction be in this country if Occupy Wall Street had people out there armed to the teeth, fired a few shots over the heads of the cops? How about a teaparty rally at the capital - shoot a few DC police. They'd crack down so hard......
So because the blacks are armed, this means they are treated with respect? His examples of the Blacks taking home guns from the civil war - how'd that work out? Carpet baggers and Jim Crow laws, segregation, lose the right to vote and so on. Did it stop the lynching? What happened in Oklahoma City where black men were supposedly armed?
he says the Colorado movie shooter was taken down because he used a 100-round magazine, which jammed, That isn't exactly true. The shooter stopped firing because the gun jammed, he walked out of the theatre, and meekly gave up to the police - not "taken down".
This guy ignores the big problem - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (or what any society would consider criminal - thieves, kidnappers, robbers) and the mentally ill. You do that with back ground checks, cracking down on straw purchasers, theft avoidance, making guns harder to get for the crooks.
And the secondary problem, which is when some incompetent, crazy person, or some child, gets ahold of a gun - thats when the magazine size matters. These are people who are not trained but can easily get the guns and extended magazines - but changing the clips out is when they are stopped. And as they keep saying, anyone who is trained, like all these legitimate gun owners out there, can change them out quickly if they want to - I mean, when the revolution comes, is being able to swap 10 round clips really fast vs having a 30 round clip the difference between liberty and tyranny? What is the problem?
So I come back to what I've posted time again when this angle of the gun argument comes up - just how does anybody envision this going down? A million man march all waving guns down Pennsylvania Avenue is going to lead to lower taxes? Force us to stop subsidizing banks? Make the president resign, because we don't like Obamacare? In every city, every town, millions of armed people will organize and rally, demanding that social security be privatized?
Being armed is what changes society? His examples are bogus. How does being armed change anything?
Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on Wed, Feb 6, 13 at 22:00
"The guy needs an editor. And what he considers 'truths' are far from it."
Kavanagh's opinion; David's opinion. No one's right nor wrong, but I think it's the best essay I've read on the subject; I find it well balanced, and I find Kavanagh very lucid. In fact, I think it's more treatise than essay.
It's refreshing to read a non-hysteric talking about the subject of gun control and its implications.
It was nice though to see David's work instead of all those -snip-s. ;D
Esh, I would like to commend you on your repeated attempts to state that you arent interested in doing away with the second amendment. If only you would be heard by those who needs to listen and hear.
I agree with you.
Until that statement can be the basis upon which discussions are begun, Im not sure any real discussion of any value can be achieved.
Again, I do commend you on your true and continual efforts in repeating and repeating this statement since the the discussions began in here after that elementary school slaughter took place with the use of a firearm.
I noticed and have appreciated your efforts.
I hope everyone has.
Thanks, mylab. Pro-gun folks seem to think that those that want change must want to do away with the 2nd amendment. I don't know a single person that does. They think that Obama and his administration want to do away with it. I don't believe that is true.
As you said: Until that statement can be the basis upon which discussions are begun, I'm not sure any real discussion of any value can be achieved.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving were/are not against driving. And people that want increased "gun control" are generally not against people owning guns (I'm sure a few individuals are, but by and large they are not).
Let the discussion begin.
I'd still like someone to give an example in the US where having lots of guns in the citizenry somehow stopped the gvt - police, FBI, national guard, what ever, from doing what ever they pleased, and in fact didn't make it worse.
There is the 1946 case of Athens, TN, but even then they broke into the National Guard armory and stole the guns they used. And that was an incredibly corrupt, small-town sheriff who was shaking down the entire county and so completely outside the law that it seems a bit of a stretch to include it.
Here is a link that might be useful: link
"...so completely outside the law that it seems a bit of a stretch to include it."
Then why do so?
His examples of the Black Power guys carrying fully legal weapons on the state capital protesting the poor treatment by the cops
The FBI, Cointelpro, and local law enforcement decimated the Panthers. Since the Panthers were armed, law enforcement broke in and shot them in their beds - Fred Hampton in Chicago. Or framed for crimes others committed - Geronimo ji-Jaga Pratt. Or instigated feuds (Cointelpro) between black power groups - shooting of Bunchy Carter and John Huggins by members of Ron Karenga's US.
This is a nice one too:
Dear friends who can't tolerate anyone bringing up gun control: You're not going to intimidate me with your !!!!s, ????s, WORDS IN ALL CAPS, namecalling, and threats to unfriend. I am going to speak my mind regardless of your protestations.
I just wish you loved the First Amendment as much as your reading of the Second Amendment. Instead trying to bully people into submission, let us speak freely. Most people aren't calling for a ban on guns contrary to your knee-jerk reactions. We want better regulations on something that is already regulated. We just want improvements. To quote my friend Jim Sanches, there's a difference between regulating and banning.
In fact, I am pro-non-assault-style-guns-with-high-magazine-capacity for civilians for self-defense after thorough background checks, training, and if responsibly maintained.
Respect that America needs to talk about this massacre considering many factors and nuances. So, stop making wild accusations, calling people morons, and trying to shut down discussion.
Dear friends who say that calling for better gun laws is like calling for a ban on cars: First of all, cars are not designed to kill people. Deaths arise from accidents. Secondly, car ownership and driving are highly regulated activities including an elaborate licensing system, insurance mandate, penalties and terms for getting licenses revoked. What we are saying, to quote my friend Mike Stafford, is like calling for seat belt laws after a car crash, not banning cars.
Jim Sanches writes, "If they're going to use the car analogy, fine, let's regulate them as well as we do cars then. We mandate seat belts, headlights, the licensing of every car yearly and liability insurance on every car for starters. Not to mention all the rules of the road, traffic lights, stops signs, etc we all must obey even if we've never violated any of them."
Dear friends who say that Newtown is about mental illness and we should only discuss improving healthcare for the mentally ill: This is like saying drinking and driving is about alcoholism and we should only discuss treatment for alcoholism and not discuss how to prevent drinking and driving.
Dear friends who say that guns don't kill people, people kill people: People with guns kill people. Guns are dangerous like poison is dangerous, especially guns designed for combat. It's not something we want readily available and in every home and public building. Even if people try to be responsible about its storage and usage, accidents and terrible destruction will occur, especially with children and mentally unstable people around. This is a public safety issue. If we can accept restrictions on smoking for public health reasons, why not accept restrictions on gun purchases for public safety reasons?
In general, I think gun control is a public safety issue just like people flying planes or driving cars without proper training is a public safety issue.
Dear friends who say we need guns to protect ourselves from the government: To beat the U.S. government, you're gonna need bigger and better weapons than guns. Would you be in favor of legalizing civilians owning tanks, bombs, fighter planes, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Also, if you really believe the government is out to get you, it's likely that you suffer from a mental illness.
In general, I have a problem with you thinking it's patriotic to shoot government employees with your guns.
Dear friends who treat the Constitution as some holy scripture from God and who think they have divined the correct, original, literal, interpretation of it: News Flash! The Founding Fathers were not psychics who could predict the future. They didn't think of everything. The Constitution doesn't mention online identity theft. Does that mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from it? The genius of the framers of the Constitution is that they wrote a living document that was designed to be amended as we go. There are limits to the Second Amendment as there is to the First Amendment. For instance, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it endangers the public.
There are ongoing debates about how to interpret the Second Amendment. Jeffrey Toobin writes in the New Yorker:
Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d'etat at the group's annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power - as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as "a fraud."
Dear friends who think we need more God in the classroom: Our country is founded on the principle of the separation of church and state because it is dangerous to mix power and religion. Historically, it's led to tyranny. No, we do not need more religion in classrooms. We need more common sense and respect for the give-and-take of our democratic process. We need to insist on fact-based, civil dialogue.
Dear friends who think we need more guns in the classroom to protect our children: Why stop at arming teachers? Why not arm children? How far will you go in thinking that easy access to guns is the solution to the problem of gun violence in our society? Do you want any regulation at all? Do you want buying assault rifles to be as easy as getting a Slurpee from 7-11? Would you allow children to purchase guns? Do you really think easy access to combat weapons is about personal freedom? Do you really think that's what Founding Fathers had in mind when they made enormous sacrifices to build America? I can't understand how you're thinking about this.
Dear friends who fear that your guns will be confiscated: NRA seems to enjoy inciting fears among gun owners that guns will be banned and their weapons confiscated. This is just a fear tactic. I don't see anyone on the national stage calling for this, certainly not on Capitol Hill.
There is a big difference between NRA members and NRA leadership by the way. There are ideas for better regulations that the majority of NRA members agree on, but the NRA leadership does not advocate for them or are fiercely opposed to them. For example, the majority of NRA members support closing the gun show loophole, reporting lost and stolen guns, and states sharing records with the National Instant Background Check System.
Instead of encouraging discussion and real information, NRA spreads fear and misinformation. Please listen to what we are actually saying instead of what you fear we are saying.
Dear friends who say I can't talk about gun control because I've never handled or owned a gun before: Have you ever taken crack and heroin? Do you have a position on what our laws should be regarding those drugs? Perhaps I should shoot up heroin, become an undocumented immigrant, and go to prison before I can call for ending the war on drugs, revising immigration policies and reforming the criminal justice system.
Dear friends who say that Hitler confiscated guns so don't confiscate guns: First of all, the vast majority of people are not calling confiscating guns. I'm certainly not. Secondly, this is just historically false. Hitler relaxed gun control laws of the Weimar Republic. Thirdly, Hitler loved dogs and used the bathroom. It's not a great argument to say Hitler did x, so therefore don't do x.
Here is a link that might be useful: source of course
As long as the mental illness part of the problem is not addressed mass murders will continue to happen.
As far the necessity of guns for protecting individual liberties and freedoms from the state, perhaps the current shift in the nations' opinion vis-a-vis gay marriage is a great example.
So we're seeing more gay people - from a long-stigmatized minority in this country, gradually gaining acceptance to the point of legalized marriage or civil unions. Is that transformation through the 'barrel of a gun'? Are Gay Pride parades filled with gun-toting patriots?
Sleepless how do you go about addressing the mental illness issue?
Unless someone is undergoing treatment how would you even know? Even if they were undergoing treatment what diagnosis would qualify? Would doctors be forced to betray /patient doctor privilege and report medical conditions? What about privacy issues? Would laws like that keep people from seeking treatment? What about people who just snap? Would every
vetran suffering from PTSD be banned from owning a weapon?
It is very difficult to get mental heath care especially if you are uninsured. Access to universal metal healthcare could be a start .....but it won't happen.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on how to address that.
Keep a registry of everyone taking psychiatric meds like anti-depressants? Should they be prevented from buying guys? How will we know if their family members have guns near them? Or if their family member sells them a gun without a background check? Or a registry of gun owners?
What if they own a gun before they are diagnosed? Do we take their gun away?
Dave, IMO the second amendment right is a piece of the counter-gov assemblage. Of course citizen awareness, speaking truth to power, witnessing abuses of power, etc, are another very important piece. Probably more powerful, I agree. However I don't see that as a reason to erode or eliminate the 2nd amendment right.
Consider this: government power is ultimately based on force, force backed up by whatever weapons prevail in one's era, which happens to be guns in our era. Example: if you don't pay your property tribute to your local government, they will eventually disposes you, and they will use guns to do it, if they must. That is how power is maintained. I am not suggesting that resisting taxation with a gun is a good plan, but I bring it up as food for thought.
What does it mean when even in the freest continent on earth, government rules ultimately through force? Unless, of course, one is sufficiently elite that such government power will never come to bear upon one.
This should be put into the next Republican manifesto platform. Not sure why this perpetual meme hasn't been.
So anyway, what about all these loving pops who take their kid to a gun show or firing range and junior proceeds to blow his own head or someone else's head off. Better yet, when junior takes daddy's gun to show and tell and blows little Suzie's head off. Or what about John Does and his weekly fender bender, I mean with all the stress at work, so he takes a little steam off on Joe Q. Public with his little under-the-car seat Uzi (you know, like Mr. Keene's son did). Nothin' 'bout mental illness in these scenarios.
I can contrive to my heart's fanci too.
Pat, to begin with, the 2nd amendment is open to interpretation, as you know. People look to quotes elsewhere to support their POV, one being that the right to bear arms is to prevent gvt tyranny, another POV talks about the states keeping a well regulated militia, how they should be trained, when they should be called to protect the state. The Federalist papers go both ways. The OP thesis completely ignores the latter, focuses on the belief that its the well-armed individual who preserves their freedom against tyranny.
Except then all his examples are bogus. When some group or individual perceives that they're getting the short end of the stick and start using guns as a means of establishing their "liberty", they don't succeed. Ever. He uses the Black Panthers as a positive example, but really? The state pretty much wiped them out. Ex-civil war guys were urged to keep their guns - and how did all that work out? How about Russell Means and AIM? Waco led to Oklahoma City and Timothy McVeigh, using arms to fight for liberty - the guy is considered a domestic terrorist and was put to death.
I'll readily concede that there are people who sincerely believe that their guns are preserving their individual freedom and liberty. But I'm saying that its a myth. Just give me one example where someone, with the force of their guns, was able to reverse or change something the state determined to be illegal. These days, go against the gvt with the use or threat of force, and you're a "terrorist".
I'd like just one example where guns in this country helped gain a human or civil right. Vs the many examples of rights gained in reaction to the use of force. I'd argue that civil rights for Blacks came about more from the revulsion of watching marchers get beaten up than anything the Black Panthers ever did.
Now where he does have a point is that we have a gvt that continues to restrict individual liberty, goes after those who rise against it with extra-judicial killings, warrantless wiretaps and searches, the gvt goes through your email at whim, and so on, and here we have - at least this is my perception - of the very same staunch 2nd amendment gun guys cheering all this on under the guise of the 'war on terror' because gee, those terrorists are dangerous and scary and if widespread wiretaps help catch someone, if reading emails helps, then thats ok. Give the Executive more power, unfettered in his quest to keep us safe from bad guys.
What I often hear from the guns-protect-us-from-tyranny set are vague threats, vague warnings, "You'll see" kind of stuff, without explaining how anybody these days is going to start killing police or FBI or ATF personnel and not have the wrath of the entire state law enforcement down their throats. Its a myth. They out-gun you. And so what, try to amass the kinds of weapons - all illegal - and start a civil war? Want to start shooting those ex-military guys who work for the ATF? Who also coach your kids baseball team?
A couple of anecdotes - I've posted years ago about the what happened around here when three local lads bought some AK47's during the flood of cheap weapons from China in the 90's, modified them to fire as fully automatic weapons. Then stole a big water truck for nobody knows what reason, but when a policeman tried to pull them over, they got out and emptied their guns, killing him instantly. Then went on a guns-a-blazin' escape across the countryside and into the desert, firing their weapons at anybody in a uniform. Result: there were 500+ law enforcement guys here within 12 hours, complete with a couple of black helicopters. So much for taking on the gvt with your weapons.
This is a sub-sect of gun owners who believe this. I'm not so sure that this idea is widely reflected among the hunters, target shooters, those who want a gun for protecting their home. I know both - guys like myself who own guns and aren't concerned about losing them in some gvt grab, nor do I have any illusions about using my shot guns to over-throw 'tyranny', but for the believers, its the holy grail.
Which is fine, but belief in that myth shouldn't prohibit supporting steps that can help keep guns from the hands of robbers and thieves and the mentally ill. Not snarling that any restrictions at all are just the first step down the slope to Gvt tyranny.
"A couple of anecdotes - I've posted years ago about the what happened around here when three local lads bought some AK47's during the flood of cheap weapons from China in the 90's, modified them to fire as fully automatic weapons. Then stole a big water truck for nobody knows what reason, but when a policeman tried to pull them over, they got out and emptied their guns, killing him instantly. Then went on a guns-a-blazin' escape across the countryside and into the desert, firing their weapons at anybody in a uniform. Result: there were 500+ law enforcement guys here within 12 hours, complete with a couple of black helicopters. So much for taking on the gvt with your weapons."-------OH wow, THREE PEOPLE become homicidal and this is an honest representation of how useless the 2nd Amendment is--BRILLIANT.
At the same time I do remember a few years back a couple of armed robbers suited up in protective clothing and had a large well publicized shoot-out with law enforcement.
The goblins were eventually killed but the talking heads on TV and the newspapers went bonkers on HOW OUT-GUNNED the police were by the army of TWO PEOPLE.
Gee, I forget how many dozen law enforcement people were on the scene.
That aside, I find it interesting that you think the U.S. military, especially the National Guard which except for a declared war is actually under the control of each State's governor, are little toy brown-shirts who will mindlessly go out and shoot down their father, mother, brother, sister and other close associates because the president says so.
You live in a very dark world.
You forget that unlike the president, the rest of America was not raised in Chicago thug politics.
This post was edited by RpR_ on Thu, Feb 7, 13 at 17:59
I think that in fact we largely agree. There is absolutely no doubt that any renegade armed action will end very badly.
The bigger picture is, as you have illustrated with a number of examples, that government power is ultimately based in armed force and violence. No in-kind resistance is allowed. Useless demonstration is allowed until it gains some inertia in which case it will be dispersed with whatever level of force is required.
It's a troubling reality.
Thank you, David, for restoring my belief that America hasn't gone entirely mad!
The problem for the last twelve years has not been 9/11, but the raft of oppressive measures and extraordinary powers the People allowed their representatives to enact following that event.
'They' will say that they were following the will of the people - and at that time it was probably true. I have to trust that when the will of the people shifts away from wars and terror, the government will also shift. That is what the system is set up to do, and it is the kind of democracy that the US extols to emerging nations around the world. Unfortunately at the moment it is the worst possible example of what it is trying to sell.
Pat, thats pretty much it.
What I've yet to figure out how the French Gvt fears the people, while we Americans fear the Gvt. And yet the French manage to get their point across with mass marches, country-wide strikes, and the next thing you know, the whole gvt resigns or the issue that set everybody off gets seriously addressed.
At the link is a description what happened during the Depression-era March on Washington by ex-soldiers.
RpR, many thanks for so eloquently presenting the position we're talking about.
I think you may mis understand the National Gaurd? I doubt seriously the US govt could count on their great support in the case of the people vs the govt. You may also be quite surprised of what goes on in the military, underground. Remenber, they are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the power of the day. The striker unit based in this township are well known to many in the area, good citizen soldiers is what I would say. Obviously there is no one who wants to have an armed conflict, how stupid would that be, but some things can only be taken so far.
just remember they seized peoples legal guns after Katrina with no reasons given. it was the state not federal government who did it.
Ff and Cob are going to be so disappointed when they are forced to finally leave this earth no having to have pulled the trigger on a single authority figure from the federal govt.
And ff, you dont have a clue about what you are talking about regarding the military.
Yeah, we know....lot's of them uber-patriots in the Dakotas & Montana with their Ed Gean jackets, armed to the rafters.
David I have a theory as to why the French gov fears the people and you fear your gov.
admittedly its only my theory...but I have always believed that voting is not only a right but a responsibility.
edited for typo's
Here is a link that might be useful: The french VOTE
This post was edited by youngquinn on Fri, Feb 8, 13 at 3:06
Add to which a shortage of opposition parties and a lack of real difference between the two that do exist. Just two versions of 'not-Socialist'.
Plus a 'real' government by unelected appointees who seem to remain regardless of what party is in power.
I believe we're at around 40% of eligible voters actually vote, where as the French is well above 90%. As well, the French run enough candidates from diverse parties that voters can lodge a 'protest' vote in a preliminary round - really gets a politicians' attention.
As for the Republicrat party here..... yup.
Indeed so, the actual government is unelected. This is not something that many are willing to imagine let alone believe.
I don't know enough to pontificate with any authority, but I'm intrigued by the French system of Civil Service where they recruit lots of bright people and send them to the Ecole Nationale d'Administration. Theoretically, they end up with a civil service staffed by very smart people. Years ago, the French folks I knew thought this was a good system.
Socialism at its best, eh?
yes, for the down and outer bunch!
Could you expand on that a little?
Poor people are parasites etc., you know - the usual.
I've never had the impression that our civil service is overly endowed with highly competent, well-trained personnel. Some outstanding exceptions, to be sure, but on the whole.......
I've never had the impression that our civil service is overly endowed with highly competent, well-trained personnel.
I can't critique to that level necessarily, but I do think that government entities at all levels should particularly scrutinize those positions that deal with the public. I think that's where we get a lot of our negative impressions. I know on a local level, I have an abysmal opinion of our county government...based on my first-hand experience. Since that experience, I always vote "No" on local tax issues.
but I have always believed that voting is not only a right but a responsibility.
YQ-- something we FINALLY can agree on.
Oh boy. Having worked for DOD for a number or years(USCEC Ohio Division, Pittsburgh district, Upper Alegheny area) I can attest to the quality of SOME who can only rise due to politics. On the other hand there are some very qualified people at their jobs. The cream does not always rise.
Back to the mental illness issue. If you think it would be difficult then consider the CDC mandate. They track people with diseases from measles to leprosy, to typhoid and TB. Their system includes anthrax, rabies, aids and several dozen more including the affects of illegal drugs and neurological conditions like Huntington's disease. They have the right to quarantine you or put you into a hospital for observation or treatment.
Do you really think this is different?
Physicians are already supposed to report patients who may have violent intentions with even a remote chance of them carrying out their threats. The Aurora shooter had expressed his fantasies and threatened to do exactly what he wound up doing. The University psychiatrist he was seeing (she was prescribing for him)failed to report him to the proper authorities, instead contacting only the University. They in turn, rather than reporting him to the proper authorities as possibly violent, simply dropped him from the school. The psychiatrist went on vacation. Talk about CYA. Had he been held for 72 hours, his meltdown might have been interrupted and the shooting would likely not have occurred but the University did not want the responsibility and the psychiatrist couldn't be bothered. It took a week for the bomb squad to disarm the traps the shooter had left in his apartment and those were just as deadly as the guns he used at the theater.
Please, tell me how impossible it is to track a potential psychotic incident waiting to happen.
Sleepless...I can't argue the point with you. Our worlds are just so different. Not saying mine is better, not saying yours is worse, just saying they are galaxies apart.
I simply don't understand how it could ever be managed....like I said every vet with PTSD would be denied a license. Are you Ok with that? Every Mom who suffered post partum syndrome, every adult trying to deal with sexual abuse....Are you OK with that?
Mental illness is so broad......besides which I doubt that people ,like the cop that is on the run right now, actually seek help......mentally ill people with violent tendancies most often don't understand they have a problem. They think the rest of the world does. Most who commit these violent atrocities are off the radar.
The only answer is to make mental health care universally available and to honestly look at why violence is so prevalent in our culture...get to the root cause of our incredibly violent society.
The University psychiatrist he was seeing (she was prescribing for him)failed to report him to the proper authorities, instead contacting only the University. They in turn, rather than reporting him to the proper authorities as possibly violent, simply dropped him from the school. The University psychiatrist he was seeing (she was prescribing for him)failed to report him to the proper authorities, instead contacting only the University. They in turn, rather than reporting him to the proper authorities as possibly violent, simply dropped him from the school.
No, thats not the way it happened. The school kicked him out after he failed his preliminary exam. The psychiatrist had been seeing him over the course of the semester, and followed the proper channels as laid down by her employer, the University of Colorado at Denver, and presented her concerns to the campus police and others involved. They dropped the ball, not the psychiatrist, and we don't know why they didn't follow up. Hopefully some of these lawsuits will shed some light.
Speaking with a psychiatrist that I know, she stated that in Colorado, a psychiatrist can not turn anyone over to the police. They have to do something first - then they can be kept on a psychiatric hold. But you, or even a psychiatrist, can't just go to the police and tell them so-and-so is crazy and they'll lock 'em up.
IOW, the psychiatrist did what she was supposed to. The school dropped the ball. To top it off, the administration then sent out a a gag order to all students and employees ....then had to resend that.
When I had the gun shop a dude came in looking at handguns. I sort of knew him and really didnt want to sell him any kind a gun. He said he was going to get a carry permit. he did not buy anything from me because my handguns were all custom and not suited to concealed carry. I called the sheriff and suggested I would hate to see this guy with a carry permit. He got one. Nuthin bad ever came from it, The dude is 15 years older. probably has no guns now. I didnt think he was nuts, just the kind who shouldnt be carryin. My point is, just because one persons opinion of hpow someone acts, doesnt hold water. There are no laws for opinions, right or wrong.
It will be the conservatives that go nuts over this. This is government all up in your business, for sure. There are millions of people that take anti-depressants. Should they get listed somewhere so that they can be tracked?
"There are millions of people that take anti-depressants. Should they get listed somewhere so that they can be tracked?"
And you think that they are not? IMO that's pretty naive. That information is out there in cyberspace, right? Just like this conversation. It's just a matter of who wants to use it, when, and why.
Chase, if you honestly think every person with PTSD is violent and threatening or every woman who has had Post Partum depression is violent or threatening then you would be totally wrong. That is a total misconception. Some may become violent or threatening but it is not all that common.
There are classes of medications to treat patients that have few side effects that cause the type of violent affects that some other classes may cause frequently. You might look up some of them and read the script that comes with every bottle of pills. Some of them are simply horrifying. Not all pills are the same. They don't work the same. They affect the brain differently for different people. If your doctor is prescribing anti-depressants for you, you need to be aware of what exactly the pill can do to you and for you. Don't just accept whatever your doctor may prescribe without asking questions.
A doctor should be responsible for the medications he prescribes. If there is a reason he prescribes the ones that have worse side effects then he should have that patient under observation.
Maybe you should read about the thousands of woman who became addicted to the miracle drug Valium in the 60s and 70s and in some cases even later. Have you ever heard of Thalidomide and the side effects it had when it was prescribed for everyone who had a nervous tummy during pregnancy?
Thalidomide was only ever prescribed for morning sickness, so I dont know why you bring that up in a discussion about mental/emotional disorders
That information is out there in cyberspace, right?
I may be naive, but I don't think the information that a particular person is taking Zoloft as prescribed by a doctor is in cyberspace in most cases.
And as I said, that is just what conservatives are afraid of. That the government will be tracking their medications. So if that is the answer to tracking mental illness, expect one heck of a fight.
Of course it isn't in cyberspace. What would be the point of doctor-patient confidence?
Sleepless, I think we are talking at cross purposes so this will be my final comment.
You are the one who said people with mental illness should be tracked in a data base and prevented from gun ownership. Certainly that's how I understood your posts. I am trying to make the point that it is not as easy or as straight forward as you may think.
My question back to you was, does that include people with PTSD, post partum etc. Apparently you agree with me that not all people with these illnesses are violent. Nor are all people who take anti depressants.
I'm willing to bet the ranch that many responsible gun owners take, or have taken, anti depressants.
These issues are extremely complex with no silver bullet....so to speak.
"Of course it isn't in cyberspace. What would be the point of doctor-patient confidence?"
I'm thinking that doctors' notes go into the computer. I have some distrust of anything that gets into a computer which is connected to the internet remaining inaccessible to others, that's all. My own personal concern, that's all. Never mind.
Chase, I did not say anything about data bases or even preventing them from owning guns. I spoke about that subset of patients who have a bad reaction to psychoactive drugs. Stop putting words in my posts.
Young Quinn, Thalidomide was not prescribed only for those who were pregnant although that was it's primary use at one time.
"It was prescribed as a sedative, tranquilizer and antiemetic"
It is back on the market now and apparently the only restrictions are for pregnancy.
My conclusions were drawn from your post Saturday at 16:03.
I'm puzzled at the idea that judging one's mental health should be the condition for buying guns rather than limiting the types of guns sold.
This seems like far more of an infringement on personal liberty to me than managing what types of guns can be purchased to begin with. One idea categorizes the objects in question, the other categorizes the worthiness of individuals.
Also puzzling that this idea should spring from the political stripes of those who deem the government incompetent in administering any sort of health care. Except when they are judging if someone is psychologically well enough to own a firearm?
A very strange lack of consistency going on here ...
"It was prescribed as a sedative, tranquilizer and antiemetic"
(As per Wiki)
It is back on the market now and apparently the only restrictions are for pregnancy. While it's side effects did not include violence, it certainly had disastrous side effects. Is it's use being tracked? You betcha, as much as possible.
"It was prescribed as a sedative, tranquilizer and antiemetic"
(As per Wiki) "
should have finished that quote off Sleepless
"It was prescribed as a sedative, tranquilizer and antiemetic"
(As per Wiki) "FOR MORNING SICKNESS
not for emotional disoerders
Young Quinn, I thought about leaving it in but Wiki isn't perfect as has been pointed out on this form recently. Leaving it out was making it more accurate since it was not prescribed only for pregnant women.
My sister took it for motion sickness, as did her husband. Neither was pregnant.