Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Win-Win Way to Aid Food Security and Climate




War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Who Will Face Down the Gun Lobby?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 19, 2009

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

    Try to imagine that hundreds or thousands of guns including assault weapons were pouring across the Mexican border into Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California, arming criminal gangs who were killing American law enforcement officials and other U.S. citizens.

    Then imagine the Mexican president saying, “Well, we would really like to do something about this, but our political system makes helping you very difficult.” Wouldn’t Mexico’s usual critics attack that country’s political system for corruption and ineptitude and ask: “Why can’t they stop this lawlessness?”

    That, in reverse, is the position President Obama was in last week when he visited Mexico. The Mexican gangs are able to use guns purchased in the United States because of our insanely permissive gun regulations, and Obama had to issue this unbelievably clotted, apologetic statement at a news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon:

    “I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe, to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence. Violence in our own country as well. Now, having said that, I think none of us are under the illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.”

    In other words: Our president can deal with all manner of big problems, but the American gun lobby is just too strong to let him push a rational and limited gun regulation through Congress.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    It’s particularly infuriating that Obama offered this statement of powerlessness just a few days before the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado—and during a month in which at least 57 people were killed in eight mass homicides across the U.S. 

    No other democratic country in the world has the foolish, ineffectual gun regulations that we do. And unfortunately, what Obama said is probably true.

    Earlier this year, when Attorney General Eric Holder called for a renewal of the ban on assault weapons—he was only repeating the commitment Obama made during his presidential campaign—the response from a group of 65 pro-gun House Democrats was: No way. 

    Their letter to Holder was absurd. “The gun-control community has intentionally misled many Americans into believing that these weapons are fully automatic machine guns. They are not. These firearms fire one shot for every pull of the trigger.” Doesn’t that make you feel better? 

    Those Democrats should sit down with Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. “Time and time again, our police are finding themselves outgunned,” Rendell said in Harrisburg last week. “They are finding themselves with less firepower than the criminals they are trying to bring to justice.” 

    The Democratic governor told his own state’s legislators that if they didn’t support such a ban, “then don’t come to those memorial services” for the victims of gun violence. “It’s wrong,” he said. “It’s hypocritical.”

    And why can’t we at least close the gun show loophole? Licensed arms dealers have to do background checks on people who buy guns. The rules don’t apply at gun shows that, as the Violence Policy Center put it, have become “Tupperware Parties for Criminals.” 

    But too many members of Congress are “petrified” by the gun lobby, says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a crusader for sane gun legislation ever since her husband was killed and her son paralyzed by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. 

    Family members of the victims of gun violence, she says, are mystified at Congress’ inability to pass even the most limited regulations. “Why can’t you just get this done?” she is asked. “What is it you don’t understand?”

    Obama, at least, should understand this: He was not elected by the gun lobby. It worked hard to rally gun owners against him—and failed to stop him. 

    According to a 2008 exit poll, Obama received just 37 percent among voters in households where guns are present—barely different from John Kerry’s 36 percent in 2004. But in the substantial majority of households that don’t have guns, Obama got 65 percent, up eight points on Kerry. Will Obama stand up for the people who actually voted for him?

    Yes, I understand about swing voters, swing states and all that. But given Congress’ default to the apologists for loose gun laws, it will take a president to make something happen. 

  E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.

©    2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 13, 2009 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

“Oh but thats to restricting to my want a be me I want to be free. It is the same sin which destroyed the Utopia, the Garden of Eden. Selfish pride and rebelousness which is evan worse today than before the Great Flood.”

Wanting to control myself, be my own govoner instead of some voice in my head (god) telling what to do or the force of the Law as from gov’t for the god in question about my personal life I say no. Nothing prideful or selfish. I would not knowingly hurt another to live my life. Adam and Eve made the mistake of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (one of the attributes of a god) and that was their transgression. Not selfishness. Eve did share. If only they had eaten of the Fruit of the Tree of Immortality (the other attribute of a god) before being kicked out of Eden.


“Oh I forgot the Flood never happened well why do we find sea shells and sea fossils at the top of the Highest Mountains in the world? Where few people have ever been so no they didn’t carry them up with them.”

A simple answer from science, plate tectonics. Our crust of the earth moves over plastic molten magma over millions of years. Average 1” a year. Where do you think the mountains came from in the first place? God waving his gigantic hand?

I ask you in my previous post if you like the way our country is running and how would you improve it to fit your view of the best possible world? You did not answer it. So please get to it. Nice and clear. Concrete examples, not mystic efflorences please. Like do you approve of individuals owning weapons? Not just guns but any sort they can carry on their person for protection.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 12, 2009 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,
I did answer it if every person had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ we would have both personal accountability and personal restraint. Therefore Jesus the Real Jesus of the Bible is the answer, Oh but thats to restricting to my want a be me I want to be free. It is the same sin which destroyed the Utopia, the Garden of Eden. Selfish pride and rebelousness which is evan worse today than before the Great Flood. Oh I forgot the Flood never hapened well why do we find sea shells and sea fossels at the top of the Highest Mountains in the world? Where few people have ever been so no they didn’t carry them up with them. I don’t believe that my answer will come to fluition until Jesus returns to the Earth and deffeats Satan and all rebels in the campaign launched from Armageddon (Har Megeddo, Mount Megeddo). What is the answer short of that occurance what we have now its the best of a the bad choices. We make bad choices to drink and or pop pills or smoke, or shoot up and then drive as adults and they sometimes kill the family of five on the highway at night, its the rebeliousness that you and I are born with I call it the sin nature it leads to selfishness, not selflessness. That is the best answer that is available in flawed world being run by man in his sin nature. The Jehadist wears a suicide vest and walks into a crowded market and blows himself up, because of his wanting to have 70 perpetual virgins and drink all the wine he wants but never get drunk, and because it is the only way that the Mullah’s say he can be assured of Paridise. Selfishness nothing more so again the best answer to a question that is unansewerable at this time due to are sin nature is what we have with all its flaws, and many foul ups.
    Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
        John R. Bloxson Jr.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 12, 2009 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

I wouldn’t call my conception “nowhere” i.e. “utopia” by any means. But then I am all for personal accountability I am just saying we need to be treated as adults. To rise and fall with our own choices in life without the added burden of others putting laws against them (not because they are bad, because they don’t approve of it) which lead to prison and a mark for life which is far worse. Is that the kind of world you approve of? The one we have now! How could it be improved in your estimation Truthnotlies? I asked you this before and you failed to answer it even with all of the words you used. I think we are much closer to your utopia of subjugation than mine of personal freedom. I dare you to explain it this time. There is no Bill of Rights in the Bible and slavery is approved of, even in Heaven.

There were cultures here before the invasion of Europe that lived like I was talking about. Very few laws, minimal legislation and nominal gov’t and everyone lived well. Then the Christian authoritarians came. The Law and Order types with their slave work ethic you so approve of and survives today in this country. [Also called the Puritan work ethic and Christian work ethic.]

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment

religious fundamentalism is such a discussion stopper…

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 11, 2009 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,
If you believe this fantasy more power to you but in America where freedom is being taken for granted where common sence has died there is no personal responsability. It is all some one elses fault I didn’t make the team so I will batter my wife, My uncle sexually abused me so I abused others, I am fat only because it was handed down to me in the family genes, I am an Alcoholic because of the family predisposition. I am a crimanal today serving time because I had no fother figure, or he was always to busy for me, I was unloved. There is no sin in the world we are all making mistakes and we are all victims its not about personal freedoms, or personal responsability. So your Utopia is fine in theory but it dosn’t work in the real world where men and women make very bad choices and must be held accountable. Personal freedom and responsability only work when their is personal accountability. But today no one is responsable, or accountable this is the Oprahtization of America just as the political corectness gone amuck because jokes turn into Law suites 5 bilion against Milley Cyress and friends, and no longer are jokes all of us are to thin skined to day so again we can blame our bad decissions on others and not on ourselves. Well I’m an Alcoholic I have not taken a drink in 22 years but I chose to take that first drink nowing that there was a precondition within my family I still chose to drink no one held a gun to my head and said drink. I am also overwieght but again no oe forced me to over eat I did it to my self and can only blame one person Me, Myself, and I. So your Utopia can not become reality in the climate of the world today no where will it work unless we all decideto truly follow Jesus Christ teaching which evan the church has had problems following All have sined and fallen short of the mark. All are sinners none is rightious no not one! Go ahead and dream of your utopia just as Marx’ and Ingal’s did, just as the trancendentalist did, and just as the Branch Dividian’s and the Jim Jones crowd
in Guyana, and the othr cults that have grown up with their Idea of Utopia but not one of them has survived or developed a True Utopia.
      Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
        John R. Bloxson Jr.
P.S.Christianity holds the answer but man is a sinner warped by a eschewed since of right and wrong so most people just decide for themselves selfishly that their view is the best. I believe real Christianity is the cure but most don’t want the cure they would rather stay in their sins because the cure is to hard it requires personnal rsponsability, and presonnal accoutability.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 11, 2009 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

In an adult society personal restraint is part of it as in ours now just that we would have more of a choice over our lives. Do no harm, consenting adults, cheat, steal, rape, rob are real crimes. Drug use, sexual actions not allowed by the Bible (buying and selling too), thinking and writing things unflattering to the elites aren’t chaotic. Anarchism isn’t a synonym for chaos. Weapons training and ownership is for the individual to protect themselves and each other. Only the criminal and brigand think of it as a way to initiate force against others for true crimes. It was so hard to rob banks in the old west that they had to come in massed groups to survive it. Most were armed and knew how to use their weapons in those cities.

Having too many laws is just as bad as not having enough of the right kinds of laws. For a democratic country we imprison people like a dictatorship. Then we get ultra cheap labor for our corporations.

What is your “ideal” society Truthnotlies?

Report this

By KDelphi, June 9, 2009 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I have no idea how you mean it, but the cats in my yard kill all the bunnies, but, that’s Social Darwinism for you. I thought that you were being sarcastic about Kentucky and guns and such…

If shooting is for fun, use blanks. Otherwise you might blow your own foot off, and have to go to a health co-op to get an artificial limb!! We havent argued anything of substance on this for awhile, so I am gone.

Peace.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 9, 2009 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi:
Anarcissie—cant you disagree without being so acerbic?...

It keeps me from banging my head against walls.  But in the matter of cats, cars and guns, I don’t think anything I wrote was sarcastic.  Neither cars nor guns are necessary, but cars are the bigger threat to me personally and, I think, to most other people.  That isn’t sarcasm or irony (although it certainly has an ironic aspect in the light of the way people talk about them.)  Here I’m talking about vehicles and weapons possessed by private persons.  Certainly the weapons possessed by governments are a bigger threat than either, but for some reason we never talk about them in conversations like this.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 9, 2009 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—cant you disagree without being so acerbic? I would hate to be collectively stuck with someone who is so constantly sarcastic.

If “guns are fun” for you , you have no worries. I didnt say cars were necessary, I said that they served another function besides killing. Cars kill too.
Alot of things kill. But there is no other purpose for a gun, except, “fun” for which you could just use blanks or rubber bullets.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 9, 2009 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,
wherer do the presonal restraints in your Ideal country come from? If it is left entirely up to each individual then you have Anarchy or Chaos so where should controls to protect society come from? The reason Aids continues to rise is because man will not restrain himself, dangerious lifestyles do not restrain their behavior. But to much control as Communism and socialism don’t help either plus you are wrong in that we have
the most people in our prisons in the free world but not in the world. China beats us hands down both statistically and in who they jail but the worst by precentage of population is North Korea.
yes we may have some in prison who would be better served outside of prison but when a man rapes a 5 year old girl and recieve a one year sentence in Oklahoma, in Colarado anopther pediphile gets 5 years house arrest because of his short statue, and one in Vermont recieve 5 years probation the system is not working. Your posativistic law is not the way to go Society in order to run has to have laws and if they are left up to the people alone without any forms of restraints than everyone does what he thinks is right for himself in his own eyes you have what hppened to the ten northern tribes of Israel here child sacrifice and child prostitution was rampant before they were conquored in 723 B.C.  Lets see where that leads it leads in the end to lawlessness so where do we build restraints to safeguard the most freedoms,it isn’t positavistic law which would have okeyed sharia law for the Muslim society and the Holicaust for the German society in the same community. In both cases the society Okeyed some very dangerious activities experimentation genetics with the menally handicapped, and disabled, honor killings, disccrimanation of some ethnic groups, and religions. You don’t answer the question when you try to point out that some people use drugs and never hurt another perso but are you sure of that the parents are hurt the siblings are hurt emoitionally so again drugs don’t just damage the individual they cause others to suffer. And which person using drugs recreationally is going to committ a crime drive under the influince and cause a accident the problem is that we can’t know which ones will and will not do something wrong. We have to restrict some activities because they can be dangerious to others not because they will always end in crime or accidental vehiclular homicide, or rape another person during a drug induced state. We as a nation are the freest in the world but there has to be perametters are we would end up in anarchy followed by dictatorship. Europe just reputiaded its socialist systems in Germany, Italy Belgium, Spain, England, France, and Norway while under the Obamessiah we are moving towards socialism so I realy don’t see how you Idealistic society will ever work it has never done so before though it has been tried Your Utopia has one major problem Man and his eschwed Idea of right and wrong.
    Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
      John R. Bloxson Jr.
P.S. Religion isn’t the answer by itelf, the freedom from religion isn’t the answer because that then restricts and inprisons religious people and descriminate against them. So agian there has to be foundational Laws which will if broken always end in incarceration. Who decides how much drugs is to much you the individual I can handle my alcohole. Well I Can’t I must stay away but for 20 years I didn’t and it is only by the grace of the Almighty God that I didn’t Kill someone while drunk, so I can’t drink not even one some people can’t smoke one Joint it will hook them into a increasing need for something stronger so please stop talking in Idealist impossabilities.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 9, 2009 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

Well first you mislabel me with dictatorships like the former USSR and present ones like N. Korea, but why? In both of those countries they have strict gun laws and drug laws and porn laws little different from our own. Only more sever in punishment in some cases. (The USA has more people incarcerated than any other country on earth and more than all combined! Isn’t that enough for you?) I am against dictatorship by anybody. So I have no connexion at all with them unlike you who have more affiliations with them ideologically than I ever will. Oh you may use different reasoning and rhetoric but the outcomes are the same.

I am for more personal autonomy unlike you who likes to have sever laws restricting what people can do amongst themselves. I am not anti-capitalist, I am for restraint of it as all things should be.

Personal sovereignty of the individual with in a society is something not too many cultures in the past have attained. It can be done but we must have a society of adults making our own decisions for ourselves in drugs, lifestyle, sex etc without others not approving then making laws against them. Between consenting adults is the rule, or should be. Now how does that square with the USSR or China?

To put it simply Truthnotlies you are wrong again!

Could you live in a country like that? I don’t think you or many could. Just look a Prop. 8 and the voters who decided that others can’t live lives they don’t approve of. Democratic-socialism at its worse. Some things shouldn’t be voted on. It should be left alone.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 6, 2009 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,
You sound no differant in your denounciation of capitalism, and Democracy then Usama Ben ladin accept your Ideology has been tried in the Former soviet Union, and in China and North Korea it isn’t working and has never worked, and will never work radical socolism just replaces one set of Boses with another. The Bolshivics made up less than 10% yet they through manipulation, blackmail inprisonment and murder came to power through absolute fear. Read the real History of National Socialism or Also known as Communism. The world is filled with people all are flawed Individuals so there is no perfect system. So we have come to find that a system with checks and balances works best, not to say it is perfect it is just the best form of government man has come up with, and it has it’s roots in the Bible not the Communist Manefesto, or Das Kapital, or Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. All men are created equal,not some men, but that equality has a price and it is personal responsability. When a man get a loan for a house he Knows He really can’t afford it is not the banks fault that he files bankruptcy. Men make eschewed choices and should pay for those bad choices. I did not leave school to sell drugs for a fast buck, I didn’t join a gang because I had no father figure infact the biggest reason for no father’s in homes is social welfare which makes it impossable to get neded help while the father is present and that is a policy straight out of Das Kapital. So Socialist who live in Glass houses should not be throwing stones at other glass house until they fix Thei own Bias problems.
    Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
      John R. Bloxson Jr.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 5, 2009 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

The whole reason for parole in the first place was because for the longest time people served their full time with no incentive to be better in prison. TM is a mind/body technique and it was successful. It would help if we didn’t have such punitive laws against personal choice. Most people who have sex and use certain drugs do fine even if it is against you Bible. It is only a very few who might actually knowingly hurt another and that is the line that is where the law needs to be.

You are for ruining lives and draining the vitality of the country with never ending war on itself. The number of prisons and the size of their population is a negative. Once those in power found they could make money and accrue power by turning their society and its laws against certain members of the population they had no use for (blacks, Hispanics, and poor whites) it was wonderful! For them and bad for society. Our militarized police and the way they treat us is telling and not good.

We are living in your world Truthnotlies and it stinks! Now if we could only live in mine for 95 years to compare. I bet I would win.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 4, 2009 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment

Night-Guant,
You are partailly right but Transendental meditation is religion of the self, so I some what miss the point of that argument. If you are refering to Drugs it only takes a small amount to cause someone to make a bad Choices and drive they can then turn a motor vehicle into a weapon even unintentionally so I still believe Drugs including Alchohol are a bad Idea and should be a criminal act we will dissagree on this, thats alright that is our right. As to the Comment of another about guns no matter what they personnaly think about people of the south they are showing the same kind of biggotry that the Klan, and Nazi’s do they may not be as vehement but they have marganalized a large part of American Citizens, and what about the Gangs in Northern, and Western Cities with their illegal weapons I fill much saffer down here in the south with people who know safely how to handle guns then in the northern and Western big cities where they point and spray. Guns are a tool no better or worse than any other tool I have used one to help feed my family in lean times and do not take the safty off until I am sure of what I am aimming at, I also don’t plan to go out and take revenge on anybody with my gun. All my guns are locked up and my home defense weapons have trigger locks and the Pistol and magazine are seperated but close at hand. poeple who don’t like guns don’t have to own them but I personally will continue to suport my Second amendment right and that of any American law following Citizen.  Every country that takes the guns out of the law following citizen soon has to better arm its police ask England where for a hundred years a night stick was all they needed to patrol but now all Bobbies (Police) must be armed not because the law following citizen are a problem; but the criminals know that all establishments are fare game and they don’t have to worry about the Homeowners ability to defend his or her home. I also hold the Idea that better training prevent gun accidents. I also believe that if a judge has ruled that a person is a danger that his name should Immediatly added to a national data base so that he or she may not buy a gun ever again. The same should be automatic with all violent offenders. If said violent offender uses a gun in the commission of a second crime it should be two strikes your out no perole no probation but serve a full mandintory sentence.
      Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
        John R. Bloxson Jr.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 4, 2009 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

KDelphi:
‘Anarcissie—I agree somewhat, but, what other purpose does a gun have besides shooting something alive?

Cats, unfortunately, have been almost a necessity. ...’

I think you mean cars.  Cats are definitely a necessity.  Without cats, humans would not have been able to build and stay in cities—they would be overrun by rodents.  Thus, no civilization.  I suppose that’s not an unalloyed good, but we’re stuck with it now.

Neither cars nor guns are necessary, but both are fun or at least comforting.  As Baudelaire wrote in his Satanic Litany,


...
Toi qui, pour consoler l’homme frêle qui souffre,
Nous appris à mêler le salpêtre et le soufre,

Ô Satan, prends pitié de ma longue misère!

To cheer him, Thou didst teach frail man, Thy friend,
How aptly sulphur and saltpeter blend,
Satan, O pity my long wretchedness!

  —http://fleursdumal.org/poem/191

One could say something similar about cars, whose original functions were to convey the status of the stuck-up and provide joy rides for restless, aching youth.  The degradation of the car into a mere conveyance for wage-slavery and grocery shopping is unspeakable.

What concerns me, though, is whether someone’s shooting or driving is going to affect me in some harmful way.  I’ve certainly be threatened by cars a lot more than by guns.  I could have avoided the gun thing entirely by not hanging out with crazy Southerners in the back woods, whereas I can’t avoid being buzzed by cars.  The fact that people pretend they are necessary simply deepens the offense.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 3, 2009 at 9:38 pm Link to this comment

TruthNotLies an addendum to what you said about rescidavism rates. Both LSD therapy and Transcendental Meditation also were proven to lower the return rates too by 20-30%. The removal of laws that make formally crimes that are not themselves criminal. The difference between growing, selling and smoking marijuana and those who rob others. A distinction lost in the racism and corporate control of our laws and our lives. 95 years of Drug War warps our country and its founding. Ending that will be a step away from that camel of fascism from getting all the way under that tent of the people.

We also must keep the Wall of Separation of State from Church that has been badly damaged and infiltrated by the theocrats. Obama is one of them that is carrying on the theocratic invasion of our secular Republic.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 3, 2009 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt,
Prison are aplace no one should want to go to but I agree that what we now have as prisons is not the way to go. We should be taking a page from Florida where the Religious run prisons have a less than 30% residavism rate while the secular Prisons have a 67% residavism rate, so where do the criminals in the prisons sign up to volunterily go but there now exist such a long waiting list that most will never get in where they do learn how to control the baser instincts that put them in prison in the first place.  We will unfortunately not chang the prison system with the liberal psychologist and Psychiatrist that want us to blame all our bad habits sins and criminal acts on others. We don’t have to be victims millions of people have been abused but never became abusers, and milions of us have been cut from teams yet we never blamed the coaches. Many of us have been bullied but we didn’t blow a gasket as the Columbine two, or some others. It wasn’t until well meaning but misguided Social workers and Psychologist got a hold of the systems that most of this garbage that goes on today in our prison happened.  I"m not saying that our prisons were always run properly because the fact is the more power you give an individual the more tempting it it becomes to abuse it.  Do our prisons need reform? Yes badly but not reform for chang sake only, reforms that really work should be adopted and observed for duplication.  But the unfortunate truth is that until Christ returns there will be those who will comitt crimes. We will continue to need prisons because of mans prederiliction to comitt crimes, ever since Cain slew Abel. What should be done make harsher sentences, that will stop some, but not all so what’s the answer God’s Grace not Allah, not Buddha, not the Hindu sects, and not even mainline denomitions of Christianity, each person must make a moral choice of their own free will not to sin, not to comitt crimes, not to hate their fellow man, and to hold life to be sacred not just some lives but any. Children are a gift from God, never a punnishment, so when they are seen as a burdan or a punnishment today all over the world they are left out to die or they are killed in the womb, or they actually in Sweeden can now abort a baby because it’s not the right sex tell me how this attitude is afriming and protecting children would you?  The Liberals want their free sex without the normal conequices of such actions this in fact doesn’t afirm life it cheapens it as we have seen over the last 36 years.
    Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
        John R. Bloxson Jr.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 2, 2009 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment

Too many fixate on the toys and ignore the fetisher. It is the human factor that is important. However if we use risk as a reason to outlaw it and then make things many times worse with a growth in those wonderful factories of human misery—-prisons. Just the holy solution that TruthNotLies loves. I don’t. I am a Humanist. Prisons are anti-human.

Too many laws make too many into criminals. Dictatorships of all stripes are just glutted with Law and Order with heavy penalties used liberally. [The only time they are liberal.]

Report this

By KDelphi, June 2, 2009 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I agree somewhat, but, what other purpose does a gun have besides shooting something alive?

Cats, unfortunately, have been almost a necessity. They have a non-violent purpose, even if they cause violence probably more often than guns.

Guns may have been a necessity, say, when this country was founded. People needed to hunt, we had no standing military, so the govt needed a well-armed citizenry.

Guns might be fun, depending on which end of them you are on.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 2, 2009 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

If you were going to ban things because of the risk factors involved, I think possessing and driving an automobile would come out far ahead of any drug, even the legal ones like alcohol and tobacco, or firearms possession.  I’m threatened by drivers every day (I get around by bicycle a lot), whereas I’ve been threatened by a gun only once in my life.  My relationship with drugs has been perfectly happy except for some of those dreary neighborhood parties in my childhood where people got drunk and sang “You are my sunshine” considerably more than it needed to be sung.  Drugs are good, guns are fun, but slinging around a couple of tons of metal at high speeds is something that needs to be watched carefully.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 2, 2009 at 1:09 am Link to this comment

It is true that guys who love guns have a very small resaon for it…

Since alcohol is probably the no. l cause of fatal auto accidents, why not ban alcohol? Oh, yeah, we tried that. IT DOESNT WORK!!

I’ve never hear do anyone having a fatal accident on pot.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, June 1, 2009 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment

Harmless to who? drugs kill innocent people on our Highways the three girls in the Pinto in Indiana were hit by a van traveling 90 miles an hour and the Driver was strung out on dugs and booze, yet every one pointed a finger at the pinto which was sitin still on the side of the road.  You can cry fowl but the truth is not what you seek yes I agree that rapist should have a mandentory minimum, murderers should be held accountable not their parents or coaches,if you do the crime than you must pay the time whether its drug related or not. So instead of definding a criminal you should be calling for more mandintory sentencing with other crimes. Drugs kill you just as dead as a knife, tire Iron, gun, Ammonium Nitrate bombs excetra… So stop bull craping about how unfair having a small amount of drugs get a minimum while some other crimes don’t. Help us pass mandintory minimums for these othe crime you pointed to. Cime is Crime period.
    Trithovrlies/Truthoverlies.
        John R. Bloxson Jr.
PS: We are being told that we are victums by the liberal press and can’t stand up to crime if a gun owners shoots a criminal in the process of that criminal Breakng in the Victim according to the press is the criminal, while the gunowner is villified as the bad guy in he press, so stop and listen to yourselves victums are made by liers and criminals not law abiding citizens.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 13, 2009 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

Night Guant—I would agree ,heartily , with every word of that.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, wasn’t paraquat an herbicide used to spray coca plants? Part of the Drug/Civil wars the USA stuck its nose in central and south America? It promotes drug use, gun use, criminal thoughts and ideas ending in corruption of the whole society. Still going strong since 1914.

It should make everyone wonder why we have mandatory minimums for non-violent owners of small amounts of illicit chemical compounds but rapists, murderers, child rapists and robbers (armed) don’t and get let out to be replaced with these harmless people? What is the subtext that we get from this? What is a crime if Bush & Cheney go unmolested by the law they broke? Should we then free everyone in prisons and close them down along with every law school and court room? If Obama fails us I would solidly recommend it to follow the ethos we will now be living under. What is good for them is good for the rest of us.

It isn’t the amount of weapons you have in the society it is the type of society you have in the first place.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 12, 2009 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, wasn’t paraquat an insecticide used to spray coca plants? Part of the Drug/Civil wars the USA stuck its nose in central and south America? It promotes drug use, gun use, criminal thoughts and ideas ending in corruption of the whole society. Still going strong since 1914.

It should make everyone wonder why we have mandatory minimums for non-violent owners of small amounts of illicit chemical compounds but rapists, murderers, child rapists and robbers (armed) don’t and get let out to be replaced with these harmless people? What is the subtext that we get from this? What is a crime if Bush & Cheney go unmolested by the law they broke? Should we then free everyone in prisons and close them down along with every law school and court room? If Obama fails us I would solidly recommend it to follow the ethos we will now be living under. What is good for them is good for the rest of us.

It isn’t the amount of weapons you have in the society it is the type of society you have in the first place.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 12, 2009 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

We dont have room for violent criminals…we have to keep locking up pot smokers, and, convince Afghanistan to do it with opiate addicts…“treatment”, for those that want it, is just too expensive…I suppose that if the Americas stopped growing pot and coca, and, Af-Pak stopped growing opiates, everyone would just stop…or, they could try murdurous paraquait (sp?) again..


Right…..

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 12, 2009 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

The correct term is ‘selective fire’ which unless you are a Fed or have a special license you can’t own or carry. [Blame the alcohol war which directly precipitated the ban on military fire arms in 1934. The Depression Era spate of bank robberies also helped.]

We also need to reduce the tension caused by the Drug War and War on human activities of choice. That would reduce that claw of magnified profit down to normal. Just imagine if caffeine or tobacco were illegal? We already know with steroids and amphetamines et al has done to damage our society and fill our prisons to the bursting point. An ill society is certainly identified by the number of laws and what they do to fill the prisons.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 11, 2009 at 11:32 pm Link to this comment

Paul_GA—I just think that the “shininess” of owning a gun can become a “guy” thing, that pits citizens against citizens. If you have never had to point a gun at a person. then, you really dont know if you could use it or not. I can guarantee you that.

But, the gun laws are unlikely to change anytime soon, as the gun lobby has so much money to lobby congress with…I do not “sit around scared all of the time”—I dont live alone, and, there are things worse than death. But, I have a personal problem with shooting at peopel for anything other than self defense, so…

peace.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 10, 2009 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

As I said in another string (“Democracy at Gunpoint Guarantees U.S. Defeat”), I’ve never had to squeeze a trigger at another human being; nor do I want to, KDelphi. I pray to the Good Lord it won’t come to that. But if it *does* ... my prayer will be, “Lord, don’t let me miss!”

Besides, I’d sooner have the peace of mind that comes from being armed and capable than be scared all the time because I’m unarmed in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world. I do not see it as a “false sense of security” at all, KDelphi.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 10, 2009 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment

Paul_GA—I think that guns give a false sense of security.

HOw many times have you actually shot at a person? Not turkey shoot, not target practice, shot at a person…you feel that you have a right, and, I feel certain that I have a right not to be shot.

There’
s not much that we can say from here.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 10, 2009 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

Do you mean *fully*-automatic weapons, KDelphi, when you write of “automatic” weapons? Are you aware that such weapons are beyond the capability of all but the richest or most lawless Americans to own? (To own one legally, one has to pass a federal background check with photos and fingerprints and pay a $200 transfer tax on top of the incredibly high price they bring on the legal market—$5,000 or higher; sometimes extremely high.)

And as for your “right” to know whether or not I’m carrying concealed legally, well, it might be better if we both lived in a state where one can carry openly legally (like Arizona, for instance). Here in Georgia, so I’ve learned, one can carry openly legally if one has a concealed-carry permit. I may be wrong about Georgia, but I’m sure that some of the more rural Western states have open-carry laws.

I happen to believe that the less the government knows about firearms owners and what they own, the better; simply because the MORE they know, the easier it’ll be to implement a total ban on owning virtually anything that goes “bang”. It’s the principle of the thing, KDelphi. Let a government get too big for its britches and before long, it’s a dictatorship.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 10, 2009 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

Paul_GA—with mutual respect, no one grew up in a more rural areas than I, at least for part of my life. (I lived for 2 yrs in a place , where, they sharecropped and, if you didnt hunt ground hog, you ate tomatoes all autumn) I have seen the “benefits” of gun ownership, on my often-uneducated rural neighbors. (i am not talking “non-collegge educated” here)I saw many more gun accidents and miseries than self defense. I saw much more killing coyotes for the hell of it than hunting for food. I am not necessarily anti-hunting (its alot kinder than factory farming), nor anti self defense. (I am certainly not pro-the present govt)But, that is not alot of what I saw. YOu have to understqand that lax guns laws also apply to people who have no fricking sense at all…not just you guys.

NOw, in an urban setting (not necessarily here by choice), I see even more stupid uses of automatic weapons. I have not seen anyone defending themselves from govt repression with them, yet. But, I have seen alot of people get drunk and kill friends…mostly at bike rallies. So, yes, I am afraid of people with guns. I am afraid of white supremecists with guns NOw, maybe its the people that I had in my past. (I find myself having to bring that up to try to explain my position) But, they are still around(some of them didnt blow each others’ brains out) and, now, can carry a concealed weapon from a gun show without any registrataion—-which would be useless anyway, since it must be destroyed within 24 hrs.

I dont think that that’s fair. If you have a right to carry, I have a right to know.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 8, 2009 at 6:07 am Link to this comment

Paul_GA:
‘That’s the idea, Night-Gaunt; to keep the people scared of one another so they’ll want the “good, wonderful, benevolent” State to come to their rescue. ...’

I think there has been a lot of infantilization going on in American culture for some time.  You’ll notice that the ages at which one can legally consent to sex, marry, drink, drive and so forth have been constantly raised.  Education in special environments is prolonged, often simply for the sake of prolonging it—although that may have been reversed in recent years.  Fear and a belief that people can’t take care of themselves has become a sort of national hobby.  I used to think this was the result of a rising standard of living, but the standard has been declining and the fear goes on.  I don’t think it’s a government plot, however.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 7, 2009 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

With respect, KDelphi, you don’t understand living in a rural area, far from the nearest law enforcement, and having to depend upon yourself for your own protection. You also don’t understand the mindset of someone who has lived around guns all his/her life and has no fear of them because that shootist knows weapons have no will of their own and cannot do evil without a human hand acting upon them.

I’m not trying to make a shootist out of you, mind; I’m just trying to express that you and I have different values, and instead of you inflicting your values upon me, we should try to come to a mutual understanding that enables both of us to live our own way and leave one another alone.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 6, 2009 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

Yes I do know but you are ignoring what a human will do who wants to do bodily harm to another. Having a gun isn’t a prerequisite to them doing something. You on the other hand may need that gun to kill them. If you can. Most do not have the will or inclination to. So from the beginning you may be at a disadvantage. Human psychology, know thy self and the deranged.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 6, 2009 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

You guys just dont understand what it is like to live in an urban neighborhood—and not a great one—and know that some of your crazy and drunk neighbors have concelaed automatic weapons.

Its a visceral thing, you know? I KNOW how crazy some of my neighbors are…and I know that alot of their kids are pretty much on their own.

We may be friends or neighbors, but, if you have a gun and I dont, I am at a disadvantage, if I know that ‘your” are unstable.. And I dont ever want to shoot augn agin. I know that that is a choice. But its not a fair one to have to make.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 6, 2009 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

That’s the idea, Night-Gaunt; to keep the people scared of one another so they’ll want the “good, wonderful, benevolent” State to come to their rescue.

I think it was Mencken who said, in effect, that the whole of practical politics is keeping people fearful and wanting to be rescued by the State from mostly imaginary hobgoblins.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 6, 2009 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

I find the Gun Lobby paranoia to be more distracting than helpful. Until we stop considering our armed neighbors to be automatic enemies we will have more of this nonsense.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 6, 2009 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I will reply here as well…where I used to work, they brought in Union busting lawyers, and, management told eveyone that, if we voted for a Union, that it would “destroy mgnt/labort relations” and that it wasnt “Putting the clients first”. Me and one fellow worker, “crusaded” hard , for what everyone had wanted before they were scared off by mgnt, just the day before.

In my opinion, more sick time and shorter hours wouldve imporoved cient care…but they were afraid.

Especially the “aides”, who were not “degreed” and felt vulnerable.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 6, 2009 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

KDelphi:
Anarcissie—I am very curious, because I see that you say it again and again…that “workers have no desire to own the means or production”, and, i just wondered what you are basing that on, given the social and class structure that prevents them from doing so in the US asnd other capitslitsic countries. ....’

(I imagine this is in response to my last post here, which was supposed to go in the Socialism topic and was placed here by Truthdig instead.  I will make my reply here and copy it there.)

My belief that most workers are uninterested in owning and controlling their means of production is derived from the following:

1.  50 years of experience in suggesting and attempting to start unions and cooperatives in various places I’ve worked.

2.  Reports of experiences similar to mine from others who did something similar.

3.  Declining union membership in the U.S.

Admittedly, (1) and (2) are anecdotal, but they correspond with (3).

The social and class structures do not materially and objectively prevent people from forming unions and cooperatives.  The general culture—of increasing passivity, fear, helplessness, dependency, hero-worship, great-leaderism, statism and so forth—probably does its share.  But I am not sure of the full diagnosis; to some extent the situation is a mystery to me.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 5, 2009 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I am very curious, because I see that you say it again and again…that “workers have no desire to own the means or production”, and, i just wondered what you are basing that on, given the social and class structure that prevents them from doing so in the US asnd other capitslitsic countries.

Just consider the obstacles one would have to overcome to go from a lineworker , being lied to about Unions by Union busters, and, becoming a business owner..one reason Unions do not flourish here (as they have in other “free” societies) is their almost total ineffectiveness .

Union membership raises the standard of living in almost every country where membership is widespread. This has never truly happened here..

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, May 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

ardee:
’“So, how are you going to stop these ‘libertines’ from doing the stuff they want to do and are capable of doing, if not use state power?  This is not a rhetorical question.  My perhaps incorrect assumption was that, if you found libertarians insufficiently enthusiastic about the use of state power, you desired to see more of it.  Correct me if I’m wrong.”

You are wrong..I’m glad that’s settled then..[wink] I had thought my previous post detailing the way socialism is structured and administered would have settled this misconception you hold about my lusting after state power. ...’

I wasn’t thinking of you lusting after state power.  I just think the mechanism of socialism needs to be identified.  First of all, I define socialism as “the ownership of the means of production by the workers, or by the community generally”.  The provision of Welfare by the state, which seems to be often confused with socialism, is another issue—a capitalist, fascist, or monarchical state could have Welfare.  (Observe Bismarck.)  I believe socialism is a proposition about the means of production, about labor and alienation and all that.

Socialism as I define it obviously requires that the workers, or the community in general, desire to own and control the means of production.  They’re going to have to pay attention to how their work is organized and performed.  They’re going to have to be the management

In my experience, most people do not want to do this.  In fact, they don’t even want to form unions to get some influence over their workplace without having to manage it.  The few who do, go off and work for themselves, or form co-ops or partnerships, or traditional capitalist enterprises, where they get the people who don’t want to manage their work to work for them, and of course exploit them, because that’s the way the game is played.

How are you going to insert socialism into this situation?  If anything, the world seems to be moving the other way, towards increased dependency, passivity, fear, repression, and worship of great leaders.  Of course this process leads to a wider and wider gap between the leaders and the led, and contributes to the violence of the struggle for power between sets of leaders and between the leaders and their subjects, to imperialism, war, ecological and social destruction, and so on.

I could go on, but that’s the gist of the problem.  I don’t see how voting for some newer and better leaders or laws is going to change it.  You can’t hold a gun to people’s heads and force them to accept autonomy and freedom.

Report this

By KDelphi, May 4, 2009 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

JOhn—Lemme hazard a guess…you are in favor of YOUR “social program” until you can get back to work on your own.

A little hypocritical , dont you think?

Report this

By Trithoverlies, May 4, 2009 at 8:16 am Link to this comment

What is Communism but a big welfare State what is Europe today where a terrorist can recieve unemployment compensation? Communism in its pure form is unatainable but all forms that have been practiced and are being practiced today have ended in Dictatorship, National Socialism (NAZI"S) is to the left of Socialism and Cummunism is to the Left of National Socialism. On the right is Devine Right Monarchy. Which is also Dictatorship, so Democracy is a mid point and a Social Democracy where we are today is just left of Democracy as it was intended to be. I am a 50 year old male just verily making it on Social Security Disability Compensation and would like to get off so I went back to School but now the money has run out and I am still two years from graduation. I live daily with a pain level hovering between 5 & 7 on the 10 point pain scale I suffer from Reflex Sympathetic Distorphy, and a 50% hearing loss. Both of which some people have used as excuses to give up but I am still trying to get off the welfare rolls so others more desperate can get on them. I don’t believe that unrestrained big government will help infact i’m 85% sure it will only make things worse we have lived with big Government since the 1930’s has it helpped No we have more people today under the poverty line by precentage than ever before and it was already at 37% in 1999 so we can’t blame Bush for it the Clenton Adminastration was in power than and the poverty line had stayed fairly close to the same since the Carter Admenistration some 22 years before. So Big Government doesn’t work, Unrestrained Capitalism doesn’t work, Socialism doesn’t work and Communism doesn’t work where does that leave us?  I am for a Hybred of Capitalism/Democracy with some social programs but restrained in by fisical responsabilities. The problem is that so many have bought the lie that Government should hold all the answers which for some unfathanable reason we continue to vote for bigger, and bigger Government even though in our soul we know it does’t work. I thank it’s wishfull thinking that an Administration that has more Tax frauds than ever running it will be able to solve the poverty problem, the Middle East problem, the Health care problem, the Terrorism problem, the graft and corruption problem, and the Mortgage problem. So what is the answer to these problems I believe it is Real Christianity not the fake taught by the false church that sees Jesus as your buddy or pal rather than Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer.  Should we have a personal relationship with Jesus Yes but it must be on His terms not yours or mine. He must be both Savior and LORD this is where most people today balk LORD. What does it mean for Jesus to be LORD of your Life? what is the deffinition of LORD? Lord A ruler or Master, the head of a fudal state (Middle Ages 550-1450 AD), GOD, Jesus Christ, a Title of a Nobelman in Great Britain, to be overbearing toward someone. Websters New World dictionary. A ruler or Master best fits what we are to do with Jesus the Christ He is more than a friend He must be King of your Life, but thats the problem we in our rebelliousness don’t want a master we want to be the master which has caused problems since Adam and Eve rebelled and ate the forbidden fruit. It has caused wars, atrocities, and all sort of calamities through out history. Democracy mixed with a little Socialism is the best answer short of Jesus Christ. I don’t know how we got on this rabbit trail but Gun Lobby or Anti-Gun lobby are both part of the Democratic answer I believe in my right to bare arms maybe some of you don’t that is your right but you do not have the right to tell me what I can and can’t own using the money I earned during my 35 years of work till my conditions worsened.
        Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
            John R Bloxson Jr

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, May 1, 2009 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

Thank you, KDelphi. As the saying goes, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

I might add that the last time I saw my doctor for a follow-up, he did tell me that of all the hearing-impaired people he’d met, I had the widest-ranging vocabulary and the best way of expressing myself with both the written and the spoken word. Doubtless it’s my being a passionate reader—and books like St. Augustine’s “City of God” and St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” are not exactly books for blockheads.  smile

Report this

By KDelphi, May 1, 2009 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

Paul_GA—Please do not think that I was implying that you do not deserve to live and to have your needs met in life. I believe that you certainly do.

You seem to be a very intelligent and thoughtful person.

We may just disagtee about how we get there…

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 30, 2009 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

I expect that if worst came to worst, KDelphi, I may die—certainly without the medications I get. But I don’t have to like being where I am, do I? I guess the last shred of individualism and rebelliousness I have is my belief in RKBA.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 30, 2009 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—That is one of the most interesting concepts that I have seen in some time…honestly! I wish I had seen your answers. I have had things “disappear”, too. Who knows where some of them go—-whoooo!! scary….

There are no links there…do you have any more? It does sound Utopian, in both the good and the bad sense.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 30, 2009 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

Paul_GA—Yes, but, if we had no govt safety net, what would you live on? I am not being argumentative. Alot of people seem to put social security outside of the realm of “govt programs”, but it is about as collectivist (and not voluntary) as you can get… I know that you paid into it, but, so did I, but not enough to collect anything because, most of them time, I was paying into PERS (Public Employees Retirement System). To recieve crappy medicaid, I had to give that to the state of ohio…it wouldve made a “survivable” income, if I had not had to quit 6 mos ealier than you have to to collect…well, maybe not enough now…

Anarcissie—Why are you so certain that a Socialist Democracy would be based on war, hierarchy and oppression? I dont think that it has to be. But, I am not strictly a Socialist. I know that what we are doing is not working…I am open to other answers…I know thaT I am anti-Imperialist, anti-war, anti-oppression and anti-class…I think that class divisions prevent egalitarianism. I will check out the link you gave…thanks…

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, I myself am a disabled blue-collar worker receiving Social Security for my deafness, diabetes and sleep apnea; I know what you mean.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 30, 2009 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi—I wrote a reply to answer some of your questions, but it disappeared.  Maybe it’s been attached to some other topic—Truthdig does that occasionally.  My particular path toward anarchism would be to replace coercive institutions with non-coercive ones, starting from the ground up.  See http://www.1freeworld.org/anaprax1.htm for an example of that kind of thinking.  Needless to say, nothing is going to happen as long as most leftists believe that state power is their best option—that you can achieve peace, equality and freedom with war, hierarchy and repression.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 30, 2009 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

Paul_GA—If you had worked for years with clients who would never be independent, you might not feel that way (well, I shouldnt say never—-many achieved alot more than was ever predicted)...no one likes being dependent on anyone. Hell, kids dont even like it. The way the misnamed “welfare state” is now, it discouarages independence and encourages poverty. But, welfare “reform” just made it worse. Now, we have kids who should not be having kids having them and leaving them at no day care to go out and work instead of staying with them…it is just a big mess…in the EU, you get plenty of time off to care for them. It is to our advantage that these kids do not slip through the cracks and end up on the streets with an automatic weapon…it may not be karma, but, it begins to look like it. Well, no, because most of it ends up in the cities and most neo-libs dont live in cities…I wont even mention neo-cons

But, I worked with many, many clients who, if you just cut off their tiny checks or medical care, (and Clinton’s and Reagan’s policies often did)they would just die. Period. Charity would never be enough. We had drs working with us who had worked for Drs W/Out Borders and other intl orgs…they swore to me that in deep urban and rural places in the US, the poverty of my clients was just as bad as they saw in 3rd World countries—and this was about 10 yrs ago…I am sure that it is worse now.

One man, who was a very sweet person, no phoniness in him, had spent his life in an institution. He kept saying that he was sick.They kept telling him it was a cold or whatever. They didnt want to spend the money for a dr. He turned out to have (previously) curable lung cancer , when I finally got him to a dr. Do you know what he wanted before he died? Me to take him to his fav hometown restaurant to get a piece of lemon meringue pie…he choked on it and I had to take him to the hospital. It was too advanced to save him, but, his formerly absent brother showed up and tried to force care on him…it didnt work, but, he suffered more. He had had it for about 5 yrs. He was 32 yrs old.
I am not trying to be corny—I just get a lump in my throat when I think of my former clients..


I could give you 100s of examples…I do feel that the basics of survival are human rights. I dont believe that I can change my beliefs on that one..I have just seen too much…

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 29, 2009 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, I’m under no illusions how difficult it would be to do away with the Welfare State, the way so many are so hopelessly brainwashed, so completely enslaved to the system. Perhaps the best way would be if the whole system collapses from top to bottom and the shambles has to be rebuilt from the get-go. I think that’s what the commentators at LewRockwell.com and Mises.org expect to happen.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 29, 2009 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I am fairly sure, with the much higher standard of living of the general population in the EU, that these things are being provided with the consent of the people. They have many more options (political parties),and, lived through dependence on the uS for far too long. I think that the necessities of life are, in consensus, human rights.

They are much less individualistic, in govt, it is true. But, they have, in general, peace, and a higher standard of living. Freedom must include freedom from dying from lack, in my opinion. If we really think that people are “born with a right to freedom from want”, as Jefferson postulated, then, I think that people who cannot provide it for themselves, should be given the basics of life. It is not as though there werre not enough resources in this country. We’re just using them all to kill and there is too much wealth concetnrated at the top.

As soon as people can, they do not want to be dependent on the state—believe me. (whoever said that you PAY for everything in the US-I guess it was me—one way or another—-believe me, you do! Most have already paid in, financially)I am trying to go back to work part time right now—I am having to wait to talk to an attorney as to whether I would lose my Med coverage—-that is not helping anyone.

Otherwise, everyone is just doing everything on their own- I know that people talk about doing things communally , by consent, but, I think that that is just Utopian…so far, charity just has not provided .(In general, it has religious ties, in the US) Of course, if people can provide things for themslves, they usually wish to.

Some things just cannot be done without collectivism. If it is voluntary and individual,(as in health care) what do we do when someone who has decided not to participate , gets in an accident? Just let them die? If someone chooses not to live in a house, (in the broad sense)it effects my neighborhood, so it is in my best interest to help him, but, if i cant do it alone, what happens?

Correct me, please, but, I think that Libertarianism suggests that everyone acting in their own perceived best interest results, ultimately, in the best interests of society. I just dont think that we have proven that.

Maybe , in absolute terms, but not from what I have lived. I dont see how it could be achieved..I guess the reason I say “more govt involvement” is that most of us have no protection whatsoever from the corrupt corporatism that is killing the US now…

If we had no regulation, no govt, would it not be Social Darwinism? The laissez-fare economy in Austria, is in big trouble, from what I hear.

I gave up on the link to Anarchism…lol…there seems to be so many kinds—can you recommend one?

Sorry spelling—my hands hurt today…

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 29, 2009 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

Paul—the state is war—in its foundation and its maintenance.  Welfare and so forth are covers, and sometimes supports, for the essential fact.  (See Bismarck, and the elaborate Welfare programs instituted by the fascist states of Europe in the early 20th century.)  Welfare, education, medical care, banking, the media and so forth were put under centralized government control, thus providing close control of the population.  It is incomprehensible to me that leftists see this sort of thing as progressive.

It’s not so easy to figure out how to get out of the situation, because so many people have become dependent on the central government and the corporations for their livelihood, but we should at least recognize it for what it is.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 29, 2009 at 5:51 am Link to this comment

Although I’m not a party member at present, KDelphi, I still believe in and practice the Libertarian Pledge, which I had to sign in order to join—“I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

And though I don’t fully believe in his anarcho-capitalist ideas, I do agree with this quote from the late Murray Rothbard, which dates from the mid 1950s (about the time I was born)—“I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business.”

Personally, I could and can live with the Welfare State; it’s the WARFARE State which bothers me (big military, high taxes, interventionism at home and abroad, creeping totalitarianism, etc.).

Report this

By KDelphi, April 28, 2009 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

Paul_GA—OK…I like what he has to say more than I thought I would. But Anarchist, as Anarcissie said, is being thrown around too much.

I am reading all of the “types”...and I dont know what to believe..I cannot go along with Libertarianism,with its concommitant economic policy, which I believe is true laissez-fare. I am afraid it means yoyo govt (youre on your own—I’m sure youve heard that one)

But, maybe it means something else to you…

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 28, 2009 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, I tend to think that Ron Paul is a minarchist, as the late Harry Browne was (and as I am). I’m sure he’d agree with this quote from Browne: “I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.”

Unfortunately, a lot of people think “libertarianism” and “anarchism” are synonyms.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 28, 2009 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—It got me to look. (I followed up on some of the links). There seem to be many diff kinds, as you say, and I am still reading on it…I am trying to find that article that Night Guant directed me to. I will..

I just cant really comment on it. There is so much material. Of course I agree with peace and freedom, but, we may not mean exactly the same thing. Its interesting.

I have my doubts about the volntary part—isnt that what we always try, and, it aLways fails? As long as ‘they ” have all the money and power, how is it fair, to not level the playing field, at least a little?

Get the power back, but, how, without disrupting peace completely?

Trithoverlies—You had me, some…”... and those way to the left the no-gun lobby of the United Socialist Republics are bad news as shown through History….”

and then, you lost me….what are the USR???? I have to assume that you are referring to the “USSR”-ness that you think representes today’s modern Socialist Democracies. like Scandanavian countries? If that is the case, you are ridiculous.

The USSR was a dictatorship that collapsed under its own weight.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 28, 2009 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi—Anarchism aside—the word can mean almost anything—I would like to see more peace, freedom and equality, which I think can be produced only by autonomy and cooperation, not by violence, terror and coercive hierarchies (however nicely dressed).  This can only mean supplanting institutions based on coercion (the state) with voluntary and cooperative institutions.  Several attempts have been made to establish good societies by war, and most of them haven’t worked out very well in spite of all the admiration given to the efforts.

Anarchy and anarchism have gotten to be sort of trendy in recent years.  I don’t know whether this is a good thing.  Trendiness is pretty superficial.  On the other hand, it might get some people to at least look into the associated ideas instead of rejecting them out of hand, while assuming that the only way to deal with any problem is to call the cops.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, April 28, 2009 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

To all the first thing we need is people excersizing personal moral restraint than Government excersizing Moral restraint than an oversight group excersizing moral restraint over the government and the People than an oversight oversight group excersizing moral restraint over the oversight group excersizing moral restraint over the Government, which than excersizes moral restraint over the people who excersize personal moral restraint on themselves. The truth is that there is no perfect form of government anywhere in this world and can’t be because man is flawed. So we must find the best system with the most reasonable checks and balences and try to keep currupttion to a minimium.  As for Guns Men is a flawed individual and no matter how tight you bind man and in slave him there will be those who fight back and those who go nuts. Whether they kill with a rock, knife, gun suicide belt, car bomb excetra… they will find away to take out the most targets they can. The Anti-Gun lobby is no smaller then the Pro-gun lobby and those way to the left the no-gun lobby of the United Socialist Republics are bad news as shown through History. Those that believe that people need the right to keep government honest by way of the Freedom of the first Amendment which the U.S. Supreme Court has rulled is our right to keep and bare Arms and that doesn’t mean only the National Guard but every citizen not judged mentally incompatent, unstabble, or a ex-convict has the right to own fire arms.
          Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
            John R. Bloxson Jr.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 28, 2009 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I’ve been reading some on Anarchism, lately, since so many people claim to be one ...I havent really decided what I think of it yet, and, although many claim to be Anarchists, their views on various issues are radically different. (some may not actually be anarchists)

There was a website that Night Guant gave me, but, I lost it. It seemed to make some sense. If NG sees this, can you send me back? I cant find it now.

So are you positing, no govt?? Libertarianism, or what? The Ron Paul form? I know, a web post is not a place to discuss… I’ll see if there are links at the wikipedia site you gave…I have to go and then come back…

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 28, 2009 at 5:24 am Link to this comment

KDelphi:
’... There is nothing WRONG with “govt” per se. That is an old Libertarian argument, and it is strange to hear from a Dem. ...’

I’m more of an anarchist.  (Hence my monicker, my interest in the Catholic Workers, and so on.)  I do think there is something inherently wrong with government and the state in general (the state being not only the government but all the things which it creates and maintains).  The wrong is both philosophical and practical.  The philosophical part starts with the fact that the state is based on coercive violence, terror, and class oppression.  The practical part starts with the observation that states do more harm than any other social organizations or individuals.  However, comments on a blog are a rather small space for the arguments.  I recommend instead the Wikipedia article on Anarchism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism, which has many informative links to other sites.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 27, 2009 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I am mostly talking about drunk drivers. ONe almost killed me. They dont have any “right” to drive the way they are driving. You can kill people with a car , just like a gun—that is why we have a right to regulate them. There is no innate right to use a gun or car. I want to know that people know what they are doing.

There is nothing WRONG with “govt” per se. That is an old Libertarian argument, and it is strange to hear from a Dem. It is what govt does. We can make the uS govt whatever we want it to be. It ca be a force for good or ill. Or we could just have no govt at all.
It is not just a question or “more or less” govt, or regulation or anything else—-it is a function of what kind and what it achieves (not the original intention) More of anything is not helpful if it is bad. Less of anything is not inherently good, either.

I usually dont listen very closely to cries of more or less govt, on stricty the basis of amount. Quality is the key.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 27, 2009 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi—As far as bad people owning weapons, I can’t think of a worse set than those who are attracted to government.  Historically speaking, they’ve certainly killed more people than all the private murderers in history.  This is in spite of the numerous people who have gone into government with the intention of doing good.

The thing about the police knocking on the windows of cars is an interesting scene.  Why are police knocking on the windows of cars?  Well, it seems that even though people have been more or less forced to use cars to get through the most essential tasks of daily life, like going to work or school or buying food, yet having and using a car is a privilege to be enjoyed only with the permission of the authorities.  It becomes the job of the police to knock on windows.  Anyone who is out on the roads can be stopped, harassed, shaken down, threatened.  Abuses like DWB are bound to occur.  Once again we see an arrangement in which innocent people are subjected to and habituated to coercive control.

The first restriction we need is a restriction on anyone, including the government, bothering anyone else who isn’t doing any harm.  And the second is some restraint on government powers of surveillance, terror and violence.

Instead, things seem to be going the way.  And this is one of the things I question, and get no answer to:  Why do so many people on the Left believe in the goodness of the state?  Why do they think every problem is to be solved by an increase in government powers and activities?

Report this

By KDelphi, April 27, 2009 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Gawd—d*manit!! I just lost the entire post and I had answered some questions…lol. When the thread gets too long, or , if there is an unannounced video on it, sometimes my browser just “jumps” and ..there it goes,..I need a new pc…

Anarcissie—I would agree…to start at the top…I am just very tired of seeing so many young kids around here die, and, I think we have way to lax gun control in this country. Not everyone who wants a gun is Anarcissie, you know…

Ever since Gov Taft pushed to pass concealed carry (even automatics) around here the murder rate has been going up steadily. If you are not going to do anything wrong, why do you have to conceal it, under your coat, the car seat? (I have no special synpathy for cops, but, the cops were really upset, because, they had to knock on car windows and the driver was allowed to have a loaded automatic under the seat—how would you like it??) My dad bought my mom a gun—for ‘self protection” as we lived in the country—gawd, I couldve killed him, if he had still been around! Even after she was far gone, we could never get it away from her! She was much more dangerous with it than without it. The only way to protect ourselves from the wrong people owning the wrong guns are gun laws. And, everytime there is even a suggestion of it around here, the NRA rallies to whatever cause.
Paul_GA—Lets see if I can remember. Yes, we certainly have to avoid a Stalin-esque mistake, who has poisoned the well for most socialist revolutions for about a century. Everytime one mentions socialism, people think “Stalin”, who was a great betrayer of revolution, as well as the people he claimed to represent.

The problem may not be overthrowing he state so much, as overthrowing the people who continue to support the state (govt) as it stands. It is impossible to confront a percived enemy if your fellow citizens see them as “just fine”. I believe in the value of the state to regulate, and apply justice—-but not as it stands now.

I dont think either party of the dupopoly has any credability left at all. But if I want to bring them down, I, at least, had better not try to do it with guns. I would lose. So would anyone else…as long as they have the military and mercenaries on their side…which they almost lost during Vietnam…maybe it could happen again.

I hope I ditn miss what I waas going to say.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 27, 2009 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Paul_GA, we did not give our Gov’t a finger, it was taken from us after taking even more with the drug war (1914) and Depression (1929) that helped to fuel it with the growth of crime syndicates over drugs and alcohol and sex and banks to rob because nearly everyone was poorer than dirt. Then the war came which took even more and most we never got back.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 27, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

Kdelphi—corporations are part of the state.  They are created by and regulated by the government.  The government is not better than or worse than the corporations—it is made of the same political substance as the corporations.  One of the important functions of corporations has been to move state powers away from the threat of democratic oversight.  This has been very recently demonstrated by the financial crisis, where the people find themselves called upon to bail out supposedly private concerns to the tune of about $7000 per capita, or something like $30,000 per family, without any real control or information about the process.

The primary function of the state in history is the preservation of the powers, privileges and wealth of its ruling class.  Originally, those powers included the power to hold and use slaves and direct the military operations to preserve and expand state power. Various social upheavals in recent centuries have forced ruling classes to be less overt in their practices, hence, liberal and democratic institutions have been allowed to arise which mitigate and disguise the powers of the ruling class, and deflect resentment of it onto (usually innocent) scapegoats.  But this does not mean the essence of the state is not still coercive violence.

Nevertheless, the 20th century saw the repeated error of people attempting to capture the state and turn it to leftist ends—peace, equality, freedom.  Peace, equality and freedom are the antithesis of the state.

If we want, we can bring this down to gun control as it is commonly advanced, which is to give the military and police (rightist institutions) all the weapons they want and to deny them to ordinary people.  Trotsky and I can understand why the military and the police might admire this proposal, but not why so many who regard themselves as liberals or leftists support it.

It is true that weapons are not very nice (from some points of view) but human beings are not very nice, either.  Taking away all weapons allows the violent to use their bodies against those who are weaker—it is the disarmament of the victims.  Instead, I suggest taking the truly horrific weapons of governments away—nuclear bombs, ICBMs, cruise missiles, nerve gas, biological agents and so forth.  If you want to get rid of weapons, wny not start at the top?

This is not a rhetorical question.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 27, 2009 at 3:10 am Link to this comment

Exactly, Night-Gaunt—if you give the State a finger, they’ll take a freakin’ arm. We Americans gave the State a finger in the 1934 National Firearms Act; in return the State has been grabbing more and more of the arm ever since.

BTW, KDelphi, allow me to say that the State is not invulnerable, no matter well-armed or how well-heeled it may be; the problem is not overthrowing the State, but making sure that what follows is not a worse State. The Russians overthrew the Czar, and got Lenin and the Bolsheviks; the Cubans overthrew Batista, and got Castro; the Iranians overthrew the Shah, and got the ayatollahs.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 26, 2009 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

It is a balance of state vs individual that we must have. Just as most people go to formal school, by force, because not everyone is good at educating themselves so we could have for weapons training too. Just as I wish we did have a weapons culture, we don’t as is obvious by how gun owners (you can’t be licensed to carry any other kind of weapon) are generally treated. I don’t mean the NRA’s penchant for supporting the Drug War that is instrumental in anti-weapons ownership legislation. Hunting is the least important these days over protection. As I wrote earlier.

Well Paul_GA, it is the state that must be controlled then, not weapons or training in them, eh? That is your thesis isn’t it?

Report this

By KDelphi, April 26, 2009 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie—I have no “affection for the state” (I think it is better than corporations, and everyone running around with a gun…), but I find your affection for firearms, as a Dem (you are a Dem no?) even more curious. Dems just gave up the NRA fight for political reasons—havent you seen them in “hunting uniforms”?? Hilarious…Gore and Kerry…I dotn think that they honestly believed in auto. weapons rights—they just did it for political reasons. Only Libertarians really have a logcial argument for them.(which, I mostly disagree with) BTW—Paul_GA—I listedn to Paul today on his ideas of self defense vs offensive war. I can see why that part of his argument is so appealing. I just have trouble with the rest of it.

I have said that I dont think that it is “practical” to “get rid of all guns”. But, I wish we could. I am afraid in my neighborhood. I dont know where you live. It does matter. I am not talking about hunting rifles.

Unless you amass many nuclear weaons, tha govt wil always outarm you. To think that you can protect yourself from the govt with a handgun is absurd! If the Marines come—run! Dont shoot—you will die.

I do not want (nor would i paricipate in) forced weapons training, It is one reason I did not take a position as a Counselor at a max security prison—I knew that the people on Death Row would be better with guns than I. I wouldve had to take 6 wks of weopons training at the state level…no dice. I did have to take self defense for the job I ultimately took. NO problem. It is entirely different. I would never be physically strong enough to out shoot an l8 yr old Natl Guardsman. If you wish to try—-have at it.

Same with the govt. You cannot beat them with force. They have too much guns and money.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 26, 2009 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

But, with respect, if a country has universal military *training*, Night-Gaunt, there’s just a short step from there to the idea of universal military *service*. And as I see it, they both have to do with the idea that *the State owns its citizens’ lives, and can dispose of them as it sees fit*—a truly wicked idea to a libertarian. And who says the military teaches shooting best? As far as they’re concerned about anything, not just shooting, there’s a wrong way, a right way, and the way they do it in the military—and the last takes precedence, even if it’s wrong. Think of Sgt. York or Audie Murphy—crack shots both, and they sure didn’t learn how to shoot on a firing line in basic. A goodly number of shooters nowadays never wore a uniform, either of the military or law enforcement, yet they’re superior shots, because they’ve been around guns all their lives and they love target shooting, hunting, etc.

If I could amend the Constitution, I’d amend the 13th Amendment to define even involuntary military service as slavery. The Constitution is supposed to limit what the State can do to infringe upon our freedoms, not be interpreted and re-interpreted to give the State more power.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 26, 2009 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

By Paul_GA, April 26 at 8:08 am #

“With all due respect to Night-Gaunt, I must disagree with the idea of universal military service.”

Twice now and for a third time universal military training not service though it seems to many one is the other but it isn’t any more than having sexual education is to selling ones body for sex. Not the same, please read my writing before criticizing it. I think I speak plainly without layers. Being educated in the law and also parenting would be good too but you aren’t made to be lawyers or parents.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 26, 2009 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

With all due respect to Night-Gaunt, I must disagree with the idea of universal military service. To me, involuntary service to the State, of any sort, is slavery, even if the Supreme Court has ruled that a military draft is NOT an unconstitutional violation of the 13th Amendment. The absolute best American shootists have been people who learned at an early age and continued to shoot all their lives, because firearms and skill with same appealed to them personally. Forcing more Americans to be around guns and learn about them will, I fear, only make more hoplophobes, not fewer.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 25, 2009 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

“Forcing people to get firearms training is fascism.”KDelphi

Where did you get that? It is the opposite of any tyranny for you see if you knew anything about how such organizations functioned they would be against if for logical and for me obvious reasons. But then too often the people who advocate such “reasonable restrictions” do not understand human psychology at all. Especially their own! Also they use that over time in an incremental way to chip at the right till it is all but rescinded. How can ‘forced education’ as you call it be bad? I guess all of that forced education was bad for you wasn’t it? Especially in safely using very dangerous and possibly lethal devices like cars and power tools. It appears to me to be an irrational position you take KDelphi. Please explain in more detail? I said military training not service, two separate issues. Again I am being logical and I think benevolent to all.

Report this

By guntotinsquaw, April 25, 2009 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

JNagarya…                            “The “declaration of Independence” has never been, is not now, and never shall be law. There’s no “right of revolution”—flapjaw lying coward Limbaugh and his ilk notwithstanding”

The structure of the Declaration of Independence
is that of a common law legal document, granting you rights by the “LAW OF GOD” The second paragragh completely grants every American the “right of revolution.”

....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


Have YOU read the Declaration of Independence? Since you refer to it as “your history” and backed with your outrage that the founding fathers disarmed the Torries, I have concluded YOU are a BRIT!!!

Report this

By guntotinsquaw, April 25, 2009 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

Virginia777
“Who will face down the Gun Lobby?”

Hell, I wrote them a check!!!

John Quincy Adams, “Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.”

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”-Thomas Jefferson

“We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”  James Madison

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”  Thomas Jefferson

Report this

By guntotinsquaw, April 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

Those who “Risked Everything”—or even “Anything”—didn’t include chickenhawk Rush “Butt Boil Deferment” Limbaugh.  And doubtless don’t include “quntotinsquaw”. I’ll put my family history to yours ANYDAY!..we’ve debated my side,now let’s arue on your side….disarmament….. “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)........Government begins at the end of the gun barrel.” - Chairman Mao….“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”—V.I. Lenin…“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”—Joseph Stalin….“We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?”- Josef Stalin…“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”- Adolf Hitler…“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ...” Bill Clinton…..“Gun registration is not enough. Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” - Janet Reno…..“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3….”  Oh, sorry I seemed to have mixed gun controlling dems. in with the commies and dictators.—And for your greatest point… “And the Founders/Framers weren’t slouches at gun control—which is why there was no COUNTER-“revolution”: at the “suggestion” of the Continental Congress, they DISARMED the Tories by that you call “gun-grabbing”.  They also PROHIBITED, by LAW, possession of weapons by those “disaffected” with the “revolution”.And they CONFISCATED ALL weapons of those who REFUSED to sign an oath of loyalty to “the cause”.......Age old rule, DISARM YOUR ENEMY!!!!!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 25, 2009 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi:
‘No one that is not in the military needs an automatic weapon. ...’

You must feel, then, that the military and the rest of the state will always be on your side and on the side of right and good, and will always protect you.  Like many other people, I don’t see any reason to believe that.  However, I’m willing to listen to a rational argument if someone will make one.  As I said before, I find the current affection of many leftists for the state to be a curious thing.  When did it start, and why does it persist in the face of such bitter experience?

Report this

By guntotinsquaw, April 25, 2009 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment

JNagarya,...I’ll trump your John Hopkins 1991….“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson….“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self defense. -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)....So your crap of “The latter having been voted down, it is self-evidently obvious that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything”  just got check mated. Shall we continue this game? By the by, I am educated in my history as it was my major. Perhaps you should quit reading from articles and books from 1991 and actually read the words of the 52 signers.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 25, 2009 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

No one that is not in the military needs an automatic weapon.

Forcing people to get firearms training is fascism.

The old “guns dont kill people” holds no water. (stats from other countries prove that lax gun laws are a big source of the problem here)They sure as hell dont kill people by thenselves. Its a very neo-con argument.

We need tougher gun laws. I only replied to “disarm everyone” because Anarcissie said that , if we disarm people the govt will take over (more or less). I know that “no guns” is not practical. But, gawd, dont we need more regulation? How many people are, even accidentally, killed every year? we are the only so-called “free” country where you can just go buy a gun and they rip up the registration 24 hrs later. If youre not going to do anything wrong, why dont you want people to know that you have a gun? Her, in OHio, I am not even allowed to know if my next door neighbor has a concealed automatic—thats not right.

The examples of free gun laws and their horrible results are too numerous to mention. Maybe you live in a state where they keep track of them, but, here, since Taft passed every NRA law they asked him to,(its usually GOP, but Dems “dress up”? like hunters for campaign season, often with hilarious results) guns are everywhere—and so is death.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 25, 2009 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt:
‘Once you “disarm everybody” only the ones with a violent attitude and size will be in charge like in any animal organization. ...’

I am simply suggesting that gun control fans should start at the top.  That is where the really big weapons are, and the most egregious psychopaths.  There, also, we find the people who have begun and perpetuated the Drug War, a crime against humanity and the source of the violence in Mexico now complained about.

Incidentally, non-human mammals typically have a more complex social structure than you describe.  Human beings are unusually ill-tempered and violent.  When people are deprecated as “animals” it should really be the other way around: vicious animals might reasonably be accused of being too human.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 25, 2009 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

Once you “disarm everybody” only the ones with a violent attitude and size will be in charge like in any animal organization. The weapons are called “equalizers” for a reason. How about knives and sticks, and hammers?  They can all be weapons too in the wrong hands. But isn’t that the point? Too bad we are all considered “in the wrong hands” and the fools who wish to stop us must be afraid of us. I wonder why? You will find that a tiny percentage of the population are violent or will kill. Yet they want it for the rest of us who don’t and wouldn’t.

Like I said we need universal military training and ethics with safety protocols ingrained. The NRA is correct in their education series and has actually been proven that it works in tests. So one for them.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 25, 2009 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

KDelphi:
‘Paul_GA—Well, no worries, for you…the gun lobby has Congress by the balls, and, being anti-war as you claim to be, I’m amazed that you dont see a connection. Violence begats violence. ...’

Possession of a weapon isn’t violence.  It’s just an inert object until someone does something with it.

On the other hand, seizing or prohibiting weapons simply because they are weapons is violence: it is an exercise of forcible government power against generally harmless persons innocent of any real crime.

Furthermore, anti-gun proposals (as I pointed out before) don’t include the military, the police, or the elites who control them; their focus is always on working people and the poor.  In principle they belong to the Right, not the Left.

My second point is one of the practical reasons that these proposals are unlikely to accomplish much—there will be a constant supply of guns flowing into the population from the military and the police, to say nothing of crimes involving guns committed by military and police personnel, who are no better than the rest of us.

If you want a disarmed society, you have to disarm everyone, not just the poor, and I would think you would want to start with the biggest weapons and the biggest psychopaths, that is, the government and the ruling classes.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 25, 2009 at 4:24 am Link to this comment

Matter of fact, KDelphi, I DID vote for Ron Paul in the primary last year, and I’ve read all of his books (and a great many more on libertarianism besides, most of them downloaded for free from the Ludwig von Mises Institute). I’m not sure I’d describe him as “militantly anti-war” and certainly not “pacifistic”; he just wants this country to end its interventionist/imperialist ways and realize it’s on the road to ruin unless it does.

I hope and pray I may never have to use my shooting skills for real, but at the same time, I realize we live in a dangerous world, and I have to be ready just in case, as I can’t depend on the police to protect me.

As you say, we can politely disagree.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 24, 2009 at 9:45 pm Link to this comment

Paul_GA—I must have you confused with a Ron Paul supporter…who is almost militently anti-war, I think…but, I dont know all that much about him.

I wouldnt kill anyone over goods, I dont think, unless I was starving, maybe. Self defnse might be another matter…but not over ‘stuff”. I am not really a pacifist. I just dont think that it is worth it. But, then,I dont have much to take, really. Still, I’ve been robbed more than once—apparently, even my private keepsakes will do, if youre desperate enough.

Still, I wouldnt want them dead over it.

No “mean-spiritedness” taken—we just disagree.Its better than agreeing with any one “party” no matter what they do. Of course, on the gun issue—-either party will do , unless youre pro-gun laws.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 24, 2009 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, I’m not a pacifist. I believe in just war, and to my mind, there are only two kinds:

(1) A war of national defense against a foreign invader; and

(2) A war of national liberation against either a foreign occupier, or a home-grown despot.

I believe I can be a peaceful man who is also armed and ready to protect home and hearth. I see myself as being like a Jedi Knight—I would use my shooting skills solely for defense; never for attack. To me, there is no contradiction.

I don’t belong to any pro-gun organization, because as I see it, they’re all shills for the Repubs, whom I’ve quit voting for (though not at present a party member, I tend to vote Libertarian). I’m sorry if my latest reply to Virginia777 was so mean-spirited, but I find it so hard to understand the gun-prohibitionists.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

Paul_GA—Well, no worries, for you…the gun lobby has Congress by the balls, and, being anti-war as you claim to be, I’m amazed that you dont see a connection. Violence begats violence.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. People interpret the 2nd Amendment differently.

But, I have to ask—do you live in a large urban area where there is alot of local, so-called “gang-related ” gun violence, mostly purpetrated by kids, onto kids (whose brains are not yet fully developed, who may even think that their former friend will “get up”, like in a video game) where kids are getting shot everyday? Because if you dont, then, you dont know what its like…I am tired of seeing the future gunned down in the city streets.

I grew up in a rural areas, where almost everyone (except my father) was a “hunter” (which, usually included anything they could hit). We used to have people stop by our old farm and ask to RELEASE quail and other aniamls, so they could “hunt” them—-they didnt know my father, or they wouldnt have asked. I would go horseback riding and find traps with animal legs in them, not checked for nmore than 2 wks, sometiomes. I would find wounded animals, and, a neighbor of mine’s kid shot his brother.(who later died)

A guy had the NERVE to shoot a female rabbit, off hunting season, and then, bring me the babies—-“here, raise them if you want. I was just gonna leave them”. 4 of the 5 survived, milk bottle fed. (according to current residents, they were around, friendly, until a couple years ago)

When I had to move to an urban area, I lived with guns in the house, but, a friend of mine had a child (my godson) who just happened to look down the barrel of a rifle an ex of mine had standing in the corner(stupid, I know—but there is no IQ check at gunshows)—and, it turns out if was loaded and NOT on safety.

Shots ring out here every Friday night. YOu cant “call the cops”. I shouldnt have to sit and worry that someone across the street will get drunk and shoot their kid tonight. That is my personal feeling about it. It may not be logical, but, when youve had one in your face, its not really very logical..but, as much as I like the warmer weather, I have to dread that it was 85 degrees today—they will all be out tonight. I am just glad that this is my last summer here..

Buit, as I said—-you are probably under NO therat whatsoever to any ownership of weapons of almost any kind, in this country. The Dems “balled out” on that long ago. AG Holder said,yesterday, “The Supreme Court settled that”, so , congrats.

What I would have to see hard evidence to believe, is that US gun laws, are not the direct cause of out world-high city murder (and accidental death) of any country in the world.(civilized countries call it primitivism)

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 24, 2009 at 9:59 am Link to this comment

I suggest, Virginia777, that you suck it up and at least learn to tolerate us. I thought leftists were SO “tolerant”; why can you not tolerate us, who just wish to exercise our constitutional rights as Americans? The overwhelming majority of us are no danger to anybody, not even ourselves.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, April 24, 2009 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

“No other democratic country in the world has the foolish, ineffectual gun regulations that we do.”

Nor the foolish Gun Fanatics who back these regulations so they can continue to live in their paranoid, fantasy world and play Cowboy.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, April 24, 2009 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

“Who will face down the Gun Lobby?”

Anarcissie

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 23, 2009 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, as I understand it, the Founders intended that the citizenry be armed with military weapons equivalent to those carried by soldiers in standing armies. But the Founders did not want a large standing army over here; they meant for the people—the militia—to be the primary land fighting force of the new country. To me, that doesn’t mean a tank in every garage or a suitcase nuke in every closet. But rifles, pistols and shotguns—no problem.

I think I’ve already posted this, but allow me to post it again: “The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an `equalizer’. Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed—but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.” ~ Edward Abbey

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 23, 2009 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

NABNYC:
‘To Anarcissie:  FYI, the Bill of Rights refers to only the first 10 Amendments.  As for the balance of your statements and postings, I disagree with the entire contents therein.’

In your blog, you used the present tense: “Contrary to popular views, the Bill of Rights does not give rights to the citizens. It only restricts the power or authority of the federal government. It limits what the federal government can do.” (Emphases mine.) Perhaps that statement was true before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.  However, once the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the statement was no longer true; the Bill of Rights extends to and limits the power of the states and localities.  The popular view is correct; yours is incorrect.  Or, as I mentioned before, you could take Robert H. Bork’s view, which is that almost everyone else is wrong, including the Supreme Court, in this regard.  Do you perhaps agree with his very narrow construction of the Fourteenth Amendment?

As for the balance of my statements, I can’t make much of a blanket summary disagreement, so I will have to just hope that you become more articulate in the future, or that someone will step in on your behalf, not about the gun thing, about which I have not seen anything new written in a long time, but about the curious love of state power on the part of so many who are, or imagine themselves to be, leftists.

Report this

By NABNYC, April 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

To Anarcissie:  FYI, the Bill of Rights refers to only the first 10 Amendments.  As for the balance of your statements and postings, I disagree with the entire contents therein.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 23, 2009 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

NABNYC:
‘To:  Anarcissis:  see my comment below, 4/22, 9:54 p.m.  Or, if you want a more thorough analysis, see my blog comment on 4/20 re Columbine at http://NABNYC.blogspot.com’

I was certainly surprised to read, “Contrary to popular views, the Bill of Rights does not give rights to the citizens. It only restricts the power or authority of the federal government. It limits what the federal government can do.”  You seem to have forgotten the 14th Amendment there.  I suppose you might take a conservative, Bork-like view of it, but in that case you’re in odd company here.

Otherwise, as I pointed out previously, the text of the Second Amendment cannot, on its face, be held to confine the ownership of weapons to the government.  It is clear that, grammatically speaking, the first clause is not restrictive of the second; it merely justifies the second.  Of course, courts, legislatures, or other authorities can hold any set of words to mean anything, but in a constitutional republic the more certain route to the end you appear to desire is to repeal the Amendment: while its meaning can be twisted by one court, it can easily be twisted back by another.  In any case the plain, unequivocal meaning of the existing language militates strongly against elaborate reinterpretations, as we have observed.

I’m still waiting to see a justification of your reverence for state power, of which the old gun-nut versus gun-control-nut debate is merely a minor facet.  The unaccountable attraction of so many of those nominally on the Left for the opposite of the essential principles of the Left mystifies me, and I want to learn more about it.

‘As for my analysis of the constitution, it comes from 30 years practicing law.’

Thirty years of practicing law, plus the requisite education, should have told you that that’s a logically invalid argument.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 23, 2009 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment

bell—I think I have every reason to fear gun-owners—they are willing to kill people I am not.

Are you saying that , just because it is illegal that people dont do it? Your ignorance is astounding!

Where will we draw the line? Individual mini-nukes? Why not? What weapons were the “Founding Fathers” speaking of? Not automatics—there werent the kind we have today. So, who is to say that they wouldnt approve of mini-nukes?

Let me hazard a guess—you “right to bear arms” people dont live in urban areas, where shots fly outside your door at night,no? Your rights end where my (shot off) nose begins.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, April 23, 2009 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

I’m with you, Anarcissie,

these gun fanatics use skewed logic to make illogical claims.

Report this

By NABNYC, April 23, 2009 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

To:  Anarcissis:  see my comment below, 4/22, 9:54 p.m.  Or, if you want a more thorough analysis, see my blog comment on 4/20 re Columbine at http://NABNYC.blogspot.com

As for my analysis of the constitution, it comes from 30 years practicing law.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, April 23, 2009 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

NABNYC:
‘To the people who are insisting that individuals need to own guns to “protect” themselves from the government, you need to understand that my comment is addressed to the following:  Does the U.S. Constitutional create a constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms, which right may not be infringed by the federal government.  My own analysis is that there is no constitutional right to own a gun.  People commonly believe there is because the politicians take bribes from the NRA, and the NRA defends the very lucrative gun dealers. ...’

Where is your analysis?  I don’t see any analysis of the Constitution; just unsupported assertions about gun dealers, the NRA, corrupt politicians and easily led, stupid people.  By contrast, I gave an reasoned analysis directly from the text, which you have completely failed to engage.  Can you justify your faith in the authority of the state and those corruptible politicians with a little intellectual rigor?

The utility and practicality of the Second Amendment is not at issue here.  If you think the Second Amendment is not useful or practical, repeal it; the Constitution gives you the means.  Meanwhile it says what it says straightforwardly and unequivocally.

Report this

By NABNYC, April 23, 2009 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

To the people who are insisting that individuals need to own guns to “protect” themselves from the government, you need to understand that my comment is addressed to the following:  Does the U.S. Constitutional create a constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms, which right may not be infringed by the federal government.  My own analysis is that there is no constitutional right to own a gun.  People commonly believe there is because the politicians take bribes from the NRA, and the NRA defends the very lucrative gun dealers.

Beyond that, the idea of an individual “defending” themselves agains the Marines is absurd.  The real danger to people’s lives in this country comes from the corporations.  They have taken our jobs to other countries.  They have inflated housing to the point that it takes half of people’s paychecks just to keep a roof over their heads.  They have looted the Social security fund into which all working people deposit 13% of their paychecks every single month of their working lives, and they have used that money to give tax breaks to the rich. 

The real danger to people cannot be shot.  It’s corporate control, and corruption of our government.  The people who love their guns should give up the John Wayne fantasy and get out in your neighborhoods to start organizing people.

For example, let’s have a “Don’t Pay” campaign, get everyone to just stop paying credit card companies until Congress gets off its lazy corrupt asses and sets a maximum interest rate of 10%, retroactive, no late fees.  That would be real protection for working people whose money is stolen every month by these banks and financial cartels, but will not come from the barrel of a gun.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook