In my first post I was using values of Per Capita NOT by percentage just for clarification, Kuzi.
As far as the Kent State University shootings I think that was a very different scenario. There the students shot upon were unarmed. In the scenario that was put forth the public is armed to the teeth and has the ability to shoot back. Not the same situation and the public perception, and spin machines would be as big of a wepon as guns themselves. Unfortunately in todays world you are who they say you are. The "sheeple" just believe, because it is the course of least resistance.
Never ceases to amaze me how hard people will fight for their guns. Guns, religion, abortion, and a few others close like race and death penalty have a way of riling up people beyond belief. This shooting proves that. Its a great talking point for politicians to distract us from real, non-emotional, non religious based issues that impact society but are boring------like the disparity of wealth and abuse of power.
it is easier to abuse power if the people are not armed to fight back.
We could never rebel against our country or military, which is a big bit of the abuse I am referring to because he would be squashed like Ruby Ridge or other places and made to look like nuts. You go with the status quo here, or you are branded.
i wonder what percentage of the military would Actually attack US citizens. i feel that i am veering off topic. again... interesting to think about.
I remember reading somewhere that during hunting seasons certain states become the largest organized militia in the country. Just by sheer hunting licenses provided. Granted the military has fancier weapons and strategy and organization, but it'd be one helluva bloody battle if hay military attacked citizens.
Never ceases to amaze me how hard people will fight for their guns. Guns, religion, abortion, and a few others close like race and death penalty have a way of riling up people beyond belief. This shooting proves that. Its a great talking point for politicians to distract us from real, non-emotional, non religious based issues that impact society but are boring------like the disparity of wealth and abuse of power.
it is easier to abuse power if the people are not armed to fight back.
We could never rebel against our country or military, which is a big bit of the abuse I am referring to because he would be squashed like Ruby Ridge or other places and made to look like nuts. You go with the status quo here, or you are branded.
i wonder what percentage of the military would Actually attack US citizens. i feel that i am veering off topic. again... interesting to think about.
I remember reading somewhere that during hunting seasons certain states become the largest organized militia in the country. Just by sheer hunting licenses provided. Granted the military has fancier weapons and strategy and organization, but it'd be one helluva bloody battle if hay military attacked citizens.
The deer hunters I've known love to hunt deer and other game, but an "organized militia"?....I don't think so, at least that aint my idea of being "organized" or being a "militia".
American revolutionaries referred to themselves as militia. That's why the bit giving you the right to bear arms refers to militia.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
American revolutionaries referred to themselves as militia. That's why the bit giving you the right to bear arms refers to militia.
"A well REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I maintain that the USA now has established a standing professional armed forces that has replaced the notion or need for a "militia" for the security of a free state.
Note that the US Supreme court has ruled (Scalia wrote the majority opinion) that the use and sale of firearms and ammunition can be regulated. The NRA is preventing that from happening. I believe it is time to discard the extreme views coming from the NRA and for rational men and women to have a sane and civil conversation and examination of how and what firearms and ammunition can be sold inthe US.
American revolutionaries referred to themselves as militia. That's why the bit giving you the right to bear arms refers to militia.
"A well REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I maintain that the USA now has established a standing professional armed forces that has replaced the notion or need for a "militia" for the security of a free state.
Note that the US Supreme court has ruled (Scalia wrote the majority opinion) that the use and sale of firearms and ammunition can be regulated. The NRA is preventing that from happening. I believe it is time to discard the extreme views coming from the NRA and for rational men and women to have a sane and civil conversation and examination of how and what firearms and ammunition can be sold inthe US.
again, this brings up the question: what if the regulators are the people the militia is needed to fight?
...passing thought: maybe we are looking at this using modern words. Maybe regulated means "well trained" in this instance. I'm no linguist. Just a thought.
We've strayed a bit from the original question posted, but in my humble opinion as a gun owner and hunter Johnny Cash said it best, "Don't take your guns to town Bill. Leave you guns at home Bill. Don't take your guns to town,
...passing thought: maybe we are looking at this using modern words. Maybe regulated means "well trained" in this instance. I'm no linguist. Just a thought.
Regulated has always meant the same things. A behaviour is allowed under certain cirumstances according to regulations layed out. It does not mean you CAN NOT do something, it only means you have to do or use things according to those rules. Regulations outline the way in which things are considered to be acceptable, and or NOT acceptable. That's all.
American revolutionaries referred to themselves as militia. That's why the bit giving you the right to bear arms refers to militia.
"A well REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I maintain that the USA now has established a standing professional armed forces that has replaced the notion or need for a "militia" for the security of a free state.
Note that the US Supreme court has ruled (Scalia wrote the majority opinion) that the use and sale of firearms and ammunition can be regulated. The NRA is preventing that from happening. I believe it is time to discard the extreme views coming from the NRA and for rational men and women to have a sane and civil conversation and examination of how and what firearms and ammunition can be sold inthe US.
again, this brings up the question: what if the regulators are the people the militia is needed to fight?
That's what Tim McVeigh thought, and in my opinion, he didn't suffer nearly enough before he quit breathing. I see those who want to engage in violent, terroristic acts of revolution against the US government (regardless of political persuasion) as crazed idealists willing to murder for their cause, and are without credibility. Those who would choose violence as a means to destroy the United States deserve the fate that awaits them.
The only exceptions that I can think of that would justify a bloody revolution against the US Government would be if
"We the People" were prevented from voting in elections, (because our right to vote replaces the gun, and is literally the power to peacefully overturn or maintain the existing government) or if engaging in peaceful protest or other forms of civil dissent were prevented (without the ability to express dissent legally, there can be no claim to "freedom").
The gest of it was don't let people scare you into giving up your rights by lumping you in with scumbags. To compare people who wish to have the ability to protect their rights to someone who mass murdered men, women, and children is idiotic.
The second ammendment was put in place to give you a layer of security from tyranny, to give up that right would invite said tyranny.
I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? How about when the vote does nothing but change the faces of corruption?
The gest of it was don't let people scare you into giving up your rights by lumping you in with scumbags. To compare people who wish to have the ability to protect their rights to someone who mass murdered men, women, and children is idiotic.
The second ammendment was put in place to give you a layer of security from tyranny, to give up that right would invite said tyranny.
I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? How about when the vote does nothing but change the faces of corruption?
The ability to vote in a civil election to decide who will conduct the Peoples business in a government of law is adequate protection to secure my "rights". The simple fact of the matter is that I am not threatened by any governmental "tyranny", and none of my "rights or liberties" are either threatened or missing.
The democratic form of government established by the American Revolution has been emulated across the face of the globe, and where it has taken root, tyranny by government has been banished. The voting booth IS revolution; peaceful, bloodless revolution that puts power into the hands of common men and women as well as monied men and women alike to decide who will lead and legislate - equality before the law, and representation in the halls of law, of the people, for the people, and by the people. That IS revolution, as long as We the People can speek freely and dissent when we feel that change is needed, and vote for our preferences, tyranny in government cannot dominate us.
"...I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? ..."
I have an analytical mind, a fair understanding of history, and the ability to think logically.
The ability to vote in a civil election to decide who will conduct the Peoples business in a government of law is adequate protection to secure my "rights". The simple fact of the matter is that I am not threatened by any governmental "tyranny", and none of my "rights or liberties" are either threatened or missing.
so by this logic you are saying it is ok to violate someones rights if the general populus feels that it is ok to violate them?
if that is not what you are saying, please explain what you mean again.
JDH:
The democratic form of government established by the American Revolution has been emulated across the face of the globe, and where it has taken root, tyranny by government has been banished. The voting booth IS revolution; peaceful, bloodless revolution that puts power into the hands of common men and women as well as monied men and women alike to decide who will lead and legislate - equality before the law, and representation in the halls of law, of the people, for the people, and by the people. That IS revolution, as long as We the People can speek freely and dissent when we feel that change is needed, and vote for our preferences, tyranny in government cannot dominate us.
"...I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? ..."
I have an analytical mind, a fair understanding of history, and the ability to think logically.
voting has not stopped tyranny. people can vote to violate the rights of others. rights are not given or taken by men. they exist. they can either be upheld or violated.
I'm curious as to what happens when the administration feels it it necessary to cancel elections for security reasons? November can't come soon enough for me.
The democratic form of government established by the American Revolution has been emulated across the face of the globe, and where it has taken root, tyranny by government has been banished.
I have an analytical mind, a fair understanding of history, and the ability to think logically.
The gest of it was don't let people scare you into giving up your rights by lumping you in with scumbags. To compare people who wish to have the ability to protect their rights to someone who mass murdered men, women, and children is idiotic.
The second ammendment was put in place to give you a layer of security from tyranny, to give up that right would invite said tyranny.
I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? How about when the vote does nothing but change the faces of corruption?
The ability to vote in a civil election to decide who will conduct the Peoples business in a government of law is adequate protection to secure my "rights". The simple fact of the matter is that I am not threatened by any governmental "tyranny", and none of my "rights or liberties" are either threatened or missing.
The democratic form of government established by the American Revolution has been emulated across the face of the globe, and where it has taken root, tyranny by government has been banished. The voting booth IS revolution; peaceful, bloodless revolution that puts power into the hands of common men and women as well as monied men and women alike to decide who will lead and legislate - equality before the law, and representation in the halls of law, of the people, for the people, and by the people. That IS revolution, as long as We the People can speek freely and dissent when we feel that change is needed, and vote for our preferences, tyranny in government cannot dominate us.
"...I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? ..."
I have an analytical mind, a fair understanding of history, and the ability to think logically.
So do you believe that your vote for president actually has some bearing on who will be elected?
Here is a quote from the National Archives information on the Electoral College. The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your states electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidates electors.
Most states have a winner-take-all system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of proportional representation.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
The gest of it was don't let people scare you into giving up your rights by lumping you in with scumbags. To compare people who wish to have the ability to protect their rights to someone who mass murdered men, women, and children is idiotic.
The second ammendment was put in place to give you a layer of security from tyranny, to give up that right would invite said tyranny.
I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? How about when the vote does nothing but change the faces of corruption?
The ability to vote in a civil election to decide who will conduct the Peoples business in a government of law is adequate protection to secure my "rights". The simple fact of the matter is that I am not threatened by any governmental "tyranny", and none of my "rights or liberties" are either threatened or missing.
The democratic form of government established by the American Revolution has been emulated across the face of the globe, and where it has taken root, tyranny by government has been banished. The voting booth IS revolution; peaceful, bloodless revolution that puts power into the hands of common men and women as well as monied men and women alike to decide who will lead and legislate - equality before the law, and representation in the halls of law, of the people, for the people, and by the people. That IS revolution, as long as We the People can speek freely and dissent when we feel that change is needed, and vote for our preferences, tyranny in government cannot dominate us.
"...I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? ..."
I have an analytical mind, a fair understanding of history, and the ability to think logically.
So do you believe that your vote for president actually has some bearing on who will be elected?
Here is a quote from the National Archives information on the Electoral College. The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your states electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidates electors.
Most states have a winner-take-all system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of proportional representation.
What I believe is that the government of the USA is a good government, and I see no reason to believe that we live under "tyranny". We have nothing to fear except fear itself, and the actions of people who are motivated by irrational fear.
What I believe is that the government of the USA is a good government, and I see no reason to believe that we live under "tyranny". We have nothing to fear except fear itself, and the actions of people who are motivated by irrational fear.
Having no reason to believe we live under a tyranny doesn't mean the govt is good.
It is a flawed system and needs to be corrected. That doesn't mean it's a tyranny, just means it needs work.
It is probably better than most govts, but it still has it's flaws. Any time that govt spending can be controlled or influenced by personal agendas, it is flawed. And our govt is ripe with people in positions of control who have personal agendas. I see it every day. Costs escalated, because one person is trying to make themselves look good or want to assert their authority. Accountability has taken a back seat to what those people in those positions decide.
In Fumo Pax Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
What I believe is that the government of the USA is a good government, and I see no reason to believe that we live under "tyranny". We have nothing to fear except fear itself, and the actions of people who are motivated by irrational fear.
Having no reason to believe we live under a tyranny doesn't mean the govt is good.
It is a flawed system and needs to be corrected. That doesn't mean it's a tyranny, just means it needs work.
It is probably better than most govts, but it still has it's flaws. Any time that govt spending can be controlled or influenced by personal agendas, it is flawed. And our govt is ripe with people in positions of control who have personal agendas. I see it every day. Costs escalated, because one person is trying to make themselves look good or want to assert their authority. Accountability has taken a back seat to what those people in those positions decide.
Any government established by man is flawed, because human beings are flawed. The beauty of our system is that WE can still affect change, and continue to tweak it and make improvements.
One of the hallmarks of American Democracy has been the bloodless transfer of power at the ballot box, which has negated Jefferson's prediction. I would add that anyone today who would recomend or prefer having a bloody revolution instead of a peaceful election should not be taken seriously.
I would also point out that the open gun battles that Amos refers to occured across the US at the begining of the 20th Century and were waged by workers against their employers, not the government. Those in government who sent troops against the workers belived in preserving the rights of property and capital at the expense of those who served capital, and thus provided the profits so lavishly enjoyed by so few.
While it is true that some Americans have, and will, always believe that the rights of capital and property should trump the rights of people, it must be remembered that the working conditions we all enjoy today in the US were paid for with the blood of workers who had had enough of horible working conditions, zero safety standards, child labor, long hours, and endless debt to the company store which often resulted in virtual slavery. These conditions were imposed by those with property and capital on those who were without, and who labored in peonage to provide the profits of their masters. It was through help FROM the government that Unions were allowed to exist in this country, and those Unions improved the lives of millions of American workers, and were a primary force in creating the most prosperous middle class the world has ever known.
The fact that there was no bloody revolution to overthrow the government in those days should be proof positive that in the US, peaceful voting has replaced the need for violent revolution.
Yes, help from the Government was eventually forthcoming, after the battles waged by employees finally reached such a point that the Government could no longer simply do the will of the rich. The question you left unanswered was: "Why were the workers engaged in such battles?"
The reason they were was that the ballot box had failed them, time after time. When T.R. sent the National Guard to Colorado, the workers were ecstatic. Finally! Their elected government was going to come to their rescue and stand up against the private armies of the corporations. (specifically The Pinkerton Agency, if I recall correctly) Imagine their horror to find that their rescuers were directed by powerss that respond much more to dollars, than votes.
The problem was that legislators were bought. Corporate cash spoke much louder in Washington than ethics, principles, morals, or Constitutional obligations. Therefore, on a National scale, the power of revolution needs to remain in the hands of the people.
Am I advocating this, now? Of course not! I tend to agree with almost all of what JDH has to say. Are there weapons that regular folks shouldn't be able to simply walk in and purchase? Of course. Anyone remember the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun? Point being, the bans are already in place. They'll certainly need tweaking from time to time.
True story: A couple years back, a knock (pounding) at the door at about half past midnight. I get up and crack the blind. There's a young fellow, maybe twenty years old, 6'4", around 275lbs, with a blood-stained T-shirt standing on my porch. I'm thinking "well, if he were really up to no good he could have just come through the door" but, I go and slip our Rossi 38 into my robe pocket and answer the door. This was prior to my knee replacement, and no time to put my leg brace on, so I'm using my cane.
I open the door, left leg and cane propping it open, right hand in my pocket with the 38. He tells me that he and his friends got their car stuck in the mud doing spins in the field (my neighbors corn field) and we were the closest house. Which means they'd walked about a mile on a hot summer night. The blood was a cut on his hand from trying to push the car out. He asks if I have a tractor he can borrow (! and get stuck in the field, too?). I tell him "no", and offer to call a tow truck, or his family, if he'd like.
Behind him, I see a couple other young fellows, and he goes and confers with them for a sec. He comes back up on the porch, and repeats his request for me to get them out, I repeat my offer to call someone for them. Suddenly, his face gets red, he reaches up with his right hand and grabs the door, shouts "I don't believe you don't have a tractor!" as his left hand is coming up, which I think was going to be a finger in my face. I don't know, because before he got that far, the 38 was out, he'd let go of the door, and his entire demeanor had changed. I offered again to make calls, tow-truck, sherrif, parents. I also tell him that I do have a tractor, no charging system, and if he wants I'll help them in the morning. He remembers that his uncle is my neighbor, another mile down the road, and off they go.
JDH's shotgun sounds nice, but I think my hand-gun was the better choice. I Don't want that choice taken away. I couldn't have handled the shotgun, and my cane, and the door, all at once. Also, my gun wasn't locked in a safe downtown at the shooting range, and their wasn't a trigger safety locking device to screw with at O dark thirty, or a gun safe to get it out of, and it was (is) loaded. JDH, your trust is touching, surely a sign of the progress we've made since the inception of our democracy. I have had a great respect for your opinions stated here and on other threads since you've joined, and often, usually in fact, agree with you. But, I'm not ready to give up my basic right to self defense because you're satisfied that probably nothing will go wrong.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
One of the hallmarks of American Democracy has been the bloodless transfer of power at the ballot box, which has negated Jefferson's prediction. I would add that anyone today who would recomend or prefer having a bloody revolution instead of a peaceful election should not be taken seriously.
I would also point out that the open gun battles that Amos refers to occured across the US at the begining of the 20th Century and were waged by workers against their employers, not the government. Those in government who sent troops against the workers belived in preserving the rights of property and capital at the expense of those who served capital, and thus provided the profits so lavishly enjoyed by so few.
While it is true that some Americans have, and will, always believe that the rights of capital and property should trump the rights of people, it must be remembered that the working conditions we all enjoy today in the US were paid for with the blood of workers who had had enough of horible working conditions, zero safety standards, child labor, long hours, and endless debt to the company store which often resulted in virtual slavery. These conditions were imposed by those with property and capital on those who were without, and who labored in peonage to provide the profits of their masters. It was through help FROM the government that Unions were allowed to exist in this country, and those Unions improved the lives of millions of American workers, and were a primary force in creating the most prosperous middle class the world has ever known.
The fact that there was no bloody revolution to overthrow the government in those days should be proof positive that in the US, peaceful voting has replaced the need for violent revolution.
Yes, help from the Government was eventually forthcoming, after the battles waged by employees finally reached such a point that the Government could no longer simply do the will of the rich. The question you left unanswered was: "Why were the workers engaged in such battles?"
The reason they were was that the ballot box had failed them, time after time. When T.R. sent the National Guard to Colorado, the workers were ecstatic. Finally! Their elected government was going to come to their rescue and stand up against the private armies of the corporations. (specifically The Pinkerton Agency, if I recall correctly) Imagine their horror to find that their rescuers were directed by powerss that respond much more to dollars, than votes.
The problem was that legislators were bought. Corporate cash spoke much louder in Washington than ethics, principles, morals, or Constitutional obligations. Therefore, on a National scale, the power of revolution needs to remain in the hands of the people.
Am I advocating this, now? Of course not! I tend to agree with almost all of what JDH has to say. Are there weapons that regular folks shouldn't be able to simply walk in and purchase? Of course. Anyone remember the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun? Point being, the bans are already in place. They'll certainly need tweaking from time to time.
True story: A couple years back, a knock (pounding) at the door at about half past midnight. I get up and crack the blind. There's a young fellow, maybe twenty years old, 6'4", around 275lbs, with a blood-stained T-shirt standing on my porch. I'm thinking "well, if he were really up to no good he could have just come through the door" but, I go and slip our Rossi 38 into my robe pocket and answer the door. This was prior to my knee replacement, and no time to put my leg brace on, so I'm using my cane.
I open the door, left leg and cane propping it open, right hand in my pocket with the 38. He tells me that he and his friends got their car stuck in the mud doing spins in the field (my neighbors corn field) and we were the closest house. Which means they'd walked about a mile on a hot summer night. The blood was a cut on his hand from trying to push the car out. He asks if I have a tractor he can borrow (! and get stuck in the field, too?). I tell him "no", and offer to call a tow truck, or his family, if he'd like.
Behind him, I see a couple other young fellows, and he goes and confers with them for a sec. He comes back up on the porch, and repeats his request for me to get them out, I repeat my offer to call someone for them. Suddenly, his face gets red, he reaches up with his right hand and grabs the door, shouts "I don't believe you don't have a tractor!" as his left hand is coming up, which I think was going to be a finger in my face. I don't know, because before he got that far, the 38 was out, he'd let go of the door, and his entire demeanor had changed. I offered again to make calls, tow-truck, sherrif, parents. I also tell him that I do have a tractor, no charging system, and if he wants I'll help them in the morning. He remembers that his uncle is my neighbor, another mile down the road, and off they go.
JDH's shotgun sounds nice, but I think my hand-gun was the better choice. I Don't want that choice taken away. I couldn't have handled the shotgun, and my cane, and the door, all at once. Also, my gun wasn't locked in a safe downtown at the shooting range, and their wasn't a trigger safety locking device to screw with at O dark thirty, or a gun safe to get it out of, and it was (is) loaded. JDH, your trust is touching, surely a sign of the progress we've made since the inception of our democracy. I have had a great respect for your opinions stated here and on other threads since you've joined, and often, usually in fact, agree with you. But, I'm not ready to give up my basic right to self defense because you're satisfied that probably nothing will go wrong.
Hey Amos, I guess I forgot to mention my Ruger 357 that lives in the drawer by my bed? OOOPS! My bad. I'm not ready to give up the rights you mention any more than you are, but I think it's long overdue for us to have a national conversation about how firearms are bought and sold, and what firearms SHOULD be bought and sold. I'm glad your "situation" ended peacefully, and I'm also glad you were able to "motivate" those guys to skedattle, without the use of force.
You accurately point out what has happened in our history when the balance of power shifted away from "We the People" in favor of capital, but you've got to acknowledge that it was the Progressive reformers, elected by "We the People", who managed to contain and eliminate the forces of money in government, and who adopted nearly all of the reforms being demanded by the Unions - the 8 hour day, the 5 day work week, the end of child labor, the minimum wage, the progressive tax code, etc. etc.
If our liberties are threatened these days, it is not by government, but by those same forces of capital that damn near eliminated democracy in this country for all but a very small handful of very wealthy people. Money is not speech, it is currency used to buy and sell goods and services. My fear is that the wealthiest among us (which include multinational corporations that do not have our national interests in mind) just might be successful this time in acquiring complete ownership of the US government. If that happens, US workers will be required to accept the same standard of living as the workers in third world countries, where so many US jobs have been "offfshored" in the last 30 years.
Don't think it can't happen here, because it can, and it just might.
Hey Amos, I guess I forgot to mention my Ruger 357 that lives in the drawyer by my bed? OOOPS! My bad. I'm not ready to give up the rights you mention any more than you are, but I think it's long overdue for us to have a national conversation about how firearms are bought and sold, and what firearms SHOULD be bought and sold. I'm glad your "situation" ended peacefully, and I'm also glad you were able to "motivate" those guys to skedattle, without the use of force.
You accurately point out what has happened in our history when the balance of power shifted away from "We the People" in favor of capital, but you've got to acknowledge that it was the Progresssive reformers, elected by "We the People", who managed to contain and eleminate the forces of money in government, and who adopted nearly all of the reforms being demanded by the Unions - the 8 hour day, the 5 day work week, the end of child labor, the minimum wage, the progressive tax code, etc. etc.
If our liberties are threatened these days, it is not by government, but by those same forces of capital that damn near eliminated democracy in this country for all but a very small handfull of very wealthy people. Money is not speech, it is currency used to buy and sell goods and services. My fear is that the wealthiest among us (which include multinational corporations that do not have our national interests in mind) just might be successful this time in acquiring complete ownership of the US government. If that happens, US workers will be required to accept the same standard of living as the workers in third world countries, where so many US jobs have been "offfshored" in the last 30 years.
Don't think it can't happen here, because it can, and it just might.
Well, looks like we stand reconciled, and in complete agreement concerning the points above.
On a side note, it is very easy to read more than is said into comments on this forum, which sometimes escalates out of control. I'm very glad to see Laker and Kuzi back in the fray. For those who don't know, there was a moratorium in political discussion these two agreed on, due to the over-the-top antics some others employed. Lots of vituperation, back then. It is good when reasonable people can discuss touchy topics without losing control. This has been a very good discussion overall, in my opinion.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Amos, there's another reason, that hasn't been touched on, that illustrates why I don't think We the People need to be armed in order to be protected from our government. Our society has changed immensely since 1910, when workers engaged in raging gun battles in order to Unionize. Just think how close, culturally, 1910 was to the wild west days of the wars against the plains Indians. Now consider how, in the late 1950's and 1960's the Civil Rights movement was successful in influencing and accomplishing real societal and legislative change through non-violent means.
The Civil Rights Movement was a successful non-violent revolution, ending the Jim Crow laws, ensuring equality before the law for voting rights, and laid the foundation for what is now the prosperous black middle class. It must also be remembered that those who chose to use violence against the Civil Rights activists eventually lost, even though that violence was often sanctioned and supported by State Governments and State Law Enforcement Agencies. Having said that, it must be recognized that if the Federal Government had weighed in against those working toward Civil Rights, there may have been a lot more bloodshed, but because those who were using non-violent means to accomplish their goals were backed up by Federal law, and thus the protection of the courts, they were able to finally prevail.
The Jim Crow laws were tyrannical, and they were enforced by State Governments, but they were defeated without having to resort to armed revolution. Had the Ciivil Rights activists chosen to engage in armed rebellion, I have no doubt that the outcome would have been much diffferent.
So the patriot act and the national defense authorization act don't violate rights? How about eminent domain?
those all violate rights as well. but we arent taking about those.
no kidding and I am so very surprised that there hasn't been public outcry to stop these things among getting the freaking TSA crap out of our airports.
But people are all up in arms over this shooting, like it never has happened before or by banning certain guns will fix it. And it is also sad that say this is such a hot button but anytime our soldiers are killed whether it be 1 or 20 there is barely anything mentioned. I mean I don't see people lined up to stop war. Our whole idea of what should be important is all F'd up.
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
You know it's gonna be, all right
Yea you knw it's gonna be, all right
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
You know it's gonna be, all right
Yea you knw it's gonna be, all right
John Lennon, Paul McCartney
Nice touch .
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Comments
As far as the Kent State University shootings I think that was a very different scenario. There the students shot upon were unarmed. In the scenario that was put forth the public is armed to the teeth and has the ability to shoot back. Not the same situation and the public perception, and spin machines would be as big of a wepon as guns themselves. Unfortunately in todays world you are who they say you are. The "sheeple" just believe, because it is the course of least resistance.
Note that the US Supreme court has ruled (Scalia wrote the majority opinion) that the use and sale of firearms and ammunition can be regulated. The NRA is preventing that from happening. I believe it is time to discard the extreme views coming from the NRA and for rational men and women to have a sane and civil conversation and examination of how and what firearms and ammunition can be sold inthe US.
maybe we are looking at this using modern words. Maybe regulated means "well trained" in this instance. I'm no linguist. Just a thought.
The only exceptions that I can think of that would justify a bloody revolution against the US Government would be if "We the People" were prevented from voting in elections, (because our right to vote replaces the gun, and is literally the power to peacefully overturn or maintain the existing government) or if engaging in peaceful protest or other forms of civil dissent were prevented (without the ability to express dissent legally, there can be no claim to "freedom").
The gest of it was don't let people scare you into giving up your rights by lumping you in with scumbags. To compare people who wish to have the ability to protect their rights to someone who mass murdered men, women, and children is idiotic.
The second ammendment was put in place to give you a layer of security from tyranny, to give up that right would invite said tyranny.
I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? How about when the vote does nothing but change the faces of corruption?
The democratic form of government established by the American Revolution has been emulated across the face of the globe, and where it has taken root, tyranny by government has been banished. The voting booth IS revolution; peaceful, bloodless revolution that puts power into the hands of common men and women as well as monied men and women alike to decide who will lead and legislate - equality before the law, and representation in the halls of law, of the people, for the people, and by the people. That IS revolution, as long as We the People can speek freely and dissent when we feel that change is needed, and vote for our preferences, tyranny in government cannot dominate us.
"...I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the vote replaces the gun? ..."
I have an analytical mind, a fair understanding of history, and the ability to think logically.
if that is not what you are saying, please explain what you mean again.
voting has not stopped tyranny. people can vote to violate the rights of others. rights are not given or taken by men. they exist. they can either be upheld or violated.
Here is a quote from the National Archives information on the Electoral College.
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your states electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidates electors.
Most states have a winner-take-all system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of proportional representation.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
It is a flawed system and needs to be corrected. That doesn't mean it's a tyranny, just means it needs work.
It is probably better than most govts, but it still has it's flaws. Any time that govt spending can be controlled or influenced by personal agendas, it is flawed. And our govt is ripe with people in positions of control who have personal agendas. I see it every day. Costs escalated, because one person is trying to make themselves look good or want to assert their authority. Accountability has taken a back seat to what those people in those positions decide.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
A better example for the subject would be the states violation of the 2nd ammendment that it took the government 30+ years to address.
Yes, help from the Government was eventually forthcoming, after the battles waged by employees finally reached such a point that the Government could no longer simply do the will of the rich. The question you left unanswered was: "Why were the workers engaged in such battles?"
The reason they were was that the ballot box had failed them, time after time. When T.R. sent the National Guard to Colorado, the workers were ecstatic. Finally! Their elected government was going to come to their rescue and stand up against the private armies of the corporations. (specifically The Pinkerton Agency, if I recall correctly) Imagine their horror to find that their rescuers were directed by powerss that respond much more to dollars, than votes.
The problem was that legislators were bought. Corporate cash spoke much louder in Washington than ethics, principles, morals, or Constitutional obligations. Therefore, on a National scale, the power of revolution needs to remain in the hands of the people.
Am I advocating this, now? Of course not! I tend to agree with almost all of what JDH has to say. Are there weapons that regular folks shouldn't be able to simply walk in and purchase? Of course. Anyone remember the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun? Point being, the bans are already in place. They'll certainly need tweaking from time to time.
True story:
A couple years back, a knock (pounding) at the door at about half past midnight. I get up and crack the blind. There's a young fellow, maybe twenty years old, 6'4", around 275lbs, with a blood-stained T-shirt standing on my porch. I'm thinking "well, if he were really up to no good he could have just come through the door" but, I go and slip our Rossi 38 into my robe pocket and answer the door. This was prior to my knee replacement, and no time to put my leg brace on, so I'm using my cane.
I open the door, left leg and cane propping it open, right hand in my pocket with the 38. He tells me that he and his friends got their car stuck in the mud doing spins in the field (my neighbors corn field) and we were the closest house. Which means they'd walked about a mile on a hot summer night. The blood was a cut on his hand from trying to push the car out. He asks if I have a tractor he can borrow (! and get stuck in the field, too?). I tell him "no", and offer to call a tow truck, or his family, if he'd like.
Behind him, I see a couple other young fellows, and he goes and confers with them for a sec. He comes back up on the porch, and repeats his request for me to get them out, I repeat my offer to call someone for them.
Suddenly, his face gets red, he reaches up with his right hand and grabs the door, shouts "I don't believe you don't have a tractor!" as his left hand is coming up, which I think was going to be a finger in my face. I don't know, because before he got that far, the 38 was out, he'd let go of the door, and his entire demeanor had changed. I offered again to make calls, tow-truck, sherrif, parents. I also tell him that I do have a tractor, no charging system, and if he wants I'll help them in the morning. He remembers that his uncle is my neighbor, another mile down the road, and off they go.
JDH's shotgun sounds nice, but I think my hand-gun was the better choice. I Don't want that choice taken away. I couldn't have handled the shotgun, and my cane, and the door, all at once. Also, my gun wasn't locked in a safe downtown at the shooting range, and their wasn't a trigger safety locking device to screw with at O dark thirty, or a gun safe to get it out of, and it was (is) loaded.
JDH, your trust is touching, surely a sign of the progress we've made since the inception of our democracy. I have had a great respect for your opinions stated here and on other threads since you've joined, and often, usually in fact, agree with you. But, I'm not ready to give up my basic right to self defense because you're satisfied that probably nothing will go wrong.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
You accurately point out what has happened in our history when the balance of power shifted away from "We the People" in favor of capital, but you've got to acknowledge that it was the Progressive reformers, elected by "We the People", who managed to contain and eliminate the forces of money in government, and who adopted nearly all of the reforms being demanded by the Unions - the 8 hour day, the 5 day work week, the end of child labor, the minimum wage, the progressive tax code, etc. etc.
If our liberties are threatened these days, it is not by government, but by those same forces of capital that damn near eliminated democracy in this country for all but a very small handful of very wealthy people. Money is not speech, it is currency used to buy and sell goods and services. My fear is that the wealthiest among us (which include multinational corporations that do not have our national interests in mind) just might be successful this time in acquiring complete ownership of the US government. If that happens, US workers will be required to accept the same standard of living as the workers in third world countries, where so many US jobs have been "offfshored" in the last 30 years.
Don't think it can't happen here, because it can, and it just might.
On a side note, it is very easy to read more than is said into comments on this forum, which sometimes escalates out of control. I'm very glad to see Laker and Kuzi back in the fray. For those who don't know, there was a moratorium in political discussion these two agreed on, due to the over-the-top antics some others employed. Lots of vituperation, back then. It is good when reasonable people can discuss touchy topics without losing control. This has been a very good discussion overall, in my opinion.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The Civil Rights Movement was a successful non-violent revolution, ending the Jim Crow laws, ensuring equality before the law for voting rights, and laid the foundation for what is now the prosperous black middle class. It must also be remembered that those who chose to use violence against the Civil Rights activists eventually lost, even though that violence was often sanctioned and supported by State Governments and State Law Enforcement Agencies. Having said that, it must be recognized that if the Federal Government had weighed in against those working toward Civil Rights, there may have been a lot more bloodshed, but because those who were using non-violent means to accomplish their goals were backed up by Federal law, and thus the protection of the courts, they were able to finally prevail.
The Jim Crow laws were tyrannical, and they were enforced by State Governments, but they were defeated without having to resort to armed revolution. Had the Ciivil Rights activists chosen to engage in armed rebellion, I have no doubt that the outcome would have been much diffferent.
But people are all up in arms over this shooting, like it never has happened before or by banning certain guns will fix it. And it is also sad that say this is such a hot button but anytime our soldiers are killed whether it be 1 or 20 there is barely anything mentioned. I mean I don't see people lined up to stop war. Our whole idea of what should be important is all F'd up.
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
You know it's gonna be, all right
Yea you knw it's gonna be, all right
John Lennon, Paul McCartney
.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain