PDA

View Full Version : The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety



TheCurmudgeon
04-03-2014, 10:44 PM
Not sure if this is the right place, or if this would be better under the "Soft Sciences" but the Blog post on the latest Fort Hood shooting, tied to a recent article I saw on armed protestors made me raise a question:

"Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?"

Here is the thrust of the question. Has the need to justify ownership of military assault rifled pushed the lobby into playing the "right to revolution" card. Take for example:


The right of revolution requires the means of revolution and this is why the Second Amendment exists. Normally the ballot box is the only self-correction that is needed but they had no intention of giving up the same right that they exercised to give us freedom in the first place. Nor were they pious enough to assume that their correction would stay in place and that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction as they had.http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2013/02/why-would-anyone-need-a-military-styled-assault-weapon/

or


Why do I need an assault rifle you ask? I don't need it for hunting. I don't need it for home protection from a single invader, or even two. So I echo the sentiment of many gun control advocates; Why do I need an assault rifle, with a high capacity clip no less?

Here is why. I need an assault rifle because I live under the rule of a government who thinks it has the right to take away my assault rifle; a government who dictates who I can marry, what I can eat, drink, and smoke; a government who uses force to take my money away from me, who charges me rent (property tax) to live in my own home: a government who commits acts of war without the consent of the people, who murders it's own citizens witout probable cause or due process; a government who has monopolized the currency with which I can trade my goods and services, then devalued that currency through inflation and taxation; a government which uses the tyranny of democracy rather than the freedom of a republic.

To put it bluntly, I need an assault rifle in the event that I might have to declare my independence from a tyrannical government. I'm statistically unlikely to ever shoot an intruder in my home. I'm statistically unlikely to ever be in the position to stop one of these rare mass killings at a school, as these things happen far less often than the media would have you believe. However, whether you are Democrat or Republican, you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)http://www.dailypaul.com/266890/why-do-i-need-an-assault-rifle

The inevitable result is this:


Albuquerque Police Chief Gorden Eden shows a video of a protester wielding an AK-47 assault rifle during Sunday's protest held in response to the fatal March 16 shooting of a homeless man by police in the Sandia foothills. (Greg Sorber/Journal)http://www.abqjournal.com/377167/news/chief-protest-became-a-mob.html

This is the first incident that I have seen, but I would guess it will not be the last.

The question I am posing is not about gun rights. This is not a debate about the second amendment per se. It is a question about what we should do when (no longer if, now it is when) a protestor starts shooting policemen?

carl
04-04-2014, 02:40 AM
Curmudgeon:

First you say "Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?". Then you say later in the same post "The question I am posing is not about gun rights. This is not a debate about the second amendment per se.". So I am a little confused, you say one thing then say you aren't saying that but when you said the first thing you used as tendentious a phrase as can be so it seems to me you are saying that.

And you have three unspoken premises, the first being that somehow rifles styled to look like military rifles are more suitable than say, a 7mm magnum or 30.06 elk rifle, the second being that it is inevitable that protesters will start shooting officers and the third that this is an especially dangerous situation for officers. I reject them all. If the desire was to shoot officers in some kind of riot it would be much more effective to snipe at them with a rifle of the aforementioned calibers from someplace on the periphery than to spray and pray from within the crowd if only because the other members of the crowd may take strong exception to murdering policemen and being placed in danger by the shooter. The members of the crowd in ABQ did just that, told the guy to put it away.

I don't see how protesters shooting at riot control officers is inevitable just because some UNM hanger-on show off decided to wave around his piece. Where all this happened was right close to UNM.

Third, the most dangerous part of an officers job is the traffic stop, and traffic accidents. That is where people die. If you look back at the incidents where large numbers of officers died, it is mostly traffic related incidents, accidents, terror attacks (OKC ad 9-11) and prison riots. Regular riots aren't in there.

I just so happen to have personal experience with a street 'riot' in ABQ. At that time it was mostly UNM types, students or not, having a good old socially concerned time. From looking at the photos of this incident the crowd appears to be the same type.

TheCurmudgeon
04-04-2014, 03:20 AM
Curmudgeon:

First you say "Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?". Then you say later in the same post "The question I am posing is not about gun rights. This is not a debate about the second amendment per se.". So I am a little confused, you say one thing then say you aren't saying that but when you said the first thing you used as tendentious a phrase as can be so it seems to me you are saying that.



Carl, if you see this question as having to do with the Second Amendment than you are missing the point entirely. It has to do with propaganda and political rhetoric. It has to do with how far you can go to argue a point in a free society before you have crossed a line into creating a self-sustaining panic.

I think it is very telling that you can't see the forest for the trees.

The examples I give, particularly the second one, make it clear that this has nothing to do with gun ownership. It has to do with how an argument has been crafted to support the ownership of a specific class of guns. This class of guns is being associated with a fear of political tyranny. That the justification for owning this class of weapon is to protect our civil liberties. Now, when the class of weapon is used in a protest against perceived tyranny, are the people who made the argument responsible? Does the potential for such a response create a justification for limiting the argument? Who, if anyone, is liable and who, if anyone, should act?

I have been watching the rhetoric on news shows as reasonable people make the argument that the people must have military style assault weapons if they are going to protect themselves from the government. I don't think this is an academic question any longer. So I pose it to the council.

carl
04-04-2014, 03:54 AM
Curmudgeon:

Which is it? Is it about protesters shooting policemen or is about regular type flyover American people having 'military style assault rifles? And what is a military style assault rifle, an M-1 Garand, an M-1 carbine, an M-1A with a 10 round magazine, a .303 Enfield with a 10 round integral magazine, a Ruger 10-22 with 25 round magazine or what? Any of those properly handled in the right situation is a quite deadly weapon.

When you are walking through a forest you had better be looking at the trees otherwise you will bump into one.

TheCurmudgeon
04-04-2014, 11:43 AM
Carl,

a definition in common, American terms:
In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., assault weapon definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectivelyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

The most common one supported by these arguments are AR-15s with 30 round magazines because they tend to invoke a patriotic slant, unless you are supper afraid of the government, in which case you might prefer an AK-47.


Yes, the question has to do with the potential of protestors to shot policemen (or soldiers, or any representative of the government) because they have been convinced that the normal options of political protest are no longer available to them. That voting or rallying people is not enough of a protection any more. The only way an individual can protect him or herself from perceived government tyranny is by armed rebellion and the only way tot do that is with an assault weapon.

The ultimate questions are more broad. The first round that came to mind is how far can you really go with political speech before you cross a line into screaming fire in a theater?

As I thought about it more, a second series of questions emerged. Why does this argument work? How have a free people been convinced that the freedoms they have no longer function to protect them and they must resort to defending themselves against their own government? That free speech, free association, and the vote are no longer enough.

Perhaps I see the problem differently because I am from New Hampshire where the people's right to rebellion is written into the State Constitution. In all my time there I never felt that my right to rebellion was tied to a specific weapon system.

slapout9
04-04-2014, 11:45 PM
Curmudgy,
I think the short answer is the law makers do not follow the law. The 2nd amendment plainly says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed......... at which time the lawmakers proceed to infringe upon their right. To the average person Congress and the President lack any credability.

TheCurmudgeon
04-04-2014, 11:49 PM
Slap,

So what you are saying is because the government makes an attempt to limit assault weapon ownership, that the reasonable response is that the people assume that limitation is based on an attempt to stifle their rights, in effect proving the argument that the people need assault weapons?

Condor
04-05-2014, 01:47 AM
First off, the term "assault weapon" has dubious origins making it no more than a meme within the US culture. I served 13 years in the military and last I checked there was no weapons in our inventory that carried the nomenclature "assault weapon". You could ask a 100 different people what an "assault weapon" was and probably get a hundred different answers. It's pathetic really that people with no real knowledge are passing and dictating laws on a subject they don't even understand and don't make any effort too. Instead they use any and every tragedy to promote their political agenda.

In regards to legislating "assault weapons" there's already a ton of ink on the books. Not only do individual states make their own interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, you got counties and cities within those states making their own version of what the Bill of Rights supposedly means. Many places are very strict on what you can actually have. If you believe in the 2nd Amendment and actually live in a local that is supportive of the 2nd Amendment, you still can't go buy military grade hardware. It is off limits with the exception of those individuals who actually go through the process of gaining Class 3 status to own an automatic weapon which by the way isn't cheap, involves in depth background checks and even then if it gets approved, you better keep your i's dotted and your t's crossed because if you get found in violation you better be prepared to spend a lot of time behind bars.

The founding fathers, as a majority, saw firearms as an individual right despite what many "constitutional lawyers" will say to the contrary. One only needs to study the history of the US to see why they saw this as an important individual right.

In the end, laws are worth no more than the paper they are written on. I've been all over the world where there were "strict gun laws" but that didn't stop the "bad guys" from running around with all kinds of heavy armaments. To think that simplifying a complex world into the "well if we just banned this we'd have no more killings" screams of extreme naiveté. Kind of like thinking the US can just waltz into a foreign country with a different culture and expect to turn it into a "mini America" over night.

slapout9
04-05-2014, 05:08 AM
Slap,

So what you are saying is because the government makes an attempt to limit assault weapon ownership, that the reasonable response is that the people assume that limitation is based on an attempt to stifle their rights, in effect proving the argument that the people need assault weapons?

Yes. Some history. It is clear, at least to older Americans, that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to have firepower equivalent to the military in order to prevent or put a check on the executive branch of government in order to prevent some type of Executive Order/A King George's decree from ever taking place again. To resist by force if necessary. That is also why restrictions were placed on the Executive when it comes to Declaring War and also the Prevention of large standing Armies which were all considered present and future threats to a free and primarily self governing citizenry.

TheCurmudgeon
04-05-2014, 05:02 PM
Yes. Some history. It is clear, at least to older Americans, that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to have firepower equivalent to the military in order to prevent or put a check on the executive branch of government in order to prevent some type of Executive Order/A King George's decree from ever taking place again. To resist by force if necessary. That is also why restrictions were placed on the Executive when it comes to Declaring War and also the Prevention of large standing Armies which were all considered present and future threats to a free and primarily self governing citizenry.

That is the most reasonable argument I have heard. Although it is clear that the restriction on declaring war or on standing armies has long since gone by the wayside. It would also mean that the restrictions on automatic weapons and on large caliber weapons, those above .50 cal. are also unconstitutional. I have never heard that argument made in relation to maintaining our freedom, at least not in the mainstream media.

TheCurmudgeon
04-05-2014, 10:17 PM
First off, the term "assault weapon" has dubious origins making it no more than a meme within the US culture. The history of the term can be found on Wikipedia. I have already cited it, although the term clearly causes confusion.


In regards to legislating "assault weapons" there's already a ton of ink on the books.

The founding fathers, as a majority, saw firearms as an individual right despite what many "constitutional lawyers" will say to the contrary. One only needs to study the history of the US to see why they saw this as an important individual right.

I have already stated that this is not about gun rights or the second amendment per se. But, as long as you raise the issue, the founding fathers were simply following English tradition. They were demanding rights they expected as Englishmen (http://www.thegloriousrevolution.org/docs/english%20bill%20of%20rights.htm)and they built those same rights into our Constitution.



That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

This provision in the English Bill of Rights is the forbearer to the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is based upon the premise that the best defense against tyranny is a well armed populace. Under Cromwell, the government was authorized to seize weapons from all Catholics or those that were deemed dangerous to the government.[15] In America, the possession of the arms by the general populace allowed for the creation of militias which ultimately overcame the English Army.

In both England and America, the right to bear arms has always been one of the most controversial of constitutionally guaranteed rights. England effectively reversed this privilege with the Firearms Act of 1920. That act required subjects to receive a certificate from the police in order to legally posses a gun, and that certificate was not granted as a simple ministerial act as it is with background checks in the United States. The ability of the English to possess weapons has been limited much further under subsequent firearms acts.

In the United States, the right to bear arms is protected much more strongly. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The meaning of this provision has been highly contested, and it is not generally viewed in an absolute

This was nothing new at the time.

For a quick overview of how the right came into existence in England see the history of the Glorious Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution) and the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) of 1689.

TheCurmudgeon
04-05-2014, 11:54 PM
Condor, I don't see this as a second amendment question. Let me try approaching this from a different angle.

Lets look at Weber's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence) definition of a state:


According to Weber, a state is any "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.

Without using the meme, a specific class of firearm has been argued to be a requirement to keep the state from having that monopoly. No other weapon system (even large caliber weapons or automatic weapons) have been associated with the population's ability to challenge the state's monopoly on violence.

I know THIS argument is harder to comprehend then the simpler argument, but it is the same in certain ways. It is based on a distrust in the government to perform the basic functions it is founded to perform. The assault weapons argument takes that a step further, where the government not only can't perform its basic functions, but is now an active threat.

I personally don't think this is an industry argument to allow them to sell more AR-15s. This is not the "Commercial elite" controlling the "common people" with fear driven arguments that they must protect themselves. I think it is an argument that exists amongst the people that the industry has keyed in on. There is much distrust of the government that goes beyond a simple dislike of the current administration. It sometimes manifests itself in that form, but it is far more pervasive than that. I believe the thinking is part of a larger change in the culture of the US, but I can't put my finger on it. The larger questions raised here are the ones I am interested in.

In the incarnation I am referring to it shows up as a absolute requirement for the population to be armed. But not just armed with a gun, armed with a military style weapon. And not just armed for self protection against criminals, but armed for protection against the very state that the people created.

It is this total lack of trust in the government in a segment of the population that I am interested in. This argument for assault weapons is just the clearest form of it.

So again, the question becomes why do people feel this way in a free society. The British came to trust the system enough in the 1920's to restrict gun ownership. We never have. In the recent times there have been several groups who have tried to break away from the government or blatantly challenged it. This is not new. What seems to be changing is the INDIVIDUAL interest in the need to challenge the system, or at least be protected from it.

Is this a result of more aggressive policing? Have incidents like Rodney Kings cause a severe lack in trust of the police. Is it part and parcel to the release of documents that has demonstrated that your government spies on you? What makes people believe that they need military style assault weapons to protect themselves from their own government? What happens when they finally start to use them?

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 12:32 AM
Another article (http://www.caintv.com/why-whats-happening-in-ukraine)arguing - again - American's need semi-automatic rifles on par with what the military has to defend themselves against their own government.


Vice President Joe Biden’s effort to convince the American people last year that a shotgun was much better protection than semi-automatic rifle probably won’t persuade the Venezuelan citizens who have had to run for cover from their own police and military.

Condor
04-06-2014, 01:57 AM
First off you continue to use the term "military style assault weapons" when I clearly pointed out the military doesn't use the nomenclature "assault weapon" for any of their weapons (though on a side note the term has been adopted by so many within our culture that there are even people within the "profession of arms" who will use that term). It's kind of like the whole "clip/magazine" terms that constantly get interchanged within our culture despite the fact that a clip and a magazine are clearly different things.

Look, I'm not going to get bogged down in an argument over the term but I do believe when people start using terminology that isn't correct or of dubious origin it immediately sends warning signals up in my head that "here we go again, someone is going to lecture about the evil assault weapon" when as I clearly pointed out you could ask a hundred different people and get a hundred different answers. There are many firearms out there that can be dress up with fancy wood furniture, has a 5 round magazine, no flash suppressor and no bayonet lug and most people if shown a picture wouldn't give it pause. If you suddenly take all those features off the weapon and put on black plastic furniture, a 30 round magazine, flash suppressor and bayonet lug it immediately becomes an "assault weapon" to most people.

As far as the American public having access to military grade weapon systems, not going to happen anytime soon. Like I said, I spent 13 years in the military and last time I checked, local gun shops aren't selling M240s, M2s, Javelins, TOWS, MK19s, Stingers, etc. It is possible to own an automatic weapon but as I pointed out it takes a lot of money and hoops to jump through. So today the whole argument of citizens being just as well armed as their military becomes kind of a moot point.

With that being said, as you pointed out above, there's a large percentage of people who expect their government to live up to the founding principals of this country. I am well aware of the history of both this and the English country. I guess one could argue that our founding fathers did not imagine the advances that would take place in military weapons and equipment, so I can see where some could argue as I stated above that today the thought of the average citizen being as well armed to his military counterpart is a joke. With that being said, if people feel that government is stepping outside their moral (and legal) bounds then resistance will arise at some point. I think Colonel Jones has done a great job articulating how "insurgencies" start. Also keep in mind that despite all our military grade hardware, we are getting our butts kicked by a bunch of people who are still living in the 12th century. Of course we could blame that on lack of any type of long term strategic goals but alas that is a different subject.

By the way, there was just a recent home invasion near where I live and 10 "suspects" were caught and charged with the home invasion. People can sit there and say "but you don't need a 30 round magazine". Obviously these very same people have never been in a gunfight.

PS-I wouldn't take everything that is put on WikiPedia as gospel. Anyone can "edit" or put what they like on there, doesn't mean it's correct.

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 02:09 AM
Look, I'm not going to get bogged down in an argument over the term but I do believe when people start using terminology that isn't correct or of dubious origin it immediately sends warning signals up in my head that "here we go again, someone is going to lecture about the evil assault weapon" when as I clearly pointed out you could ask a hundred different people and get a hundred different answers.

Again, this argument has nothing to do with the the assault weapons, or guns in general. It has to do with people, what makes them think and act in certain ways. Think of this as a look at the Human Domain, except we are looking at our own Domain, the American public.

Condor
04-06-2014, 02:34 AM
Again, this argument has nothing to do with the the assault weapons, or guns in general. It has to do with people, what makes them think and act in certain ways. Think of this as a look at the Human Domain, except we are looking at our own Domain, the American public.

Well, focusing on the just the "human domain" as I pointed out I think there's a large percentage of people in this country (and possibly growing) who think that their government is getting out of control. As I also mentioned, this reality or perception whether it's true or not can and possibly will at some point lead to insurgency of some sort. One only has to peruse many of the "forums" on the internet or look at many of the bumper stickers on vehicles and one starts to realize that there is a sizable portion of people who feel this country is going down a path that is divergent from what our founding fathers put into their framing of this country.

Companies (i.e. firearm companies) have also learned to vote with their feet by leaving states and locales that are no longer favorable towards them. So I do agree with you (assuming this is your point) that there are many out there who feel threatened and are thus pooling into a growing percentage of people why are "afraid" of their government.

Kiwigrunt
04-06-2014, 02:43 AM
"Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?"

Here is the thrust of the question. Has the need to justify ownership of military assault rifled pushed the lobby into playing the "right to revolution" card.



I'll add some questions to this original one. Mine may expound on this question, if I understand it correctly.

Do US citizens truly own 'assault weapons' (what a horrible term to use in a civilian context) to defend their rights, and to defend themselves against a wayward government (rather than just home intruders)? Or is the actual ownership of those weapons in and off itself the ultimate manifestation of those rights? Can it be that the right to defend against a wayward govt has become a straw-man for the ownership of (these) guns? With other words, have the means become the end?


If the distinction between different classes of guns was never made, would the conversation still exist? I should think so. But would it be just as heated, or do these distinctions serve to concentrate and perhaps increase the heat in one direction?

Dayuhan
04-06-2014, 02:48 AM
This (cited in original post):


I need an assault rifle in the event that I might have to declare my independence from a tyrannical government... whether you are Democrat or Republican, you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)

sounds less like a manifestation of the right to revolution than a proclamation of a right to shoot someone if the government pisses you off. One wonders how exactly the author intends to declare his independence, and whom he intends to shoot, over any of the issues mentioned.

I have no desire at all to see the right to see the right to keep and bear arms excessively constrained, but at the same time rights come with responsibilities, and if enough of this sort of talk goes around for long enough, sooner or later somebody's going to act on it and somebody is going to get shot.

It is interesting, and to me a little disconcerting, to see how the gun rights discourse has changed over the last few decades.

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 03:12 AM
I'll add some questions to this original one. Mine may expound on this question, if I understand it correctly.

Do US citizens truly own 'assault weapons' (what a horrible term to use in a civilian context) to defend their rights, and to defend themselves against a wayward government (rather than just home intruders)? Or is the actual ownership of those weapons in and off itself the ultimate manifestation of those rights? Can it be that the right to defend against a wayward govt has become a straw-man for the ownership of (these) guns? With other words, have the means become the end?


If the distinction between different classes of guns was never made, would the conversation still exist? I should think so. But would it be just as heated, or do these distinctions serve to concentrate and perhaps increase the heat in one direction?

Kiwi,

I am not sure I would have noticed the pattern unless it had been tied to a specific weapons system. Americans have always tied gun ownership to liberty, but this seems somehow different.

It also does not seem to be tied to any one complaint. Just a general feeling of government oppression. That is the part that scares me. It seems like a "Rebel without a Cause" type of thing.

So if I am seeing this correctly, there is a general dissatisfaction with the American government. A portion of the population is beginning to feel that the normal means of dealing with government dissatisfaction - free speech and the vote - are no longer adequate to deal with the problem. To top it off, they are don't seem to be able to articulate what the problem is.

At first I would have thought of it as a straw man argument for ownership. That is what I had thought for some time. But now it seems like people "believe the hype" so to speak.

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 03:22 AM
Well, focusing on the just the "human domain" as I pointed out I think there's a large percentage of people in this country (and possibly growing) who think that their government is getting out of control. As I also mentioned, this reality or perception whether it's true or not can and possibly will at some point lead to insurgency of some sort. One only has to peruse many of the "forums" on the internet or look at many of the bumper stickers on vehicles and one starts to realize that there is a sizable portion of people who feel this country is going down a path that is divergent from what our founding fathers put into their framing of this country.

Companies (i.e. firearm companies) have also learned to vote with their feet by leaving states and locales that are no longer favorable towards them. So I do agree with you (assuming this is your point) that there are many out there who feel threatened and are thus pooling into a growing percentage of people why are "afraid" of their government.

I started this thread with a question. I have been developing my thoughts and honing in on what bothers me as we go, so I apologize if the early statements seem random.

I don't see the gun companies as the problem. They are simply responding to the feeling of the people - providing them what they want. My question has more to do with why the people want these guns. They seem to have a specific reason to buy them and the demand is growing (or it appears that way).

I also cannot determine what the complaint is. There are a number of talking heads out there who play on this trying different avenues (its the immigrants, its the socialist leanings of the government, its the rich people) but none of them seem to hit the mark. In the past where there was a problem it could be turned into a political movement and then either addressed by the government or co-opted by those in charge. This doesn't seem to have coalesced on any one theme that can be politically addressed.

The only common thread is that the people feel the need to be armed with weapons they feel even their odds in a fight with the police or the military. That worries me. Assuming the normal political system cannot address whatever this is, I believe it is only a matter of time till someone actually starts shooting.

I could be overstating this, but I don't think so.

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 03:26 AM
This (cited in original post):



sounds less like a manifestation of the right to revolution than a proclamation of a right to shoot someone if the government pisses you off. One wonders how exactly the author intends to declare his independence, and whom he intends to shoot, over any of the issues mentioned.

I have no desire at all to see the right to see the right to keep and bear arms excessively constrained, but at the same time rights come with responsibilities, and if enough of this sort of talk goes around for long enough, sooner or later somebody's going to act on it and somebody is going to get shot.

It is interesting, and to me a little disconcerting, to see how the gun rights discourse has changed over the last few decades.

Maybe because this has been a slow burn I never noticed it. And there were always the fringe out there who hated the government. The guy who refused to pay income tax because he felt the founding fathers were against it, or the group that went off into the woods and declared themselves an independent nation, but it did not seem to have this same general appeal.

carl
04-06-2014, 04:26 AM
Since the motivation for buying an AR or an AK seems to be an issue here, I would like to comment on the reason most people who I know who bought one of these weapons did so. First, a lot of people over the years have had an interest in those weapons but never felt the urge to buy one UNTIL the government started to talk about imposing restrictions on them. Then those people figured if they had any interest in having one they had better get it quick and the guns started flying off the shelves. This first started in the 1990s and has happened periodically since. In other words, not nearly so many weapons would have been sold if the gov had kept it's mouth shut.

Second, the guns are easy to shoot well and they are fun to shoot. That is a huge reason they are so popular, they're fun.

Third, the ammunition isn't that expensive. More expensive than .22 but not so nearly so bad as most center fire calibers.

Fourth, ARs are extremely versatile weapons. You can set them up to do anything from prairie dog hunting to long range target shooting to home defense.

Fifth, regardless of what the big city progressive types think, ARs and AKs give a person much more confidence that they can effectively defend themselves than Mr. Biden's double barrel. And they also give any potential criminal that much more pause.

Finally, throughout our history civilians have had free access to the same kind of rifle that the military has had, and in fact during times of technical transition they have had access to much better weapons than the military was equipped with. There is nothing unique here.

slapout9
04-06-2014, 06:34 AM
That is the most reasonable argument I have heard. Although it is clear that the restriction on declaring war or on standing armies has long since gone by the wayside. It would also mean that the restrictions on automatic weapons and on large caliber weapons, those above .50 cal. are also unconstitutional. I have never heard that argument made in relation to maintaining our freedom, at least not in the mainstream media.

Curmudgy you might enjoy this article by Colonel Michael D. Wyly USMC ret. on 4GW and the Constitution. I have posted it before on a similar topic on shooting sprees. It may explain a lot as he was/is an extremely far sighted Officer.
http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/wyly_4gw.htm

slapout9
04-06-2014, 06:38 AM
I have never heard that argument made in relation to maintaining our freedom, at least not in the mainstream media.

I doubt if you ever will hear it on the mainstream media out side of FOX news. I come from the era when the responsibilities of American Exceptionalism (meaning Good Citizenship) was taught from the first grade onward. Sadly those days are gone due to Cultural Marxism/Political Correctness.

Dayuhan
04-06-2014, 11:54 AM
Maybe because this has been a slow burn I never noticed it. And there were always the fringe out there who hated the government. The guy who refused to pay income tax because he felt the founding fathers were against it, or the group that went off into the woods and declared themselves an independent nation, but it did not seem to have this same general appeal.

My memories may also be defective... but my memory of the late 70s is that the gun world was overwhelmingly focused on hunting and the outdoors; with competitive and recreational target shooting also in the mix. Accuracy and ease of handling were what people looked for in a firearm. I spent way too many hours on ranges, shooting and listening to the talk, never held or fired an AR or AK or similar... I don't recall ever seeing one. Lots of modified Springfields and Garands around but those were the only weapons of military pedigree you'd see around. Home defense was of course discussed, with shotgun and handgun camps prominent, and some of politically fringe characters would occasionally speak darkly of the imminent need to defend against the Commie sympathizers and their darker skinned allies if the Guvvermint failed to do its duty. Why these nefarious groups would march out of their urban haunts and head straight for our little rural enclave was never quite explained, but it was never something too many people took seriously..

I don't recall ever hearing anyone speak, or reading anything written, about the possibility of having to fight the government, and I think any talk of having to use armed force against the police would have been smacked down very quickly.

I think you're right that there have always been people around who disliked government, even hated it, but I don't think there were so many people then who feared it. That may be because government is more fearful today... but is there really any special reason for that to be so? I recall not long ago seeing photos of rows of retired MRAPs stored in a lot in the southwest being circulated as evidence of imminent government intent to declare martial law and seize absolute power. That sort of paranoia seems to me relatively new, though of course that's a very subjective observation.

I don't think people are buying AR or AK type weapons (or whatever we want to call them) with the intent to secede, revolt, or commit mass shootings... but the same qualities Carl cites as making these weapons highly suitable for defensive use even by relative non-experts also makes them equally suitable for aggressive use by relative non-experts. Given the recurrence of mass shootings and the kind of rhetoric we've discussed here... that's bound to make some people nervous. What the solution to that is, I really don't know. I'm not sure there is a really good one, and there sure isn't one that's going to make everyone happy.

Stan
04-06-2014, 01:08 PM
Since the motivation for buying an AR or an AK seems to be an issue here, I would like to comment on the reason most people who I know who bought one of these weapons did so. First, a lot of people over the years have had an interest in those weapons but never felt the urge to buy one UNTIL the government started to talk about imposing restrictions on them. Then those people figured if they had any interest in having one they had better get it quick and the guns started flying off the shelves. This first started in the 1990s and has happened periodically since. In other words, not nearly so many weapons would have been sold if the gov had kept it's mouth shut.

Second, the guns are easy to shoot well and they are fun to shoot. That is a huge reason they are so popular, they're fun.

Third, the ammunition isn't that expensive. More expensive than .22 but not so nearly so bad as most center fire calibers.

Fourth, ARs are extremely versatile weapons. You can set them up to do anything from prairie dog hunting to long range target shooting to home defense.

Fifth, regardless of what the big city progressive types think, ARs and AKs give a person much more confidence that they can effectively defend themselves than Mr. Biden's double barrel. And they also give any potential criminal that much more pause.

Finally, throughout our history civilians have had free access to the same kind of rifle that the military has had, and in fact during times of technical transition they have had access to much better weapons than the military was equipped with. There is nothing unique here.

Carl,
While I tend to agree with you, I have some reservations herein...

Having hunted my entire life and 23 years in the Army, I personally have no need for an AR15 nor a Kalashnikov. I think both are mass produced inaccurate firearms. If I go bird hunting I take my O/U 16 gauge, if I go deer hunting I take my 30.06 with just three rounds, and if I go skeet shooting, I take my 12 gauge and 25 rounds of 9 shot. Details, details. But the point is, any seasoned hunter or shooter could perform the same amount of damage with an 8-round .45 pistol than someone with an AR or AK. They became exotic due to hype from the anti gun types in our government. How ironic :D

However, I do agree that most feel that their rights are being infringed upon and some feel the immediate need to scarf up on a firearm that may end up on the endangered species list soon.

Stan,
Condor has a point and your posted link to Wiki says it all.

The definition of Weapon vs Rifle and how those definitions ended up so stifling in the public eye. The govt. provided the hype, the gun manufacturers provided the thrill, and the public went shopping. :rolleyes:

If they ban my Colt Commander tomorrow because it has now been determined that an 8-round magazine semi-automatic pistol in the hands of a sharp shooter can kill LEO and harm to others, the general public will scarf those firearms up too.

The current limitations and bans on specific firearms (due to some fruitcake that blew a brain fuse in a shopping mall or on Ft. Hood) are too politically charged without sufficient justification. It's also illegal to possess a hand grenade. Wait til that day comes when the possessor employs it in a shopping mall !

Kiwigrunt
04-06-2014, 01:12 PM
Carl, I fully agree with you. Except for point three. But that is a result of point two.:D
It has been said that Obama is the best gun-salesman the US has ever had. And it has even blown over to NZ. I have bought two of the buggers in the last two years (actually, they really just followed me home) as a result of a failed attempt by police to tightening guncontol here. I never had any intention to get any. Go figure. 'Something must be done' syndrome can indeed suffer from the law of unintended consequences.


Added: Stan and I replied at the same time.

Yup, words matter. And 'assault weapon' is a very poor choice. It is far too emotive. I think it does both sides of the argument more harm than good.
The distinction between evil guns and sports guns was made here in 1992 after….you guessed it, a massacre. But fortunately our police / law makers were wise enough to use a less emotive term. We call them MSSAs (Military Style Semi Automatic).
To point out that the function of the gun has little to do with the looks is fair enough. However, I think that over here, the distinction was made based more on the looks than anything else. It is thought that the very looks of these guns is often what can pull the massacre fuknuckles over the edge.

Stan
04-06-2014, 01:25 PM
Added: Stan and I replied at the same time.

Yes, but I drew faster and with a .45 :cool:

Kiwigrunt
04-06-2014, 01:33 PM
Yes, but I drew faster and with a .45 :cool:

Well, yes. It took me a while to load 30 rounds in a mag.....:eek::p

Stan
04-06-2014, 01:45 PM
Well, yes. It took me a while to load 30 rounds in a mag.....:eek::p

Well put !

And you obviously loaded at least two mags aka American mode, then taped them together aka African style :D

Kiwigrunt
04-06-2014, 01:48 PM
Well put !

And you obviously loaded at least two mags aka American mode, then taped them together aka African style :D

Yup. M193 in one and SS109 in the other. In case I may need to defeat body armour. Also made sure my back-up sights are zeroed in...just never know!:wry:

Kiwigrunt
04-06-2014, 01:56 PM
I agree with Dayuhan. This whole gun discourse in the US seems like a self-perpetuating avalanche. And it seems increasingly difficult to separate it from other areas of discourse, in the sense that the ferocity of the narrative sets a tone that vibrates through society.

From my vantage point on this side of the puddle, I perceive two main areas of discourse that seem to be getting increasingly heated and extreme in the US. That is guns / 2nd amendment, and religion.

So the original thread question of "Has the Second Amendment/Assault Weapon Lobby become a destabilizing force in the US?" can perhaps be answered with a "yes".

How far 'out of control' does the govt need to get before a well armed militia storms the White House? Or in what way does the 'we need to be able to defend ourselves against our govt' crowd think that guns provide the solution to whatever wrongs they perceive the govt to be inflicting?

Obviously, I am looking at all of this from the outside in. I am not an American. Condor, when you say that 'a sizable portion of people who feel this country is going down a path that is divergent from what our founding fathers put into their framing of this country', can you give some examples of what topics you think are at the core of this perception? What are these people afraid of? Does it have to do with things like employment, healthcare, education etc.?
From here, it looks like they may just be afraid of loosing their guns…

Stan
04-06-2014, 02:09 PM
Obviously, I am looking at all of this from the outside in. I am not an American. Condor, when you say that 'a sizable portion of people who feel this country is going down a path that is divergent from what our founding fathers put into their framing of this country', can you give some examples of what topics you think are at the core of this perception? What are these people afraid of? Does it have to do with things like employment, healthcare, education etc.?
From here, it looks like they may just be afraid of loosing their guns…

I have to say that people in rural America fear the worst of everything, not just firearm ownership.

The core perception of the Obama administration (and to an extent, the Clinton era) is that our rights are dwindling. However, Obama did a better job of riding that fine line without saying anything.

If the general perception where I grew up in rural America is that our rights are slipping away, it could be corn on the cob today and firearms tomorrow, etc, etc. While I could care less about owning an AR15 or AK and it's too easy for me to dismiss those so-called rights to ownership, the remainder of rural America doesn't see it that way and would argue with me that by not giving a Sierra about this issue, will eventually translate into everything under the sun being restricted. These are some serious farmers with no military background !

carl
04-06-2014, 02:19 PM
Kiwi:

Perhaps if there is any de-stabilization going on it is because of the phenomenom (sic) you experienced yourself, sort of. The gov and segments of the polity seem determined to eliminate the right spelled out by the Second Amendment and people react to that.. So maybe you should look at the "Second Amendment"/scary looking like a movie weapon' lobby as a reaction to a provocation.

One of the most disturbing elements of the elite liberal establishment's attitudes is the hostility toward religion. This is being played out in some court cases now. THAT is very dangerous, far more than they know. The US is a very religious country and if the gov seriously tries to mess with that there will be trouble. Serious trouble.

Stan:

ARs, at least 5.56 mm/.223 ones aren't meant for hunting much more than prairie dogs. They are used for all kinds of other things and are good at those things.

There are really good shooters. And then there are not such really good shooters...like me. We started out with 8 shot .45s and when we switched to 16 shot Glock 31s I felt a whole lot better about things. As I felt a whole lot better with the AR up front and the 12 gauge in the trunk.

Stan
04-06-2014, 02:33 PM
Stan:

ARs, at least 5.56 mm/.223 ones aren't meant for hunting much more than prairie dogs. They are used for all kinds of other things and are good at those things.

There are really good shooters. And then there are not such really good shooters...like me. We started out with 8 shot .45s and when we switched to 16 shot Glock 31s I felt a whole lot better about things. As I felt a whole lot better with the AR up front and the 12 gauge in the trunk.

Carl,
Spent most of my youth on a PA farm using my Uncle's 22-250 (basically a 5.56 with some extra umph !). My point was however that while I see no need for an AR nor AK, that's just me and the basic problem in this thread are in fact those that do want an AR or AK in the trunk and right now that should be OK. Why they want one is not an issue.

Regards, Stan

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 05:16 PM
I have to say that people in rural America fear the worst of everything, not just firearm ownership.

The core perception of the Obama administration (and to an extent, the Clinton era) is that our rights are dwindling. However, Obama did a better job of riding that fine line without saying anything.

If the general perception where I grew up in rural America is that our rights are slipping away, it could be corn on the cob today and firearms tomorrow, etc, etc. While I could care less about owning an AR15 or AK and it's too easy for me to dismiss those so-called rights to ownership, the remainder of rural America doesn't see it that way and would argue with me that by not giving a Sierra about this issue, will eventually translate into everything under the sun being restricted. These are some serious farmers with no military background !

Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

davidbfpo
04-06-2014, 05:20 PM
I have been watching this discussion, which is of interest although I am "over the pond" in the UK where civilian possession of an 'assault weapon' has been illegal for many years - after mass shootings - and we have no constitution too. Caveat aside now.

However in my reading I came across this, which adds a certain poignancy to the discussion:
Eden (Albuquerque police chief) showed a video of one protester – clad in body armor – armed with an AK-47 assault rifle. The man loaded the weapon and urged onlookers to “use force against the police officers,” Eden said....Police know the assault rifle was real because officers had seen it and a review of video of the man – who put the rifle back into a van after the crowd disapproved of his actions – confirmed it. The man disappeared into the crowd, Eden said, and was not arrested

There was another protester with an AK47.

To say the least there is a mass of context to this event within a protest over a mentally ill male being shot dead by the police. If interested the officers video is available:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U#t=14

It does illustrate the dangers posed to US LE in such a situation, one where it is the police who are the target of the protest.

Link to local press report:http://www.abqjournal.com/377167/news/chief-protest-became-a-mob.html

The BBC coverage of the protest:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26814976

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 05:23 PM
How far 'out of control' does the govt need to get before a well armed militia storms the White House? Or in what way does the 'we need to be able to defend ourselves against our govt' crowd think that guns provide the solution to whatever wrongs they perceive the govt to be inflicting?

I doubt we will see armed militia's attacking the White House soon. From what I can tell, the automobile seems to be the weapon of choice for attacking the White House, but shooting incidents are on the uptick. It seems like the first was in 1975, then 1994, then they ramp up in the 1990 and the last decade, but I can be sure. I cannot find a comprehensive compilation of the attacks.

I do think that there has been a change in attitude. Voting and political action used to be a popular method for creating political change. Even riots and throwing rocks. Now it appears that guns are becoming an acceptable, if not patriotic, option.

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 05:42 PM
I have been watching this discussion, which is of interest although I am "over the pond" in the UK where civilian possession of an 'assault weapon' has been illegal for many years - after mass shootings - and we have no constitution too. Caveat aside now.

David,

Has the question of private ownership of Military Style Semi-Automatic weapons ever been reconsidered in a political context in England since the ban was put in place?

slapout9
04-06-2014, 06:12 PM
Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.




Interesting clip from Bill O'Riley(4/4/14) on why Americas is drastically changing. This to has some history to it because it was the Christians that landed at Plymouth Rock not Muslims or Jews and an important part of a self governing nation is a common moral grounding (Jefferson may have said this? not sure) but it is an important part of the concept of American exceptionalism, which is why Marx made it such an important point to destroy Religion in America. The people would be groundless with no primary moral basis for decision making, we would lack judgement, and we would be very vulnerable to internal collapse from moral decay......just like we are now.:eek:
http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=556

davidbfpo
04-06-2014, 06:23 PM
David,

Has the question of private ownership of Military Style Semi-Automatic weapons ever been reconsidered in a political context in England since the ban was put in place?

No, it is very unlikely that the ban will be reconsidered, let alone lifted. There is some pressure for lighter regulation, from serious match shooting enthusiasts for example. For a host of reasons 'military style weapons', let alone semi-autos, were never licensed in large numbers. It has become increasingly hard to legally possess a handgun - it has been illegal since 1997 - and 'home defence' has never been accepted as a rationale.

The legislative 'crack down', mainly using greater regulation, came after four mass shootings:

Hungerford 1987, sixteen dead, wounded fifteen, using a military semi-auto SKS and other weapons:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

Monkseaton 1989, one dead, sixteen shot, with a shotgun:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkseaton_shootings

Dunblane 1996, sixteen children and one adult dead, using licensed hand guns:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Cumbria 2010, twelve dead, with eleven injured, using a shotgun and .22 rifle:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

We still have regular home hostage incidents, armed crime - mainly with illegal handguns; it is rare to have multiple shooter incidents - in fact I cannot readily recall one. The one I can was long ago, the 1911 Sidney Street siege, involving Russian anarchists, with automatic weapons, three policemen and a firefighter murdered:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sidney_Street

Stan
04-06-2014, 07:40 PM
Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

Stan,
Not near as funny as just strange. Where I spent my youth just south of Reading, and to this day, no alcohol sales on Sunday. You're right though, doesn't seem to matter and perhaps even a false sense of security. The Amish still do their thing, everyone gets along.

However, if we were to one day tell all those folks they could no longer hunt, use a firearm, etc. that would be something I would dare to witness. You may end up going into the forest to find them, and would indeed be met with stiff opposition if not shot.

Stan
04-06-2014, 07:58 PM
David,
I recall our SO-13/15 instructors telling us that "3rd world immigrants and their offspring" involved in gang wars posed the worst threat with firearm related crimes in 2009 increasing by nearly 50%.

There was even talk that white British children attending schools in London would soon be considered a minority.

I have not done my homework (I have a day job too), but would assume this has changed ?

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 09:30 PM
However, if we were to one day tell all those folks they could no longer hunt, use a firearm, etc. that would be something I would dare to witness. You may end up going into the forest to find them, and would indeed be met with stiff opposition if not shot.

I built a couple of roads in Afghanistan. We would always go to the next village the road would pass through, meet with the elders, and explain who we were and what we were doing. It was always standard to ask if there was anything else we could do. In one village the elder said "No, you come you build your road, you leave. We don't want your religion or your culture." That is a bit of a paraphrase, but generally accurate. That is not too far from the feeling you are describing. Human nature is pretty standard across the species even if what we want is not always the same.

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 09:38 PM
Jumping to the Social media, every now and then I see this.

Kiwigrunt
04-06-2014, 09:42 PM
No, it is very unlikely that the ban will be reconsidered, let alone lifted. There is some pressure for lighter regulation, from serious match shooting enthusiasts for example. For a host of reasons 'military style weapons', let alone semi-autos, were never licensed in large numbers. It has become increasingly hard to legally possess a handgun - it has been illegal since 1997 - and 'home defence' has never been accepted as a rationale.



Interestingly, single shot (straight pull) AR15s (http://riflesintheuk.com/ar15.htm) appear to be allowed in the UK.

davidbfpo
04-06-2014, 10:15 PM
That photo is from last week disorder @ Albuquerque. I did wonder if those shown were State Police, as APD had been dressed differently.

davidbfpo
04-06-2014, 10:21 PM
Interestingly, single shot (straight pull) AR15s (http://riflesintheuk.com/ar15.htm) appear to be allowed in the UK.

They maybe available, but I'd like to see how an application for a Firearms Licence went. I'd wager a fresh applicant would get nowhere. Only someone with a long history of target shooting at a club (who often store the weapons) or being a professional shooter in a rural area would make progress.

Amongst the conditions is:
You must also prove to the chief officer of police that you’re allowed to have a firearms certificate and pose no danger to public safety or to the peace.

See:https://www.gov.uk/shotgun-and-firearm-certificates

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 10:24 PM
That photo is from last week disorder @ Albuquerque. I did wonder if those shown were State Police, as APD had been dressed differently.

Well they certainly don't help reduce the tension when they are dressed like that.

davidbfpo
04-06-2014, 10:33 PM
David,
I recall our SO-13/15 instructors telling us that "3rd world immigrants and their offspring" involved in gang wars posed the worst threat with firearm related crimes in 2009 increasing by nearly 50%.

There was even talk that white British children attending schools in London would soon be considered a minority.

I have not done my homework (I have a day job too), but would assume this has changed ?

Some short answers.

London certainly has a widespread problem with knife crime, gangs, drugs and more - the roots of which can be seen coming from immigration. Many of the offspring, let alone their parents, are now British-born and hold UK citizenship. I don't know any stats, but 95% of all murders in London are detected - the Met's Commissioner on BBC TV last week.

Locally firearms-related incidents have dropped off, with fewer fatalities, instead the preference is for "punishment" injuries and very few ever complain officially.

Nationally the prisons have a higher number of non-white (often called BME officially) inmates.

There have been numerous references, said with pride - except for a few - that London's population is now 40% non-British born. That does not mean non-white as the last ten years have seen large French (500k mainly in London & south-east) and Polish (1m plus across the UK) communities arrive. It has been reported, mainly using polling, that "new comer" communities are more loyal to Britain than the indigenous!

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 10:51 PM
There have been numerous references, said with pride - except for a few - that London's population is now 40% non-British born. That does not mean non-white as the last ten years have seen large French (500k mainly in London & south-east) and Polish (1m plus across the UK) communities arrive. It has been reported, mainly using polling, that "new comer" communities are more loyal to Britain than the indigenous!

On a personal note, I am a first and a half generation American. My mother was born in a part of Poland that is now part of the Ukraine and my father was a first generation American who fought in WWII. My mother did not teach me Polish, much to my chagrin, because we were now Americans. And even though she hated Truman for selling out Poland in the treaties with Stalin, America was her home and we were Americans.

I always assumed this was an American thing, but I guess I can see it from any group that moves to a country they see as "Utopia".

Kiwigrunt
04-06-2014, 10:57 PM
Well they certainly don't help reduce the tension when they are dressed like that.

I too have thought for some time (and still do to an extent) that police are often too militarised in appearance. However, I read an article (by a cop) refuting this and making comparisons with other occupations. I can't find the article but he made a fair point. Look at how fire-fighters are dressed, or even construction workers. So those excessive looking kit-outs would be consistent with our general risk- and litigation adversity, and associated 'need' to wrap our employees up in as much protective gear as possible.

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 11:15 PM
I too have thought for some time (and still do to an extent) that police are often too militarised in appearance. However, I read an article (by a cop) refuting this and making comparisons with other occupations. I can't find the article but he made a fair point. Look at how fire-fighters are dressed, or even construction workers. So those excessive looking kit-outs would be consistent with our general risk- and litigation adversity, and associated 'need' to wrap our employees up in as much protective gear as possible.

True, but there are less threatening ways to design protective equipment. I remember a few years back the New Jersey Highway Patrol had to change their uniforms because their high leather boots and grey uniforms made them look like storm troopers.

On the flip side, they were the uniforms that most girls wanted their dates to be dressed in.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/wanna-date-nj-state-trooper-uniform-sports-high-ranking-in/article_fa0190d9-94d2-5c7a-a513-7c8f0bc4838f.html

I can remember way, way back in the 1980s when there were studies done on what effects colors had on people. For some reason pink made them calm. We then painted our drunk tank pink. (I was an enlisted MP in those days). We made decisions on this an other things based on psychology - based on how the public would perceive us. We wanted to be seen as an allies, not an adversary. I guess those days are long gone.

TheCurmudgeon
04-06-2014, 11:27 PM
Let me throw out another hypothesis. I will call this the "roller coaster" hypothesis. People in the US have pretty much everything they need and most of what they want. If they don't they have no one to blame but themselves. They are secure. They have no realistic threats.

This condition is antithetical to the human condition. We have developed to be able to deal with challenges. We have "fight or flight" capabilities built into us. Now, for a long time we have found outlets for this need for the fear of a near death experience. Scary movies and roller coasters. "The Walking Dead" is very popular. In the end, it is a story of survival at a very animal level. But eventually all that fails to satisfy. So we begin to create the chaos that we need to feel alive. We create a conflict between the police and the citizenry that really has no substance other than the feeling that we are doing something that is life-or-death and is important. It is the civilian equivalent to what a Soldier feels in combat, something that has been idealized in the public eye in the last twelve years, but only a very limited portion of the population has really felt.

OK, I may be nuts, but I thought I would throw it out there.

Dayuhan
04-07-2014, 02:31 AM
Let me throw out another hypothesis. I will call this the "roller coaster" hypothesis. People in the US have pretty much everything they need and most of what they want. If they don't they have no one to blame but themselves. They are secure. They have no realistic threats.

This condition is antithetical to the human condition. We have developed to be able to deal with challenges. We have "fight or flight" capabilities built into us. Now, for a long time we have found outlets for this need for the fear of a near death experience. Scary movies and roller coasters. "The Walking Dead" is very popular. In the end, it is a story of survival at a very animal level. But eventually all that fails to satisfy. So we begin to create the chaos that we need to feel alive. We create a conflict between the police and the citizenry that really has no substance other than the feeling that we are doing something that is life-or-death and is important. It is the civilian equivalent to what a Soldier feels in combat, something that has been idealized in the public eye in the last twelve years, but only a very limited portion of the population has really felt.

OK, I may be nuts, but I thought I would throw it out there.

I think you're right. It's the only explanation I can think of for the omniphobia that seems so pervasive in America.

It is of course true that a skilled and experienced shooter can wreak havoc with almost any sort of firearm. What makes so many people so nervous about what are being called "assault weapons" is that they are uniquely suited to allowing the relatively unskilled and inexperienced shooter to achieve the same result. That results in people pushing for control of such weapons out of fear, which in turn results in people accumulating more of them in the fear that they will be controlled. Where that goes I'm really not sure...

120mm
04-07-2014, 03:23 AM
Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

And the good citizens of the Soviet Union had far more rights than those of the US, back when they were around. Most of the new "rights" are embodied in "restrictions" of course.

What you're missing, is even a rudimentary understand of the American political system. For all these "new rights" to be brought about, the Federal government had to wipe their *sses with the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The 800 pound gorilla that no one appears to be noticing in the room is that local government and state government is being steam-rollered in nearly every aspect of our lives by the Federal government, thereby effectively dis-empowering local governance. This, of course is how big government statists inadvertently create insurgencies.

It's so bad that local schools have their lunch menu dictated to them by an unelected tyrant whose only job qualification is having sex with the President. Never mind that the mere existence of a Federal Department of Education is a violation of the 10th Amendment, as well as others.

On the militarization of the police: We no longer have police forces that do police work. Talking to officers in our small (7500 - 25,000 population) towns in Iowa, they are all either ON the tactics team or just biding their time on patrol until they GET on the tactics team. Our 15,000 person town just got their first MRAP, and a neighboring town of 20,000 just used their Tac Team to tear up a house in order to make a $1000 credit card fraud arrest. Which they failed to make, since the perpetrators didn't live in that house.

What we are creating in the US, as urban centers become more powerful, the federal government becomes more centralized and tied to "control" is the perfect storm for an insurgency. A state of affairs which has happened before, with near boring regularity as central governments cease being responsive and viewed as legitimate. Personally, I doubt the legitimacy of Michele Obama to dictate that a First grade girl and a senior boy on the football team eat exactly the same 1700 calorie a day diet.

Blaming the armed protestors and the AR/AK enthusiasts for the Fed government screwing up governance is getting it exactly backwards, imo.

120mm
04-07-2014, 03:29 AM
Let me throw out another hypothesis. I will call this the "roller coaster" hypothesis. People in the US have pretty much everything they need and most of what they want. If they don't they have no one to blame but themselves. They are secure. They have no realistic threats.

This condition is antithetical to the human condition. We have developed to be able to deal with challenges. We have "fight or flight" capabilities built into us. Now, for a long time we have found outlets for this need for the fear of a near death experience. Scary movies and roller coasters. "The Walking Dead" is very popular. In the end, it is a story of survival at a very animal level. But eventually all that fails to satisfy. So we begin to create the chaos that we need to feel alive. We create a conflict between the police and the citizenry that really has no substance other than the feeling that we are doing something that is life-or-death and is important. It is the civilian equivalent to what a Soldier feels in combat, something that has been idealized in the public eye in the last twelve years, but only a very limited portion of the population has really felt.

OK, I may be nuts, but I thought I would throw it out there.

I diametrically disagree. We have an over-centralized, out of control, federal government which is rapidly sucking up more than its share of tax without accountability. While local governance dies on the vine. If more Americans WERE frightened, things would be better.

The government is in danger of losing its legitimacy altogether, both central AND local.

And Europe is dead. It will take time for the math to catch up to them, but what is happening in the hinterlands in the EU will catch up to them later.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 03:38 AM
120, I understand the power of the 10th amendment, even if the Supreme Court does not. I just feel that, whatever power it had died after the civil war. Even so, the conditions that exist seem ripe for an insurgent or counter-culture attack on the traditional seats of power.

carl
04-07-2014, 04:43 AM
Hey 120mm! You're back. Glad to see you. Good post too. Where you been?

Now a general comment.

I am as concerned about militarization of state an local police as anybody but in the case of the riot police shown in the photo above I really don't see how you can get away with looking like anything other than a riot control officer. A helmet, face shield, gas mask, lots of padding and a big stick are sort of the minimum if you expect guys to stand there and take it, as riot officers are sometimes expected to do. And anyway I don't see how being dressed and equipped like that is provocative. The reason for that getup and equipment is to give the officers multiple options short of shooting when rocks are flying their way. Of course it doesn't take much to provoke people who want to be provoked, and the UNM hangers on want to be provoked.

David:

I think those guys in the photo are Bernalillo County sheriffs officers. That is what it looked like from all the photos I looked at.

carl
04-07-2014, 05:22 AM
Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.

No, I think you are wrong. We have much more sexual licence now than in the past along with much more widespread legal drug use. None of those things mean much at all to the vast center of the Americans. In the things that matter to them, us, things are much less free.

The best example of that I can give is something I read about the length of the official US Government manual for the establishment of an airport, just a little country airport. The current edition is about 900 pages long. The previous edition was, I read, about 90. Anyway you cut it, that is less free. And that I think is happening everywhere.

Kiwigrunt
04-07-2014, 09:56 AM
The best example of that I can give is something I read about the length of the official US Government manual for the establishment of an airport, just a little country airport. The current edition is about 900 pages long. The previous edition was, I read, about 90. Anyway you cut it, that is less free. And that I think is happening everywhere.

Everywhere indeed. Not just in the US. But I think there may be another issue at play here as well. I think it may have as much to do with an over-bloated bureaucracy and judicial system - ever concerned with their own existence, expansion and importance - that have become so large, complicated and powerful that even our elected politicians cannot penetrate them.

Yes Minister (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5TFCsixuvY) may be more relevant now then ever before.

Stan
04-07-2014, 11:52 AM
I diametrically disagree. We have an over-centralized, out of control, federal government which is rapidly sucking up more than its share of tax without accountability. While local governance dies on the vine. If more Americans WERE frightened, things would be better.

The government is in danger of losing its legitimacy altogether, both central AND local.

And Europe is dead. It will take time for the math to catch up to them, but what is happening in the hinterlands in the EU will catch up to them later.

Hey Drew, you pirate (or what is me the pirate ? )

You like turn up and just create Sierra :D

Still hanging out in Estonia. May be cold, but a whole lot easier to use a firearm.

Regards, Stan

Stan
04-07-2014, 11:56 AM
On a personal note, I am a first and a half generation American. My mother was born in a part of Poland that is now part of the Ukraine and my father was a first generation American who fought in WWII. My mother did not teach me Polish, much to my chagrin, because we were now Americans. And even though she hated Truman for selling out Poland in the treaties with Stalin, America was her home and we were Americans.

I always assumed this was an American thing, but I guess I can see it from any group that moves to a country they see as "Utopia".

Stan,
A valid point. I'm 50% Swiss and mom from Singapore. But, you would not hear anything bad from either about being American. Different time zone. I doubt that feeling exists today.

I once had a school mate draw a swastika on my arm in 7th grade. when I made it home, I got the daylights slapped out of me. Might have been the only time I recall mom doing that and being so adamant that this would never occur again in our American household.

Dayuhan
04-07-2014, 12:37 PM
The best example of that I can give is something I read about the length of the official US Government manual for the establishment of an airport, just a little country airport. The current edition is about 900 pages long. The previous edition was, I read, about 90. Anyway you cut it, that is less free. And that I think is happening everywhere.

Certainly annoying, but hardly terrifying, and it's hard to see that as sufficient cause to start fondling weapons and dreaming of a personal secession. Whom would one shoot over such a complaint anyway?

I think Curmudgeon has a point... the restrictions on freedom experienced not so very long ago by those who happened to be born into a racial minority, or gay, or female (all of these exist in Middle America too, believe it or not) were orders of magnitude above the annoyances of excessive regulation or (gasp) paying taxes. While we're certainly not absolutely free, I don't see a serious argument that freedom has seriously degenerated. Progress in some areas, less in others... as usual.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 01:20 PM
The best example of that I can give is something I read about the length of the official US Government manual for the establishment of an airport, just a little country airport. The current edition is about 900 pages long. The previous edition was, I read, about 90. Anyway you cut it, that is less free. And that I think is happening everywhere.

Carl,

I don' think that is anything new. Reagan bemoaned it back before the end of the Cold War. It is also not unique to the US. I think the British have complained about bureaucracy for much longer and far more than we do.

What seems to be uniquely American is how we react to it. Perhaps that is a because of our national mythology of the rugged individual. Perhaps, as 120 has also noted, the complexity and centralization of the federal government acts to create the impression of powerlessness. We are a big country. It is not easy to go to Washington and complain in person, even if you could figure out who to complain to.

But this problem has found a political voice in the Libertarian movement. So it would seem like the normal release valve for tensions around the issue of a complex and unresponsive federal system is either not working or is not truly keying in on the problem.

A scarier thought is that electoral democracy, as practiced in the United States, is no longer functioning. This is not the government of the founding fathers. They had a healthy distrust of both the common people and those in power. Originally, neither Senators nor the President were directly elected by the people. The checks on power of the President, like having to go to Congress to get permission to take the country to war, have been eroded in the name of expediency. But if that is the case, I am not hearing any arguments about what to replace the system with. The Libertarians want less government but not a different one. We seem to know what we don’t want more than we know what we want.

carl
04-07-2014, 01:48 PM
Curmudgeon:

That the girdle of red tape restricting our freedom is tightening is not new is beside the point. It is tightening and it is getting to the point that degrees in difference are becoming degrees in kind. It doesn't matter that you and Dayuhan don't think so, millions and millions do. Can you start up a business making incandescent light bulbs? Nope. Can you smoke in any but a tiny few public places? Nope. Can you give your brother a 16 round magazine in Colorado? Nope, not without being a criminal. All those are restrictions of individual freedom whether some minimize them or not. Can the Little Sisters of the Poor refuse to pay for somebody else's contraception? The federal government says no, they can't. We'll see. The last is of crucial importance because the gov is perceived by millions and millions as going after religious freedom. That is very dangerous because it can be perceived as the gov breaking the social contract that is the Constitution.

How does political dissatisfaction finding a political voice in a political movement constitute a normal release valve not working? That seems as if it is working exactly as designed. Same thing with the Tea Party.

That reminds me. This whole thing got started because some UNM probable hanger on show off waved a weapon around at a demonstration and was told by the other demonstrators to knock it off and put it away. You thought that significant. We don't even know if it was real and I think it quite probable cops were very close by. That doesn't seem so significant, at least not compared to the late 60s and 70s when there were bombs going off, cops being murdered and genuine riots in the streets.

carl
04-07-2014, 01:54 PM
Curmudgeon:

I forgot your last paragraph above. If you don't know what Libertarians want you haven't been reading enough. People like Ron Paul are quite explicit.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 02:14 PM
That reminds me. This whole thing got started because some UNM probable hanger on show off waved a weapon around at a demonstration and was told by the other demonstrators to knock it off and put it away. You thought that significant. We don't even know if it was real and I think it quite probable cops were very close by. That doesn't seem so significant, at least not compared to the late 60s and 70s when there were bombs going off, cops being murdered and genuine riots in the streets.

Very true. The ultimate question is are we headed that way now? If we are, can it be defused?

As for the Libertarians, I used to be one, we parted ways over the gold standard and certain foriegn policy stands, so I am aware of most of thier policy demands. But unless things changed dramaticly, they are not planing on replacing the current electoral system that I am aware of.

davidbfpo
04-07-2014, 03:46 PM
It has struck me for sometime now that a good % of US-made film and TV has a theme of a totalitarian nation-state, the armed struggle against such a dictatorship and "it's all a conspiracy".

I enjoyed the X-Files until they went into conspiracy mode. 'Revolution' is a more recent TV series, which after a few episodes became so predictable. The TV series 'Person of Interest', written pre-Snowden is very clever conceptually as a drama, but again there's a nation-state conspiracy.

What impact does such a constant theme in imagery have upon the general population?

Here in the UK there must be one if not two such TV programmes each day.

AmericanPride
04-07-2014, 05:01 PM
What's "freedom"? Carl says it's the freedom to build an airport without reading 900 pages of regulations or to give a 16 old ammunition for an assault rifle. What about the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road or the freedom to not properly perform maintenance on a civil airliner?

The world is more complex. Bureaucracy becomes more complex to deal with the emerging problems - or should we strip down the state to its bare bones where there's only a handful of decision-makers and technicians? Interestingly, in the book The Dictators, the author makes it clear that the dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler relied on their personal power and their ability to subordinate and bypass the functions of their respective state bureaucracies. Hitler specifically only met his ministers one or two at a time in a private meeting when he could manage it in order to reduce the restrictions placed on his decision-making. When there's no bureaucracy, it's those with the resources (the rich, the violent, etc) that come to power. It's not freedom.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 05:03 PM
It has struck me for sometime now that a good % of US-made film and TV has a theme of a totalitarian nation-state, the armed struggle against such a dictatorship and "it's all a conspiracy".

I enjoyed the X-Files until they went into conspiracy mode. 'Revolution' is a more recent TV series, which after a few episodes became so predictable. The TV series 'Person of Interest', written pre-Snowden is very clever conceptually as a drama, but again there's a nation-state conspiracy.

What impact does such a constant theme in imagery have upon the general population?

Here in the UK there must be one if not two such TV programmes each day.

David,

I'm sure it reinforces a perception, but the problem is one of the chicken and the egg. Do these shows create fear of a totalitarian state or is the fear of a totalitarian state driving people to make these movies. I would say it is the latter.

I wish I could isolate why this is. The American demographics are so varied it makes it hard to find a source. I could speculate that there are a couple of reasons. The first is that, despite older Americans being prejudice against almost everything, it is not PC to have an enemy defined by race, gender, or even religion. Therefore the common enemy has to be based on their individual beliefs or actions. Totalitarian states and dictators in particular, fit that mold. Second is our history of revolution to gain our freedom. Put these together and you get an enemy everyone can hate along with cause everyone can identify with. I suppose that this recurring theme helps reinforce the fear and paranoia, but I don't think it causes it.

Is there a common enemy in British entertainment?

Stan
04-07-2014, 05:07 PM
It has struck me for sometime now that a good % of US-made film and TV has a theme of a totalitarian nation-state, the armed struggle against such a dictatorship and "it's all a conspiracy".

I enjoyed the X-Files until they went into conspiracy mode. 'Revolution' is a more recent TV series, which after a few episodes became so predictable. The TV series 'Person of Interest', written pre-Snowden is very clever conceptually as a drama, but again there's a nation-state conspiracy.

What impact does such a constant theme in imagery have upon the general population?

Here in the UK there must be one if not two such TV programmes each day.

David,
Part of coming from a free and democratic society involves responsibility too.

You can watch that Sierra, believe in it, even dream about it, but, you still have to go to work the next morning and not pretend to be a super hero.

Or, you end up like Snowden with a Russian passport living in Brazil... whatever.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse and you will be prosecuted even if you don't possess a firearm :D

Stan
04-07-2014, 05:10 PM
I wish I could isolate why this is. The American demographics are so varied it makes it hard to find a source. I could speculate that there are a couple of reasons. The first is that, despite older Americans being prejudice against almost everything, it is not PC to have an enemy defined by race, gender, or even religion. Therefore the common enemy has to be based on their individual beliefs or actions. Totalitarian states and dictators in particular, fit that mold. Second is our history of revolution to gain our freedom. Put these together and you get an enemy everyone can hate along with cause everyone can identify with. I suppose that this recurring theme helps reinforce the fear and paranoia, but I don't think it causes it.

Stan,
So is this Putin :eek:

Sadly, most of the programs that David listed are extremely popular here, to include Russia.

I gotta wonder what all these folks are thinking.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 05:21 PM
Stan,
So is this Putin :eek:

Sadly, most of the programs that David listed are extremely popular here, to include Russia.

I gotta wonder what all these folks are thinking.

Putin is making a wonderful potential bad guy - fits the mold to a tee. You may not see it there, but one of the few things that is getting through our Congress with bipartisan support is aide to the Ukraine to make sure the evil Putin cannot subject the freedom loving Ukrainians to live under his totalitarian state.

Watching the conversations on Russia brings up the other problem Americans have that is obvious based on our Television shows. We want quick, easy solutions. In most action television programs the climax is resolved with a gunfight and someone shot or dead. That ends it. A quick and easy solution to a complex and vexing problem. Now I am not talking about gun violence, I am talking about quick solutions. We Americans have very little patience. We are used to getting what we want and getting it now. This means we don't like complex, long term solutions. "Nuke'em till they glow" ... don't worry about the aftermath.

davidbfpo
04-07-2014, 05:59 PM
Citing only one sentence:
David,

Is there a common enemy in British entertainment?

No. If you looked at such popular programmes as 'Yes Minister', 'Blackadder' on WW1, 'Morse', 'Dr Who' and 'Sherlock' you would find plenty of enemies, often ourselves.:wry:

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 06:00 PM
What's "freedom"? Carl says it's the freedom to build an airport without reading 900 pages of regulations or to give a 16 old ammunition for an assault rifle. What about the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road or the freedom to not properly perform maintenance on a civil airliner?
AP

One of the things I find mildly disturbing about we Americans is that we are rarely introspective about why we want freedom. It is assumed to be the perfect ideal – God given and self-evident. This causes us to believe that everyone must want it. That the solution to all problems is to give the people freedom. This lack of introspection also means that everything we want can be defined as a right without questioning whether is should be. "I have a right" becomes a justification that is beyond reproach. It is as if the social contract provides only rights – it cannot expect any obligations for guaranteeing those rights.

In fact the term, “Right” gets used to cover more and more areas. I have a right to a great tasting sugar free soda or pants that make me look skinny.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 06:02 PM
Citing only one sentence:

No. If you looked at such popular programmes as 'Yes Minister', 'Blackadder' on WW1, 'Morse', 'Dr Who' and 'Sherlock' you would find plenty of enemies, often ourselves.:wry:

I've always like that about you Brits, you have a healthy ability to not take yourselves too seriously even when you are displaying a stiff upper lip.

slapout9
04-07-2014, 06:03 PM
A scarier thought is that electoral democracy, as practiced in the United States, is no longer functioning. This is not the government of the founding fathers. They had a healthy distrust of both the common people and those in power. Originally, neither Senators nor the President were directly elected by the people. The checks on power of the President, like having to go to Congress to get permission to take the country to war, have been eroded in the name of expediency. But if that is the case, I am not hearing any arguments about what to replace the system with. The Libertarians want less government but not a different one. We seem to know what we don’t want more than we know what we want.

Curmugy,
It is not about replacing it .........it is about following the law instead of ignoring it or manipuatng or subverting the law. When the lawmakers break the law then there is no law just a fight for survival.

carl
04-07-2014, 06:35 PM
What's "freedom"? Carl says it's the freedom to build an airport without reading 900 pages of regulations or to give a 16 old ammunition for an assault rifle. What about the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road or the freedom to not properly perform maintenance on a civil airliner?

The world is more complex. Bureaucracy becomes more complex to deal with the emerging problems - or should we strip down the state to its bare bones where there's only a handful of decision-makers and technicians? Interestingly, in the book The Dictators, the author makes it clear that the dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler relied on their personal power and their ability to subordinate and bypass the functions of their respective state bureaucracies. Hitler specifically only met his ministers one or two at a time in a private meeting when he could manage it in order to reduce the restrictions placed on his decision-making. When there's no bureaucracy, it's those with the resources (the rich, the violent, etc) that come to power. It's not freedom.

Gee what a wonderment of distortion and misapprehension this is. And to conclude that bureaucracy is a bulwark against dictatorship! Simply amazing.

Stan
04-07-2014, 07:10 PM
Gee what a wonderment of distortion and misapprehension this is. And to conclude that bureaucracy is a bulwark against dictatorship! Simply amazing.

Indeed :D And to think you were going to build an airport in DRC ;) If you do, it will be more than 900 pages long in Bravo Sierra !

slapout9
04-07-2014, 07:12 PM
What's "freedom"? Carl says it's the freedom to build an airport without reading 900 pages of regulations or to give a 16 old ammunition for an assault rifle. What about the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road or the freedom to not properly perform maintenance on a civil airliner?

The world is more complex. Bureaucracy becomes more complex to deal with the emerging problems - or should we strip down the state to its bare bones where there's only a handful of decision-makers and technicians? Interestingly, in the book The Dictators, the author makes it clear that the dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler relied on their personal power and their ability to subordinate and bypass the functions of their respective state bureaucracies. Hitler specifically only met his ministers one or two at a time in a private meeting when he could manage it in order to reduce the restrictions placed on his decision-making. When there's no bureaucracy, it's those with the resources (the rich, the violent, etc) that come to power. It's not freedom.

Freedom is life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in order to insure that personal responsabilty was also part of the equation.
,

Stan
04-07-2014, 07:16 PM
Freedom is life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in order to insure that personal responsabilty was also part of the equation.
,

Hey Slap !

Exactly ! With freedom comes a responsibility to lead an ethical life.

Seems our govt has a different definition of responsibility.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 07:42 PM
Hey Slap !

Exactly ! With freedom comes a responsibility to lead an ethical life.

Seems our govt has a different definition of responsibility.

Stan/Slap,

There is a problem with this thinking. If all your government can expect from you is your personal responsibility to lead and ethical life - if there are no enforceable obligations - then there is no law. What you are describing is anarchy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t).:eek:



an·ar·chy
[an-er-kee] Show IPA

noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.

2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

3.
anarchism ( def 1 ) .

4.
lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.

Is this where you see America heading, toward a state of no enforceable obligation - no law?

AmericanPride
04-07-2014, 07:48 PM
Gee what a wonderment of distortion and misapprehension this is. And to conclude that bureaucracy is a bulwark against dictatorship! Simply amazing.

What's "dictatorship"? If "dictatorship" is rule by an individual or small clique, then the collective decision making process of a bureaucracy is one bulwark against dictatorship. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were inefficient states not because of bureaucracy because the elite frequently circumvented bureaucracy for political reasons - officials were often tasked with special authorities to remove, modify, or otherwise displace the rule-based functions of bureaucracy, which lead to administrative chaos. Stalin had a personal chancellery with which to communicate, supervise, and otherwise control party subordinates independent of the state apparatus. That's dictatorship.

Now, let's take your definition of freedom as "to do whatever you want" since you haven't provided a definition of your own. I want to drive on the left side of the road because that's what I want to do. It doesn't matter that it puts other people's lives at risk because it's my freedom to do as I please that we're talking about. However, to ensure that I can freely drive on the left side of the road, I need to make sure I have the biggest truck in order to drive over all the imports and green-efficient cars that are obeying the law. The rule of law in this scenario no longer exists. In fact, the person with the biggest truck rules the road and everyone needs to get out of his way. That's not freedom either. That's actually another form of dictatorship.

The same concept applies to all other regulation, from building airports to safety in civil aviation, to the environment. Properly attuned regulations ensure that your actions do not impede on my own freedom. Ironically, this is lost in the growing Tea Party movement. Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.

Stan
04-07-2014, 08:06 PM
Stan/Slap,

There is a problem with this thinking. If all your government can expect from you is your personal responsibility to lead and ethical life - if there are no enforceable obligations - then there is no law. What you are describing is anarchy:eek:

Is this where you see America heading, toward a state of no enforceable obligation - no law?

Stan,
Not all our government can expect from me, but what I expect from normal Americans in general.

I'd send all 535 members into war with the POTUS (save those who really did serve at one time in their life) to ensure the next time they vote, it will be clear that their Alphas are on the line too.

I see law enforcement as a principal element of our freedom. But, I see "simplistic, in an election year, knee jerking reaction to what works today", let's go to war without me" Bravo Sierra.

That I call Chicken Sierra, stuff your cigar where you will, run to Canada's border, BS.

I'll get off the soap box now and get a fresh beer :D

120mm
04-07-2014, 08:13 PM
120, I understand the power of the 10th amendment, even if the Supreme Court does not. I just feel that, whatever power it had died after the civil war. Even so, the conditions that exist seem ripe for an insurgent or counter-culture attack on the traditional seats of power.

You make a valid point. The American Civil War put the lie to the 10th. The thing is, the snowball really picked up steam in the way the post WWII America pushed equal rights and liberalism. Don't get me wrong, equal rights and "some" liberalism is good, but bypassing law and the US Constitution to push them is bad. Scofflawry cuts both ways. For instance, in my state, I supported Gay Civil Unions (Gay marriage is illogical idiocy, don't get me started on that) but the Activists bribed/influenced some judges to just circumvent the legal process entirely to get their way. Horrifically bad idea to just change the rules of the game extra-legally, imo.


Certainly annoying, but hardly terrifying, and it's hard to see that as sufficient cause to start fondling weapons and dreaming of a personal secession. Whom would one shoot over such a complaint anyway?

I think Curmudgeon has a point... the restrictions on freedom experienced not so very long ago by those who happened to be born into a racial minority, or gay, or female (all of these exist in Middle America too, believe it or not) were orders of magnitude above the annoyances of excessive regulation or (gasp) paying taxes. While we're certainly not absolutely free, I don't see a serious argument that freedom has seriously degenerated. Progress in some areas, less in others... as usual.

From your point of view, of course. I have serious heartache about paying taxes that are laughably unconstitutional in nature. The Federal government has zero standing to take my money and give it to someone else. Zero. This should be something that the states may do. This is not "progress". This is reverting to the kind of thing Ancient despots would do to keep the mob happy.


Carl,

I don' think that is anything new. Reagan bemoaned it back before the end of the Cold War. It is also not unique to the US. I think the British have complained about bureaucracy for much longer and far more than we do.

What seems to be uniquely American is how we react to it. Perhaps that is a because of our national mythology of the rugged individual. Perhaps, as 120 has also noted, the complexity and centralization of the federal government acts to create the impression of powerlessness. We are a big country. It is not easy to go to Washington and complain in person, even if you could figure out who to complain to.

But this problem has found a political voice in the Libertarian movement. So it would seem like the normal release valve for tensions around the issue of a complex and unresponsive federal system is either not working or is not truly keying in on the problem.

A scarier thought is that electoral democracy, as practiced in the United States, is no longer functioning. This is not the government of the founding fathers. They had a healthy distrust of both the common people and those in power. Originally, neither Senators nor the President were directly elected by the people. The checks on power of the President, like having to go to Congress to get permission to take the country to war, have been eroded in the name of expediency. But if that is the case, I am not hearing any arguments about what to replace the system with. The Libertarians want less government but not a different one. We seem to know what we don’t want more than we know what we want.

The "impression" of powerlessness? Understatement of the millenium.

I could give a crap less about political parties. But I have a special dislike for the con artists and naive idiots that compose the so-called "Libertarian" movement. They are a laughable case study in how to be ineffective and how to inadvertantly assist those who are opposed to them.


What's "freedom"? Carl says it's the freedom to build an airport without reading 900 pages of regulations or to give a 16 old ammunition for an assault rifle. What about the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road or the freedom to not properly perform maintenance on a civil airliner?

The world is more complex. Bureaucracy becomes more complex to deal with the emerging problems - or should we strip down the state to its bare bones where there's only a handful of decision-makers and technicians? Interestingly, in the book The Dictators, the author makes it clear that the dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler relied on their personal power and their ability to subordinate and bypass the functions of their respective state bureaucracies. Hitler specifically only met his ministers one or two at a time in a private meeting when he could manage it in order to reduce the restrictions placed on his decision-making. When there's no bureaucracy, it's those with the resources (the rich, the violent, etc) that come to power. It's not freedom.

This is complete nonsense. "The world is more complex" is a justification for bureacrats to collect a check to do nothing of worth, and often to do evil.

Local governance, nested and embedded in a small central federation is worlds more efficient, responsive governmment compared to the overcentralized mess we are building.

Your example of Nazi Germany actually works against your argument. The Nazi Party and Hitler actually didn't run day to day Germany; the local governments did. And, in fact, the Vereinskultur (Club Culture) was key in running Germany in times of trouble before Hitler rose to power. Even super-bureaucratic WWII Germany wasn't so stupid as to concentrate all the power in just one man's hands.

120mm
04-07-2014, 08:17 PM
What's "dictatorship"? If "dictatorship" is rule by an individual or small clique, then the collective decision making process of a bureaucracy is one bulwark against dictatorship. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were inefficient states not because of bureaucracy because the elite frequently circumvented bureaucracy for political reasons - officials were often tasked with special authorities to remove, modify, or otherwise displace the rule-based functions of bureaucracy, which lead to administrative chaos. Stalin had a personal chancellery with which to communicate, supervise, and otherwise control party subordinates independent of the state apparatus. That's dictatorship.

Now, let's take your definition of freedom as "to do whatever you want" since you haven't provided a definition of your own. I want to drive on the left side of the road because that's what I want to do. It doesn't matter that it puts other people's lives at risk because it's my freedom to do as I please that we're talking about. However, to ensure that I can freely drive on the left side of the road, I need to make sure I have the biggest truck in order to drive over all the imports and green-efficient cars that are obeying the law. The rule of law in this scenario no longer exists. In fact, the person with the biggest truck rules the road and everyone needs to get out of his way. That's not freedom either. That's actually another form of dictatorship.

The same concept applies to all other regulation, from building airports to safety in civil aviation, to the environment. Properly attuned regulations ensure that your actions do not impede on my own freedom. Ironically, this is lost in the growing Tea Party movement. Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.

Again, bull####. You build a ridiculous straw man to support the insupportable. What you propose is a form of rule where people only behave because they are directed to do so by a government bureacracy.

"Collective Freedom?"

Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 08:19 PM
Stan,
Not all our government can expect from me, but what I expect from normal Americans in general.

....

I'll get off the soap box now and get a fresh beer :D

Stan,

Enjoy your beer:D and after you have had about three, ponder this.

Often when I ask Americans what freedom and liberty should mean, and how it should be maintained, I almost always get answers similar to you and SLAP. I believe American's are basically responsible human beings and they feel that being a responsible human being is all that is required for the perfect society. Any attempt to enforce that perfection is seen as an attack on their freedom. My son believes that anarchy is the next stage in governmental development.

It makes me wonder if anarchy IS actually what people want: to be free of the obligations of a government entirely. Of course, it is not as simple as that. It never is. But I do think there is a little bit of anarchist in all Americans ... and that is not a bad thing.

slapout9
04-07-2014, 08:21 PM
Stan/Slap,

There is a problem with this thinking. If all your government can expect from you is your personal responsibility to lead and ethical life - if there are no enforceable obligations - then there is no law. What you are describing is anarchy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t).:eek:



Is this where you see America heading, toward a state of no enforceable obligation - no law?

No. What is important to understand is that the founding fathers believed that your RIGHTS come from GOD not man! But in order to establish a "more perfect union" they formed a Constitutional Republic .........not a Democracy as is so often professed by the Democratic Communist/Progressive/Political Correctness party....... a nation of laws not men! And all men would be equal under these laws. So the law was critically important. Indeed it is to be sacred under our exceptional American system not something to be followed by some and abused by the elite!


Point number two is the christian church was meant to be the primary educater of moral law. Christians landed at Plymouth Rock nit Muslims and not atheists. It is a lie to say that there was meant to be a seperation of church and state. The constitutional clause is for the prevention of a National Religion again to prevent King George's Church Of England from following across the ocean.

Stan
04-07-2014, 08:47 PM
Stan,

Enjoy your beer:D and after you have had about three, ponder this.

Often when I ask Americans what freedom and liberty should mean, and how it should be maintained, I almost always get answers similar to you and SLAP. I believe American's are basically responsible human beings and they feel that being a responsible human being is all that is required for the perfect society. Any attempt to enforce that perfection is seen as an attack on their freedom. My son believes that anarchy is the next stage in governmental development.

It makes me wonder if anarchy IS actually what people want: to be free of the obligations of a government entirely. Of course, it is not as simple as that. It never is. But I do think there is a little bit of anarchist in all Americans ... and that is not a bad thing.

Stan,
This almost sounds like a Green Card test question. But I’ll bite as I am working on my 4th beer !

I feel I have the right to freedom not simply because I served my country for 23 years, but because well before me my entire family (mostly immigrants) chose to serve to preserve that American feeling.

Lately, the USA has done a poor job of maintaining our civil liberties with policies that any normal human could barely even imagine. Yep, on the surface it seems too easy for me to merely point out our govt’s faults. However, having served in situations where we knew we were dead wrong, and by oath of military service, we simply said “yes Sir”, it’s now easier than ever to tell you we were dead wrong.

We shouldn’t need a Snowden to tell us when we have breached ethical standards even by African standards, yet alone American.

I doubt most American civilians would even know what anarchy is.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 08:59 PM
Stan,
This almost sounds like a Green Card test question. But I’ll bite as I am working on my 4th beer !

That was quick!:D

Stan
04-07-2014, 09:04 PM
Stan,

It makes me wonder if anarchy IS actually what people want: to be free of the obligations of a government entirely. Of course, it is not as simple as that. It never is. But I do think there is a little bit of anarchist in all Americans ... and that is not a bad thing.

Stan,
I think the confusion lies with the definitions of social upheaval and anarchy.

Having witnessed both but not participated in either, it sums up kind of like this in layman's terms...

Social Upheaval: When the population has finally figured out they are getting screwed by a bunch of politicians and payday no longer is enough to wash down all that Bravo Sierra, the population goes haywire.

Anarchy: The population doesn't care and the population goes haywire.

I agree, most of us do care and do try.

Most of us are also a bit skeptical when all our elected officials do all day long is ponder over something they cannot change, send us to the most inhospitable places on earth to achieve their goal of world supremacy in the name of freedom while they sit at home cranking out text on their game boy.

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 09:08 PM
No. What is important to understand is that the founding fathers believed that your RIGHTS come from GOD not man! But in order to establish a "more perfect union" they formed a Constitutional Republic .........not a Democracy as is so often professed by the Democratic Communist/Progressive/Political Correctness party....... a nation of laws not men! And all men would be equal under these laws. So the law was critically important. Indeed it is to be sacred under our exceptional American system not something to be followed by some and abused by the elite!


Point number two is the christian church was meant to be the primary educater of moral law. Christians landed at Plymouth Rock nit Muslims and not atheists. It is a lie to say that there was meant to be a seperation of church and state. The constitutional clause is for the prevention of a National Religion again to prevent King George's Church Of England from following across the ocean.

While I agree with your first point, I am not so sure I agree with your second. It is well known that Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, believed that the church was not needed to support civil society:


It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]

Stan
04-07-2014, 09:09 PM
That was quick!:D

Mondays can be depressing when freezing in the Baltic:D

TheCurmudgeon
04-07-2014, 09:24 PM
Stan,
...

I agree, most of us do care and do try.

Most of us are also a bit skeptical when all our elected officials do all day long is ponder over something they cannot change, send us to the most inhospitable places on earth to achieve their goal of world supremacy in the name of freedom while they sit at home cranking out text on their game boy.

As you noted in your earlier quote, there has been a shift toward the repressive and all of us, myself included, jumped on that bandwagon in the name of national security and defense of the homeland. Perhaps, we went too far ... and the angst in the general population finding its outlet in claims of the need for Military Style Semi-Automatic weapons to defend themselves against their own police are a product of that. Perhaps it is time to step away from the need to maintain such tight security … before we lose everything to those in our own government who might use that tight security for thier own ends ... more than they already have.

Historically, it is usually harder to take power back from the government once we give it up. But I would hope that if this is the genesis of the paranoia that a court case or two will fix things. I have little faith in the Congress to act.

carl
04-07-2014, 10:05 PM
Indeed :D And to think you were going to build an airport in DRC ;) If you do, it will be more than 900 pages long in Bravo Sierra !

I couldn't get it done but I know an extremely capable guy from USAMRID who did get it done. And he got it done with I am sure a handful of pages of paper and a lot of personal contact, energy, a surprisingly small amount of money, lots of inborn talent, a small amount of time and some good judgement. You know the type of guy I'm talking about. Hell you probably were that type of guy.

slapout9
04-07-2014, 10:09 PM
While I agree with your first point, I am not so sure I agree with your second. It is well known that Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, believed that the church was not needed to support civil society:

Crumudgy,
Your missing the point. Several authors believed that to include Jefferson I think. But here is the point ,in the end they DID NOT put it in the Bill Of Rights as is so often asserted. They accomplished their objective be stating there would be NO national religion I.e. no church of America and they also protected the right of free worship an practice so that the Protestant religion and work ethic could take hold as opposed to the Church Of England which was against free enerprise,private property,etc.

AmericanPride
04-07-2014, 10:24 PM
What you propose is a form of rule where people only behave because they are directed to do so by a government bureacracy.

What I propose is that anarchy is not freedom. Ergo, the reduction of bureaucracy is not necessarily a proportional increase in 'freedom' (whatever that is) where at the end the elimination of bureaucracy equals absolute freedom. Please do keep up. You can start by providing your own definition of 'freedom'.


Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".

Freedom is a 'group thing'. Your freedom is defined in relation to others.


"The world is more complex" is a justification for bureacrats to collect a check to do nothing of worth, and often to do evil.

Here some of the "northing of worth" that "bureaucrats" do to "collect a check": military service, law enforcement, border security, drug interdiction, food inspection, civil aviation safety enforcement, building codes, postal delivery, scientific research, and teaching. Just because your view of politics is narcassitic and socio-pathic, it doesn't mean the world is evil.

And as the world has become more complex, so has the nature of the American civil service - most federal employees are older, more educated, and work in white collar position related to analysis, knowledge management, and idea generation. Even so, over the last 60 years, the ratio of population to federal employee has widened, and the role of states in local issues has expanded significantly; meaning that the "overcentralized mess" you invented doesn't actually exist. The 2008 crash hit the local and state governments hardest, since they are the "most responsive" to local conditions; in other words, a centralized federal government was best positioned to withstand the crisis and continue to provide services.


Local governance, nested and embedded in a small central federation is worlds more efficient, responsive governmment compared to the overcentralized mess we are building.

Because that worked so well for blacks in the American south for the last 300 years...

carl
04-07-2014, 10:29 PM
Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.

Another simply amazing statement, sort of the underlying basis of the political manifesto of The Borg.

AmericanPride
04-07-2014, 10:44 PM
Local governance, nested and embedded in a small central federation is worlds more efficient, responsive governmment compared to the overcentralized mess we are building.

This is an ideal-type with little factual evidence to support your claim. First, "efficient" and "responsive" are not necessarily paired types, nor are they essentially conducive to democratic governance and "freedom" (assuming also that democratic governance is the ideal type for optimizing 'freedom'). As cited with both Hitler and Stalin, their conduct was "efficient" in so far their directives bypassed all other stakeholders and state bureaucracies. When Stalin noted that grass was overgrowing in Moscow, the very next day laborers were out cutting all the grass and pulling down the trees. That's pretty damn efficient. But he was also pretty efficient in condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death. We're talking about 'freedom', not money markets, so we can dispense with the economic jargon about 'efficiency'.

Is local governance more responsive than federal government? It depends to whom the government is responding. Local governments tend to politically alienate minority and low income communities depending on the structure of governance of the jurisdiction in question; and local special interest groups (i.e. COLLECTIVE action, there's that dirty word again) tend to have better access and more response than any individual citizen or business. But as noted earlier, that responsiveness is tied to the local conditions of the area, making it more difficult for localized authorities to tackle larger problems (i.e. regional transit, the environment, etc) alone, or simply stop functioning when local conditions fail (i.e. Detroit). And none of that actually makes government more democratic (i.e. maximizing citizen participation, which some would argue is a requirement for political freedom).

So until you actually man up and provide a definition of 'freedom', you don't have an argument to provide.

AmericanPride
04-07-2014, 10:51 PM
Another simply amazing statement, sort of the underlying basis of the political manifesto of The Borg.

You're bringing the intellectual equivalent of a butter knife to a gun fight.

Individual 'freedom' is defined in relation to the individual freedoms of others; ergo, the question of freedom is a collective question which applies to the whole and not simply each part separately. You still haven't provided a definition of 'freedom', which means you're not in a position to make claims about the relationship between governance and/or bureaucracy with freedom. Here's some thoughts on 'freedom' to help your with definition:

1) It should apply universally (i.e. to everyone, the collective, ooohhh).
2) It should be applied equally.
3) Its application for one should not reduce it for another.
4) It should be enforceable and practical.

Are you more free when everyone obeys the laws of the road, or when everyone can do as they please on the road?

AmericanPride
04-07-2014, 11:10 PM
Freedom is life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in order to insure that personal responsabilty was also part of the equation.
,

So what's the difference between 'freedom' and 'liberty'?

TheCurmudgeon noted the problem with implementation and enforcement. How do you "insure... personal responsibility"?


The Federal government has zero standing to take my money and give it to someone else. Zero.

According to whom? You? You're not one of those 'sovereign citizens' are you? The top three federal expenditures are: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and Defense. In your socio-pathic world view, the "federal government has zero standing" to "take [your] money" and give it to the elderly, poor, or provide for the national defense. I suppose you would have to argue next the families of the elderly and poor should take care of them, or that it's somehow cheaper for the poor to use the emergency room instead of being provided coverage for subsidized insurance (neither of which are true). So either you're sociopathic and don't care if the elderly and poor end up dead or your ideology is wrong.

slapout9
04-07-2014, 11:28 PM
So what's the difference between 'freedom' and 'liberty'?

TheCurmudgeon noted the problem with implementation and enforcement. How do you "insure... personal responsibility"?


Freedom is when someone takes your property witnout your consent. Liberty is when you use your assault weapon to shoot him and get your property back. OK that's a my beer drinking buddy's defintion. He is over here and we are having this discussion in real time. On a more serious note I would say there is no differance.

As for the other question my follow post have pretty much described why I believe, as our founding fathers did, that we must have laws that apply to everyone reguardless of your station in life. Kinda of like the 10 commandments limited and focused.

carl
04-07-2014, 11:40 PM
You're bringing the intellectual equivalent of a butter knife to a gun fight.

Well that works pretty good when you sneak up on a guy in the dark and stab him in the throat.

No, I think I'll let you define my positions for me. You seem to enjoy that.

I'll just content myself with gazing at wonderment at your words:

"Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing."

TheCurmudgeon
04-08-2014, 12:32 AM
I'll just content myself with gazing at wonderment at your words:

"Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing."

Carl, in this case AP is right. After studying legitimacy for some time it is clear that the idea that freedom only exists in a group is well understood. A person alone on a desert island has no need to define freedom or liberty. These are terms that can have meaning in relation to other people or to a government.

Slap,

Jefferson was about as close to an atheist as you could get in the eighteenth century. He did not feel that religion (http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs) had any business injecting itself in government.


In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.[2] Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.

As for the "Protestant ethic" idea, I can see why many people might feel that way. The Protestants were seen as being more industrious, but it had little to do with religion but had more to do with national identity. Check out Laih Greenfeld's "The Spirit of Capitalism". From a review (http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=pitzer_fac_pub).


Nationalism appeared in England during the sixteenth century, thereby “transforming social consciousness by 1600.” This developing sense of national identity, in turn, imbued the nation with a “new spirit” or “motive force,” thus giving England, despite its paltry resources, a competitive edge over other societies (p. 23). This is Max Weber with a twist. Nationalism, as defined by Greenfeld, replaces Weber’s “Protestant ethic” as the real spirit of capitalism and provides all the things that Weber’s Protestantism could not: egalitarian attitudes, social mobility, free labor markets, personal dignity, international competition, and a commitment to constant growth.

Of course, this is only a theory, but national identity was taking the place of religious identity in England and did the same in America. In America it did it with a vengeance. We even went to far as to attempt to create our own language by changing the spelling of certain words. (http://connecticuthistory.org/noah-webster-and-the-dream-of-a-common-language/)

Webster believed that the fledgling country needed its own textbooks and a codified language around which to unite. He wrote, “Now is the time and this the country in which we may expect success in attempting changes to language, science, and government. Let us then seize the present moment and establish a national language as well as a national government.” His speller, later reader, and grammar all incorporated American heroes and authors with the goal of creating national symbols to galvanize the country. Between 1783 and the early 1900s it is estimated that Webster’s spelling book sold nearly 100 million copies. Over 30 influential textbooks followed, including History of the United States, the nation’s first full-length history. - See more at: http://connecticuthistory.org/noah-webster-and-the-dream-of-a-common-language/#sthash.5spTfn0Z.dpuf

TheCurmudgeon
04-08-2014, 12:45 AM
Getting back to the main theme and what David asked about the villain in popular movies tending to be an evil, repressive government. After thinking about what Stan wrote about the things we have done in recent years, I can see how people would feel that the American government is not the same. That it is no longer the moral stalwart it once was.

Before JW Bush we did not engage in targeted assassinations. There was an executive directive against it. Now drones engage in extrajudicial assassinations on a regular basis. We even justify the innocent people we kill in these attacks as justifiable collateral damage. We even kill American citizens. We now engage in kidnappings and torture, things we would have condemned if committed by others. We use the NSA, an agency that was not supposed to spy on US citizens, to collect meta data on our phone calls. It is not hard to see how the general population could begin to feel uneasy about the way we quickly discarded ideals we felt defined us as a nation in the interest of security.

Fuchs
04-08-2014, 01:12 AM
About firearms, police and culture in general:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_Deutschland
(German wikipedia article on firearms use by police in Germany)

The left column is the year, the central one the killed people and the right one is the quantity of shots fired (at people, excluding animals)
The statistics about recent years are reliable and from official annual reports (data pre-1978 is known to be incomplete).

year kills shots
2007 12 46
2008 10 37
2009 6 57
2010 8 47
2011 6 36
2012 8 36

population: roughly 80 million.
The figure for 2012 is the equivalent of about 100 shots fired on humans by all U.S. policemen in a whole year.

You could basically give the German policemen single-shot pistols and for a while even dummy pistols to almost all of them. It wouldn't make much of a difference.

_____________

Whatever problems the United States has with guns (and this includes "Stand your ground"), they're first and foremost rooted in culture (=a failure of culture).

The German police's culture is distinctly different from the American one, and I don't merely base this on TV.
The German police doesn't handcuff much, it doesn't intimidate much, it has no tasers. It usually overtakes cars before stopping them, too (they'd like to change this, but there aren't actually many problems with it).

The statistics show by orders of magnitude more cases of policemen/policewomen being assaulted severely than police shots fired.

Dayuhan
04-08-2014, 01:16 AM
I've often noted that Americans who identify as "conservative" face a struggle to reconcile opposite views on freedom. On the one hand you have a strong libertarian streak, built around the idea that people ought to be free to do what they please as long as their actions don't intrude on the freedoms of others. The opposing side is the social conservative streak, which is all about intruding on the freedoms of others: the most cherished freedom of American social conservatives is the freedom to restrict the freedom of those they dislike.

It is of course natural that different people will have different ideas of what "freedom" and "liberty" are, how they are achieved, and, perhaps most important, how to resolve the issues that emerge when those perceptions collide. There are a couple of questions relevant to this thread that are still mysteries to me.

First, when did so many people start fearing the government to the extent they do, and why did that come about? I can see a nearly infinite number of reasons to be annoyed with government, frustrated with government, angry with government... but the fear seems completely out of hand. I suspect that part of the trend may stem from the availability of the internet, and the ability of those with extreme views to surround themselves with sources of "information" that reinforce those views and block out all others. This of course happens with all manner of ideologically fringe factions, but it is very notable among those who have chosen to be terrified of government. Again, the material cited by The Curmudgeon in the original post on this thread is a good example. I don't see this fringe as a major "threat", in any collective sense, but it is very possible that individuals who steep in this fear long enough will fly off the handle and wreak some havoc. It has already happened, it will happen again. How to address that fear and its consequences is of course another question. I don't have any very good answers, just trying to define the question!

The other question... if we claim an individual right to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else, at what point does that right come into play? If I think speed limits or taxes are an excessive constraint on my freedom do I then have the right to shoot a cop who pulls me over, or a tax collector? Who or what defines what's a legitimate cause to take up arms against government? Obviously not the government, but if we proclaim that the determination lies with each individual, doesn't that pretty much legitimize any sort of mayhem that any individual wants to embark upon?

I've had cause to be annoyed, frustrated, and angry with the Kafkaesque labyrinth of bureaucracy that is the US Embassy in Manila. I don't fear it, but I sure as hell don't like it. Does that give me the right to start shooting at it or its employees? I would say it does not, because I can't shoot "the government", and I can't shoot "the embassy" (unless I shoot the building, which would be pointless). I could only shoot a person, an individual who has the same rights I have and who probably has little or no personal responsibility for the rules systems that create the annoyance. That would not be acceptable (aside from the fact that the consequences of the action would be unpleasant).

Instead of asking about when and whether the perception of intrusion on rights justifies the use of armed force against "the Government", we might ask at what point, if any, does the perception of intrusion upon rights justify the employment of armed force against other people... because at the end of the day, when you pick up a weapon and use it, you're not using it against "the Government", you're using it against a person.

slapout9
04-08-2014, 01:30 AM
Slap,

Jefferson was about as close to an atheist as you could get in the eighteenth century. He did not feel that religion (http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs) had any business injecting itself in government.





I understand that but my point was and is that seperation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution as it is so often said to be. What is in the Constitution is protection against the establishment of a national religion ( the church of England) and the protection to freely practice your religion. This goes all the way back to Plymouth Rock, the original cause for the creation of America.

Next I cannot find an original source but the original key defintion of assault rifle was full automatic fire not semi-automatic.

slapout9
04-08-2014, 01:35 AM
You could basically give the German policemen single-shot pistols and for a while even dummy pistols to .

Sounds like a good idea. After starting 2 world wars germans should not have any weapons at all,to risky.

Dayuhan
04-08-2014, 02:04 AM
Sounds like a good idea. After starting 2 world wars germans should not have any weapons at all,to risky.

As Tom Lehrer once sang...

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that couldn't happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then...

Guess it made more sense in the '60s.

AmericanPride
04-08-2014, 02:13 AM
I've often noted that Americans who identify as "conservative" face a struggle to reconcile opposite views on freedom. On the one hand you have a strong libertarian streak, built around the idea that people ought to be free to do what they please as long as their actions don't intrude on the freedoms of others. The opposing side is the social conservative streak, which is all about intruding on the freedoms of others: the most cherished freedom of American social conservatives is the freedom to restrict the freedom of those they dislike.

That's the fundamental contradiction in the modern Republican Party. And the Tea Party's claim to libertarianism does not actually resolve this problem; it only intensifies it. The opposition to mandatory coverage for birth control (which has far more numerous medical purposes than Viagra) as well as to gay marriage and/or civil unions are cases in point. The Tea Party is a populist-reactionary element in a party with decreasing appeal among increasingly active segments of society.


First, when did so many people start fearing the government to the extent they do, and why did that come about?

I think the single most important factor was de-segregation. Not only did the federal government actively intervene to overturn state and local level monopolies on political power, it challenged the very foundations of southern politics. Even as the West grows in size, and the North and West surpass the South in economic achievement, the South retains disproportionate representation in Congress. The "conservative values" of the modern Republican Party are a reflection of southern values.


The other question... if we claim an individual right to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else, at what point does that right come into play?

There is no such right recognized anywhere. The "sovereign citizens" movement is an attempt to claim such a 'right' but it has been consistently and relentlessly opposed by the courts and law enforcement. The fundamental requirement for democratic government to function is for the citizen to obey the laws passed by his elected representatives. He is not a 'citizen' if he does not belong to a state, and the state implements its laws through a bureaucracy. A man has no rights under the 'laws of nature' because the 'laws of the jungle' are the laws of the strong; hence the formation of the state to govern the behavior of men.

Dayuhan
04-08-2014, 02:45 AM
There is no such right recognized anywhere.

I realize that; it's why I referred to a hypothetical effort to claim such a right. Those engaged in such efforts need to clarify what they want, because it sounds like they propose a system in which any individual has the right to resort to armed force at any offense perceived by that individual. That would be... chaotic, to say the least.

Hypothetically one might say that the right to revolution comes into play when democracy ceases to exist, but too many confuse "democracy" with "getting what I want".

Kiwigrunt
04-08-2014, 02:45 AM
This is complete nonsense. "The world is more complex" is a justification for bureacrats to collect a check to do nothing of worth, and often to do evil.


Whether or not it is a justification for bureaucrats doing those things (and I agree with you that often it is), does not nullify anything that AmericanPride wrote.

Kiwigrunt
04-08-2014, 02:48 AM
Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".

Provided you were a white, Christian, heterosexual male.

AmericanPride
04-08-2014, 02:55 AM
I realize that; it's why I referred to a hypothetical effort to claim such a right. Those engaged in such efforts need to clarify what they want, because it sounds like they propose a system in which any individual has the right to resort to armed force at any offense perceived by that individual. That would be... chaotic, to say the least.

Hypothetically one might say that the right to revolution comes into play when democracy ceases to exist, but too many confuse "democracy" with "getting what I want".

I think a consensus could be established in terms of "self defense" generally, but probably not the specifics. If someone shoots at you, you have the right to shoot back. If policy by a distant elite forces your family into poverty, do you have the right to steal? What about the right to use violence in the progress of that theft? What about the right to use violence to prevent your impoverishment? We could probably agree that slaves have the right to revolt (though obviously that was disputed in the 19th century and prior) but that argument must rely upon the denial of one's freedom as justification. Hence, the definition of 'freedom', which some posters here have declined to provide, is of essential importance in defining one's rights. So where do we start in defining 'freedom'?

Kiwigrunt
04-08-2014, 03:02 AM
I understand that but my point was and is that seperation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution as it is so often said to be. What is in the Constitution is protection against the establishment of a national religion ( the church of England) and the protection to freely practice your religion. This goes all the way back to Plymouth Rock, the original cause for the creation of America.

Does it not imply separation though, for all practical purposes? Because if it doesn't, then what church would have the privilege not to be separate, to the potential detriment of all the others?


Next I cannot find an original source but the original key defintion of assault rifle was full automatic fire not semi-automatic.

As I have always understood it, the following three points in conjunction:


capable of automatic fire
high capacity mag
medium / intermediate calibre / cartridge

Given point three, I'm not sure why the Austrians called their FN FAL the Stg 58.

Kiwigrunt
04-08-2014, 03:10 AM
... but too many confuse "democracy" with "getting what I want".

Isn't true (simplistic) democracy exactly that though? Provided you are fortunate enough to be part of a majority.

Dayuhan
04-08-2014, 03:17 AM
Isn't true (simplistic) democracy exactly that though? Provided you are fortunate enough to be part of a majority.

That would be the simplistic version, yes. The US system is set up on the premise that certain rights may not be intruded upon even if the majority desires it. Defining the nature and extent of those rights is a continuing process with no final answer. Overall I think there's been a steady trend toward increased protection of the rights of minorities, which the majority might in some cases perceive as intrusion upon their right to have their way... but of course that's a trend, not a rile, and there are plenty of exceptions.

carl
04-08-2014, 03:37 AM
Provided you were a white, Christian, heterosexual male.

A limited group of individuals. The idea was to extend things to to other individuals which we have done pretty well.

carl
04-08-2014, 04:16 AM
There is no such right recognized anywhere.

Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.

slapout9
04-08-2014, 04:25 AM
Does it not imply separation though, for all practical purposes? Because if it doesn't, then what church would have the privilege not to be separate, to the potential detriment of all the others?



As I have always understood it, the following three points in conjunction:


capable of automatic fire
high capacity mag
medium / intermediate calibre / cartridge

Given point three, I'm not sure why the Austrians called their FN FAL the Stg 58.

Kiwi,
#1-No I don't. I still believe the primary intent was to prevent the establishment of any affiliation with the Curch of England, which was considered oppressive and political at the time. Also the protestant reformation was taking place whi ch was key to the new economic system that the usa was going to establish. Christian economics or rather the loss of it is part of the problem we are facing today. And is part of the reason for the growth of such a massive and intrusive Federal Government.


#2-That is an excellant description of an assault weapon. The point abouf the calibre bullet is critical and aids in avoiding the confusion from the concept of the sub-machine gun.

slapout9
04-08-2014, 04:29 AM
Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.
:
Yes....it is part of the Declaration of Independence which is part of our Holy Trinity of founding documents, the other 2 being the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Kiwigrunt
04-08-2014, 05:02 AM
#2-That is an excellant description of an assault weapon. The point abouf the calibre bullet is critical and aids in avoiding the confusion from the concept of the sub-machine gun.

Assault RIFLE.
Not weapon.
No dessert for you tonight! And wash you keyboard with water and soap. And ten Hail Marys.

Kiwigrunt
04-08-2014, 05:23 AM
A limited group of individuals. The idea was to extend things to to other individuals which we have done pretty well.

Who is this 'we' that is responsible for the extending of those liberties beyond the master race and gender? Might it be the people that 120mm so aptly describes as the commie benign master class who decided that freedom is a group thing?:rolleyes:

Dayuhan
04-08-2014, 06:08 AM
The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.

Do you suggest that each individual has the right to take up arms against "the government" at any time the individual chooses and in response to whatever provocation that the individual sees as sufficient to justify it? Since taking up arms against "the government" would typically means taking up arms against against individuals perceived to be associated with the government, how does one balance such a proposed right against the rights of those one proposes to shoot?

Unless severely qualified, it sounds like a Timothy McVeigh argument.

carl
04-08-2014, 06:47 AM
Who is this 'we' that is responsible for the extending of those liberties beyond the master race and gender? Might it be the people that 120mm so aptly describes as the commie benign master class who decided that freedom is a group thing?:rolleyes:

That is a very interesting comment. I figured it was self evident that by "we" I was referring to us, the Americans. But you came up with something different. It is almost as of you believe something was conferred upon us by a discrete class of betters. Is that what you are trying to convey?

Your last 5 word phrase is interesting also. Somehow you came up with something along the lines of-since freedom is group thing, it is therefore right to extend it to more individuals. I think that interesting because I believe that all individuals deserve not to be deprived of their natural rights because their status as individuals, they are therefore they have so to speak. It has nothing at all to do with a group, it has everything to do with the individual. But somehow you came up with a group. Do you mean that no differentiation should be made amongst individuals because of superficialities that are subordinate to their status as individual humans and therefore restrictions upon natural rights based upon those superficialities should be done away with? I can go with that. But I note that that derives from the individual what he is due because he is.

carl
04-08-2014, 07:00 AM
Do you suggest that each individual has the right to take up arms against "the government" at any time the individual chooses and in response to whatever provocation that the individual sees as sufficient to justify it? Since taking up arms against "the government" would typically means taking up arms against against individuals perceived to be associated with the government, how does one balance such a proposed right against the rights of those one proposes to shoot?

Unless severely qualified, it sounds like a Timothy McVeigh argument.

I rarely use this form of text shorthand but...LOL.

I suggest just what I said, each man has the right to self defense. And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

Bad Dayuhan, bad. You are reverting to argument by suggestive questions again rather than just stating a position. Next thing you'll be using the word 'hysteria' again.

Mr. McVeigh made no arguments to my knowledge he just murdered. His name is very useful though to those who want to discredit. At least it is a change from 'hysterical'.

Dayuhan
04-08-2014, 07:38 AM
I suggest just what I said, each man has the right to self defense. And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

What you actually said was:


Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense

So it sounds like you are saying that this hypothetical right to revolution is an extension of the right to self defense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like.

However, the right to self defense is qualified, and it is not based entirely on the perception of the person taking the action. If you shoot a person who is shooting at you, that will be considered self defense. If you shoot a person who is throwing popcorn at you, that will not be considered self defense, because there was no imminent threat. To justify the exercise of violence as self defense you have to show some sort of threat, and it has to be a serious one: you can't haul off at someone with a fully automatic weapon of medium caliber with a large capacity magazine simply because that person seemed about to unclog his or her nose in your general direction, and then claim self defense.

It seems logical to me that if this presumed right to revolution is an extension of the right to self defense, there has to be a similar qualifier in place: to justify taking up arms against the government, there has to be a real, imminent, and serious threat involved. What level of threat is sufficient, and who makes the determination in any given case?

Another question generally not addressed by the proponents of a right to revolution is that no matter how much high sounding rhetoric we issue about "taking up arms against the state", or "taking up arms against tyranny", if arms are to actually be used, they will not be used against "the state" or "tyranny", but against other individuals. What level of fear, anger, or annoyance justifies depriving another individual of the right to life?

Again, the individual quoted in the opening post of this thread wrote:


you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)

While that may arguably be true (or not), when you discuss such issues in the context of a claim that they justify an individual declaration of independence and the associated need to use armaments, you have to wonder who he intends to shoot and how his disagreement with government over any of those issues can possibly justify depriving another individual of the right to life, which is what happens when people start shooting over politics.

AmericanPride
04-08-2014, 04:27 PM
Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.

Rights should be explicit, not implicit, since by their nature, as you claim, they are granted by God. If it is implicit, then it is a derivation from some other explicit conditions. That said, here's a run-down of the philosophy so far:

1) Dayuhan asked if there's a right "to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else"...

2) To which you replied in the affirmative, "That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right."

3) You later qualified it with "And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

Notwithstanding that "armed revolution" and "secession" are not the same, there are some other terms that require qualification. What is meant by "self-defense"? Again, I ask if policy leads to impoverishment, starvation, or even death, does this justify "armed revolution"? Can "armed revolution" or "secession" be justified as a preventative measure? How many individuals working "in concert" does it take for an "armed revolution" or "secession" to be justified? If a majority rejects "armed revolution" or "secession", is the action still justified? What if the majority rejects the government that the "armed revolution" implements? What if a minority rejects the government that an "armed revolution" implements? Is it just to impose that government on them without their consent? Constitutionally speaking, in the United States neither armed revolution or secession are lawful. Would you be willing to argue that the United States Constitution contradicts your view of natural law?

As for McVeigh, he targeted the Oklahoma City Federal Building as a response to the federal raids on Ruby Ridge and Waco. Not sure if race was an element of his ideology, but it typically is a fundamental issue in far-right ideology in the US. The militia and sovereign citizens movements share your sentiments about a supposed "right to revolution" derived not from the collective conditions of the public, but from the individual perception of his treatment by the state. And usually the ideal 'state of nature'sought by this ideology where all men are free and equal typically devolves, if it ever exists, into anarchy, dictatorship, and warlordism.

AmericanPride
04-08-2014, 04:40 PM
Dayuhan,

To go back to your question about fear of government, I think the other major trend, of which arguably desegragation was a part, is the rapid urbanization of the country since World War II. It's not so much that the rural countryside has depopulated, but that metropolitan regions, particularly on the coast, have grown so rapidly that rural America has not kept pace. Like I mentioned in the previous post, this dramatic shift in America's social structure from a rural society to an urban one has not fully translated into a proportionate shift in political power where the rural communities still retain disproportionate representation in Congress. You could probably draw the political faultline on most issues (affirmative action, civil equality, social programs, abortion, and so on) along this cultural rift. And not only are the cultures and values different, but so are the political mechanisms in the exercise of power - rural America has more "responsive" government, in one narrowly defined sense, but this often comes at the exclusion of the 'Other'; in rural America, racial and sometimes religious minorities. That's what the federal government destroyed by dismantling desegregation, the effects of which still undermine the South's economic development.

So when we as a country finally get to the election of Barack Obama, what does he represent? He's a self-made, well-educated, internationally travelled, biracial-American from a large city, none of which earn him any favors from rural America. And it's been rural America that has determined political outcomes for centuries until Obama broke the southern strategy in his first election by focusing on youth and minority outreach. That's a significant achievement given the course of US history. Is it sustainable? My thought is that 2014 mid-terms will be the last gasp of a extinguishing political class. The last two presidential elections demonstrated just how little of America that class actually represents - they will have to find a new strategy since the southern strategy is no longer sustainable. And that means minority and youth outreach, and that also means addressing the issues and values reflected in urban communities and making compromises on rural issues in order to build a national coalition.

Put in the context of your question, those changes represent significant threats to the dominant social norms and order, which intensified the already skeptical (fearful?) disposition of rural America towards the metropolitan 'other'. The Republican Party attempted to mobilize this agitation into favorable political results. Remember, the Tea Party emerged not as a response to Obamacare but to the bank and corporate bailouts at the end of the Bush administration as the economy collapsed, throwing rural communities into chaos. And since then, the GOP has been struggling to maintain its control over the movement's adherents who tend to be very active on the local political scene. And this culminated in shutdown of the government last year and essentially the stoppage of work in the House for the last 2 years, but also into the failure to win the last presidential election since, after all, the Tea Party only represents a narrow rural minority.

Tukhachevskii
04-08-2014, 05:45 PM
Contains much that might be of some interest (apoogies if already referenced)


http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/907-the-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-has-outlived-its-usefulness

slapout9
04-08-2014, 07:52 PM
The people behind the 4th generation warfare have generally got it right. The government can no longer perform it't most basic funtions for which it was created . That creates a motive for rebellion indeed armed rebellion if needed. It one case to a sucky government it is another when you have to pay for own demise in the form of taxes. Just read the preamble to the constitution?.........grade each purpose for which the US government was created. Link to the Constitution.
http://constitutionus.com/

TheCurmudgeon
04-08-2014, 09:19 PM
The people behind the 4th generation warfare have generally got it right. The government can no longer perform it't most basic funtions for which it was created . That creates a motive for rebellion indeed armed rebellion if needed. It one case to a sucky government it is another when you have to pay for own demise in the form of taxes. Just read the preamble to the constitution?.........grade each purpose for which the US government was created. Link to the Constitution.
http://constitutionus.com/

In my mind this is the crux of the problem, and what makes it more than just an academic debate. At what point does a portion of the population decide that taking arms against their own government is appropriate? Associated questions are: Can the kind of guttural ferocity that is required for people to use deadly violence against representatives of their own government be manufactured by a “lobby”? … or does the “lobby” simply tap into the guttural ferocity that already exists in the population?

From what I have seen, at least in the associated question, it is later. A group has to have a pool of seriously disgruntled people to insight before rhetoric turns into action. Of course, this is just my opinion based on watching the conversation. It also appears that the level of emotional hatred required cannot be created around simple complaints. Something like taxes may be the rallying cry but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am also not sure if any of the observations, based on antidotal evidence, are transferable to another culture. I believe many of the complaints are uniquely American.

I am not sure whether a single incident where someone shows up at a protest with a loaded weapons will turn into two, or twenty, or whether they will eventually use that weapon. My feelings are that they will. There were many acts of civil disobedience but a massacre in Boston galvanized the colonists into feeling that they were not longer under the protection of the King's Soldiers. I don’t think this will get that far, but it is early.

Dayuhan
04-09-2014, 12:25 AM
grade each purpose for which the US government was created. Link to the Constitution.

I'd give it a C average across the board, better in some areas, worse in others. Passing, but could and should do better. Maybe that's because I've lived long enough in the other world to know what a failing government actually looks like.

Certainly there's abundant cause for dissatisfaction with the US government, but that's always been the case... is it really worse than any other time? When was it better? Do the current flaws really justify the level of fear that we see in some quarters? What happened to the traditional control system of democracy: voting the bastards out and putting the other bastards in until we get tired of them?

Long way from perfect, of course... but that's always been the case, and anyone using the "fail" word should really think about what a true failure of governance looks like.

AmericanPride
04-09-2014, 01:54 AM
The people behind the 4th generation warfare have generally got it right. The government can no longer perform it't most basic funtions for which it was created . That creates a motive for rebellion indeed armed rebellion if needed. It one case to a sucky government it is another when you have to pay for own demise in the form of taxes. Just read the preamble to the constitution?.........grade each purpose for which the US government was created. Link to the Constitution.
http://constitutionus.com/

If it were as easy as "just [reading] the Preamble to the Constitution" we wouldn't be having these problems and debates. What is a "more perfect union"? What does it mean to "insure domestic tranquility" or to "promote the general welfare"? If you were to ascribe a grade, I would say that in comparison to most other governments, the American federal government scores pretty well in some areas but fairs poorly in others.

Establish Justice: B+
Ensure Domestic Tranquility: D+
Provide for the Common Defense: A+
Promote the General Welfare: D+
Secure the Blessings of Liberty: B+/-

Dayuhan
04-09-2014, 03:39 AM
Establish Justice: B+
Ensure Domestic Tranquility: D+
Provide for the Common Defense: A+
Promote the General Welfare: D+
Secure the Blessings of Liberty: B+/-

I'd go a little higher on domestic tranquility and general welfare. Maybe C+ on tranquility... sure, there are crime issues, primarily in major urban areas, but nothing resembling insurgency or major disorder, and I'd guess the vast majority of Americans live pretty tranquil lives with little realistic fear of violence.

General welfare maybe lower, C... despite the recent recession American general welfare remains well above world averages, if not quite where we'd want it to be.

AmericanPride
04-09-2014, 02:27 PM
I'd go a little higher on domestic tranquility and general welfare. Maybe C+ on tranquility... sure, there are crime issues, primarily in major urban areas, but nothing resembling insurgency or major disorder, and I'd guess the vast majority of Americans live pretty tranquil lives with little realistic fear of violence.

General welfare maybe lower, C... despite the recent recession American general welfare remains well above world averages, if not quite where we'd want it to be.

I placed domestic tranquility very low because of the high rates of violent crime, domestic abuse, suicide. And I placed general welfare very low because of poor health outcomes, high food insecurity, and the relatively regressive tax code.

slapout9
04-09-2014, 07:31 PM
In my mind this is the crux of the problem, and what makes it more than just an academic debate. At what point does a portion of the population decide that taking arms against their own government is appropriate? Associated questions are: Can the kind of guttural ferocity that is required for people to use deadly violence against representatives of their own government be manufactured by a “lobby”? … or does the “lobby” simply tap into the guttural ferocity that already exists in the population?



IMO the border/immigration situation has the potential to make people risk going to armed resistance. As the 4GW writers say the state is failing to provide basic protection, in fact they are signing laws (NAFTA) that actually guarantee this will happen. Just watch some of the old presidential debate between Ross Perot and Al Gore , incredible how precise Perot was on exactly what would and has happened and continues to happen!

slapout9
04-09-2014, 07:40 PM
If it were as easy as "just [reading] the Preamble to the Constitution" we wouldn't be having these problems and debates. What is a "more perfect union"? What does it mean to "insure domestic tranquility" or to "promote the general welfare"? If you were to ascribe a grade, I would say that in comparison to most other governments, the American federal government scores pretty well in some areas but fairs poorly in others.

Establish Justice: B+
Ensure Domestic Tranquility: D+
Provide for the Common Defense: A+
Promote the General Welfare: D+
Secure the Blessings of Liberty: B+/-

No it is not easy but hear is my point. The Preamble provides the purpose for the following constitutional process too often we overlook the purpose, which provides the necessary judgment to make the tough choices we have and will have to make now and in the future. We become to focused on the process which was only created to serve the purpose(s) of our country.

IMO the whole purpose of the Federal Government was/is to create the greatest good for the greatest number NOT the chosen few as so often happens. There are no Gay,Afro,Latino,White,Women,Men,Green,Red,Blue Americans there are just Americans! hyphenated Americans should been sent to Gitmo! The source of all our problems and solutions lie in that sphere.

slapout9
04-09-2014, 07:47 PM
American Pride, Dayuhan, Curmudgy,

As for the American score card. The Government should be reorganized into the 6 Departments from the Preamble and that is the only 6 Departments we need.

IMO we are flat out failing in our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for future generations. That flat out requires a longer term Vision and some type of long term Plan for the good of the country not just Republicans and/or Democrats. This something our elected officials are very poor at.

And finally political parties should be made illegal, they are far to destructive as George Washington said they would be. (At Least I think it was him)

Stan
04-09-2014, 08:34 PM
And finally political parties should be made illegal, they are far to destructive as George Washington said they would be. (At Least I think it was him)

I second that motion.

No more political campaigns without your own money. Can't afford it ? Too bad, let someone else run with his/her own cash.

AmericanPride
04-09-2014, 09:09 PM
IMO the whole purpose of the Federal Government was/is to create the greatest good for the greatest number NOT the chosen few as so often happens.

In your opinion, who are the "chosen few"?


As for the American score card. The Government should be reorganized into the 6 Departments from the Preamble and that is the only 6 Departments we need.

I'm assuming State, Defense, Justice... what are the other 3 you propose to keep?


IMO we are flat out failing in our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for future generations. That flat out requires a longer term Vision and some type of long term Plan for the good of the country not just Republicans and/or Democrats. This something our elected officials are very poor at.

In what way are we "flat out failing in our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for future generations"? I don't disagree with you in principle but I suspect I disagree in substance.


And finally political parties should be made illegal, they are far to destructive as George Washington said they would be. (At Least I think it was him)


No more political campaigns without your own money. Can't afford it ? Too bad, let someone else run with his/her own cash.

Wouldn't outlawing political parties result violate the Constitutional protection for the right to peaceably assemble? Political parties have their problems, granted, but they are also instrumental in mobilizing voters and building coalitions on issues. They are also a hedge against the radicalization of politics. As for campaigning with your own money, that's a guaranteed way to ensure that only the wealthy will be elected. And the wealthy will represent only the interests of the wealthy. The best solution for maximizing citizen participation is to ban using any campaign financing other than that provided by the government.

Stan
04-09-2014, 09:20 PM
Wouldn't outlawing political parties result violate the Constitutional protection for the right to peaceably assemble? Political parties have their problems, granted, but they are also instrumental in mobilizing voters and building coalitions on issues. They are also a hedge against the radicalization of politics. As for campaigning with your own money, that's a guaranteed way to ensure that only the wealthy will be elected. And the wealthy will represent only the interests of the wealthy. The best solution for maximizing citizen participation is to ban using any campaign financing other than that provided by the government.

I might have this ass backwards, but Freedom of Assembly has jack to do with politicians. More like a right to protest ?

We've seen how lucky a wealthy Texas man did not make it to the primaries on his own dime. Not much of a guarantee in my book.

Citizens like me, constantly reminded to vote while abroad, find it increasingly difficult to vote for someone who is squandering my taxes to fly around and bark Bravo Sierra.

TheCurmudgeon
04-09-2014, 11:32 PM
I am trying to stay out of the political debate, but I thought I would restate something about American's I noted earlier.


IMO we are flat out failing in our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for future generations. That flat out requires a longer term Vision and some type of long term Plan for the good of the country not just Republicans and/or Democrats. This something our elected officials are very poor at.

Slap, what you are seeing is a reflection of America - who it is and what it wants. I have posted earlier our compulsion to prefer the quick, easy solution. "Nuk'em till they glow!" Our elected political leaders are simply reflecting our preferences. Democracy at its finest ... or the Tyranny of the Majority, depending on how you look at it.




And finally political parties should be made illegal, they are far to destructive as George Washington said they would be. (At Least I think it was him)

You are correct in that George Washington clearly had disdain for minority associations. And although the second paragraph of the below quote from his farewell address (http://ivn.us/2012/07/18/george-washington-on-political-parties/) is the one generally cited as proving that he felt political parties were a destructive force (with the word "parties" inserted where the actual words "combinations or associations of the above description" were spoken), it is clear that he was probably talking about what today we would call lobbyists and Political Action Committees (PACs). Any group that held its own private interests above the common good would be included.


All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

One last thing, Washington's definition of Liberty included obedience to the law ... duties as well as rights. Again, from his farewell speech:


This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. (my emphasis)

Kiwigrunt
04-09-2014, 11:33 PM
That is a very interesting comment. I figured it was self evident that by "we" I was referring to us, the Americans. But you came up with something different. It is almost as of you believe something was conferred upon us by a discrete class of betters. Is that what you are trying to convey?

Your last 5 word phrase is interesting also. Somehow you came up with something along the lines of-since freedom is group thing, it is therefore right to extend it to more individuals. I think that interesting because I believe that all individuals deserve not to be deprived of their natural rights because their status as individuals, they are therefore they have so to speak. It has nothing at all to do with a group, it has everything to do with the individual. But somehow you came up with a group. Do you mean that no differentiation should be made amongst individuals because of superficialities that are subordinate to their status as individual humans and therefore restrictions upon natural rights based upon those superficialities should be done away with? I can go with that. But I note that that derives from the individual what he is due because he is.


What I am trying to convey is that the kind of people largely responsible for extending liberties and rights to those previously oppressed or otherwise disadvantaged, are often those that receive labels like 'commie or 'benign master class who decided that freedom is a group thing'. I extracted these words from the post I quoted; I did not come up with them. Hence the sarcasm icon.

Freedom should apply to all individuals, and can only be measured against that of all other individuals in the community / group. So yes, pretty much as per your second to last line. So, even though I did not come up with the group thing, I think it has as much to do with the group as it has with the (all) individuals that make up the group. It has always been that way, except that the group has not always been all-inclusive (come to think of it, probably never will be). Seeing the rights purely as individual - and having nothing to do with any group - is not helpful to those people who are denied the rights by the group.

Dayuhan
04-10-2014, 02:21 AM
Protection of the rights of minorities, whether or not you describe those minorities in hyphenated terms, has to be a priority in any system based on majority rule. First thing a majority does when it gets power is to step on some convenient minority.

Living in a country with no political parties worthy of the name, I have to say that parties, scummy as they are, have a place. They aren't pretty, what what happens when you have none is even less pretty.

Going back to the original post, I'd only underscore that IMO the problem isn't the guns, or even for the most part the gun owners. The pronblem is the fear, and the extent to which that fear is growing to an irrational and paranoid level in a small subset of the populace. Scared people do crazy stupid stuff, especially when they are heavily armed. To the extent that the second amendment lobby encourages and supports exaggerated fear of government, it might be held to be a threat.

So another question... are their parties out there deliberately encouraging and supporting exaggerated fear of government? If so, is the second amendment lobby one of them?

TheCurmudgeon
04-10-2014, 02:45 AM
Going back to the original post, I'd only underscore that IMO the problem isn't the guns, or even for the most part the gun owners. The pronblem is the fear, and the extent to which that fear is growing to an irrational and paranoid level in a small subset of the populace. Scared people do crazy stupid stuff, especially when they are heavily armed. To the extent that the second amendment lobby encourages and supports exaggerated fear of government, it might be held to be a threat.

So another question... are their parties out there deliberately encouraging and supporting exaggerated fear of government? If so, is the second amendment lobby one of them?

Here, I can only half agree with you. Fear is a key component, but WHAT you are afraid of matters. Fear of the basics, like your own death, will certainly yield a defensive reaction. But we are not talking about death in this case. We are not even talking about fear of torture. I am not even sure what we are afraid of specifically, except that it seems to be associated with a very expansive idea of liberty - one clearly more expansive than the Founders believed in.

Here, again, we get to the crux of the problem. Why will Americans, who have more than most people in other countries can dream of having, want to attack their own government? What is it they feel they are being deprived of? How does that relate to insurrection and insurgency in general? Unfortunately, I am asking rhetorical questions, because no one ever wants to address them.:p

TheCurmudgeon
04-10-2014, 02:57 AM
Here, again, we get to the crux of the problem. Why will Americans, who have more than most people in other countries can dream of having, want to attack their own government? What is it they feel they are being deprived of? How does that relate to insurrection and insurgency in general? Unfortunately, I am asking rhetorical questions, because no one ever wants to address them.:p

So, this post serves two purposes. First, I proved that I can quote myself:D

Second, it reminds me of the Davis J-Curve (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2089714?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103981100693). Chances are you either don't know it or don't like it, but it seems clearly applicable here. The Davies J-Curve is a theory of revolution. It basically states that people will revolt when they have been gaining ground socially and then those gains turn into loses. The people get angry and revolt. Now, I do believe that, as originally proposed, it was too expansive and attempted to be able to explain all situations. BUT, I do think is has some interesting things to offer when we look at why Americans suddenly feel the need to attack their own government with such zeal.


In 1962, Davies presented his J-curve theory. He stated that revolutions are most likely to occur when periods of prolonged improvements concerning economic and social development are supplanted by a period of sharp reversal. He used evidence from the Dorr’s rebellion, the Russian revolution, and the Egyptian revolution to support his argument. According to Davies, the sharp reversal of development creates an intolerable gap between what people want and what they get.http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/04/17/james-c-davies-j-curve-theory-of-revolutions/

AmericanPride
04-10-2014, 04:06 AM
So another question... are their parties out there deliberately encouraging and supporting exaggerated fear of government? If so, is the second amendment lobby one of them?

Absolutely. This fits within my narrative of rural America and the metropolitan Other. The NRA's targeted audience isn't the young urban minority male. Here are a couple of quotes from Wayne LaPierre:

"Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.”

“We, the American people, clearly see the daunting forces we will undoubtedly face: terrorists, crime, drug gangs, the possibility of Euro-style debt riots, civil unrest or natural disaster.”

“There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people."

“We [the NRA] are the largest civil rights organization in the world.”

It's interesting to talk about this today noting the recent knife rampage in an American high school that left many injuries but no deaths, in contrast to Sandy Hook. I watched a fairly decent and recent documentary on Netflix titled Patriocracy that investigated the polarization of American politics. Part of the problem according to the film, and with which I partially agree, is the news-tainment networks (Fox, MSNBC, etc) that purport to represent objective reporting but really offer only invective and partisan bias. Combined with the proliferation of similar websites and blogs, everyone can form their own bubble to reinforce their confirmation bias instead of becoming responsible participants in American democracy.


Why will Americans, who have more than most people in other countries can dream of having, want to attack their own government? What is it they feel they are being deprived of? How does that relate to insurrection and insurgency in general?

I think it goes back to the issues I mentioned in earlier posts: urbanization, desegregation, information saturation; and throw in a couple of emergencies like the 2008 recession and 9/11 for added flavor. Rural America is in moral crisis and has been in economic duress for some time, especially in the south. It's not a coincidence that partisanship intensified in 2009 as local economies collapsed, millions were thrown out of work, municipal and local governments were thrown into chaos, and the Democrats, with Obama at the helm, managed to win the Presidency over the southern coalition. Obama epitomizes the metropolitan Other - with his education, international travel, urban origin, and of course his mixed race background. Hence all the agitation about the birther movement, the almost fanatical opposition to his policies, denouncing him as a secret Muslim or socialist. All of this despite his policies more or less mirroring the Bush administration and pulling the Democratic Party to the center-right. The fear is that Obama - the Other - will come take away their "guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment" to which rural America so tightly clings.

AmericanPride
04-10-2014, 04:18 AM
So, this post serves two purposes. First, I proved that I can quote myself:D

Second, it reminds me of the Davis J-Curve (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2089714?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103981100693). Chances are you either don't know it or don't like it, but it seems clearly applicable here. The Davies J-Curve is a theory of revolution. It basically states that people will revolt when they have been gaining ground socially and then those gains turn into loses. The people get angry and revolt. Now, I do believe that, as originally proposed, it was too expansive and attempted to be able to explain all situations. BUT, I do think is has some interesting things to offer when we look at why Americans suddenly feel the need to attack their own government with such zeal.

http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/04/17/james-c-davies-j-curve-theory-of-revolutions/

Not sure of the applicability of this theory to the American condition. Let's be frank: the anti-government movement is dominated by white, Christian, generally older, males, mostly but not exclusively from rural communities and to some extent suburbs. The News-tainment likes to point out the one or two black Sons of Confederate Veterans but that's really just anecdotal political showmanship. The struggle for political power in America has chiefly been rooted in the pursuit of emancipation; expanding the franchise to women, to immigrants, to minorities, and so on. And that struggle continues today. But power is relative and where one group gains, another loses. The design of Congress and the mechanisms of the electoral system mean that rural communities - those most distant from the rapid changes of America - have the most disproportionate influence on policy. And there are code words to which these communities respond most passionately as basis of their cultural paradigm; "takers" means social welfare and that in turns mean urbanites and urban minorities; not tax breaks or corporate assistance or even farm subsidies. The "real America" according to Sarah Palin are the minority of Americans that live in rural communities, not the 250 million that live in or near urban areas (i.e. 3/4 of Americans live on ~3% of the land area). So this intensification of politics is not a reversal of fortune but the last gasp of a cultural segment losing its long-held political privilege as the political system catches up with the urban-metropolitan transformation of the country.

Who was the target during the Superbowl commercial two years ago about farmers and their "godly" work? Farmers make up less than 1% of the American population but someone (I forgot who made the commercial) forked over a couple million dollars for a five minute commercial for this tiny fraction of Americans. Someone like Ted Nugent can go on the air live and flatly use racial epithets about the President during a political campaign and that's seen as constructive for the campaign. There's a long history of right-wing populist movement in rural America - most notably the KKK especially at its height at the start of the 20th century, but most recently the sovereign citizen movement, the militia movement, and yes, even the Tea Party. My point is that there's a significant distance between the size of groups in America and their political representation; but that's changing and that change is what's driving the fear.

slapout9
04-10-2014, 07:45 PM
I am trying to stay out of the political debate, but I thought I would restate something about American's I noted earlier.
Slap, what you are seeing is a reflection of America - who it is and what it wants. I have posted earlier our compulsion to prefer the quick, easy solution. "Nuk'em till they glow!" Our elected political leaders are simply reflecting our preferences. Democracy at its finest ... or the Tyranny of the Majority, depending on how you look at it.


Curmudgy,
For a real revolution to happen there must be something that affects a large number of the population and immigration and taxes are about the only 2 things that presently fit the bill. So I say "if" it happens it will be connected to an "invasion by immigration" as the 4GW folks say. And yes I like the J-Curve idea.

slapout9
04-10-2014, 07:59 PM
In your opinion, who are the "chosen few"?



I'm assuming State, Defense, Justice... what are the other 3 you propose to keep?



In what way are we "flat out failing in our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for future generations"? I don't disagree with you in principle but I suspect I disagree in substance.





Wouldn't outlawing political parties result violate the Constitutional protection for the right to peaceably assemble? Political parties have their problems, granted, but they are also instrumental in mobilizing voters and building coalitions on issues. They are also a hedge against the radicalization of politics. As for campaigning with your own money, that's a guaranteed way to ensure that only the wealthy will be elected. And the wealthy will represent only the interests of the wealthy. The best solution for maximizing citizen participation is to ban using any campaign financing other than that provided by the government.

AP,

#1-the chosen few could be identified by looking at the IRS code. It is nothing but a book of favors for the 1%.

#2-I would add a Department of Treasury, Department of Civil Engineering (we desperately need this) and finally I would literally have a Department of Future Prosperity. That plus your 3 would cover the designated mission areas of Government as defined in the Preamble.

#3-We are flat out failing because we have NO plan to secure our Future for the Future generations. All I see is an intentional plan to degrade the Future for Future Americans (NAFTA is a prime example).

#4-No it will not violate freedom to assemble in any way. Good policy for the country, is a good policy for the country and it shouldn't matter not one bit which party came up with it. And the only way to really ensure that this happens is by getting rid of the influence of "gang thinking" by the parties because so often that is what it ends up happening.

I think that covers everything.

TheCurmudgeon
04-10-2014, 08:05 PM
Curmudgy,
For a real revolution to happen there must be something that affects a large number of the population and immigration and taxes are about the only 2 things that presently fit the bill. So I say "if" it happens it will be connected to an "invasion by immigration" as the 4GW folks say. And yes I like the J-Curve idea.

Slap,

You are correct, but in my opinion whether something is called a revolution, an insurgency, or violent political action is simply a matter of how much of the population engages in it. Except for the odd mentally unstable individual, the emotional changes that cause a person to see thier government as thier enemy is pretty much the same.

AmericanPride
04-10-2014, 08:42 PM
#1-the chosen few could be identified by looking at the IRS code. It is nothing but a book of favors for the 1%.

I agree. But the most visible and active supporters of the 1% are low-middle income, white, rural Americans who perceive government is transfering their wealth to urban minorities when, in reality, most of the wealth transfer is upwards to the "1%".


#2-I would add a Department of Treasury, Department of Civil Engineering (we desperately need this) and finally I would literally have a Department of Future Prosperity. That plus your 3 would cover the designated mission areas of Government as defined in the Preamble.

What about Veterans Affairs?


#3-We are flat out failing because we have NO plan to secure our Future for the Future generations. All I see is an intentional plan to degrade the Future for Future Americans (NAFTA is a prime example).

#4-No it will not violate freedom to assemble in any way. Good policy for the country, is a good policy for the country and it shouldn't matter not one bit which party came up with it. And the only way to really ensure that this happens is by getting rid of the influence of "gang thinking" by the parties because so often that is what it ends up happening.

I have serious reservations about the implications of these comments. What's "good policy for the county" is not always straightforward. I think wealth distribution to middle and low income Americans through social services (education, health-care, affordable housing, food security) is good policy and good for America. But it's not "good" in a narrow sense for those with their wealth being distributed. There are so many competing interests in the American polity that political parties are necessary to represent them all and build functional coalitions. I do have concerns about lobbying and campaign finance, but those are not strictly issues related to the existence of parties in the first place.

The real question is what makes political parties cooperate and what makes them fight? Part of it is the mechanisms through which power is exercised - in a parliamentary system, for example, a failure to pass the budget and threaten government shutdown would trigger new elections; in the US, in contrast, this can be used as a political tool because no one will be dismissed from office for using it. The other part is the winner-take-all method of voting and the nature of House representation, which gives disproportionate influence to rural communities.

TheCurmudgeon
04-10-2014, 08:57 PM
Not sure of the applicability of this theory to the American condition. Let's be frank: the anti-government movement is dominated by white, Christian, generally older, males, mostly but not exclusively from rural communities and to some extent suburbs.

AP,

As I noted with Slap, it is the psychology at work that I am interested in. The size of the affected group will only change how we define the action, as either a few random acts of political violence, an small or large insurgency, or an actual revolt. So if only say 2% of the population are affected, and of that only 10% feel the need to use violence, and of that only 10% act on that feeling, you have a realtively small group of political criminals. If now 30% of the population are affected and that feeling is strong enough that 30% of that group feel that violence is justified and 50% act on that, you now have an insurgency, ... you get the idea.

But the basic psychology that causes people to act is, essentually, the same.

Dayuhan
04-10-2014, 11:35 PM
What's "good policy for the county" is not always straightforward.

This I think is one of the core truths that's so often lost in polarized political discourse. The guy who disagrees with you is not necessarily a shill for "the 1%", "the commies", "the immigrants", or anything else. He's probably just a guy who has the same basic goals you do, just a different idea of how to get there. What polarized political discourse loses is the reality that no faction has "right" or "truth" on their side: all of them have a piece of it, and a workable solution is best achieved by compromise. The more the discourse polarizes, the more we see people retreating into a shell of "I'm right, they're wrong", and reaching the conclusion that "they" are not just other Americans with different opinions, but representatives of some malign external force. That's when fear and hate come into it, and where fear and hate go, violence follows in short order.

I don't see any of this heading toward revolution or insurgency at this point, but individuals flying off the handle and making a mess... I'm guessing we'll see more of that.

AmericanPride
04-11-2014, 12:10 AM
I don't see any of this heading toward revolution or insurgency at this point, but individuals flying off the handle and making a mess... I'm guessing we'll see more of that.

I wouldn't say the threat of "revolution" or "insurgency" is technically non-existent. The US has a far more diverse, active, and violent far-right movement than far-left; from the classical white supremacist organizations to the sovereign citizen and militia movements, and the more legitimatized Tea Party. All of them share strains of ideological thought about government, policy, race relations, and so forth. In addition, the rhetoric of mainstream media normalizes the language, symbols, and ideas of division and dehumanization of the metropolitan Other.

The crash of 2008 and the consequent devastation of local economies unleashed the intensity of the Tea Party which for several years has dominated the political space to the exclusion of functional governance. What kind of events can further drive the far-right into legitimate politics? This is a self-fulling prophecy; the more active these groups, the less functional government becomes, and the less functional government becomes, the more ideological frenzy intensifies.

The federal government is (1) not growing, (2) not incompetent, and (3) not repressive (in the American experience, it's typically the local government that most likely demonstrates these traits). Yet the government's actions are viewed within the narrow prism of reactionary populism. Barring another economic burst (the threat of which still exists in several sectors, including real estate), I suspect we will see a gradual return to stability.

slapout9
04-11-2014, 03:17 PM
Protection of the rights of minorities, whether or not you describe those minorities in hyphenated terms, has to be a priority in any system based on majority rule. First thing a majority does when it gets power is to step on some convenient minority.




This was created just after the 911 attacks and it explains very clearly why we need to get rid of the Democratic Communist Party Propaganda technique of Hyphenated Americans(divide and conquer)......it's gotta go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YRR_bwbqE8

AmericanPride
04-11-2014, 03:36 PM
This was created just after the 911 attacks and it explains very clearly why we need to get rid of the Democratic Communist Party Propaganda technique of Hyphenated Americans(divide and conquer)......it's gotta go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YRR_bwbqE8

That's easy to say when one is a part of the default group identity of what it means to be "American". The outrage during the last superbowl about the multicultural Coca-Cola commercial demonstrates that significant opposition still exists to the idea of a multi-lingual, multi-racial, multi-religious America. In essence, you are saying that non-white, non-Christian, non-male, non-English-speaking "Americans" need not apply!

slapout9
04-11-2014, 04:29 PM
That's easy to say when one is a part of the default group identity of what it means to be "American". The outrage during the last superbowl about the multicultural Coca-Cola commercial demonstrates that significant opposition still exists to the idea of a multi-lingual, multi-racial, multi-religious America. In essence, you are saying that non-white, non-Christian, non-male, non-English-speaking "Americans" need not apply!

Did you watch the video? It's hard to see how you came to that conclusion if you watched the video.

slapout9
04-11-2014, 04:41 PM
AP,

As I noted with Slap, it is the psychology at work that I am interested in. The size of the affected group will only change how we define the action, as either a few random acts of political violence, an small or large insurgency, or an actual revolt. So if only say 2% of the population are affected, and of that only 10% feel the need to use violence, and of that only 10% act on that feeling, you have a relatively small group of political criminals. If now 30% of the population are affected and that feeling is strong enough that 30% of that group feel that violence is justified and 50% act on that, you now have an insurgency, ... you get the idea.

But the basic psychology that causes people to act is, essentially, the same.

Yes, the psychology is the same. In order to be willing to go through that much pain and misery that would come from a full blown revolution the person has to believe that violence is the only option and that a violent option is better than the alternative being presented.

Basically people with nothing left to loose. Which is exactly the condition that many politicians are trying to create with the so called immigration policy.

The American Government is taking care of and protecting the rights and livelihoods of a foreign population at the expense of the American population! The policies have and will continue to create massive economic dislocations, a recipe for long term disaster IMO.

AmericanPride
04-11-2014, 05:11 PM
Did you watch the video? It's hard to see how you came to that conclusion if you watched the video.

I did; my comments were in response to your statement about the "we need to get rid of the Democratic Communist Party Propaganda technique of Hyphenated Americans". So really the question is how does the concept of a multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-racial American capture the linguistic and intellectual space in the American public?


Which is exactly the condition that many politicians are trying to create with the so called immigration policy. The American Government is taking care of and protecting the rights and livelihoods of a foreign population at the expense of the American population! The policies have and will continue to create massive economic dislocations, a recipe for long term disaster IMO.

This is a myth on many levels.

(1) The Obama administration has deported illegal immigrants at a record pace, exceeding even the Bush administration. I think this has less to do with Obama's policies and more to do with the improved effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security. For a free country, the US has a very restrictive immigration policy. And the reason why the population of illegal migrants is so high is because the "supply" of legal entry is intentionally significantly lower than the demand. Whatever advantages or protections provided to this population (which isn't much), this is not at the expense of the American public.

(2) The "massive economic dislocations" in the United States over the last, say, 30-40 years have very little to do with immigration. The causes of the transformation of the American economy are: (1) financialization, (2) transition from a rural society to an urban one with rapid urbanization, (3) transformation from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge-service one integrated in a globalizing economy (not to mention the regular shocks to the economy through the boom and busts cycles that hit low income communities the hardest). Low-skilled migrants with no legal access to the economy cannot and do not succeed in a system that privileges wealth, education, and idea generation. If Americans are so desperate as to be fearful of losing positions in the janitorial, home improvement, and farm-hand sectors to immigrants, then we really need to reassess how our education and economic systems are shaping the opportunities of Americans.

So, I think the solution is two-fold: (1) expand, not minimize or criminalize, immigration opportunities to integrate migrants (and to enable greater government accountability of the population), which will lower costs and increases revenues (2) more proactive federal programs to rebuild a crumbling economy given the failure of state and local governments to fulfill the most basic functions of governance. What the 2008 recession really demonstrated was the fragility of local governments - this is the level of government with the most interaction with the population but also the least amount of resources to deal with the problems facing a modern society. This was the level of government most devestated by the recession and it's the level of government that requires the most federal and state assistance. Failure at this level of government is the greatest risk to American security and tranquility.

carl
04-11-2014, 07:20 PM
What I am trying to convey is that the kind of people largely responsible for extending liberties and rights to those previously oppressed or otherwise disadvantaged, are often those that receive labels like 'commie or 'benign master class who decided that freedom is a group thing'. I extracted these words from the post I quoted; I did not come up with them. Hence the sarcasm icon.

So you do indeed mean that a special class conferred upon the rest of us rights or liberties. I disagree. I think us Americans did for ourselves over the course of many many years through the efforts of many many people, most of whom are unknown.

I don't like the idea of believing that there is a special class like that at all. It too easily leads to tyranny.

Freedom should apply to all individuals, and can only be measured against that of all other individuals in the community / group. So yes, pretty much as per your second to last line. So, even though I did not come up with the group thing, I think it has as much to do with the group as it has with the (all) individuals that make up the group. It has always been that way, except that the group has not always been all-inclusive (come to think of it, probably never will be). Seeing the rights purely as individual - and having nothing to do with any group - is not helpful to those people who are denied the rights by the group.

I think you are confusing rights, natural rights, those given to the individual because of his existence as an individual by God with measuring the degree to which those rights are able to be exercised within a system created by men. Those are two different things.

The rights themselves have nothing at all to do with a group. Measuring them does, as measuring has to be done by relating one thing to another.

slapout9
04-12-2014, 04:50 AM
I did; my comments were in response to your statement about the "we need to get rid of the Democratic Communist Party Propaganda technique of Hyphenated Americans". So really the question is how does the concept of a multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-racial American capture the linguistic and intellectual space in the American public?

That is why we need to have a common language, common borders,common law and common customs.


This is a myth on many levels.

(1) The Obama administration has deported illegal immigrants at a record pace, exceeding even the Bush administration. I think this has less to do with Obama's policies and more to do with the improved effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security. For a free country, the US has a very restrictive immigration policy. And the reason why the population of illegal migrants is so high is because the "supply" of legal entry is intentionally significantly lower than the demand. Whatever advantages or protections provided to this population (which isn't much), this is not at the expense of the American public.

(2) The "massive economic dislocations" in the United States over the last, say, 30-40 years have very little to do with immigration. The causes of the transformation of the American economy are: (1) financialization, (2) transition from a rural society to an urban one with rapid urbanization, (3) transformation from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge-service one integrated in a globalizing economy (not to mention the regular shocks to the economy through the boom and busts cycles that hit low income communities the hardest). Low-skilled migrants with no legal access to the economy cannot and do not succeed in a system that privileges wealth, education, and idea generation. If Americans are so desperate as to be fearful of losing positions in the janitorial, home improvement, and farm-hand sectors to immigrants, then we really need to reassess how our education and economic systems are shaping the opportunities of Americans.

So, I think the solution is two-fold: (1) expand, not minimize or criminalize, immigration opportunities to integrate migrants (and to enable greater government accountability of the population), which will lower costs and increases revenues (2) more proactive federal programs to rebuild a crumbling economy given the failure of state and local governments to fulfill the most basic functions of governance. What the 2008 recession really demonstrated was the fragility of local governments - this is the level of government with the most interaction with the population but also the least amount of resources to deal with the problems facing a modern society. This was the level of government most devastated by the recession and it's the level of government that requires the most federal and state assistance. Failure at this level of government is the greatest risk to American security and tranquility.

I very much disagree about it being a myth, I have seen it up close and in person both while in LE and even more when I retired. I even met one very successful lady of an automotive parts company that was told she had 3 options "Immigrate, Automate, or Evaporate". Immigrate went 2 ways import cheap workers or Immigrate the entire company to somewhere South of the Border. Her response was to move the company because she had no choice, you cannot compete against $2.00 per hour vs. $15.00 per hour the prevailing Mex vs USA wages at the time.

I agree that this started a long time before President Obama, this has been in process for decades but just like Ross Perot said if NAFTA (per Bill Clinton) passes then that giant sucking sound you hear will be thousands of jobs leaving America and they have. I also agree financialization has/had a great deal to do with it.

We don't need anymore programs we need to entirely re-work them. They have been in place for nearly 50 years in some cases and they do not help they simply breed generational dependency on the Government. I most certainly believe in helping people but I also believe in programs that create the proper return for the USA which is Independence not Dependence.

JarodParker
04-13-2014, 03:18 AM
I am not sure whether a single incident where someone shows up at a protest with a loaded weapons will turn into two, or twenty, or whether they will eventually use that weapon. My feelings are that they will. There were many acts of civil disobedience but a massacre in Boston galvanized the colonists into feeling that they were not longer under the protection of the King's Soldiers. I don’t think this will get that far, but it is early.

Perhaps you spoke too soon...


U.S. agency ends Nevada cattle roundup, releases herd after stand-off
Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/12/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-idUSBREA3B03Q20140412)
U.S. officials ended a stand-off with hundreds of armed protesters in the Nevada desert on Saturday, calling off the government's roundup of cattle it said were illegally grazing on federal land and giving about 300 animals back to the rancher who owned them.

Anti-government groups, right-wing politicians and gun-rights activists camped around Bundy's ranch to support him.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," the bureau's director, Neil Kornze, said in a statement. The protesters, who at the height of the standoff numbered about 1,000, met the news with applause.

Dayuhan
04-13-2014, 03:40 AM
The post above is a good example of the perception issues. This is how that particular incident is perceived in some quarters...


“It is not about turtles it is about water. There are developers working for military contractors that want that land and water for mining weapons grade minerals for industry… they want to sell the land by the highway for real estate development because it’s close to I-15 and the Bundy’s have been refusing to sell what they actually own directly for over 20 years. Many buyers sent me out there with crazy offers for that land for many years. It is prime real estate not worthless desert. There is a natural gas pipeline going through there and lots of water under ground too. Somebody connected to a military corporation is using political power and the BLM to muscle those people out.”

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/breaking-freedom-militia-arives-bundy-ranch-will-defend-family-farm-death-video/

Is it water, "weapons grade minerals", real estate development, gas pipelines... they don't seem to know, or care, except that it HAS to be a vast conspiracy by "them" or "a military corporation". Makes no sense, but when belief gets far enough out on the fringe, it doesn't have to.

TheCurmudgeon
04-15-2014, 07:08 PM
Save a Life, Kill A Cop


Albuquerque police are investigating how flyers that encourage the killing of officers found their way into copies of the Albuquerque Journal, according to KOB News.

A spokesperson with APD said the flyers were stuck into newspapers, and a wife of an APD officer said one was even delivered to her doorstep.

The spokesperson said attacks and threats against police have been overwhelming at times. People have been calling in with death threats, their property has been vandalized multiple times, their social media sites have been inundated with various hate messages, and now these flyers.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/slipping-flyers-albuquerque-newspapers-cops-it/#y3DCX3aEDrBx1eZz.99

Just for historical note, the below flyers were floating around Dallas in November 1963. It is worth noting that appointing "Anti-Christian" judges is treason. I guess some things never change.



Two days before President Kennedy’s trip to Dallas, right-wingers began circulating around the city some 5,000 anti-Kennedy handbills. Entitled “Wanted for Treason,” these leaflets were designed to look like a police “wanted” poster, with front and profile photographs of Kennedy’s head.
http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_24blownaway.html

TheCurmudgeon
04-15-2014, 07:23 PM
A little more on the Bundy versus BLM saga ...


So, on the one hand we have Bundy, who’s said, “I don’t recognize [the] United States government as even existing.” It led him to repeatedly ignore federal law, repeatedly blow federal court rulings, and refuse to pay federal fines for his transgressions. On the other hand we have the United States government – which does, in fact, exist – showing considerable restraint in trying to resolve the problem.http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-bundy-crisis-nevada

and the view from the protestors side:


“People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power,” said Bundy’s wife, Carol, in a statement.

Last week, government agents descended upon the property, which is 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. They set up a blockade on the road leading to the ranch, and clashed with several hundred protesters. Tasers were used on at least one person: Bundy’s son, Ammon. Another son, Dave, was briefly taken into custody by authorities.

The establishment of a designated “First Amendment zone,” drew criticism from many people, including Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, a Republican. Citizens’ free speech rights were protected only when they were standing in the First Amendment zone.

“Most disturbing to me is the BLM’s establishment of a ‘First Amendment Area’ that tramples upon Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution,” said Sandoval in a statement.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/12/victory-for-cliven-bundy-nevada-rancher-who-challenged-feds/

Just so you know, the guy in the picture is not a Federal Agent. He is one of the protestors who was probably outside the "first amendment zone".

slapout9
04-16-2014, 06:39 PM
A little more on the Bundy versus BLM saga ...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-bundy-crisis-nevada

and the view from the protestors side:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/12/victory-for-cliven-bundy-nevada-rancher-who-challenged-feds/

Just so you know, the guy in the picture is not a Federal Agent. He is one of the protestors who was probably outside the "first amendment zone".

I think there may be more to this story then meets the eye. A local talk show host Dan Morris,former official in the Reagan administration , reported that the head of the BLM was a former Campaign staffer for US Senator from Nevada Harry Reid. A strange left wing organization called the Center for Biological Diversity, may have been the organization that forced this situation to a head. This may be more about the radical ideaology and methods of our present administration and how they get past the rule of law. This may turn into another scandal for the administration and they surely don't need that.

slapout9
04-16-2014, 06:48 PM
Save a Life, Kill A Cop



Just for historical note, the below flyers were floating around Dallas in November 1963. It is worth noting that appointing "Anti-Christian" judges is treason. I guess some things never change.


http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_24blownaway.html

Curmudgy,
Things have been a lot worse. During the early 70's the Anti War radicals used to bomb and break into National Guard Armories. This resulted in the CQ's at all the barracks of the 82nd Airborne Division being armed with .45 calibre side arms.We also had to check the arms room every 30 minutes and note it in our logs. Then when I seperated service and went into LE the underground began there campaign of shooting police officers and bombing government buildings. This is all standard Communist Revolutionary Warfare doctrine.

TheCurmudgeon
04-16-2014, 07:10 PM
Curmudgy,
Things have been a lot worse. During the early 70's the Anti War radicals used to bomb and break into National Guard Armories. This resulted in the CQ's at all the barracks of the 82nd Airborne Division being armed with .45 calibre side arms.We also had to check the arms room every 30 minutes and note it in our logs. Then when I seperated service and went into LE the underground began there campaign of shooting police officers and bombing government buildings. This is all standard Communist Revolutionary Warfare doctrine.

Slap,

I understand. As you have pointed out things have been worse in our past. What I am pointing out are the parallels between that time and today.

TheCurmudgeon
04-16-2014, 08:48 PM
I think there may be more to this story then meets the eye. A local talk show host Dan Morris,former official in the Reagan administration , reported that the head of the BLM was a former Campaign staffer for US Senator from Nevada Harry Reid. A strange left wing organization called the Center for Biological Diversity, may have been the organization that forced this situation to a head. This may be more about the radical ideaology and methods of our present administration and how they get past the rule of law. This may turn into another scandal for the administration and they surely don't need that.

Slap,

No offense, but I don't care what political agenda may have been behind the action. There were law enforcement officers from the BLM acting in accordance with a court order. The Rule of Law dicatates that, if you have a problem with a court order you appeal it, you don't surround the BLM officers with AR-15s.

slapout9
04-17-2014, 06:40 AM
Slap,

No offense, but I don't care what political agenda may have been behind the action. There were law enforcement officers from the BLM acting in accordance with a court order. The Rule of Law dicatates that, if you have a problem with a court order you appeal it, you don't surround the BLM officers with AR-15s.

Curmudgy,
No offense taken. Discussion and disagreement with intelligent professionals is always good. My point is this was primarily a Civil Matter that is being escalated for Political reasons.

davidbfpo
04-17-2014, 12:33 PM
Surely there are local criminal laws that apply to the man with an AR-15 and pistol, taking up position on a public road and appearing to be ready to shoot?

Elsewhere I have seen a man with what looked like a AK47.

Stan
04-17-2014, 12:51 PM
Surely there are local criminal laws that apply to the man with an AR-15 and pistol, taking up position on a public road and appearing to be ready to shoot?

David, not on I-95 in the DC area :D

TheCurmudgeon
04-17-2014, 01:59 PM
More from Social Media. Notice the less than subtle racial overtones indirectly attacking the President who is refered to as "Mr. Obama", not "President Obama". Divide and conquer.

AmericanPride
04-17-2014, 04:20 PM
I think there may be more to this story then meets the eye. A local talk show host Dan Morris,former official in the Reagan administration , reported that the head of the BLM was a former Campaign staffer for US Senator from Nevada Harry Reid. A strange left wing organization called the Center for Biological Diversity, may have been the organization that forced this situation to a head. This may be more about the radical ideaology and methods of our present administration and how they get past the rule of law. This may turn into another scandal for the administration and they surely don't need that.

Slap, a couple of points: (1) this dispute is nothing special nor a depature from American tradition; (2) the Obama Administration probably could not care less about a single rancher's grazing rights after decades of violating federal law and ignoring court orders.

I've noted in previous posts the strong undercurrent of reactionary populism in American rural politics as well as the changing demographics of the country and the metropolitan "Otherness" of Obama personally and the federal government generally. This event highlights the collision of all of these moving pieces. Even George Washington suppressed challenges to federal authority. :eek:

I also highlighted your comment that really captures the mindset of the same people out there protesting the federal government's actions. Even though it's clearly documented that Bundy is the one with the radical ideology ("I don't even recognize the federal government", he says) and is the one attempting to subvert federal law, you still manage to find a way to build an explanation consistent with your ideological disposition. Obama is a pragmatist, for one, and his efforts are focused on the healthcare program and Russia; so I very much doubt he's at all concerned, aside from the publicity of the event now, with the seizure of cattle by BLM. The highest ranking political official to comment on the issue was Reid, one of the senators from Nevada; and he's not a part of the administration.

America is changing. And it's government and it's political priorities are changing to reflect that. That's not acceptable to people like Cliven Bundy and other anti-government radicals. In another post you cited the actions of communists and other left-wing radicals, but in American history, the greatest violence and subversion has consistently originated from rural right-wing political groups: the militia movement, the KKK, sovereign citizens, and so forth. The Tea Party is a legitimized wing of that movement and the Southwest is a tinderbox for a number of reasons. The real scandal is that the Republican Party allowed this faction to come to dictate its politics to the detriment of the GOP and the country.This rancher issue, and many of the other frivolous arguments of the Tea Party, is about one guy ignoring the law because of its inconveinence to him.

AmericanPride
04-17-2014, 04:31 PM
Curmudgy,
Things have been a lot worse. During the early 70's the Anti War radicals used to bomb and break into National Guard Armories. This resulted in the CQ's at all the barracks of the 82nd Airborne Division being armed with .45 calibre side arms.We also had to check the arms room every 30 minutes and note it in our logs. Then when I seperated service and went into LE the underground began there campaign of shooting police officers and bombing government buildings. This is all standard Communist Revolutionary Warfare doctrine.

Yes, it has been a lot worse. In the post-Civil War era, the Ku Klux Klan, a powerful rural right-wing terrorist organization, killed hundreds (thousands?) of African-Americans who attempted to participate in the political process. They actively suppressed voting rights, access to education and the economy, and denied equal opportunity. They even ran elected officials out of their offices by gun point! The political influence of rural reactionary populism became so strong that, a hundred years later, FDR had to modify the Social Security program for the sole purpose of excluding as many African Americans as possible - otherwise, it wouldn't pass Congress. The federal government - not state and local governments, who actively and visibly opposed the policies - eventually intervened in order to ensure equal treatment for all citizens. And this was such a terrible event by a tyrannical federal government, you see, that many local municipalities closed their public school systems and set up segregation academies to avoid having their children attend schools with African-American children. Now that overt racism is no longer politically feasible, the descendents of this movement now resort to code words like "state's rights", "welfare queen", and so on.

So, you're right. It has been a lot worse. But it wasn't because of the communists, who never represented a credible threat to the United States or its citizens. And it has become better, but it wasn't because of state or local governments. America is changing and I suppose there are people out there who are stuck in the past.

AmericanPride
04-17-2014, 04:39 PM
Save a Life, Kill A Cop



Just for historical note, the below flyers were floating around Dallas in November 1963. It is worth noting that appointing "Anti-Christian" judges is treason. I guess some things never change.


http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_24blownaway.html

I like how the poster states "communist inspired racial riots". The ideological strand connected to today is so obvious. It reminds me of a quote by the People's Champion when asked why he wasn't going to Vietnam: "You my opposer when I want freedom. You my opposer when I want justice. You my opposer when I want equality. Want me to go somewhere and fight for you? You won't even stand up for me right here in America, for my rights and my religious beliefs. You won't even stand up for my right here at home."

TheCurmudgeon
04-17-2014, 05:44 PM
Surely there are local criminal laws that apply to the man with an AR-15 and pistol, taking up position on a public road and appearing to be ready to shoot?

Elsewhere I have seen a man with what looked like a AK47.

Nevada is an "Open Carry (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/07/nevadans-are-free-don-their-arms-open/)" state.


Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is "an open--carry state." Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ open carrying of firearms.

That’s why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms. ...

On the night of June 24, [Ferrell] holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.

It wasn’t his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the “live free or die” state, apparently.

The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn’t consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.

Bottom line: He hadn’t committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.

“I understand the need for officer safety,” Farrell said. “These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn’t have even taken my gun.”

In my opinion, Ferrell was wrong. The right to remain silent applies when there is a question as to whether you committed a crime. If he was confident he was within his rights, he should not told the officers what they needed to know. Absent straight answers, an officer has to assume the worst. That is what I would do.

See Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTrGD5JltK0

It would probably be felony assault if he actually rose up over the barrier and pointed the weapon at a police officer, but simply observing from behind the barrier is probably not assault.

slapout9
04-18-2014, 07:29 AM
Slap, a couple of points: (1) this dispute is nothing special nor a depature from American tradition; (2) the Obama Administration probably could not care less about a single rancher's grazing rights after decades of violating federal law and ignoring court orders.

Thank You Thank You!!!!That is exactly my point!!! The guy lost in court twice and he was being fined for it. Now I have severed enough court orders to know that the usual way to do this is to seize his bank account and or lien his property and collect interest on the fines and the Government was going to do this until. The Radical Left wing group Organization for Diverse Species filed suit 2012 and demanded that those really bad cows be removed by force and those really good turtles be protected under the EPA species protection act. That is what started it all. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny. Move the Cows to protect the Turtles.....Jeeeeeeezzzzz you cannot make this stuff up.


I've noted in previous posts the strong undercurrent of reactionary populism in American rural politics as well as the changing demographics of the country and the metropolitan "Otherness" of Obama personally and the federal government generally. This event highlights the collision of all of these moving pieces. Even George Washington suppressed challenges to federal authority. :eek:

I don't have a problem with this statement.


I also highlighted your comment that really captures the mindset of the same people out there protesting the federal government's actions. Even though it's clearly documented that Bundy is the one with the radical ideology ("I don't even recognize the federal government", he says) and is the one attempting to subvert federal law, you still manage to find a way to build an explanation consistent with your ideological disposition. Obama is a pragmatist, for one, and his efforts are focused on the health care program and Russia; so I very much doubt he's at all concerned, aside from the publicity of the event now, with the seizure of cattle by BLM. The highest ranking political official to comment on the issue was Reid, one of the senators from Nevada; and he's not a part of the administration.

I have a real problem with this. President Obama is the Chief Executive Officer of the USA. He is directly responsible for the BLM as it is under the Department Of The Interior, whose Secretary reports straight to him. He is the responsible Federal Officer not Harry Reid. I just wish he would do his job for a change instead of "fundamentally change America."


America is changing. And it's government and it's political priorities are changing to reflect that. That's not acceptable to people like Cliven Bundy and other anti-government radicals. In another post you cited the actions of communists and other left-wing radicals, but in American history, the greatest violence and subversion has consistently originated from rural right-wing political groups: the militia movement, the KKK, sovereign citizens, and so forth. The Tea Party is a legitimized wing of that movement and the Southwest is a tinderbox for a number of reasons. The real scandal is that the Republican Party allowed this faction to come to dictate its politics to the detriment of the GOP and the country.This rancher issue, and many of the other frivolous arguments of the Tea Party, is about one guy ignoring the law because of its inconvenience to him.

Yes it was a very dark time for America until a true hero arose named Martin Luther King who had the courage to speak the truth. And that truth was this that most white people did not support the KKK or racism. on another SWC thread I posted the exact source of that comment (think is was while he was in the B'Ham jail). I just like to point that out because for some reason that fact just always seems to get lost when there is a discussion of racism in the South.

slapout9
04-18-2014, 05:50 PM
So everybody needs to watch this:D it is funny but has a lot of truth to it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbULBAjstBA

AmericanPride
04-18-2014, 07:13 PM
The guy lost in court twice and he was being fined for it. Now I have severed enough court orders to know that the usual way to do this is to seize his bank account and or lien his property and collect interest on the fines and the Government was going to do this until. The Radical Left wing group Organization for Diverse Species filed suit 2012 and demanded that those really bad cows be removed by force and those really good turtles be protected under the EPA species protection act. That is what started it all. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny. Move the Cows to protect the Turtles.....Jeeeeeeezzzzz you cannot make this stuff up.

I don't think it's about turtles, although environmental conversationism policy is an underlying factor. It's about the fact that a rancher has ignored court orders, failed to pay fines and fees, and has otherwise refused to comply with the law. The radical position in this scenario is the refusal on the part of Bundy to recognize and comply with the authority of the federal government. This is not a David vs. Goliath situation. This is about one man willfully ignoring the laws that inconvenience his desire to freely take federal resources for his personal gain. He's a through and through taker.


President Obama is the Chief Executive Officer of the USA. He is directly responsible for the BLM as it is under the Department Of The Interior, whose Secretary reports straight to him. He is the responsible Federal Officer not Harry Reid. I just wish he would do his job for a change instead of "fundamentally change America."

What would Obama's job be in this situation?


And that truth was this that most white people did not support the KKK or racism. on another SWC thread I posted the exact source of that comment (think is was while he was in the B'Ham jail). I just like to point that out because for some reason that fact just always seems to get lost when there is a discussion of racism in the South.

True or not, depending on how one assigns moral responsibility, but my point was rather that right-wing violence is often ignored or downplayed in American narratives. The "Other" - inner city gangs, Mexican immigrants, Muslims, left-wing radicals, and so on - however receives extensive coverage that frequently is out of proportion with comparable coverage. When is the media going to name the recent Jewish center shooter as a domestic terrorist? How quickly would he have been labelled a terrorist if he was Muslim? In 2009, Congress forced DHS to withdraw an extensive report on right-wing violence because it negatively reflected on conservatives, veterans, and gun owners (even though the FBI reported that right wing groups intentionally enlist members in the armed services specifically for military training to bring back home).

So not only is there a long history of reactionary populism in rural America, but there's also an equally long history of violence - and it has undergone various transformations as the country and its institutions change, but it remains in subtext. And not only is there this history of reactionary populism combined with a propensity for violence, but it receives priveleged coverage in American public conciousness and media.

One of the myths embraced by this ideology is the idea of an expansive, over-reaching, corrupt, metropolitan federal government repressing individuals in rural America through burdensome regulations and taxation. But the federal government has been in retrenchment for many years, and it's employee:population ratio has shrunk considerably since LBJ's Great Society projected started. As of 2012, that ratio is the lowest it has ever been since 1962. That year, there were 14 non-military federal employees for every 1,000 people. That number is now nine (9). That's a reduction of 35%! Other than expansion from 1967-1969, it has been in general decline. So the government, by this metric, is actually less capable of meeting its obligations to the population than in the previous 50 years.

So my interpretation is that much of this battle is about the transformation of America - it has been rapidly growing in its metropolitan regions and in the process is becoming more diverse in both demographics and politics - and the desire by the rural segment in holding onto its declining privelege. Hence the attack on social services and welfare perceived to be uniquely benefiting the minorities that make up a part of the metropolitan other at the expense of rural America (although statistically speaking this is a myth too). This is expressed on Capitol Hill by the Tea Party, which has outsized influence in Congress on the basis of our political mechanisms - but we're also likely to see growing resentment and confrontation in rural communities. I'm sure there will also be some level of radicalization to accompany it. The question is how much mainstream legitimacy will reactionary populism continue to receive?

carl
04-18-2014, 07:25 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/12/victory-for-cliven-bundy-nevada-rancher-who-challenged-feds/

Just so you know, the guy in the picture is not a Federal Agent. He is one of the protestors who was probably outside the "first amendment zone".

I think you are making a little too much of this photo. Nobody in the background is taking any notice of this guy, they all have cameras pointing at the ground. And the guy is in sort of a movie poster ready for action pose.

I think it most likely that it is a 'hey look at me shot' posed and shot for distribution rather than a depiction the normal in that time and place.

slapout9
04-19-2014, 06:44 AM
What would Obama's job be in this situation?

OK here goes.

He needs to do what he keeps telling the press he is going to do. Start using his "Pen and Phone."

1-Tell Harry Reid to stop calling the Rancher a Domestic Terrorist. The situation has calmed down because cooler heads prevailed and avoided what could have been a truly terrible outcome. Reid does not need to aggravate it.

2-Order the AG to do a complete review with recommendations for final resolution to the Court Orders and any other Due Process Matters.

3-Select a Republican to review and make recommendations to the accusations about Harry Reid's staffer becoming head of BLM with no experience for this position, other than working for Reid and the fact that the guy is only 35 years old, certainly a fast track there. And dicern if he was the one who actually ordered the raid on the Rancher.

4-There are also allegations of Reid's son(another reason for him to be quite) being involved with a law firm with interest in the property for Solar Panels after the Rancher is evicted. The Republicans should be involved with this review to in order to avoid the appearance of any impropriety by Reid senior.

5-Since the President is a Constitutional Scholar I am sure he will call Senator Rand Paul who has also brought up the fact that there are very serious Constitutional issues about the use and abuse of this so called Protection Of Endangered Species Act. I am sure the President want want this resolved in a fair and fast way.

This IMO is the Presidents job as Chief Executive Officer of our Country.

JarodParker
04-19-2014, 06:04 PM
I think you are making a little too much of this photo. Nobody in the background is taking any notice of this guy, they all have cameras pointing at the ground. And the guy is in sort of a movie poster ready for action pose.

I think it most likely that it is a 'hey look at me shot' posed and shot for distribution rather than a depiction the normal in that time and place.

More angles on the same a-hole. Pic1 (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic4.businessinsider .com%2Fimage%2F534db531eab8eacf1caab272-1200-924%2Fbundy-ranch.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fb undy-ranch-standoff-nevada-jerry-delemus-2014-4&h=900&w=1200&tbnid=TDT_G-FK5U-2KM%3A&zoom=1&docid=Xy_rAe22_o6mFM&ei=WaZSU4GULImTyATa1oD4BQ&tbm=isch&ved=0CHIQMygPMA8&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=459&page=2&start=8&ndsp=12&biw=1138&bih=505) Pic2 (https://www.google.com/search?q=bundy+ranch+standoff&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Q6ZSU6yrA9GwyASNkIDIBg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1138&bih=505#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=A0s3xt3lASLpSM%253A%3BjfmZ6cHyF-_DDM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia.vocativ.com%252Fph otos%252F2014%252F04%252FDawn-America-Armed-Militias_021145990077.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww .vocativ.com%252Fculture%252Fsociety%252Famerican-militias-emboldened-victory-bundy-ranch%252F%3B960%3B650)It does seem he is the center of attention. You can even see the guy in the blue t-shirt pointing him out to others.

These people have been emboldened and now the situation is getting worse with Bundy developing a cult following complete with personal bodyguards. Maybe he'll grow his flock by marrying off his 50 grandchildren to the militia members. Link (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/range-showdown-draws-armed-supporters-nevada-23391880)


"There are people out here who will sacrifice their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend them," said Jerry DeLemus, a camouflaged former U.S. Marine sergeant from New Hampshire who called himself the leader of a Bundy security force of some 40 people.


Bundy, the 67-year-old patriarch of a Mormon family with more than 50 grandchildren, seems to enjoy the attention. He met the media this week flanked by personal guards headed by a man who called himself Buddha Cavalier.


Bundy took to the stage fashioned from a flatbed trailer to tell reporters he wants sheriffs around the country to seize weapons from federal bureaucrats.

TheCurmudgeon
04-19-2014, 06:26 PM
Two other links.

First, the executive order that the Bundy's are violating: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=36873


Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

The second is a National Review Article. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375894/bundy-ranch-standoff-could-spark-new-sagebrush-rebellion-william-perry-pendley

The interesting thing is that, the National Review article has a picture of Bundy next to President Reagan and a little of Reagan's history when he was a governor supporting ranchers. However, it is President Reagan's executive order that Bundy is violating.

TheCurmudgeon
05-16-2014, 03:44 PM
Not quite the same thing, but more on the "revoution (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/14/operation-american-spring-hitting-dc-to-oust-obama/)" ...


“We are calling for [their] removal … as a start toward constitutional restoration,” said retired Army Col. Harry Riley, the leader of the group, Raw Story reported. “They have all abandoned the U.S. Constitution, are unworthy to be retained in a position that calls for servant status.”


The aim of the group, too, is to influence those politicos who aren’t targeted for ouster to “sponsor and pass very constitutionally crafted state legislation to dissolve the size, powers, scope and spending of the U.S. government by two-thirds,” the media outlet reported.

The group expects between 10 million and 30 million similarly thinking Americans to meet them in the capital on Friday for a rally that’s being billed as a sort of “Arab Spring” for Americans.

Meanwhile, the group is holding another event on the same day in Bunerkville, Nev., near cattle rancher Cliven Bundy’s property and in support of his stand-off with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees.

The Friday event was promoted by Tea Party Nation.

Col. Riley said he hopes the event will go forward peaceably, but that so far, peaceful protests haven’t brought citizens much luck. He also said that more than 1 million militia members have already mobilized for the event — and that projections of 10 million to attend aren’t pie in the sky.

“For more than five years, ‘we the people’ have been writing, calling, faxing Congress, the media, screaming in town halls, marching, rallying, demonstrating, petitioning, all to no avail,” he said, Raw Story reported. “Every branch of government looks at ‘we the people’ whom they have taken an oath to serve, as ‘pests,’ interfering with their political agenda, cramping their self-serving, greedy agendas. We have no faith in the ballot box any longer, as many believe this sacred secret box has been compromised.

Dayuhan
05-20-2014, 01:03 AM
Not quite the same thing, but more on the "revoution (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/14/operation-american-spring-hitting-dc-to-oust-obama/)" ...

Guess they actually got a few hundred, which says something about the difference between noise and substance.

AdamG
05-24-2014, 01:42 AM
I'll just leave this here
http://fox59.com/2014/05/12/armed-for-war-local-police-tote-pentagon-surplus/

AdamG
05-24-2014, 01:43 AM
Oops. Standby.

carl
05-24-2014, 02:21 AM
I'll just leave this here
http://fox59.com/2014/05/12/armed-for-war-local-police-tote-pentagon-surplus/

Was there ever a police admin type who didn't need more stuff, especially if somebody else was paying for it, even stuff they had no use for, like an M-16 or an MRAP? They'll get a lot of it and discover they can't pay to maintain it, like the MRAPs or they have no use at all for it, like an M-16 (by M-16, I assume they mean a select fire semi or full auto rifle). The same thing happened after Vietnam when cities accepted free UH-1s without having a clue what they were getting into. The helos just sat, like the C-12 a police dept I know of accepted and then discovered they had neither the money nor the knowledge to run it.

That's nonsense about needing M-16s. I can't think of any situation, and I mean any to include a Mumbai where an American cop needs a full auto rifle. That guy was blowing smoke. If he was so concerned he would have had his dept get AR-15s as many depts have had for many years.