The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[Tukhachevskii]

Contains much that might be of some interest (apoogies if already referenced)


http://intelligencesquaredus.org/deb...its-usefulness

[slapout9]

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]

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.

[slapout9]

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!

[Dayuhan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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 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)

[slapout9]

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.

[AmericanPride]

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]

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.

[slapout9]

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.

[AmericanPride]

#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.