The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[carl]

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]

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 may be more relevant now then ever before.

[Dayuhan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[carl]

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.

[slapout9]

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.
,

[120mm]

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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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]

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

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

I gotta wonder what all these folks are thinking.

[davidbfpo]

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.

[Stan]

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

[slapout9]

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.