The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[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.

[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.

[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)

[Kiwigrunt]

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]

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]

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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

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.

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

Second, it reminds me of the Davis J-Curve. 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/...f-revolutions/

[AmericanPride]

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]

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

Second, it reminds me of the Davis J-Curve. 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/...f-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]

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]

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]

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]

#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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!