The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[Kiwigrunt]

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?

[carl]

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?

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.

[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]

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!

[slapout9]

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.

[carl]

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.