The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[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.
,

[Stan]

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

Hey Slap !

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

Seems our govt has a different definition of responsibility.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Hey Slap !

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

Seems our govt has a different definition of responsibility.

Stan/Slap,

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

an·ar·chy
[an-er-kee] Show IPA

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

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

3.
anarchism ( def 1 ) .

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

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

[Stan]

Stan/Slap,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCurmudgeon]

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

....

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

Stan,

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

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

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

[Stan]

Stan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCurmudgeon]

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

That was quick!

[Stan]

Stan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCurmudgeon]

Stan,
...

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

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

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

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

[slapout9]

Stan/Slap,

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



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

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


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

[TheCurmudgeon]

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


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

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

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

[slapout9]

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

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

[AmericanPride]

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

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

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

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

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

[slapout9]

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

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

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

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