The Horror

I can’t believe that I am saying this, but the seed of the devil has been planted within the heart of the Republican Party.  A conservative congressman has decided that to prevent shootings like the one at Sandy Hook and the movie theater in Auroa there must be a ban of the freedom of speech. According to this congressman it is our First Ammendment rights that have created the culture of violence that has allowed for madness that we have seen over the last couple of years. The violent video games, tv shows, and movie that all promote mass shootings and torture have brainwashed countless young people into believing that murder is okay. So this congress man has proposed that we not ban free speech, but rather we just control it.  He wants to ban certian types of video games, such as:
     Any game with a gun,
     Any first person prospective game
     Any multi-player game aimed at attacking other players
     Any game where the player tries to kill or attack computer generated characters

He is also pushing for a ban on certian types of movies:
     Horror Movies showing the mutilation of victims
     Action movies using guns to shoot people
     Slap Stick commedy
     Any cartoon where a character has a gun,
     Any cartoon where a character attacks another character
     Any movie where the character attacks another character

The list goes on and on I am afraid, basically he wants to make it all but impossible to make a tv show, movie, or video game in this country.  He has even targeted the news media. According to him, they are one of the primary causes of violence in this country.  They constantly air the face and names of mad men who go on shooting sprees and murder innocent lives. This gives the mentally ill, or those who feel as though the world has ignored them, a way to express themselves, and make their vengance known.  So this congressman has decided that we need to create a government agency tasked with managing the news media, its jobs include, but are not limited too:

     Setting a cap on the number of reporters allowed in the country
     Establishing standardized news programing times
     Monitering and restricting activity on cable news programs
     Establishing standard times where violent crimes are allowed to be covered
     Establishing a standard timelimit for news networks to be allowed to discuss the stories they air
     Establishing national criteria for becoming a reporter, or news anchor
     Establishing a national criteria for what is allowed to be published in print media
     Finger printing, and conducting background checks of all news media employees,
     Creating a database and montier all of the activities of all news media employees

The insanity must not be allowed to happen, our First Ammendment rights are going to be trampled by this radical response to the recent tragedies in our country.

THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING, their is no vast right wing conspiracy theory trying to strip us of our first ammendment rights.  I made this up. I wrote this to show you the danger in allowing the federal government to use a tragedy to create a precedent where it is acceptable for them to steal our rights, in the name of the greater good.  Thankfully the scenerio I spelled out above is not actually happening, but radicals within the Democrat party are moving to do something just as damaging, just as radical, in response to the recent shootings within this nation.

As we are all aware, progressives hate to ever let a tragedy go to waste. They like to exploit hardship and sorrow to push radical agenda items.  Well of course they have decided that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementry School is a perfect tragedy to exploit to set a president for stealing our God given rights, all in the name of the greater good. 

Diane Feinstien, a hard core progressive, is dead set and determined to end private gun ownership in this country.  She has pushed congress to pass her radcial “Assualt Weapons Ban”.  Her bill would ban ownership of all most all semi-automatic firearms, all handguns, most types of shotguns, requires all fire-arms to be registared, and treats gun owners like common criminals. Yes Ms. Feinstien wants all those vile monsters who dare exercise their God given rights to be treated like the demons they are. She wants all law abiding individuals who are exercising their God given rights to be finger printed and photographed.

Now in a previous post I highlighted the futility of the efforts being proposed by Ms. Feinstien. Gun Control does not have a record of lowering crime. Time and time again gun control efforts are passed by radical progressives, and time and time again crime rates go up after they go into effect. This is nothing more than an attempt by the radical leftests to set a precedent of stealing our rights in the name of the greater good. They want to condition us to assume that the government is allowed to take our rights from us. They want us to see the government as all powerful, as a body there to protect us simple minded country folks. If you think that they will stop here, stop with just making us give up the majority of our fire arms and registaring what they don’t steal from us, you are saddly mistaken. There is a reason for creating a gun owner registery, and it isn’t for monitering crime rates.

The purpose of this registary is so that they have a tool to complete their ultimate goal of disarming the American People. Let us look to history for guidence.  As I have said countless times, gun control does not work.  Banning guns, villainizing gun owners, does not stop criminals from being criminals. All it does is make us law abiding citizens easy targets. But progressives don’t opperate on facts and logic, they work off of emotions and fear. They ignore facts, and go off what feels rights. I feel that guns are scary, so we must ban them.  So lets just say that Ms. Fienstien radical bill becomes law, (not to hard to imagine, the only hurdel is the House, and President Obama will just paint devil horns and hittler mustauches on GOP members until they cave). The government will come in and steal most of the guns owned by law abiding citizens. Criminals continue to smuggle guns a crossed our open boarder with Mexico, or keep guns hidden from the ATF.  They are now able to feed much more easily on the un-armed law abiding masses.  Crime rates and Murder Rates shot up through the roof.  The progressives will now say, clearly all of these murders and crimes are being commited by law abiding citizens with bolt action rifles.  So using the registry that they created when they passed the unconsitutional gun ban, they can easily round up the few remaining fire arms from the hands of private citizens.  Think I am crazy? Well they did just that in the United Kingdom of Great Britian.  Problem is even after they  stole the guns from their citizens, crime rates still went up.

So now lets think for a little bit. They ban guns, and as we all know that plan goes down in flames, resulting in higher crime rates than before. What then will they take from us to prevent violent crimes? Will they go to a plan like the one I highlighted above? What will we do to stop them? What if they decided that the right to vote has become to dangerous, we might elect a radical who will abuse us.  What is to stop them? We would have no way to fight back, now way to protect our rights. They took the one final check we have on our government, the fact that we are an armed people.

Here is a thought that I had on the subject,  Moore, Feinstein, President Obama, Hollywood nut jobs… I mean actors, are all against the private ownership of firearms. Why would they need a gun to protect themselves they have an armed gaurd. So If Ms. Feinstein is so dead set and determined to steal our right to defend ourselves, then I would like to add an ammendment to her bill.  If the private citizens of this nation are not allowed to possess fire arms, then here is what I want to see happen:
     Disarm every police officer in the nation: they don’t need guns, the criminals couldn’t possibly have
     any guns, sense guns are illegal. And the police having firearms, is only an opprotunity for criminals to
     steal one to use against the people of this country.
     Disarm every federal agent in the nation: Same reason as the police, the EPA, and the Department of
     Agriculture don’t need armed agents
     Ban all private security firms: There is no reason to have vigilanties taking the law into their own
     hands, just to protect private property and the lives of Hollywood actors. There is no more crime sense
     there are no more guns, so these brutes are no longer needed and should be banned.
     Disband the Secret Service: The elected officals of this country will no longer need protecting sense
     criminals will have no way to kill them, now that guns are illegal.

If we the private citizens, and true rulers of this land, are not allowed to defend ourselves, then those who stripped us of that right have no need nor right to be able to defend themselves.  Why would we need armed police officers, or private security, or a secret service if criminals can’t kill people anymore sense they couldn’t possibly have a gun to do it. They are just costly expenses that this country just can’t afford.  We can cut the deficit and wipe out crime all at once. 

Of course the power hungry progressives will call this a radical plan, say I am crazy, say that I am evil, call me stupid, racists, or any other assortment of names. I expect that, and I know that it is coming. They don’t like it when people reveal their schemes to the world.  Nor do they like it when you use facts to debate an issue rather than feelings.  We have to stand up for our rights now, or we will lose them.  This is not about whether or not we should be allowed to have guns, that issue was decided when the second ammendment was ratified.  This issue is about whether or not the government should be able to steal our rights when it is convient for them.  This is about whether or not the government should be all powerful, whether or not we should be servants to the whims of tyrants, or invidiual citizens free to live our own lives.  This the debate that will determine whether or not we remain masters of our own fate, or if we become a mindless conglomerate subject to the iron fisted rule of an unaccountable body of tyrants.   You choose.

  1. For a second I thought you might actually be criticizing your own party for once.  And I don’t remember the passage in the bible where it says felons have the right to buy assault weapons without a three day waiting period – remind me where that is again.As for disbanding the secret service and all of that, give me a break.  Even the brits don’t do anything like that.  The police have guns over there too, they just only use them when necessary.

  2. Well said brother.  These people are nothing by tyrannical traitors and communist subversives.  How anyone can think the Dems are in any way connected with the common man is beyond me.  They don’t live in the same world we live in.BTW, I think you meant to say “since” rather than “sense.”

  3. @agnophilo – You do realize that he doesn’t actually want to ban the Secret Service, he’s just trying to get people to realize how the arguments against gun ownership are ridiculous bull crap attempts at tyranny.

  4. I do think we need to censor a little.  Not to this degree, but to some degree we really need to evaluate our values.We definitely need to stop giving these people incentive for shooting people.  They should take down everything they stand for if they go on a spree.  They don’t get to stand out in the great scribble anymore than I do!

  5. @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Yes, the 72 million registered democrats are all evil elites bent on raping the constitution.  Whatever.@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – He wasn’t advocating banning the secret service, he was arguing that limiting gun rights in any way will lead to abolishing the secret service and getting the president killed, which ironically he would probably be all for so long as it’s this president.

  6. @agnophilo – By now, and through the context clues in my comment, you should have been able to infer that when I am talking about the Democrats I’m talking about the actual party itself, and not all the tools that vote for them.  Similarly when I talk about the Republicans I am always talking about the party itself.  That is why I use terms like “constituency” and “support base” when talking about the voters themselves.  For certain there are many people who vote Democrat who are well meaning but don’t understand what the Democrats are.Come on man, did you actually read his entry?  Copy and paste where you think he made that argument in your response to me.  I will break down what it actually means for you.  What he was saying is that if we the citizens don’t need guns then neither do the politicians or Hollywood actors, and to be honest I think that is completely fair.  If we law abiding citizens can’t have guns then neither should they be allowed to have them.  BTW, did you hear about the rape in Delhi?  I’m going to be blogging about that soon.

  7. pb49r said:

    It is so easy to do the “knee jerk” reactionary actions to ban and keep all of us safe from “gun violence”. It is so much harder to dialogue and understand the need to both uphold the reason and necessary actions of the Second Amendment without being adamant about allowing all firearms without required accountability and responsibility. I do not feel free to own a firearm, but I have been known to keep a hunting knife next to the side of my car seat, and keeping the doors locked while downtown in Portland.It would be totally wrong to put any gun off limits if it is available to criminals. It is hypocritical of those in power to have armed guards and not allow the rest of us to be our own guards.

  8. @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Show me statistically that people are safer in the US than they are in countries with greater gun restrictions, both in terms of homicide and suicide.

  9. virtus1 said:

    OK agnoputzo.  I ran the data this morning for homicide rates and the gun control index.  As gun restriction increases there is no statistical decrease in homicides.Regression StatisticsMultiple R = 0.015566R^2 = 0.000242Adjusted R^2 = -0.00629No. Obs = 155Of the 155 nations where I could readily find data, prohibition does not decrease homicide, but it does create defenseless targets for people who intend to do harm. The minimal influence gun control has on homicide rates is not measurable nor can we rate or direction of the variables be ascertained.  Gun prohibition also makes criminals out of people who choose to defend themselves against predators.  Beyond that, who made you king of the world?  You have no right to restrict or prohibit what goods or services we freely choose to consume nor does your cadre of fascist politicians.  If any one of us owns a firearm, it does nothing to diminish the rights of others.  Please, take your authoritarian agitprop and shove it up your nose.

  10. It actually wouldn’t surprise me if the republicans did something as hair-brained as this. I wish people would wake up and realize that their party has betrayed them. Anyhow, the liberal mind seems to want to treat symptoms instead of the actual cause. Cookie monster and happy meals are why kids are fat, even though both those things were around LONG before the obese epidemic ever happened. But let’s don’t talk about that, let’s ban happy meals and make cookie monster the green veggie monster instead. This same mindset thinks that the answer to crime is to disarm the law abiding. The majority of problems we face have much more to do with personal responsibility/morality. And no law will ever force an immoral irresponsible people to become moral and responsible. 

  11. @agnophilo – I don’t recall where in the Constitution we gave the government the right to take away our rights. Ms. Feinstein’s bill is not just going after assault weapons, but just about every fire arm in the nation. Her long time goal, and I am not making this up she has admitted this herself, is to eventually remove all privately owned fire arms from The United States. That is probably why she wants to create a registry of all fire arms owned in this nation, so that when the gun control measures that she has put forth fail, they can again refuse to accept that their ideology has failed to meet their claims, and go ahead and round up the rest of the fire arms owned in America. Similar to what The United Kingdom did with hand guns.Again I have to explain this, just because I am a conservative does not mean I am a Republican. That is a stigma that progressives such as yourself like to try to paint onto us.  I believe in individual liberty, and limited government. I believe in the strength of the American People. I look at issues based upon principle, and I am not blinded by party line ideology. This is why I like President John F. Kennedy, he was an amazing leader capable of uniting and inspiring a nation. He was a conservative, but also happened to be a democrat, just because there is a d in front of his name does not mean he was a bad President. Hoover was a Republican, and a progressive, I think he was a horrible President. It doesn’t mater that he was a Republican.  @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – thank you. Of course I am kidding about banning the secret service. I was using that to make a broader point.  Many of these elitist leftists calling for gun control, all do so safe in the knowledge that they have an armed security guard protecting them.  If we the American People are not allowed to defend ourselves, if we have to be made victims to the whims of mad men, then so too must our neighbors whom just happen to hold elected office. They are not royalty, they are normal American Citizens. @mtngirlsouth – The progressives have infiltrated many aspects of our government. You have leftist progressives like President Obama, and you have right wing progressives such as John McCain. All are dangerous, and all are under the assumption that the government can just take what it wants. It would not surprise me if the progressives within the Republican party came out in support of something this radical.  It is important that we look past party ideology.   You hit the nail on the head when you said that we are dealing with a moral problem. Our nation is sick, we have been swept up in a “modern age”, and have been led to believe that we can cast aside our morals. We no longer hold people accountable for their actions, and as such we have created a culture of heathens. People who have no remorse for their actions.   We must start holding people accountable for the deeds that they have done. We must start to take it upon ourselves to look after one another, rather than just pawning that responsibility off on someone else. This idea of “someone else can deal with that” or “someone else will help them” is why we are where we are. Too many people just expect the government to magically solve the problem, rather than standing up and doing the right thing themselves.  I am going to cut it off there, I am starting to get into rant mode lol.I

  12. “I don’t recall where in the Constitution we gave the government the right to take away our rights.”If you mean the right to regulate gun control, the second amendment guarantees the states the right to a well regulated militia.  And if you think this guarantees you the right to privately own any military weapon do you think there should be any limit?As for you not being partisan, give me a break.

  13. @virtus1 – First of all, no need to be a childish asshole.  Second of all real brave arguing against what I said and not tagging me so I couldn’t respond (until I happened to accidentally stumble upon your response).  Third, you just spouted a bunch of gobbly gook and made a claim, please cite a source for any of the things you just stated.  And the closest culture to ours is england, and their homicide rate is around 1/4th of ours on a good year (for us).  Canada has a much lower homicide rate (closer to that of england) but they have far fewer guns, roughly a third as many per capita as in the united states.@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Both their suicide and homicide rates are lower than ours.

  14. @agnophilo – @obamawatch – It took Anton Scalia a good while, including legal gymnastics to write a ruling disallowing individuals from owning weapon platforms such as tanks, bazookas, and other heavy military equipment but allowing the use of handguns for personal protection.The original intent of the Second Amendment (kept all the way up to the 1970s) was ensuring a “militia” (1790s parlance, today interpreted as the National Guard) could have access to weapons, which in the 1790s was a musket – the most common weapon used in conflicts.It took a complete takeover by the NRA by certain elements that created the situation in which the Second Amendment was interpreted through the lens of individuals rather than militias. Hence today you rarely hear anything about a “well-regulated militia” when discussing second amendment rights.

  15. @agnophilo – The constitution was written by our founding fathers with the writings of John Locke in mind.  Locke believed we are owners of our bodies.  This means our rights are our as long as we don’t injure or harm others.  Certain military weapons are indiscriminate, such as nukes, and therefore should be owned by no one.  An “assault” rifle, on the other hand, is extremely accurate, therefore extremely discriminate and will only kill those intended to be killed.  By that logic, combined with your own logic, you must also be for the banning of any car that is designed to go over the posted speed limit (read: every car on the market as some speed limits are as low as 5MPH) as those cars are extremely indiscriminate in whom they kill.  So, unless you’re being a partisan, yourself, you must provide an argument to ban all cars in order to remain consistant in your beliefs and arguments.

  16. @mtngirlsouth – I don’t see anyone saying we should ban happy meals.  I see people raising awareness about how unhealthy they are, passing laws requiring mcdonalds to tell you how many calories are in them (like they do on canned food) and trying to undo our backwards farm subsidy system that subsidizes the healthiest food the least and the least healthy food the most.As for the veggie monster comment, I don’t get why a children’s education show having a positive message infuriates so many conservatives.

  17. @cmdr_keen – Because leftists raped the word militia to get it to mean National Guard.  While the National Guard does indeed have its roots in militias, they are far from one in the same.  Militia is ordinary citizens.  National Guard are not.  The 2nd Amendment reads “right of the people” not “right of the militias.”  Thomas Jefferson, did indeed write that it was also important that the citizens of the nation be able to defend against a rogue government as well.  For further explanation of this argument see above comment.

  18. @cmdr_keen – I know this.@grim_truth – You could actually detonate a nuke in such a way that it would harm no one, such as inside an abandoned mineshaft (which is how they do nuclear testing now that atmospheric detonations are banned).  So should they be legal to own?  According to your logic there’s nothing wrong with having a weapon until the moment you murder someone with it.Should explosives not be regulated?  Should chemicals used to make crystal meth not be regulated?  Should someone be allowed to buy all the cough medicine at their local store because they haven’t made it into meth yet?Should no effort at all go into preventing people from dying, only mopping up their remains once they’re dead?

  19. @agnophilo – also, don’t call someone out for not tagging you when you did the same to me months ago when you wrote a hate-blog about me.  Do the world a favor and look up “hypocrite” would you?

  20. @agnophilo – So then why not ban sports cars?  You are avoiding the subject completely.  Cars kill more than guns do, and they do so completely indiscriminately.  When looking at people that died by gunfire that were not meant to die, the number is extremely small.  Yet, when looking at those that die by cars, without that being the intention, the number is nearly 100%.  Oh wait, shit.  Knives kill people.  Better regulate them too!  A man was once killed because an angry neighbor was pissed at him, shoved a garden hose up his ass and turned it on.  Best regulate garden hoses!  Heaven forbid the root cause ever be looked at.  Your argument is hypocritical, and only serves your partisan purpose.  That makes you more sick and disturbing than the man that killed those children.

  21. @agnophilo – Then see this:    And this: Monster thing: It does not infuriate me. What IS infuriating is the stupidity of the mindset that makes such conclusions as to how to tackle a problem that cookie monster had nothing to do with. Problem: Fat kids. Solution: ban happy meals and take away the cookie monster. Problem: psychopath murder. Solution: disarm the good law abiding citizens. It is ridiculous! 

  22. virtus1 said:

    @agnophilo – I don’t tag nor argue with you because you are foul mouthed, dull, and can only argue in ad hominem and unfounded platitudes.  Your predictable predication revolves around the view that we don’t own ourselves, we are slaves to the state, and are accountable only to politicians.  Your views are that of the murderous regimes of dictators and tyrants whose empires collapsed in poverty and despair.  You teach violence, and you have no moral authority to doubt the motives of those of us who choose freedom and the natural right of private property and peaceful exchange.  My note was to the readers of this thread not you.  Get over yourself.

  23. @agnophilo – They have a lot more murders and rapes per year than we do, and in addition they have large terrorist groups which are not only armed but able to operate unimpeeded.  And no, not all of the terrorist groups there are Muslim or religious, for example, they also have Naxalites which are communist terrorists.  Also, when something happens there the cops fairly seldom will do anything, and yes, law abiding citizens don’t have guns, but instead they all have concrete walls around their houses, which typically have shards of broken glass and sharp metal embedded in the top.  I don’t understand why you liberals are always wanting to disarm law abiding citizens.  All it does is take away the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, and embolden criminals.  It also makes it easier for the government to herd us all into prison camps.  Yes I know, you think the government is all lollypops and sugarcanes and that they would never do a thing like that, but history is full of oppressive governments abusing the people, as well as genocides and religious persecution.  But even if I shared your unrealistically optimistic view of government, the argument about violent crime still stands.  Obamawatch made a good point.  If they are so against guns then why don’t all the politicians, Obama included, give up their armed bodyguards?  If we don’t need guns then why do they?  Or do you really think that politicians are the only ones who can fall victim to violent crime?

  24. I alway love a good gun control debate. Ok admittedly the pro control group gets its butt handed to it every time. Like here when they are trying to say because because nuclear weapons are not a protected armament then ether are rifles. got to love a slippery slope taken to total absurdity.

  25. @obamawatch – You had a really solid point, and a good analogy which I never actually thought of.  I don’t know whether he really failed to understand what you were saying, or if he was just trying to be difficult.  It’s hard to tell with some people.

  26. @cmdr_keen – No no no and no.  The second ammendment clearly says that the government shall not impenge upon the right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms, not a state militia.  You don’t understand what the American Revolution was about and why it happened.

  27. @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”The causes of the American Revolution are well-documented and published. There’s also not one living person who can accurately determine the reasons for the words and patterns used by the Founding Fathers. All that we can do is infer based on the writings and other documents what we think they meant.There is a direct link between state militia and the people, otherwise either would have been left out. It is you who “doesn’t understand” the reasons and meanings of the founding documents. You’re inferring what you want from the words, just like I am. We could both be correct, but we could also both be wrong – we just can’t know.What is certain is that the shift in judicial interpretation from militias to individuals is a recent development starting in the 1970s, with the last judgement given in 2008.

  28. virtus1 said:

    If one were to adjust my previous statistics to include only Europeans and North Americans (a very ethnically narrow group indeed) there is no statistical evidence that banning guns will decrease homicides.  Analyzing just Canada, USA, and England (as suggested by agnoputz) produces statistically invalid data because there is nearly nothing less valuable than a manipulated sample with three points of data in it.  agno=derp.  The revised test shows a regression of 0.15 with an r^2 of 0.02 with 20 nations counted.  Not good news for the banners.It does show the full frontal racism of agonophilio when it asserts that the ‘culture’ of the United States is reflected by Canada and England.  I’m sure those living in large ethnic neighborhoods filled with Eastern Europeans, Africans, Asians, Hispanics, and South Americans are happy to be forced into such a limited cultural milieu.

  29. @cmdr_keen – when looking at the writings of the founding fathers that took place outside of the Constitution, it is clear arms were for the people, to protect their lives, liberty, and property.  It was also clear that it included protection from it’s own government.  Jefferson wrote quite a bit on it.  The amendment and the entire Bill of Rights for that matter were based on the writings of John Locke.

  30. @cmdr_keen – That’s fine but it still says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, which means THE PEOPLE.  I don’t have to infer anything because it’s obvious and clearly stated.  If you really don’t get it, then stop and ask yourself who is “the people” and who is it that they are afraid will do the infringing.  It’s not England, because England is already gone at that point.  Why would the government write a law saying “the government shall not infringe upon the right of the government to bear arms?”  Also, the reason they rebelled was not because they wanted more government, it was because they wanted less, and the weapons they used to fight off the English were not supplied to them by their makeshift government, but were already privately owned weapons.  It is you who are inferring the meaning you want because you are a statist and you like government.  It’s always disappointing when immigrants come to the US and fail to understand the philosophical basis upon which the country was founded, and frightening, because it means that we will eventually lose everything that made our country a desireable place to go to in the first place.

  31. @virtus1 – I feel that I have more in common with Indians and Asians than I do with people from England, and I’m a white guy.

  32. @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Actually, no, it’s a modern interpretation that’s taken “we the people” to mean “individuals.” During the time when it was written, political power was concentrated in white, wealthy, landowners – and those were considered “the people”.It has taken many debates and many fractious events to develop “the people” to women, to the poor, to the uneducated, to native Americans, to non-white Americans, etc.All your response does is prove my previous point, which is individuals will read what they want to into the Constitution. Americans are really not that different to Englishmen, really. Hence many colonists supported the Crown during the War of Independence and hence one of the closest diplomatic and military relationships between countries is that between the US and UK – and that relationship is founded on a shared heritage.Also, as a student who specializes in American history, I’ve been told I have a better grasp of the period then many people I come across. I can assert just as well that you don’t understand the background and context that the founding documents were produced, or the way language was used at the time – which is different to how we assume words mean today.

  33. @cmdr_keen – Again, that’s not really true.  You are clearly thinking about Europe, where all the land was bought up and owned by wealthy landowners during the middle ages, and most of the farmers were on rented land.  In the US there were a good many small farmers who owned their own turf, and there were also frontiersmen.  It seems to me that you have received a heavy dose of liberal education, which is strongly anti-American.  I have been through college twice, so I know what the trends are in academia, and I know that they like to portray the founding fathers as racists and terrorists, and a lot of those pigs have the gall to compare our founders with Muslim terrorists.  If it were up to me I would have them all fired and have the curriculum overhauled, but I digress.Obviously “the people” refers to American citizens.  As you know, back then the US was just a small area along the east coast, and most of the Native Americans were still independent separate nations.  They had no more ability or authority to pass laws for them at the time than they did to make laws for Ireland.  I don’t know what your basis is for saying that they did not consider women to be people.  There are no qualifiers on what constitutes “the people,” but we can infer that it refers to all citizens.  If you say “because women couldn’t vote” then you must also believe that throughout most of English history most people in England weren’t considered people, and the same goes for most countries around the world.  That is of course silly, and as you know the concept of women being allowed to vote is a fairly new one (except in certain Native American societies), and maybe not the best one as most of them tend to vote based on their emotions.But for the sake of argument, let’s say that you’re right and they only care about landholding white males (which it never states anywhere in the Declaration or Constitution), then we are still NOT talking about the government or a state militia.  You have to recognize that the purpose of that ammendment was to allow people to own weapons, and that any law stating that a government will own weapons or not impenge upon itself for any reason is gratuitous.I agree that the American colonists were basically English, and probably still sounded English.  I also agree that the US and England were still fairly close culturally up until WWII.  One way it’s scary, because today England is such a craphole, and I see that the liberals are trying to make our country like that.  I don’t want the US to become like England, which really doesn’t even belong to the English anymore, but rather to Pakis, Africans, and foreign bureurocrats in Europe.  The PC movement and Islam are ridiculously out of control there, and England has become such a joke today.  If you don’t believe me then go on youtube and watch the opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympics.  Such a sham a disgrace.  I felt so embarrassed for the English people for having their country dragged through the dirt in front of the entire world.  It was more left wing than the ceremony in China.  I think the only sane people there today are the EDL.  You know, the purpose of our Constituion was to prevent crap like what is happening over in England from happening here, and to prevent things like confiscation of private property, including guns, and to protect our freedom of speech.  As you know, there is no freedom of speech in England.  People over there literally get arrested for expressing opinions which are un-PC, and most of them are English people.  A Paki or African can probably say whatever racist and hateful crap they want against white people or anyone else without facing consequences.  I don’t want all that mess coming here.  That’s why our Constitution is important, and why we need to get back to it.

  34. virtus1 said:

    @cmdr_keen – It seems to me that you are the king of picking and choosing regardless the violence to truth.

  35. @agnophilo – Often in early laws they would include an introduction to explain what one benefit of the law would be. However courts have up held that these introductions do not limit the scope of the law to the introduction.  The entirety of the Second Amendment reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The first part does indeed state that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The second part, the part that deals with the governments power being limited, and our rights ensured, states quit clearly “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That means that without a change to the federal constitution the government does not have the power to ban or limit my right to own and bear arms. We denied them that.By the way, Ms. Feinstein is not talking about banning military grade weapons. She is talking about banning semi-automatics, like the AR-15. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic fire arm. That means that I pull the trigger, one rounds fires, ejects, and a new round is loaded. I then have to pull the trigger again to fire another round. An M-16, a military grade weapon, is fully automatic, meaning I pull the trigger, and the gun fires until I remove my finger, some are three round burst to be fair.  The AR-15 is no more a military weapon then any other semi-auto, it is just scary looking. As for me not being partisan, I am closer to being an independent mind then you. But this argument will not lead us anywhere, and we both know it.

  36. @virtus1 – Referring to what?@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – The Constitution didn’t have to declare what “we the people” meant, as it was assumed by those writing the documents that it referred to people like them – typically wealthy, typically landowners, typically those that had the most to gain from a break with England. It’s why some historians argue that the “American Revolution” wasn’t really a “revolution” at all as one aristocracy – the English Lords – were replaced by another – the American landowners, with little change to the political structure of the country. This context, in conjunction to what words meant during that era are important in attempting to understand the Founding Fathers intent when interpreting the documents they created.My education is irrelevant, and your assertions have no basis. This country was founded on several key principles, one of which was that different expressions of opinion were okay, and that working towards compromise would help make the country great. The structure of the country also predicted differences of opinions over the interpretation of the Constitution and it’s relation to the states, thus we have the Supreme Court to adjudicate those disputes. Considering the number of split-decision rulings, we’re not the only ones who have had differences of opinion in interpreting a document that is more than two hundred and twenty-three years old.Thus we get back to the same place as my previous two comments: your understanding/interpretation is just as valid as mine.

  37. @cmdr_keen – Again, show me the qualifiers stating that, and again, it is Europe where the landlords owned all the land.  The colonies had a more frontier type of society.  With respect, your educational background is not irrelevant because you are repeating what you have been told there.  I know exactly what kind of “historians” you are referring to also.  You heard from unpatriotic liberal professors who want to portray the founding fathers as racist and who like to compare the American Revolution to Islamic terror.  I heard all that same stuff when I was going to school and rejected it.  If it’s a matter of opinion then no view is more valid than another, but we are talking about matters of fact here, and the fact is that the purpose for rebelling against England was to establish a more free society, and the purpose of the Constitution was to protect those freedoms.  Another fact is that our government today is far more overbearing than the English government was back then, which is why they want to take up arms, and why they are terrified of patriots and conservatives, because those people are ideologically the closest to the founding fathers.  I disagree that compromise is a good thing in and of itself.  A compromise with something bad is still a bad deal, and any compromise that takes away our freedom is a bad one.  People can have different opinions, but I don’t want them being put into law if they are going to adversely affect my freedom.The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to settle disputes over the Constitution, but to preserve the integrity of the Constitution.  The system of checks and balances was created to keep one branch of government from getting strong enough to violate the freedom of the people.  For example, let’s say that Congress wants to pass a law that says everyone has to have their thumbs amputated.  Before the bill becomes a law the president has to sign it.  If the president deems that the law is incompatible with the Constitution then he vetoes the bill.  If, for some reason, he happens to have been snorting coke that day and passes the law, then people can take the law to court, and the Supreme Court can strike it down as being unConstitutional.  What you, and most many other liberals do not get, is that the founding fathers were absolutely terrified of government infringing upon the people’s freedoms.  Everything was set up in a way to protect the freedom of the people, and preserve the rule of law.  It’s people who think the Constitution is a subjective document or who don’t care about it at all that are the greatest threat to freedom here.  Now our government is corrupt, and it no longer works the way it was intended to.

  38. @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – We’re going around in circles, and you’re doing everyone in education a disservice by assuming that all students do is repeat talking points like parrots – and that’s not education. You’re assuming and asserting that I’m just being the mouthpiece of “liberal professors,” without any other evidence than that my viewpoint differs from yours.As a matter of fact, one of my professors this semester was far from “liberal,” disagreeing strongly with the Obama administration and having reservations over Mitt Romney’s candidacy as well. His economic ideas (coming from his background as an economic historian) were sound, yet would be considered controversial if aired. Tarring everyone with the same brush is ineffective, and just plain wrong.Any person with any knowledge of the era in question – the late 1700s – realizes that real political power was concentrated in the hands of a few. The founding of the United States didn’t suddenly introduce universal suffrage, nor did it give any political power to those who would not have had it in England at the time.Any analysis of the period will show that.You speak of “Europeans” who don’t “understand” why or how the United States was formed, without ever really saying why that’s so. One of the principal reasons for the conflict – taxation without representation – developed because many American colonists viewed themselves as Englishman, and wanted the same rights their fellow brothers, as they say them, had in the home country. As I’ve stated previously, there were colonists who wanted to stay loyal to the Crown, and there were others within the rebellion that discussed maintaining a relationship with the monarchy or even establishing their own monarchy. Only as the conflict developed and King George III’s responses escalated the conflict did a break with the Crown become the only remaining option.Any good historian realizes that the causes and consequences of any significant historical event are many, and varied, and it takes time combined with specific responses for those smaller events to add up to the significant event. No event occurs in isolation. i.e. the American embargo on oil exports to Japan combined with Japanese expansionist plans, combined with the possible American military threat over the Pacific contributed to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Or the break with the Roman Catholic Church by Henry VIII was a result of Henry’s desire for a strong, legitimate son and heir, a barren wife, and political intrigue on the continent between the Pope, the French King, and the Spanish King. The break did not suddenly happen on a whim, nor was it without potential other solutions being tried before the ultimate break. It’s the same with the American revolution, which if you know as well as you claim, you would realize.You are talking about semantics when it comes to the Supreme Court. “Settling disputes” is synonymous with “preserving the integrity” of the Constitution, as the end result is the same: ruling whether something is Constitutional, or not. There is clearly a dispute over an interpretation of a particular Constitutional clause, which needs settling in order to preserve the integrity of the document. Even then, it sometimes requires an amendment of the Constitution in order for it’s integrity to be maintained – i.e. the 22nd Amendment setting term limits, the 25th defining line of succession, the first 10 Amendments setting individual rights. If everyone thought the same way, then there would be no for chambers or platforms for debates to happen because there would be no debate. There is nothing unique about the American system. They borrowed heavily from European influences, including the bicameral system of government in England, but have become so influential over the course of time – becoming a world power in the early twentieth century – that it is assumed the American system was a product purely of American thought, and it’s clearly not.Finally, given that the Supreme Court has reversed its decisions on occasion, this is further proof that the Constitution is not infallible and is open to interpretation from differing opinions. Most recently, you just have to listen to the outcry over the Citizens United case (if you’re “liberal”) or the Obamacare case (if you’re “conservative”) to see how particular positions can be taken that seem unconstitutional, or constitutional to the lay person.Bringing this back to the subject matter of the original blog, is the Second Amendment referring to individuals, or a collective? In the written opinion of Anton Scalia, it refers to individuals who can own a common household defense weapon – in this time, a handgun. In previous opinions, and in some readings of the Founding Fathers, it referred to a collective group, who needed to be armed to maintain law and order. I will grant that this could also mean overthrowing “tyrannical” governments, but in my opinion, reading the writings of the Founding Fathers on this issue, it was to ensure law and order above all else and enable a government that did not have a standing army the ability to resolve rebellious situations, such as Shay’s Uprising and the Whiskey Rebellion.Once more, we return to the same spot: we are all individuals, and therefore all have our own opinions. In this instance, and in most instances between us, they differ. That does not make one or the other “more correct,” it is just an expression of our free will. It is something for which we should be thankful.

  39. @cmdr_keen – Sorry for the delayed response.  I never said that all students are parrots and mouthpieces, I simply said that you are saying the same things that left wing college professors do, and that I know what kind of “scholars” hold those views.I am also a European man, which is why I never made a blanket statement about all Europeans.  I did point out the danger of foreigners, from any part of the world, who come here and fail to understand and/or appreciate the philosophical basis upon which this country was founded.  That is a dangerous thing, and bad for us patriotic Americans who like freedom.  “One of the principal reasons for the conflict – taxation without representation – developed because many American colonists viewed themselves as Englishman, and wanted the same rights their fellow brothers, as they say them, had in the home country.”–this is further evidence that you don’t understand.  For all intents and purposes most of them were still English, but they did not “want” or demand the same rights as other citizens.  They believed that rights were inherent and that they came from God.  They did not believe that government could give rights, only respect or disrespect the rights which are already there.  They stated very clearly that when a government disrespects those rights then it is time to break with that government.  All of this is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.  The idea that rights exist as a social construct that can be given or taken by humans is both repellant and highly dangerous as a concept.I still get the impression that you don’t understand the purpose of the Constitution.  The purpose was to establish a system of rule of law, which could not easily be undermined by corrupt politicians.  The Supreme Court is not supposed to modify or re-interpret the Constitution, but to strike down un-Constitutional laws which the legislative and executive branch may have passed.  Unfortunately the Supreme Court has come to act as a legislative body.  They have failed on a massive scale, and continue to do so now.  If the Supreme Court undermines any part of the BILL OF RIGHTS then they are making an unlawful ruling.  Also, an unConstitutional law is not a law in the US.  I know over in England the state is heavy and controlling, and you have neither guns nor freedom of speech there, but the US is different, and it is not supposed to be like that here.Not trying to be rude, but I don’t see the pertinence of anyone’s subjective opinion.  They were as clear as possible in the Bill of Rights, and could not have put it more simply.  The fact is they were able to fight the English BECAUSE they owned weapons.  They had no system like today where you join the army and they give you a gun.  Half the purpose of being allowed to own guns is to defend yourself from ruffians, the other half is to defend yourself from a government gone out of control.  They knew, and stated in the Declaration of Independence, that sometimes you have to break with an oppressive government.  This whole thing reminds me of the arguments evolutionists will make trying to say that the days of Creation described in Genesis in precise detail were intended to be vague and ambiguous.  I mean, I don’t see how either one could be more plainly written.  I never heard of any legal document or constitution stating that a government is legally able to form armies and defend itself.  That would be gratuitous.  Also the Bill of Rights was written as protection for the people, because not all of the delegates were ready to do away with the Articles of Confederation in favor of a federal system.  The purpose of the Constitutional conference was not to draft a new constitution but to ammend the Articles of Confederation so that they could more efficiently pay everyone that fought in the war.  Yes I agree with you that this is an expression of free will.  Unfortunately I can’t agree with you that the direction this country is going in is good, especially not after having seen what has happened and is happening to your country, and having these sorts of disagreements reinforces my belief that we need to screw a tighter lid on immigration, from any part of the world. 

Let the discussion begin

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: