(Condi) Rice: Gun Rights Important As Free Speech

[RamboLiberal]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_guns_1&printer=1

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.

In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.

Birmingham, where Rice was born in 1954, was a focal point of racial tension. Four black girls were killed when a bomb exploded at a Birmingham church in 1963, a galvanizing moment in the fight for civil rights.

Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."

Ironic thing is I understand many gun restricting laws came about as a way of restricting Negros (using term as it was in the time) from owning weapons.

[iamjoy]

1. Oh, So She Is Opposed To These National ID Cards

I mean, I'm just assuming since she said
"we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."

[Doctor_J]

2. alot MORE important, judging by the last few years

Free speech has been severely limited since 2000 - Idon't remember any significant curbs on gun rights lately.

[VegasWolf]

102. Okey dokey, then I assume she supports ABORTION rights also. n/t

[delhurgo]

106. Actually, yes she does. She said so in a recent newspaper article

that she believes the government should stay out of it. She does support modest restrictions like 'parental consent' and on late term abortions (I disagree, with both), but its clear to me she's essentially pro-choice. She refers to herself as a libertarian too, not a conservative - which I found interesting.

I'll just add that she's correct about gun rights as well. Although I don't think I agree that they're as important as the 1st Amend, they are next as important, which is why the 2nd Amend comes second.

[MindPilot]

3. Too bad it's only talk.

Wingers think the second amendment is absolute, but rest of 'em especially the first and forth are open to....ummm...interpertation.

[Skidmore]

4. Yup, so I can shoot you if you say something I don't like.

Isn't that the slippery slope we're screeching down?

[AuntiBush]

63. Really!

You don't like our Evangelical Tabernacle beliefs - get a gun.
You don't like Bush - get a gun.

I no longer hang an American flag from my porch because it's not longer "patriotic" in my heart, eyes and mind. No. It's "Nationalism," and that slippers slope is too close to the bottom of what reminds me of blind-faithful Nazism!

[tx_dem41]

5. I see someone in the Yahoo Edit department is asleep....

what a botched headline.

[whistle]

6. How many blacks belong to the NRA

[capriccio]

10. How many liberals belong to the NRA?

If things are as bad as we think...and say they are, the rolls of the NRA ought to be positively swelling with lefties willing to die to protect their first amendment rights.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

34. I don't, and wouldn't, but I support the basic idea

of theirs concerning weapons ownership. And I'm pretty much as left as they're made. But if someday we ourselves are 'insurgents' against fascist fuck heads, we'll have what's needed I hope.

[bennywhale]

52. Such revolutionary talk will have

you sent to the Gulag for subversive thoughts.

[DoNotRefill]

122. If the past five years haven't taught you....

why the Second Amendment is VITAL, well, then, I don't hold out much hope for you.

To quote Cottrol: "The Second Amendment is far too important to leave to the Gun Nuts."

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Funny that she is now in the party that those White Knights are

so partial to these days.

[NYC Liberal]

8. What about the right to be safe from unreasonable searches & siezures?

I wonder what Condoleezza has to say about THAT!

Oh and I wonder what she thinks of the checks-and-balance system in that pesky little Constitution we have

[sui generis]

9. damn straight

so when the gummint comes to round us homos up and put us into a "re-education camp" it's going to happen over my dead body . . . and a lot of theirs.

/crackpotpost

[okieinpain]

35. don't take this the wrong way, I'm not anti- gay. but a gay

re-education camp is something I would probably pay money to see. not that I want people rounded up, but it would really be something to see somebody going "no I don't like vagina's", "nooooo don't make me have sex with that girl". oh man what a wacky world we live in...

[sui generis]

38. well

speaking as someone who is queer as a three dollar bill, imagine being sent to a hetero re-education camp. It would really be something to see somebody going "no I don't like weeners" "noooo don't make me have sex with that dude".

It's not whacky - it's just the way it is.

[okieinpain]

101. in my case that would be horrible.

[DoNotRefill]

121. Armed gays don't get bashed....

prolly because the cowards who would gay-bash don't have the balls to stand up to somebody with a handgun and the knowledge of how to use it.

[sui generis]

146. tell the truth you don't even need a gun

just get right back in their face. Most wannabe gaybashers are self-pissing weeners who are only brave when someone's running away.

[DoNotRefill]

155. When the odds are five to one....

a submachinegun comes in quite handy...

[sui generis]

186. but it leaves an unsightly bulge in my "sexy" jeans.

30 years of martial arts will do the job, and I wouldn't even get mildly out of breath.

[Redstone]

11. She likes guns OK, but REALLY wants to play with the GOOD stuff...

Redstone

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

46. That looks familiar...

Heh. You could start a collection with this crew.

[Danmel]

12. Why doesn't she ask blacks living in the inner cities who lose their kids

To guns on an every day basis how they feel about it?

Completely out of touch.

[Fire Walk With Me]

18. Best juxtaposition yet.

I guess you're not "one of them" once you've had an oil tanker named after you.

[blondeatlast]

45. Oh, gosh...

:rofl: MLWAO!

[Jack_DeLeon]

41. Yep, its all the guns' fault....

criminals dont murder, guns do.

[bennywhale]

66. "You couldn't get a soldier to bayonet a pregnant girl in a

barn. But they'll do it from 10,000 feet"
Lloyd George: British colonel

Its the same effect with guns. Guns de-personlaise the act making it psychologically easier for someone to murder someone else.

So Guns do kill

[DoNotRefill]

68. Really? You've held a gun and it's told you to kill somebody???

a gun is a tool, nothing more. Without human interaction, guns CAN'T kill.

[bennywhale]

74. Exactly, a gun is a tool

not some sacred right.

Its an inanimate object which when, as you say, it comes into human hands becomes lethal.

A gun makes it psychologically easier for a person to murder. So its not all down to the person. Its also down to the gun.

Where in my post did i say guns talk?

[DoNotRefill]

78. You say that a gun makes murder easier.

Do you say the same thing about cars?

Cars kill far more people accidentally in the US than guns kill accidentally AND deliberately. Cars do make it much easier to commit mass murder (look at the car-bombings in Iraq).

You can use practically anything as a weapon. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people.

[bennywhale]

80. Cars are vehicles from getting from

A to B. They are not designed for murder. Guns are designed to kill another human being.

What about Nukes. Would you prefer nuclear weapons had been invented or not invented. And this is not an argument about balances of power its methods of killing.

You're right about it being down to the person. But its also down to the gun.

The gun makes it psychologically easier for the person who may be inclined to violence, to kill. Result=more dead people

[DoNotRefill]

85. My, my, my...horseshit and strawmen, all together!!!

Guns are NOT designed to kill human beings. Guns are designed to propel a bullet on a ballistic trajectory in accordance with the laws of physics. If you put a human being in front of a gun and fire it, it will generally put a hole in the person, and has functioned as designed. If you don't put a person in front of it and fire it, it will not kill a person, and has functioned as designed.

You say "result=more dead people". The scientific literature seems to disagree with you. Annual homicide rates fluctuate, but generally, there are fewer than 15,000 homicides a year. Rates of defensive gun uses in the US vary depending upon the source, but seem to run between 70,000 and 2,500,000 a year (those are the extremes that I've seen). It's most likely that the actual rate is somewhere in between those figures. Now consider the DoJ BJS statistics which say that victims who defend themselves with a gun in an attack have a 20% injury rate, while victims who offer no resistance and comply with their attackers have a 33% chance of being injured, and while victims who are attacked and defend themselves with no weapon or any weapon other than a gun have a 50% chance of being injured, and tell me how, exactly, guns have a net NEGATIVE impact on society.

[bennywhale]

152. Were the injured parties you refer to

injured by guns?

[DoNotRefill]

156. Some were, some weren't....

those were the figures for all attacks.

[bennywhale]

159. Do you have the figures of how many were

injured by guns?

how many incidents involved a gun?

[DoNotRefill]

166. Nope.

but I suppose you could contact the BJS and ask them.

[underpants]

13. Her father opposed Dr.King and the Civil Rights movement

and he always was welcome in the Republican party...as was his daughter.

[slackmaster]

14. The glass is half full, or even a stopped clock is right twice a day

What I find really amusing about this topic is that on one of the gun rights forums I read, several of the regulars have said Rice's position on gun rights is all well and good but she's still bad because she's pro-choice on abortion.

:crazy:

[RamboLiberal]

17. By '08 she'll be all Pro-Life

I think the Repukes are setting her up for a presidential run - though they'll probably try to get her on as VP.

[slackmaster]

20. Yeah, if Hillary can move that direction anyone can

:wtf:

In all seriousness, Rice could be a real threat in 2008.

[EC]

23. I don't know...I'm really not sure about this

there are an awful lot of Bigots in the Republican Party yet, and an awful lot of the Black vote really, really hate condi...

[slackmaster]

24. There are people in both parties who wouldn't vote for any woman

for President, or for a black person.

I think it would be cool if they had no viable alternative but to choose a Republican woman or a Democratic woman. Condi v. Hillary would be an interesting race.

[Jersey Ginny]

30. Let the Repukes run a woman first

I want to win. I don't care to make a social statement regarding the presidency now and I don't want Hillary to be the Dem candidate anyway. Smart, but inaccessable and uptight when in the spotlight.

[jody]

15. Our Democratic Platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment

right to own firearms," :shrug:

[Jersey Ginny]

31. I support the 2nd amendment

I know that most of my friends say that if the government choose to take away me and my family that a shotgun would not make any difference. Being gay with a family, I don't see my view, in support of the 2nd amendment, as a nutty paranoid thought. I'd be able to defend myself a little bit-maybe vs. doing nothing. I've been wondering if anywhere there is a Gays for Guns group. I thought learning how to skeet shoot with some gay liberals might be fun and funny while also making a statement. Most of my fellow liberals disagree with me, however.

[jody]

33. Please visit the "Pink Pistols" at the link below.

"Pink Pistols"

Please visit the Gun Forum here on DU. You will find many friends. :hi:

[indepat]

16. We know how important Repukes regard their guns and religion, but do not

think freedom of speech (for heretics) amounts to a spit in the ocean.

[Bozita]

19. Sounds like she's running

NRA is one of the bases that all Repugs must tag.

[roscoeroscoe]

104. bingo!

marking off that check in the list. how fun it will be to see her manufactured persona take shape! dr rovenstein, the experiment is ready...
and how screamin' frustrating for colin powell. might he be muttering, it was supposed to be my turn...

this is the most shockingly public move by the lizard aliens to put one of their own into public leadership in some years. it's probably a sign of worse things to come as they prepare to complete the ultimate subjigation of the human race. if you get a gun, make sure you practice shooting snakes... :)

[EC]

21. I'll bet she never said word one

about what would have happened to her dear old Dad, if he had used that gun....

[slackmaster]

22. She said he and others took up arms

That means they DID use them.

[EC]

25. It means they took them out, doesn't mean

they actually shot anyone...I would think since that was during the days of Emmit Till he would have been strung up....and remember there were whites killed just for speaking up for the rights of blacks then too.

[slackmaster]

26. To use a firearm != to discharge it

Guns make good equalizers because people are (rightly) intimidated by them.

Actually, we don't really know with certainty that Dr. Rice's father never shot anyone.

[CarinKaryn]

50. This is probably a little fantasy

like all the wannabe Rambos who publish their "Armed Citizen" letters.

"Dear Penthouse, I never thought this would happen to me. Good thing I had a pistol in my pants!"

[harpo]

27. and WHY is she/he on tv again?

[renaissanceguy]

28. As Archie Bunker once said,

"Owning a gun is free speech. When you're holding a gun, you can make whatever speech you want."


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/588704

[Cha]

29. Then why don't we have free

speech, conjob? You lyin' sack of shit!

[bennywhale]

32. I think the "right to bear arms" was an advanced protection against those

christian warriors who outlawed pants that hang low. It was to ensure Short Sleeves could be worn on hot days without offending anyone with your revealed flesh.

[leesa]

36. That's right...keep everyone afraid and armed...makes lots of dough for

your arms dealer buddies.

[Zorra]

37. With fascists like Condoweasel and Bush in control, I have to agree

with her.

Our current totalitarian fascist government is precisely the reason why the founders of our nation urged e very citizen to be armed.

[Desperadoe]

39. Anybody here live in ALA in 1962??

Well, neither did I, but I did live in Pennsylvania and traveled throughout the south and I do remember what things were like in the south. The south, and particularly Alabama, was like a nation apart from the rest of the country.

I would think that any black man who was crazy enough to brandish a gun against a white person in Alabama in '62 had zero chances of seeing the next sunrise. That shit just didn't happen in George Wallace's kingdom and if it did, I'm pretty sure it would have made national headlines. In fact, I would be interested in knowing just how common gun ownership among black in Alabama was in 1962.

This story sounds like bullshit to me and the only reason she can get away with it is because not too many people want to admit how bad things were down there at the time and certainly not the born-again southern Republicans.

Now, this is just my bullshit meter going off, coupled with a pretty damn vivid memory of my own experiences of that era, but there is something very smelly about this "my daddy was a hero in the civil rights movement" story.

I would like to see some evidence of this or at least someone who would show me evidence of similar incidences of black ministers in Alabama defending themselves, with arms, from white racist groups. For some reason, I must have missed that one.

[cosmicdot]

42. I think you're right

and, corporate media man Larry King allows her to get away with the embellishment/myth/lie/history revision/whatever ... but, of course, he's enabling her ...

her father may have had a gun ... but, I seriously doubt this version in light of deep South reality c. 1962 - she's revising history with such a tale ... and many gullible and naive watching bought it as true ... it's now firmly planted in their minds ... they probably would have sent a contribution if there had been an 800 number

I wonder what the office buzz is at The Black Commentator and NAACP? I doubt if they bought it.

she earns it: CondoLIAR Rice


way too much corporate media time for a Secretary of State imho ...

[gademocrat7]

59. I agree

It would have been very difficult for Condi's dad to brandish a firearm during the turbulent times of the 60's in the South.

[DoNotRefill]

60. Yeah, minorities never had guns in the '60s....

all those pictures of the Black Panthers were photoshop jobs...

[Desperadoe]

76. Black Panthers in Alabama in 1962?

You know, you want to think about the time line and the area of the country here. While I usually feel that the historians do not give enough credit to the militant blacks of the civil rights era, including the BP, you are a little ahead of the times with that one.

http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/

First of all, the Black Panthers were not a viable element in the civil rights movement until much later and they were absolutely never involved anywhere in Alabama, or for that matter much of anywhere in the south. They were primarily a west coast organization, centered in Oakland, CA and it wasn't until the late 60's that they were even considered newsworthy.

In 1962, in much of the deep south, a black man could still get his ass in a sling for not "knowing his place". He sure as hell wasn't chasing any white KKK'ers with a gun.

[DoNotRefill]

81. Did I say they were in Alabama? If so, please quote it.

You say that blacks didn't chase white KKKers with guns. You're right. Why? because for the most part, they were disbarred the use of guns because of the Jim Crow laws. In fact, until very recently, ALL gun control was EXPLICITLY racist in nature (in the 1940's, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that gun control laws didn't apply at all to Whites, since the legislative intent was only to disarm minorities. The gun control movement has dropped the overtly racist language, for example, the "Saturday Night N-word-town Special" dropped the N-word, but the goals remain the same....to keep minorities disarmed.) The guns they did have (mostly shotguns) weren't terribly effective. However, there WERE cases where minorities were attacked and defended themselves with guns. Don't believe me? Do you believe the FBI? If so, go here: http://www.paperlessarchives.com/ddj.html

[Desperadoe]

100. You are correct..but Condi is still bullshitting

I didn't say that blacks didn't chase KKKers with guns, I said they didn't do it in 1962 in Alabama. Read your own link.

There is a helluva lot of difference between 1962 and 1967 when you are discussing the civil rights movement in the south. It may as well have been 100 years. In fact, that is why I will always believe that, without the threat of violence from groups like the Black Panthers, the Black Muslims and other militant organizations, the civil rights movement would have sputtered and languished. The newsreels and TV coverage of things like Watts burning and the image of militant and angry young black males, with guns and muscle showing, went a long way in convincing the "Archie Bunkers" that maybe them "colored people" have a point.

And, yes, I do agree with you that prior to the Kennedy assassination, most gun control laws were racially motivated and directed to wards minorities.

However, I still maintain that Condi's story is just more Republican revisionist history, only the African American flavor. Republicans can be anything they need to be in order to win. They can even be civil rights champions...but with guns, of course. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that they actually would ever allow that to happen, because the heart of the Republican Party is the same good old boys, just like the ones in Florida in 1940 that passed those laws just for the Negroes.

And just to prove how effective they are, just regard this thread. What should be about Ms. Rice and her lies and deceit has turned into, yet another useless argument about gun control, a subject that has cost us many elections and will cost us many more until we wise up and don't let the Republicans frame this debate.

[DoNotRefill]

114. heh.

"What should be about Ms. Rice and her lies and deceit has turned into, yet another useless argument about gun control, a subject that has cost us many elections and will cost us many more until we wise up and don't let the Republicans frame this debate."

The problem is that the anti-gun wing of the Democratic Party did exactly what the pro-gun people of ALL stripes expect....they didn't attack her on issues that she's vulnerable on, they attacked her on guns.

You want to neutralize the NRA politically? Put forth real pro-gun democratic candidates, and STOP the stupid "I'm a pro-gun candidate, really! I hunt Pheasant!" camouflage used by anti-gun Democrats. Kerry figuratively cut his own throat in 2004 with his "I like guns!" bit, when it was blatantly obvious that he has supported every piece of anti-gun legislation that he could. He was called a hypocrite, and they were RIGHT.

[WI Independent]

107. I did...

I was 3 at the time though so I didn't exactly keep up on current events. My dad was born and raised in Birmingham so I have heard quite a few stories.

Do I think for a second Rice's dad went into a white section of town showing a gun? Not no... but hell no! Could he have fired a couple of shots out the window in a black neighborhood to scare off some cross burners? Possible... most of those guys were basically cowards anyway. Although I still think he would have been wise to make sure he didn't actually hit one...

The story is probably a combination of BS for a political point and maybe a little of "my dad had to walk 10 miles to school... barefoot... in the snow... uphill... both ways..."

Edit:
Just thought to add... there were some blacks starting to fight back more aggressively around that time in Birmingham. That's one reason the 16th Street church was bombed...

[struggle4progress]

184. I'm afraid you're right: Condi has a problem with the truth. eom

[Jack_DeLeon]

40. The right to self defense is absolutely as important as free speech...

People may not agree with much of what Rice says or does, but she is absolutely right on this issue.

[bennywhale]

43. The right to self defence is NOT the same as

the right to bear arms. You can defend yourself with anything.

Being able to own a Gun, a material human invention, is not, and could never be considered to be anywhere near as important as the right to free speech or the right to liberty or freedom.

Its an object for God's sake, its not a concept or an idea based on liberty, justice or freedom.

Its a simple object.

And you say you need it to protect against this government. What exactly are you going to do?

[jody]

44. Several states acknowledged the right to defend self and property before

they adopted the Articles of Confederation, later ratified our Constitution, and accepted its Bill of Rights. Those states stated that self defense is a natural, inherent, and inalienable right.

Firearms, particularly handguns are the most effective, efficient tools for self defense and are used by professionals like law enforcement officers and criminals. Until a better tool than handguns and long guns come along, law-abiding citizens will continue to use firearms for self defense.

I'm pro-choice on guns. If you don't want to use guns for self defense, that's your choice but don't ask me to give up my right. My position is recognized by the Democratic Party in our platform that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

I hope you support the Democratic Party's commitment to protecting our Second Amendment right.

[bennywhale]

51. My point was not what came first but

which is more important.

Freedom, liberty, free speech, are concepts without which you wouldn't have the right to bear arms.

These are the concepts people should be furious about if violated, not, as i say, a material object.

I agree with the right to self defence of course. Every human being has that right. Its an instinct.

The world in which this was drafted was also a very different from the world today. A world in which to have a gun near by was near necessity at times.

Today is different.

Concepts of Liberty, freedom and free speech don't age, but i feel the right to bear arms is becoming so old its almost senile.

[Jack_DeLeon]

53. You've got it backwards.

Freedom, liberty, free speech, are concepts without which you wouldn't have the right to bear arms.

It was people who with the power that thier arms bought them that decided that freedom, liberty, free speech, and like were so important that they should be protected.

[bennywhale]

56. I thought that was coming

how come Britain, Sweden, Denmark, France, Norway, Switzerland...................................................
have these very same rights.

Freedom, liberty, free speech, but no right to bear arms?

[DoNotRefill]

67. Are you sure you want to use Switzerland as an example of no guns?

Practically every Swiss male is in the militia, and has a government-issued machinegun in their house.

They don't have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, they have an OBLIGATION to keep and bear arms. And guess what? They have a very low crime rate. That shows pretty conclusively that guns do NOT equal crime.

[bennywhale]

75. Ha Ha Ha

i realised that when i posted it. Shit. I was just thinking of peaceful, free countries without the right to bear arms.

I apologise and retract Switzerland from my argument. The rest still stands

[DoNotRefill]

87. Ever wonder WHY Switzerland is still peaceful and free?

It's because they're armed to the fucking teeth, and EVERYBODY knows it.

[bennywhale]

90. Don't be so fucking ridiculous

Switzerland is peaceful and free because of no such reason. Iraqis are armed to the teeth and everyone knows it. Afghanis are armed to the teeth and everyone knows it, Ghana, Congo, DRC, Liberia, Colombia.

Fucking hell what an argument. Guns = peace

Why then is Sweden so peaceful

[DoNotRefill]

92. Would you care to list the continental European countries...

that were Neutral during WWII, and which were NOT overrun by the Nazis?

Why wasn't Switzerland overrun during either the First or Second World Wars? It's simply because they were armed to the fucking teeth, and NO country could HOPE to conquer the country without exterminating EVERY male, and even then they'd still be shot at by some of the women.

You list Ghana, the Congo, the DRC, Liberia, and Columbia. I'll ask you a loaded question. Are you SURE that ALL of them have no gun control laws on the books?

[bennywhale]

95. What utter nonsense

you see everything in history as explainable through gun control. That kind of obsession is called neurosis.

I asked why Sweden was peaceful when not being armed to the fucking teeth.?

I didn't say there were NO gun control in these countries i was replying to your point about being ARMED TO THE FUCKING TEETH. which they are.

Why wasn't Britain overun in the Second World War? We have gun control.

I think you'll find a necessary precursor to a peaceful society is not the requirement that everyone is ARMED TO THE FUCKING TEETH

[DoNotRefill]

115. Why wasn't Britain overrun in WWII?

Remember Operation Sea Lion? Y'all came DAMNED close to being overrun. And what was the American response? Not only did our government send your government guns through lend-lease and various other programs, but American citizens DONATED literally tons of personal firearms to help outfit your Home Guard and anybody else who would fight. You're welcome. But why was it necessary for Americans to send y'all guns to throw back the expected invaders? Because the British people had been effectively disarmed.

England banned possession of most weapons. Oddly enough, the IRA never seemed to have much trouble either smuggling them in or manufacturing them at home.

[Art_from_Ark]

112. Switzerland was not invaded because a) it had no military value,

b) it had no natural resources or vast amounts of farmland, c) moving a large army through Switzerland's narrow roads and rugged terrain would have posed a logistical nightmare, and d) there was no need for the Nazis to invade because there was already secret collaboration between the Nazis and the Swiss banking and government establishments, The Nazis, for example, needed a "neutral" country to handle their international banking needs, and Swiss banks were only more than happy to comply. And the Swiss had a policy of repatriating German Jews seeking asylum in Switzerland.

http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb6-16/gold.htm

[DoNotRefill]

120. Strangely enough....

a bunch of the small, neutral countries that were NOT armed to the teeth and didn't have huge amounts of farmland and had banking facilities too WERE overrun by the Nazis.

[bennywhale]

130. Still on about Switzerland?

Switzerland wasn't overun for a variety of reasons, not solely due to gun ownership. The Balkans was, and historically has always been armed to the teeth but was occupied.

Do you honestly believe the Nazis thought ooooo better not invade Switzerland all the citizens have guns. A country of a few million? An army group of a few thousand, trained, fully equipped, tanks, air support, could have defeated a million armed, untrained, disorganised citizens easily.

I believe the main reasons were Banks and the Alps. The whole of Switzerland is one big rugged mountain range. Tora Bora can't even be subdued in the Twenty First Century.

[DoNotRefill]

157. Oops, your ignorance is showing....

"An army group of a few thousand, trained, fully equipped, tanks, air support, could have defeated a million armed, untrained, disorganised citizens easily."

Who said they were untrained, disorganized or just citizens? Switzerland operates on a militia system....every male does two years of active duty, and then they go to the reserves. They periodically train, and if their training level falls below standard, they are reactivated into the standing army until the deficits are corrected. Go hang out in Switzerland on any August First. It'll be quite an eye-opener for you.

"The whole of Switzerland is one big rugged mountain range."

Yup. There are no flat places at all in Switzerland. Right. That's why only mountain goats live there. ;)

You might take a trip there sometime. While there, look at the streetcorners. Take notice of the little manhole cover looking thingies at every streetcorner. And ponder the fact that each and every one of them is there to turn the city into a giant tank-trap by removing the covers and sticking in giant steel jackrock thingies. But make sure you take a rope, so you can lash yourself to the mountain ranges to sleep, since there are no flat areas there.

[bennywhale]

167. I've visited Switzerland many times in fact

Interlaken, Glienershideg, Geneva and can confirm that Not one part of Switzerland is not in the Alps. The North West of Switzerland is less rugged than the rest but its still the Alps mountain range. Buy an Atlas, have a look, and stop making things up of the top of your head. Have you ever left your town or state in your life.

I'm also aware of the way the Swiss operate their national defence. They've also got hundreds of miles of tunnels within the alps to repel invaders.

This is not the same as the "right to bear arms"

You've now traversed onto talking about national service and armies to defend your point about gun control. National service existed in Britain until the fifties, and everyone who'd undergone national service was in the army reserves. Whats your point.

You're now talking about structures of societies

Do you still maintain that the Third Reich was put off because of Switzerland's lack of gun control?

[DoNotRefill]

172. Absolutely....

Hitler knew that the rewards for taking Switzerland wouldn't be anywhere near what the cost would be.

YOU are the one who said that "An army group of a few thousand, trained, fully equipped, tanks, air support, could have defeated a million armed, untrained, disorganised citizens easily."

That shows that you are either ignorant or deliberately obfuscating. And yes, I've travelled extensively throughout Europe Asia, and Africa, including going to Switzerland. I've even been to England on occasion. Not that it's any of your business...

[bennywhale]

177. Your mind is so closed

that you only ever see anything through your prism of gun control. I can't believe you are trying to explain the strategies of the Nazis in conquering Europe solely through explanations of the various gun controls of various countries.

You musn't get much out of history and politics if this is the way your mind works.

To subjegate the populations of the Ukraine, Balkan countries, Poland,etc who were all armed ( Not in the way the swiss are i grant you, but still a lot of arms amongst the citizens) took thousands of German soldiers not millions. The population of the countries were in their millions the soldiers in their thousands.

You seem to think you are superman as soon as you ahve a gun in your hand.

[DoNotRefill]

179. Thousands, not millions? What history books are you reading?

When Barbarossa kicked off, the germans used between 1.5 and 3.5 million troops, depending on which source you believe. They did NOT invade the Soviet Union, or Poland, or the Ukraine, with "thousands" of troops. They invaded with entire army groups, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men.

[bennywhale]

182. Right. We're comparing Russia. The

biggest country on the planet, with Switzerland now.

You get funnier.

So millions of Germans were stationed in every country Germany conquered is that right. Do you know what the population of Germany is?

[Art_from_Ark]

147. So which countries would those be?

Remember, they must have no military significance, have major international banking facilities easily accessible to the Germans, be officially neutral, have an unarmed population, have no farmland or resources, and have mostly rugged terrain. You can pick from the following:

Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
France
Norway
Greece
Denmark
Yugoslavia
Albania
Sudentenland (Czechoslovakia)
Poland
Norway

[jody]

70. Philosophers have long debated the existence and origin of natural rights.

I believe if natural rights exist, then the right of self preservation or self defense is the most basic right. That's why so many people in all nations believe in the right to keep and bear arms. The most effective, efficient arms today for self defense are firearms, particularly handguns.

I believe in the importance in all rights enumerated in our Constitution as well as unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment.

You assert "Today is different".

In what way are things different? I can't leave my home unlocked for fear of burglars. I can't walk the streets day or night because of fear of being attacked. I could do those things when I was a boy.

Perhaps you are correct, "Today is different", it's much worse and the need for self defense is much greater.

[bennywhale]

79. I'll debate the philosophy of 'natural rights' if you want but

my point is not about the right to self preservation. Its about Guns.

I see from your post that its not GUNS themselves that are important, but the right to self defence. Thats fine, i agree.

Why not, remove all handguns from society, then you won't need a gun for self protection.

(I thought you may have noticed from my spelling of defence, that i'm not American. I confess, I'm English, and i am fascinated by the ferocity with which gun ownership is defended there. Thats why i joined the debate, i find it very interesting, please continue)

[jody]

83. How does one remove all handguns from society? Why do you single

out handguns?

Handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for self defense. That's why law enforcement officers and so many law-abiding citizens carry them.

I don't care to "debate the philosophy of 'natural rights'" because nothing you or I can say will add one iota to what I've already read.

I believe one major difference in the U.S. and England is that in the U.S., we believe that all power originates in "We the People" while in England, the state is all powerful, a carryover from your rule under monarchs and the divine right of kings.

[bennywhale]

88. Your definition of the concepts behind the British state are nonsense

You've just thought of one thing you know about England (Monarchy, and equated it to your argument. "All power with the state".

The English philosopher John Locke upon which your constitution is based is also the basis of our rights and liberties.

You'll notice if you resaerched the origins of your constitution, the liberties you hold, are Lockean liberties.

People just didn't get under a tree and think these things up off the top of their head. Their philosophies and ideas came from European philosophers. The same ideas that were transforming states there.

The rest is mainly based on the Frencrevolutionary ideas.

Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to score points or denigrate your constitution, (which i think is fantastic) i'm just setting some facts. The state being all powerful in England could not be further from the truth.

[jody]

91. I don't believe England places the same importance on the individual

as we do in the U.S. If you did, you would permit your citizens to keep and bear arms for self defense.

In the U.S., governments are not obligated to protect an individual unless that person is in government custody. That leaves self defense up to each individual. That's why so many of us are pro-choice on guns.

Are governments in England obligated to protect individuals? If so, please cite specific law suits where your citizens have successfully sued governments for not protecting an individual from crime.

ON EDIT ADD:
In the U.S., we believe the right of self defense and to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right.

It is my understanding that England has taken the position that the right of self defense and to keep and bear arms can be alienated.

That's why I asserted we believe all power comes from the people whereas in England, citizens have given up some rights to the state.

[bennywhale]

96. You're right about governments not being

obligated to protect citizens. But in this country, through democratic consensus gun ownership was eased out.

That doesn't mean i have forfited this right to the government, this means a consensus was reached on how to achieve a better society, and this was a way in which it was done.

I could still, if i wish, apply for a gun licence tomorrow, have criminal checks done, a secure gun cabinet would be fitted by the police, and i could then purchase a rifle or a shotgun. However i have absolutely no desire to do so, and know of no other person, other than those who live in rural areas and may need them, who desires to own a gun.

Its the obsession with guns in America i don't get. Thats what i'm trying to get out of this debate. Why the obsession?

And your rights that you hold precious, seem to me to be on paper only.

Your police, for example, that armed wing of state power, have much more power over the citizen in your country than they do in mine.

Britains not perfect, i know that, but be under no illusions about the unique nature of freedom in your country. It is a myth

[jody]

109. You say "through democratic consensus gun ownership was eased out."

In the U.S., the majority of our states recognize that the right to self defense is an inalienable right and therefore can not be given away, even through a democratic consensus. Keeping and bearing arms is the way to exercise that right of self defense and firearms are the most effective type of arms for that job.

If the most basic right of self defense can be taken away from the minority through democratic consensus, then what prevents the majority from taking away other rights cherished by a minority?

Note that I am not talking about control of arms, e.g. firearms, so they cannot be used by certain classes of people like criminals or in certain locations. I mean taking away the tools for self defense and that is the avowed goal of some who would ban all handguns or ban all guns.

It seems as though your preoccupation with the democratic consensus leads ultimately to the absolute tyranny of the majority, something our Constitution tried to avoid by enumerating certain rights in the Bill of Rights and recognizing other unenumerated rights in our Ninth Amendment.

It is that focus on inalienable rights that prevents the state from being superior to the individual, at least on paper. Whether that dream will survive remains to be seen but it does set our government apart from others.

[bennywhale]

110. Inalienable rights of the citizen does not set your government

apart from others. You really should study the liberties and constitutions of other countries, and you will find that there too there are inalienable rights of the individual.

As i mentioned, all these notions of individual rights and liberties, came broadly from the same group of European enlightenment philosophers.

The exceptionalism and uniqueness of the American way is a myth which i sometimes find quite frustrating. Rights and liberties of the individual that no government can take away are also ingrained into the constitutions of most free European countries.

The difference perhaps being that these were built up over centuries in some countries rather than being compiled in one document at one time. (exceptions apart RE Fench revolution) However they are still the same concepts.

In fact it goes farther back. The Magna Carta was signed by King John in the 11th Century, ceding his power to commoners. (the commoners being the dukes) From that point to this, a struggle has ensued for freedom and liberty within England for every citizen. Including the reformation, breaking from the catholic church, the Civil War, pitting parliamentarians against Royalists, and the Enlightenment revolution where concepts of inalienable rights took root. And, not to sound condescending, but i must make the point that, America did not even exist at this point.

So to argue that your liberties and rights are unique in the world is a fallacy. They came from European thought, which also provided the base for freedoms in Europe. The right to self defence still holds obviously, its just that there's no obsession with guns, even though we can own one if we wish.

I think the myth about the exceptional nature of American freedom is perpetrated deliberately. As i said before the police in America have far more power over the citizen than in England. The state in America reserves the right to murder its own citizens, a right which the British state does not have; apartheid of seperate groups of citizens is not permissible by the British constitution yet it was permissible in the US.

Blindly accepting that you are the most free nation on earth leads to acquiescence of the masses. Believing your freedoms are incomparable in the world enables the state to violate your "natural rights". Thats why i believe the myth is deliberately perpetrated

[jody]

113. I've studied the constitutions of other countries. Perhaps you should

accept the simple fact that the U.S. and its Constitution is the oldest government of any significant country in the world. Countries with constitutions that purport to recognize inalienable rights use our Constitution as their model.

It is true that our Constitution is the synthesis of ideas produced by many great minds from all countries in the 18th century. Still we are the first and in my opinion the most successful with our flawed attempt at establishing a government of "We the People".

Back to my basic question, if you accept the use of the democratic consensus to take away a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for self defense and reject the government's obligation to defend the individual, then you don't have a government of the people. You have a government of 50% plus one vote and that changes with public opinion and hysteria.

What individual "inalienable" rights do citizens of England have under your concept of democratic consensus?

[bennywhale]

119. I am perplexed as to your assertion that the US

"...is the oldest government of any significant country in the world"

Could you please give me some dates of the formation of other "governments" you believe the US precedes in Europe. (I'm not sure if there is a cultural barrier here as to the understanding of the term "government")

Also, could you name me some countries which are based on the American Constitution. I accept there may be some "new" democracies, loosely based on the concepts of the US constitution, but as i said the ideas of the US constitution are based on European political philosophy, so i'm not sure if you're distinguishing between the concepts that precede the existence of the US. To claim that constitutions around the world are based on the US constitution is to claim that the ideas in them are American ideas. Which they are not.

Again on the question of arms, you've misrepresented what i've said. I still have the right if i wish to purchase a firearm. I could do it tomorrow if i wished and the government has no authority or mandate to prevent me from doing so.

The 'democratic consensus' i mentioned seems to have confused the issue. This is not a constitutional tool, or something peculiar to British law. And it was not used to take away any "right" to bear arms. What i said was that through a 'democratic consensus' guns were eased out of ordinary society through consensus. That being that most agreed it would make for a better society if there were less guns in it, (a consensus that still holds today amongst British people).
Also that is to say, anyone who believed they still wanted to own a gun, could quite happily do so. This is not majoritarian tyranny as you are implying. The minority (those who want to bear arms) are still able to do so.

It was eased out by availability and cultural means. In the rural parts of Britain gun ownership is high, in urban areas it is low. This is the consensual judgement of the British people and those who don't agree cannot be forced to accept it, and can own a gun.

[jody]

144. I know of no government in Europe that precedes the U.S..

Certainly not England, France, Germany, Italy, etc. The current governments of those nations and others were formed after the U.S. established its government stated so succinctly in our Constitution's Preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I can't prove a negative but you can disprove my assertion. If you know of a significant nation with a constitution that precedes ours, please tell me its name.

ON EDIT ADD:
You state "Again on the question of arms, you've misrepresented what I've said. I still have the right if i wish to purchase a firearm. I could do it tomorrow if i wished and the government has no authority or mandate to prevent me from doing so."

I'm not an expert on English law but I don't believe you have the "right" to purchase a firearm in England without permission from the government. I understand that there are major restrictions on who can purchase a firearm and how it must be stored. I understand that the storage requirements are so draconian as to make handguns useless for self defense. I also understand that if you were to use a handgun for self defense, you might be treated more severely under English law than the criminal against whom you were defending your self.

Of course if I'm wrong, please cite me the law and precedent cases that prove your position.

[bennywhale]

148. "The 'glorious revolution' of 1688 which

established the constitutional monarchy"

Encyclopedia Britannica. Look it up.

The constitutional monarchy is the constitution which we still hold today. It is the British constitution within which all our rights, liberties, and democratic freedoms are enshrined. It withdrew all rights from the monarch and placed them with parliament and the people.

I believe, but i may be wrong, that the American constitution was drafted in 1787.

You are correct in your assumption about storage. However this was intended to prevent criminals from robbing farmhouses for their guns and seems to have worked.

You are also correct about handguns. Restrictions were imposed on handguns following a mentally disturbed man walking into a primary school and massacering 15 toddlers in Dunblane. I don't know whether it made the news in America, but that was when the handgun restriction came in, you are correct in that.

However, as i specified earlier, i'm quite within my rights to purchase a shotgun or a rifle.

To cite a specific case. Look up "Kenneth Noye" on the internet. The only one i can recollect from memory, as there aren't many such gun related incident. Early nineties i believe.

Kenneth Noye was under police surveillance for involvement in the "Brink Mats Gold Bullion robbery" (quite a famous case here.) He heard someone in his back garden. So reached for his legally owned gun went out into the garden and was confronted by a man. He shot the man and killed him. That man was a police officer, and Kenneth Noye was released without charge as it was deemed he was defending himself on his property with his gun (which was his inalienable right.)

At a guess i'm not sure if this man would still have his liberty in "Free America" with the amount of power that the armed wing of the state hold over there.

[jody]

187. The "constitutional monarchy" of 1688 is a far cry from the government you

have today in England. You say "It withdrew all rights from the monarch and placed them with parliament and the people". That can only mean that Parliament, one branch of government received certain rights, the people received other rights, and monarch's had no rights.

That can't be so because major changes in England's government took place during Queen Victoria's reign (1837–1901). During her era, England's government continued its growth into a democratic system of government that began with the Reform Bill of 1832.

Today your monarch is essentially a figurehead and perhaps you chaps might eventually decide to do away with that position altogether.

I understand your choice of the 'glorious revolution' of 1688 but the resultant government left the monarchy as an inherited position with considerable rights and power exercised by monarchs.

To claim that your current form of government predated the U.S. and our Constitution is a stretch, one with which I do not agree. I guess we must agree to disagree.

[bennywhale]

189. i accept your point but if you look at

my previous posts, i was saying the same thing. Other than revolutionary countries such as France, constitutional rights and liberties are built up over centuries.

Furthermore you did not specify "form" of government, you specified that no significant government predates the US, which is obviously untrue, as the British government used to own America. A government with a parliament, and elections, that sat in the house of commons where they sit today, and debated policy and implemented it. The oldest democracy in the world in fact it is argued.

However as i said i accept your point about the "form" of government.
That can be said of any government and society, as they develop. you seem to take the American constitution as year zero in terms liberty, rights, and democratic government while arguing the opposite to be the case with Britain.

However, the American constitution has not applied to all "men" born equal as it stated. Similar to the Magna Carta in the 11th Century only applying to dukes and barons, the American the constitution only applied to white men. Native Americans were not protected by it, for example, nor did it apply to African Americans right up until the 60s in some cases. Nazism, an ideology based on racial segregation was fought by an American army with segregated troops. And an apartheid was legally in place in some states well into the second half of the twentieth century.

So to say your government in its "present form" pre-dates the British government is also a stretch. And one which i disagree with.

The Lockean liberties on which your constitution is based were in affect within Britain before America existed. That is not to say they were entirely universal. Even though they too applied to "all men", they were referring initially to men of a certain class. As was the American constitution when it was drafted referring to men of a certain race. Even the philosophers often weren't referring to "all men" when they claimed to be.

So, i hope you'll take my point, that the American constitution even though it is an immense document, is not year zero in terms of rights and/or liberty, it has developed, as has Britain.

Your development being in terms of race. Ours in terms of class

[jody]

193. On review, I acknowledge that my statement "the U.S. and its Constitution

is the oldest government of any significant country in the world" is not as clear as I intended.

I was attempting to show that our basic form of government consisting of three equal and separate branches with the legislative branch and its house being truly representative of the people and the senate being truly representative of the sovereign states; the executive branch responsible for government operations; and the judicial branch as legal arbiter remains unchanged since the Constitution was written.

The amendments to our Constitution do not change the basic form of our government, they clarify procedural details, e.g. who succeeds to the presidency, or legal interpretations, e.g. civil rights.

It is in that sense that I conclude our basic form of government has remained since our Constitution was ratified while England's basic form of government has changed, e.g the diminution of the power of England's monarch and the House of Lords in 1911.

As I stated earlier, the notion of individual rights embodied in our Constitution was the product of many brilliant mavericks from all over the world. It is amazing to me that after nearly 217 years, our basic form of government as created by our Constitution has survived.

My major concern now is that our current executive branch bolstered by a slim majority in the senate might appoint activist judges that through interpretation could change our basic laws much easier than amending our Constitution.

A worst case scenario is that senators from 25 states representing about 16% of our population can appoint judges while one quarter of our states representing about 4% of our population could prevent our Constitution from being amended to correct such judicial abuse.

In my opinion, that is the biggest flaw in our form of government as established in our Constitution.

[bennywhale]

194. It seems we've reached a consensus of sorts then.

I've enjoyed debating with someone who doesn't get hysterical and start hurling abuse and cheap shots. Its why i joined this forum and its been informative.

A confession. I think i would actually prefer, in a way, a cemented written constitution like you have. Particularly in today's authoritarian political climate.

However an Englishmen's favourite phrase is "I know my rights" to any policemen or government official, and it is they who are subservient to us rather than the other way round, which seems to be the case in some areas in America, like the police. This is ingrained in our culture and isn't going anywhere, and i prefer that aspect of our rights.

I think there is a slight cultural difference in our interpretation of rights and liberties also. Ours seems to more "freedom from" interference, violation etc. Yours seems to be "freedom to" bear arms etc. I don't know if you agree?

Also on the point of civil rights. To me civil rights are THE basis of liberty and freedom, certainly not legal interpretation, or procedural matters. I believe, even with the fight for Working Class rights lasting into the early 20 Century, equality of freedom and liberty is fundamental to British Rights and i think theres divergence there also.

Do you accept my previous assertion on Class and Race?

Anyway you've given me alot to think about, and i hope i have done the same. As with everything its all essentially contested.

[jody]

195. I thoroughly enjoyed our exchange.

I agree with you "civil rights are THE basis of liberty and freedom" and in the U.S., the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is a civil right. As I said earlier, many states acknowledge RKBA is a natural, inherent, and inalienable right.

Our Supreme Court has said that when a person's civil rights are restored, she/he regains the right to keep and bear arms unless the restoration specifically excludes the right to keep and bear arms.

If you ever travel to the U.S., let me know so we can break bread together. I haven't been to England in several years, maybe next year.

Have a great day!

Jody :hi:

[bennywhale]

196. Cheers

and i do hope to visit the US one day.

And its have a good night over here, its 3.00am, so have a nice day over there.

Cheers

[bennywhale]

154. Just remembered another point on

your freedom. Police officers have the right to use lethal force if they are in danger, hence the large number of deaths at the hands of police.

Police do not have that right in this country. There duty is to the safety of the assailent. That is not to say armed police have not killed armed criminals in this country, they have. Its just that the emphasis is on the safety of the citizen rather than the police.

Powers of stop and search are also more prevalent in America.

That is a violation of your right to physical integrity which we take very seriously in this country. Others matters coming under physical integrity are rape and assault, so we believe it to be serious.

A police officer can ask me to turn out my pockets but i can refuse. They would need a specific reason, based on a specific committed crime, linking you with that specific crime if they were to search you. That does not just mean suspicious activity, or for drugs or the area you are in is a known area for criminals or whatever.

You must get away from the "exceptionalism" of the US. Its not good for your own freedoms or debate about them. "This is America" "This doesn't happen here" "We're American we don't do that" Is a very dangerous argument and similar to many i here on this website and by Bush and his cronies. The fact of America doesn't make it free. The concepts need to be explored, evaluated, and compared to be defended properly.

Comparative politics without bias is one of the most valuble tools within political theory and research and a powerful tool to defend your rights.

[jody]

188. Perhaps we need to clarify the definition of "right". In the U.S. in most

states, law abiding citizens have a natural, inherent, inalienable right to defend self and property. Those rights were acknowledged when the states existed as sovereign entities and before they ratified our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since they were recognized as inalienable, it is impossible for citizens of a state to have alienated that right when they joined the United States.

You are correct in saying "Police officers have the right to use lethal force if they are in danger" but that right is granted by the state under law, it is not a "natural, inherent, inalienable right". That distinction is critical to our discussion.

If government, which derives all its power from the people, grants police officers the right to use lethal force if they are in danger and police officers are not obligated to defend and individual, then by what stretch of morality can anyone deny law abiding citizens the right to use lethal force if they are in danger?

Today, guns, particularly handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for self defense. We have a strident minority in the U.S. who would ban all handguns or all guns and leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. :shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

73. "Power flows from the barrel of a gun."

I'm curious as to why you may think that the Government should be able to have an effective monopoly on the use of force, ESPECIALLY considering our current situation. Right now, EVERY Democrat should at least be LEARNING how to shoot a gun, if not actively buying both guns and ammunition, "just in case".

[bennywhale]

82. Max Weber : Definition of the state: (substitute for government or nation

"A body of men who have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a given territory"

[Jack_DeLeon]

47. You are wrong.

The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to self defense.

You'll notice its the right to bear "arms," not restricted to firearms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arms

A weapon, especially a firearm

While it is sometimes possible to defend yourself without the use of weapons the 2nd amendment gives us the right to use weapons aswell.

Being able to own a Gun, a material human invention, is not, and could never be considered to be anywhere near as important as the right to free speech or the right to liberty or freedom.

While I dont agree with what Mao did to his people, he was right when he said power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Freedom of speech and liberty mean nothing if you dont have the power to protect them.

[bennywhale]

48. You've just proved my point

"free speech and liberty mean nothing if you don't have the power to protect them."

You're using the justification to bear arms as a means to protection of free speech and liberty. As a means to an end i.e. protection of liberty, free speech, self; they are instantly relegated to a secondary right next to the "primary" rights which are liberty, free speech, self.

That was all my point was saying. I'm not passing judgement on your right to bear arms. Just that it is not as important as free speech, liberty, freedom.

Furthermore, without liberty or freedom you would have no rights at all, so no right to bear arms.

These are the important concepts not guns

[Jack_DeLeon]

55. as I stated in my other post....

you've got it backwards.

The power from force of arms came first and then we decided which rights we wanted protected in the bill of rights.

[bennywhale]

57. "The power from force of arms" yes

but we're talking about the "right" to bear arms

[DoNotRefill]

64. true, you can defend yourself with anything...

of course, should you choose to defend yourself with anything BUT a gun, you're going to die without even having the pleasure of taking some of the bastards with you.

A gun can literally save your life if you are attacked. Can you say the same thing about the First Amendment? I'm reminded of what I think is an old Monty Python skit: "Stop, or I'll say 'Stop!' again!"

One person with a gun against the Goverment has no hope. But 50 million citizens with guns against the government? That's a different matter. And, absolutely worst case scenario, if they come to round us up and stuff us in camps, and if enough of us resist effectively, pretty soon they will run out of people to do the rounding up...

Remember, if just one out of every six Jews exterminated by the Nazis during WWII had managed to kill a SINGLE german/Nazi who came to arrest them, that would have been a million dead Nazis...and that was more than the Nazis lost at Stalingrad, which was a huge defeat (and a major turning point) for them during the entire war.

[bennywhale]

72. I'm talking about the "right" to bear arms

not the effectiveness of it as a weapon.

And what you're talking about is revolution, not simple self defence. Granted, revolution could be deemed a type of self defence, however name me one country in the last say 10 years or twenty years who've overthrown their government, or undergone revolution who had the "RIGHT to bear arms".

Revolution occurs through MENTAL uprising and force of numbers. Looking at it in simple gun, not gun, terms is de-valuing the human spirit. Revolution is about ideas.

As for the point about the holocaust. The Jews did not know of their fate so the "right" to bear arms would have been useless anyway, they were coerced gradually over time until they were in a nightmare from which they couldn't escape. Guns are an irrelevant point.

[DoNotRefill]

77. People with the RKBA don't NEED to revolt....

because the government recognizes their rights, and the fact that the people CAN revolt effectively often keeps the government in line.

You say that guns were irrelvant during the Holocaust. I suggest you read up on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The Jews in the Ghetto held the Nazis off for longer than the Polish Army did when the Nazis invaded in the first place, and they did it with a paucity of arms. If they had been well armed, the cost for the Nazis would have been far higher.

Take a look at EVERY act of genocide that occurred in the 20th Century. In EACH AND EVERY CASE, there were gun control laws on the books to keep the targeted population unarmed. Gun control is a necessary precursor of genocide. Not all places with gun control have had genocides, but every place that's had a genocide has had gun control in place to disarm the target population.

[bennywhale]

84. Almost every country in the world has gun control

if genocide were going to happen it would happen in a place with gun control. Thats like saying genocide has occured in countries who have laws. Even America has forms of gun control

[DoNotRefill]

89. Please read slowly:

In.....order ..... for ..... there ..... to ..... be ..... a ..... genocide, ..... the ..... targeted ..... population ..... MUST ..... be ..... disarmed. ..... IF ..... they ..... are ..... not ..... disarmed ..... they ..... will ..... resist ..... being ..... slaughtered. ..... The ..... disarming ..... of ..... the ..... targeted ..... population ..... is ..... a ..... necessary ..... precursor ..... to ..... genocide.

[bennywhale]

93. For you to place such importance on

an object rather than ideas and concepts is strange.

Do you see everything through a prism of gun control.

Can all political and social events effecting the masses including genocide and oppression, in the twentieth century be explained through your tiny prism of gun control.

[DoNotRefill]

94. All? Nope.

I've just personally been to places where mountains of bodies were created by gun control advocates. I'd rather we not have to go through that here. And the Bill of Rights isn't a piecework thing. It stands and falls not based upon each amendment, but upon the combined strength of ALL of them. In my book, an attack on one amendment is an attack on ALL of them, and you're attacking one of our fundamental civil liberties. That pisses me off, just as MADD's attack on the 4th Amendment pisses me off, and the far right's attack on the rest pisses me off.

[bennywhale]

97. Fair enough

i actually agree with much of what you have said on rights, i consider myself to be a socialist libertarian , and liberty for me is a religion. I was playing devils advocate to try and draw out why guns are so obsessed over in America.

And i wasn't attacking one of your rights at all. I was debating with you. With a closed minded view of your rights, and just getting angry you'll never be able to defend them properly.

Why is Britain peaceful and free. Why did it go from oppression to freedom. It didn't have anything to do with guns.

It was to do with ideas and consensus, and the masses.

I've enjoyed our debate, and you've given me a lot to think about.

However i still maintain a gun ridden society is a more dangerous society

[DoNotRefill]

116. I'd suggest that there are a lot of people in Northern Ireland....

"Why is Britain peaceful and free. Why did it go from oppression to freedom."

who don't consider themselves to be free. I'd also point out that there is strict gun control there...because when they have guns, they fight back against what they see as your oppressive government.

[bennywhale]

126. I would suggest that you have no idea as to the situation in

Northern Ireland. As an American, i'm sure you've been fed on the diatribe of misinformation that eminated in your country throughout the troubles in Northern Ireland.

The people of Northern Ireland i'll think you'll find, from both communities, would love a gunless society, where fear of Kneecappings, and executions by lawless armed gangs carried out on their own community wouldn't take place. I'll also think you'll find that a determined community whatever the gun control will be able to arm themselves if the desire is there, using Northern Ireland as your example.

Sticking with Northern Ireland as your knowledge of it seems so comprehensive.

Armed people has led to the oppression of those communities of the type unimaginable to you.

No courts, No judges, No trial, No appeal, No Lawyer, No rights, No liberties.

Only the arbritrary judgement of those who hold power through the barrel of a gun. The communities were terrified by gangs of lawless armed gangs laying down their law through might. Dissent? dead Free speech? Dead

Barbarity led from an armed civilian population.

btw Would you consider semtex to be a legitimate type of "arms" to defend yourself against oppression?, particularly when used in shopping centres to blow up little boys and girls? or used in pubs to spread peoples body parts across the bar?

[Romulus]

129. the kneecapping crowd doesn't need guns

The type of person who would torture someone else through "kneecapping" would not have a problem with switching to "knee carving" with one of those ubiquitous carving knives "flooding the streets" over there.

[bennywhale]

131. The communities of Northern Ireland are terrorised by

armed gangs. Gangs with Guns. Not knives, guns. A group of lawless oppressors could not terrorise communities for decades with Kitchen knives.

Although i accept your point if you are referring to the Robert Mcartney who was "gutted from groin to neck" outside a pub by one of these glorious freedom fighters.

They are not the glorious Irish of the Myth. They are sadistic murderers and oppressors of innocent people.

[DoNotRefill]

160. Heh.

"They are sadistic murderers and oppressors of innocent people."

To tyrants, all people who want to be free are "sadistic murderers and oppressors of innocent people."

[bennywhale]

174. Do you agree with

bombing shopping centres. For example Warrington. Two little boys going to buy sneakers with their pocket money. The bin they walk past explodes and their body parts are smeared across the street.

Do you agree with that.

Or perhaps the Birmingham bull ring bombs. Friday night the area becomes busy with young people, mainly students, going for a night out in this popular area of town. Have you ever gone out with a group of friends?

3 bombs explode simultaneously in 3 pubs killing 29 young innocent people. Dental records are used to identify many of them. Bits of scalp are stuck to the bar things like that.

Most recently. Robert Mcartney. A republican Catholic "gutted from groin to neck" by one of these glorious freedom fighters from his same community. He wasn't "behaving himself" in a pub apparently

Do you have any comments on this not being the murder and oppression of the innocent?

[DoNotRefill]

175. They use what they have....

and it's a lot safer for them to bomb places than it is for them to shoot places up.

The fact remains that the English military presence is what is precipitating the violence.

[bennywhale]

180. "They use what they have"

So you condone the murder of innocents then?

Do you know how long the protestant community has been in Northern Ireland?

Of course you don't, i'll tell you. Hundreds of years.

They have been there before your ancestors were in America. Before there was any USA, long before.

Therefore i take from your logic that the genocide and oppression of the native Americans can be answered by them by splattering the body parts of innocents across shopping malls?

Do you agree with that.

If a family member of yours was blown to peices. Bis of their body smeared across a shop window. Perhaps bits of brain and hair stuck to their scalp ahundred yards away. Cos thats the reality.

Would you shrug your shoulders and say they do what they have to?

Your ignorance of reality outside your introspective country is astonishing.

[DoNotRefill]

158. Heh.

"The people of Northern Ireland i'll think you'll find, from both communities, would love a gunless society, where fear of Kneecappings, and executions by lawless armed gangs carried out on their own community wouldn't take place."

Yup, that's why the people there all turn the PIRA types over to the cops. Uh huh.

BTW, I don't mess with semtex. I like having all my fingers and toes. The heaviest I go is fully automatic SAWs. You know, like this:

[bennywhale]

163. Ignorance oozes out of everything you say

To turn anyone from any paramilitary group on both sides of the community over to the police would have meant instant death of you and probably your family.

You are obviously entirely clueless as to the realities of Northern Ireland and have bought into whatever fallacies about the conflict that were relayed to you by your media.

We can debate Arms in Northern Ireland further if you like, but i suggest you learn something about it first, before commenting on it through your stereotypes, biases, and generalisations concerning guns that seem to litter everything you say.

[DoNotRefill]

165. So there are no phone booths in Northern Ireland?

Ever hear of an anonymous phone tip? It's hard for the PIRA to kill you for informing when not even the cops know you informed.

Face it. You just don't like being called on oppressing a population, which is EXACTLY what the English are doing in Northern Ireland..

[bennywhale]

171. Your ignorance is astounding

and i'm not sure you're being serious.

A tip off from a phone booth?

Right. This is going to lead to what?

"He's a member of the IRA"
"We Know"
"oh,...Aren't you going to arrest him?"
"If you can provide evidence of terrorist activities yes"
"Right...........i'll get back to you"

What fucking planet do you live on?

Have you any experience of living in communities such as Northern Ireland?

What do you base your assertions on Northern Ireland, and the feelings of its people on?

The Provisionals were serious people. Wire tap, surveillance, bugging, spies, executioners. They had a totalitarian grip on the community and you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm fascinated wghere you get your information. From our earlier posts i got the impression you were quite thoughtful and knowledgable. I'm beginning to think you write the first thing that comes into your head.

[DoNotRefill]

173. BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

"A tip off from a phone booth?

Right. This is going to lead to what?"

Oh, yes, the SAS are over there to ARREST people, just like they "arrested" those PIRA types in Gibralter....

[bennywhale]

176. Do you maintain that people could have

used a phone booth to ring someone in the security services, police whatever and "turn in" as you say members of a paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland?

Do you honestly believe this view is based on anything close to reality?

Phone booths as a means to a gunless peacefull society. Right.

You seem to have missed the point of the imaginary phone booth conversation in my post. I was illustrating how ridiculous your argument was and you obviously thought the same.

[DoNotRefill]

178. One of the basic tenets of a guerrilla operation....

is that the active members of the resistance must move within a sea of the people. You seemed to suggest that everybody except the PIRA types and the British military wanted peace. If that was the case, all it would take would be an anonymous phone call to identify the location of those people that were wanted by the British military, and they would quickly be removed from the population. But that's NOT what has happened historically. Why? Because large segments of the population WANT the British gone, and so they shelter those who are fighting their oppressors. And every time those buffoons in orange march, they strengthen the resolve of the rest of the population.

[bennywhale]

181. Right we're beginning to get at your

prejudices now. "Buffoons in orange"

Why are they buffoons?

They've been in Ireland longer than you've been in America

i fear you are prejudicing your arguments with moist eyed sentiment about the troubles in Northern Ireland, with the dichotomy of British-oppressors-protestants booooooooooooooo vs Irish-freedom fighters-glorious struggle hooooorrrraaaayyyy

It isn't Hollywood

In fact you probably didn't take any notice but on St Patrick's day a group of Irish Catholic Woman (whose brother was murdered recently by the glorious freedom fighters) were in America to dispel the myths about them and make Americans realise what the reality was with the IRA. Cos most of their funding comes from America. These were Sinn-fein supporting Irish catholics. Do you believe them? naaaa back to Hollywood for my information.

Hey, reality is a pain. If you have any knowledge of anything you talk about I'll debate with you but it doesn't appear that you do.

I'll ask again. DO YOU CONDONE THE DELIBERATE KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?

[silvermachine]

124. Answer...

...<<<Do you see everything through a prism of gun control.>>>

Yes, he does.

[silvermachine]

123. Hysterical as usual.

EOM

[hollowdweller]

99. That sort of reasoning is how the Dems lost the margin to win.

What Condi said will be repeated in every gun magazine and internet gun forum, and in gunshops and likely will even bring a few more to the polls for the GOP. She knew what she was doing.

[OETKB]

49. Just what we need...

Vigilante justice!!! Is she out of her tree or what?

[Jack_DeLeon]

54. Sometimes it is necessary...

[bennywhale]

61. Vigilante justice? A civilised society talking

about vigilante justice is a smear on civilisation.

"It may be necessary"? When. Whos going to be the jury? the judge?

Will those on the recieving end of this justice be entitled to a Lawyer?

And what are the rules of the trial?

How long will the defence have to make his case?

How will the punishment be decided upon?

Will it just be till they stop breathing? Or by the amount of blood on the floor? Or the amount of broken bones?

Will there be a chance to appeal against the verdict?

[DoNotRefill]

125. I can tell you haven't spent much time reading on the tactics used...

by the police here. Subversives have a nasty habit of dying violently if they fail to knuckle under. Sometimes, even if they DO knuckle under, they still die horrible deaths, normally by fire. Certain parts of the Executive branch seem to LOVE fire...because it both kills the people they want dead and destroys the evidence of what was really going on, so the government can say whatever they want and get away with it. MOVE, various tax protest groups, the Branch Davidians, et cetera, the list goes on and on.

If you're dead, you don't get due process.

[bennywhale]

136. So how exactly are guns stopping this kind of oppression

you've just argued the reasons why you should have the right to bear arms, you then go on to highlight state oppression, and fuck all is being done about it. your sitting on your arse posting it on a website.

wheres your revolution. You're all armed. Why the discrepancy between your examples of other countries that could have benefited from guns and your own.

As i said earlier its about ideas, concepts, and will.

[DoNotRefill]

161. Heh.

"you then go on to highlight state oppression, and fuck all is being done about it. your sitting on your arse posting it on a website."

Actually, I only post here when I'm not at work. I work for the Government. You've heard of "Tha Man" that keeps people down? Well, unfortunately, that's me.

:evilgrin:

[bennywhale]

183. So you don't actually believe

in what you're saying then. you just say it to sound big. Guns = tough guy is that it?

Do you agree with your arguments or not?

[Romulus]

127. "vigilante justice" /= self defense

There is a difference between an after-the-fact lynching and immediate action to protect the life of your family.

Maybe the difference is lost to the West London dinner party crowd, but I don't know . . :shrug:

[bennywhale]

133. I've never been to London in My life

Perhaps the concept England is lost on someone who thinks its called London.

I couldn't be further from the West London Dinner Party Crowd.

I am from the North East of England and have had direct dealings with oppression from the state apparatus, that you all seem to know so much about.

During the Miners Strike in the Eighties (which probably won't mean much to the hamburger munching ignorant crowd) A battle ensued between striking miners protecting their communities, and the right wing Thatcher government. Soup Kitchens were set up in mining towns to feed children, coal had to be stolen so not to freeze to death in winter.

For a whole year we forfited our pay and our means to feed our families, as one, united. Combined by ideas and determination.

The fight against the state, which you all know so much about was experienced here, in my community. That fight was lost for a variety of reasons and the pit is now closed, which with hindsight was the inevitability of global economic forces which can only be fought at the international level.

Assuming that because i don't agree with vigilante justice means i'm part of some dinner party set is ignorant. It may be the case in your country, but i cut my politics on the picket line.

This was a fight against the state, and the weapons were ideas. If we'd had guns it would have escalated the situation, and dozens would have been killed. They may have sent the army in like they do in free america and possibly hundreds would have been killed. The pit would still be closed.

[silvermachine]

135. Self-delete

[Romulus]

138. thanks, but you replied to the wrong post (n/t)

[bennywhale]

137. You're right vigilante justice is different from self defence

but the post referred to vigilante justice being sometimes necessary. Not self defence. I would never deny the right to self defence its an instinct to protect yourself and family.

Ask the people of Northern Ireland what they think of vigilante justce. The ones who are still alive anyway.

[The_Casual_Observer]

58. Well then may as well disband all the police forces

everyplace, because according to condi they weren't any use to her daddy. According to condi's reasoning, the only security you can depend on is turning your homes and churches into garrisoned fortresses. No wonder that stupid ass gets along so good with chimp, she is as dumb as he is.

[bennywhale]

62. Trial by jury? naaaaaaaaaa

don't need it.

Lawyers? ba you're wasting my time

courts? laws? rights? civilisation?

Don't need um

This is America we're talking about. Nice one condi

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

69. Yup, there are no leftists who believe in the RKBA....

anybody who believes in the RKBA MUST be a Right-winger, right, Paladin?

[progressivebydesign]

71. A rude comment came to mind when I saw this..

.. but comments against women, regardless of their party, that involve body parts of women, are not allowed here. But I thought it...

[Toucano]

86. As important? Has someone shown her the Bill of Rights?

Free speech is the first amendment.

The right to bear arms is the second.

Which one has BushCo trampled on the most? Hmmm.

[Disturbed]

98. In Rwanda most people were killed by machetes.

I believe that I have the right to own an AK47.

Why did the framers put that Right to bare arms into the Constitution?

[Toucano]

103. I didn't suggest you didn't have the right.

Wanna re-read my post?

[bennywhale]

111. They probably put it in because of the

world that surrounded them at the time.

The moment to try and rid society of its obsession with guns, and move to a more peaceful gun free society has now passed, and now they are here to stay; due to the need for defence from the world that this gun culture has created.

[DoNotRefill]

117. ROTFLMAO!!!

They put it in because the British had tried to disarm them, which is what actually sparked "the shot heard round the world." Do some reading on WHY the British were marching on Lexington and Concorde....they were going to seize guns and powder supplies.

A people disarmed are a people who have the Government's heel on their throat.

[bennywhale]

132. Does that mean that you reserve the right to have

the French Navy in your back garden. Or the French army in your basement.

[DoNotRefill]

162. Do the french still have an army?

And if they do, are there any Frenchmen in it?

[bennywhale]

185. Another bizarre observation

Yes and Yes.

If you're referring to the foreign legion its not Hollywood portrays it.

They arev a nuclear power as well

[RaleighNCDUer]

169. I think short sleeves are very comfortable. nt

[DoNotRefill]

118. So, are you saying...

that the Fourth Amendment is less important than the Second because the Second is second and the Fourth is fourth???

[Toucano]

150. Actually, that isn't what I said.

I said the First is first and it's the most important.

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm

"It is no accident that freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society."

The First Amendment protects all the other rights enumerated in the constitution, including the Second.

Imagine a democracy without the Second Amendment. We may not like it, but it could exist and could function quite well.

Now imagine a democracy without the First. You can't. Without the freedoms of speech, press, association and petition, the state could trample on all the others and there would be nothing the people could do about it. The NRA could be outlawed. Critics could be jailed. Infringements would go completely unreported.

That doesn't mean the Second Amendment (and others) are unimportant, but the founders voiced far more concern about the rights expressed in the First than any other.

[DoNotRefill]

164. Oh, horseshit.

"The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society."

The First Amendment protects all the other rights enumerated in the constitution, including the Second."

If that's true, why wasn't the First Amendment applied to the States until the start of the 20th Century??? CONGRESS couldn't establish a State religion, but the States COULD. It wasn't until the Incorporation doctrine came into being that ANY of the Amendments applied to the States...they could inflict cruel and unusual punishment, et cetera, at will.


Saying that the order of the amendments is important is just as stupid as any other form of numerology...

"Without the freedoms of speech, press, association and petition, the state could trample on all the others and there would be nothing the people could do about it."

"STOP, or I'll say "Stop!" again!" Without the Second Amendment, the rest are defenseless. Power, REAL power, flows from the barrel of a gun. A so-called "free press" may bitch about things, but whining doesn't stop tanks. Guns can.

[bennywhale]

190. God you have no respect for any concept other than

a gun.

To denigrate free speech and a free press to bitching and whining is almost hilarious if it wasn't so scary.

If you can't say what you want or there was no freedom of press, do realise what that entails./ That entails the government owning all information. The dissemination of information would be through the government of the day.

The government would control and manipulate all ideas in society. You probably wouldn't have even heard of the constitution if they hadn't put that in.

you really have a twisted concept of what its like to be free. Really free.

[Unknown1]

145. Remove the Second Amendment....

and soon there wont be a First or a Fourth. All are equally important but the Second insures the existence of the rest. The purpose of a Democracy is that the people make the laws to live by not a governmental body. One voice..one vote. How well they get counted...well that's another story.

[Toucano]

151. Quite the contrary.

I don't think anyone would argue that the Third Amendment is as important as the First or Second. They're clearly not "equally important".

It's the First Amendment that secures all the others.

If there were no First Amendment and the state decided to impose on our right to bear arms, there would be nothing we could do to stop it. No getting together (right to assemble), no publishing criticism of state policy (free press), no speaking out or campaigning for a new government (speech), no court suits (petition).

Our right to bear arms (and all other rights) could dissolve quickly. The state's overwhelming power would leave little opportunity for successful armed resistance.

Freedom of speech is PARAMOUNT.

[DoNotRefill]

168. Heh. I would think that would depend on....

"I don't think anyone would argue that the Third Amendment is as important as the First or Second."

if the Government was trying to quarter troops in your house or not. If they are not, the third Amendment is useless. If they are, it's pretty damned important.

[Robworld]

105. What does one incident in 1964 have to do with loosening gun laws today?

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DeepModem Mom]

128. I'm guessing she's running for President, unless Jeb wants it....

I can see Rove choosing her as the 2008 candidate, using her in the same way they use other minority candidates and appointees who are problematical to oppose. And, in office, like W, she would be completely malleable.

[rocktivity]

134. If there's one thing I hate about being a DU-er

it's that I'm constantly buying new bullshit meters. Thanks for nothing, Condi.

:nuke:
rocknation

[realcountrymusic]

139. unfortunately, she's right

As the Chairman once said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. In a world where no faction in the conflict is denied access to the same level of armaments, you've got a serious equalizer factor there. I always say those of us on the left damn well ought to consider arming ourselves to the teeth and gettiing over our squeamishness about guns. One reason the gun laws in this country are so lax is that no one expects the left to take advantage of them, assuring a concentration of armed power on the right.

Dammit people, this is a serious situation we're in. All the free speech in the world can't even move the house of cards in which we function daily, because we have to, as if nothing terrible was happening. We have to start getting a lot scarier on our side.

Hope this message contributes to that. </grin>

RCM

[gulfcoastliberal]

140. What about the 4th amendment?

That's what's putting blacks in prison. The way the supreme court has consistently shredded any pretence of the 4th amendment protecting citizens from an out of control police state has ruined many more blacks lives than being able to own a gun. But they like to pretend the 4th amendment doesn't exist.

[realcountrymusic]

141. rights shmights

If constitutional principle mattered to these peole then we'd also be able to invoke:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

and point to its salutary or deleterious effects. As we can see, when it suits them, they are happy to ignore the constitution. Get a gun while it's legal. Keep it somewhere far away from kids, and keep the ammo separate and secure. You may never need it. But then, how many of us thought we'd ever feel this damn alienated even ten years ago? The right went from disgrace to control in part by nurturing its assertive, scary, cult-like side to keep the fires burning during the years in the wilderness. Remember Waco? Where did all those passionate patriots who saw that as an egregious violation of the state power hegemony that is "the American way?" go? Some of them are in positions of serious power and influence today, blithely espousing the right of the state to cut you down in your bedroom if you think the wrong way about Amurika or Our Fearless Leader. We can learn something about how to survive in the desert from the example of the far right in the Clinton years. I don't want to be like them either, but freedom has a cost.

And it's encouraging to see that the right has turned into a bunch of wimps on the symbolic front, evacuating the entire apparatus of government when a Cessna strays over DC and isolating The Dear One in splendid secure chambers.

Get mad. Stay mad. Forget the damn constitution unless you're willing to suffer for it.

RCM

[gulfcoastliberal]

142. Damn right, RCM

Everyone who is registered as a Dem should own a firearm. It is indeed crazy that I now can sympathize with Ruby Ridge, etc since the gov't is indeed fascist and democracy is on its deathbed. Bush was never elected as far as I'm concerned. He was appointed. Twice. What was once considered the fringe radical right has manipulated our sociopolitical institutions so that they now appear to be "mainstream". We have a lot of fighting to do, against them and time if we are to save the USA.

[realcountrymusic]

143. or in the words of Our Great Father

BRING IT ON . . . .

[PATRICK]

149. the usual irrational rationalization

Well, where did everyone involved in that incident get their guns? Is she advocating giving guns to everyone as a deterrent against those most likely to use them? Apparently the recent retellings of shoot outs and massacres in Oklahoma and Rosewood make her case? This your friendly neighborhood MAD(mutually assured destruction) in action. No wonder they backtrack on disarmament. They can't conceive of order and peace, much less civil liberties.

The breakdown in government is not checked by gun battles in the hustings. Right does assert itself victoriously at this drastic last recourse. And once again the Amendment was not there for the purpose of self-defense or guns but for the rights of state militia to check a strong central army. We are light years beyond that even with the National Guard and the central government is so overpowering the little guy in actuality is facing the tyranny of gangster thugs with guns AND inability to protect themselves against governmental enforcement power.

Just one of those areas where it is easy to see, if one were allowed, the alliance between the most dangerous and armed enemies of freedom conspiratorially against the majority of peace-loving citizens. Living in such constraint, intimidation and fear where such people are "packing" is precisely one of the things the Revolution was about. In that war there were a lot of colonists shooting at each other too.

[FreeCajun]

153. Guess they're about to get rid of those too, eh? n/t

[MisterP]

170. oh God, she IS running for President

[stepnw1f]

191. Gun Sales Low or Something?

Blah blah blah....bottom line. Gun industry needs consumers.

[NMMNG]

192. Please!

It always amazes me how these fundies run around screaming about the 'sanctity of life' in one breath and their 'right to bear arms' to blow it away in the next. :crazy: Don't abort fetuses because they are sacred, but it's ok for gangs and yokels to blow them away with automatic assault rifles once they're born.

Love neocon logic.

[DoNotRefill]

197. Hmmmm...I'm pro-choice and pro-gun....

does that mean I'm pro-killing in general?

Are people who are pro-choice but anti-gun also hypocrites like the fundies?