The Sociopathic Disease of Conservatism

[Vyan]

I've made this argument - that Conservatism is a Disease - for quite sometime, but this will be one of the first times I really get down to the nitty gritty of it. It's been my feeling that the modern day conservative cult that thrives in America is fueled by a low-grade form of anti-social pathology and compulsive-addictive disorder. They're like Hate-Junkies. And the number one thing they hate are Liberals.

Recently the following screed was posted as a comment on my lonely little blog.

Anonymously - of course.

It began with "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" - and went downhill from there.

Liberalism is a mental disorder,
This is the agenda of the Left. And they don't even try to hide it:

1. Re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine" to silence Conservative Talk Radio
2. Insure the success of the Mexican (and other Third World) invasion and conquest of White America.
3. Disarm all law-abiding citizens
4. Silence all speech of which they disaprove by expanding the definition of "Hate Speech", and pass laws to make such speech punishable by imprisonment.
5. Immediately surrender to the enemy in the Islamic War.
6. Establish Islam as a State-Protected Religion with assistance by CAIR and government schools.

My immediate response was the following.

If they "don't try to hide it" could you find any single respected "Liberal" who openly, or even on the sly - endorses any of that crap?

My own view is...

1. Re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine" to silence Conservative Talk Radio.

The Fairness Doctrine would do no such thing. It would actually require that the News, be the News - while Equal Time for Commentary and Editorialism would be enforced.

2. Insure the success of the Mexican (and other Third World) invasion and conquest of White America.

By what - making them American too? I'd say that's America conquering them.

3. Disarm all law-abiding citizens

Short 2nd Amendment Lesson, there's nothing in there about law abiding citizens, law enforcement or even hunting. The 2nd Amendment is directed specifically at "a well regulated militia" being neccesary for the maintainance of freedom from tyranny. You in a Militia? No? Then it doesn't apply to you.

4. Silence all speech of which they disaprove by expanding the definition of "Hate Speech", and pass laws to make such speech punishable by imprisonment.

I do support enforcement and some moderate expansion of Hate Speech and FCC regulation of same. But not to stop such speech, simply to make it painful to be an asshole in public. If we can fine ABC for Janet Jackson's titty we could fine Imus or Limbuagh, but they'd both still be on the air.

5. Immediately surrender to the enemy in the Islamic War.

Which Islamic War? - the one between the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq or the one in Afghanistan and Pakistan aginst Al Qaeda? In the former case, we've got no hunt in that fight. Do we side with the Sunni or the Shia? In the later case I've heard NO ONE suggest we should surrender to Al-Qeada or Hezbollah for that matter, in fact Democrats have been struggling to get Bush to send more troops to Afghanistan by taking them out of Iraq..

6. Establish Islam as a State-Protected Religion with assistance by CAIR and government schools.

Ok, that's just ridiculous. Liberals and Progresses want protection from a state sponsored religion, y'know like the Pilgrims and the Quakers who were trying to escape the persecution of Henry VIII's Anglican Church. Or for that matter - the Taliban.

Now I'd like to take my response a bit further, and rather than address the tit-for-tat points of Mr. Anonymous, consider exactly how anyone could come to believe such drivel. I understand of course, that these were merely boiler-plate cut-and-paste straw-man B.S. right-wing talking points. In understand that this person clearly hasn't been reading my blog, or it's crossposts on Dkos, Democratic Underground or OpedNews and hasn't seen what I've already discussed concerning The I-Mess or Immigration or Hate Crimes Legislation. (Cuz y'know... Facts are for Pussies!) It's clear that this just typical right-wing radio blather. I know that this is a form of Projection, making accusations of others that are simply fun-house mirror reflections of their own actual positions. (Liberlism is accused of being a "mental disorder", when in all likelyhood it is Rabid Neo-Conservatism that is based on abnormal pathology),

I know he's just a troll!.

I understand all this, but what I've always felt disturbing is how many people are more than willing to eat this stuff up and spew it right back out. Normally I wouldn't care, except for one thing - I'm pretty sure all these deeply deluded people vote!

As I've written before on Hating the Enemy, (namely Liberals) the leaders of the right-wing movement are not at all shy about telling us how they feel and who we should be hating.

Let's do a quick review (thanks to Media Matters) of some of the things that Republicans, including Hannity, regularly say about Democrats and Liberals.

• Sean Hannity suggested that the DNC may have been behind the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos, asking: "Was that a DNC plot too?" (The Sean Hannity Show, 9/10/04)
  
  
• Laura Ingraham stated that Democratic Sens. John Kerry (MA), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (DE), and Barbara Boxer (CA) are "on the side of" North Korea leader Kim Jong Il because they were opposed to John R. Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. (Hannity & Colmes, 4/11/05).
  
  
• Ann Coulter on Bill Clinton, "he was a very good rapist" and "molested the help" and on Al Gore, "Before we knew he was clinically insane" - "He seemed kinda gay"
  
  
• Bill O'Reilly says he doesn't do "personal attacks", except of course for when he does.
  

On The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly has referred to media writer and Fox News Watch panelist Neal Gabler as a "rabid dog" and said of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, "How nuts is this guy?" O'Reilly also said guest Christopher Murray "sounds like a fascist" for saying that that public institutions should not display religious symbols and called former Public Broadcasting System host Bill Moyers a "totalitarian." Students at the University of Connecticut who heckled right-wing pundit Ann Coulter during her campus appearance there earned the title of "far-left Nazis" from O'Reilly. He's also called John Kerry a "sissy", and claimed that Bill Clinton would be welcomed as president by Osama bin Laden.


• Jonah Goldberg has distorted comments by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), called syndicated columnist Helen Thomas a "thespian carbuncle of bile," and accused former President Jimmy Carter of engaging in a "mildly ghoulish exploitation of Coretta Scott King's funeral."
  
  
• Then of course there's Michelle Malkin whose has claimed that "the vast majority of Hispanic politicians" believe that "the American Southwest belongs to Mexico;" has referred to certain Californian politicians as "Latino supremacists;" and characterized recent immigration protests as "militant racism" marked by "virulent anti-American hatred."

All of these people, are playing The Fear Card. Fear the brown-skins and the darkies. Fear the muslims. Fear the fags. Fear the ACLU. And Fear the Liberals who somehow have this crazy idea that America is supposed to be somekind of "Land of the Free" where all kinds of weird and different and disgusting people are supposed to be able to "Seek the American Dream" or some such nonesense.

John Dean has written about this strategic re-writing of Americas History in his book "Conservatives without Conscience"

In their efforts to present conservatism as an American tradition, conservatives have also reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. One of the key elements of the Constitution is the establishment of a unique republic, in that a federal system would coexist with state and local governments. Before it was ratified many opponents attacked its progressive and innovative nature, for far from representing the status quo, the Constitution was dramatically liberal.

James Madison defended it in The Federalist Papers by explaining that the founders "have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom" but rather employed "numerous innovations... in favor of private rights and public happiness." Madison said that "precedent could not be discovered," for there was no other government" on the face of the globe" that provided a model. Madison, the father of the Constitution, clearly saw his work as the opposite of conservatism.

Yet conservatives today continue to exploit xenophobia and paranoia of all things "progressive" all tucked up in nice neat American Flag wrapper of gingoism.. Dean also argued that what currently drives the conservative movement is nothing less than Totalitarian Authoritarism. From his appearance on the Daily Show with John Stewart.

Dean: In dealing with that, in the Milgram experiments, where he brought people in off the street, and indeed found that he could get them to administer high voltage -- what they thought was high voltage, and it wasn't. I deal with that to show how people can set their conscience aside. In other words, how do people go into the CIA every day and carry out some of the orders for torture? How do people go into NSA and turn that incredible apparatus against Americans? This is a typical Milgram situation. I actually go beyond that to find the nature of the authoritarian personality that will follow a leader who is an authoritarian.

In Milgram it was shown that otherwise normal people would submit their own conscience to the will of an authority figure and would, if continually pushed to do so, administer a lethal level electric shocks despite the screams and protests of the intended victim. Compare this with the definition of a Sociapath.

Sociopaths are very egocentric individuals that lack a sense of personal responsibility and morality. They may be impulsive, manipulative, reckless, quarrelsome, and consistent liars. Sociopaths are usually unable to sustain relationships and have a total lack of remorse for their actions. The sociopath may also be very prone to aggressive, hostile, and sometimes violent behavior. This aggression may or may not lead to criminal behavior and often takes the form of domestic violence. Along with these other actions, sociopaths often engage in self-destructive behavior such as alcoholism or addiction to drugs. This, of course, usually worsens many aspects of the sociopathic behavior. Despite these previous symptoms, the sociopath may be an excellent actor, always appearing charming, calm, and collected. They usually have a normal or above normal intelligence level and good verbal fluency. It is these qualities that sometimes place the sociopath in leadership positions within their social groups and often make it hard to spot their "black side".

Essentially Sociopaths have no conscience, no morality as we would describe it. Whereas Dean discusses the ability for ones conscience to be selectively suppressed under specific situations and in regards to specifics types or groups of individuals when directed by a "trusted authority". Clearly, a true sociopath doesn't need to be directed by others - and frankly wouldn't allow it - yet their behaviors remain markedly similar.

We can see it in the way the Bill O'Reilly can be so charming at one moment and then a raging lunatic the next. We can see it in Douglas Feith as smilingly twists reality and facts regarding Saddam and Al-Qaeda into logical linguini. We can see it with Bill Kriston, Michelle Malkin, Katie O'Beirn and Ann Coulter. These people are the standard bearers of the right-wing. The "Authorities" to which many for which many of our fellow citizens are willfully neutered their own conscience in aquiesence to. Here's an example from Dr. Bob Altemeyer, one of Dean's primary sources, intoducing his new book - The Authoritarians.

For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?

Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.

The idea that "All Men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights" is lost on these people. All rights become optional, based on whether that person passes the proper litmus test. Maintaining Habaes Corpus is "giving terrorists special rights." Monica Goodling did "nothing wrong" when she attempted to achieve ideological purity within the Justice Dept, that's the way it should be. Tim Griffin did nothing wrong by systematically caging the votes of African-American Troops while their were serving in Iraq. Who said their opinion and vote should matter? War Crimes and Torture are good for our intelligence, that is if we did do the torture. Karl Rove is just so misunderstood. I need my tax money for the down payment on my second condo. The poor are just lazy and deserve what they get. Iraq had it coming. The President has the "inherent power" to do any damn thing he feels like. That Vanity Fair Media Whore Valerie Plame-Wilson had it coming too. Good healthcare is for those who can afford it. Whose Bin Laden, that Obama guy running for President? Free Libby! Climate Change is just a hoax and even if it's not we didn't do it - it was sunspots, or volcanos, or maybe all the animals in the rain-forest farted - so there's nothing we can do to stop it. Stop bugging me, I need to refill the tank on my new Cadillac Escrapade, anyone got change for $1000?

See, I can do The Running-Man (from the 80's) and the "Straw-man" too. I'm like Ambidextrous and stuff.

All of these arguements are about shifting blame and responsibility for all the ills of the world - to someone else. Anyone but us. It's Them, always Them!

The real truth about being liberal is simply that you realize that we are all connected. Economically. Bio-chemically. Thermo-dynamically. What happens at the bottom of the ocean can change weather patterns across half the globe. What happens in a cave in Afghanistan can change an entire National pathology on the other side of the world. The truth about Liberals isn't that we "Hate America First", we love America's promise and potential and are angered and disgusted when we see her fail to live up to that promise - that All Men Really Are Created Equal and that preserving and protecting those rights from government overreach - beside being "Really Hard Work" - is the primary goal of our nation,

With that view in mind we don't fear or even really hate conservatives, we only hate what they've done to regress this nation back toward the type of totalitarian and repressives states that predated the Great Elightenment and the truly progressive vision that birthed this nation. Those regressive forces will always be there, but the tide of history is not on their side - it's on ours.

We are the True Sons of Liberty (oh, look a Punk Rock reference!) - not them.

I don't hate conservatives. I for one, pity them. They need help. (Treatment, Rehab, Deprogramming, a Colonic - anything!) Even if they don't deserve it, certainly won't seek it and won't return it. If they honestly and openly ask for it, Liberals will provide it.

Does anyone believe conservatives would do the same?

Vyan

[The Magistrate]

1. An Excellent Piece, Sir!

Thank you for sharing it.

[Bronyraurus]

25. Sub-literate garbage

Sweeping generalizations about people based upon political beliefs are absurd. There are schmucks and turds of every affiliation.

Oh, and run a spell check next time; this was very hard to read.

[Vyan]

27. Will do on Spellcheck

There were things I corrected in the other versions of this post, but wasn't able to fix here because of the one-hour editing cutoff.

And you do make a good point about sweeping generalizations. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives are Monolithic. But each do have some basic elements of common cause and common ground within their factions, and you can speak generally about those common elements with some accuracy. The problem comes when you try to ascribe those general traits to a specific person.

Vyan

[MsMagnificent]

43. I thought it was great

and the blog is top-notch too. It's bookmarked in my must go, top drawer file.

Thank Goddess this DINOsaur whom I'm responding to is tombstoned.
Well deserved!

Vyan, you may want to check out FireFox, it is much more secure than Internet Explorer plus it does a spell-check for you automatically as you type.
Lots of other goodies too.

I'm looking forward to reading much more of your work... :)

[ellisonz]

55. Zap!

You go mods!

:yourock:

[jmp]

2. the right of the people

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"The right of the people" ... "not the right of members of the militia".

The first part is simply the rational for the right.

[Vyan]

4. People

who are part of the Citizen Militia, which is how this was initially intended to be implemented. The modern day equivelent is more like the National Guard.

Vyan

[jmp]

8. who are part of the

Who are part of the pool of available able bodied men from which militias would be manned.

[Vyan]

10. Sure...

as long as they are "well regulated" - which private citizens are not.

Vyan

[The Magistrate]

14. A Good Part Of This Dispute, Sir

Turns on un-familiarity with eighteenth and early nineteenth century practices and theories.

"Militia" had several meanings, one being all able-bodies men of a community or country who could be summoned to serve as a military force on short notice, one being a body of volunteers enlisted for short terms of service in some immediate crisis or campaign requiring a larger force than available standing army units could provide, and one being a unit of volunteers raised by a private person chartered by the state and maintained as a standing body liable to calling up for active service already formed and to some extent trained and equipped when needed by the authorities.

In the first instance, it was generally necessary for men called to impromptu muster to bring their own weapons, as the local authorities generally had few in stock themselves. Up until the middle of the nineteenth century, there was not too much difference between the sort of weapons in general circulation and those employed by a standing army. Even cannon were often in private hands, particularly in coastal towns, as many merchant captains provisioned their vessels with one or two pieces as protection against free-booters on the high seas. Owing to the effective forbidding of private possession of automatic weapons in this country, it is no longer the case that the weapons possessed by the populace are equivalent to the equipment of a soldier, and so much of the firepower of a modern army resides in its heavy weapons, from squad-level machine-guns and grenade launchers to divisional artilleries and aircraft, that militia under this definition cannot be considered any part of a national armed force. Unless there were to be widespread private ownership of automatic weapons, and heavier ordinance as well, whether the people "bear arms" or not has not the slightest effect on whether they can, as militia, contribute to the safety and well-being of the state.

The second form of militia is simply a form of enlistment in the army, as a species of iregular. In most instances of it, those who signed up were provided with weapons, though of course they were free in those days to bring their own, and might even receive extra pay if they did. Owning weapons had no direct bearing on whether the force could exist, though it was at least hoped enlistees would already know how to load and shoot, cast their own shot, and maintain a gun in working order. But even if they did know these things, they were by the standard of the day un-trained rabble, ignorant of the drills required to effectively manouver and fire to good effect in volley at a practiced rate of several rounds per minute, as regulars could.

The third form of militia, though in a sense wholly private, functioned as a precursor of the modern Reserves and National Guard. The units were equipped, though the equipment was often kept at an arsenal, not in private homes, and was often the property of the unit's proprietor and founder rather than of its members. The men in these units did drill as regulars did, though without quite the ferocity a standing army sergeant would impose. They were more or less ready to take a place in the line, however, as a formed body. When they were called to enlist they were accepted as a body, but their enlistment was, as in the second case, generally of short term. In the decades before the Civil war, bodies like this comprised the largest portion of 'soldiers' in the United States, much larger than the regular army, and the system persisted in recognizeable form till the beginning of the twentieth century. It would be quite impossible today, both because the levels of training required are so much higher, and because the requisite weapons cannot be possessed privately.

[19jet54]

16. By his logic...

... Amendment I
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.

Only the free religious have free speech, can assemble and partition the government for redress?

Amendment II
I think the 13 State's Constitutions paint an entirely different picture of the meaning, not to mention the use of "the People" compared to the remainder of the Constitution. "Militia" is to define the primary purpose Federally, perhaps?

Overall
To address both view points of the original post - Both sides, taken to extreme, are nuts! And the law is clear that "nuts" cannot own guns :)

[Vyan]

26. The Militias were to be based in the States

Opinions also vary among Constitutional Scholars on the scope of the 2nd Amendment, which I strongly support by the way.

From Wikipedia.

Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment—the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."<4>

Others perceive a distinction between the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense; Robert Spitzer has stated: "..the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law."<5> Heyman has similarly argued that the common law right of self defense was legally distinct from the right to bear arms.<6>

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the new constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country.

The answer to question posed here, whether the 2nd was intended to apply to personal defense or National defense can be found in the words of the framers.

Thomas Jefferson said: "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Jefferson made himself even more explicit when he said: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not .warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Writing in the Federalist No. 46, James Madison said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." In Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton said, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Going into more detail Madison in Federalist 46 also stated.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

Madison, as well as the others, are clearly making my point - which makes sense because I got the idea from them. The right to bear arms is intrinsicly linked to the establishment and regulation of state based militias ready to stand and battle a corrupt and traitorous federal government. I agree this is somewhat of a McVey-ish view, not to mention one shared by the Black Panther Party of the 70's, yet the various papers support it. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection, nothing to do with law enforcement or hunting, unless as Dana Rorhbacher (R-CA) once said on the floor of the house in protest of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban "...Unless you're hunting politicians!"

I don't agree with Dana on much, but I agree with this.

[hansberrym]

29. Did you miss this part of Fed. 46?

from Fed. 46:
RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.


According to your reading, the people are mere cannon fodder for the States vis-a-vis the Federal government. You have it exactly backwards acording to Madison.



And then there is John Adams, from Defense of the Constitution:
”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, EXCEPT IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENCE, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws..."
(My emphasis)



And Federalist 28th, if you had read further, also makes it clear that the defense of the people apart from either the State or Federal governments is what Hamilton meant when he said the origianl right of self defense is paramount...

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.


The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

[Vyan]

38. Respectfully disagree

According to your reading, the people are mere cannon fodder for the States vis-a-vis the Federal government. You have it exactly backwards acording to Madison.

First of all, Madison seems to be addressing an entirely different subject here as it begins "Resuming the subject of the last paper..." which in Federalist 45 was the issue of the balance of relative power between state and federal levels of government. His point that ultimate power rests with the people is not made in direct correlation to the issue of arms, for it seems to me that he was talking here about political power, and the ability vote and change government through peaceful means.

The Adams quote does address arms, but it seems that it is argueing for militias and against the random arming of the populace. Yes, he does open an exception of personal self-defense - but I believe that it's fair to look at this in the context of the time. America was a frontier brushing up and chaffing against the lands of native american, personal defense was quite different then than it is now. Now we have a lattice work of local, county, state and federal law enforcement who are armed with the specific purpose of providing the type of personal defense that Adams speaks of here.

Further, going back to Madison in Fed 46 he is precient in imagining this scenario.

Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for.

Madison supposes that the "domestic and personal interests" of the people are likely to be cared for by local government, which dovetails with what I'm saying about personal defense ultimately being largely, albiet not exclusively, handled by the agents of local government via law enforcement.

And Federalist 28th, if you had read further, also makes it clear that the defense of the people apart from either the State or Federal governments is what Hamilton meant when he said the origianl right of self defense is paramount...

Yes, but Hamilton isn't talking about law enforcement either - he's talking about the same thing Madison supposes - that people may need to take up arms against their government if it becomes tyrannical, only he's including the probability that local governments have no special immunity to corruption when compared to federal governments. On this I agree, but I still see no reference to hunting or keeping burglars out of your home.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.

He's talking about hunting politicians, not bears.

He supposes here that this internal battle, which would be something akin to say LAPD vs The Black Panthers, might through neccesity be somewhat chaotic.

The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Because it seems to me he presumes, as have I, that the arms would normally be under the control and regulation of the state militia. But that militia would still be made up of individuals and those individuals would in this scenario have to pull themselves away from state control and fight to regain the liberty of the people by forming a New Citizen Militia.

One could argue, that this is exactly what is occuring in Iraq right now - and I would agree. Those people have no confidence in their government, or us, and have taken up arms against both, as well as each other. No Justice, No Peace - No Kidding!

In all of these scenarios the use the arms in the hands of the people remains largely the same, they are there to bring down a corrupt government.

In one scenario it is state militia vs federal army. In another it is individuals, who may or may not have presumably been part of the militia - against their state and/or local government.

If you presume from these that the 2nd represents a personal right of self-defense (from muggers), I would argue that such a right remains unenumerated in the text of the constitution. Just as a right to life is unenumerated and the right of privacy is unenumerated, although heavily suggested. It is in the 10 Amendment, where all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government and granted to the States and People where these unenumerated rights may find purchase. As Madison suggests at the beginning of Fed 46 all powers and rights are ultimately the property of the people. Although we call it the "Bill of Rights" the Constitution and it's various amendment are really a Bill of Governmental Limits, intended to protect the populace from Federal and State overreach.

The 1st Amendment limits governments ability to control speech, assembly and religion. The 2nd Amendment limits it's ability to impact the people arming themseles in self-protection from the government. All rights are the natural property of the people, however there can and will be occasionals where the rights claimed by one man may overlap and conflict with the rights of another. In effect your right to defend yourself is only equal to the right of others to defend against you. In the best scenario governments role in such a dispute would be as neutral arbiter (in court), but when government instead of maintaining a equal balance between rights of shop-owner and customer, employer and employee, neighbor and visitor through political machinations and the influence of money or media begin to tip those scales against one class of person and for another class - that government has become corrupt.

If the people are unable to regain that balance though peaceful political means, the 2nd Amendment protects their right to take up arms and force the issue if neccesary.

Vyan

[hansberrym]

44. You have not shown any evidence that the right

ought to be read as narrowly as you insist.


First of all, Madison seems to be addressing an entirely different subject here as it begins "Resuming the subject of the last paper..." which in Federalist 45 was the issue of the balance of relative power between state and federal levels of government. His point that ultimate power rests with the people is not made in direct correlation to the issue of arms, for it seems to me that he was talking here about political power, and the ability vote and change government through peaceful means.


Well that is the opening paragraph of Federalist 46, so it ought to inform the reader where Madison is going with his arguments. Also you ignore the parts of Federalist 46 that do directly speak of arms:

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Note that Madison says "a milita" , "national force"(below), "near half-million citizens with arms in their hands" so he is hardly speaking of State-based militias in the sense that those were forces whose existence depended on State governemnt.
The state goverments could direct and organize, but that does not mean that the militia would not exist without state governemnts.


Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Who is armed? Are the subordinate goverments "advantages" to the people, or are the people cannon fodder for the governments?



Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

In Madison's hypothetical, it is the citizens who are armed, and with this aid alone (even without subordinate governments) they might shake off their yokes.

Madison considers the people being armed wholly apart from the existence of state governments, so it can not be maintained that people are armed ONLY to protect the state governments from the Federal.






The Adams quote does address arms, but it seems that it is argueing for militias and against the random arming of the populace. Yes, he does open an exception of personal self-defense - but I believe that it's fair to look at this in the context of the time. America was a frontier brushing up and chaffing against the lands of native american, personal defense was quite different then than it is now. Now we have a lattice work of local, county, state and federal law enforcement who are armed with the specific purpose of providing the type of personal defense that Adams speaks of here.

Strawman. Who is arguing for a random arming of the population?
Adams argues for what purposes individual citizens ought to have arms in their hands, and when they ought to use them at individual discretion (only in private self defense). He does not mention anything about random arming of the populace.




Further, going back to Madison in Fed 46 he is precient in imagining this scenario.

Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for.


Madison supposes that the "domestic and personal interests" of the people are likely to be cared for by local government, which dovetails with what I'm saying about personal defense ultimately being largely, albiet not exclusively, handled by the agents of local government via law enforcement.

What evidence do you have that Madison intended that the self defense of individual citizens was to depend SOLEY on law enforcement? I do take note that you qualify your remarks with "largely, albeit not exclusively" but I would remind you that you are making an exclusive argument with regard to the right to keep and bear arms so I will press the point.





Yes, but Hamilton isn't talking about law enforcement either - he's talking about the same thing Madison supposes - that people may need to take up arms against their government if it becomes tyrannical, only he's including the probability that local governments have no special immunity to corruption when compared to federal governments. On this I agree, but I still see no reference to hunting or keeping burglars out of your home.

Hamilton talks about the people taking up arms against either the Federal or state governments, so it makes no sense to say that the his concern is only for the defense of the state goverments vis-a-vis the Federal.

Hamilton does not mention law enforcement -but he doesn't say that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with self defense either. You are the one making the exclusive argument, but the second amendment contains no such qualifiers.




If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.


He's talking about hunting politicians, not bears.

He supposes here that this internal battle, which would be something akin to say LAPD vs The Black Panthers, might through neccesity be somewhat chaotic.


The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.


Because it seems to me he presumes, as have I, that the arms would normally be under the control and regulation of the state militia. But that militia would still be made up of individuals and those individuals would in this scenario have to pull themselves away from state control and fight to regain the liberty of the people by forming a New Citizen Militia.

He's talking about about hunting politicians Federal OR State. This demonstrates plainly that his concern is not only for the State governments vs. Fed, but first and foremost for the people.

In Federalist 29 Hamilton says that the people at large (meaning those not in the active militia) ought to be properly armed. Again, he is plainly not talking about arming ONLY those people in the active duty militia.





One could argue, that this is exactly what is occuring in Iraq right now - and I would agree. Those people have no confidence in their government, or us, and have taken up arms against both, as well as each other. No Justice, No Peace - No Kidding!

In all of these scenarios the use the arms in the hands of the people remains largely the same, they are there to bring down a corrupt government.

In one scenario it is state militia vs federal army. In another it is individuals, who may or may not have presumably been part of the militia - against their state and/or local government.

If you presume from these that the 2nd represents a personal right of self-defense (from muggers), I would argue that such a right remains unenumerated in the text of the constitution. Just as a right to life is unenumerated and the right of privacy is unenumerated, although heavily suggested. It is in the 10 Amendment, where all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government and granted to the States and People where these unenumerated rights may find purchase. As Madison suggests at the beginning of Fed 46 all powers and rights are ultimately the property of the people. Although we call it the "Bill of Rights" the Constitution and it's various amendment are really a Bill of Governmental Limits, intended to protect the populace from Federal and State overreach.


Since there are no qualifiers, the onus is on your side to show why it ought to be read as if there is a "who are enrolled in the state militia" or an "Only in opposition to a tyrranical government" clause. I do not have to presume anything to determine that the right is not qualified as you suggest, but to reach your conclusion, one has to accept a whole lot of assumptions.

In Iraq, the are fighting against a foreign government. Does the right to bear arms include defense against foreign governments -or just tyrrany in our own governments?



The 1st Amendment limits governments ability to control speech, assembly and religion. The 2nd Amendment limits it's ability to impact the people arming themseles in self-protection from the government. All rights are the natural property of the people, however there can and will be occasionals where the rights claimed by one man may overlap and conflict with the rights of another. In effect your right to defend yourself is only equal to the right of others to defend against you. In the best scenario governments role in such a dispute would be as neutral arbiter (in court), but when government instead of maintaining a equal balance between rights of shop-owner and customer, employer and employee, neighbor and visitor through political machinations and the influence of money or media begin to tip those scales against one class of person and for another class - that government has become corrupt.

If the people are unable to regain that balance though peaceful political means, the 2nd Amendment protects their right to take up arms and force the issue if neccesary.



Yeah, we all have the right to keep and bear arms. It applies equally to each and all of us. No one ought to be disbarred the use of arms! Huzzah!

Allowing the government to say who may, and who may not, keep arms will lead very quickly to one class of persons having arms, while other classes do not.

[Vyan]

46. I don't feel that the

"right" is narrow, I feel that the power of the government to infringe on the right within the context and purpose of a "militia" is narrowly controlled by the 2nd. Outside the context of a militia the government can do pretty much anything regarding firearms without limit.

Also you ignore the parts of Federalist 46 that do directly speak of arms:

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Emphasis mine.

I didn't quote it because I didn't need to. I doesn't change anything from my perspective. Madison is still talking about the need for a militia and it's ability to theoritically resist any formal army which might come against it.

Yet again this is about Militias, not about people having and using arms outside of that context. It would have been redundant for me to bring this up.

Note that Madison says "a milita" , "national force"(below), "near half-million citizens with arms in their hands" so he is hardly speaking of State-based militias in the sense that those were forces whose existence depended on State governemnt.
The state goverments could direct and organize, but that does not mean that the militia would not exist without state governemnts.

I think you're projecting here. Madison also says this in Fed 46.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The framers envisioned that the local governments, those within and including the states, would manage and regulate the militias. Now one might quibble with the point that already being a member of a militia is or isn't a pre-requisite to gun-owernship protection because it seems to me some of the languange of the framers indicates just as they didn't expect the U.S. to maintain a 24/7 standing Army, we also might not have standing militias always at the ready. But clearly, that isn't the way it worked out.

Hamilton talks about the people taking up arms against either the Federal or state governments, so it makes no sense to say that the his concern is only for the defense of the state goverments vis-a-vis the Federal.

Hamilton does not mention law enforcement -but he doesn't say that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with self defense either. You are the one making the exclusive argument, but the second amendment contains no such qualifiers.

You're mixing apples and kiwi fruit. When I discussed State v Federal I was discussing what Madison said which is exactly that. Hamilton expands that idea to include Local v State, he doesn't contradict Madison - it's the same idea, the necessity of the people to have arms in order to create militias to battle corrupt government. The only difference between them was in which government.

He's talking about about hunting politicians Federal OR State. This demonstrates plainly that his concern is not only for the State governments vs. Fed, but first and foremost for the people.

In Federalist 29 Hamilton says that the people at large (meaning those not in the active militia) ought to be properly armed. Again, he is plainly not talking about arming ONLY those people in the active duty militia.

It's a bit a chicken and the egg issue isn't it? Do the arms come first or the militia? I would agree that Hamiton has pushed the idea a step beyond Madison, however the purpose of those arms remains the same. The reason the protection (or rather government limitation) exists is to protect the ability of militias to exist, not simply for people to have guns because they want guns or they think guns are "kewl".

So going back to my origin statement at the top of the thread - my little heckler said that liberals want to "take the guns away from law-abiding citizens."

My response was in the negative - I don't want to take the guns from law abiding citizens who handle them responsibly. But my assertion was and still is that the 2nd Amendment really only protects the right to bear arms within the context of the "Well regulated militia." Other people could have guns, but I don't think the 2nd neccesarily protects them. This is why I said "Are you in a Militia? No? Then the 2nd doesn't apply to you" - because frankly, it doesn't. Again as I've said - this is just my opinion - but it's not wholly without precedent. This matter has been addressed in the courts, and remains an issue of contention.

According to 1998 research and testimony<80> by Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and a well known individual gun rights proponent; the Supreme Court has ruled in passing in 22 out of 27 times while quoting or paraphrasing only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language of the Second Amendment without ever mentioning the militia clause, and this treatment has evidenced clear support of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right and not as protecting a collective right.<81> However, Akhil Reed Amar, a leading scholar of constitutional law, writes in the left-leaning journal The New Republic that the word people is also used in a collective sense in the U.S. Constitution: "The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually.' And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.'"<82>

According to Volokh, the federal courts of appeal have often subscribed to the states' right approach, instead of to the individual right approach.<83> They also have not agreed upon any single interpretation of the Second Amendment

Your serve.

Since there are no qualifiers, the onus is on your side to show why it ought to be read as if there is a "who are enrolled in the state militia" or an "Only in opposition to a tyrranical government" clause. I do not have to presume anything to determine that the right is not qualified as you suggest, but to reach your conclusion, one has to accept a whole lot of assumptions.

Each and EVERY discussion of this issue by the framers that either of us has brought foward brings up the issue of fighting the government. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Is a qualifier. No where and in no way has any of these framers, not Hamilton, not Jefferson, not Madison made the arguement supporting the "bearing of arms" outside of the need for the people to have the ultimate recourse in battling to protect the country from a corrupted government or other forces. If you think that they felt that random disorganized gangs or even a bunch of lone wolf crackpots would have a reasonable chance against the U.S. Army, the British, or the Russians or the Chinese - I'd like to see that quote. Even Al-Qaeda is "Well Regulated" within it's command and operational structure. They function like a Militia! None of them mention "hunting". None of them mention "Law enforcement". "Well Regulated Militia" is in the Amendment and they've provided the context and reasons for it being there. You haven't. What? - Was it an afterthought? A non-sequitor? I don't think so.

In Iraq, the are fighting against a foreign government. Does the right to bear arms include defense against foreign governments -or just tyrrany in our own governments?

Both. Local Government Corruption. State Corruption. Federal Corruption. Foreign Invasion in case the Army collapses. All the above.

I'm saying it's not about "law abiding citizens", self-protection from criminals or hunting. Not that you can't do those things anyway, it's just that they can be "infringed" upon.

Yeah, we all have the right to keep and bear arms. It applies equally to each and all of us. No one ought to be disbarred the use of arms! Huzzah!

Allowing the government to say who may, and who may not, keep arms will lead very quickly to one class of persons having arms, while other classes do not.

That's where I completely disagree with you. I will only conceed that Hamilton's scenario doesn't neccesarily require that the Militia exist prior to the possesion of the arms, but that even he justifies protection of the right under the sole context of bringing those arms to bear in protection of the country, not of each individual person.

The point is this, the Government does have the ability to regulate and limit gun ownership for people who aren't in a state regulated militia pretty much in any way it sees fit and that outside the context of a militia - that right is NOT protected. In fact according to the Brady Center...

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 178 (1939) – a challenge to the National Firearms Act and the Supreme Court's fullest discussion of the Second Amendment – the Court held, not surprisingly, that the "obvious purpose" of the amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. The amendment, said the Court, "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since the modern "well-regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that laws affecting such guns do not offend the Second Amendment. No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

Nuff said.

Vyan

[hansberrym]

50. By what logic?

I don't feel that the "right" is narrow, I feel that the power of the government to infringe on the right within the context and purpose of a "militia" is narrowly controlled by the 2nd. Outside the context of a militia the government can do pretty much anything regarding firearms without limit.

What is that feeling based on? There is no "who are enrolled" clause. "The people" is unqualified.


I didn't quote it because I didn't need to. I doesn't change anything from my perspective. Madison is still talking about the need for a militia and it's ability to theoritically resist any formal army which might come against it...

The framers envisioned that the local governments, those within and including the states, would manage and regulate the militias. Now one might quibble with the point that already being a member of a militia is or isn't a pre-requisite to gun-owernship protection because it seems to me some of the languange of the framers indicates just as they didn't expect the U.S. to maintain a 24/7 standing Army, we also might not have standing militias always at the ready. But clearly, that isn't the way it worked out.


He never says that the only purpose to keep and bear arms is to defend against tyrrany in government. You are making an error in logic to assume that since the only talks about government tyrrany then government tyrrany is the ONLY purpose.

He does consider that the people would be armed even w/o the existence of state governments.





You're mixing apples and kiwi fruit. When I discussed State v Federal I was discussing what Madison said which is exactly that. Hamilton expands that idea to include Local v State, he doesn't contradict Madison - it's the same idea, the necessity of the people to have arms in order to create militias to battle corrupt government. The only difference between them was in which government.

Yes, and that shoots down your "state militia only" theory.


It's a bit a chicken and the egg issue isn't it? Do the arms come first or the militia? I would agree that Hamiton has pushed the idea a step beyond Madison, however the purpose of those arms remains the same. The reason the protection (or rather government limitation) exists is to protect the ability of militias to exist, not simply for people to have guns because they want guns or they think guns are "kewl".

It is to protect the rights of the people as both Madison and Hamilton say. They do not say that their concern is for the protection of the militia.


So going back to my origin statement at the top of the thread - my little heckler said that liberals want to "take the guns away from law-abiding citizens."

My response was in the negative - I don't want to take the guns from law abiding citizens who handle them responsibly. But my assertion was and still is that the 2nd Amendment really only protects the right to bear arms within the context of the "Well regulated militia." Other people could have guns, but I don't think the 2nd neccesarily protects them. This is why I said "Are you in a Militia? No? Then the 2nd doesn't apply to you" - because frankly, it doesn't. Again as I've said - this is just my opinion - but it's not wholly without precedent. This matter has been addressed in the courts, and remains an issue of contention.


Your response to your heckler only reinforces the notion that liberals want to take away guns. Your claim that one must be in a milita does not match the text of the amendment -there is no "who are enrolled" clause qualifying "the people".





Each and EVERY discussion of this issue by the framers that either of us has brought foward brings up the issue of fighting the government.

Not so. I brought up the John Adams' quote on private self defense.



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Is a qualifier.

No it is not. It is absolute construction.



If you think that they felt that random disorganized gangs or even a bunch of lone wolf crackpots would have a reasonable chance against the U.S. Army, the British, or the Russians or the Chinese - I'd like to see that quote. Even Al-Qaeda is "Well Regulated" within it's command and operational structure.

I've already shown quotes where Madison writes about people being armed even w/o the existence of state governments. Hamilton writes about people defending themselves against the state governments outside of the federal system-though he doesn't give it much chance of success, he does see this as an exercise of the right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.

Are you saying that the militia exists apart from the state goverments?

Show me a quote where they say one must be in a militia to have the right to keep and bear arms. Check out some early court cases.



They function like a Militia! None of them mention "hunting". None of them mention "Law enforcement". "Well Regulated Militia" is in the Amendment and they've provided the context and reasons for it being there. You haven't. What? - Was it an afterthought? A non-sequitor? I don't think so.


No, the preamble is provided as a rationale (a typical fuction of absolute contruction) for the non-infringement of the right. The framers did NOT say it is the ONLY rationale for the non-infringement of that right. Nor is the existence of the right dependent on the rationale stated.

The framers knew how to write, they knew how to write qualifiers, but they did not include a "who are enrolled" clause.




I'm saying it's not about "law abiding citizens", self-protection from criminals or hunting. Not that you can't do those things anyway, it's just that they can be "infringed" upon.

By what logic to you reach that conclusion?

Your argument: it is the ONLY rationale given, therefor it is the ONLY rationale for the right not to be infringed. Now THAT is a non-sequitor!


.
That's where I completely disagree with you. I will only conceed that Hamilton's scenario doesn't neccesarily require that the Militia exist prior to the possesion of the arms, but that even he justifies protection of the right under the sole context of bringing those arms to bear in protection of the country, not of each individual person.

He does NOT say that is SOLE reason for the right.


The point is this, the Government does have the ability to regulate and limit gun ownership for people who aren't in a state regulated militia pretty much in any way it sees fit and that outside the context of a militia - that right is NOT protected. In fact according to the Brady Center...

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 178 (1939) – a challenge to the National Firearms Act and the Supreme Court's fullest discussion of the Second Amendment – the Court held, not surprisingly, that the "obvious purpose" of the amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. The amendment, said the Court, "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since the modern "well-regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that laws affecting such guns do not offend the Second Amendment. No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

The DC Circuit just did. (Shelly Parker)

And the Miller court said "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces" (not state milita)

The court then went on to explain further about "such forces" and to review the history of the "militia" in which they decribe a general militia comprised of all men capable of bearing arms -nothing at all like the National Guard which was in existence at the time of the Miller case, but is not mentioned by the court.

Note also that the Miller court did not even ask if Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton were enrolled !

[Vyan]

51. The only logic there is..

Common sense.

I don't feel that the "right" is narrow, I feel that the power of the government to infringe on the right within the context and purpose of a "militia" is narrowly controlled by the 2nd. Outside the context of a militia the government can do pretty much anything regarding firearms without limit.

What is that feeling based on?

The Tenth Amendment as I've already explained.

There is no "who are enrolled" clause. "The people" is unqualified.

There is a militia clause and a free state clause, which you seem determined to ignore.

Since these clause are clearly included in the 2nd, what exactly do you think they were supposed to mean?

Each and EVERY discussion of this issue by the framers that either of us has brought foward brings up the issue of fighting government .

Not so. I brought up the John Adams' quote on private self defense.

He was still speaking in the context of militias. To wit.

”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private-self defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws..."

He seemed to think that "arms in the hands of citizens" used at their individual discretion would bring chaos. It would "demolish every constitution, lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man." He apparently thought that if the weapons were only used for self-defense this might be avoided, but exactly how do you implement that? I don't see that he's arguing for your position that "every person has a right to arms." instead he's saying that the bearing of arms should be done in concert with the a militia which is "created, directed and commanded by the laws."

No it is not. It is absolute construction.

Tomato - Tomahto. Whatever.

I've already shown quotes where Madison writes about people being armed even w/o the existence of state governments.

And I've shown how you mis-read Madison.

Hamilton writes about people defending themselves against the state governments outside of the federal system-though he doesn't give it much chance of success, he does see this as an exercise of the right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.

Are you saying that the militia exists apart from the state goverments?

Yes, they can exist under the laws of local (city and county) goverments, which would still be subordinate to state and federal laws.

I'm saying it's not about "law abiding citizens", self-protection from criminals or hunting. Not that you can't do those things anyway, it's just that they can be "infringed" upon.

By what logic to you reach that conclusion?

I've already shown you - but just to summarize quickly. It's because criminals and hunting aren't mentioned in the constitution - militias are.

He does NOT say that is SOLE reason for the right.

The right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government was pretty much all he was talking about. He didn't mention the other stuff.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.

The DC Circuit just did. (Shelly Parker)

Citation please? Based on how you've mangled Hamilton, Adams and Madison - I'd like to read it myself.

And of course I notice that you completely skip over the fact that Miller agreed with me, despite my having "no logic" and "no evidence" and stuff.

Vyan

[hansberrym]

52. Your argument can hardly be described as common sense.

You say: X is not mentioned in those citiations, therfor is doesn't exist.

I say: the right is not qualified to ONLY Y, X is mentioned by at least one, and furthermore X is not denied by the others, therefor you have no grounds for assuming that X is not included.




There is no "who are enrolled" clause. "The people" is unqualified.(me)

There is a militia clause and a free state clause, which you seem determined to ignore.

Since these clause are clearly included in the 2nd, what exactly do you think they were supposed to mean?


The preamble is a rationale for the non-infringement of the right.
It is NOT said to be the ONLY rationale, nor is there a "who are enrolled" clause.



Each and EVERY discussion of this issue by the framers that either of us has brought foward brings up the issue of fighting government .

Not so. I brought up the John Adams' quote on private self defense.


He was still speaking in the context of militias. To wit.


”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private-self defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws..."


He seemed to think that "arms in the hands of citizens" used at their individual discretion would bring chaos. It would "demolish every constitution, lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man." He apparently thought that if the weapons were only used for self-defense this might be avoided, but exactly how do you implement that? I don't see that he's arguing for your position that "every person has a right to arms." instead he's saying that the bearing of arms should be done in concert with the a militia which is "created, directed and commanded by the laws."

In regards to private self defense, he does allow arms to be used at indivdual discretion. He does think it would be chaotic if individuals or local governments acted on their own interests(partial) in other regards.

And so, even in a discussion on the proper role of the milita, we have John Adams allowing for private self defense. Is private self defense part and parcel of the miliita?

And in that quote, he spoke of the militia to support the laws, NOT as against tyrrany. In fact he points out that under partial orders of towns, the militia can be a destructive force, as can individuals acting on their own -except in private self defense.

Does "support the laws" sound like law enforcement?
Does "private self defense" sound like private self defense?









No it is not. It is absolute construction.

Tomato - Tomahto. Whatever.

Now you are talking non-sense.

Earlier you claimed the preamble is a qualifier, it is not. It is written as absolute construction. And now you are saying that absolute construction is the same as a qualifier (tomato / tomahto). That is not so.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/001.html
Absolute constructions consist of a noun and some kind of modifier, the most common being a participle. Because they often come at the beginning of a sentence, they are easily confused with dangling participles. But an absolute construction modifies the rest of the sentence, not the subject of the sentence (as a participial phrase does). You can use absolute constructions to compress two sentences into one and to vary sentence structure as a means of holding a reader’s interest.

Get it? Not the subject of the sentence!

The preamble does not act as a qualifier on the right of the people.

Instead it is a rationale in support of non-infringemnt of the right.
The preamble gives meaning to the whole main clause.




I've already shown quotes where Madison writes about people being armed even w/o the existence of state governments.

And I've shown how you mis-read Madison.

Are you denying that Madison's hypothetical in Fed. 46 considers the people being armed even in the case that state or local governments were not in existence?





I'm saying it's not about "law abiding citizens", self-protection from criminals or hunting. Not that you can't do those things anyway, it's just that they can be "infringed" upon.

By what logic to you reach that conclusion?

I've already shown you - but just to summarize quickly. It's because criminals and hunting aren't mentioned in the constitution - militias are.


Non-sequitor. "There is only one rationale mentioned", is NOT the same as "the mentioned rationale is the only one".

Children's books are not mentioned, does that mean that the freedom of the press does not extend to printing children's books?





He does NOT say that is SOLE reason for the right.

The right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government was pretty much all he was talking about. He didn't mention the other stuff.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.


He didn't mention it, therefor it doesn't exist? That is not logic, or common sense, it is silliness.





The DC Circuit just did. (Shelly Parker)

Citation please? Based on how you've mangled Hamilton, Adams and Madison - I'd like to read it myself.

And of course I notice that you completely skip over the fact that Miller agreed with me, despite my having "no logic" and "no evidence" and stuff.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia

Oh, right the Miller courts held that since Miller and Layton were not in the state militia, they did not have a right to keep and bear arms. (no!)

Oh, right the Miller court said that outside the National Guard, citizens don't have a rigth to keep and bear arms. (no!)

[hansberrym]

54. Not projecting, just reading the sources you cited.

I think you're projecting here. Madison also says this in Fed 46.


Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.


The framers envisioned that the local governments, those within and including the states, would manage and regulate the militias. Now one might quibble with the point that already being a member of a militia is or isn't a pre-requisite to gun-owernship protection because it seems to me some of the languange of the framers indicates just as they didn't expect the U.S. to maintain a 24/7 standing Army, we also might not have standing militias always at the ready. But clearly, that isn't the way it worked out.


Being armed is said by Madison to be an advantage which the Americans possess. Madison considers the existence of the state governments as an additional(besides) advantage. How then can one logically say that this supports the argument that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on one being in the state militia?

Madison continues in Federalist 46 with a hypothetical which reinforces his view that being armed is a separate and distinct advantage to that of having local governments which can collect the national will and organize the militia.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors


Note that he says that "with this aid alone"(being armed) they might throw off their yokes.



Reading Hamilton's contribution to the Federalist also reveals the weakness of the "state milita only" argument. In Federalist 28 he defends the right of the people to take up arms AGAINST the state governments should they become tyrranical. And in Federalist 29 he says flatly that the people at large (those not in the well regulated militia) ought to be properly armed.


Of the three sources we have discused thus far (Hamilton, Madison, and Adams) all of them contradict your state militia only claim. Furthermore, the Adams' quote shows that private self defense was recognized as a legitmate reason for people to have arms and to use them at individual discretion.


No one in the founding era made the claim that the right to own arms related only to persons actively serving in the militia.
If any supporting evidence existed, the brady bunch or some other gun grabbing organization would have made it known a long time ago.

On the other hand, there are many sources showing that the right was not so narrow.

[ellisonz]

57. Excellent post!

:yourock:

[ellisonz]

56. No women?

Enjoy your short stay.

[hansberrym]

30. There is no "who are part of the citizen militia" clause.

What evidence do you have that the amendment was meant only to apply to the people who are part of the citizen militia?

Would judges, legislators, and others exempt for militia service not have had a right to keep and bear arms?

How do you explain that the earliest court decisions say the opposite?
The earliest court decisions placed no such qualifier on the right to keep and bear arms.

[Vyan]

39. That is simply my own opinion...

however, I would say that it is also clear that despite the 2nd's express statement that "The right of the people to bear arms will not be infringed" it is quite clear that we have an rather extensive series of gun laws which do "infrige" directly on that right, yet no one that I'm aware has been able to successfully argue in court that all gun laws are unconstitutional have they?

Vyan

[hansberrym]

45. I was looking for evidence to back up your assertion.

Despite the First amendment, there are laws against slander, fraud, perjury, etc.

Does that mean that all are laws regarding speech unconstitutional?
Does it mean that the First Amendment ONLY protects political speech?

[Vyan]

47. It only means

that neither the first or the second amendents are absolute. So yes, since the first specifically protects political speech, other forms of speech (hate speech, slander) aren't neccesarily protected under the Constitution.

Both of them are about protecting the country from government overreach, not neccesarily protecting each and every individual. This is again why I say the "Bill of Rights" is a misnomer, it's really a Bill of Limits on Government.

Vyan

[hansberrym]

48. That is where I thought you were headed.

Both of them are about protecting the country from government overreach, not neccesarily protecting each and every individual. This is again why I say the "Bill of Rights" is a misnomer, it's really a Bill of Limits on Government.



You treat private rights and the public good as separable, but securing the private rights of individuals goes hand-in-hand with securing the public good in the form of government that the framer's had in mind.

Contrast "Not necessarily protecting each and every individual" with the 4th,5th, and 6th amendments.



Fed. 10:
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

[Sanctified]

53. Did you register for Selective Service at 18?

If so, you like most males in the US are in a pretty damn big militia.

[Vexatious Ape]

11. I'm with you on that.

The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights.

[slackmaster]

34. Definiitons of the Militia from federal and state (California) law

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State....

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

:hi:

[BattyDem]

3. Excellent!

:toast:

K & R

[JeffR]

5. Well done

:kick:

[Vexatious Ape]

6. The clown that posted that on your lonely little blog

stole it of the talk radio lunatic Mike Savage--word for word. Trust me I've been listening to that guy while at work. That crap about, "Establish Islam as a State-Protected Religion with assistance by CAIR and government schools". Is a laugh. Why would liberals want to establish the most conservative and misogynistic religion/movement/memeplex on planet earth?

[Malidictus Maximus]

35. "Projection"

"Why would liberals want to establish the most conservative and misogynistic religion/movement/memeplex on planet earth?"

More to the point, why do conservatives so often accuse liberals of supporting Islam?

My hypothesis:

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud.
(from Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Gregorian]

7. EVERYONE HERE NEEDS TO READ ALTEMEYER'S BOOK.

Especially the conservatives themselves. I'm so glad you included it. It spells out exactly what is going on.

I really want to praise you for your work. I suddenly am realizing that this is perhaps our most important subject. I believe that before we can make effective changes, we have to start understanding our enemy. Yep, I said enemy. Because they will change once they themselves realize what their problem is. And then they will not be our enemy any more.

I hope that's not as simplistic and ignorant sounding as it sounds to me. But I'm posting it because I feel it has truth to it. Our enemy can be our partner and friend. But they have to change. That sounds really wrong. But it isn't.

I have jokingly said this before, and I'll say it again- If Jesus had been a conservative, nobody would have liked him. He would not have gone down in history as anyone but someone whom a few jerks followed around.

[Vyan]

9. It was RFK Jr who recently said

80% of Republicans are just Uninformed Democrats.

While John Dean has shown that 23% of us are Fucked (in the head).

Vyan

[Gregorian]

12. RFK's quote used to be my sig line. I loved it.

Dean's an amazing man. It's difficult to see how down he has become. I worry a bit when I see him on Countdown. Like he knows something I am about to learn.

He must be an incredible man to make the transition he has.

I think the bottom line is, we aren't going to solve much. People have always been bullies and fear mongers. I guess we have to just keep getting smarter. It's our only hope of making this a better world.

[Malidictus Maximus]

36. Check out "Wake Up- You're Liberal'

By Ted Rall

http://www.amazon.com/Wake-Up-Youre-Liberal-America/dp/1932360220/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/002-5704890-5395220?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180489480&sr=8-4

"What I found was startling. On most issues, Americans--even Republicans--tend to favor values that could be best described as liberal. They fail to support candidates that agree with them on these issues, however, when they perceive hypocrisy or inconsistency in those men and women. "

I'm not a big fan of his cartoons though some are brilliant), for the most part, but his writing, especially on Afghanistan, is excellent.

[undergroundpanther]

13. 1 in 4 people have

have some degree or variants or combinations of narcissism,authoritarian personality or psychopathy.
Stands to reason if these types of personalities are prevalent and power hungry stands to reason these types of toxic personalities would seek positions of power.
Conservatism is built upon a sadomasochistic abusive relationship model.

And it is these personality types that cannot will not care or tolerate co existing without causing some sort of destructive power dynamics in groups. They will not get along unless they own it all or run the show.These types of personalities are not sick they are TOXIC because they make OTHER people mentally ill to have to exist or live around them..
Psychopaths narcissists and authoritarian personalities have two traits in common they want what they want and will do whatever they can get away with to get it.
They have no shame guilt or remorse or love since they can't feel these things they don't care.They know what they do is wrong but they think they are entitled and therefore are immune to being held accountable for the harm they do.So they must be restrained by actions outside themselves as in police citizens uprisings,strikes or a bullet to the head to make them stop abusing trust and power.

People without these toxic personality traits have an inner locus of control they feel empathy and remorse and therefore do not want to do what toxic personalities do with no shame,and non-toxic people create boundaries within themselves it's called a conscience and to be healthy they put limits on what kinds of conduct they will tolerate going on around them.Abuse and trauma caused by toxic personalties bullying will especially if done to a child,will blur the the non toxic target's ability to discern what boundaries are.It will confuse them as to which matter and which do not. This confusion gives toxic personalties a big advantage socially which toxic personalties exploit with.Toxic personalties hate dealing with other people's boundaries because ethics gets in the way of the toxic person getting to dominate bully or abuse trust or steal. But non toxic personalities NEED to have clear inner and outer boundaries lest the bullies in the population take advantage and abuse them.
Some non toxic personalities misplace pity and make excuses for toxic personalities and in their 'kindness' because to the non toxic person misplacing kindness they do not want to admit they are not reinforcing healthy boundaries, so in the spirit of making 'peace' they will let abusers take advantage of certain pacifist or utopian beliefs these toxic people do not believe themselves but fake very well,just to do more harm to others and dominate the group.

You cannot negotiate or compromise with psychopaths,narcissists or authoritarian personalties _at all_ because the toxic person sees it as an opportunity to take advantage.And because to co exist with toxic people costs non-toxic personalities their own mental health.

[PADemD]

20. Too bad Nancy and Harry don't know about this.

"You cannot negotiate or compromise with psychopaths,narcissists or authoritarian personalties _at all_ because the toxic person sees it as an opportunity to take advantage.And because to co exist with toxic people costs non-toxic personalities their own mental health."

[whistle]

15. "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" I understand is the title of a book

....written by AM talkshow pundit Michael Weiner (aka Michael Savage). I've not read it but I understand he gaves away several copies of the book everynight during his show.

<about>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_Is_a_Mental_Disorder

<review>
Book
Review

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

By Michael Savage
Nashville, Nelson Current, 2005, 272 pp.

Review by Ken Sanders

printer friendly version


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My brother, a conservative and recently discharged from the Army after a tour in Iraq, gave me a copy of Michael Savage’s newest tome, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. Understanding that it was my brother’s passive-aggressive method of telling me he didn’t agree with my opinions or writing, I didn’t take offense. Nevertheless, perhaps out of morbid curiosity, or maybe in deference to my brother, I started reading Savage’s self-declared opus.

First I had to get used to Savage’s extremely juvenile use of oh-so-clever “Savagisms” to describe those he doesn’t like—e.g., Rep. Henry Waxman is Nostrilman (was “hook-nose” taken?), Katie “Koran” Couric (who knew she was Muslim?), and the Ninth Jerk-it Court of Schlemiels (activists and masturbators). For Savage, there’s no need to engage in an intelligent, fact-based dissection of something he disagrees with when a clever slur or epithet will do. Never mind that he blatantly rips off Rush Limbaugh.

Beyond Savage’s school-yard taunts and insults lie repeated examples of factual manipulation, lies, and intellectual dishonesty—and I haven’t even finished the first chapter.

In the Preface, Savage weaves a tapestry of evils created and perpetrated by the “America-hating” liberals. For instance, Savage takes issue with liberals’ alleged determination to subjugate the U.S. to international law, eviscerating American sovereignty. Ignoring Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution (“The Constitution...and all Treaties...shall be the Supreme Law of the Land”), Savage cites Mexico’s reaction to the passage of Proposition 200 in Arizona as an example of the threat posed to the U.S. by liberals’ infatuation with interna- tional law.
<MORE>

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Sep2005/sanders0905.html

[ellisonz]

58. Good to hear your brother made it out safe!

You must be a very patient person to make it through the first chapter...

[AX10]

17. I have copied and saved this page. Vyan, you have....

put together one heck of an arguement against conservativism. I have held many of these same beliefs for many years!

k/r Cheers to you! :cheers: :dem: :yourock:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Well done!

[Dem_in_Nebr.]

19. Very good points with which I agree.

However, I have a minuscule nit to pick. . . .

"If we can fine ABC for Janet Jackson's titty . . ." I believe that was CBS, not ABC.

Your points are well made otherwise. Thanks for an excellent piece.

[ellisonz]

59. Welcome to DU!

:toast: or :donut:

[Morgana LaFey]

21. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE DOES NOT MANDATE EQUAL TIME

It never did and it never will (if reinstated).

It merely called for all sides of a question be presented. Here, read about it yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine


Now, if someone felt that a broadcast station did NOT present all the sides, they could write a letter to the station and ask for a chance to present the missing side. If the station didn't comply, the interested party(ies) could complain to the FCC and that could present a challenge to their re-licensing, so stations were very interested in making sure interested parties were satisfied.

BUT, those interested parties didn't get equal time. They got a minute or so, perhaps less, and at a time the station decided -- often when only farmers getting up for the day and nightwatchment coming home made up the audience. Didn't matter. The subject got aired.

BUT it was this ultimate threat to the license that made station owners particularly sensitive to Fairness Doctrine issues, and those letters from citizens or organizations didn't get written all that often as a result.

[provis99]

22. the mentally ill should be cared for

but these Republicans aren't mentally ill. They're just hypocritical and evil.

[solarize]

23. Great post! My only quibble - typos.

[cleveramerican]

24. great piece, but its much simpler than that

here is my own view:

in times of fear and great uncertainty people naturally lurch to the more conservative view, (the safest position) so the right-wingers encourage fear and create boogey-men to solidify their power.


In times of confidence and hope people lurch towards the more liberal(generous in spirit) position.


Here's the thing.... its the same people and the pendulum swings back and forth. Just as it was intended to.

We always elect the right liar for the times we live in.


Its easier to scare people than to fill them with hope so liberals start with a handicap.

[dennis00]

28. a conservative is

a paranoid schizo with low self esteem. He is sure no one is after him, so he has to create his own enemies. Bonimoroni Coulter feels so insignificant she claims that all liberals want to do is rape her skinny ass. She is psychotic. As are Malkin and O'Really and Hannity and Colmes. We could cause them real pain by completely ignoring them. No posts with their names would drive them up the wall. Because they need and thrive on negative feedback-hate. Deny them that and they might self-destruct.

[2Design]

31. brainwashing - milgram experiment

I was thinking of this today as everyone clapped for the veterans as they never did before this rise of the fourth reich in america. I used to put out my flag and honor on these holidays but now it is hard because it has to do with sanctioning this invasion and killing. When I hear of yet another death, I think how can these christians continue to kill and think it is ok.

I see society moving as milgram experiment showed and their was another experiment called the 'blue wave' that was done in a california school to show how the nazi youth and eventually the whole society became part of the nazi regime.

I fear we are so far down the path it is hard to turn it around.

As BFEE continues to get all other countries to disarm and get rid of their nuclear programs the closer we come to annilation by our own government because when all the checks and balances are gone - there is total power.


It is scary this brainwashing and how subtle it is and how many have bought into it.

I think I have people at my job going after getting rid of me because I am a liberal - it is subtle things - the rw is taking over a lot of professions and blocking others from entering.

[slackmaster]

41. Interesting note about the context of the Milgram experiment

It's something everyone who takes an undergraduate psychology course learns:

Milgram's intent was to show that something about Germans, be it cultural or genetic, made them more vulnerable to being misled as they blindly followed authority figures.

What he found was much more profound: We're all vulnerable to that kind of manipulation, not just the Germans.

[2Design]

42. exactly - everyone thinks it was the german people but it is humans

and how easily they are swayed and I see it growing every year with the rw - yesterday I over heard someone talking about two friends and their differences because one was a christian and the other was a seventh day adventist - those are both religions that believe in christ but as we are finding out they don't think catholics are christian either - so the christians are against Christians too. This is going to end badly.

[blondie58]

32. excellent rant!

Thanks for posting.

[hansberrym]

33. Check out the 2004 platform, its downright sociopathic!

I am being sarcastic of course.


From the 2004 platform:
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep
guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.


I truly hope you read and learn more about the second amendment.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Vyan]

40. Not Long...

I'm a really fast typist. Somewhere around 60wpm.

Vyan

[WildEyedLiberal]

49. LOL this is a political website - you're surprised to read a political treatise?

Maybe you took a wrong turn on the internets.

At any rate, I don't think Vyan is the one who needs to get a life. :eyes:

Edit: Looks like Mr. Brassballs already got a "life" courtesy a piece of granite from the mods. You guys sure are on top of the garbage tonight - well done!

[ellisonz]

60. Dude, stop fondling yourself and go outside...

:puke:

[Perry Logan]

61. Wingers are provably insane

Here's a quick proof that right-wingers in the U.S. are literally insane: they think they can read liberals' minds.

If you read or listen to wingers--any of them, all of them--they will TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE LIBERALS ARE THINKING. This strange habit is easily verifiable from any right-wing source. Every conservative, from Rush Limbaugh to our own local trolls, thinks he knows our most secret thoughts and feelings.

Needless to say, we turn out to be a bunch of illiterate bounders who sound a lot like wingnuts.

I know that everyone second-guesses what other people think, especially in politics. But conservatives--too stupid to understand a single word a liberal says--seem to LITERALLY believe they can read liberals' minds. This is clinical insanity.