See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source:
Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2484
Comments: 182
Obama In Portland. A first take. I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly. I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks. Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there. Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created. My first take on the speech follows. Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American. It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better. Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”. I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge. My favorite line in the speech: In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change. He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation. Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs? Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles. Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes. Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression. Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression? Or maybe not. But these are the propositions that are before us now. What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.” I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to. What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made. I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past. Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland. As a final note: When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea. Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender. “We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-141) not displayed.
.
.
.
#142. To: FormerLurker (#119)
To the extent that the State is the expression of the people's will, there is no distinction but, as the State separates itself from the people, the State assumes itself the power to protect or encourage the exercise of certain rights or to prohibit or discourage their exercise. The right to bear arms is a good example of one instance where a State that acquired nuclear weapons and battle robots has no interest in maintaining an armed citizens militia. As for the abstract right itself, the State will tolerate the possession of weak arms for as long as they can only be used for self-protection from other citizens but not from the State troops or for hunting animals. That's how pathetic the current instantiation of the God-given, inalienable but abstract right to has become. By the way, do you know what was the origin of Judo? The Japanese peasants were not allowed to bear arms and were at the mercy of the Samurai. Eventually, they developed these methods of defending themselves with their bare hands. I will not continue this discussion. The language of the second amendment is quite clear to me. The right to bear arms is protected but within the very narrow context of maintaining a Militia force. It would not be difficult for a supreme court to interpret 'militia' as today's military or maybe the States' national guard and then you can say goodbye to even the pretense of having a right to bear arms.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Nowhere in the constitution is the word "rights" used in connection to the govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights. Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us." Exactly. How is it that supposedly well-educated people can miss or not understand such simple concepts? Must have been too many years in the government schools.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The "right" was already in existence prior to the formation of our country. Who or what gave our forefathers that "right"? Yes, the right existed and it exists as an abstraction. So is 'harmony'. But the very fact that it CAN be infringed and it needs protection (within the context of a useful to the state militia) tells us that, in reality, the right is granted and protected by the State. You need a bunch of instruments to 'make' music but, while they are absent, the concepts of music or harmony do not go away. Same with the right to bear arms. It may exist a priori but, unless you have the ability to take your family out for a stroll while wearing a nice sniper rifle and a couple of grenades and be able to return home for dinner, undisturbed and unarrested, your abstract right can not manifest itself for more than the few minutes it takes the SWAT team to come and get you.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Why point that out just now? You're defending an anti-2nd candidate? No, I am not trying to defend a pre-determined conclusion. I am only giving the second amendment a honest reading. I am not saying that individuals do not have the right to self-defense. They do, but that right is nowhere to be found in the bill of rights. The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
The abuse of powers does not legitimize such, does it? Or, perhaps it does. "The price of freedom is ever vigilance." The usurpation of our rights and freedoms directly correlate with the people's unwillingness to safeguard them. So, in theory we may have (or had and lost) those rights and freedoms, but we're going to (or already have) forfeit them by default. I'd be willing to bet that if voters were given a choice between absolute freedom and cradle to grave health care and welfare it would be "goodbye constitution, Hello REAL ID!" And, then seniors could get busy campaigning, lobbying, agitating for stem cell research that would permit them to live and collect benefits forever!
I see. The right to keep arms is nothing more than an invitation to intimdate and abuse other citizens. Sweet. Good thing you've never seen that home movie of me thrusting at my then next-door neighbor with salad tongs, cause dog gonnit I really like salad, especially with those little cherry tomatoes. Now that's just good eating, there.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
It doesn't persuade me to pull the lever for Obama. It might lure me into attending a Constitutional Convention, though.
The major obstacle to that is the most comprehensive study ever done on the 2nd amendment in the early 1980s by the house select committee on the right to keep and bear arms. They went back tens of thousands of years and logically progressed forward leaving no historical gaps that would permit creative interpretations by antis or state worshipers. The conclusion simply read, "Thus it is inescapable that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right." To ornery folks who insist that it can be dismantled by judicial decree, I say, "If you mean to have a war then let it begin here." The govt knows that millions share my commitment to the defense of the 2nd amendment, which is why they don't share you glib appreciation of the current state of affairs, or embrace your seemingly simplistic solution to the question of the armed American.
American Voters recently proved so in the primaries. Anti-war, civil libertarians could have voted for Gravel or Kucinich, but either didn't or there weren't enough of them. I'll go with the latter. At least some things will always be the same.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
I'll go with a third option. American voters watch TV and read their magazines and newspapers to find out how to vote. They just do what they're told. Could we break the cycle? How? Do we have to manipulate them, as well? (That would end badly, I think.) The answer I keep coming to is to do my best to change minds even when it's unpopular or unprofitable. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave with a sand bag.
That's quite plausible.
No matter how many times DEMlibs get their teeth kicked in on gun control (sic-actually it's unilateral personal disarmament) those morally bankrupt assholes keep coming back. Obviously their idea of good govt must involve some Castor oil that we as an armed citizenry may resist. This is why Larry Flynt said, "Scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist underneath, every time!" They want to be our nannies and inject us, feed us, force us to exercise, quit smoking, drive slow and think little and question nothing. Or, we fucking DIE when they send the state gun goons after us! Their definition of equality is mutually shared misery where we're all steam rollered flat and therefore "eekwal!"
The "people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are the same "people" mentioned in the 4th. In other words, you are taking a statist viewpoint and twisting the words of the amendment to make it mean whatever the state wants it to say, as most statists actually do in practice. You ignore the fact that the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Those people are the same people referred to in the 4th Amendment, which states; Amd 4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Are you saying that the 4th Amendment is about the collective security of the state from unreasonable searches, and is not an individual right protected by the Constitution?
One thing that stuck with me from a property tax protest I went to last year was the idea that everyone on the government payroll votes, so that's easily half the population right there.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Right. The only problem is I've been reading this stuff since the 70's when I was told (by a fundie preacher's son) that Carter would suspend the congress and be the last elected prez of the US. Despite secret EOs, bills and decrees, the fact is there is still a heck of a lot of wishful thinking by those power mongers, and they just can't realize their nightmares because they have little or no support in their own counsels. And the one reason we haven't had them all thrust upon us just to see what flies (like post-war Italy which has had over 300 govts) is because of the 2nd amendment. It is the final obstacle to global govt, and not one of these "daring progressives" Neocrooks, Trotskyists or corporatists dare to be the one who fires the second shot heard 'round the world. Their own polls of the military apparently aren't very reassuring, and even Blackwater goons would not have attempted to occupy an armed white enclave the way they did post-Katrina black New Orleans.
We'll reach a point where 5% fight for change, 5% oppose them (or us) and the other 90% will go along with whoever wins.
And the one reason we haven't had them all thrust upon us just to see what flies (like post-war Italy which has had over 300 govts) is because of the 2nd amendment. Exactly right, that is why they are trying as best they can to erode support for gun ownership and to demonize those that legally possess weapons as means of self-defense as opposed to duck hunting. It is the final obstacle to global govt, and not one of these "daring progressives" Neocrooks, Trotskyists or corporatists dare to be the one who fires the second shot heard 'round the world. It won't be them that will do the dirty work. It will be the militarized police of all stripes and flavors that carry out the dirty deed in response to a "national emergency" more than likely, they have the upper hand as to knowing exactly when, how, and why it will happen. Their own polls of the military apparently aren't very reassuring, and even Blackwater goons would not have attempted to occupy an armed white enclave the way they did post-Katrina black New Orleans. Most of the military is spread thin across the globe and/or recovering from multiple extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blackwater would do whatever they're paid to do if the price was right.
If they vote themselves too much of the taxable economy they'll drive it underground. And then like bureaucrats in the former Soviet Union they'll have to supplement their meager, inflated wages with bootleg and black market gasoline, cigs, sugar and bathroom tissue. That's assuming there's any left after the low level cargo handlers have take their cut. They can certainly kill the proverbial Golden Goose, and as it is the govt is concentrating on taxing their own non-compliant employees (whose wages are within the grasp of the power to seize them) and not wasting any more precious man hours trying to collect anything from people like me. They can pass all the laws they like but, like Mexicans we won't protest, we'll simply ignore them. People who wish to fall on their swords by deducting a percentage to avoid supporting the war machine will still be able to do so. But, in order to do that they'll have to file. Why file when it makes more sense to avoid it altogether, and then the govt has no starting point to target and punish dissent? (Martyrs are welcome to sacrifice and garner the praise of other dumbshit assholes) At that point it becomes more dangerous to comply than to fight. And that will be the beginning of the end of the transfer of wealth that is the real culprit. Why fight and die when we can simply de-fund the bastards and their evil schemes?
They can pass all the laws they like but, like Mexicans we won't protest, we'll simply ignore them. Why fight and die when we can simply de-fund the bastards and their evil schemes? And don't forget how utterly incompetent more than 75% of the gubmint trained monkeys actually are.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
When I lived in Los Angeles I became friends (and the bootleg gunsmith) for several LAPD guys, active and retired. Believe me, they had no plans to join their fellows, other agencies and the guardsmen and fight in the streets. In fact they all without exception had escape plans for their wives and children who they intended to join as soon as they could get away from the city and to their retreats, a long way away from the soon-to-be warring armies of blacks and Hispanics. Those cops know all too well that they cannot win and they won't die in the vain attempt. Most cops are only cops because the people respect them and don't shoot them on sight. Damned few would ever report to work again once they know that Americans consider them the enemy. Those commandos who do believe that state might makes right will do so at their own peril. Hell, on New year's Eve and The 4th of July here, there isn't a single prowl car to be seen anywhere around. There are too many citizens who celebrate with live ammo and the cops don't want to present any targets of opportunity to liquored up celebrants. When they do answer calls they fly through the neighborhoods at high speeds without sirens, hoping to avoid drawing attention to themselves. They won't announce this because they don't want the people to know how much they rely on us to discipline ourselves, and how much they fear those nights when Americans feel entitled to shoot their guns in the air. I dare say that if one cop per night was shot, by day four there wouldn't be anyone to answer the calls because their families won't let them report for duty. The only other way to remain above the fray is to do what the German police did-they stayed away from Hitler's actions and were never targeted or punished during or after the war. Imagine what BushCo (or Hillary or whoever) would say when they realize that the police refuse to be the muscle that makes tyranny a reality? I was actually told this by an LAPD sgt. That was his idea of how to avoid being murdered in the event that the feds tried to spring the trap. Believe me, the police have given this a great deal of thought. Given a choice of being respected or killed by their own friends and acquaintances, the majority will opt for the former.
Thank you for yet another cheerful and upbeat contribution!
You write well. You motivate me. Thank you.
I believe the ordinary street cop might feel the way you describe, but those in militarized units, the various federal, county, state, and yes, local SWAT commandos are salivating over the chance to "off" some "targets".
Yawn. I'm not interested in playing your word games. I could care less what your opinion of the 2nd amendment is. I know that if it meant what you claim it meant then somewhere in the House or Senate Journals or the Annals of Congress it would have been mentioned. Also The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution by Jonathan Elliot would have mentioned it or it would have been commented on by St. George Tucker in his edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which had extensive writings on the United States Constitution included with it. You are like the crazy Christian cultists who take one sentence out of the Bible and claim it means something without taking into context the paragraph the sentence belongs in.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Actually the amendment talks about the security of a free state, not the state. There is a difference. By the way, since you are focusing on the grammatical structure of the the amendment, you may want to research what an ablative absolute in latin prose is, because that is the rhetorical device used to construct the sentence. While we may find that odd today, it was quite common in those days. If wriiten in today's language it would be something like "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I contend that the free state the founders were talking about was the state of being free and not "the state" at all. See, I can take words out of context and make them mean anything I want them too as well. isn't this game fun?
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
You liars, I mean lawyers are a big part of the reason we're in this mess. No thanks.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
No, its job is to interpret the law and test it against the Constitution as written. Liars, I mean lawyers are great at finding hidden meanings in simple wording.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
Amd 4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Are you saying that the 4th Amendment is about the collective security of the state from unreasonable searches, and is not an individual right protected by the Constitution? excellent point!
Thank you.
ding ding!
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
After the "change we can believe in" campaign from the Democrats when they took over the legislature in 2006 resulted in the same old shit, Obama's campaign slogan should more appropriately state: "Change some will believe in."
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
ping to the above post
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
"...I said there was a Society of Men among us, bred up from their Youth in the Art of proving by Words multiplied for the Pleasure, that White is Black, and Black is White, according as they are paid. To this Society all the rest of the People are Slaves. For Example, if my Neighbour hath a Mind to my Cow, he hires a Lawyer to prove that he ought to have my Cow from me. I must then hire another to defend my Right, it being against all Rules of Law that any Man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now in this Case, I who am the right Owner lie under two great Disadvantages. First, my Lawyer being practiced almost from his Cradle in defending Falshood; is quite out of his Element when he would be an Advocate for Justice, which as an Office unnatural, he always attempts with great Awkwardness if not with Ill-will. The second Disadvantage is, that my Lawyer must proceed with great Caution: Or else he will be reprimanded by the Judges, and abhorred by his Brethren, as one that would lessen the Practice of the Law. And therefore I have but two Methods to preserve my Cow. The first is, to gain over my Adversary's Lawyer with a double Fee; who will then betray his Client by insinuating that he hath Justice on his Side. The second way is for my Lawyer to make my Cause appear as unjust as he can; by the Cow to belong to my Adversary; and this, if it be skilfully done, will certainly bespeak the Favour of the Bench. Now, your Honour is to know that these Judges are Persons appointed to decide all Controversies of Property, as well as for the Tryal of Criminals; and picked out from the most dextrous Lawyers who are grown old or lazy: And having been byassed all their Lives against Truth and Equity, are under such a fatal Necessity of favouring Fraud, Perjury, and Oppression; that I have known some of them refuse a large Bribe from the Side where Justice lay, rather than injure the Faculty, by doing any thing unbecoming their Nature or their Office. It is a Maxim among these Lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may legally be done again: And therefore they take special Care to record all the Decisions formerly made against common Justice and the general Reason of Mankind. These, under the Name of Precedents, they produce as Authorities to justify the most iniquitous Opinions; and the Judges never fail of decreeing accordingly. In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the Merits of the Cause; but are loud, violent, and tedious in dwelling upon all Circumstances which are not to the Purpose. For Instance, in the Case already mentioned: They never desire to know what Claim or Title my Adversary hath to my Cow; but whether the said Cow were Red or Black; her Horns long or short; whether the Field I graze her in be round or square; whether she was milked at home or abroad; what Diseases she is subject to, and the like. After which they consult Precedents, adjourn the Cause from Time to Time, and in Ten, Twenty, or Thirty Years, come to an Issue. It is likewise to be observed, that this Society has a peculiar Cant and Jargon of their own, that no other Mortal can understand, and wherein all their Laws are written, which they take special Care to multiply; whereby they have gone near to confound the very Essence of Truth and Falsehood, of Right and Wrong; so that it may take Thirty Years to decide whether the Field, left me by my Ancestors for Six Generations, belongs to me, or to a Stranger three hundred Miles off. In the Tryal of Persons accused for Crimes against the State the Method is much more short and commendable: The Judge first sends to sound the Disposition of those in Power; after which he can easily hang or save the Criminal, strictly preserving all due Forms of Law. Here my Master interposing, said it was a Pity that Creatures endowed with such prodigious Abilities of Mind as these Lawyers, by the Description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be Instructors of others in Wisdom and Knowledge. In Answer to which, I assured his Honour, that in all Points out of their own Trade, they were usually the most Ignorant and stupid Generation among us, the most despicable in common Conversation, avowed Enemies to all Knowledge and Learning; and equally to pervert the general Reason of Mankind in every other Subject of Discourse, as in that of their own Profession. A VOYAGE TO THE COUNTRY OF THE HOUYHNHNMS (From Gulliver's Travels)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Don't you wonder what Jonathan Swift would have made of Guantánamo?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Well, he isn't around to ask but I think he made it pretty clear what he thought of lawyers.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You don't like the wording of the Constitution? Here's Alexander Hamilton in 1788, in Federalist Paper 78, trying to persuade his fellow New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. What could be better evidence of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I was a bit lazy when I summarized the findings of the The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS in my post. Below are the relevant militia facts and the summary that anti gunners can only gnash their teeth about. There is no historical evidence or even plausible alternative interpretations to counter the subcommittee's findings, and that leaves only emotional pleas (or lies and misrepresentations of the value of firearms as a deterrent to crime) with which to respond. (please review Prof. John Lott's MORE GUNS LESS CRIME.) Also, the two cities of Vancouver, BC and Seattle, WA were compared and the US city had the higher rate of gun violence, until race was factored in! When non whites were removed from the study it was found that heavily gun-restricted Canada has the much higher rate of gun related violence! So, the conclusions of the (religiously anti gun Kellerman) Vancouver/Seattle study were successfully disputed by their own statistics! In short, when the black crime wave is factored out heavily armed America is an amazingly civilized society, and the availability of firearms alone simply cannot be used to explain gun crime. And, if gun prohibition is the solution then why isn't NYC (with its draconian 100 year old Sullivan Law) a paradise filled with peaceful, toga and sandal wearing vegan Eloi who spend their days doing the dance of the butterfly? NYC Mayor Bloomberg would have us believe that NYC is a shooting gallery because Virginians can buy and own guns. But he can't explain why those guns don't cause the same epidemic of violence in states where people have lawful access to them. I suppose NYC has a heroin problem because Afghanistan is allowed to exist. The fact that New York-based banks probably launder most of the world's illicit drug proceeds (and no American laundry/bank that cranks out billions of freshly rinsed and sweet smelling cash has ever been closed down) is not something he'd likely ever address, though. And, it was a refreshing bit of truth when former NAACP president and US Rep. Kweisi Mfume recently announced that "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!" (which is exactly what the high court noted in the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. The court held that "If blacks were free citizens they'd be able to keep and carry firearms everywhere they went!" Those undesirable consequences required no explanation then, and they shouldn't now.) So, what other rights if any should law abiding Americans surrender because shiftless inner city blacks cannot act responsibly or uphold the duties of freedom? If in the future blacks and Hispanics (in Los Angeles for instance) riot at every encounter should all Americans forfeit the right to freedom of assembly? Despite these revelations, no one in power or "respectable academia" will utter the truth about the black crime wave and how it threatens freedom in America. And if they did it still would not move some to change their views, and trying to counter emotional arguments with indisputable facts will remain an exercise in futility and the endless assaults on the 2nd amendment will continue... Having said that, I believe that the crime issue is a red herring and gun control (sic-*UPD) is really about changing the balance of world political power and other mischief that Americans are still well equipped to prevent. From the subcommittee report: "That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". 65 This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a). The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." (*UPD=Unilateral Personal Disarmament)
I suppose NYC has a heroin problem because Afghanistan is allowed to exist. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. i agree. very well thought out and informative post. thanks, dawg!
You may be right and I have no special insight. I believe that if there is a shortage of street cops then the "elite" tactical officers will find themselves in cop cars on street patrol, looking for the safest routes to the donut shops. They won't be of much use if they're back at the barn clustered in armored response vehicles. If big shot lawyers, politicians and judges call the police they will demand a response, and they won't want to hear that the cops are waiting to respond to "important crimes" that require dynamic entries, MP5s and stun grenades and are just too important and well trained to take a rape or carjacking report. On the other hand, if a group of patriots or criminals (they're the same thing to the cops) try to stand their ground like MOVE in Philadelphia, well, the paramilitary MOS cops live for that stuff, and they'll kill the living Hell out of whoever is foolish enough to get cornered in any dwelling that isn't grenade or C4 proof.
Thank you, sweets. And, say hi to "the twins" for mee! ;)
So the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to list what was good for the state, and not necessarily for the people?
#143. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)
Actually, he's right, and this is the very point of just how the govt has usurped so many powers by fiat or decree.
Lord Acton
#144. To: Ragin1 (#122)
Line B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#145. To: buckeye (#132)
If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read:
#146. To: Dakmar (#140)
Nor does the power to regulate interstate commerce imply the bureaucratic right to dictate the number of vacation hours I should be allowed to earn, but it happens all the same.
#147. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#144)
#148. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#145)
The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.
#149. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#142)
It would not be difficult for a supreme court to interpret 'militia' as today's military or maybe the States' national guard and then you can say goodbye to even the pretense of having a right to bear arms.
#150. To: HOUNDDAWG (#146)
I'd be willing to bet that if voters were given a choice between absolute freedom and cradle to grave health care and welfare it would be "goodbye constitution, Hello REAL ID!"
And, then seniors could get busy campaigning, lobbying, agitating for stem cell research that would permit them to live and collect benefits forever!
#151. To: Dakmar, HOUNDDAWG (#150)
American Voters recently proved so in the primaries. Anti-war, civil libertarians could have voted for Gravel or Kucinich, but either didn't or there weren't enough of them. I'll go with the latter.
#152. To: Ragin1 (#128)
Dawg they won't go after guns yet. They will tax per round. And those pubbies you consider your protectors will smilingly aye that bill. Over and over and over again.
#153. To: Jethro Tull (#129)
Yep, gotta agree.....here come the dark days of Bob Michals.
#154. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#145)
The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#155. To: buckeye (#151)
(Edited)
#156. To: FormerLurker (#138)
We're already there, except for the "quartered" part. It might not be long before that happens if Bush/Cheney find some excuse to implement Continuity of Government plans and suspend what's left of the Constitution.
#157. To: buckeye (#151)
I'll go with a third option. American voters watch TV and read their magazines and newspapers to find out how to vote. They just do what they're told. Could we break the cycle? How? Do we have to manipulate them, as well? (That would end badly, I think.) The answer I keep coming to is to do my best to change minds even when it's unpopular or unprofitable. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave with a sand bag.
#158. To: HOUNDDAWG (#156)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#159. To: Dakmar (#155)
One thing that stuck with me from a property tax protest I went to last year was the idea that everyone on the government payroll votes, so that's easily half the population right there.
#160. To: HOUNDDAWG (#159)
#161. To: FormerLurker (#158)
It won't be them that will do the dirty work. It will be the militarized police of all stripes and flavors that carry out the dirty deed in response to a "national emergency" more than likely, they have the upper hand as to knowing exactly when, how, and why it will happen.
#162. To: angle (#160)
And don't forget how utterly incompetent more than 75% of the gubmint trained monkeys actually are.
#163. To: HOUNDDAWG (#161)
#164. To: HOUNDDAWG (#161)
(Edited)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#165. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#100)
Please respond to #99. It's not so hard.
#166. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, FormerLurker, all (#121)
(Edited)
It doesn't because the statement that establishes the security of the state is placed before the 'shall not be infringed' part.
#167. To: aristeides (#87)
Why don't you ally yourselves with us lawyers until we and you can get those rights back?
#168. To: aristeides (#86)
Obviously, to decide such cases, a court has to interpret the Constitution.
#169. To: FormerLurker (#154)
You ignore the fact that the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Those people are the same people referred to in the 4th Amendment, which states;
#170. To: Ragin1 (#163)
#171. To: christine, FormerLurker, peppa (#169)
Are you saying that the 4th Amendment is about the collective security of the state from unreasonable searches, and is not an individual right protected by the Constitution?
#172. To: angle, christine, FormerLurker, peppa (#171)
#173. To: Ferrett Mike (#172)
#174. To: aristeides (#87)
(Edited)
Why don't you ally yourselves with us lawyers until we and you can get those rights back?
Lord Acton
#175. To: James Deffenbach (#174)
#176. To: aristeides (#175)
Don't you wonder what Jonathan Swift would have made of Guantánamo?
Lord Acton
#177. To: Critter (#168)
It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
#178. To: Peppa, rowdee, a vast rightwing conspirator, richard9151, mirage, Ragin1, angle, FormerLurker, Dakmar, James Deffenbach, Jethro Tull, christine, aristeides (#38)
(Edited)
#179. To: HOUNDDAWG (#178)
Lord Acton
#180. To: HOUNDDAWG (#178)
Having said that, I believe that the crime issue is a red herring and gun control (sic-*UPD) is really about changing the balance of world political power and other mischief that Americans are still well equipped to prevent.
#181. To: FormerLurker (#164)
I believe the ordinary street cop might feel the way you describe, but those in militarized units, the various federal, county, state, and yes, local SWAT commandos are salivating over the chance to "off" some "targets".
#182. To: christine (#180)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest