A message to our Leadership in America

[denuseri]

This is a copy of an email I got from my friend supposabely written by a woman in Arizona .

She writes an open letter to our nation's leadership:

"I am a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. Instead, we are burdened with Congressional Dukes and Duchesses who think they know better than the citizens they are supposed to represent.

There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now.
You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut-job am I? Well, these briefly are the views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This is not to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the STIMULUS bill. I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars. I want the circumvention of our constitutional checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution, and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There are many conflicting opinions and it is too soon for this radical legislation. Quit throwing our nation into politically-correct quicksand.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision that will burden me, my children and grandchildren. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night without even reading it. Slow down! Fix only what is broken -- we have the best health care system in the world -- and test any new program in one or two states first.

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. More is not better! Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real [Constitutional] obligations. Why don't you start there?

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes -- how did they pull that one off? Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with any of our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs -- and that is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person! Why do you want me to hate my employers? And what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Every company must sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. (Have you ever ripped off a Band-Aid?) We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please stop trying to manipulate and appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now. Take a breath. Listen to the people. Slow down and get some input from non-politicians and experts on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed-reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children? We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is needless urgency and recklessness in all of your recent spending of our tax dollars.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on bringing our concerns to Washington . Our president often knows all the right buzzwords like unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work, pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone... and we are now looking at you.

You have awakened us, the patriotic freedom spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office.

We have canceled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us who will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution, and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them... Because we will get you fired and they will not save you.

If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming.

We the people are coming."

[Wiscoman]

Reads like a wingnut laundry list.

[denuseri]

Perhaps, but somthing about it also rings all too true.

[IAN 2411]

Reads like a wingnut laundry list.

I dont know much about American Politics, but denuseri has hit the nail on the head, because she is echoing what i have been thinking and talking about in British politics. I might add also that it is a very good and to the point list. Our leaders in UK and in the name of their party and to boost their own ego, and not the man on the street; have been giving away the rights of the UK to Europe for too long. There will be a change this year when the crackpots will be ousted and others take their place. The new UK government might not be able to do a lot, but i think that the can do no worse than the clowns that are in now that i never voted for. Just about everything that denuseri has nailed down in her post is happening in the UK, we now have a black hole in our finances of Billions, and it is all due to miss-management. I also believe we give £45 million pounds away each week to Europe in taxes, well that says it all, the UK is up to its eyeballs in debt and we are paying to be in a Europe that most people now would vote out of. It will happen when the UK has a government with some balls, that it gives the people back their rights to speak. Our National Health Service that was once the best in the world and paid for by the people in taxes, has been in decline for the same amount of time this party of Labour lunatics have been in Parltment. Bailing out companies with the tax payers money is wrong, as denuseri says let them rise and fall by their own management or miss-management. Gordon Brown was not voted Primeminister by the majority of people, he should be up in Scotland looking after his own country, not down here in England fucking up mine.

Regards ian 2411

[steelish]

Reads like a wingnut laundry list.

I guess I'm a wingnut. I agree wholeheartedly with just about every single thing in the letter.

We used to be a nation of hard workers that took pride in our own merit. Now we seem to be turning into a nation of people that embrace the idea that we need the government to make us happy; that somehow, they have the magic formula.

[TwistedTails]

Wingnuts are devices that secure the smaller parts of a larger whole together, and by design they work in the simplest, most straight forward manner. American politics could use more wingnuts.

Cheers
Twisted.

[steelish]

Wingnuts are devices that secure the smaller parts of a larger whole together, and by design they work in the simplest, most straight forward manner. American politics could use more wingnuts.

Cheers
Twisted.

;)

Oh, and I completely took it as a compliment!

[MMI]

Wingnuts ... work in the simplest, most straight forward manner ...


Twisting.

ian ... don't you like being a Scottish colony? Ah well ... now you know how the Scots have felt since 1707. Not nice, is it?

Well, like many other nations, the USA has a two party system, one to the right of the political spectrum, and the other, further to the right. It is not conceivable that either of them can reflect everyone's political viewpoints , in fact, it is not likely that they can reflect anyone's viewpoint exactly. I guess you just have to accept the system is imperfect and your choices are, trying to make changes within the system - by voting for the candidate whose policies you are closest to - or by starting a revolution. As the writer of the above list of policy changes / law amendments presented most of them with the words "I [do not] want ...", I recommend revolution: allowing other people a vote would be too dangerous.

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

[IAN 2411]

MMI,
My father was Scottish and the Scotsman is a very strange person, and with some very outdated ideas. The Scots asked for their own parliament and we the English obliged, on doing so I feel that it is only right that there should be no Scots in high places of office in the English parliament. They have the right in Scotland to make their own laws, and they have their own Scottish £, I believe that he was sent down to England as a saboteur, and quite frankly he has been very good at that. I believe also that he has been more dangerous than Guy Fawkes, and as a punishment he should be locked in the Bank of England during the day counting the gold bars that are left and polishing them, the ones that he not has given away to other countries i.e.: - Europe, and it should be for the rest of his un-natural life. Then in the evening they could give him a mop, and he could clean the dirty hospitals, the ones that he has neglected to bring to book while he and his creepy mate Blaire were in charge of the English parliament. I would also like to add that Blaire is another Jock, and as such he should suffer the same fate. Long live the English revolution, LoL.

Regards ian 2411

[steelish]

That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics.

Yes, it is. Life has changed only in the fact that technology has changed it. Basic principles remain the same.


So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

On the first part of this statement, I disagree. The Constitution doesn't need to change at all. It still applies.

As to "The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being." So true. But their power is quickly going to come to an end.

[SadisticNature]

Any document with a political process for amendments isn't really a protection at all. Ask any former slave owner about their constitutionally protected property and the lack of compensation (except you can't because they are dead).

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law?

The Treaty of Troyes did nothing to stop Valois from taking the throne of France from Plantagenet. That was a flimsy paper shield too.

As for the letter, I'm perhaps not as familiar with US politics as I should be, but to me I don't see how that person finds the republicans unappealing?

Is that points 3 and 9 through 12?

I think America would improve greatly if they had a Constitutional amendment protecting its citizens from pork spending.

[MMI]

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.


On the first part of this statement, I disagree. The Constitution doesn't need to change at all. It still applies.


I take it, then, that you consider the right of free speech and freedom of assembly are unconstitutional, as is freedom of religion and of the press, not to mention the right to bear arms or women's suffrage.

[denuseri]

Amendments are considered to be part of the constitution once approved by the prescribed proccess.

[steelish]

I take it, then, that you consider the right of free speech and freedom of assembly are unconstitutional, as is freedom of religion and of the press, not to mention the right to bear arms or women's suffrage.

As denu said, Amendments are part of the constitution once approved. Also - amendments that support freedom are a good thing, such as the amendments you mention.

[steelish]

[QUOTE=SadisticNature;836633I think America would improve greatly if they had a Constitutional amendment protecting its citizens from pork spending.[/QUOTE]

Now THAT would help! (But it would be considered unconstitutional, so it will never happen)

[steelish]

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law?

I won't be around in 2240, but I would hope that the people of Islam faith that are born and raised American citizens would respect the Constitution enough to follow it.

[Bren122]

Yes, it is. Life has changed only in the fact that technology has changed it. Basic principles remain the same.

Technology brings about changes in human attitudes; the widespread use of the clock made us more concerned with the passage of time. The invention of the deep sowing plough and the shoulder yoke changed the way we used agriculture; similarly the development of fertilisers and pesticides. this is not just a way of doing things but a way of thinking about things; something that we all seem to have forgotten in the last century.
The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

[Bren122]

That was a flimsy paper shield too.


When Sir Edward Grey informed the German Ambassador of the conditions Germany had to accept in order for Britain to stay out of World War One, the German Ambassador replied that "[You] are going to war over a piece of paper."
it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"
It is why a Bill of Rights is a limiting document; it sets out those elements that seem so important today but "in the future some fool will be of the belief that we are seeking to define the limits of freedom."
The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

[steelish]

it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"

I could not have said it better. I think most people who do not live in the states and even some who do, fail to understand this. Our pride and sense of ownership as a U.S. citizen is being threatened by the very politicians who we (as a whole) elected to keep our nation great. I think this is what is most disappointing. A few bad apples in a barrel is understandable, but when almost the entire barrel is bad, it's crushing.

[denuseri]

Apparently as some have pointed out the feeling is perhaps more universal with politicans everywhere.

But then again, hasnt it been a common theme with politicans all throughout history at one time or another?

Look at what Xenophon wrote about Tyrants and politics way back in ancient Greece.

[steelish]

denu, the ONLY politicians I know of who were not interested in complete power were the founding fathers of our country. Once they served, they went back to their homes/farms and then it was someone else's turn to serve for their country.

Serving as a politician in the United States should carry the same amount of pride for doing it as serving in one of the armed forces. Our government was not originally designed to be full of career positions. People were supposed to step up to the plate, serve for one term, then go back home to life as it was. Politics in the US has become a joke.

We all know politicians say what they think their constituents want to hear in order to get elected. Case in point; Nancy Pelosi laughing and admitting to that very thing!

[MMI]

As denu said, Amendments are part of the constitution once approved. Also - amendments that support freedom are a good thing, such as the amendments you mention.

I guess that's right, and I for one have no quarrel with it. However, an amended consitution is not the constitution "as written", which is what the twisted wingnut who wrote the diatribe against your government at the top of this thread said, but, obviously, didn't mean.



The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

I suppose a right-winger would say that, wouldn't he?


A few bad apples in a barrel is understandable, but when almost the entire barrel is bad, it's crushing.

When there are only a few fresh apples left in the barrel, they have lost control of the barrel, and it now belongs to the ripe ones. Thus, from colonies to republic and from republic to an Islamic society founded on justice and benevolence if the people so wish, and no piece of paper can stop that.

Now, where's that cider?

[IAN 2411]

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law



I won't be around in 2240, but I would hope that the people of Islam faith that are born and raised American citizens would respect the Constitution enough to follow it.
In England I think there is only one minister in parliament that practices Islam, but that has not stopped the people that are born of Islam faith practicing and imposing Shari law in the UK in certain comunities. I would also think that if it can happen in a small country such as mine, I am in no doubt the it is probably happening in the USA in secret. The British authorities have tried to stamp out the practice, because it goes against the UKs basic laws, but I am afraid the people born of the Islam Faith have little or no respect for any ones laws but their own. I am also afraid to say that not all but most living in the free world, think that they are the chosen people, and have been openly sticking their fingers up at government’s, both American and the UKs since 9/11. Just by looking at the UK news every night, the Islam people are causing so much unrest, that before long in the UK they will end up being victimised. As SadisticNature has pointed out, to Islam your Constitution is for Americans and not them, because they are only Americans and English when it is convenient for them, it is sad but true.

[Bren122]

I suppose a right-winger would say that, wouldn't he?


How many right wingers do you know who are interested in introducing a bill of rights where those rights are not going to be determined by the people in a referendum but by the courts or a parliamentary majority? All these movements want to achieve is to lock in a left winger's view of the world as the only viable negotiating position. look at the Bill of Rights in Victoria, Australia- far from guaranteeing that most fundamental right, freedom of religion, it has in fact been used to over ride religious objections to abortions and was going to be used to override hiring practices in religious schools.

[MMI]

It seems to me that all legislation by the British Parliament regarding fundamental rights give the power to determine the meaning of those laws to the Secretary of State or the courts, and, occasionally, to a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation or the like. None of them, so far as I am aware, depends upon a plebicite. This applies to Conservative government legislation as well as to Labour government laws, so I think I can say, in answer to your question, All of them.

Referenda here happen as often as ducks' teeth fall out, but when they do take place, they have no binding force: the government is free to ignore the will of the people if it wishes. I can imagine that many Conservative politicians would be comfortable with that.

[MMI]

In England I think there is only one minister in parliament that practices Islam, but that has not stopped the people that are born of Islam faith practicing and imposing Shari law in the UK in certain comunities. I would also think that if it can happen in a small country such as mine, I am in no doubt the it is probably happening in the USA in secret. The British authorities have tried to stamp out the practice, because it goes against the UKs basic laws, but I am afraid the people born of the Islam Faith have little or no respect for any ones laws but their own. I am also afraid to say that not all but most living in the free world, think that they are the chosen people, and have been openly sticking their fingers up at government’s, both American and the UKs since 9/11. Just by looking at the UK news every night, the Islam people are causing so much unrest, that before long in the UK they will end up being victimised. As SadisticNature has pointed out, to Islam your Constitution is for Americans and not them, because they are only Americans and English when it is convenient for them, it is sad but true.

As a matter of fact, ian, the British authorities see this as a positive development and are happy to see tribunals set up to resolve disputes between members of ethnic/cultural groups in a manner that is acceptable to those traditions. "Legal pluralism" is a concomitant part of a multi-cultural society and goes a long way to maintaining harmony, whereas a decision by a normal court would impose an "English" solution to the problem, and alienation could result. There are "courts" of this type serving the Somali, Islamic and Jewish communities at least; there are probably others I am not aware of based on different traditions. I would add that the British government rejects any attempt by these tribunals to decide matters relating to the criminal law.

If you are having difficulty with this idea, perhaps you should consider the various jurisdictions within the United Kingom: there is English Law, Scottish Law and Northern Irish Law; or the USA where there are 50 different legal systems (actually, there are more, if you count the hundreds of Indian reservations, and the overseas territories). People living within those jurisdictions can regulate their affairs according to their own customs and cultures, and there is no danger of disrupting the nation as a whole.

I suggest that the Islamic people you refer to as "causing so much unrest" fall into two categories: (1) those who are intent on destroying or Islamifying British society (fortunately a very small number, but significant) and (2) those with brown faces who come to the attention of Daily Mail readers and members of UKIP or BNP (a much larger number of people who will do no harm to anyone).

[steelish]

In England I think there is only one minister in parliament that practices Islam, but that has not stopped the people that are born of Islam faith practicing and imposing Shari law in the UK in certain comunities. I would also think that if it can happen in a small country such as mine, I am in no doubt the it is probably happening in the USA in secret.

It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.

[EDQ]

you go. that is gerat. and true every word.you need to sent to more ppl.
i have more to say. but you konw my spelling. let me put in to words and i'll send

[IAN 2411]

As a matter of fact, ian, the British authorities see this as a positive development and are happy to see tribunals set up to resolve disputes between members of ethnic/cultural groups in a manner that is acceptable to those traditions.

I am in no doubt the British authorities allow [ethnic tribunals] to be set up within those communities. But they have no legal standing in the UK, and all findings must be presented to a British court to have the final say. I would like to point out that it has not stopped honour killings, and there have been a spate of those in the UK as of late, and also underage marriages in certain communities. Also there are still the arranged marriages, where a British subject is spirited away to India against their will, and that really is sticking your finger up at UK law. The UK is a very racially tolerant country, but it is the ethnic groups that are abusing our tolerance.


If you are having difficulty with this idea, perhaps you should consider the various jurisdictions within the United Kingom: there is English Law, Scottish Law and Northern Irish Law; or the USA where there are 50 different legal systems (actually, there are more, if you count the hundreds of Indian reservations, and the overseas territories). People living within those jurisdictions can regulate their affairs according to their own customs and cultures, and there is no danger of disrupting the nation as a whole.

On the contrary MMI, I have no difficulty whatsoever with the idea, and I agree to a degree on what you have said. However Sharia Law has no minimum, what is said is done and sometimes to the extreme, it has no place in the civilised world. There is one thing however the three legal systems in the UK that you mention are all governed and overseen by Whitehall, although their laws might vary in certain ways. I also believe that there are as many legal systems in the USA as you say with their own laws, but I can understand why, as most states in the USA are bigger than most whole countries in Europe and Asia.





It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.


I agree with you 100%


Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

Reads like a wingnut laundry list.

You think States Rights are wingnut?

You think restricting Congress to the duties listed for it to pursue in the Constitution is wingnut. You think expecting Congress to fulfill the will of the peoiple is wingnut?

[DuncanONeil]

I guess I'm a wingnut. I agree wholeheartedly with just about every single thing in the letter.

We used to be a nation of hard workers that took pride in our own merit. Now we seem to be turning into a nation of people that embrace the idea that we need the government to make us happy; that somehow, they have the magic formula.

Only 50% of workers pay 97% of the income tax!!!

[DuncanONeil]

Interpretation is one thing inference is something else all together. By doing such an "understanding" of the Constitution you are in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment!

You really want to go on record as saying there is no left based politics in the US???


Twisting.

ian ... don't you like being a Scottish colony? Ah well ... now you know how the Scots have felt since 1707. Not nice, is it?

Well, like many other nations, the USA has a two party system, one to the right of the political spectrum, and the other, further to the right. It is not conceivable that either of them can reflect everyone's political viewpoints , in fact, it is not likely that they can reflect anyone's viewpoint exactly. I guess you just have to accept the system is imperfect and your choices are, trying to make changes within the system - by voting for the candidate whose policies you are closest to - or by starting a revolution. As the writer of the above list of policy changes / law amendments presented most of them with the words "I [do not] want ...", I recommend revolution: allowing other people a vote would be too dangerous.

Constitution as it was written? Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Next you'll be saying it's the word of God! That document is over two hundred years old. Life has changed since then. So has politics. So, too, should the Constitution. It is not a pefect document. It is not immutable, and it is capable of different interpretations. The interpretation of the party in power is the one you have to live with, but only for the time being.

[DuncanONeil]

The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

True! But that does not alter the fact that rights are being created by a liberal reading of sections of the document that are not there, because they are not, not there. That violates Amendment Ten.

[DuncanONeil]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!


When Sir Edward Grey informed the German Ambassador of the conditions Germany had to accept in order for Britain to stay out of World War One, the German Ambassador replied that "[You] are going to war over a piece of paper."
it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"
It is why a Bill of Rights is a limiting document; it sets out those elements that seem so important today but "in the future some fool will be of the belief that we are seeking to define the limits of freedom."
The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

[DuncanONeil]

If two terms for the President is a good thing why does Congress consistently resist the same thing for themselves?


denu, the ONLY politicians I know of who were not interested in complete power were the founding fathers of our country. Once they served, they went back to their homes/farms and then it was someone else's turn to serve for their country.

Serving as a politician in the United States should carry the same amount of pride for doing it as serving in one of the armed forces. Our government was not originally designed to be full of career positions. People were supposed to step up to the plate, serve for one term, then go back home to life as it was. Politics in the US has become a joke.

We all know politicians say what they think their constituents want to hear in order to get elected. Case in point; Nancy Pelosi laughing and admitting to that very thing!

[DuncanONeil]

Now, where's that cider?[/B]

Just lick your arm!

[Energizer]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

Just present a counterargument and let people decide for themselves.

[Bren122]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

I am not a leftie, Duncan.
"Freedom must be defined in order that it may be grasped."
A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it; the British in WW1 felt strongly about the preservation of the Belgian political entity from its long association with Flanders in general. Germany had no such feelings and thus, despite being a co-signatory of the Brussels Treaty, had no compunction about violating it.
If America did not have an underlying belief in the concepts of equality, liberty and fraternity then the documents themselves would mean nothing. we know this for the US constitution, as important a legal and political milestone as it is, has only worked once. the constitution and the Bill of Rights are meant to be a formalisation of underlying principles; as perspective on those principles has changed, so the documents have been changed, whether by judicial judgement or the ammendments process.
courts, police, parliaments, etc only work when they are allowed to work; if you did not agree with a judgement in a legal case you can easily go into a court room and redress that judgement with a gun. but if everyone does that why have a court system in the first place? similarly the first move in a dictatorship is to ensure the political compliance of the judiciary as an entity. the American system can be biased by political appointments but not to the point of removing opposing judges in order to replace them with your appointees.
The British and Australian (and NZ and Canadian) systems are built on common law and parliament, etc but, really, they are defined by the collective understanding that the alternative is chaos. you don't need a Bill of Rights unless you are trying to impose a certain point of view as being the sole basis of argument; the beauty of the Westminster System is that it can move back and forth between the two opposites and find a middle ground that might not make everyone happy but is a workable solution to diametrically opposed views. if you look at the gun debate in America, which is severely limited by the 2nd Amendment, it promotes extremist positions that ultimately fail to address some of the legitimate concerns that an unlimited gun control policy has allowed to foster. (why does the average citizen NEED a grenade launcher?)

[Bren122]

True! But that does not alter the fact that rights are being created by a liberal reading of sections of the document that are not there, because they are not, not there. That violates Amendment Ten.

And the Right has been just as guilty of the same notions. Equal but Separate, et al are only justifiable by ignoring major sections of the constitution and selectively rendering other sections. it is unlikely that those who drew up the constitution, had they been aware of the changes in weapons technology to come, would approve of the idea that the average citizen be allowed access to ammunition known colloquially as cop-killer bullets. or a grenade launcher or a landmine. The 2nd amendment was inspired by the English notion of militia, which grew out of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not an individual's free for all collection of weapons. the way the Yeomanry of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary periods operated was essentially how the 2nd Amendment was envisaged to operate.

the fact is that there is a strong anti-intellectualism about the modern right that has effectively limited its opposition to these liberal uses of the constitution. too often the opposition to these progressive positions have been defined by the far right in total denial of a need for change. the moderates need to take a cue from the moderate left and stop trying to mollify the extremists on every issue and recapture the idea that being conservative is not the same as being anti-progress.

[Bren122]

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

it's no worse than the common assumption on here that the majority of the right are heartless capitalists, neo-nazis or religious extremists. the truth is that the 'vast majority of the left' would like to see the constitution and the Bill of Rights interpreted more liberally; if Duncan feels that this is a mistaken position why can't he say so in those terms? how exactly is it a demonstration of ignorance? or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

[DuncanONeil]

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

Just present a counterargument and let people decide for themselves.

In the case of the message in question it comes from an observation of actions and comments.

And I do believe that; "The entire Constitution is a limiting document" IS a counter argument!

[DuncanONeil]

I can accept many of the things you say.
But not in reference to the bill of rights being better if the meaning changes from day to day.
Also gun rights in the US are not without limit. Anything resembling an M203 is illegal for private ownership, if functional.


I am not a leftie, Duncan.
"Freedom must be defined in order that it may be grasped."
A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it; the British in WW1 felt strongly about the preservation of the Belgian political entity from its long association with Flanders in general. Germany had no such feelings and thus, despite being a co-signatory of the Brussels Treaty, had no compunction about violating it.
If America did not have an underlying belief in the concepts of equality, liberty and fraternity then the documents themselves would mean nothing. we know this for the US constitution, as important a legal and political milestone as it is, has only worked once. the constitution and the Bill of Rights are meant to be a formalisation of underlying principles; as perspective on those principles has changed, so the documents have been changed, whether by judicial judgement or the ammendments process.
courts, police, parliaments, etc only work when they are allowed to work; if you did not agree with a judgement in a legal case you can easily go into a court room and redress that judgement with a gun. but if everyone does that why have a court system in the first place? similarly the first move in a dictatorship is to ensure the political compliance of the judiciary as an entity. the American system can be biased by political appointments but not to the point of removing opposing judges in order to replace them with your appointees.
The British and Australian (and NZ and Canadian) systems are built on common law and parliament, etc but, really, they are defined by the collective understanding that the alternative is chaos. you don't need a Bill of Rights unless you are trying to impose a certain point of view as being the sole basis of argument; the beauty of the Westminster System is that it can move back and forth between the two opposites and find a middle ground that might not make everyone happy but is a workable solution to diametrically opposed views. if you look at the gun debate in America, which is severely limited by the 2nd Amendment, it promotes extremist positions that ultimately fail to address some of the legitimate concerns that an unlimited gun control policy has allowed to foster. (why does the average citizen NEED a grenade launcher?)

[DuncanONeil]

Look I know that this is a somewhat unique issue to the US. But the right in the Second Amendment does not accrue to militia but to the people. It is clear in that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The purpose of the Amendment is not have an armed militia available for defense of the nation but to provide a means, should it become necessary to defend the nation from the Government.
The left's "progressive" positions are often issues that are completely without the scope of this nations Constitutional role for its Government.


And the Right has been just as guilty of the same notions. Equal but Separate, et al are only justifiable by ignoring major sections of the constitution and selectively rendering other sections. it is unlikely that those who drew up the constitution, had they been aware of the changes in weapons technology to come, would approve of the idea that the average citizen be allowed access to ammunition known colloquially as cop-killer bullets. or a grenade launcher or a landmine. The 2nd amendment was inspired by the English notion of militia, which grew out of the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not an individual's free for all collection of weapons. the way the Yeomanry of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary periods operated was essentially how the 2nd Amendment was envisaged to operate.

the fact is that there is a strong anti-intellectualism about the modern right that has effectively limited its opposition to these liberal uses of the constitution. too often the opposition to these progressive positions have been defined by the far right in total denial of a need for change. the moderates need to take a cue from the moderate left and stop trying to mollify the extremists on every issue and recapture the idea that being conservative is not the same as being anti-progress.

[DuncanONeil]

it's no worse than the common assumption on here that the majority of the right are heartless capitalists, neo-nazis or religious extremists. the truth is that the 'vast majority of the left' would like to see the constitution and the Bill of Rights interpreted more liberally; if Duncan feels that this is a mistaken position why can't he say so in those terms? how exactly is it a demonstration of ignorance? or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

"(A)re sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?"
Unfortunately that is often exactly the case. I received a message today from MoveOn railing against Visa, in particular, and credit companies in general for not dropping the processing fees for contributions to Haiti. Completely ignoring that the seklf same companies are making their own donations.

[denuseri]

Its actually; according to the latest Surpreme Court interpetation, for you as a law abiding citizen to have a way to defend your life liberty and or property from harm from any source of contention.

[steelish]

A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it

And therein lies the problem. I think there is plenty of spirit in America to motivate it, unfortunately, the voters haven't been paying much attention for a great many years now and instead of voting based upon principles, many have been voting based upon popularity, or "gee, I've heard of this person but not that one", or even "he's cuter than the other guy". (Yes, I once heard an 18 year old girl say that when she voted for the first time and I wanted to throw up). Many Americans are a bit ignorant when it comes to making a knowledgeable vote, and that stems from the fact that they can't foresee an America other than the one they grew up in. They think it will be as usual...life goes on unchanged. Unfortunately, they are now learning that is not the case, and many Americans are researching, learning, and watching politicians much more closely than they ever have before. Talk of politics used to be practically nonexistent - now it's everywhere; in restaurants, at the workplace, etc. The actions of the current administration has done more to wake up Americans than 9/11 did! For that, I thank them.

The spirit of America is going to show itself at the voting booth this year, for that you can be sure.

[Bren122]

And therein lies the problem. I think there is plenty of spirit in America to motivate it, unfortunately, the voters haven't been paying much attention for a great many years now and instead of voting based upon principles, many have been voting based upon popularity, or "gee, I've heard of this person but not that one", or even "he's cuter than the other guy". (Yes, I once heard an 18 year old girl say that when she voted for the first time and I wanted to throw up). Many Americans are a bit ignorant when it comes to making a knowledgeable vote, and that stems from the fact that they can't foresee an America other than the one they grew up in. They think it will be as usual...life goes on unchanged. Unfortunately, they are now learning that is not the case, and many Americans are researching, learning, and watching politicians much more closely than they ever have before. Talk of politics used to be practically nonexistent - now it's everywhere; in restaurants, at the workplace, etc. The actions of the current administration has done more to wake up Americans than 9/11 did! For that, I thank them.

The spirit of America is going to show itself at the voting booth this year, for that you can be sure.

The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.

[steelish]

The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.

But it's not about "changing the world". At least, it isn't for me. I cannot change Iraq and their beliefs...I cannot change the bitter relationships that exist within Ireland...I cannot change Israel. The only thing, we, as Americans can do is try to set an example to the rest of the world by continuing to be a free nation with a big heart. To do this we need to preserve our freedoms, and to me, we are on our way to losing a great many of them.

[Bren122]

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

it is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

[Bren122]

But it's not about "changing the world". At least, it isn't for me. I cannot change Iraq and their beliefs...I cannot change the bitter relationships that exist within Ireland...I cannot change Israel. The only thing, we, as Americans can do is try to set an example to the rest of the world by continuing to be a free nation with a big heart. To do this we need to preserve our freedoms, and to me, we are on our way to losing a great many of them.

That was a lack of concision on my part; i should have said changing your personal world or something equally hippy.
the fact is that the US has changed Iraq and for the better. yes, there is a chance it can all fall over but it has always been harder to build than to destroy. the mainstream media is concentrating on the things that can go wrong because it has made horrible predictions of failure since before the invasion started. it is facing an unprecedented challenge to its power of opinion and the last thing it needs is to be shown to be totally out of touch on such key issues as Iraq and Afghanistan. find the right journals and sites and you will see, in their own words, how Iraqis and Afghanis have come to embrace these opportunities they have been given. 80% of Aghanis support the American-led presence- not forever but until they are sure the Taliban won't be back. that is from a BBC poll that the BBC has never published- there was a similar poll in Iraq in 2008 that found more or less the same level of support at the time that the BBC was saying that most Iraqis wanted the Americans out- in fact they wanted the fighting units to leave only after the insurgency was beaten- and only if Iran was not a threat.
you seem to think these younger generations are only repeating what they are told on the news, but they have the ability to speak directly with the Iraqis and Afghans and others that was not available even five years ago- the mainstream media is attacking twitter and youtube and myspace type sights because the truth is getting out and they can't control the story anymore. seeing they are being lied to about the wars they are looking more closely to things closer to home. their world, and their perception of that world, has changed.

[steelish]

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

it is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

Actually no. Thomas Jefferson stated "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Just because the Second Amendment happens to have a preamble doesn't diminish the fact that the granting of this right to the people is perfectly clear. When our Founders intended to specifically refer to the militia or the states, they used those words. Look at the Tenth Amendment, for instance: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It becomes even more clear when you look at other instances where the Founders used the language "the right of the people." Like in the First Amendment, for example: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Or, in the Fourth Amendment: "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well-regulated militia, is a reason why the people have a right to arms. It's a perfectly good and sufficient reason, but it't not the only reason, and it doesn't change who has the right.


Consider this sentence:


"Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat"


Does that mean that Joe should buy a boat only if he fishes for a living? What if Joe also likes to water ski? Being a fisherman is a great reason for getting a boat, but it isn't the only reason and, in fact, it doesn't even have to be true.

Likewise, the militia clause of the Second Amendment doesn't have to be true for the rest of the amendment to stand. What if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state? We are pretty secure and still (kind of) free these days, but we don't have a functioning state-militia system. Perhaps the Founders were wrong – maybe the only thing necessary to security is a nuclear-defense umbrella, a strong navy, and just plain good luck.

Does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its percieved benefits no longer exists? Of course not – no individual right depends on the government's actions. That's why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were "endowed with by our creator" instead of some elected bureaucrat.

[Bren122]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.
the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.
the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

[steelish]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.


The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.

No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces?


the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.

It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America.


now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.

You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America.


the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society.

Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood!


just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?

You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons.


i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

And I never thought you were arguing against the right, just pointing out that your interpretation of the Second Amendment was off.

[steelish]

The constitution has a procedure for its own amendment precisely because it was seen that what was known and thought necessary in the 18th century might be very different in the 21st century.

Wrong. You know why the Constitution will never be obsolete? Because it is about providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

[MMI]

I am in no doubt the British authorities allow [ethnic tribunals] to be set up within those communities. But they have no legal standing in the UK, and all findings must be presented to a British court to have the final say.

Of course they have no legal standing per se, but if both parties have agreed to be bound by the tribunal's decision, the courts will not disturb it. Approval by the courts is unnecessary.


I would like to point out that it has not stopped honour killings

It woudn't, would it? The tribunals do not order honour killings where they feel a girl has disgraced her family. And I would suggest that in the countries where honour killings are accepted by custom, they are still illegal in the countries of origin.



The UK is a very racially tolerant country ...


Then let us not fall into the trap of believing racist propaganda purveyed by the nazi parties on the right, or swallowing tall stories spread in pub arguments by readers of the gutter press. Let us live up to our honourable and noble reputation of providing a safe haven for people of all persuasions and colours; and let us also live up to our promises to the people whose national histories are so closely linked to ours, and who made this country as great as it once was by treating them like real people - like the British citizens they are or aspire to be.


... Sharia Law has no minimum, what is said is done and sometimes to the extreme, it has no place in the civilised world.

Islamic law constitutes the third most influential legal system in the world, after Civil Law and Common Law. What do you mean, it has no place in the civilised world?

Sharia encompasses much more than a legal system, but all aspects of moslem life, including economic matters, family matters, politics and so on and it is founded on justice and faith, not hate, power and bloodlust. OK, some of the penalties seem harsh, but how far removed are they from our own punioshments? When did we abandon judicial torture ... the USA practiced it under the previous regime. What about the death penalty? The USA still practices that. What about amputations? Well, England practiced dismemberment in mediaeval times for certain crimes. There's no getting away with it: Western law was once as cruel as Sharia law can be.

Now look at the countries where Sharia law is praccticed in its strictest forms. Can you see any resemblence to the underdeveloped nations of Europe in centuries past?

The crimes are different maybe, but that's due to different societies having different moral values. Who's to say which is the better these days?



... or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

Works for me ... ;)



... [the American Constitution] ... was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

But, of course, the Constitution can be changed, or even erased, if enough Americans will it. The list of amendments already enacted demonsrate this, and denying it is futile

[Lion]

A mod is free to put this post on a new thread since it really has nothing to do with the discussion. I just want to clarify a common misconception


It doesn't have to happen "in secret" in the U.S. They can practice their religion right out in the open! The U.S. is full of ethnic and/or religious communities. BUT, for the Islamic faithful to take over the U.S. and impose their beliefs and Sharia law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) upon the Americans would be unconstitutional, and that is what I was referring to. Unless they become the majority in the U.S., and simply because of the very behavior you mention, they will probably remain in small groups in communities - rather than in positions of power.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding Muslims, the Jihad believers have ruined it for them.

I get what your point is here, and agree with it. The only thing I disagree with is the term "Jihad Believers".

Jihad Believers, Jihadists, etc are terms that people have tossed around in the last 10 years without really knowing what it means. The literal translation is Struggle. In a nutshell, protecting the faith of Islam. Be it from within or external.

The faith of Islam is different then what these monsters claim to believe in. As a Muslim, they have no real association with my faith, and have stolen words to brainwash others around them, words like Jihad. I hate all "Jihad" terms used to describe a terrorist, because 1) it becomes okay for the general public to use the word as a negative word, when for me, it holds an important meaning, and 2) it strengthens the resolve of people who are labelled as "Jihadists" or "Jihadist believers", by using that term a lot, you are in essense telling Muslims around the world that either you believe Jihad is part of your faith, and you are with them, or Jihad is evil, and you are with us.

Jihad on occasion, does incorporate fighting for Islam, when Islam is threatened, when it's followers are threatened. It does in no way mean killing the innocent, and you won't find that anywhere.



Sorry for the interruption, everyone can go on with the discussion

[Bren122]

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.

and both sides say that before every election.
all governments fear the people; that is precisely the problem. rather than doing what is right, too often they do what is popular. that's why your budget is pushing a deficit of $2trillion. we increasingly measure the concern of a government on an issue by how much it spends and not on how much it actually helps.



No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces? where a regime/ government maintains the support of the army it maintains its hold on power. name one revolution that has succeeded where the army has stood by the government.
What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States? why did it fail- because the army remained true to the union.




It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America. the success of British/English colonised societies relies on a common written language and the belief in the rule of law. Canada, New Zealand and Australia do not have the 'right to bare arms' and have done as well in building societies. any reading of the history of the early US makes it clear that the founding fathers feared one thing above all- a military dictatorship based on a standing army. it was why so many of them were opposed to Washington being the first president. disbanding the continental army and establishing the militia was the primary goal of the second amendment at that time.



You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America. even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.



Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood! Well i could have used the old lefty ploy and made political mileage out of the frequent rampage shootings in America but i thought that it would be self evident that the ability to do so was more aptly made with the example cited.




You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons. and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

[Bren122]

Wrong. You know why the Constitution will never be obsolete? Because it is about providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which HAS NOT CHANGED AND WILL NOT CHANGE - NAMELY, HUMAN NATURE.

i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?
once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

[Bren122]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren122
... or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?
MMI says
Works for me ...

LOL.........

[steelish]

What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States?

The South was not attempting to take over the U.S. (http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm)

[steelish]

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

And I agree...a civilian should not have military style weaponry. But I do not really want the government messing with our right to bear arms. What they need to do is place tighter restrictions on such weapons.

[denuseri]

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[steelish]

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

I don't have a Barretta (I assume that is what you're referring to) nor do I have a .50 caliber rifle (thank God) but I do have a very nice CZ 75BD (http://cz-usa.com/products/view/cz-75-bd/). I know I'm being cheeky now, but I can't help it. Most people who don't understand seem to think that gun owners are "shoot 'em up" type people who will take wild pot-shots at anything and everything. (possibly because my neighbors dog shit in my yard) But nothing could be further from the truth. I abhor violence but I am not so stupid as to not be knowledgeable about guns and gun safety.

[steelish]

i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?

Ah, but Amendments that gave women the right to vote and gave African Americans equal rights were not changes in human nature. They were an re-affirmation of God's Law, which is what our Constitution is based upon.


once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

The proliferation of clocks did not change the work day for many American workers. Farmers, loggers, miners, etc. still worked sunup to sundown. And most modern sports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sport) came about as a result of economics. Gambling, to be exact. It was another way for people to make money.

[denuseri]

I seem to recall our founding fathers wanting to make a seperation between church and state.

[Thorne]

Ah, but Amendments that gave women the right to vote and gave African Americans equal rights were not changes in human nature. They were an re-affirmation of God's Law, which is what our Constitution is based upon.
Ah, but that's not what God's Law is all about, is it. God's law holds women to be not much better than property, and slavery to be justified. It is MORAL law that gives women and former slaves equal rights.

[Stealth694]

I have always felt the Constitution is a work in Progress,,, and must evolve according to the environment. Once Slavery was legal, now its a crime, Alcohol was illegal, once now its legal again, there are proposed amendments to legalize drugs ( I am against it) but still the Constitution has worked for over 200 yrs. BUT our Congressmen should be reminded that they "SERVE" at our pleasure, and after what happened in Massachuetts, hopefully this will wake them up to the fact that they are not in office for life, and we are not pleased.

[steelish]

There's a huge difference between adding to the Constitution with Amendments, and "changing" the Constitution or simply twisting it to fit a particular viewpoint.

Slavery is inhumane, therefore it should be illegal. Alcohol only became illegal after a progressive movement, at which point the government thought they were doing Americans a favor by making it illegal. So the prohibitionists had a field day and it backfired on the government. It caused more problems than it solved. So...they legalized it once again.

Not only did the Constitution work for over 200 years, it created one of the greatest nations on earth.

I am not holding my breath that the election in Massachusetts woke up the Democrats. A few have murmured that "maybe the majority of the people don't want this health care after all". But I for one think it's a ploy to save their seat. I don't think they've changed. They knew a majority didn't want it but they were plowing ahead anyway. Now that they're in danger of being voted out, suddenly they're singing different songs. I don't care for their songs anymore.

[MMI]

An amendment is what it says: a change, a correction, or rectification, etc. If the American Constitution had not been altered by the Bill of Rights, or by the various other amendments giving, for example, the vote to women, or abolishing slavery, the USA would not be "one of the greatest nations on earth," which it undoubtedly is.

The fact that, in 1919 it was felt necessary to use the Constitution to prohibit the production of alcoholic beverages, and, in 1933 it was felt necessary to amend that part of the Constitution again, to repeal the earlier amendment shows that changes can be made to the document, if necessary over and over again.

[denuseri]

I dont think the issue with the constituionalists is about the document and its amedments in and of itself.

Its with the blatant sidesteping of it by passage of all sorts of regulatory laws (some by legal descision in the courts other through various resolutions and side votes in committeees and other pork barrel aditives).

[oww-that-hurt]

Wouldn't it be grand if all of the U.S. citizens could write as well as denuseri did with the opening post to this thread? Yeah, I know, only the first couple of lines were hers, but for her to write those lines and present the text for us is outstanding.

denuseri, i shake your hand, for writing much of what I feel, through your many thread contributions.

Thank-you

oww

[Midnytedreams]

I'm just pondering how long it will be before we see an Obama shoe or line of clothing" would the slogan read now you can feel the power". Maybe he could solve the economy with his endorsements.

[steelish]

I dont think the issue with the constituionalists is about the document and its amedments in and of itself.

Its with the blatant sidesteping of it by passage of all sorts of regulatory laws (some by legal descision in the courts other through various resolutions and side votes in committeees and other pork barrel aditives).


Thank you. That's the point I've been trying to get across and it just wasn't coming out, no matter how I tried to explain it!

[denuseri]

They allready have a load of Obama novelty products out there.

[Midnytedreams]

The Obama's have replaced picture of Lincoln in the white house with new art

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203771904574175453455287432.html.. .

The art says nothing but the word .... Maybe

makes you wonder what that means

[TwistedTails]

The Obama's have replaced picture of Lincoln in the white house with new art

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203771904574175453455287432.html.. .

The art says nothing but the word .... Maybe
makes you wonder what that means

From the article....

"and a blood-red Edward Ruscha canvas featuring the words,
“I think maybe I’ll…,” fitting for a president known for lengthy
bouts of contemplation."

It is not a very good picture of the work, and I don't see anything
about replacing any presidential portraits. I rather doubt the curator
would allow that. As far as the residence goes, it has always been the
First Lady's prerogative to redecorate.

[Midnytedreams]

thank you twisted that's what I get for not wearing My glasses when I read

[MMI]

Maybe I look at life from a different angle
Maybe there are some knots that we don’t need to untangle
Maybe I look at the world from a different point of view
Maybe all lies are not false and all truths are not true
Maybe I look at the heavens with rose colored glasses
Maybe there’s one rainbow that was meant for all the masses
Maybe I looked at poverty from a different position
Maybe an empty plate means poor recognition
Maybe I look at war from a different prospective
Maybe fighting wars leaves one a little defective
Maybe I listen to the wind with different ears
Maybe the wind is a lullaby to calm babies’ tears
Maybe I’ll just pilot a giant craft like Noah’s Ark
Maybe it will open peoples’ eyes and they will see a new spark
Maybe I’ll plant around the world a seed of desperation
Maybe then we will awaken to a new realization
Maybe I’ll sell this planet a better tomorrow
Maybe peace and harmony will keep down the sorrow
Maybe I’ll say penance for the errors of our ways
Maybe we should get down on our knees and see how it plays
Maybe I look at creation as something artificial
Maybe coloring it with crayons makes it official
Maybe I look at the unknown with ambiguous eyes
Maybe being cynical is an inherent disguise
Maybe I look as destiny as a vehicle of hope
Maybe we just haven’t thrown out enough rope
Maybe I’m just a creature of apprehension
Maybe it’s true that love is the mother of invention
Maybe I look at starvation and it just doesn’t make any sense
Maybe that is why happy people talk about salvation in the past tense
Maybe I look at democracy with a tired eye and closed mind
Maybe the rich shouldn’t get richer stealing the poor blind
Maybe I look at dreams from a different optical plane
Maybe a kaleidoscope isn’t fragmented, it’s only our brain
Maybe I’ll just go hide behind a dead tree and throw up
Maybe I was just too gullible to think someday we would grow up
Maybe I look at the cutting edge of society with a dull sense of despair
Maybe a better tomorrow will never come, we’re already there
Maybe I look at spilt blood as more than external pain
Maybe a river of blood is but a sad refrain
Maybe I look at silence as the king of betrayal of our fall
Maybe a tongue tied artist can’t speak for us all
Maybe I picture the mother earth as a black pearl in the sky
Maybe, just maybe we need to ask the question why

Alfred Ramos

[Energizer]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

[Bren122]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

there is a very good argument that in guaranteeing property rights and rule of law, the US Constitution made the necessary conditions for wealth creation possible. very hard to create wealth in some countries when the authorities keep leaning on you to pay 'protection' money and 'special' contributions.

[Bren122]

No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

The success of the South relied absolutely on recognition by Britain; and Britain refused to supply it because of the pro-slavery stance taken by the confederacy. In fact the failure of the South worked to Britain's favour- it managed to establish cotton farms in labour cheap parts of the Empire and in Egypt as well as weakening France in its misguided pursuit of a Mexican crown. workers in the cotton mills in the north of England sent letters of support to Lincoln and even contributed money to the Northern war effort while their mills stood idle for want of Southern cotton. Liverpool dock workers refused to unload much of the cotton that was smuggled out of the South. Britain put principle above interest in this matter.
the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms.

[denuseri]

I apologize, it wasn't the whole of Brittan, I excludded the so called "Official" position of the government and its abolisionist supporters. I should have been more specific about which divisons of which countries I was refering to.

Factions of the Brittish as well as the French did however not support the interuption of commerce from the South at least initially during the war and more than one political cartoonist in the UK as well as France did do their best to paint Lincon in paticular in a bad light, especially prior to election but also during the war, where as the new markets that were opened were done by nessesity due to sudden sortages that initially cuased hardship as opposed to by design of oportunity seeking if I recall correctly.

[DuncanONeil]

"Sold them a bill of goods"? You consider work hard, save for the future, attend church regularly, and be honest in your dealing with others a "bill of goods"?


The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.

[DuncanONeil]

The amendment states, as you note, that a well regulated militia is necessary.
But! In order to insure that said can exist a right is granted, not to the militia or state but to "the people". The language of the amendment is clear and can only result in one understanding.
In case my position is perceived as my own personal bias against your personal bias you can find an English language analysis from an expert at teh following location. http://www.largo.org/literary.html


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

it is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.

[DuncanONeil]

Steelish, basically very well put. However there is one fundamental flaw in your post. "We don't have a functioning state-militia system". This is a bit wrong, the National Guard is a functioning state militia system!


Actually no. Thomas Jefferson stated "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Just because the Second Amendment happens to have a preamble doesn't diminish the fact that the granting of this right to the people is perfectly clear. When our Founders intended to specifically refer to the militia or the states, they used those words. Look at the Tenth Amendment, for instance: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It becomes even more clear when you look at other instances where the Founders used the language "the right of the people." Like in the First Amendment, for example: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Or, in the Fourth Amendment: "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well-regulated militia, is a reason why the people have a right to arms. It's a perfectly good and sufficient reason, but it't not the only reason, and it doesn't change who has the right.


Consider this sentence:


"Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat"


Does that mean that Joe should buy a boat only if he fishes for a living? What if Joe also likes to water ski? Being a fisherman is a great reason for getting a boat, but it isn't the only reason and, in fact, it doesn't even have to be true.

Likewise, the militia clause of the Second Amendment doesn't have to be true for the rest of the amendment to stand. What if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state? We are pretty secure and still (kind of) free these days, but we don't have a functioning state-militia system. Perhaps the Founders were wrong – maybe the only thing necessary to security is a nuclear-defense umbrella, a strong navy, and just plain good luck.

Does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its percieved benefits no longer exists? Of course not – no individual right depends on the government's actions. That's why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were "endowed with by our creator" instead of some elected bureaucrat.

[DuncanONeil]

To say; "government is meant to serve, not fear, the people. " is foolish. To make it simple, you fear your boss. Not because he is mean or any such thing but because he has the power to fire you.
For the Government to fear the people makes the Government responsive to the people. When the Government does not fear the people you arrive at a situation like we have now, where the Government decides that it does not matter what the people say or desire we are going to pass the law we think is best for them.
The people did not want to bail out the auto companies. The Government went ahead anyway! The people have determined that the Government plan for health insurance is fatally flawed and do not want it. What is the Government position? Pass it anyhow! We'll fix it later! The second part of that is proof they know it is flawed, why not fix it first?


A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.
the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.
the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

[DuncanONeil]

"the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense."

Then how do you reconcile the fact that states that have authorized an ability for its citizens to carry concealed handguns experience a significant downturn in violent crime?

[DuncanONeil]

and both sides say that before every election.
all governments fear the people; that is precisely the problem. rather than doing what is right, too often they do what is popular. that's why your budget is pushing a deficit of $2trillion. we increasingly measure the concern of a government on an issue by how much it spends and not on how much it actually helps.

Currently the budget is pushing $2 trillion because the administration has determined that giving monies to their friends is good for the country. It may also be because they believe that all of the country's money belongs to the Government.
How well off do you think you would be if you had the capability of raising the credit limit on your own credit card whenever you chose. It seems that some in Government are desirous of getting more than half of the people receiving their monies from the Government. The Government does have a "social justice" agenda. If you want true "social justice" it needs to come from the people, not from above.



where a regime/ government maintains the support of the army it maintains its hold on power. name one revolution that has succeeded where the army has stood by the government.
What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States? why did it fail- because the army remained true to the union.

The Civil War was not in the least bit an attempt to overthrow the Government. Thirteen states decided that their best course of action was to create a new country. They did so. The rest saw that as an insurrection. As for the army remaining true to the Union is patently false. Many of the military leaders in the South were members of the US military that quit the military and went to the south. Some of those were:
Himself a graduate of West Point and a former regular officer, Confederate President Jefferson Davis highly prized these valuable recruits to the cause and saw that former regular officers were given positions of authority and responsibility.[8]

* Richard H. Anderson
* Pierre Beauregard
* Braxton Bragg
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.
* Samuel Cooper
* Jubal Anderson Early
* Richard Ewell
* Josiah Gorgas
* William Joseph Hardee
* Ambrose Powell Hill
* Daniel Harvey Hill
* John Bell Hood
* Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
* Albert Sidney Johnston
* Joseph E. Johnston
* Robert E. Lee
* James Longstreet
* Dabney Herndon Maury
* John Hunt Morgan
* John C. Pemberton
* Edmund Kirby Smith
* Gustavus Woodson Smith
* J.E.B. Stuart
* Joseph Wheeler




even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

In the US, in spite of the second amendment, there are myriad restrictions on ownership. Your comments imply a belief that proponents of the Second desire unrestricted. Nothig could be further from the truth. Just because we stand by the Second does not mean that reasonable controls, or none, are to be dispensed with. All of the concealed carry states have restrictions on the ability to carry and no one is opposed to those restrictions.



Well i could have used the old lefty ploy and made political mileage out of the frequent rampage shootings in America but i thought that it would be self evident that the ability to do so was more aptly made with the example cited.

Rampage shootings are not an issue of guns, but an issue of people.



and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

This surprises you!?!?!? There are, in total, some 2.9 million in the US military and well over 300 million in the country. So the quote is meaningless!
And a Barrett is now a collectors piece. Its position in the Military has been replaced by newer weapons. To make a point, there is a gentleman relatively near hear that has several tanks and other armored vehicles, According to you I should be in deathly fear of this man.

Oh, incidently, when has there been a "rampage" shooting involving a Barrett

[DuncanONeil]

None of that has changed "human nature"!


i never said it was obsolete.
human nature has changed- or do you still think it is morally wrong for women to vote? morally right for children as young as six to work down mines or in textile mills or for negroes to be slaves?
once upon a time the working day was from sun-up to sun-down; the distribution of tolling clocks changed that and people began to think of terms of a fair day's work throughout the year. it was a fundamental shift in the way people thought about time and their obligations as defined by time. it is no coincedence that many modern sports trace their revival or invention to games first played soon after the proliferation of clocks in Europe- suddenly there was 'time' for recreation.
every year lately we are presented with technologies that change the fundamental nature of our existence.
the beauty of the constitution is not that it never changes but that it is adjustable enough that new technologies that change our understanding of our rights do not change our access to those rights.

[DuncanONeil]

And I agree...a civilian should not have military style weaponry. But I do not really want the government messing with our right to bear arms. What they need to do is place tighter restrictions on such weapons.

This is not a complaint.
The toughest weapons go to two kinds. Collectors, I think we can all presume they have no intent to go on a killing spree.
And the bad guys. The bad guys are concerned with two things in a fire arm. Rate of fire and is it concealable.

[DuncanONeil]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.


No not at all, the south just wanted to seperate itself from the country they had previously made an oath to abide within (and our constitution btw too) so they could keep their slaves.

Which would have made the whole of Brittan (as well as some other western european counties at the time more than happy since it would open the dooor to their being able to more readily drive a wedge in any united front we may have previously presented against further domination by them perfectly.

Which is why we ratified the constitution to begin with. (Read the Federalist Papers if you dont believe me)

[DuncanONeil]

I seem to recall our founding fathers wanting to make a seperation between church and state.

Not really! The desire was to prevent a reoccurrence of the Church of England. Also to prevent supremacy of a single religion by fiat.

[DuncanONeil]

However the leadership still wishes to "plow ahead". The day after the vote Madame Pelosi said we have heard you and will move forward, but we will move forward. The President still is of a mind to take over this industry.


There's a huge difference between adding to the Constitution with Amendments, and "changing" the Constitution or simply twisting it to fit a particular viewpoint.

Slavery is inhumane, therefore it should be illegal. Alcohol only became illegal after a progressive movement, at which point the government thought they were doing Americans a favor by making it illegal. So the prohibitionists had a field day and it backfired on the government. It caused more problems than it solved. So...they legalized it once again.

Not only did the Constitution work for over 200 years, it created one of the greatest nations on earth.

I am not holding my breath that the election in Massachusetts woke up the Democrats. A few have murmured that "maybe the majority of the people don't want this health care after all". But I for one think it's a ploy to save their seat. I don't think they've changed. They knew a majority didn't want it but they were plowing ahead anyway. Now that they're in danger of being voted out, suddenly they're singing different songs. I don't care for their songs anymore.

[DuncanONeil]

The referenced document at time of its creation was unique. It retained that distinction for a little over 13 years, at which time the French began to develop their own constitution based on ours. It is possible that there now exist a few more documents based on ours, however, I am unable to name any.
It is entirely possible that Japans governing document is very similar, since it authors were not locals.


I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is. Sure it plays some role in it, but truthfully, it is easy to be pleased with the government when resources are so easily accessible to Americans and things are going so well.

We can be fortunate in America to be having debates of whether all people deserve medical treatment, where as some countries are forced into debates of whether or not to build a hospital with their scare resources.

I feel the resources and economics of America are what make it so great, and less to do with the constitution being that much better than any other democracy/republic.

[DuncanONeil]

"the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms."

Evidence? Curious.

[denuseri]

The Civil War was not a single issue conflict. In fact if it was just about slavery, it likely would not have occurred as the North had slaves at the time.

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.

[denuseri]

Not really! The desire was to prevent a reoccurrence of the Church of England. Also to prevent supremacy of a single religion by fiat.

Well considering that when one carefully studies the various writtings of many of the founding fathers and finds that a lot of them were practicioners of deism, as well as other heritical paths such as apotheoscy like Washington and others (masons and other secret colleges) and wore the matle of the so called "faithful" in their country of origin to hide from persecution; one must also consider that the founding fathers did not wish only to avoid a state controlled religion, but to exclude the state from promoting or having any part whatsoever in religion of any kind.

In the words of ole Tommy J himself:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Basically:

The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.

Religious freedom is an absolute right, and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.

[Bren122]

"Sold them a bill of goods"? You consider work hard, save for the future, attend church regularly, and be honest in your dealing with others a "bill of goods"?

Some Baby Boomers have taught this; the ones out of the mainstream. i bet if you look outside your immediate circle or at the mainstream media such notions are derided by the bulk of your contemporaries. I certainly did not learn these things from my parents; my wife did not learn these things from her parents; most of our friends would be the same.
the Bill of Goods i was referring to was the idea that you cannot change the world; your own personal world or the big wide world.

[Bren122]

"the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense."

Then how do you reconcile the fact that states that have authorized an ability for its citizens to carry concealed handguns experience a significant downturn in violent crime?

your post does not make sense in light of the quote; i don't mention conceal and carry laws.

it is this simple- liberals say that all guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.
i am saying that going to the public and saying that no gun should be banned because back in 1870 it was useful on the prairies is to ignore that very few people live on the prairies anymore. what possible reason could there be in an urban or rural environment for a gun with a 30-50 round magazine with a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds per minute?
the vast majority of the public are all for handguns for self defence and hunting rifles, etc. where you lose them, and worry them, is when you mount a defence for these automatic and semi-automatic military rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles.

[Bren122]

Currently the budget is pushing $2 trillion because the administration has determined that giving monies to their friends is good for the country. It may also be because they believe that all of the country's money belongs to the Government.
How well off do you think you would be if you had the capability of raising the credit limit on your own credit card whenever you chose. It seems that some in Government are desirous of getting more than half of the people receiving their monies from the Government. The Government does have a "social justice" agenda. If you want true "social justice" it needs to come from the people, not from above.
Republicans are just as guilty of pork barrelling and overspending; though i do agree with your critique of the current government.




The Civil War was not in the least bit an attempt to overthrow the Government. Thirteen states decided that their best course of action was to create a new country. They did so. The rest saw that as an insurrection. As for the army remaining true to the Union is patently false. Many of the military leaders in the South were members of the US military that quit the military and went to the south. Some of those were:
Himself a graduate of West Point and a former regular officer, Confederate President Jefferson Davis highly prized these valuable recruits to the cause and saw that former regular officers were given positions of authority and responsibility.[8]

* Richard H. Anderson
* Pierre Beauregard
* Braxton Bragg
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.
* Samuel Cooper
* Jubal Anderson Early
* Richard Ewell
* Josiah Gorgas
* William Joseph Hardee
* Ambrose Powell Hill
* Daniel Harvey Hill
* John Bell Hood
* Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
* Albert Sidney Johnston
* Joseph E. Johnston
* Robert E. Lee
* James Longstreet
* Dabney Herndon Maury
* John Hunt Morgan
* John C. Pemberton
* Edmund Kirby Smith
* Gustavus Woodson Smith
* J.E.B. Stuart
* Joseph Wheeler
you are naming individuals, many of whom were not on the active list- Jackson being the most obvious. the United States Army as a whole (or even a majority) did not go over to the other side.





In the US, in spite of the second amendment, there are myriad restrictions on ownership. Your comments imply a belief that proponents of the Second desire unrestricted. Nothig could be further from the truth. Just because we stand by the Second does not mean that reasonable controls, or none, are to be dispensed with. All of the concealed carry states have restrictions on the ability to carry and no one is opposed to those restrictions.
again- i have not mentioned conceal or carry.
but the NRA has been opposed to delays for background checks, background checks, psychological assessments and the banning of weapon types and individual weapons and ammunitions. it has opposed banning armour piercing bullets- the so called "cop killers." this is the number one representative group for gun owners.




Rampage shootings are not an issue of guns, but an issue of people.




This surprises you!?!?!? There are, in total, some 2.9 million in the US military and well over 300 million in the country. So the quote is meaningless!
And a Barrett is now a collectors piece. Its position in the Military has been replaced by newer weapons. To make a point, there is a gentleman relatively near hear that has several tanks and other armored vehicles, According to you I should be in deathly fear of this man.

Oh, incidently, when has there been a "rampage" shooting involving a Barrett[/QUOTE]

[Bren122]

Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.



Duncan is partially correct; had it been possible for the previous compromises to continue in relation to the admittance of the states on the basis of free and non-free then the war either would have been long delayed or never have taken place. mechanisation of cotton production would have effectively seen slavery die out anyway. it was the unwillingness of the North to change constitutional conditions for state entry that ultimately led to the war. combined with a fear that the industrial strength of the North, already quite pronounced and shortly to become overywhelmingly dominant in the world, made an attempt at secession an increasingly now or never alternative- even 10 years on would have made a big difference in terms of population and economic power. eventually the south was swamped in a war of attrition.
slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis. the election of Lincoln was the spark to a volatile situation. while publicly stating he had no intention of legislating an abolition of slavery, as Duncan himself has pointed out in a previous thread, there was no guarantee for the south that he would keep his word when in office.

[Bren122]

"the Southern seccession was very obviously a ploy to overthrow the government of the US by making Lincoln's presidency untenable and returning to the Union under its own terms."

Evidence? Curious.

from the outset, except in radical journals and radical speeches, the aim of the threat of secession was to change the constitutional arrangements for entry of states into the Union so that parts of the south could be used to balance the plains states and keep a balance in the Senate and House. the nomination of Lincoln as Republican candidate against a divided democrat ticket meant that there was a real chance that an abolitionist would sit in the White House. the aim of the threat was maintained, but there was an additional purpose in attempting to keep Lincoln from being elected and, if elected, from being sworn in.
of course the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was sworn in. the delay between the ceremony and the first shot was used to arm the militias of both sides but also to find a compromise that would allow the south to return; it could not return under anything less than a full backdown by the north and this was never an option. the south's retention of slavery relied on a non-abolitionist president and a balance of states as represented in the House and Senate. there was also the issue of the economic and demographic preponderance of the north- as I noted to Denusseri there is a real element of now or never in the writings of the leadership of the south.
because neither side was prepared to back down the war began; but in order for the South to retain slavery for as long as it needed it had to overturn Lincoln's election and change the constitutional basis for statehood. though the attempt failed it was still an attempt to overthrow the US and the presidency.


the main alternative envisaged by elements of the south was an American Empire in Central America and the Carribean with perhaps extensions into South America. just as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated as conquered lands into the Union it was envisaged that other Mexican states would be included as slave states. of course the north was opposed to this on two fronts- the westward expansion already took up a great deal of energy and resources and the idea of extending slavery to areas where it had been banned. Ironically, the south alone did not have the resources to implement this dream.

[denuseri]

The South, made up many reasons to succeeded from the North, but slavery in and of itself was the primary central motivating factor.

There were fundamental economic, social, and political differences between the two, but again, slavery was the core issue in that it's use made the basis for allmost all of the others.

An example of their different views was the South wanting to become an independent nation. Westward Expansion was a period were people of the 19th Century were bribed with land to move west for future expansion of the new territory the United States had bought. The main reason the South wanted to succeed had to do with the North’s thoughts on slavery.

The only way to have avoided the War was to abolish slavery but this could not be done because slavery is what kept the South running plain and simple.

Slaves were a huge investment to Southerners and if taken away, could mean massive losses to everyone. An example of the use of slavery was in effect when the cotton gin was invented and the demand for slavery doubled. By 1804 seven of the northern states had abolished slavery. During this time there were demands for political equality and economic and social advances. Some of the Northern goals were free public education, better salaries and working conditions for workers, rights for women, and better treatment for criminals. All these views eventually led to an attack on the slavery system in the South.

When new territories became available in the West the South wanted to expand and use slavery in the newly acquired territories, fearing that if it did not, it would loose any numerical advantage it had in votes. The south previously had insisted upon the 2/3's compromise so they could increase their voting power but counting 2/3s of each slave it owned to be cast on its side in any decisions.

Although the North opposed, and wanted to limit slave states in the Union, many Southerners felt that the government dominated by free states could endanger existing slaveholdings.

In 1819 Missouri asked to be admitted to the Union as a slave state even though the North disapproved. Congress soon passed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This Compromise regulated the extension of slavery in the United States. Meanwhile, Maine also applied acceptance to the Union as a free state. Future states admitted North of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude would be free states, and states admitted South of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude would be slave states.

In 1848 the Union acquired a piece of land from Mexico. This opened new opportunities for the spread of slavery for Southerners. However, it was disliked because it aided the free farmer much more than the slaveholding plantation owner. Passing the Compromise of 1850 was to solve this problem. This compromise allowed abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia and admission of California as a free state. Another part of the compromise was the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which required the return of runaway slaves to their masters.

This compromise said that the territory east of California given to the United States by Mexico was divided into the territories of New Mexico and Utah, and they were opened to settlement by both slaveholders and antislavery settlers. The results reflected great hostility between the slave and free states.

In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. It was introduced by Stephen Douglas, and it stated that the two states vote for themselves on the issue of slavery. A conflict developed in Kansas between pro-slavery settlers from Missouri and antislavery newcomers who began to move into the territory from the northeastern states. This was known as “Bleeding Kansas.”

The abolitionists played a major role in shaping the views of many Northerners as well as the formation of the Republican Party. (Ironic how the Republicans allowed Hubert Humphry to steal the promotion of an equal rights agenda as its new minority platform just days before they themselves had been planing to announce its addition to their own in 1948, which only made sence since the Republicans had been the party to free the slaves to begin with.)

These people were fully against slavery and its expansion and most of the time took matters into their own hands to get their point across.

The last main conflict that led to succession was during the presidential election of 1860. Nominated was Abraham Lincoln a Republican, who said many times he didnt wish to force the abolisanist agenda on the south in an attempt to aleviate potential voter's in those regions fears. (Funny how most southern states refused to even put him on thier ballots anyway)

Now with Lincoln being elected the South really felt that expansion was being threatened, and because expansion was vital to the survival of slavery they also felt their way of life was being threatened.

Lincoln said that succession was illegal and said that he intended to maintain federal possessions in the South. He also said many times when speaking to his own base in his party how the condition of slavery was not acceptable in any civilized society.

Initially, Lincoln expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by offering compensated emancipation (an offer accepted only by Washington, D.C). Lincoln stood by the Republican Party platform in 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. Most Americans agreed that if all future states admitted to the Union were to be free states, that slavery would eventually be abolished. Lincoln saw the Kansas issue as a repeal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise which had outlawed slavery above the 36-30' parallel.

Southerners hoped the threat of succession would force acceptance of Southern demands, but it didn’t. South Carolina was the first to adopt an ordinance of succession and after that many other states followed. This achievement outraged the North, which caused the the Civil War. The first shots of which were fired upon the North by the South at Fort Sumpter in SC when they wouldn't surrender the garrison there. Blood had been spilled.

The existence of slavery was the central element of the conflict between the North and South. Other problems existed that led to succession but none were as big as the slavery issue. The only way to avoid the war was to abolish slavery totally although the South depended on slaves a great deal; creating a unescapable paradox. Technological progressions did nothing to stop the Southerners reliance on slavery before, if anything it promoted it and nothing sugested that they would wish to abolish it in the South at some as for unseen magical date. Really there were no ways of avoiding a conflict other than the South adhearing to the Constitution (which it chose to disregard) because the North and South had opposite views of slavery.

In some places in the south, despite the war and the constitution, a state of peonage was even enforced by white southerners on blacks in some communities that extended well in to 20th century.

[steelish]

I'm not altogether sure that the American constitution is what everyone is claiming as the reasoning for why America is as it is.

The American Constitution is EXACTLY the reason why America became such a great and powerful nation.

Excerpt from The 5000 Year Leap;


The Constitution [Benjamin] Franklin and his friends gave to us resulted in the greatest nation in history. With the adoption of our Constitution our nation became a nation based on law, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. A quick review of our history as a nation certainly supports Franklin's observation that our nation represented a rising sun. Consider, for instance, that the United States represents approximately 5% of the world's population but has created more new wealth than all the rest of the world combined. Moreover, during this time period we have never suffered a famine, this in spite of the fact that even today famines continue to stalk the world over. Throughout the ages humans have gone hungry and many have starved, in spite of their fertile land and the manpower to work it. "The ancient Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, and Greeks were intelligent people, but in spite of their intelligence they were never able to get enough to eat. They often killed their babies because they couldn't feed them. the Roman Empire collapsed in famine." For more than a hundred years the United States has been the food basket of the world.
During the past two hundred years the United States has outdistanced the world in extending the benefits of inventions and discoveries to the vast majority of its people in such fields as medicine, housing, education, power-energy, transportation, space, aircraft, and agriculture. Furthermore, Americans have been responsible for more discoveries and inventions in science and elsewhere than any nation on earth. It's young men and women have fought in wars throughout the world in defense of freedom, asking nothing for their efforts and sacrificing their lives in return. The U.S. is always the first nation to provide relief and aid to other nations that have had natural calamities, sometimes even providing aid to our enemies. We have given more dollars in aid and relief than most other nations combined. In spite of our largess we are the target of the hate and envy of the rest of the world.

[Energizer]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.

[steelish]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.

The excerpt (not quote) stated how much of a change in the world the United States brought about. Do you think the U.S. would have been able to wrought such change in the world had it still been under sovereign rule?

The constitution limited and defined the powers of the American Government, and gave the U.S. a balanced form of government. Rather than having a ruler's law, where there is tyranny...or a no law, where there is total anarchy, the founders placed the U.S. government directly in the middle. We have people's law, where most of the power is to reside with the individual, family, municipality/community and then moves on up to the state then finally with the federal.

We were formed as a Republic by our founders. A democracy becomes increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows. A republic, on the other hand, governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely. James Madison in the Federalist Papers, (No. 14, p. 100.) explained it thus;

In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

Equal rights, not equal things! The founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do themselves. For example; every person is entitled to protection of his life and property. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to delegate to the government the task of setting up a police force to protect the lives and property of all the people. But suppose a kind-hearted man saw that one of his neighbors had two cars while another neighbor had none. What would happen if, in the spirit of benevolence, the kind man went over and took one of the cars from his prosperous neighbor and generously gave it to the neighbor in need? Obviously, he would be arrested for car theft. No matter how kind his intentions, he is guilty of flagrantly violating the natural rights of his prosperous neighbor, who is entitled to be protected in his property. Of course, the two-car neighbor could donate a car to his poor neighbor, if he liked, but that is his decision and not the prerogative of the kind-hearted neighbor who wants to play Robin Hood.
Now, suppose that kind-hearted man decided to ask the mayor and city council to force the man with two cars to give one to his pedestrian neighbor. Does that make it any more legitimate? Obviously, this makes it even worse because if the mayor and city council do it in the name of the law, the man who has lost his car has not only lost the rights to his property, but (since it is the "law") he has lost all right to appeal for help in protecting his property.
The reason I bring this up is because the equal rights doctrine protects the freedom to prosper...and this is what the constitution did for America.

There is more I could type, but suffice it to say that I recommend reading The 5000 Year Leap. It touches on almost every argument that has been leveled against the U.S. and it's founders in this thread. The book addresses welfare, it addresses religion and men's/women's rights in the bible. It touches on "re-distribution" of wealth, and explains the pitfalls of such...in logical terms anyone could easily understand.

The founders lived under tyranny. They lived under sovereign rule. They are the ones who designed this nation to (hopefully) avoid reverting back to such a tyrannical state. Read the book and you will understand the minute ways that the U.S. has been changing in the past 80 years (and much more swiftly recently) towards a nation the founders were trying to avoid.

[DuncanONeil]

I never said it was not about slavery! I said the war was not a single issue event.
Ask most anyone what the Civil War was about and the answer you get is "slavery". On the face of it that can not be the raison d'être for the war. Else there would be no slaves in the North. As there were something else had to be the primary impetus for the war. Note I said primary!


Any model that trys to establish a focus for the cuase of the Civil war that doesnt include "slavery" as the primary issue of contention between the North and South is litterally and purposefully (through ignorance or othwerwise) obscure the issue in a retroactive "political correctnes" attempt to make modern day southerners feel ok about themselves for what their ancestors promoted and or side step the ugly truth.

Which is quite unessesary and counter productive to discussion of the events.

No modern day Southerner is alive today that took part in the events. Despite the old adage of a father's sins passing unto the son, there simply is no culpability involved with the issue of slavery for us anymore.

But, that doesnt mean that rasism didnt survive and attempt to thrive. Nor does it excuse those who promote it even to this day.

Just look at the volume of perspectives that history has preserved in letters and newspapers and other writtings the Southerners and Northerners of those times made about it if you need any further conformation. For every individual involved in the war saying that it was not about slavery for them per say, there were a hundred others who say it was.

[DuncanONeil]

"In the words of ole Tommy J himself:

'No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.'"

Your quote sounds an awful lot like the first amendment! As for the focus of you message, that is exactly what I say!
I go a bit further though. Court decisions restricting exposure of the citizenry to anything deemed to be a religious icon, usually of one category of religion, are in fact in violation of the Constitution. A violation of the free expression clause.

[DuncanONeil]

I think I might be inclined to say, on the basis of your response, that your circle may be a bit restrictive.
I have been hearing from the news lately that the "current" generation may be the first that can expect to not "do better" than their parents. What you are saying is that this was the common belief beginning in the middle to late 60s. That period in the nation, if not the world, was encompassed by a concerted effort to improve everything!
Yet you feel that the lessons were "why bother we can't effect any change." Had changes not occurred we would not have the President we have.


Some Baby Boomers have taught this; the ones out of the mainstream. i bet if you look outside your immediate circle or at the mainstream media such notions are derided by the bulk of your contemporaries. I certainly did not learn these things from my parents; my wife did not learn these things from her parents; most of our friends would be the same.
the Bill of Goods i was referring to was the idea that you cannot change the world; your own personal world or the big wide world.

[DuncanONeil]

No you did not I did. However, the focus and tenor of your recent messages has been that having weapons available and ready was the major contributing factor in wide spread violence. My making the jump to CCW, with its concomitant reduction in violent crime is more appropriate than your jumping back to either the founding or the expansion and attesting that those conditions do not exist and therefore the need for firearms does not exist.
Why is there a need in a modern city for firearms, some cities (some portions of others) have the same reputation as Dodge city did before the arrival of Wyatt and his brothers. I do not know how big that town was but it is not unreasonable to understand that you could get from one side to the other in a short period of time. I live in a place with some 600,000 people, 97 square miles of ground, and only a bit over 600 cops on duty at a given time, with less on the street. In certain parts of town you could be beaten to death before the cops get there. Yet you seem to wish to insist that that is my best option.
You also try to base a complete ban on firearms on a single category. The is a word for that tactic. To use such to get someone to agree and then postulate that into a general dismissal of all firearms is not a valid argument.


your post does not make sense in light of the quote; i don't mention conceal and carry laws.

it is this simple- liberals say that all guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.
i am saying that going to the public and saying that no gun should be banned because back in 1870 it was useful on the prairies is to ignore that very few people live on the prairies anymore. what possible reason could there be in an urban or rural environment for a gun with a 30-50 round magazine with a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds per minute?
the vast majority of the public are all for handguns for self defence and hunting rifles, etc. where you lose them, and worry them, is when you mount a defence for these automatic and semi-automatic military rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles.

[DuncanONeil]

Republicans are just as guilty of pork barrelling and overspending; though i do agree with your critique of the current government.

And I am in favor of firing all 535 of them! Although I may make an exception for Liberman.



you are naming individuals, many of whom were not on the active list- Jackson being the most obvious. the United States Army as a whole (or even a majority) did not go over to the other side.

I was unhappy with the listing for two reasons, one being it was indentified as "some", and had no specific info on each. They were meant to be examples. But without further research I find your rebuttal less than satisfying.



again- i have not mentioned conceal or carry.
but the NRA has been opposed to delays for background checks, background checks, psychological assessments and the banning of weapon types and individual weapons and ammunitions. it has opposed banning armour piercing bullets- the so called "cop killers." this is the number one representative group for gun owners.

The NRA does not oppose background checks.
There is no opposition to "armor piercing" bullets being banned, to civilians. There is an objection to the change being sought that will identify nearly all rifle ammunition as "armor piercing". "(A)mending the federal “armor piercing ammunition” law, which currently restricts bullets made with certain metals and jacket constructions designed to penetrate protective vests worn by law enforcement officers. The change, supported by Sen. Obama, would ban any bullet that can be used in a handgun and that can penetrate the least protective vest worn by law enforcement officers." Clearly intended as an end around.
As for the "psychological assessments" Such a person would fail the background check.
Why are you so concerned about the mere mention of CCW? Data shows that in the places this is law has reduced crime!

[DuncanONeil]

slavery was the major difference between the states; it was slavery that retarded southern economic progress and caused the constitutional crisis.


Actually I would say the major difference between the North and the South was Agriculture vs Manufacturing, as you stated earlier. The fact that the South was almost totally agrarian did place them at a serious disadvantage in a war.

[DuncanONeil]

Some of that was not covered in classes I took.
But the summary does make a stronger case that the prime issue of the war was States Rights.
If you consider the attempt to unseat Lincoln an attempt to "overthrow ... the presidency. Can not be said of the actions of those in Florida in 2000? Just an aside.
I am not so certain that it was the issue of slavery that drove the South. Though the existence of slavery was a large factor in the nature of the Southern economy. With the tech available and the size of the work force paying wages must have been seen as a "death knell" for the entire economy of those states.
Oh yes, while slaves did exist in the North the vast majority were in the South. So in some respects the argument about slavery was Pot/Kettle.


from the outset, except in radical journals and radical speeches, the aim of the threat of secession was to change the constitutional arrangements for entry of states into the Union so that parts of the south could be used to balance the plains states and keep a balance in the Senate and House. the nomination of Lincoln as Republican candidate against a divided democrat ticket meant that there was a real chance that an abolitionist would sit in the White House. the aim of the threat was maintained, but there was an additional purpose in attempting to keep Lincoln from being elected and, if elected, from being sworn in.
of course the Republicans won the election and Lincoln was sworn in. the delay between the ceremony and the first shot was used to arm the militias of both sides but also to find a compromise that would allow the south to return; it could not return under anything less than a full backdown by the north and this was never an option. the south's retention of slavery relied on a non-abolitionist president and a balance of states as represented in the House and Senate. there was also the issue of the economic and demographic preponderance of the north- as I noted to Denusseri there is a real element of now or never in the writings of the leadership of the south.
because neither side was prepared to back down the war began; but in order for the South to retain slavery for as long as it needed it had to overturn Lincoln's election and change the constitutional basis for statehood. though the attempt failed it was still an attempt to overthrow the US and the presidency.


the main alternative envisaged by elements of the south was an American Empire in Central America and the Carribean with perhaps extensions into South America. just as Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico were incorporated as conquered lands into the Union it was envisaged that other Mexican states would be included as slave states. of course the north was opposed to this on two fronts- the westward expansion already took up a great deal of energy and resources and the idea of extending slavery to areas where it had been banned. Ironically, the south alone did not have the resources to implement this dream.

[DuncanONeil]

"The Constitution Franklin and his friends gave to us resulted in the greatest nation in history. With the adoption of our Constitution our nation became a nation based on law, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. A quick review of our history as a nation certainly supports Franklin's observation that our nation represented a rising sun. Consider, for instance, that the United States represents approximately 5% of the world's population but has created more new wealth than all the rest of the world combined."

[B]Just a little tidbit gleaned from the History Channel.
"At the start of the Revolution Americans has the highest standard of living and the lowest taxes in the Western World.

[DuncanONeil]

That quote din't say anything about how the constitution did, well, anything frankly.

All it did was state that there were now laws (which I'm not sure is any different than any other countries), and the proceeded by going on about how good America is economically.


"the Constitution being the supreme law of the land."

[denuseri]

Duncan all I can say to you about is this:

"If you remove slavery from the equation, you have no Civil War, becuase there is nothing left for them to fight over that would lead to a Civil War."


But alltough its been an interesting side bar, it really has little to do with the topic of the thread, other than to point out the pitfalls and extremes those who tie their wellfare soley upon greed at the expense of one's fellow man can drive a population to do when its the main motivating factor in opposition to ones government.

Or are you sugesting that we the people should follow in the path of the South and rebel becuase we are not happy with our current political leadership? (You know, the topic of this thread)

Should we really go down that road?

Havent we allready fought that fight?

Wouldn't it be better if we instead worked to remove every incumbant politican from office at the poles instead?

Have you lost faith in our Constitution?