9/24/2006

It's Election Season: Time For The NRA To Shoot It's Collective Mouth Off



I notice that Citizen Joe over at www.ontheborderline.net is doing his one-issue, puppet dance for the string pullers at the NRA. A couple weeks ago someone at a local bar was saying how the UN wants to take everybody's gun away. I said I hadn't ever heard this and I do quite a bid of reading. He said it was all over the Internet. Sure enough it is and the links lead to the NRA away. He also pointed out that those "liberals in Madison" where trying to take our hunting rights away.

So to get educated on these burning issues, I been talking to some of friends who live and breath to hunt and fish. I asked them if they were members of the NRA. Most say they were at once but he not renewed their memberships since that NRA started backing the legalisation of "cop-killer" bullets and became so focused on the conceal and carry issue. They also told amount the membership drives they are still subjected to from the NRA. Three different sources said they've basically been screamed by NRA fund raisers and membership drivers to give, re-join or lose your guns. Asking to have their names removed from the NRA lists still hasn't stopped the NRA harassing.

Citizen Joe provides us a list of 26 reasons to own guns. Those reasons include:
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

Apparently the only issue Citizen Joe cares about is gun control, because that is all he posts. As a gun owner, I don't feel that my right to bare arms is being threatened. I'm opposed to conceal and carry, but I'm in favor of exposed and carry.

One of the commenters to Citizen Joe's post, Conn, has this to say:

" took my boy to the gun show in Baldwin...talk about a eye opener!I went to the NFA table and saw representative samples of various squirt guns (machine guns for the uninformed)a model 1921 THOMPSON, a 45 calibre machine gun made in 1921 for 10 bucks was listed for 18,000 dollars,because our Gov. does not believe we should have them.A sten gun that cost 3 bucks to make was listed at 17k!!!!!Various AK and AR15 variations in full auto were also way out there.As I have said before, we get what we deserve….have a nice day,conn."

Yo Conn, one reason a 1921 Thompson machine gun goes for $18,000 is that it is a collector's item. I've seen Martin guitars that cost $10 to make in the 1920s selling for over $50,000. I suppose our governor doesn't want us to play guitars.

Of course there are the fully automatic AK variations with big price tags. For friends I know that own these AK's, they are pretty much a big hard-on gun. They aren't good for anything but firing lots of bullets quickly into the side of a hill. Just think of what the neighborhood would look like if these one-issue gunslingers put all their energy into flower gardening.

62 comments:

norseman said...

Have you ever seen a hunter carryig a semi auto. with a banana clip. I have, and my first thaught was that if the guy needs that many bullets to shoot a deer, he doesn't belong out there. Most likley, anyone needing that type of rifle needs to compensate for some inferiority issue, and couldn't hit the broadside of a barn

jpn said...

Maybe Citizen Joe needs to take up black powder shooting. That would get him closer to 1776. That's type of shooting that makes a big band, puts out lots of smoke and gives a guy a reason to clean his gun. You can also get the buckskin apparell and look the part.

But then again, some guys just like things that make a lot of noise and insert buzz words like "full auto" into everyday conversation. Interesting how the NRA is less about provide common sense gun ownership and promoting modern day hunting practices.

The numbers of hunters in Wisconsin and Minnesota are not declining because of anything PETA or the Save The Chipmunk fringe is pushing for. They are declining because there are fewer places to hunt, people have moved to the city and lost touch with their rural connections and theres fewer people raised in hunting families.

If you weren't raised a hunter and schooled on the handling of firearms at an early age, chances are you're not going to take it up in middle age. It's like downhill skiing. I think Citizen Joe's OTBL post is an excellent example of the misinformation being put out by the NRA and its parrotts of high-caliber patriotism.

Late Boomer said...

JPN,

"If you weren't raised a hunter and schooled on the handling of firearms at an early age, chances are you're not going to take it up in middle age. It's like downhill skiing."

This seems logical, but I for one started downhilling late in my 4th decade. I have a friend in his 40's who started hunting to share time with his son.
Neither one of us support the NRA or their demand that everyone carry a concealed full auto weapon.

jpn said...

Late:

I'm making a broad generalization that I think covers skiing and hunting. I've know a lot of guys who used to ski when they were a kid, quit and took it back up when their kids started skiing. I also know a few who never skied and have taken it up in middle age and enjoy it.

On the hunting side, I've know some who were raised in hunting families that quit and never went back. I a number of people who never acquired or fired a weapon until their 30s or older. Most acquired a hand gun and have had traing class. They bought a gun for protection. Regardless of the class taken -- I've taken a couple with my wife -- if they are not out firing at least a few boxes of rounds a year, I don't think they are safe gun owners or comfortable with a loaded weapon in their hands. Next time you see a cop at the store or whereever, ask him how many rounds he has to fire monthly to stayed certified.

norseman said...

JPN
My point is the ludicrous concept of a need for high powered firearms that far exceeds any rational thought. I and my son have hunted together for years, and safety has always been the first priority.
I support the right to own firearms, but most certainly not carry conceal. Do your research, the far majority of violent uses of firearms are aquaintance related. In fact most victims of violance know their assailant. A concealed weapon would not stop that type of violence.

jpn said...

For an interesting look a firearm statistics, check out the book Freakeconomics. One interesting statistic compares the danger to kids from having firearms in the house v. having a swimming pool in the yard. There are many more houses with firearms compared to pools and the deaths of kids from pool accidents is way higher.

It's also interesting to see how few people really support the conceal and carry issue. At OTBL, Citizen Joe says there are 70 million firearm owners in the US. That means 1 out of every 4.2 people owns a gun. I don't believe this is true. I might believe there are 70 million firearms in the US. Likewise, I bet there,s a lot of widows who never fired a gun in their life who have acquired gun collections that they haven't figure out what to do with.

I suppose the Citizen Joes of our nation think that the high-power, fully automatic weapons are going to help us take back American from the socialist hordes presently being indoctrinate by the Che' Geuvera types who have taken over public education and are increase the rape of government theft by constantly increasing our taxes for non-military reasons.

Cato said...

The Swiss -- and while I disagree with this it is interesting nonetheless -- force all 18 year old males to own a machine gun.

And sure enough? They have the lowest violent crime in Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

(Theieves will still pickpocket you at train stations and other public places where I am sure guns are banned... but they are not coming into your house, that's for sure).

But that is all neither here nor there; the POINT of the Second Amendment is to defend against the Federal Government, not making sure we all can hunt (we have a Constitutional right to hunt under the Wisconsin Constitution and it is seperate from the right to keep anf bear arms and has actually nothing to do with the right to defend yourself from the government). Yes, you don't an automatic to go hunting. I agree. But that does not matter.

Cato said...

I disagree with compulsory ownership, to be clear.

Cato said...

As for the cartoons, "getting drunk" "doing drugs" and "smoking cigarrettes" are not equivalent to "owning a gun." As I pointed out the Swiss have the lowest violent crime in Europe, and crime has plummetted in the US in places where there has been compulsory gun ownership laws (like in Kennsaw GA) and places where conceal and carry has been passed (like in Florida aside from in and around airports -- go figure eh).

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." - LA Times Op Ed, David Koppel

jpn said...

Cato:

My guess is the Swiss require training along with the ownership of a machine gun. Are Swiss men required to do military service?
---
On the 2nd Amendment: "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."

I'm not see the part about defending against the federal government. Are you reading that in the actual amendment. Also, what happens if the state government comes are you? Does that mean the 2nd Amendment is invalid?

AndyRand said...

Other than incidents linked to NRA sites, I have not been able to find an incident where a concealed weapon has successfully protected a crime victim.

I'm not saying such incidents don't exist, but I'm willing to bet they are rare.

Funny you bring up Switzerland where they just celebrated International Peace Day.

http://tinyurl.com/nct3k

I'm sure CATO is thankful we don't have such useless celebrations in this land of the free - home of the brave.

jpn said...

Cato:

A lot of the bab publicity put on guns is because the one who pulled the trigger was drunk and/or on drugs. It's a inter-related world.

Swiss gun ownership is 1 gun/6.7 people. In the US it's 1/1.2 people. US citizens are indoctrinated with with the wild West culture. How are guns and their use protrayed in Switzerland? Are guns portrayed as the big hard-on that will make every boy a man.

How much of this NRA gun bullshit is related to a natural decline in gun sales that could be attributed to a steady migration from agarian lifestyles to urban lifestyles. It's life Ford telling us we are safer in an Excursion -- when we aren't. I don't have a problem with gun ownership -- I own guns. I've got a problem with the NRA sheep that are being indoctrinated that the Commie's are trying to take their guns away. Buy now while you can.

Cato said...

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."



It was quite clear that the entirety of the Bill of Rights was to make expressedly clear the people's concerns with the power of the Federal government.

For even more clairty, in the Amendment itself it says, "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."

I don't see how clearer we can get here. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government for which this Constitution was written -- the Federal government.

The state government can regulate guns legally, but the Federal government cannot have any say. interestingly enough, while all other Amendments in the Bill of Rights have been at least in part been applied against the states by the All-Knowing Supreme Court, the Second Amendment has not. Perhaps since it is the most important in defending rights does the Supreme Court ignore it.

The commies are trying to take our guns away. "You don't need these automatic weapons for hunting" attempts to change the conversation from what the purpose of the amendment is to this new meaning that has nothing to do with what it actually means. In doing so you forget that the Federal government has the most advanced military in the world. So long as we have our weapons though we will be able to keep that machine in check; if Iraqis can cause them hell you are damn sure Americans can.



WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

jpn said...

Cato:

Looks pretty clear to me that the 2nd Amendment is talking about state-controlled militias. This would make sense, because the 13 colonies had clearly defined boundaries at the birth of our nation."

I doesn't specify the caliber of weaponry. I wonder if there were speed limits for horses back in 1776? Therefore should we not have speed limit know?

Where do you find any credible evidence that the commie's are trying to take you guns away?

norseman said...

Cato;
I have a demographics question for you. What is the coorelation between age and violence? The next question is what is the coorelation between poverty and violence?? Now compare these answere to carry conceal and violence. The final question is what is the Swiss poverty rate verses the poverty rate in the United States?
Wasn't it Mark Twain that once said "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics? (something like that)

Cato said...

International Action Network on Small Arms is currently campaigning for an International Treaty on Small Arms. Coupled with Agenda 21, HABITAT I & II and other treaties that have given up sovierngty of this country to the UN, we're looking right at commies who are trying to take our guns away. Furthermore, the Brady Bill and anything like is is rather similar.

Of course throughout history people without guns (who have had them taken away by the government "for their own saftey") who stand up to people with guns end up in a nameless grave. The government of this country illegally has laws restricting gun ownership.

I should be able to buy tanks and aircraft carriers if I wish and have the funds.

In regards to militias, the "militia" meant not some orginized thing but the men of a free state who could come forth in time of need to defend it. Thus the right of the people to be able to defend themselves against their general government (and other invaders) shall not be infringed upon by the general government.

jpn said...

Cato:

So if the state militia came to take you guns away you wouldn't have a problem? You concern is only with the federal government. Am I reading you correctly?

AndyRand said...

CATO said:

"So long as we have our weapons though we will be able to keep that machine in check; if Iraqis can cause them hell you are damn sure Americans can."

You can't be serious CATO? The Iraqi's are beating us with Improvized Explosive Devises, not automatic weapons. They know better, than to challenge a well trained, well armed entity like the U.S. Armed forces. It would be a disaster to their cause.
You can't seriously think that citizen militias would be any match for the Armed Forces controled by the Federal Government.
Besides that, they don't need to turn military weapons against us when the can maintain control through much less violent means such as buying off and controlling the manufacture and operation of voting machines, with no paper trail that can be hacked by the very same people who designed them.

Cato said...

No JPN, I would still have a problem with it and would tell my legilsators in the State House that they will be out of jobs if they do such a thing, but it is not ILLEGAL as it is for the Federal government to do so, unless it states in the State Constitution of whatever given state that it would be illegal barring a Constitutional amendment.

The Federal government cannot be both true to the Constitution and pass such legislation however. Since The Law of the Land prevails, laws controlling arms in any way are illegal for the Federal government to pass and enforce.

jpn said...

Cato:

It's an interesting thought that a group of armed citizen would take back the federal government of 300 million people. Who decides when the federal government has overstepped the line and needs to be taken back? Would that be 150,000,001 people, i.e., a majority. Or would it be an insolated group of individuals, e.g., 100 armed citizen who don't like what they see?

Would we reenact like the Whiskey Rebellion -- the Latte Revolt -- and have to have Bush ride out to the group and tell them to laydown their arms and he would push for another tax cut?

Cato said...

There were just a few that died in the Boston Massacre, who weree at the Tea Party, and who fought from Lexington to Concorde. But more came to fight once sides were drawn; some were Patriots fighting for their freedom and others Tories fighting for their government.

The citizens of this contry should be able to be free from prosecution by the general government for wishing to defend themselves from said government.

jpn said...

Cato:

What about the Whiskey Rebellion? That happen after we were a nation. A group of farmers didn't like the tax structure, got madder than hell and rose up in arms against the federal government. Washington saddle up his horse and rode out to tell them to cut that shit out. Remember that Washington was their commander in chief in the Revolutionary War.

The Boston Massacre is more propaganda stirred up by the pamleteers like Tom Paine -- a man who could run a demolition company but would be out of business in the construction business.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
It's not 1776 anymore.You don't have to keep your powder dry, and muskette clean to oppose the government.
I repeat.

You can't seriously think that citizen militias would be any match for the Armed Forces controled by the Federal Government.

jpn said...

Cato:

That's exactly my point. Citizen militias would be a Nerf sword compared to government forces. Remember, our's is not to reason why, but ours is to do our die.

So it's the principle of thing. Correct?

Cato said...

Yes I seriously think that a civilian army could destroy the army of the United States. 300 million v 1 million. Unless they start nuking their own country -- at which point there would be a coup, believe me -- there is no way they could win (and at that point no one really won now did they? They just nuked part of their country, killed alot of people and made a whole mess of things. The people would probabbly still end the victor since at that point its time to start over...).

The greatest power on earth was once the British Empire--who couldn't control their own little island.

It is not the principle of it JPN. It's so we actually can use it if and when the time comes. Governments should fear reprisals from their people -- both at the voting booth and phyiscal force.

In Iraq, right now, our Army cannot hope to "secure" the area or whatever they hope to accomplish. Iraq is smaller than the US and does not have a history of its people leading and winning revolutions against tyrannical governments. Yes, alot of people would be slaughtered by the government in this type of scenario, but the government would not emerge the victor.

I've been meaning to read these books -- they are like Tom Clancy's or whathave you -- by Ian Slater in a series called "USA v. Milita". I'm sure it's just an adventure story but really, the people of this country would beat back the greatest military force on the planet, easy, so long as we stay well armed.

norseman said...

It seems to me that our armed forces are composed of citizens. Where are National Guard members, when they are not on Guard assignments?? Where does an armed service man and women come from in a volunteer army?
Rember that the constitution is for all segments of our society, not just a select few that fit inside a very small box. That even includes us poor voting, taxpaying socialists.
But then, OUR people that are in the armed services typically don't come from socially elite circles, or go to the "Privileged Schools".

Cato said...

The Constitution is the framework of the Federal government. What do you mean "for all segments of society"? How can you "deny" it to someone when it talks about powers denied and given to the Congress and how to pass laws...

Have you read the document, or do they not teach history in non-"Privileged schools"? Perhaps since I am a "social elite" I picked up the nuances of the English language like what "words mean".

The Constitution is the law of the land and it must be respected by the Federal government. The "segment of society" it is applied against are the people named in the document: the legislators, the executive and the judiciary.

The soldier answers to the government and does what he is told. However the fear is not of the US government occupying the US anyway, it's when the US government is too thin across the globe playing cop and some "terror" breaks out here that so-called "peacekeepers" (who are now authorized to do offensive operations, and have done so in Africa, and who Bush has called for having a standing army...) from the UN come in that would get me more worried. You are right in suggesting that many of these troops might have doubts about killing their country men. But the Chinese don't, as well as many of the troops. It's not as if a cop thinks "oh no, it's an American I must stand down!" they think, "that's a criminal and he will kill me if I don't kill them."

jpn said...

Cato:

When is the last time you spent an hour in a high school classroom? When is the last time you thumbed through a high school history textbook?

I found a copy of the high school history textbook I read in Hudson High in 1972-73. For goodness sake, they spent about 10 pages with pictures on the Civil War and slavery. They spent less on the Revolutionary War. General high school history courses are high level survey course. They are a squirtgun not a firehose.

You, like most adults, have faulty memories about what you learned in high school and what was taught in high school classes. I'm sure the Constitution was mentioned, but I wasn't an extrensive indoctrination where students where required to memorize the whole thing.

norseman said...

Cato; yes I've read the document, and I also understand that there is an understanding as applied in court defining the spirit of the law. The constitution applies to all citizens (the poeple) in this country. Sorry Cato but you're a bit too neurotic for me.
Contrairy to what you may think, there is not a class distinction based on the letter of the law. The constitution is based on the protection of all people, and yes from abuses by the government. however, that does not imply that any person serving in the armed forces has any less rights than you or I. Those rights in and of them selves are a protective shield, and incentive for all of us to preserve those rights.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

You make some really wild presumptions.

1. "Yes I seriously think that a civilian army could destroy the army of the United States. 300 million v 1 million."

I find it far fetched, though no entirely outside the range of possiblity that the U.S. Government would become so tyranical that the entire population (300 million) would feel compelled to over throw it.

2.In Iraq, right now, our Army cannot hope to "secure" the area or whatever they hope to accomplish. Iraq is smaller than the US and does not have a history of its people leading and winning revolutions against tyrannical governments. Yes, alot of people would be slaughtered by the government in this type of scenario, but the government would not emerge the victor."
Even assuming this wild scenario,outlined in my answer to #1
as in Iraq, the only way to defeat a standing army is through guerilla warfare and mass disruption and violence achieved not by the cache of weapons stockpiled in our garages but by explosive devices, and other non-conventional warlike revolutionary tactics. A face to face shoot out with the Army would be doomed to defeat, and if the scenerio ever arose that the U.S. Government became so tyrannical the the majority deemed it need to be overthrown, I would want you to be planning the tactics with you pip squeak garage band arsenal.

3."However the fear is not of the US government occupying the US anyway, it's when the US government is too thin across the globe playing cop and some "terror" breaks out here that so-called "peacekeepers" (who are now authorized to do offensive operations, and have done so in Africa, and who Bush has called for having a standing army...) from the UN come in that would get me more worried.

Another amazingly fanciful pipe dream.
The U.N. is notorious for being impotent as a peace keeping military force. I can't imagine them ever being competent enough to defeat this countries Armed Forces.

Not a Lawyer but.... said...

Norseman:

You said:

"The constitution is based on the protection of all people, and yes from abuses by the government. however, that does not imply that any person serving in the armed forces has any less rights than you or I."

I won't judge whether the rights of those in the military are less but the are different. Military personel are under a totally different set of laws than civilians, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)
http://tinyurl.com/gm9u2

ragincrazin said...

Back to the theme of the post, you guys are putting me to sleep.
I am amazed at the pressure the NRA applies when they call. I grew up in corn-fed big buck country in central Wisconsin. The kind of area where most farmers had the trophy bucks hanging in their barn long before opening day. Every birthday or Christmas one of my presents always was long and thin, and was made by Remington. I target practiced with Mom because Dad worked shifts and when I was old enough to hunt small game etc. I was forced to not only pass the DNR saftey course but also Dad's much more dificult course. I joined the NRA because dad said they supported habitat for hunters. Little did we know that they would become the extremist lobby machine tht they are now. I still hunt with dad and my yearly purchace of a deer tag makes me the choir that they need so badly to preach. My answer to the NRA phone rep is always the same. "You (NRA) have become a one trick pony that has forgotten your charter. You now feed off of fear and support weapons production that have uses only for crime, killing, and profits. I own a dozen (hunting) guns and I have no fear that my government has any intention of taking them away. The NRA should be ashamed, and abolished."
I think it is funny that my father and I, hunters and gun owners for life, quit the NRA. Meanwhile my brother in law (A Rush Limbaugh wannabe) who never owned or shot a gun in his life is a proud member of the NRA.

jpn said...

Ragin:

You take on the NRA is the same as what I have been getting from those avid hunters I've know all my life. I think the NRA has become another string the the Republican put arsenal that gets the one-issue gun voters to pull the ballot box lever for the Repuplicans.

I'd be interested to hear Cato defend the one-issue voters that solely sucker the NRA teat of the milk of misinformation.

norseman said...

ragincrazin;
Thanks for the post. I am in total agreement with you. There is no "BIG BROTHER", nor is there a conspiracy to take our guns away. I also am a hunter. I hunt in both Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and each group I hunt with places a priority on safety.

I posted earlier asking for demographic information that hasn't been answered. The facts are that stranger assaults are proportionately rare. By far, the majority of firearm incidences are either accidental, or acquaintance related. A vigalante concept about toting a gun to stop the bad guy simply is perposterous.
It is very rare that an assailant telegraphs an intent to assault(especially in stranger assaults). There are other mechanisims availabe that would be much more effective than a firearm, in those situations. I'm not a proponent of people not having the right to own firearms, or to have them in their homes. But in all situations, safety should be a first priority. Negligence is what usually causes accidents.
The NRA supported carry conceal issue is poorly justified. I've seen the proposed NRA training and it's inadequate at best. The point where an individual desides to carry a firearm also creates a higher leval of culpability for that person. Think about it; A bank robbery is occurring, police respond to the robbery, and "Joe Vigalante" jumps in with a firearm. How would you expect a police officer to respond? What training, and psychological evaluations has that person gone through? At the point where a firearm is drawn, is the person able to use it, and able to accept the consequences? What about innocent people that are downrange? Carrying and taking action with a firearm is entirley different than the conceptual discussion of that act. It's real and you can't debate your action, call time-out, or do go-backs.

ragincrazin said...

Norseman,
I know about all the studies and demographics have a big part in it.

I have been properly trained and am experienced in safety and proper handling of weapons, including hand guns. But given the freedom to conceal and carry never made sense to me. People make mistakes and if your statement about aquaintances being responsible for many shootings, why would I want to introduce another gun to that equation? I would not take the risk. I was in a gas station hold up in st Paul years ago and as I was face down on the floor, I was not thinking of how easy and heroic it would be to stand up, pull a 9mm and plug the robber. I certainly have the skills to do it, but agree with you that there is no way to understand the effects doing it would have had on me. I do know one thing, If I pulled it, I would not play police officer. I would use it. I am glad that I didn't have the option, yet may also be fortunate that that holdup did not go bad.

Cato said...

jpn said...
Cato:

When is the last time you spent an hour in a high school classroom? When is the last time you thumbed through a high school history textbook?

I found a copy of the high school history textbook I read in Hudson High in 1972-73. For goodness sake, they spent about 10 pages with pictures on the Civil War and slavery. They spent less on the Revolutionary War. General high school history courses are high level survey course. They are a squirtgun not a firehose.

You, like most adults, have faulty memories about what you learned in high school and what was taught in high school classes. I'm sure the Constitution was mentioned, but I wasn't an extrensive indoctrination where students where required to memorize the whole thing.


While I can easily blame the public schools for failing our people, for spinning lies into people's heads, for ignoring what this county was founded upon in favor of their own lies, I blame each person themselves for not reading the document.
norseman said...
Cato; yes I've read the document, and I also understand that there is an understanding as applied in court defining the spirit of the law. The constitution applies to all citizens (the poeple) in this country. Sorry Cato but you're a bit too neurotic for me.
Contrairy to what you may think, there is not a class distinction based on the letter of the law. The constitution is based on the protection of all people, and yes from abuses by the government. however, that does not imply that any person serving in the armed forces has any less rights than you or I. Those rights in and of them selves are a protective shield, and incentive for all of us to preserve those rights.


The Constitution is a document that outlines the structure of the Federal Government. While there are a few clauses that deal with protections to the individual, they are still all restrictions upon the government.

The law makes distinctions based on class. To name one off the top of my head: The ADA. Now, it may be illegal in that it provides people unequal protection of the law but it's for cripples! Think of the cripples!
AndyRand said...
CATO:

You make some really wild presumptions.

1. "Yes I seriously think that a civilian army could destroy the army of the United States. 300 million v 1 million."

I find it far fetched, though no entirely outside the range of possiblity that the U.S. Government would become so tyranical that the entire population (300 million) would feel compelled to over throw it.

Hey, government fan boy, why can't you just go with my example. OK, 30 million > 1 million.

2.In Iraq, right now, our Army cannot hope to "secure" the area or whatever they hope to accomplish. Iraq is smaller than the US and does not have a history of its people leading and winning revolutions against tyrannical governments. Yes, alot of people would be slaughtered by the government in this type of scenario, but the government would not emerge the victor."
Even assuming this wild scenario,outlined in my answer to #1
as in Iraq, the only way to defeat a standing army is through guerilla warfare and mass disruption and violence achieved not by the cache of weapons stockpiled in our garages but by explosive devices, and other non-conventional warlike revolutionary tactics. A face to face shoot out with the Army would be doomed to defeat, and if the scenerio ever arose that the U.S. Government became so tyrannical the the majority deemed it need to be overthrown, I would want you to be planning the tactics with you pip squeak garage band arsenal.


I never said that it meant going toe-to-toe with them. Last time we overthrew a tyrannical government we employed guerilla tactics. Still need arms to do it.

3."However the fear is not of the US government occupying the US anyway, it's when the US government is too thin across the globe playing cop and some "terror" breaks out here that so-called "peacekeepers" (who are now authorized to do offensive operations, and have done so in Africa, and who Bush has called for having a standing army...) from the UN come in that would get me more worried.

Another amazingly fanciful pipe dream.
The U.N. is notorious for being impotent as a peace keeping military force. I can't imagine them ever being competent enough to defeat this countries Armed Forces.

Consider these facts:
-The UN's peacekeepers are now authorized to take offensive action and have done so in Africa repeatedly.
-Bush has called for a UN standing army.
The situation I put down had a severe lack of US troops in the US and that's why the UN would come in, bypassing the US troops that you think would defeat them. They wouldn't really face them, that's the point.

jpn said...

Cato:
We are in agreement on whose responsibility it is to read the Constituion. It is every individuals responsibility -- if they choose (it's a free country).

You skipped over the quantity v. quality implied in my question and went on to talk about "lies" being taught in public schools. What are the big lies being taught in public schools?

AndyRand said...

CATO:
You convinced me. I'm on my way to Wal-Mart to start building my personal arsenal (as JPN says emphasis on arse)to protect myself from the inevitable scenerios you've made me aware of.

I'm going to stop worrying about losing my job, and my health insurance, getting sick and amassing a pile of debt that will cause me to lose my home and every worldly possession I own.
Since I have a limited attention span , I can only worry about 1 catostrophic possibility at a time, so I will substitute my usual worry about lossing my job and the potential consequenses of that and start worrying about collecting my own personal weapons of mass destruction to defend myself from the inevitable coming of the American 4th Reich.

666 said...

Cato:

Point of information: when Andy uses the word "Reich," is that like planning the Hitler card. Doesn't that fall under who's ever rule that was?

AndyRand said...

666,

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

I didn't mean to invoke Goodwin's Law.
I don't think I did, at least intentionally.
I'm so sorry.

OK, let's see, How bout I refer to the
coming tyranical socialist threat?
I that better??? 666?

666 said...

Andy:

It is entirely up to you to decide where or not you what to break the law. I happen to be wearing a striped shirt today and had a referee flash. Cato, he's all yours.

Cato said...

Andy, I'm honestly a bit suprised. You seem not to care that the government can kill you but I worry you may have a brain embolism from being upset about the thought that some government agent may be listening as to what you are having on your pizza order tonight.

JPN, teaching lies about our countries history is what I am talking about. These government agents teach our kids -- and all children are forced to attend school -- that the Supreme Court's usurptation of the people's rights in Marbury v. Madison was a good thing. They talk about the wonders of Democracy, not the evils our founders saw. They say we founded as a democracy! These teachers are not doing it on purpose--teaching lies that is. The web has been spun long ago, and the teachers are just doing as they are told. But a little critical thinking on their part would go a long way.

You are right that the schools teach basically nothing in history, and it's a shame.

Basically what the kids are taught is something along these lines:

here was a tea party, a revolution and subsequent Constitution that only white men were important in. Then there was a rebellion by hicks and we fixed some things, but there was still legalized segregation. And then there was some stuff and terrible capitalism killed people and wonderful King FDR saved us and then Hitler came around and killed Jews, and the US put Japanese in internment camps and killed other japanese civilians the the horror of nuclear weapons. And then we killed vietnamese people.

That's the big things the kids take away. Do kids know what the Great War was about? The War of 1812? A government that forces kids to goto school and then teaches them about the wonders of democracy is a propganda machine. A government that forces kids to goto school and teaches them about how government came and saved the day with all these wonderful public works programs is a propoganda machine.

jpn said...

Cato:

Most of these things they teach don't exactly appear to be lies to me.

However, suppose I went to a private school like Hill-Murray. Do you think I would learn a different spin on American history.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
Some facts for you:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 654,092

Cancer: 550,270
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694

Diabetes: 72,815

Alzheimer's disease: 65,829

Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762

Septicemia: 33,464


Nowhere on that list from the CDC,
did I find "Death by Government"

So I googled that, and found a page listing slightly over 100 deaths over several decades with a quote from (surprise, surprise ) Uncle Ludwig Von Mises at the top.

#3 on the the list of deaths by Government was John Africa of the infamous MOVE organization in Philidelphia.

Here are a few choice words from John to the Mayor of Philidelphia.


May 13th 1985-War On Osage Avenue

"If MOVE go down, not only will everybody in this block go down, the
knee joints of America will break and the body of America will soon fall
and we mean it,"..."We ain't gone fuck around, if them mutha fuckers try
anything next door we gone burn 'em the fuck out, if they succeed in
commin thru the walls they are goin to find smoke, gas, fire and bullets...
Before we let you mutha fuckers make an example of us we will burn this
mutha fuckinin house down and burn you up with us. We know about all
those odorless chemicals yall can put thru walls to paralyze people or
put people to sleep, or even kill people..."But we got detectors, we got
canaries, and we got seorians (possibly a reference to saurians, which
are lizards)... if that detector shows signs of foreign odor in the basement
or any other part of this house, if any of our canaries drop dead, or if any
of our seorians begin to vomit or wheeze, we are goin to burn that god
dam house down next door and burn them mutha fuckers up in it."

-Excerpt From A Letter MOVE Members Sent To Philadelphia Mayor
Wilson Goode Two Days Before The May 13th, 1985 “Confrontation”
Between MOVE And the Police


Since I don't now and never have engaged in the types of activities that MOVE members did, I feel ( and I'm sure CATO would think naively so ) that I'm not in any imminent danger of being killed by the government.
I'd say my chances of #1 or #2 on the CDC list are a slightly greater concern to me, although I don't currently loose any sleep about those either.

Gotta run, I think Fleet Farm's having an ammo sale today.

Cato said...

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

Democide, 20th Century:

262,000,000


Woot! Government is awesome!

Cancer doesn't murder people, people murder people. And, more often than not, it's a government agent doing it.

P.S. That's not even counting deaths of combatants in war (it does count the systematic targetting of noncombatants during a war, i.e., concentration camps).

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Let's stick to the U.S.(our government) in the last 40 years.

In the U.S. 43 people died from being stuck by lightning in 2005.

An average of 2.5 were killed annually by the government.
Based on the death by government website of 100 over 40 years.

I'm 17.2 times as likely to be stuck by lightning and die than to be killed by the government.

I'll take my chances.


Gotta go buy a lotto ticket.
I'm feeling lucky:-)

Anonymous said...

Andy:

Do a figure for how many people died because of free-market capitalism?

AndyRand said...

CATO:

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)

Source http://tinyurl.com/5ahtl

I thought it was you that was the rationalist and I was the
emotional whiner?

Are the thunderstorms over for the week? if not I gotta go hide.

Anonymous:

I have no idea how many people have been killed by Free Market Capitalists and no idea of how to calculate such a figure. There are just too many variables of greed.

Cato said...

You hide behind how the US has not done things in the past now that scales to the epic amount of people that the socialists the globle over have stacked like cords of wood and then say that the US is sliding into the 4th Reich is you mention anything about the PATRIOT Act or "Bushco" or whatever you talk about. Am I right? So do you CARE about the PATRIOT Act or not? If you do, why would you ever mock someone who is stating that he thinks the explicit Second Amendment right to defend yourself from the government ought be respected?

Governments -- and these were socislists who did this (Chinese and Russians mainly, although add in the National Socialist Party as a lesser mega-murderer) -- have killed 262,000,000 people. Oh, and the commies, before they killed millions upon millions of people? They took away the people's guns.

But not only that, socialists have taken people's homes, people's livelyhoods. They have taken from people the product of their labor. Since your property is an extension of yourself, they are taking away part of your life.

I showed you all this right?

It's great so I'll post it again:

http://tinyurl.com/lrekg

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Yes, you showed this to me before.
I rejected it before and even watched most of it again so I could reject it again.

As far as Socialists multiplying around the world, I think it's quite the opposite. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the capitalists in this country have less to fear and are slowly dimantling the "socialist" benifits that the "socialist" FDR created to protect American citizens from financial devastation. Like Soc. Sec. etc.

I am not necessarily mocking your defense of the second amendment. I'm
mocking the notion you have that your punny little arsenal would even be remotely effective against the greatest military power that has ever existed on earth.

If you feel that enslaved by a government that allows you to say virtually anything you like and do almost anything you like I think you need to seriouly evaluate the freedoms that you do have.

I am concerned about the Patriot Act, probably more than 80% of Americans, but I don't have any fantasies about grabbing my guns and overthrowing the current leaders by force.
Should the U.S. even have a government so evil that it needed to be overthrown by force, your pip squeak weapons would be like pea shooters. Even the Iraqi's have figured this out, they are not attacking our forces with guns.
They have improvised much more effective tactics against us.

I am even more concerned about how the Republicans are hacking away at the very inferstructure that is currently public and for the use of all,and causing hundreds of thousands real economic pain as a result of their policies, than them knocking on my door at night and randsacking my home for guns.

norseman said...

Cato;
How can you compare the The (OLD) soviet Block nations to any form os socialism?? I don't happen to be one by the way. The last I knew they weren't even close to the "Marxist" concept of Communism. I'd be more incline to label them dictatorial regimes.
To support a system that attempts (given human failings) to give everyone a chance to get an education, and provide the basic ability to survive, and an opportunity to succeed, seems much more desirable than a narcissistic environment where the only compassion is self and profit.

AndyRand said...

Norseman,

You just labeled yourself a socialist whether you want to admit it or not.

You see, anyone who thinks Soc. Sec. ia a good idea is a Socialist. Anyone who wants public schools is a Socialist. The whole damn country and world is filled with those damn Socialists according to the reich wing. ( Goodwin's I don't care ).

Is it funny but my parents supported all those things 50 years ago, and you know what they called themselves?

MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!!!

norseman said...

Well thank you andyrand, now I know who I am!!! I'm a Christain, a Socialist, and an average middle class American Citizen!!! An "By-Golly", I'm OK!!!! and you know what, your ok also! We may have a conscious, but THAT'S OK!!! Hey, rather than make a profit, we may even stop and help someone in need.

Cato said...

Marxists don't like me calling Soviets "communists" since they were really socialists, and socialists don't like me calling Soviets "socialists" since they professed to be communists (and it is a bit of a black eye on socialism... that and National Socialism).

Andy the Iraqis do use guns. "Arms", by the way, includes any weaponry, from pistols to nuclear weapons.

If government isn't afraid that the people could at anytime forcibly remove them from office then the people's voice is meaningless. They are our servants, not our masters. They are supposed to be restricted to the things we restricted them to do and they should not be doing things we gave them no power to. It's all written down in the Constitution. Socialist things like Social Security is NOT legal, but the tyranny of the majority and the terribleness of democracy has made it so simply because of majority rule.

We are now a nation of men and not of law.

Cato said...

To clairify something, I am sure all of you self professed socialists are so-called "Democratic socialists", that is to say that you perfer government run institutions run by a government who takes it's orders from the majority. This is opposed to me, a person who perfers a government with no dominant factor, also known as a Republic and interestingly enough, the legal form of government in this country. Of course, the tyranny of the majorty has taken over and we are now at their whim.

The socialists who were in charge in Germany, Italy, China and Russia all were socialists yes, but they were not your "democratic socialists" (well, the National Socialists actually were, and then, like what Hugo Chavez has stated he is planning, ended the necessity for the democratic aspect...) that you are fond of. But that does not mean they were not socialists (state control one way or another of production of goods and services).

AndyRand said...

CATO:

You said:

"To clairify something, I am sure all of you self professed socialists are so-called "Democratic socialists", that is to say that you perfer government run institutions run by a government who takes it's orders from the majority. This is opposed to me, a person who perfers a government with no dominant factor, also known as a Republic and interestingly enough, the legal form of government in this country."

I have never claimed to be a socialist. It is your definition of Socialism that places people like me who believe that Soc. Sec. and public education are good into the Socialist box. That would most likely hold true of the tyranical majority of people in this country.

It's obvious that you don't believe in Democracy. I'd venture to say the vast tyranical majority does.

How long has it been since Mill introduced the idea of the tyranny of the majority, 140 years? Yet we have never had the pure Republic you speak of in practical terms. And by the way Mills on Liberty post dates the Constitution which I'm sure you're aware.
I remember reading On Liberty at the age of 19. Even then, though I don't necessarily disagree with Mill's arguement, I found him unrealistically idealistic.
It not that I find many of your arguements wrong, logically they are probably very valid. Yet from a practical standpoint they are, like Mill, unrealistically ideal. I find it admirable in a way, yet again totally impractical.

The type of "socialism" you accuse us of is in my opinion more democratic than socialist.
When you speak of "a government with no dominant factor". What exactly to you mean since you compare this to the majority.
Keep in mind that the "majority" is always shifting, usually not dramatically but always changing. In my opinion this is what keeps us from becoming extreme. When one side of the political spectrum gets too powerful, the other usually gains favor to bring us back into balance.

As far as Chavez is concerned. I used to find him an interesting provokator to the Bush administration. Some of what he has done has helped the less fortunate in his country could be seen as admirable, but I am beginning to see him as a budding dictator. His recesnt chummyness with Castro and Iran, and believe it or not his U.N. tirade against Bush have made me lower my opinion of him emensely. At the same time, it has raised my admiration for our country's tolerance of free speech. Can you imagine some other leader going to Venesuela and calling Chavez "The Devil" and leaving that country without a violent outrage against that leader?
I believe it is only in this country that one actually enjoys that kind of political freedom without retribution.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Perhaps of interest to you:

http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm


"Mill also allowed that conventional economic analysis could not show that socialism was unworkable, and suggested as his own ideal an economy of worker-owned cooperatives. Commentators have argued inconclusively over whether this is a form of socialism or merely "workers' capitalism".

Cato said...

Democracy has a dominant factor -- the majority. Our system was set up with no dominant factor, and was all under The Law, as it was set up with democracy v. aristocracy v. monarchy v. krytocracy (more of less -- the same "type" of power in anyevent, although not sticktly the same thing) all struggling for power.

OF COURSE the tyrannical majority agrees with democracy. So what? Democratic countries cannot exist under any Constiution. Why? Since they are nations of men. We were founded under law -- laws we have discarded long ago. I do not believe in democracy. Democracy easily lends itslef to evil, as history has shown time and time again. Large Republics are hard to keep -- as history has shown -- but not impossible as we were a Republic for quite some time. So long as abition was set to counter ambition the country was safe, but once the "progressives" managed to spread lies into the people in order to change the fundamental principles of the Constitution from a Republic to lawlessness under Democracy (as a Constitutional Democracy is impossible for it follows the wants of majority and disregards the law unless it suits the majority's ends) via the 17th Amendment, one of the worst things to ever befall this country.

In anyevent, since then there has been a consistent march down the road to serfdom and one of the few things standing in the way from having this whole country march off a cliff is the inherent right of the people, expressly written down into the Constitution, to keep and bear arms to defend itself from a tyrannical government.

Cato said...

I am not a utilitarian and find some of their beliefs unnerving. People are not means to some "greater" end, people are ends unto themselves.

norseman said...

So then Cato; are you implying that there shouldn't be majority rule, but and elitist rule?? We have a multi party system, should there only be one party twisted to your skew of life???
I'd suggest that with the majority rule, and the checks and balances system that we have, though not perfect, does help prevent a totalitarian state. A system that you seem to support may become that. Might/money makes right??

Cato said...

norseman said...

So then Cato; are you implying that there shouldn't be majority rule, but and elitist rule??


No.

We have a multi party system, should there only be one party twisted to your skew of life???

No, but our "multi-party" system is one Party now...

I'd suggest that with the majority rule, and the checks and balances system that we have, though not perfect, does help prevent a totalitarian state. A system that you seem to support may become that. Might/money makes right??

No, I support a system of Law. Democracy = might of the majority. There are no real checks when everyone is democratically elected, when the law is ignored and when ambition encourages ambition.

Cato said...

I can't make my own threads here and this is about the scope of government into our lives so it's germane enough...

http://tinyurl.com/lq6h9

requires NYT membership, and unfourtently it's for paying members (not just registered members) so bugmenot.com won't work. I'm reading someone else's paper directly and typing it.

Anyway, the article is speaking of NYC and it's attempt to regulate transfat (banning it actually) in resturants. Like smoking, the government knows what is best for you and knows what is best for the owner of a buisness to do. But it goes beyond that.

From the article...

"Under one recommendation, diners will be required to chew their food for at least twelve seconds before swallowing...

A piece of steak, for example, may not be ingested if it is more than half an inch thick or longer than three-quarters of an inch on any side. Violators may be ordered to leave the restaurant...

Speaking of drinks, another proposed rule would limit restaurant goers to no more than two glasses of wine, or two pints of beer with dinner...

One contraversial proposal would require restaurants to serve only decaffeinated coffee after 10 p.m."

Big Brother, what would I do without you lording over me?