On January 13th, at the daily White House briefing, a Russian reporter got into an exchange with Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
The Russian reporter, Andrei Sitov, a correspondent for Russia’s official news agency ITAR-TASS, said the following:
“This is America, the democracy, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition your government. And many people outside would also say — and the quote, unquote ‘freedom’ of a deranged mind to react in a violent way is also American. How do you respond to that?”
Naturally, Gibbs responded that he vehemently disagreed with that statement and went on to explain why. (Politics Daily)
I would also agree with Mr. Gibbs on that point.
But—it does suggest to me there is a price to be paid, in some cases, by our society, for the freedoms we sometimes take for granted. The freedoms that we hold dear, as stated by the Russian reporter, also allows a “deranged” individual to buy and use a gun to commit an act such as in Tucson and in many other places around the country, or use a car or build a bomb, or simply to rob another person.
The sheer fact that our freedoms allow the sale of violent video games and things like that which inspire some young people to commit terrible acts of violence is somewhat disturbing to me. But at the same time, I am not sure I’d want it any other way.
Because in spite of the fact that there are sometimes bad consequences to the basic freedoms we have, without those freedoms, we would not be able to write these blogs, engage in strong political discourse, read the materials we desire, worship as we wish and peacefully assemble to make our feelings known on important issues affecting our lives.
The question is: Have our freedoms allowed too much violence in our country at this point that we are ready to restrict some of our rights? Or do we just have to live with the sometimes high price of freedom?
Wheat & Tares 
Do you believes rules restricting the mentally ill from buy guns legally or rules prohibiting children from buying violent video games restrict basic American freedom?
There are other “free” societies that don’t kill each other as much as we do. We really don’t need guns in order to be free.
Juan Cole has some good numbers for comparison.
39 murders by guns in Britain. 9000 murders by guns in the US. As he notes, for comparison, 39 murders is equivalent to 195 murders in the US.
@1)
The problem that I have with your line of thinking Course Correction is this:
There is a myriad of mental illness from mild depression to the most severely ill, which to me is schizophrenia.
My question to you is this, While I will agree with you that the most severely ill should not have access to guns, why punish someone who is in no danger to himself or the general population. He is only deemed so because of the public lack of understanding of mental health issues and thereby further stigmatized.
I find this post timely, not just because of the shooting in Tuscon, but here in Philadelphia there was a recent incident after a snow storm, when I guy who was hired by an apartment complex manager to plow out the parking lot was attacked by someone living in the apartment. The guy in the apartment was livid that his car was plowed in(mind you there was a snow emergency in affect and he was park in an illegal parking space anyway. The guy came out of his apartment and put a fully loaded 357 caliber pistol in the guys face and ordered him to plow him out and went back into his apartment like nothing happened.
The point that I’m trying to make is that this guy did not have a history of mental illness he was just an angry idiot who wanted control.
We can take away guns from certain people in an effort to maintain control, but then we are also leaving a terrible stigma on people who don’t deserve it because as far as I’m concerned Violence is committed by so-normal people without mental illness, just as much as it is by those who suffer. They are just not stigmatized
I second Dan’s comment about guns.
At the same time, I think much of the violence in this country is based on inequality. The upside of our “free” society is that we have the potential to do anything. We are not as bound by classes or aristocracy as some other societies. The is the potential for someone with the right combination of skills, drive and (mostly) luck to become a billionaire.
At the same time, this “freedom” allows for economic inequality. My opinion is that this is at the root of most violence.
That guns were used in this particular act of violence is beside the point. Violence comes in many forms.
Precisely why I didn’t focus it on guns. But I suppose I knew it would go there. 🙂
The problem is many of us have abdicated our responsibilities to help each other keep each other safe and given that responsibility to the state. If more people had guns (and were trained to work with them) the shooter wouldn’t had been able to shoot so many times before being taken down.
Before lambasting me I don’t own any guns and am not trained with them. At this point I don’t plan on buying any. I have abdicated my liberty because of this. It is something that I need to do though (purchase a gun and learn how to use it).
I think it’s important to look at who is teaching this violence in the first place. The government. The US and state governments practice this type of violence on innocent people everyday (from wars in foreign nations to drug busts here in the US). This type of violence (from the government and citizens against citizens) will continue as long as people don’t believe in Christ. As a nation we need to repent and follow the admonitions given in D&C 98 such as “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace…” along with all the other sound advice given.
I don’t know if you guys have seen Bowling for Columbine, but that documentary expertly points out or violent problem, and it DOES have to do with guns.
Even if you take guns out of the equation, Jeff, we’re still a far more violent society than other, free and developed societies around the world. We tend to be under the impression we’re the last bastion of freedom around the world. We’re not. We were not the first, either, but we were the first to extend freedom out as far as we have to as large swath of the population as we had.
Our violence revolves around guns and around fear. Remove those two and we will have the lowest violence rate in the world.
@Dan,
Michael Moore is the guy that did Sicko. The video that even the Cubans won’t let their people watch because the normal person there doesn’t get to go the hospitals they portray in the video.
Following this logic I take Moore as a propagandist and wouldn’t trust any of the videos he puts out.
I believe much of our violence comes from the war on drugs. Violence begets violence.
Jon,
oh. my. goodness. hello childishness! So because the Cubans aren’t allowed to watch his documentary (which was actually a very well put together documentary), I’m not going to watch another of his documentaries, no matter how good or bad it may be? wow, dude. grow up.
Everytime this debate comes up, the words of Benjamin Franklin spring to mind: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Give me the side effects of freedom any day. Particularly where the justification for sacrificing freedom is supposed safety. Even assuming that safety is an achievable goal given the whole God-given agency thing, I just don’t trust my fellow beings enough, particularly those holding elected office, to achieve it with purely benevolent motivations. History pretty clearly shows that’s a naive expectation. The natural man (and woman) is a bummer, and everywhere. I just ran into her again this morning when I got cut off in traffic on my way to work.
“At the same time, this “freedom” allows for economic inequality. My opinion is that this is at the root of most violence.”
The greatest amount of wealth inequality is not between the underclass and the merely affluent, but between the affluent and the super-rich.
And yet the merely affluent tend not to go out and shoot people.
There is ample evidence that crime has very little to do with economics. For instance, in this economic cycle, unemployment has risen and more people are worse off — yet violent crime has fallen.
Murder is a function of culture. In America, it’s concentrated overwhelmingly in cultures that, justifiably or not, have fostered a sense of alienation. The notion, for instance, that America is systematically biased against African-Americans, to the point where a black person cannot reasonably hope to succeed, is indirectly responsible for orders of magnitude more murder than any other message.
Economic inequality is utterly irrelevant. I don’t give a flying rip that Bill Gates has gazillionty times more wealth than I do. What I care about, is simply that each person enjoys a decent standard of living. A person who has that, ought to be content, and envying those who have more is not a virtue.
“Our violence revolves around guns and around fear. Remove those two and we will have the lowest violence rate in the world.”
Dan, Mexico has almost total gun control — and has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world.
If you drill down into demographics, and compare like populations to like, the United States’ murder rate is only marginally higher than Britain’s, and lower than other European countries. And America’s overall violent crime rate is lower than Britain’s even now. (One could speculate that the reason British thugs are more inclined to beat, rob, etc., is that they’re less afraid of getting shot.)
“And many people outside would also say — and the quote, unquote ‘freedom’ of a deranged mind to react in a violent way is also American.”
Where to start?
First, this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Mass shootings by deranged people happen all over the world.
Second, the problem is not that a “deranged person” has the freedom to arm himself. The laws against possession of guns by the mentally ill are actually quite strict. The problem is getting people officially classified as mentally ill. And that system broke down in the late fifties and sixties, where we got it into our heads that “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” was a documentary, and turned the all the paranoid schizophrenics loose on the streets.
A system is only as good as its operation, and its operation is only as good as its weakest point. Here, the weak point is the legal identification of the mentally ill.
Thomas,
riiiight….it’s all the blacks’ fault….
“Even if you take guns out of the equation, Jeff, we’re still a far more violent society than other, free and developed societies around the world.”
As mentioned above, this is demonstrably untrue. About the only category of violence in which the United States punches above its weight is murder — and even that is overwhelmingly concentrated in a discrete thug subculture. For violent crime overall, we’re fair-to-middlin’, and in many case rather calmer than our European betters.
I would add, that it’s a bit rich of a Russian reporter criticizing America for violence, considering its murder rate is about five times ours.
In America, if you’re not involved in the Life, about the only way you’re likely to get murdered is by a deranged person — and as horrible as those incidents are, they’re rarer than lightning strikes.
In Russia, on the other hand, you have an excellent chance of getting murdered by someone who is perfectly sane.
Thomas,
The insane Loughners aside, actually you have an excellent chance of getting murdered by someone who is perfectly sane here in America. Most murders occur between people who know each other. In America, they just use guns.
“riiiight….it’s all the blacks’ fault….”
And right on cue, there’s the appeal to emotion, to avoid talking about an inconvenient truth.
The statistics just don’t lie, Sir. If all American ethnic groups committed murder at the rate of the majority population, our murder rate would be somewhere around Iceland’s. (Still a bit higher — the Scots-Irish folkways that got nested in the South are a bit spicier than the New England folkways that spread through the Midwest to Utah and the Northwest.)
Who are “the blacks,” anyway? Where I come from, you deal with people on an individual basis. Pointing out that a population as a whole has an elevated murder rate, says nothing useful about any individual within that group.
But to the mind conditioned to view people as groups, to speak an unfavorable truth about a group, is apparently to denigrate each individual within that group. Who’s doing the stereotyping here?
“actually you have an excellent chance of getting murdered by someone who is perfectly sane here in America. Most murders occur between people who know each other. In America, they just use guns.”
I wouldn’t call a chance of about .02 per 1,000 an “excellent chance.” The point is that your odds of getting murdered by a “deranged person” are vanishingly small, and an American’s odds — even in this supposedly violent, gun-happy society — of being murdered by someone he knows, are not significantly different than a person’s odds in other countries.
If your wife has decided to do you in, it seems, she’s going to do it, regardless of whether she’s got access to guns, or lives in a country where she has to resort to something creative out of an Agatha Christie novel.
“I don’t know if you guys have seen Bowling for Columbine, but that documentary expertly points out or violent problem….”
Wasn’t that the one that blamed Lockheed Martin for Klebold & Harris?
14: “If you drill down into demographics, and compare like populations to like, the United States’ murder rate is only marginally higher than Britain’s, and lower than other European countries.”
Can you define “like populations” — by ethnicity, education, economics?
Murder rates in most European countries are about half that in the US at the country level. Canada, our neighbor to the north, is less than half.
#15; As for “all the paranoid schizophrenics loose on the streets” — was that the result of the book / film or the Reagan revolution?
Jeff, to your OP: I think Gibbs’ comments are fair. Clearly ending someone’s life is not in keeping with freedom. I suspect there are plenty of kids who have played violent video games who have not gunned anyone down, too.
“15; As for “all the paranoid schizophrenics loose on the streets” — was that the result of the book / film or the Reagan revolution?”
A little bit of both — although the narrative re: Reagan always gets mixed up. It was as Governor of California that Reagan (like virtually all political figures) bought into the misguided deinstitutionalization craze. So yes, you could put *part* of the blame for the problem *in California* on Reagan. (As opposed to the common notion that this happened during his *presidency*, and so you could blame the whole country’s mental health problem on the guy.)
“Can you define “like populations” — by ethnicity, education, economics?”
Differences in ethnicity and education levels are highly correlated with different levels of violence. Economics, not quite so much.
There are signfiicant differences in American ethnic groups’ experience with violent crime, both as perpetrators and victims. Controlling for those differences goes a very long way towards accounting for the differences in murder rates between the United States and various other countries.
Just under half of murder victims in the United States are white (defined as including Hispanics), and just under half are black. Since murder victims are overwhelmingly murdered by people of their own ethnic group, it’s a reasonable assumption that the breakdown of perpetrators is similar. (The actual statistics on perpetrators get thrown off by the fact that about 30% of perpetrators are unknown.)
Viewing all this data, it looks to me that nothwithstanding our being armed to the teeth, culturally violent, etc., when you compare apples to reasonable facsimiles of apples — Swedes to Swedish-Americans, for instance — differences in murder rates shrink dramatically.
As for why these differences exist, I will let someone venture onto that territory, whom a certain someone is not set to pounce on with a cry of “racist!” clenched in his teeth. I suspect there are multiple causes.
What *everybody* needs to keep in mind, is that differences in overall populations cannot tell you anything about any specific individual. If, from the above, you conclude “Blacks are more violent,” then (a) you’re a nasty racist, and (b) utterly clueless about how statistics work.
I cannot begin to fathom why you would assume Swedes and Swedish Americans are like populations. What is a Swedish American? Someone of Swedish birth now living in America or someone of Swedish heritage?
“I suspect there are plenty of kids who have played violent video games who have not gunned anyone down, too.”
Well, most people in the country do not commit crimes of any kind. So having a gun, car, knife or fertilizer is not going to motivate them to do anything untoward with those things.
But in a free society like ours, it does allow those who would or even might do something, the freedom of movement, the freedom to purchase without a question or other freedoms which enables that activity.
“I cannot begin to fathom why you would assume Swedes and Swedish Americans are like populations.”
I’m sure you could, if you really put your fathomer to work.
Do you really think there are no traces, in the culture of Minnesota, of cultural assumptions, habits, and folkways that can be traced back to Scandinavia? That folks up there eat lutefisk for the sheer orgiastic joy of it?
Dan:
America’s most wanted had a case where 2 female Southwest Airlines flight attendants were in their Dallas apartment. 2 huge men began kicking in the door in a most violent manner. The 2 women went to the back bedroom and one of them got out a gun. They waited for the men after hearing them finally kick in the door. When they came to the bedroom, the woman with the gun killed both of the men with the gun. I hate to think what would have happened without that gun. Hence the popular phrase
I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
The point of this tangent, is to question the initial premise — the possibility that, by giving up certain freedoms (here, the freedom to bear arms), we would increase our safety.
The point of discussing demographics, is to suggest that giving up that freedom may not buy us as much security as many people may think.
For myself, I think the whole notion of “we can’t trust the citizenry with sharp objects” has the power to do far more damage than it spares. It infantilizes us, and divides us into a ruling caste — Those Who Know Best — and the subjects.
I would rather foster a sense that each man or woman is, in at least some small sense, the ruler of his or her own principality — entrusted with the responsibility to govern himself, without being compelled in everything. Ultimately, a healthy society absolutely depends on there being a sufficient supply of people for whom that is true — who have the independence of mind to create and endure and restrain themselves.
The problem, of course, is that there are also plenty of people who don’t fit that ideal. But I think that the more you treat people as if they’re incapable of self-government, the more incapable of self-government more people will become.
The old song may have been overoptimistic, in boasting “New England’s God forever reigns,” but that granite-eyed old man still has some mileage left in him, I think. And a handful of worshippers yet.
“Well, most people in the country do not commit crimes of any kind.”
If you mean “real crimes,” I agree. If you mean “statutory or administrative offenses you never heard of,” then probably each of us has committed two or three felonies already this week.
We are willing to subject every single person who wants to get on a plane to a body search by scanner or by hand. I gave up using planes as transportation well before these new more stringent restrictions because it had become too unpleasant and now too invasive an experience. I no longer travel anywhere I don’t have the time and interest to drive to.
How is limiting access to guns so we can go into a store or a national park with our families or send our kids to schools and universities with some reasonable expectation of safety any different? Or should I give up buying anything I can’t buy online and have delivered to my door and keep the family inside as well?
Alternatively,shall we go back to a relaxed and pleasant airport experience because the number of actual security incidents is statistically insignificant compared to the flying population because there are some risks we assume in a free society?
I honestly don’t know. I know I’m not willing to subject myself to the airport experience and I’m free to not do it. I’m more uncomfortable with the unfettered access to guns and what strike me as unnecessarily aggressive guns and there’s nothing I can do to protect myself from that.
@Thomas,
You bring up some good points about the blacks. The root cause of the blacks violence is the government itself and its war on drugs. Here’s a podcast talking about just that.
http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=1315
He brings up some good points about the inner city minority and their choices. The war on drugs is the most anti-family policy in the US right now (well maybe the military would be right in there too – sending fathers off for a whole year and then coming back with mental problems).
It was interesting how he talked about how the aggressive offensive in Mexico has made the drug lords more powerful than before.
I’ll say it again. Violence begets violence.
Alma 31:5
@Alice,
A history lesson is important here. Remember many governments that have taken the weapons of their citizens have then proceeded to slaughter their citizens. You may say, “But that will never happen here!” But then we would also say that the US would never jail political prisoners just for their speech, the US would never put people in internment camps, the US would never stack the congress in its favor, the US would never declare war on itself. Well, I guess all of those have happened. I say we let people own their guns.
@Dan,
Didn’t you criticize me for reading LRC? LRC is biased and so is Michael Moore. I have no qualms knowing that I like reading/watching biased media. It’s better to know that of yourself than to be in self denial.
Gun control is elitism at it’s finest. The rich can pay for a body guard (which would be able to carry a gun) but the poor cannot afford this luxury, they have to rely on the police, who, according to court cases, have no obligation to protect you.
#34
Jon-
You say let people own their guns. Maybe you’re right but it doesn’t make me feel any less concerned about the unbalanced. And, in my case, that includes all the survivalists, End Timers and people pretending that the government is tyrannical.
Thanks for the history lesson.
This is so simple. What we need is more good guys carrying guns and the problem would solve itself. You never see a gun store being robbed at gun point.
So when you have deranged, mostly leftist crazies like Jim Jones, Jared Loughner and Seung Cho that try and promote their perverted social justice and go on killing sprees they can be gunned down. Had I been at any of these events (Jonestown, Tucson or WV Tech) they would have been introduced to my weapon and less people would have died.
More good guys with guns, that’s the solution. And gun control can be classified by accuracy.
Freedom exists because there is “law”. Law means that there are requirements that must be met to even have that freedom. It means that there are both priveledges and restrictions at the same time. Law grants us freedom and protective rights. Take the speed limit laws for motor vehicles for instance-
If we had no speed limit laws and everyone was left to their own decision on how fast to drive, it would only be a matter of time before everyone was getting in accidenst and not being held responsible. It reduces the freedom of others because it infringes upon the safety of a society to live in peace and harmony. We wouldn’t want people driving 75 mph through school zones just as we wouldn’t want to get rid of traffic lights. We place laws in place for our safety and protection. Having these laws allows us to have freedom in the safest manner possible.
As it refers to guns, laws should be in place restricting some from having access to them. We know that arming prisoners in a prison would not be a good thing for the responsible gaurds who run the prison- they wouldn’t last one day alive- their freedom is threatened and cut short. The same can be said of the mentally incapable or mentally deranged- they should not have access to guns because it infringes upon others right to have a peaceful life in society. Laws are made for the protection of freedoms and to live peacefully and safe in society. As people abuse those priveledges the only way to keep the peace is for more advanced measures. Lets go back to traffic law-
Suppose there was a certain intersection that only had yield signs and more and more people started dieing at this intersection. Placing a police officer at the intersection might be the next measure. If this didn’t work, perhaps the move towards a traffic signal with an officer would be the next step. If this didn’t work then perhaps the next level would be harsher penalties for those involved in accidents at this intersection. What is the purpose for all of these advancements though? It is always to protect the peaceful and provide the necessary safety. Shift this appraoch to gun laws-
In order to have the safety we desire in a country that is turning out more whackos as of late, more advanced measures must be put in place. At schools there are more police officers, locker checks and perhaps at some- even metal detectors, etc. Having stricter rules in society is a direct reflection of it’s policy holders (us) being negligent in upholding the law- upholding our freedom. Many blame the government but they are not at fault. Almost every fault in society can be traced back to failure in the home. This is where it gets tricky though because you cannot pass laws requiring how much time a Father should spend in the home spending quality time with his family. You also cannot pass laws requiring one to do so many hours of “good will” towards his neighbor in his free time. You also cannot pass laws requiring parents to teach their children the correct morales and ethics that support freedom in society. So, as these duties are neglected at home it in turn plagues society as a whole because people become mentally disturbed and committ acts of violence in society. To combat this we as the policy holders favor more advanced measures (laws) to further ensure freedom. As we get more and more advanced in these laws and restrictions it does begin to place a burden of apparent deprivation on our freedom. But, we must realize that without these advanced laws in society our freedom would be hampered more. So, in reality laws become the support of freedom, not the hindrence of them. As we feel deprived, we must not look towards our laws so much as we should look at what is really hampering our freedom- those individuals in society who neglect their responsibilities and our seeking to destroy our freedom. The criminals in society are the cause of the loss of freedom, not the laws themselves.
“So when you have deranged, mostly leftist crazies like Jim Jones, Jared Loughner and Seung Cho that try and promote their perverted social justice and go on killing sprees they can be gunned down.”
Just a brilliant statement!
Will you are disturbing on many levels
Diane, I thought the comment policy was not to attack anyone.
Henry
I have to assume that you mean I’m attacking Will.
I am not attacking him. I really do find what he says very disturbing to the point that I can not even verbalize why. That’s not attacking.
Too quote his last comment.” More Good Guys with guns, that’s the solution,” If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you it should. I would be very concerned about thinking like that.
And Henry
You attack people all the time.
Diane, you are disturbing on many levels.
Doesn’t sound nice if you substitute your own name.
Easy, folks
The point that I’m trying to make is that this guy did not have a history of mental illness he was just an angry idiot who wanted control.
I hope he spent at least a month in jail for brandishing a weapon like that, and was forbidden to own or carry one for twenty years after that.
@diane,
I don’t see what’s so disturbing about Will’s comment that you quoted. It seems more disturbing to me to trust a select few with guns that will yield fierce control over the population with little recourse when they do something wrong. Just because they are put in blue uniforms doesn’t make them any less of a gang. They practice many of the same things gangs do but call their actions by different names.
If you want to see disturbing read Will Grigg’s Pro-libertate blog. Now that’s disturbing. He links all his articles to MSM sources. He’s proliferate in use harsh words for his opponents (corrupt cops) but the history he provides is invaluable. Interesting perspective.
You can also read the more mainstream blog “Photography Is Not A Crime”. Also, very disturbing. I would trust the masses with guns long before I would trust a select few with guns.
“This American Life” has had at least 2 or 3 podcasts on police corruption and brutality. Quite fascinating. One of those shows they talked about the NYPD and how they would kidnap people just to meet quotas. One good cop tried to stand up to them and is bullied to this day for it, even after moving away. It seems natural that police forces would attract people that want to exert their wills on the masses. Yes, we are fortunate that there are so many good people out there otherwise we would be screwed like other populations in the world.
@Rob,
Interesting analysis and I think you are partly right. But you have to remember that making more laws can create false sense of security and government can’t protect everyone (neither does it claim it can nor does it claim to be obligated to). Creating violence to stop violence is not the solution. Natural is. Teaching people natural law and the importance of it is. Placing more restrictions on the people in the name of “freedom” isn’t freedom. When a populace becomes corrupt it is God who who punish the population through natural law. This punishment can come through man made laws that enslave the people.
Jeff
I’m use to Henry attacking me. He does it whenever he doesn’t agree with someones statement. He does it to get people to drop out of the conversation whenever they don’t agree with his conservative ideas.
It’s okay for henry to attack people like me, but when the shoe is on the other foot, He cries foul. He’s done it on this post and over on Mormon Matters a few times so I’m use to his methods.
@Mark
Presently, the gentleman is sitting in jail with a million dollars bail and awaiting pre-trial. He is being charged with aggravated assault, and attempted murder and some other charges.
And Henry
This is why you shouldn’t assume.
I wasn’t attacking Will. I was attacking his line of thinking. Something we all do when we response to an Op. And I Think Will is a Big Guy that he can stand up for himself, he doesn’t need you to protect him from little ole me.
Diane,
You are attacking me, but that’s ok and typical when you try and have a discussion with someone on the left. They can’t use logic or reason on the issues so they start attacking the messenger personally. It is not the first time I have been attached and it won’t be the last.
The founding fathers, were inspired and according to God himself “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom he raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood’. In other words, the constitution was established by right wing leaders with guns.
God, and those whom he inspired, knew most of the mass murder in this world are done by crazy leftists that attempt to control society and the access to weapons – leftists such as: Pol Pot, the Cambodian Communist that killed an estimated 2.5 million of his own people; Stalin the Soviet Communist that killed 750,000 of his own people; Adolf Hitler the German National Socialist Party leader (Nazi) that killed an estimated 6 million jews; and, worst of all Mao Zedong the Chinese Communist that killed an estimated 70 million of his own people. There are many other crazy, mass murderer leftists such as Jim Jones, Fidel Castro and Kim Yung Ill, but hey blog space is limited to a billion terabytes.
With this in mind, God inspired and established the constitution of the United States. One of the key tenants was the right to bear arms so the tyranny described above would not take place; thus, the second amendment to the constitution. A truly inspired amendment to the constitution.
On a more personal level, had a ‘Good Guy with a Gun’ been WV Tech or Tuscon and would have been able to stop these killers, less people would have died. The best example is Sulejman Talović , who shouted “Allahu Akbar” prior to his rampage in a shopping mall in Salt Lake City. He was gunned down by an off-duty cop carrying a gun. He had a duffle bag full of weapons and rounds. Had he not been stopped by a “good guy” citizen (who was breaking the law carrying a gun in the mall) more people would have died. Along these lines, if students in the classroom in WV tech would have had guns less people would have died. The same holds true for Tuscon. It is a simple concept.
Will
From what you have stated than you don’t believe that men, or people who don’t advocate the way you do for the right to bear arms that they are not following the words or promptings of God.
I just don’t nor will I ever agree with the way you think. God, country, flag be dammed.
There’s a reason why they outlawed dueling in the streets , no one wins, not even the one left standing.
Will
Good Guys with guns run the risk of becoming tyrants just like the bad guys and the off-duty cop put everyone in the mall at risk attempting to play hero. He could have very easily missed the guy who went on a rampage and hit an innocent bystander.
I worry one day that someone is going to be packing a pistol at church, someone normal who just gets angry because someone said something incredibly stupid and he pulls it out. I do find it interesting that in all of these instances its’ Men with Guns, not women.
Another stupid act of gun violence:
At 2:45 am this morning two men were arguing in a section on Philadelphia known as Olde City.
They were arguing over french fries and the one pulled a gun shot the other and took off in a Mercedes Benz
But yes, the only thing that is needed is more guns.
@Diane,
You haven’t addressed the corrupt gangs of cops conundrum. If ordinary people can’t have guns then that’s what they become.
Also, you haven’t addressed the conundrum of elitists who don’t want common folk to have guns but are willing to hire private security for themselves.
Truly if you are so worried you should be much more worried about things that you might actually die of, like a car wreck or your house burning down. There will always be people that will commit violence against others, gun or no gun. If the people don’t abdicate their responsibility we would all be much safer. It’s because we all expect the cops to protect us that we are not safe. It’s impossible for the cops to do this and shouldn’t be expected of them.
Will,
The perpetual victim, your modern day conservative.
Dan,
Not a victim, just stating the facts.
Diane,
So, let me get this right, you believe: 1) God did not inspire the constitution. 2). All people with guns are mentally unstable and can’t control their emotions will just start shooting? 3). Self defense or the defense of others is dueling? 4) The off-duty cop should have not put people in the mall at risk because he might have hit an innocent bystander?
Jon, Will
I grew up in New York City, and lived in all of the major metropolitan cities across the Eastern seaboard. Philadelphia has been my home for the past 20 years or so, I’m use to urban violence, I do not expect the cops to be there to protect me when I need them the most. The cops in Philadelphia take care of there own. The corrupt ones always get caught in the end and are taken down. There will always be a few bad apples in any profession, including law enforcement, for the most part they are honest and they try to do a good job with the resources they do. Gun violence is not the fault of the police. People will get guns anyway they can, it doesn’t matter what rules are on the books. Criminals don’t care what the rules are that’s why they are criminals. It won’t matter how many good guys you think there are to take care of them either.
And what information do you have that I don’t have that says wealthy people don’t want the poor to have guns. There’s none that I know of.
I don’t worry about gangs, because I don’t affiliate with anyone else who does. The only times it does come to play in my life is when the idiot two doors down from me brings the element home with him in the summertime and the shooting in the neighborhood comes to play. The way I handle it then is I stay to my self and talk to very few people in my neighborhood. Before I take my dog out for his walk I always post it on my face book page so that someone knows where I am and if I’m not back in time to call me to make sure I got home okay.
And for the record I am neither Liberal, nor conservative. If I were to label myself politically I would probably be a moderate. I don’t like extremes in any arena, why because no matter how flat a pancake is, you still have two sides. and the truth generally lies somewhere in the middle.
Will
Do I think the constitution was inspired by God, probably, just not the same one you believe in.
2) I never said that people with guns are mentally unstable, that’s been a common thread of many of the arguments presented by you and a few others.
3) I never said one didn’t have the right to defend themselves, I just don’t think one needs to do it with guns
4) That’s the only thing you have interpreted correctly. There have been many cases where there have been innocent people killed because they didn’t assess the risk factor properly. I wouldn’t want someone who is off duty to take control of a situation that he didn’t have control over and no, I don’t care what you say, the guy had a crowd of people and he had a 50/50 chance of hitting him or someone else. But you will never see it that way because you think in extremes
Will,
Facts? Where? Certainly this is not a fact:
That’s ridiculous drivel.
Ridiculous drivel. Where is it written that “God knew most of the mass murder in this world are done by crazy leftists that attempt to control society and the access to weapons.” Show me the chapter and verse. Otherwise stop pulling this crap out of your victimized ass.
Hardcore right wing.
Bullcrap poppycock.
Show the chapter and verse that indicates the inspired nature of the Second Amendment, and the difference between the level of inspiration in the Second Amendment and that of the 14th and 17th Amendments. Otherwise, just simple dirty poppycock.
Baloney bullcrap. You can never predict how an event would play out. Major Hassan killed 13 people on a military base!
Indeed, the citizens of Salt Lake City should count themselves blessed and lucky that no more were injured or killed. But this is not the norm. Don’t delude yourself into thinking so.
Indeed simple. You’re points are worth less than bullcrap.
Sorry,
#1) should have also read, its probably not the same God that you think, nor to the extent that you believe.
Elitist Mayor Daley:
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/daley-s-armed-bodyguard-proves-mayor-s-hypocrisy
One example does not make the argument
Dan,
“Ridiculous drivel. Where is it written that “God knew most of the mass murder in this world are done by crazy leftists that attempt to control society and the access to weapons.” Show me the chapter and verse. Otherwise stop pulling this crap out of your victimized ass.”
He is omniscient (Rev 19:6). He knows everything. He knew all these leftist nuts would go on their killing sprees. He also knew these leftists’ nuts would commit mass murder to control their populations. He knew these leftists kooks would take property and rights (gun rights included) from their citizens as a means of control. Are you denying the omniscience of God?
“Hardcore right wing”
Not sure what you mean on this one as Hitler was clearly a Socalist. He was the leader of the Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers Party). His nationalist drivel is recorded in Mein Kampf. You know, the same book that inspired the leftist nut in Tucson.
“With this in mind, God inspired and established the constitution of the United States.
Bullcrap poppycock. “
Just stating what God himself and his Apostles have said numerous times about the constitution, here is one of the more notable citations. I can provide more if you would like:
http://lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-divinely-inspired-constitution?lang=eng
“Show the chapter and verse that indicates the inspired nature of the Second Amendment, and the difference between the level of inspiration in the Second Amendment and that of the 14th and 17th Amendments. Otherwise, just simple dirty poppycock.”
See the last comment and read the article by Dalin H. Oaks. There are others by President Bensen, L. Tom Perry, Thomas Monson, Spencer W. Kimball, etc..
“Baloney bullcrap. You can never predict how
an event would play out. Major Hassan killed 13 people on a military base!”
Yea, a military base that does NOT allow it’s soldiers to carry weapons on the base. Stupid I know, but true.
“Indeed, the citizens of Salt Lake City should count themselves blessed and lucky that no more were injured or killed. But this is not the norm. Don’t delude yourself into thinking so.”
He killed the killer. He had a bag loaded with guns and ammo. He would have kept killing until he ran out of ammo or people to kill. But, your right it is not the norm as stupid laws are passed keeping guns out of these places. So, the only ones that take weapons are the nut cases and the public is left with no way of protecting itself. Just stupid.
“Indeed simple. You’re points are worth less than bullcrap.”
Thanks. The proof for my initial point.
Will,
So I can claim that God knows you’re a duffushead and I would be right because I can back it up by saying that God is omniscient, so obviously he knows your a duffushead.
Hitler? Following the principles and ideas of a Jew? Are you freaking ridiculous?
So nothing from God Himself. Just from men. You know, I can point you to various things that Brigham Young quite forcefully said about blacks. Surely he was inspired, and it was God’s will. In any case, I’m glad you see that the 14th Amendment and the 17th Amendment were inspired by God. Thus those who dare speak out against those amendments are going against the will of God.
Perhaps I owe Diane an apology. Dan is pretty intense in his comments toward other folks. Permas, what is the comment policy when dealing with our fellow bloggers?
I think it is time to back off the vitriol. If you cannot have a civil conversation without name calling and using questionable language, then just stop posting. Otherwise, please be respectful.
You don’t have to agree and can react strongly, but just be a bit nicer about it.
I really don’t want to be a tattletale but every blog you go on belongs to someone so it’s like you are in their house and when in someone else’s house one should behave oneself. I know if I am ever out of line I am called on it.
Will
An example of what I’m talking about can be found in the Utah Newspaper
A man was showing off his new 40 caliber rifle. He was demonstrating proper, safety use of how to handle a gun. The idiot, forgot to make sure the barrel wasn’t loaded and accidentally shot his mother-in-law and his own two year old son.
This is supposedly a good guy.
Jeff
Henry just wants to start trouble. I’m use to his ways.
He and will don’t like the fact that neither Dan nor I agree with his position and he resorts to this tactic every time.
Will
Last year in the NorthEast section of Philadelphia a off duty cop thought he had more rights than the rest of the people in his neighborhood.
He came outside and shot an innocent bystander who was walking by, the intended target was his neighbor across the street who he had a disagreement with because the were having a party and it was loud.
So, yes the good guys have serious lapse in judgment at times and they can’t take back the damage.
Henry,
I’ll tell you why I am mean to Will. Because no sane, rational conservative gets on here to tell him he is way off with all his ridiculous comments. Someone needs to give him a cyber slap, and if y’all won’t, well I have no qualms in doing so.
Jeff,
With Dan, you just have to consider the source; and, not take his insults personally. He does prove my point quite well that his arguments don’t stand, so he resorts personal attacks. It is quite typical.
Diane,
I think you need to look at a society like Switzerland, which is more of the more docile and peaceful nations on the earth. In fact, I think they maintain a neutral stand on most military conflicts. The Swiss Government REQUIRES its citizens to carry guns and to undergo mandatory training.
Oh, and Dan is still sheathing from my post in November.
I’d love for America to become more like Switzerland. You do realize, Will, that they have universal health care over there, and they are quite socialist…
Oh, and the only personal insult I hurled at you was saying that God thought you were a duffushead. Which you are. The rest were not personal attacks on you, but challenges to your points, which, I note, you have refused to defend. Thus, you lose.
Will
Again you misrepresent yourself. Men in Switzerland have a military obligation up until the age of thirty. They are required to by law to keep the weapons they obtain thru military training under seal. They are also inspected by military police to make sure they have the allotted ammunition which is to be used for military training puposes only. Not for personal use as you tried to allude to.
And now for some humor relief because I think we need it.
From the Huffington Post, dated Jan 18,2011. Why we need Gun control.
A man from Belaruse was hunting in the woods, he shot a fox and fox came after him and accidentally triggered the rifle and the hunter was wounded with his own gun.
In this case the Fox out foxed the hunter
Dan,
The Swiss got the gun thing right, but will soon figure out with the rest of the socialists that socialism will fail as you will eventually run out of someone elses money.
Will,
Switzerland actually ranks higher than the United States on the Heritage Foundation’s index of economic liberty. So do, among others, Denmark and Canada.
Switzerland’s healthcare is arguably less “socialist” than ours. Health insurance is treated more or less like a public utility. People are required to have health insurance, which is provided by private insurance companies. The companies are required to provide a basic level of services at essentially a break-even price level; they make their profits by selling upgrades to the basic service.
Frankly, I would take that system over ours in a heartbeat. We already spend more public money per capita insuring just the poor and the old, than Switzerland spends helping insure everyone. Both we, and Switzerland, have a health system that “halts between two opinions,” private and public. Not surprisingly, the Swiss do it much more rationally and efficiently.
I would add that adopting the Swiss system would mean doing away with Medicare. Meaning that the miserly old [favorite expletive here] who are presently riding on the backs of us young whippersnappers, would actually have to pay something towards the ridiculous cost of nursing them through their senescence. And would of course screech loudly.
The fact that the United States persists with its nominally “private” — but government-distorted and massively inefficient — health care system, allows people to get the misimpression that the United States is some kind of heartless capitalist jungle. When in fact, Canada and some Scandinavian countries are in many respects more economically libertarian than we are.
I’ll add, though, that the pervasive notion that the United States could simply adopt whole hog the public health policy of some enlightened European country or other, ignores (as usual) some critical demographic differences between those societies and ours.
Thomas,
I don’t disagree and did not state the United States is not a socialist nation. We are very much socialized – education, progressive taxes, Medicare, Medicaid and the big government nationalized healthcare that was recently passed. As I mentioned in my November post, these socialist programs have already bankrupted this country. We are in financial checkmate and no one in Washington has the courage or integrity to admit our current economic state. With this said, tie it to our current economic house of cards and state “we will soon realize these socialist programs have failed us as we have run out of other people’s money”. The takers in our society have surpassed the makers and we are bankrupt.
Thomas,
I will wholeheartedly agree here. I have no problem doing away with Medicare if we follow the Swiss model.
Clearly. When you deal with buffoons like Will, you tend to cut your discourse down to the lowest common denominator, because then you will be speaking on his level.
And Will, on cue….
Lowest common denominator, Thomas. Lowest common denominator. When you deal with such ridiculousness, when more educated conservatives like you don’t clarify for your lowest common denominator, we on the left are left to bring our discourse down to this.
Now wait a sec, Dan.
Will’s supposed to be a “lowest common denominator” because he thinks we (the U.S.) are “quite socialized.”
I had just written that Switzerland has been rated more economically free than the U.S.
You had written, earlier, that the Swiss “are quite socialist.”
Well, which is it? If Switzerland is “quite socialist,” and yet Switzerland is more economically free — “less socialist,” to use the vernacular” — then it follows that the U.S. is also “quite socialist” — no?
America’s lack of a comprehensive health insurance system acts as a kind of fig leaf, behind which can be concealed just how nakedly socialistic much of American society truly is.
(There is a parallel here, with the way some liberals’ fig leaf of being sexual libertarians gives them cover for being authoritarian in their approach to so many other aspects of society.)
Finally, re: appeals to lowest common denominators, I offer as Exhibit A one Michael Moore, who, it must be said, ain’t exactly John Rawls.
@Will,
You left out the biggest parts of government that are socialized.
The military, police force, roads, etc. Heck, the whole government is socialized.
Thomas,
Well, yeah, who did I direct that comment to? Will. In his highly simplistic view of the world, every single nation on this planet is socialist. In the real world, is Switzerland really socialist? Nah, not really. Neither is Germany, nor France, nor Britain, nor Denmark, and so on. Now, China is socialist. No one can really claim China is communist anymore, not with how much they’ve opened up their business to less government control. uh, relatively speaking of course. 🙂 Compare China today to that of 30 years ago and you have a wholly different country.
You too? Bullcrap, Thomas. This is utter bullcrap.
Actually Michael Moore is a fairly intelligent documentarian. He’s got a loud mouth and many times he’s just railing against the wind, but he’s no Will.
Dan, I can’t take someone seriously who has a single positive word for that bloated cut-rate Riefenstahl. And “documentarian” isn’t a synonym for “propagandist.”
He ought to be read out of truth-loving society on the sole basis of his credulously portraying Cuba’s Potemkin-village medical system as anything remotely resembling what serves the actual country.
See, here is what I love about conservatives: When we find ourselves obliged to treat with some unsavory autocrat in some spider-infested place, we have the decency to be embarrassed by it. Leftists fawn over left-leaning dictators for the sheer naughty joy of it.
Anyway, what is “socialist,” anyway, and who gets to define it? Even the European social democrats who openly call themselves “socialists” don’t fit the more restrictive definition — state ownership of the means of production. They’ve found it far easier simply to leave productive assets nominally in private hands, while reducing the “bundle of sticks” that make up property rights into a twig or two.
That is, they dominate the economy, without taking formal ownership of it. And you’re right, I suppose, that this isn’t actual “socialism,” at least as the term was originally defined. It is in fact more properly “corporatism,” a word which 9 out of 10 leftists have no idea as to its actual meaning.
And yes, a great deal of the American economy is corporatist. Ironically, it’s those economic sectors where the Faustian bargain has been most thoroughly struck — where business has accepted extensive regulation, in exchange for government subsidies and protected profits — where things have gone so thoroughly south. Mortage and finance, for instance, are among the most heavily-regulated sectors of the economy, with the huge GSEs, lumbering along with an unspoken government guarantee, added for good measure. Fat lot of good that did. Ditto health care and education, both of which government has leapt into with both feet — and succeeded mostly in driving costs into the orbit of Jupiter.
Anyway, I’m open to hearing a stronger rebuttal to “bullcrap” to the argument that America’s lack of a comprehensive health insurance system, allows people to overestimate America’s actual, overall level of economic freedom. Which, as was mentioned, is actual *less* than it is in several countries deemed “socialist” by some of the more unreflective people on both right and left.
Jon,
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
“Socialized” does not mean “anything that government does.” Government has *always* been considered responsible for maintaining the basic social infrastructure — the military, the courts, the police, and arguably the post office and post roads — in which economic activity takes place.
Socialism, on the other hand, is a specific 19th-century economic theory in which government expands beyond its role as referee and provider of infrastructure in which private actors were traditionally undercapitalized to invest, and moves into economic activity itself. It goes from referee to player, in other words.
I’m always skeptical when the referee and the player are the same guy. He never calls charging on himself, for one thing.
Thomas,
You must have only seen Fahrenheit 9/11. You really should watch Bowling for Columbine and Sicko. Even detractors and contrarians agree those two are quite well made documentaries.
Actually the bullcrap is to the notion that we’re “nakedly socialist” which I see you yourself have agreed really doesn’t define the definition of socialism. Good on you, sir. America’s health care system is such a terrible mess precisely because we’ve not yet decided as a nation which path to take, so we take the piddly stuff in the middle. Instead of following Britain’s lead in the 40s to universal health care (which is what Truman attempted and failed), we were stuck with trying to get Medicare, and somehow add on that. As long as we continue in conflict over which direction to go, we’ll continue having a terrible, confusing and overpriced system. So as soon as y’all on the right come to your senses and realize universal health care is the future, we’ll continue on in this terrible middle. 🙂
Um, dude, it’s in the freaking Constitution. Have you read that document recently?
Ah, but this position is taken, ironically, in not understanding the power of the voice of the real referee: the people, NOT the government. Again, I recommend you watch Sicko, because Michael Moore makes this point quite strongly. In France, the government is scared of the people. In the United States, the people are scared of the government. Which do you think is a healthier way to view one’s representative government? Ironically, the conservative ideological position is to respect authority, which includes, the government. The leftist position is, well, slightly off that. Don’t respect authority when it is not doing what you want it to do. This is the position of the people of France. This is why they protest all the time. When the government doesn’t do what they want, they punish the government, NOT the other way around. Maybe it is time Americans learn yet another lesson from our French brothers on truly revolutionary thinking…
The more we focus on the -isms, the further we fall from community. Really, are the various -isms any different than the various -ites in the Book of Mormon?
I like this guy’s take on things. I’ve never seen any of Michael Moore’s documentaries, but I just might take a look at sicko. I’ve changed enough as a person the past couple of years, that I might just agree with Moore now that I don’t listen to hate radio.
P.S. I agree with the discussion on the government serving the people, and the way the French use the system. The problem I see with Americans is that we’re too tied to the dualities presented to us (i.e. right v. left, liberal v. conservative, capitalism v. socialism, etc) and are too apathetic. Perhaps, if I can borrow an analogy from a decent kids video I watched the other day, too many people are “moon blinked” into believe what the main-stream corporate media and their false priests (corporate capitalists, politicians, etc) preach. The modern events in Tunisia are just another symptom of people being fed up with lip service and wanting something more.
“In France, the government is scared of the people. In the United States, the people are scared of the government.”
I would prefer that neither should be scared of the other.
A non-paranoid government ought to be scared of the people in only two situations: (a) The people are irrational, and will from time to time go nuts and guillotine all the politicians for no particular reason; or (b) The government is up to no good, and rightly fears the people won’t put up with it.
A rather blinkered view of conservatism, which completely ignores its libertarian faction — probably the dominant faction, at this particular moment. And a bit untimely, in light of the furor of the last two weeks about conservatives supposedly being insufficiently polite in expressing their feelings toward government authority.
Until the leftists take power. Then it instantly goes from “dissent is patriotic” to “dissent is dangerous extremism.”
The sad truth is that apart from the freedom to rut as you please (and be subsidized against any resulting inconvenience), liberalism no longer stands for individual freedom in much of anything anymore. Even on drug policy, the libertarians have surpassed them in dedication.
I’m of the “inspired men, not inspired words” mindset when it comes to thinking the Constitution divinely inspired. I certainly don’t think every last word of the original Constitution was handed down from Sinai, never to be modified to fit changing circumstances. Neither, of course, did the Founders, who included an amendment mechanism — which the “living Constitution” theorists would rather bypass, but that’s another story.
I did say “arguably.” At the time of the Founding, transportation and mail infrastructure may have beyond the capacity of private enterprise. That’s much less the case now. The point was that putting government in charge of social infrastructure is not properly described as “socialism.”
As Tom Paine reminds us, once a polity grows big enough that everybody can’t fit under some convenient tree, government has to become representative. In the process, an individual person’s consent to be governed by the decisions of his representatives, inevitably becomes more and more figurative and less actual. Government becomes what the Protestant reformers accused the Catholic Church of being — a middleman standing between the individual, and the ideal. And like all middlemen — like all institutions — it invariably tends to serve its own interests, as well as its clients’.
That kratos is exercised by the demos, should not make us lose sight of the fact that it is still kratos — force, or compulsion. My basic rule is that nothing should be done by force that doesn’t absolutely have to be.
I would add, in conclusion, that for all the sound and fury recently in France over the government’s decision to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, the government — the one that supposedly fears the People — stuck to its guns, and won. Soixante-huitardisme, it seems, is no match for the basic math the government had on its side, i.e., “we can’t afford you loafers anymore.”
How long had the Tunisian boss been in power? A couple of decades, wasn’t it?
Maybe those guys just had more to be fed up with.
A frequent leftist lament is that Americans are just too damned dumb, or complacent, or whatever, to Rise Up (You Have Nothing To Lose But Your ChainsTM). An alternative explanation is that as imperfect as American society is — and there’s a credible case to be made that it’s becoming more so — Americans are sharp enough to notice that an awful lot of places where riots and revolutions are trendy, are often not the nicest places. So many would-be revolutionaries that promise the Social-Justice moon, prove incapable of even getting the garbage collected properly. (Exhibit A lies 100 miles to my south.)
Too often, the leftist plan goes like this:
1. Riot! Ca ira! Up the People!
2. ???
3. Hail the dawn of the brave new world, “when all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins!”
Look at Greece. The government announced, “We’re broke. We can’t pay all you guys to do nothing anymore.” There immediately ensued the curious spectacle of “anarchists” (who seem to be a little confused about the meaning of the prefix “an-“), rioting and incinerating a few of their fellow Greeks, to insist that the government that is out of money keep giving them money.
And after all the fuss, the government was still out of money.
These anti-gun types are all motivated by fear… They’re the types that would gladly trade security for freedom.. probably kind of like the people in eastern Europe that miss the commie days. Oh, hey Dan how ya doin.
Thomas,
Hmmm, I never pictured you as some utopian.
Who gets to choose what ‘absolutely has to be?’ You may not like the enforceability powers of either the demos or some tyrannical power, but in the end, it is required to maintain some level of order.
Or was it that not enough of the population was against the increase of the retirement age…see, sadly, not enough Americans protested the stupid war in Iraq, and the Bush administration thought they had enough support to go ahead.
Murray Rothbard is quoted saying or writing something to the affect that no authoritarian republic has ever been successfully overthrown through a violent revolution, it only got worse after that. Pray to God, teach what freedom & liberty are and be peaceful. There’s much to be said of civil disobedience and just opting out of the system.
“Politics of Obedience” is a good place to start on how to become free.
Jon,
what the hell is an “authoritarian republic?”
Dan,
Just an observation, take it however you want.
I just spent a few minutes of my time on your blog. How depressing. There was not one positive comment about anything. It is full of anger, rage, hate and vitriol like I never seen. Full of foul language and speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed; and, Ironically, titled the ‘Good Democrat’.
Honestly, it made me think of the description in the scriptures “he seeketh others to be miserable like unto himself”. Dude, you need to do some serious soul searching.
Will,
You ought to be careful with the way you phrase things. If you say “there was not one positive comment about anything,” if I find one positive comment about anything, then your whole argument is a waste of words. I recommend this post and this post as examples of “positive comment about anything.” The first post is the most recent post, and the second comes from August of last year. Now, since I really haven’t said much in the last year or so on my blog, that second post comes from the second page of the archives. Methinks you got caught up in my anger at Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and missed on everything else. Since your argument is not factually based, I see no merit to consider your advice, or rather, your observation.
Dan,
It is totally acceptable to disagree; and, to express your disagreement. And, after review there are some good things it the two referenced posts. From a cursory glance, and from the first impression of your site, you came across as angry and bitter. Do you seriously think it is good promote the Book of Mormon as the word of God in one spot; and, have another title “Big Government’s Andrew Breitbart Can Go F*** Himself”. Then in the text, tell him to F off’ (only you actually used the terms). What impression does that leave with investigators or those who are looking into the church? Would the brethren or the Savior approve of having the Book of Mormon intertwined with such vulgarity?
I don’t care how you present your views, but leave the church out of it. Your vulgar actions and vitriol are not appropriate. As a fellow member, I am asking you take the references (advertisements) to the Book of Mormon and the Church out of your blog. I am also forwarding the URL to the Chruch’s legal department so they can protect the Church’s interest. I’m sure they don’t what their perils cast in this manner.
Will,
oh, I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Glenn Beck?
Good luck with that.
Dude, you can’t even spell. Let me help you out.
“I’m sure they don’t want their pearls cast in this manner.”
It’s not that hard.
by the way, I don’t know how you missed this post. Oh no! I charge that Ezra Taft Benson made grievous errors in judgment! Quick! Call the church. They must be protected…or something.
“Who gets to choose what ‘absolutely has to be?’”
Ideally, if freedom is to be preserved, people who are inclined to err on the side of non-coercion.
I don’t expect the consensus of three hundred million people to get it exactly right. But I do want them to at least try, and I want it made perfectly clear who rejects the whole premise. And there are those who do.
Thomas,
That’s more of the same ambiguous terminology that allows you to decide whoever you want to be included. What does “non-coercion” mean?
Is this coercive or non-coercive?
What is government if words have no meaning?
If that was cryptic for anyone, Google the phrase.
This is all straight out of the playbook of Foucault and Derrida and Marcuse — the idea that words and ideas have no intrinsic meaning; that they are only “texts” designed to reinforce “power relations.” And it is utter antirationalist foolishness.
I am certain that you, Dan, know exactly what coercion is: Using force to make someone do something, against his will. At the bottom, that is what government is. The moral ambiguity inherent in this is mitigated only to the extent that greater evils are thereby avoided.
The Militia Act of 1792, which you linked to, empowered the government to use coercive force to repel an invasion or violent rebellion. That sounds like a fairly obvious case for the use of coercive force, unless you want the government to go away altogether. Which is not exactly something one hears frequently on the Progressive left these days.
Dan,
Again, I don’t care the way you present your views. I just took your comment on your blog that you were a faithful member at face value. You are clearly antagonist against the church, which is your decision; but, have some integrity. And, if you don’t like it, leave.
Those visiting your site could get the impression the Church, or its members, act in a vulgar manner. I suppose most people are smart enough to conclude it is a bitter, angry member that does not reflect the Church’s values.
People in this church can say very nice things and use proper tone and still be vulgar.
I think for anyone to tell someone to leave because they don’t like their views is immature. It doesn’t solve anything and it sure as hell doesn’t promote discussion.
And Anyone telling someone to leave because they don’t like the person’s viewpoint should be ashamed.
Thomas,
Indeed, so correct my misunderstanding of your position then when you stated earlier
if you yourself agree that government is the application of force, which sometimes may be against someone’s will. I take it your point is that it should be limited force. I don’t think any liberal disagrees with you on that. The disagreement does not come over whether the government should have limited force. The disagreement comes over what should be enforced and what shouldn’t. Thus the constant claim from conservatives like you that the liberal position is coherent with statism and corporatism (when it really isn’t that different from the conservative position), is just plain off from the facts and actual reality. It’s as if you think liberals want all the constrictions that conservatives want and the things liberals want, as if the liberal position is naturally toward more governmental intervention, on a sliding scale. That’s just not the case, Thomas, and I think you know it, but you continue parading the Republican talking point because it has been repeated so often one actually thinks it’s true. It’s still not true, no matter how often it is repeated. Liberals don’t want government intervention, for example, inside the bedroom. Conservatives prefer government intervention inside the bedroom. I don’t want to go through a litany of examples, but you get the drift. The application of force by government is something liberals want done in a limited fashion. Just on things that conservatives don’t care about. Conservatives want the application of force by government on their own fetish desires. That’s life.
Will,
I am. I’m actually the Gospel Doctrine teacher. Clearly I am teaching them false doctrine. Quick! Call church headquarters!
I’m quite integral. 🙂 And no I’m not “clearly antagonistic” against the church. I’m antagonistic against Ezra Taft Benson, who had terrible judgment issues back in the 50s and 60s. It’s a shame God made him prophet, but there it is. Nothing to do about it except move on.
You clearly hate America. I’m waiting for you to leave first.
Dan,
If you were in my ward, you would be released. If your so proud of your vulgar blog and see nothing wrong with it, perhaps you should discuss it in your next GD lesson
Will,
Good thing I’m not in your silly ward.
Well this week’s lesson is on the birth of the Savior. Not quite relevant.
Will
I would like to remind you that when you point the finger at someone you have three fingers pointing straight back at you.
You have made some pretty outlandish disgusting comments to people on this OP just because they don’t believe the same way you do. Should we report you to your Bishop?
You are not an authority. Your opinion is just that an opinion. To threaten anyone with such outlandish action means you don’t have as much assurance in your own testimony or faith and hence the need to coerce someone into your camp by outing them. Childish behavior indeed.
Diane,
You have missed the point. It is not the viewpoint, but the vulgar way it is presented. So please read the comments before making commentary. His blog is vulgar and not appropriate to be associated with the Church.
Diane,
And what comments of mine were inappropriate?
Will
I think your the missing the point, Again I say to you, You are not an authority. You don’t have the right, nor do you have the authority to say what is, or is not appropriate. Stop, Presenting yourself as if you are. Stop. Stop. Stop. You are being vulgar and you can’t recognize it. Present this back to your own bishop and discuss your irrational need to be right.
Name one. Seriously. Any conservative who wants to restrict, by force of law, what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. Abortions, of course, do not take place in bedrooms.
Because there aren’t any. As I said before, liberals’ supposed champion of sexual liberty is the fig leaf with which they cover their desire to regulate darn near everything else. Except, of course, they’re defending against a non-existent threat; again, nobody’s even arguing for the restriction of private consensual sexual conduct. (Except maybe if it annoys the livestock, in which case even most liberals typically say “ew, [ewe?] ban it,” too.)
Well, yes. They typically say so themselves. Progressive writing is explicit and repetitive about the advantages of expanded government — about furthering Jeffersonian ideals by Hamiltonian means.
What are the practical limits on the federal government imposed by the Commerce Clause, if any?
You will find a very sharp distinction between liberals and conservatives on that point — to the point that the former Speaker of the House asked “Are you serious?” to someone who asked whether it imposed any limits *at all*.
Diane,
So you see nothing wrong with a blog titled “Big Government’s Andrew Breitbart Can Go F*** Himself” (only you use the exploitative). The then told him to Fu%% off.
It is vulgar. You could not say this on the public
airways as it is deemed to be vulgar. Most public schools would not allow students to use this on school papers at it would be considered vulgar. It is a vulgar term. If I were to title a post with this title, the perma bloggers would dis-allow it as it is vulgar.
If Dan wants to use this term in his daily conversations that is his business. If he chooses to post it on a blog that directs people to the church website, it is inappropriate. It sends the wrong message to children, investigators or members visiting his site.
If you can’t see the poor judgement he used, then you too have poor judgement.
Like I said Will I’ve had people from church say things to me in the politest nicest tone be vulgar and use the gospel to do it. It doesn’t make it any less vulgar.
But hay I forget your the expert and your right on everything, you are just so right on everything you contribute
Thomas,
Wait, don’t tell me. You’re going to claim they really aren’t conservative…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
I’m being totally honest here, Thomas. I have like zero desire to rehash this tired argument.
We live in Hamilton’s world right now, Thomas. Nothing un-American about that. Nothing unconstitutional about that either.
Dunno. It seems the Founders thought it was important to keep this clause relatively vague to allow for things they didn’t account for.
Will,
yeah, if anything, do it for the children.
I’m pretty sure fear is the #1 reason for anti gun sentiments from guys like Dan, whether it’s fear of getting shot for bringing a mouth to a gunfight, or simply fear of not being able to control in tyrannical fashion.
Anyways where’s the “anarchists”? Those guys always seem to shut up when the conversation turns to gun ownership. I wonder why.
Dan, when you have a law that Clarence by-george Thomas calls “uncommonly silly,” and which he says he would vote to repeal if he were a legislator…and the law is of a kind that has been repealed in most states, including conservative ones, with nary a peep of protest…and no conservative politician of any stature is advocating enacting or re-enacting such a law…and the Texas law was virtually unenforced until a bizarre circumstance ensued involving a false police report by the odd man out in a gay love triangle…
…is it entirely accurate, or honest, to impute support for such laws to conservatives generally?
Do you really want to compare the numbers of “morals” laws passed in, say, the last half-century, to the number of liberal-advocated economic and social restrictions? What do you figure the ratio as — a hundred thousand to one, or so?
If what the Founders had really meant by the Commerce Clause was “The federal government shall have the power to legislate in all cases whatsoever, which are not expressly forbidden by other provisions of this Constitution,” they could have said so easily enough.
The fact that they did not do so — instead giving the national government the specific power to regulate “interstate commerce” — leads me to conclude that they wanted to, well, regulate interstate commerce.
And no, a farmer growing grain behind his barn to feed to his chickens, does not come anywhere close to passing the laugh test for interstate commerce. (Look up Wickard v. Filburn for a good laugh.) But that is, in fact, the conventional liberal wisdom — that the Commerce Clause has no practical limits whatsoever.
@SUNNofaB.C.Rich,
Hey man, I made my comments about guns already. Just search for my name in the posts.
The conversation on this thread has devolved and nothing constructive is happening so I haven’t posted too much. Everyone that is posting still are pretty set in their ways (including me) so nothing much more need be said.
I’m not saying I’m a peacemaker or anything but the conversation makes me think of this quote.
Matt. 5:9
Jon, good comments… I can dig that.. on a side note I just thought of the Colt single action army revolver nicknamed the “peacemaker”… I think there was some logic behind that nickname…
@SUNNofaB.C.Rich,
Awesome.
Thomas,
Yep. Texas wasn’t the only conservative state to have such laws.
Not just moral laws, dude. Don’t forget about laws restricting the rights of people to be able to declare bankruptcy. Don’t forget about laws restricting the rights of people to sue businesses. I’m sure if you really want to get into the details, we’ll find a whole slew of ways that conservatives are using the power of governmental force to strip rights from citizens. Don’t give me none of this garbage, Thomas.
Indeed, and seeing how much goes on between states, sounds to me like a pretty large loophole they somehow didn’t think about very well. Or they thought about it well and said, let’s leave the phrase “interstate commerce” to be sufficiently vague so that those who follow us can continue figuring out what exactly it means.
If he bought his grain in another state, that would be classified as “interstate commerce.” Com’on dude, this simple.
Words have meaning dude. The Founding Fathers, if they take the conservative position (which I note, they don’t), would have used a different phrase. But since they don’t take the conservative position, it’s not what you guys think.
SUNNofaB.C.Rich:
My wife’s 357 revolver has the same name — how interesting.
-Richard Henry Lee (1732–1794)
See http://mises.org/daily/4980
well good thing that never came to pass, eh Jon?
You missed the point of that last one big time there Dan.
In any case when the zombie apocalypse happens and I have to use arrows and a flamethrower to kill them, i’m using anti-gun types like Dianne Feinstein and like minded individuals as human sandbags to fortify my position.
Authoritarian Republic:
-ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE (1530 – 1563)
Jon,
Seeing that this doesn’t come to pass, there is no such thing as “authoritarian republic.” No matter how ancient an author you find, Jon.
“Born to be Wild”
—Steppenwolf
I guess political party fanboys (idiots) that trust the government enough to entirely entrust them with their right to self defense (with no apparent regard for future incarnations of the government which could possibly be extremely not beneficial to anyone?) are probably somewhere in the same realm as idiots that don’t know which end the bullet comes out. Either way, they deserve what they get but don’t drag the rest of us down with you.
Save lives, disarm the police:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/01/about-that-war-on-cops.html
“People’s Republics” don’t count?
The term “tyranny of the majority” doesn’t have any meaning?
Wouldn’t you call the Confederate States of America an “authoritarian republic”? There was an awful lot of authoritah being exercised down there — increasingly so, as the War of Northern Aggression came closer to its end.
There are any number of authoritarian “republics” out there. If those aren’t “real” republics, someone ought to tell a certain ex-president, the next time he jets off to bestow the Good Housekeeping Seal of Democratically-Elected Approval when some president-for-life or other scores 102% of the votes and shuts down the opposition press.
Thomas,
No, the names parties or governments take, the particular words they use, do not count.
You’re really going to defend this kind of crap, Thomas? Or am I so aggressive against this silly talk that you instinctively come to the defense of the weak?
No, I would call that a rebellion that had to be crushed to smithereens.
No, there aren’t.
ever seen the EIU’s democracy index, Dan? Check it out and tell me if any “republics” are in the bottom 50….
yeah, that’s right. Some times tyrants get elected. Usually by fanboys like you.
while youre at it look up the definition of a “republic”. Might help clear this up for you.
Dan, here’s nice definition of the “crap” concept of majoritarian tyranny, from a piece of writing I happen to like a great deal:
Agree or disagree?
Re: the Confederacy, smithereens was good. But what form of government was the CSA? (Or would it have been, if it had survived?) Don’t dodge the question. A monarchy? A theocracy? What?
Thomas,
A rebellion.
oh, you mean like banning marriage for a minority group…huh…
So is “unjust” equal to tyranny? If they are the same, why have separate words? You’re failing badly here, Thomas, at defining something that doesn’t exist.
@Thomas, Like the health care bill, us peons have to live with it but congress is exempt. Obama said, no how would he be part of it.
Still at it? What was the post about again?
@Jeff, Dan,
I think it was about the high price of freedom?
Peace would be one of those.
Authoritarian republic:
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” ~James Madison
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” ~James Madison
“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” ~James Madison
“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” ~James Madison
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (See They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45
by Milton Sanford Mayer)
“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” ~Plato
“A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.” ~Benjamin Franklin
“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” ~George Orwell
“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” ~George Washington
“We’re not leaving Afghanistan prematurely. In fact, we’re not ever leaving at all.” – Robert Gates
“You have to recognize that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.” – David Petraeus
(See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/bob-woodward-robert-gates_n_743409.html)
Obama has the power to assassinate Americans without due process:
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
See http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
for the Greenwald quote.
Jeff,
What it’s always been about. Conservatives suck and liberals win. 🙂
Jon,
“I think it was about the high price of freedom?”
The context was that our freedoms sometimes expose us to risks which can have a high price such as the Tucson incident and even 9/11.
It was not about trading 200 year old quotes that may not apply to our real life except in very abstract discussions which ultimately have no point.
@Jeff,
And therein lies my point. Is not that principles more important than the applied? If we don’t all agree in principle how can we agree in the application thereof?
If we don’t have a historical view on the actions today what view do we have? There is no reasonable opinion without historical context. Do not the discussions on applications have no point if you do not understand history and the principles of the matter? Will we not but talk past one another?
Also, look at my last post, there was plenty of quotes from now days.
So what do the quotes mean? I’ll spell it out.
What freedom do we have? Does not the government take that from us? It is only when we try and exercise are freedoms and liberty do we find out what freedoms we have.
So how does this apply to Giffords?
Was not Giffords a person who advocated violence against her citizenry? Did she not advocate that a certain population have violence used against it (or the threat thereof) to provide services to another segment of the population? Is this not living by the sword? Isn’t there an old saying something along the lines that those who live by the sword die by the sword? Do we not truly not have that much freedom to begin with, is not our freedom taken by the wars abroad and at home? Is not these freedoms that have been stripped from us causing even more violence (like 9/11, those planes didn’t come out of the clear blue sky one day, they came because of our interventionist policies abroad for the past decades).
I say we have abdicated our freedoms and the price of abdicating our freedoms is enslavement. The quotes have shown sufficient proof of this.
To paraphrase Signor Vizzini in “The Princess Bride: “Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Jefferson, Tocqueville, Mill? Morons.”
Clearly they were all paranoids about majoritarian tyranny, which apparently can never exist.
Did you identify the quote I cited, by the way? And do you agree or disagree?
We’ll draw the appropriate conclusions from your continuing dodge of what kind of government the Confederacy was. Yes, it was an unsuccessful rebellion, and yes, it was illegitimate — but from 1861-1865, it exercised the power of a government over the territory under its control. What kind of government was it?
Or, more accurately stated, declining to change the definition of marriage to include relationships that have never previously been defined as “marriage,” and which have substantial differences from male-female marriages.
Thomas,
Funny that they were concerned about it, yet set up the very system they were supposedly concerned about. How exactly does American and British democracy work, Thomas? You give one individual, or one party a set time during which they rule over you as they see fit within the confines of the Constitution, whether you like it or not. That’s not authoritarian republic. That’s a democratic republic. At some point, you give control of the governing of the country to somebody. I may have utterly disliked George W. Bush and his decisions, and maybe felt he never took my point of view in consideration, but that does not make him a tyrant or an authoritarian. He was the duly representative president for this country for a period of four years, with a reelection for another four years.
Those who speak of the way our system is set up as some authoritarian tyranny are the true dangers to our system for they seek to undermine what has worked so well for the last 200+ years. Jon is a self admitted anarchist. He ought to be ridiculed. He ought not to be taken seriously, Thomas. And if you believe that kind of crap, you ought not to be taken seriously either, and to be ridiculed.
That would be Martin Luther King Jr. I don’t know the context, but most likely it probably had to do with civil rights, denying rights to particular individuals because of the color of their skin. Frankly I’m a little surprised you would be agreeing with MLK and anything to do with the whole civil rights thing. After all surely there are few better examples of where the federal government stepped in authoritatively telling one group of people how to behave. Or maybe there are exceptions to the whole “authoritarian republic” crap.
An illegitimate rebellion. Pick a better example, Thomas. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn about the South.
Jeff, did I ever tell you one night at dinner I used a whole bowl of mashed potatoes to make a replica of that rock structure behind you in your picture? Right now i’m building an even bigger scale model in the living room… the wifes not too happy…
I can’t imagine anyone other than my wife checking the dislike box for my last comment…
Yeah, I got a good chuckle out of it. I gave a check for the like box. Not that your self worth is based on that box or anything.