Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: talk about reverse world

  1. #1
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258

    talk about reverse world

    man this is a trip into reverse world. not only does the author forget what the second amendment is about, but the use that the common person applies to it

    http://us.mc1617.mail.yahoo.com/mc/w...jsrand=4470257



    Josh Horwitz

    Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence


    GET UPDATES FROM Josh Horwitz






    Oh Ye of Little Faith: The Pro-Gun Movement's Total Disregard for Our Constitution



    National Rifle Association (NRA) board member and aged rocker Ted Nugent made national headlines in April when his threats against President Obama and Democrats earned him a visit from the Secret Service. But he has taken recently to uttering another mantra that is equally disturbing and revealing. At a concert in Forth Worth on August 25, Nugent told the crowd, "The whole world sucks. America sucks less." It was at least the fourth time in the last year he's publicly shared this derogatory opinion about the United States.
    Nugent's remarks got me thinking about a seldom discussed but critical aspect of the modern pro-gun movement: Its total lack of faith in the system of government established by our Founders in the U.S. Constitution. It is that profound lack of faith -- more than anything -- that is responsible for the insurrectionist ideology ("Second Amendment remedies") that fuels the movement.
    Pro-gun leaders like NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre would have us believe that "the guys with the guns make the rules" in our democracy. But nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, our Founders ratified the Constitution to obviate the need for political violence. The very first line of the document reads as follows: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Founders were telling the world that this brilliant new system of government -- this social compact -- would secure individual rights on a scale previously unknown in the civilized world. They protected liberty not by creating a libertarian society where every citizen was in it solely for himself, but by establishing a strong, energetic government and stressing civic responsibility.
    In the face of this history and the plain terms of the Constitution itself, it is amazing to see modern insurrectionists like Judge Roy Moore, the controversial former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, write things like, "Liberty and freedom are gifts of God, and not the government. The means by which we secure those gifts are ultimately in the hands and the 'arms' of the people." It's as if Moore is totally unaware of all the robust protections for individual rights spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The idea of liberty may be a "gift of God," but the Framers knew it could only be safeguarded if a robust government was in place to arbitrate private disputes and guarantee that each citizen has an equal voice in the affairs of the nation. Furthermore, what spurred the drafting of the Constitution was a fear that "licentiousness" -- freedom taken to excess -- was the greatest threat to individual liberty!
    Nonetheless, Moore is far from alone in his belief that only private violence can be trusted to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Wayne LaPierre told those in attendance:
    Their laws don't work, their lies don't ring true ... Government has failed us with our money and our financial institutions. It has failed in running our post offices and trains. It has failed in enforcing our immigration laws, our drug laws, and our laws against violent criminals with guns. Heck, they can barely get the snow plowed ... By its lies and laws and lack of enforcement, government policies are getting us killed and imprisoning us in a society of terrifying violence.
    In LaPierre's world, it's as if the U.S. government never fostered the most powerful economy in the world, or put Neil Armstrong on the moon, or won two world wars, or built a national system of highways, or prevented generations of senior citizens from living out their final years in poverty, etc., etc. And the system of justice spelled out in the Constitution? The NRA has completely given up on it. Bill of Rights protections? Worthless. The courts? Can't trust 'em. In Personal Firepower We Trust.
    Perhaps most disturbing are the endless attempts to conflate our constitutional republic with some of the most brutal and inhumane dictatorships in human history (try Googling "gun control Hitler" sometime). Recently, when my organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, asked National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) General Counsel Larry Keane if he felt that individual Americans had a right to shoot and kill government officials in response to what they personally perceived as "tyranny," Keane tweeted back at us plaintively, "Just like the Jews in the ghettos of Warsaw? The South Sudanese? Kurds? The American colonists?"
    Keane makes an important, but unintended, point. Countries that kill their own citizens are not democracies. As political scientist R.J. Rummel noted in his 1997 book, Power Kills: Democracy as a Method of Nonviolence, nations with strong democratic institutions do not murder their own citizens. A more recent study by Christian Davenport and David A. Armstrong II examined this conclusion statistically and found, "Democratic political systems have been found to decrease political bans, censorship, torture, disappearances and mass killing, doing so in a linear fashion across diverse measurements, methodologies, time periods, countries, and contexts." Well-developed democracies are the most effective means of preventing public and private violence, and the U.S. Constitution -- to this day -- remains the template for free societies.
    Last year, the NRA criticized a blog I had written here at the Huffington Post in a column in their flagship magazine, America's 1st Freedom ("Fear and Loathing Post Tucson," May 2011). For believing in the system of government established by the Constitution, I was compared to Timothy Treadwell, who was killed by a grizzly bear after spending 13 summers around these creatures in Alaska. "Horwitz' fantasy that government can and will safeguard us from the brutal excesses of the state of nature reminds me of another individual who thought the designs of man -- in this case not the constructs of government, but the human values of compassion and fraternity -- could keep the brutality of the world at bay," wrote NRA editor Blaine Smith.
    Except it wasn't my fantasy that the "constructs of government... could keep the brutality of the world at bay." It was the fantasy of our Founders who traveled to Philadelphia in May of 1787 to correct the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation and establish a new system of government that could "insure domestic tranquility" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty." And while the NRA and the pro-gun movement might have absolutely no faith in their wisdom and foresight, most Ameri
    Last edited by papa bear; 09-17-2012 at 04:13 PM.
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  2. #2
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    His argument might be more compelling if the United States were actually a Democracy, as he seems to think it is. Perhaps if he had continued to read past the opening lines of the Constitution, he would have hit upon Article IV, Section 4, which clearly states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

    "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- Federalist No. 10, James Madison

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by NoTolerance View Post
    His argument might be more compelling if the United States were actually a Democracy, as he seems to think it is. Perhaps if he had continued to read past the opening lines of the Constitution, he would have hit upon Article IV, Section 4, which clearly states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

    "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- Federalist No. 10, James Madison
    Yes, a Republican form of Government, at a Federal level.

    We have both a Democracy, and a Republican System. States are not individuals, individuals are individuals, and fall under Democracy, not Republican.

    In order for the Republican form of Government to manifest itself, there must a Democratic act, a vote, by the People, for Representatives of the People.

    I think you miss the point of Number 10, as with all the other publications, it is The Federalist, hello.

    Please, read Number 10. I'm not sure where you picked-up that quote, what paragraph, or line did you get that quote from?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    So Josh feels that America does not suck? Gee, when you compare how it is actually operated to how the instruction manual says it should be operated, it is difficult (for me, at least) to not come to the conclusion that it sucks.

    What was it that Winston Churchill said about "democracy"?
    It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.


    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    not trying to start an argument, but it is very possible to have a republic government without democracy. think of the former soviet republic. you were chosen for your office by committee. Iraq was a republic run by one individual and the bureaucracy was handled by the collective.

    i think we can say we are a democratically elected Republic
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    not trying to start an argument, but it is very possible to have a republic government without democracy. think of the former soviet republic. you were chosen for your office by committee. Iraq was a republic run by one individual and the bureaucracy was handled by the collective.

    i think we can say we are a democratically elected Republic
    We are a Democratically elected Republic. All I am stating is that when a politician gets-up and states that we are a Democracy, they are half-correct.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    We are a Democratically elected Republic. All I am stating is that when a politician gets-up and states that we are a Democracy, they are half-correct.
    We actually could be a democracy if we wanted to be such....but you are either a republic or democracy ... we are a republic.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Orono, ME
    Posts
    467

    Re: talk about reverse world

    I remember hearing we were a republic somewhere else...where was it?

    Oh.


    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the U.S.A. and to the....REPUBLIC.....for which it stand"
    Last edited by SPOProds; 09-19-2012 at 09:57 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Yes, a Republican form of Government, at a Federal level.

    We have both a Democracy, and a Republican System. States are not individuals, individuals are individuals, and fall under Democracy, not Republican.

    In order for the Republican form of Government to manifest itself, there must a Democratic act, a vote, by the People, for Representatives of the People.

    I think you miss the point of Number 10, as with all the other publications, it is The Federalist, hello.
    Condescend much? Yeesh.

    Horwitz premises his entire argument on the belief that we're a democracy. We're not. And I'd suggest your first sentence is incomplete. We're also a republic at a State level. And while there are *some* municipalities/localities that could be considered democracies, the vast majority of local governments are still republics, too. When was the last time you, personally, directly voted on a law?

    So yes, you're completely accurate in suggesting that we're a Democratically Elected Republic (I'd question the validity of that statement, as well, since popular vote doesn't dictate the outcome of presidential elections, but that's a whole different topic). Horwitz, however, completely misses that "Democratically" is a modifier for "Republic" when it comes to our form of government, and instead bases his entire flawed argument on the idea that "Well-developed democracies are the most effective means of preventing public and private violence". It's as though he's saying, "We're a DEMOCRACY! We don't need to protect ourselves from Government because WE ARE government! If we fight Government, then we're just fighting ourselves!"

    Wrong.

    Please, read Number 10. I'm not sure where you picked-up that quote, what paragraph, or line did you get that quote from?
    The 13th full paragraph? http://www.thisnation.com/library/bo...ralist/10.html

    From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •