Let Freedom Ring Like a Gunshot

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Jan 24, 2023.

?

It's the [(expletive)] guns.

Poll closed Feb 28, 2023.
  1. Yes

    80.0%
  2. No

    10.0%
  3. Freedom, motherf'er! I got my Second Amendment locked and loaded!

    10.0%
  1. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635

    Trust is not such an easy thing to have in people, authorities, or even families. It's so fragile, I detest the thought and based on experiences in life. On the other hand I crave it, need it, and know trustworthy people are a rarity in this world. Self defense ... I suggest we stand on the 2nd and understand the severity of use if used against others. Melitia? I don't know much about them, but abusive authorities isn't uncommon. Security? Nice ideal again, but I don't have much a sense of security anymore. I don't own a gun, but I support gun ownership. I support citizen gun ownership, with the needed safety measures taken to help ensure safety and awareness. Basically, what I've already listed as should be requirements for gun ownership in this thread. I agree with you.






    easy to do
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,825
    Sometimes I razz you about pushing talking points from the 1980s, but if we reach back in that history, we'll find what seems a novel use of the phrase, "judicial activism", but that novelty is obscure. For most of us, it's the context we know, suggesting that "liberal judicial activism" would ignore the Constitution—(per a version of originalism)—in order to "legislate from the bench". Time and history have taught that even this accusation was in its way a confession; this sort of judicial activism is a hallmark of Chief Justice John Roberts, and is what his conservative majority does.

    Consider the irony that in lesser courts, this rightist activism has gone so far that Bill Pryor, now Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, appointed and confirmed by Republicans in hope he would do his part for conservative judicial activism, recently had the job of saving the judiciary from itself.¹ Strangely, we might be less confident in the Supreme Court.²

    And that's the thing—

    —about Heller, which was an end-around well-regulated anything. And just like it's easy for an atheistic critic to poke holes in Biblical "literalism", certain presuppositions about Americans in the late eighteenth century similarly pierce Constitutional "originalism".

    In a way, there's nothing wrong with the Second Amendment; what changed, and easily, was judicial presupposition.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ¹ see #3707499/198↗, December, 2022: Inasmuch as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals would appear to be having an experience akin to an internet argument, it is hard to explain just how stupid and low things have gotten.

    ² See Congressional Research Service, "The Major Questions Doctrine"↱, In Focus, 2 November 2022:

    Courts and commentators have referred to this doctrine as the major questions doctrine (or major rules doctrine). The Supreme Court never used that term in a majority opinion prior to 2022, but the doctrine has recently become more prominent ....

    .... The Court has used the doctrine to reject agency claims of regulatory authority, including in regard to ....

    [… (nine examples) …]​

    .... On the other hand, in
    Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Court rejected EPA's argument, based on the major questions doctrine, that it did not have legal authority to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles.

    These examples indicate the range of questions the Court has defined as "major" under the doctrine". However, the precise scope of the doctrine is unknown. The Court has not clearly explained when an agency's regulatory action will raise a question so significant that the doctrine applies, nor has it specified what legislative acts could constitute clear congressional authorization.

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    Yes, a militia with a shit tonne of AR 15's is going to be able to go up against their nuclear powered government who has access to fighter jets, bombs, ballistic missiles, etc, in the event of a crazed maniac taking power and overcoming the military or somehow or other, the military falls under his spell and turns against the populace.. This position rarely makes sense.

    On the question of trust, ask yourself why Congress has restricted or even outright refused government funded organisations to study gun violence and the effects of guns in the US.. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,249
    It actually is an intimidating element on the American landscape. As illustrated by the Vietnam War and the War in Afghanistan, ragtag fighting units can overcome or coax the technologically superior armed forces of the US government to withdraw or lose interest. It just takes persistence and waiting not only on a draining effect, but American journalism and leftangelical protests turning against their own country.

    However, just the opposite would happen with respect to domestic militias challenging a US government gone rogue. As far as MSM, academia, the entertainment industry, etc goes, anyway. That's the [facetiously exaggerated] difference: Half the country -- the most media visible half -- would suddenly be [perversely] cheering their military and police establishment, and delighting in the latter's gory output of militia casualties.

    Now, granted -- that excludes a rogue government not to their liking, and various Marxist and anarchist ideological cliques of antifa (etc) ever organizing themselves well enough to constitute a militia-like counter force fighting to dethrone such a [undesirable] putsch. The latter would certainly have been a legit possibility back in the revolution-fixated days of "C-word" activism in the early 20th-century (and arguably even the era of the New Left).

    But nowadays, something like the SLA was probably the last [remote] semblance of anything with gonads along that line in southpaw country. While the fires, looting, and shouts of disorganized riots might seem impressive on TV -- that's a distant cry from a trained or even semi-trained civilian army trying to wear down and disrupt a rogue regime's defenses.
    _
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2023
    ThazzarBaal likes this.
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,792
    One can argue that there isn't anything wrong with the Constitution if it's being interpreted as one would like for it to be but that's the point at which Congress should be able to amend it if it's causing problems and Citizen's United and Heller did that.

    It doesn't have to be easy to amend but ours is one of the more difficult to do so. The electoral college isn't working out so well either. One could argue that the 2 Senator per state bit isn't working out so well either. We have a country being "controlled" by "land" and not by people.

    It is ironic that the Republicans (via the SC) are now embracing judicial activism. As they say "there is no honor among thieves". That's our political process but the Constitution shouldn't be unreasonable hard to amend (IMO).
     
  9. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    Rag Tag groups can cause a great deal of trouble against United States citizens. Gun ownership is sometimes needed for defense measures. Gun safety is very useful, gun registration also. I think it best to understand that people can be maliciously minded against us, and that authorities are unable to always be there for defense. Families, kids, friends, co workers, etc. all in the balance. I'm not sure where nor why the tanks, missles, etc. we're brought up. The militia are meant to support national security, not hinder it or be an entity against.
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,459
    alternately
    Guns don't kill people! It's those pesky little bullets that leave all the holes out of which the blood flows.
    meanwhile
    I recently cleaned and oiled and put away the weapons used for hunting.
    2 rounds--2 deer--130 lbs of red meat in the freezer.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    ...................................
    I get the feeling that those who would discard the constitution know nothing about Mason nor Madison and their disputes and reasoning.
    Be not so ready to discard something of which you know nothing.
     
    ThazzarBaal likes this.
  11. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    What about vegans and vegetarians, who don't agree with animal based foods for human consumption? My thinking is future tense as it applies to food availability and potential for there not being enough grains and veggies and nuts and berries to supply non meat eaters. I say this only because of some efforts I've noticed past tense against meat consumption. I eat meat. I hunt and rather enjoy it. I enjoy cooking, smoking, and grilling. Some take the no animal based foods from a point of morality or compassion, but the paradigm doesn't fit into the circle we understand as life. So, guns make a quick take down if you can aim right.
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Let Freedom Ring Like a Gunshot

    Sure why not?

    My thought would be

    Let freedom last like a kiss, for as long as you want with the person you love

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,792
    One comment about "talking points". That's, IMO, a lazy approach to any discussion. It's a way to dismiss any discussion with "that's just talking points".

    I think it would be rare on a discussion forum for anyone to be using any groups "talking points" in the first place. Talking points (regardless of the viewpoint of the organization issuing them) are generally the best arguments that "side" has. Therefore those are the same arguments that anyone would bring up. It would be odd for it to be otherwise.

    You could talk about free college education and I could say "those are just Bernie Sanders talking points". This just dismisses your topic with no further discussion of the merits or lack thereof.

    I could say that whether you had a good argument or not. It's just being dismissive without any valid reason.

    Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly but carry a big stick". That's good advice in general. What does it add to any discussion to say "That's just Rough Rider talking points?

    Just as it's generally a mistake in life to underestimate another person it's also generally a mistake to never consider as valid any opinion other than your own as having any legitimacy.

    In a corporate environment, when I was having an issue either with another department that we had to interact with or with a difficult customer/company, I would first go to that department, go out to lunch and get to understand their daily work environment, deadlines, stressors. In other words I would try to put myself in their shoes to view the problem areas that we were having.

    Just doing that usually solved the problem. When you take others seriously they tend to do the same. There is better communication and less problems. Even when later you have to create a little stress in their work day they know that this isn't typical or just because you are a jerk.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    Except the notion of the citizens having the right to arms is not just to help defend the US from enemies from outside, but also the enemies within. In other words, the underlying current of fear that the populace may have to rise against the tyranny of government and need to be armed to do so. My point about the tanks and missiles, is to show just how futile such an argument actually is.

    Guns that are bought for self defence are more likely to result in the death of the gun owner. And it is quite well established now that in homes where domestic violence occurs, as one example, the presence of a firearm has a higher chance of the victim being killed - even if she purchases the firearm for self defence against her abuser.

    Now, you bring up the militia. The majority of the militia groups work against the government and often preach about overthrowing said government in the US.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    I'm going to come right out and say what we've pretty much been thinking when you start posting crap like this..

    No one gives a shit what animal you decide to go out and kill or how you clean your guns..
     
    James R and cluelusshusbund like this.
  16. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635

    Given the militia was developed before we declared our independence, and given the fact that we have established rights and a structure through which we are able to make changes without violence, the militia is more in tune of defense against foreign aggressors than government itself. But, that dies not negate the potential of the latter if required. I would suggest few true if any militia of this type would agree or wish to overthrow the United States government. That's why they were established in the first place ... For the defense of this nation.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,825
    Americans often pretend the enemy within is the government itself, and any of us can see this potential. Per Publius, i.e., Hamilton's letter to the People of New York, otherwise known as The Federalist Papers #29:

    In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association.

    It's an interesting letter, laden with contemporary relevance: "But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee," Hamilton wrote of discourse surrounding the safety of a militia; of those who worried about the authority of the militia, he wondered, "Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?" Both questions are presently in play.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Publius. "Concerning the Militia". The Federalist Papers #29. 10 January 1788. Avalon.Law.Yale.edu. 13 February 2023. http://bit.ly/3RXeosv
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,459
    Don't sugar coat it Bells.
    Tell me how you really feel.
     
  19. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    I'm uncertain what is in question with the two questions in play. "Art and eloquence imposition or conceits" Can I get you to elaborate a little?
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,825
    One question has to do with Congress: "By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy," wrote Hamilton, "we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government." And it is one thing to consider the question of a standing army in 1788, "But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee."

    In the twenty-first century, the Congressional outlook on public safety and security is truly something Alexander Hamilton could not have foreseen; that question is clearly in play.

    Perhaps familiar to us today, Hamilton observed that, to go by the popular arguments against the emerging Constitution, "a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes … discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster."

    A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

    There are, in fact, reasons that we might truck around the National Guard from one state to another, but the sort of fearmongering Hamilton observed ought not be unfamiliar to us, today. For some, it wasn't simply a question of militia or standing army, but to stop the Constitution. Hamilton asks if the fearmongers ("persons who rave at this rate") really believe they can convince others that such things are true ("impose any conceits or absurdities … for infallible truths"). Attending today's modern conservatives, the possibility of attempting to use the National Guard to suppress political dissent draws nigh. To answer Hamilton directly: They call themselves patriots, and, yes, people will fall for the "inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts". So, what is "the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation"?

    If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

    The twenty-first century suggests strongly different answers than 1788; Alexander Hamilton never had occasion to hear a Jade Helm conspiracy theorist explain the dangers of Critical Race Theory, but the question of what conceits and absurdities might pass for infallible truths directing the instruments of state. Then again, he did have some idea about absurd conceits: "Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked." On that point, he referred to the prospect of national security being entrusted to a competing interest, a manner of contradiction that can still sometimes be found in twenty-first century politicking. What preposterous means would who employ in order to accomplish which designs?

    It would be one thing to suggest Hamilton was naïve, but toward that I sympathize with confoundment at prosepect of presupposing that many of my American neighbors to be so low. It ought to be hard to believe such things about everyday Americans, but at some point the experience we are having is the reality in which we exist, and certain things do appear to be happening. It's one thing if our miserable foreign-policy adventures fulfill and even exceed the worst nightmares of the Founders, but show them the killing fields of police violence and corruption, a rightist bacchanal of censorship, and even plans to enforce the laws of one state within the boundaries of another, and then point out that these are the patriots.

    What will the Congress do? That question remains in play, and in certain ways it always will. But Hamilton's acknowledgment that "how the national legislature may reason … is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee" is both an easy truism and a necessary reminder. Moreover, the hopeful presuppositions upon which he based his answers are, two hundred thirty-five years later, shaken, eroded, and weakened. Do the persons who "rave" with "exaggerated and improbable suggestions" believe that the "art" or "eloquence" of their political rhetoric can convince people, or "impose" those suggestions, those "conceits" and "absurdities", as "infallible truths" in lieu of something more real? Compared to 1788, the American heritage has transformed the art of selling political conceit and absurdity as infallible truth into a profitable industry sector. While Hamilton was not necessarily naïve, the confident assurance of his expression reflects a different time with different human and societal expectations. "Wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration"? These days, there is no "universal hatred and execration"; now it's just one side of a story, and many people are so easily confused as to be unable to discern between what is true and what is gratifying. Just how much do they really think they can get away with, Hamilton asks, and in the twenty-first century, the answer looks a lot worse than he was willing to presuppose. They can get away with a lot, and do.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Publius. "Concerning the Militia". The Federalist Papers #29. 10 January 1788. Avalon.Law.Yale.edu. 14 February 2023. http://bit.ly/3RXeosv
     
  21. ThazzarBaal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    635
    Gun rights are important. Ability to defend family friends and community is important. Militia serving our nation and citizens is important. From law enforcement officials to ex military to citizens who are educated in these matters and able. By educated I mean gun safety, civics, national law, state law, and who understand the need of a backup type force to help if ever needed.

    I'm a hunter also, still I don't own a gun. I support gun rights. I support ccw rights. I support safety and security, and I myself prefer to feel a sense of as a citizen.

    I think gun registration is a move in the right direction, as well as an effort to be certified gun safety for ccw's, but that's my preference. We the people are a diverse group with varying opinions on how things should be handled.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,825
    And now we have an answer:

    That is to say:

    Almost a year after Texas' deadliest school shooting killed 19 children and two teachers, there is still confusion among investigators, law enforcement leaders and politicians over how nearly 400 law enforcement officers could have performed so poorly. People have blamed cowardice or poor leadership or a lack of sufficient training for why police waited more than an hour to breach the classroom and subdue an amateur 18-year-old adversary.

    But in their own words, during and after their botched response, the officers pointed to another reason: They were unwilling to confront the rifle on the other side of the door.

    A Texas Tribune investigation, based on police body cameras, emergency communications and interviews with investigators that have not been made public, found officers had concluded that immediately confronting the gunman would be too dangerous. Even though some officers were armed with the same rifle, they opted to wait for the arrival of a Border Patrol SWAT team, with more protective body armor, stronger shields and more tactical training — even though the unit was based more than 60 miles away.


    (Despart↱)

    This is what it means to run toward danger. It starts to feel like, compared to history, Officer Friendly and the valiant Police defenders of the People, to Protect and Serve, was not only an aberrant pretense, but something especially particular, like a silly joke of the Merrie Melodies generations. It's not what we have, and never in history of the United States, or even civilized society, have the police actually been those people.

    Go ahead and tell me it is natural that they hesitated. Because it is. And, yeah, that's kind of the point.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Despart, Zach. "'He has a battle rifle': Police feared Uvalde gunman's AR-15". The Texas Tribune. 20 March 2023. TexasTribune.org. 20 March 2023. http://bit.ly/3lmE7Pn
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    Odd, though, that safety / defending one's family / having a militia / having police are important to pretty much everyone in the world - but only the US feels that means that most people have to be heavily armed.
     

Share This Page