|
| UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE |
| Saturday, December 10, 2005 |
| This is a follow up to the previous post on the liberal Bush Administration. It is a previous Snipet. This falls under the category of "unintended consequences". Many liberals do not intend to move the nation toward the extreme, but by empowering the government while pushing a social agenda, they don't see the end product.
Of Brilliant Political Foresight and Contemporary Ideological Myopia
Any serious student of the Constitution can see the wondrous symmetry of the Bill of Rights. Individual amendments work together with the whole to assure the survival of each. Our founders understood that in order for us to have individual rights, each was often contingent upon another guaranteeing the whole.
Contemporary myopic ideologues are often willing to dismiss or even try to change individual amendments because of fear and distrust.
LEFT MYOPICS
Many people of the "left" persuasion are staunch advocates of all amendments except for the second, the right to "keep and bear arms". They are quick to say the 2nd is referring to the military and is not an individual right as a United States citizen, (whilst arguing that the other nine amendments are individual rights).
James Madison said,
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
A second rank Founder, Tench Coxe, said about the Second Amendment:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
The failure of the ideological left when trying to dismiss this all important amendment is that the guarantee of the other 9 is hinged upon the 2nd. Therefore, liberal myopic ideologues are often torn between retaining their individual rights and advocating the tools of tyrannical fascism.
-disarm the people
-place all arms in the hands of the government military
-police state/Fascism/absolute power becomes much easier
-all other rights die under the hand of tyranny |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 12/10/2005 10:14:00 AM   |
|
| 7 Comments: |
-
Take the gunners off the street, Mok. Permanently. Justice used to be blind--now it caters to special interests. Bring back justice, and the problem goes away.
Mok, a quick analogy. More people die every year from obesity related illnesses than any other cause in the United States. What should we do to address the problem?
Thanks for checking in!
-Jack
-
Yes, while that may seem far fetched and something that would NEVER happen in our country (tyrannical uprising against the people), there is a reason it is there; it is a safeguard should the unthinkable happen. As far as gun control laws go, I need to read up on them more to understand how they work and what they may have accomplished.
One thing in particular, as you drive East on I-90 (the Mass. Turnpike) heading into downtown Boston, there is a giant billboard behind Fenway Park that reads, "Welcome to Massachusetts: You're More Likely to Live Here. Most effective gun laws in the nation. Gun laws work."
Quite a statement and I still need to look into it. If that is true, congratulations to Massachusetts I guess. What really irritates me, though, is how much the state would spend to have the billboard up there. It seems really pointless to have a political statement on a billboard. Just as much as I might not want to drive through Topeka, Kansas and see a billboard supporting teaching ID in public schools or something. Anyway I rambled there and strayed from the point that people do fail to recognize the true meaning of the amendment. As far as the laws go, I think someone can always get a gun when they want to, if they are unable to legally purchase one.
-
Jack, the scenario you and most others use when discussing this subject is far-fetched, I think (Americans overthrowing their government through violent revolution). You often speak of analyzng a subject thoroughly. Do you really believe most gun owners have that purpose in mind? Most rural gun owners are love-it-or-leave-it types who paradoxically would approve of martial law if it was accompanied by rhetoric condemning liberals. As for teh urban gun owners, you can probably divide them up between the criminals and those protecting themselves (they think) against them.
But honestly, the idea that the gun owners of America would join together (!) and revolt against the US government, and it's military, is fantastical at best.
That amendment was written by 16th century revolutionaries. The realities are far different today.
-
Fantastical? Every revolution in history has been against overwhelming odds. Study them.
Also, global fascism is on its way--you know the signs and the trends, and by your words you seem to be acknowleging your impotence and fear to do anything about it.
But on a more practical level concerning gun ownership:
There are two parties to any crime. The perpetrator and the victim. Realistically we know that criminals are criminal for a reason-- their propensity to skirt the law. Gun laws are followed only by the lawful in society, and the more restrictive the gun law, the more likely that those who follow them fall into the "victim" classification.
Shea, man has made projective hurling devices for centuries. A man who wants a projectile hurling device does not need Smith & Wesson, but just the time and resources to be able to make it. Gun laws simply take guns away from the lawful--the criminal will always find ways to hurt others.
My personal theory about guns is the "porcupine theory" (A Jack Mercer original I think...). Porcupines are docile herbivores who mind their own business. Their seeming philosophy is live and let live. Porcupines have dangerous and painful quills that they never use offensively. It is only when attacked the quills prove their use.
Would you take away the quills from the porcupine making it vulnerable to predators? Then why would you advocate doing that to good, law abiding citizens?
-Jack (Gun-toting NRA member who has never shot anyone in his long-life and probably never will)
-Jack (Gun toting NRA member who will never allow himself or his family to be willing victims to the evil that men do)
For a good "emotion free" look at the issue:
Amazon.com: The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong: Books
-
Jack, you're making stuff up about me. Making assumptions. Don't assume that I fit a mold just because I'm a "leftie".
Where in my comment does it imply that I am afraid to do anything to combat global fascism? Where in my comment do I state an opposition to gun ownership?
All I said was that the scenario of a violent revolution in America, involving the cooperation of numerous armed factions, is far-fetched and cartoonish. I stand by that statement. I know gun-ownership advocates use the revolutionary verbage as a rhetorical tool, but it's just hot air. The vast majority of them would never carry it through.
I am from the heart of gun country USA: rural Arizona. I grew up with people who drove around with loaded rifles in their trucks, and it was not unusual to see people wearing sidearms. I know gun owners of all kinds. And, contrary to your assumptions, I am not opposed to gun ownership, although I think it is just plain stupid for people to keep assault weapons and other, larger weapons that are available.
Realistically, Jack, you know how the scenario would play out: at the first sign of unrest, martial law would be declared and that would be that. The laws and plans are already in place, according to Alexander Haig back in the 80's.
In the words of John Lennon, "you say you want a revolution?" Well, I would rather work within one that uses brains before ballistics. Because, based on my personal experience, a government overthrow by a bunch of gun-totin' good ol' boys would only result in guys like you and I being among the first ones up against the wall.
-
I see your point, Shea. I think that we have a LONG way to go, and quite a different mindset (we're soft) now than in times past. And I agree that the reality of a revolution in this country is a bit farfetched.
I guess getting back to the original premise of my article is that conservatives and liberals have sacred cows among the Bill of Rights and we tend to pick and choose which ones we like and dislike not realizing they are a contingent whole.
Sorry about the assumptions! :)
-Jack
-
I have often fantasized about having both an Industrial Workers of the World sticker and a lifetime NRA sticker on my pickup truck!
Too bad a lifetime membership in the NRA costs so much.
(that and the NRA consistently supports absolute creeps in elections)
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
Take the gunners off the street, Mok. Permanently. Justice used to be blind--now it caters to special interests. Bring back justice, and the problem goes away.
Mok, a quick analogy. More people die every year from obesity related illnesses than any other cause in the United States. What should we do to address the problem?
Thanks for checking in!
-Jack