My whole problem with the American ‘Libertarianism’…
1, I wholeheartedly agree, that we should be as ‘free’ as possible, without affecting others’ ‘freedoms’.. (women’s right to their bodies.. LGBTQ absolute freedoms. etc.)
2- But, , Hey, We live by choice, by birth, in the USA>. governed by this tricky CONSTITUTION. and BILL OF RIGHTS..which limits FEDERAL rights, has the two chambers of Representatives…the THREE branches of Gov’t, supposedly
as a failsafe and “Checks and Balances’…?
These two concepts/realities BUMP heads, REAL HARD on daily basis.
My questions are chiefly:,
If we choose to live in this ‘Democracy’ (not quite that any longer, let’s get real.. this was taken from us, pretty gradually, from the beginning of the 20th Century and massively the last 30-40 years.
By Both ‘Parties’.. and why ARE THERE ONLY TWO PARTIES AND IN NATIONAL CONTESTS/VOTING… THE TWO ‘PARTIES’ FOR REASONS UNKNOWN….HAVE CONTROL OVER WHO GETS TO VOTE FOR THEIR TWO HANDPICKED CANDIDATES…
Case: in NY the State Democratic corporate Establishment..keeps people from voting on their choice, if they DARE to be registered as anything else but Democrats.. and control how early or late, if you ARE registered as a DEM.
(Thus, i am involved as are many of my colleagues/Progressives, in a fight to win, Immediately registration as age, ?, and same day registration..and that’s just in the DEMOCRATIC NYS party.
Hey, folks, reminder:. OUR FIRST PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON DESPISED THE CONCEPT OF ‘PARTIES’ …and,
ALERT!.. PARTIES DO NOT APPEAR IN NOR DO THEY HAVE ANY ‘POWER’ FROM THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS.
So, the latter questions both the ‘establishment’ as it is…(we really don’t pay much attention to our Rights by Constitution), and promotes concepts of ‘freedom to choose’…etc.. and also promotes our ‘freedoms’ guaranteed in the Constitution and that thing, called the BILL OF RIGHTS.. Geez, that fuzzy, archaic SECOND AMENDMENT, misunderstood and misinterpreted..today…
Will I we ever come to terms with all this? our personal freedoms vs. our Constitutional Rights and DUTIES.?
Lastly, though I cherish our RIGHT to Revolution… spoken of by not only JEFFERSON, but by our first president GEORGE WASHINGTON.. as the Right to revolt or rebel?…didn’t always go as planned… I suggest, learning some hidden. or untaught history.. THE PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES ..ETC.
The speech, I believe finally got him assassinated.. (we can’t have a black man speaking out against our wars!)…”Speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. against the “triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism.”
Please listen on Youtube on the link below..
Violence is ubiquitous in American life, and it is quite natural that it should pervade American fantasies and popular culture. – See more at: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/22/hypocrisy-of-gun-control-in-a-land-where-war-and-violence-are-sexy/#sthash.R2bC1U6d.dpuf
DID RONALD REAGAN SUPPORT LIMITS ON GUNS OR ‘GUN CONTROL’…
FROM ‘POLIIFACT’, an independent, non partisan fact checking site.
In a 1991 New York Times op-ed titled “Why I’m For the Brady Bill,” Reagan detailed his support of a seven-day waiting period for gun buyers. “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics,” Reagan said in the op-ed. “… If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.”
“Reagan supported the Brady Bill. That was after he had left office, but he did support it,” said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. “His views are a little complicated because he also signed legislation easing the (1968) Gun Control Act, so you can take Reagan either way.”
he said more about the bill here.
“Reagan said the following: It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser’s sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill — on a nationwide scale — can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that “waiting period” legislation in the states that have it doesn’t work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don’t. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” ( in, ‘Why I am for the Brady bill’… http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html)
So, yes, Reagan, the ‘small government’ icon of the conservative movement in this country, did support the Brady bill.. which has since been dropped, in that it wasn’t renewed by Congress.
About the last few days’ events in Ferguson, Missouri.
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES. August 15, 2014
I will stand by that statement whether we talk about recent events in Ferguson, MO following the police shooting of unarmed teen Mike Brown, which caused 5 days and counting of continuous protests, mostly non violent, or the recent Cliven Bundy ranch ‘Militia’ Showing, which had private citizens surrounding and pointing live ammo firearms at Government employees confronting Mr Bundy with back taxes… All of these incidences Overreactions of one sort of another.
In my humble, estimation, Violence opposing violence, solves nothing. Martin Luther King said of Nonviolent resistance: “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love… Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.”
As we have seen in the past few days and in the words of various leaders, including the President both the People having a right to protest for ‘redress of grievances’ do NOT have the right to do violence or destruction, but neither do the Police have a right to overreact, throwing innocent bystanders and reporters, just doing their jobs in jail. “”There is never an excuse for violence against the police or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. … There is also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests or to throw protesters in jail.” (August 14, 2014)
The violence in separate acts leading up to and after the Bundy Ranch Affair of this year, present another view of overt violence in this nation, and the threat of such.
David C. Williams (“Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendent”) says of the Militia groups and others, (who, let’s be honest , live in a different America than I do), regarding ‘outgroups’ and others, “To disagree with the militia, … is to be outside the VOLK (my caps) .
I am only an observer as anyone else who blogs, sees and comments, in any social media, I am not a professional sociologist, philosopher, only a citizen trying to educate myself and learn from our People’s mistakes.
The MYTHS SURROUNDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
“I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve of it…” Benjamin Franklin ‘s speech at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention.
‘The Second Amendment: a biography’ by Michael Waldman intends the Founders intent has been misunderstood, says, “At this moment, there is a widely accepted misconception about the history of the amendment and its purpose within American society. When the founding fathers implemented Second Amendment the main idea behind it was to provide citizens with a way to oppose possible tyrannical government. However, today it is widely believed that the Second Amendment is there to provide you with a way to protect yourself from other individuals. The debate is also present over whether the Second Amendment provides for collective or individual rights. “..
David C. Williams said in his intro, the following, “The American constitutional tradition offers an answer to that question.(what constitutes a revolution, and how is it different from a Rebellion?)..…that answer can be reduced to two claims, which together constitute the thesis of this book.
First, the BODY OF THE PEOPLE (his emphasis) and revolution are terms that are rich in historical meaning. The Body of the People refers not to Unaffiliated individuals but to the People as a WHOLE, assembled in a universal militia and united by a ‘common culture’ concerning the proper use of political violence. This universal body has the RIGHT to make a Revolution, defined as a political uprising made by the People ‘as a whole’ for the good of whole.” (Not just disconnected, and disparate ‘militia’ or’patriot’ groups, or Libertarians, Statists or other Outgroups with no support by the body of the people).
He later refers to ‘unaffiliated’ examples, such as Timothy McVeigh, and supporting, groups and such ‘Militia’ today, which are self promoting, and NOT called upon by any ‘state’, thus not consistent with the wording of the Second Amendment’s, ‘Militia’.
He then states, “Second, Congress, as the …representative of the Body of the People, has the right to maintain forces to ‘suppress’ rebellions (e.g. Washington against the Whiskey rebellion), defined as political uprisings made by the ‘faction’ for the selfish good of that ‘faction’. In common…George Washington made a revolution as a leader of a free and united people; Timothy McVeigh committed an act of rebellion by murdering fellow Americans.” (end quote)
A reasonable understanding of the problem with today’s Militia minded groups and a failure to understand some pretty straightforward facts about the intent of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and specifically the Second amendment… Below I quote from PoliticsUSA online article, as just one example of this.
” Gun-fanatics (his term) and rebellion-minded conservatives cannot comprehend that the U.S. government is not a foreign power, or that the Declaration of Independence was American colonists’ official separation notice from Great Britain. (Sheriff David A.) Clarke and revolution-minded NRA traitors (his term) also fail to acknowledge is there have been no attempts whatsoever to disarm people; law-abiding or otherwise. In fact, there have been no new gun safety measures* in America since 1994′s Assault Weapons Ban passed by a Republican Congress during the Clinton Administration. Clarke knew he was inciting NRA anti-government gun-zealots to rebellion against the government that the NRA has advertised for five years while a Black man has been in the Oval Office.” Link: “Another Right Wing Sheriff Threatens America With Armed Rebellion”in PoliticsUsa, (The latest sheriff to threaten America with armed rebellion is Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr who addressed the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting last week and…http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/30/wing-sheriff-threatens-america-armed-rebellion.html)
Williams divides his treatise into ‘groups’ , their viewpoints and their failure as misinterpreted ‘myths’ about the Second Amendment”.
Williams, perhaps, differently than some, naming them, ‘Anti revolutionists’ (statists to some), ‘Libertarians and Populists’, ‘The Militia movement’ and members of more recent, ‘outgroups’ (Jews, African-Americans, etc.).
…these outgroup myths are myths of DisUnity rather than Unity. They presume that Some Americans will kill others, and the only question is , who will fit onto each category”(1)
He equates the Problem (and I mostly agree with him), is that…”..with all the myths in this part is not just that they do not square with the Framer’s visioin. The deeper problem is that they offer a false hope that we can tame violence by arming the RIGHT people (my emphasis) against the WRONG people.”… He supposes such an end an ultimate ‘collapse’. And he, as I, would, wish to “…create a political culture that binds us together.” He abhors, as do I, by emphasizing, Hostility, “…they encourage distrust and anger as ‘constitutionally’ sanctioned attitudes.”
An example from the Militia viewpoint is, (Williams), that the 27 words in the 2nd amendment, “… is absolute. Unequivocal, inalienable right of the ‘people’ to be armed, needs no interpretation.”
But he then quotes (James ) Madison, “Do not separate text from historical background. ..you will have perverted and subverted the constitution, which can only end in distorted, bastardized from of illegitimate government” He thus says, of the ‘Militia’ movement (as with all the groups herein) that their, “..Theory of the Second Amendment is thus an exaggeration of themes present in more mainstream populism”.(p. 218)
Nocera also says, “In time, of course, the militia idea died out, replaced by a professionalized armed service. Most gun regulation took place at the state and city level. The judiciary mostly stayed out of the way. In 1939, the Supreme Court upheld the nation’s first national gun law, the National Firearms Act, which put onerous limits on sawed-off shotguns and machine guns ” precisely because the guns had no reasonable relation to a well-regulated militia.”
Then, what IS the correct historical and present intent of the 2nd Amendment… I will go into that more in the next section. A short preview is in Williams’ words, “In every case, these stories fruitlessly pit one segment of the population against another in hopes that if the right people have the guns all will be well”. (p. 261)
(* this before several state initiatives after the Sandy Hook mass killings in CT.)
“. – (1)(David C. Williamson MYTHIC MEANINGS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. P 101)