seespotrun2008 wrote:Great idea studying the constitution toodeemo. It is very important to know it through and through if one is American. So I have been thinking about some of the comments on this post. I did a Google search of Sharon Angle and the 2nd amendment. It seemed to me that much of the uproar is in the liberal media. Not that liberals are not right but is there much interpretation about this by objective news writers? The 2nd post that johnson1010 offered seemed like it was from a local news station. I would not think that they would be partisan and they were actually talking to the person. If this is a movement in the Republican party it is very disturbing. This is basically terrorism. It is no better than what the Taliban do in Afghanistan. Using violence against each other because you do not get your way is antithetical to Democracy.

We do not have a tyrannical government. You may not agree with the choices our representatives make at times, but that does not mean it is tyrannical. Tyrannical would actually be a group of people using violence to control the choices of other members of the society. Just because one does not like the way that someone votes does not mean they have any right to use violence. That goes for both liberals and conservatives.

I was also looking at the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does bring up a militia as a positive thing - it is necessary to the security of a free State. So does that mean security against other countries? Or does that mean security against the people in our own country? I know there have probably been many court decisions concerning this amendment. What knowledge do you have about that toodeemo?

I am also wondering why it is so important what the founding fathers initially meant. Let's say that Sharon Angle's statements are correct and the founding fathers meant for people to keep arms in case the government becomes tyrannical. So what? The founding fathers do not live here, we do. The founding fathers who were so pro-liberty and democracy oftentimes owned slaves. Women were not equal in any way to men. The founding fathers were imperfect. I think that they would probably have expected that each generation would struggle with how to interpret their original document. We do not live in the same world that the founding fathers lived in. Why is it not ok to try to figure out how to apply this document to our world?

It's pretty simple. In fact, Thomas Jefferson explaine why as noted in a previous post:

When the government fears the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny.

The constitution provides for the federal government to raise and field an army to defend the country from outsiders. Early on there were concerns that the federal government would be able to use the army against American citizens so The Insurrection Act of 1807 was passed limiting its use. This was subsequently strengthened by The Posse Comitatus. Toodemo and others don't seem to realize that the ultimate check agains tyranny is the realization that the citizenry may rise against the government.

The ironic thing is that the Second Ammendment is the most violated of all the Bill of Rights. The language is clear and any gun control must deviate from the ammendment. All such deviations are in fact unconstitutional. If the government wants to regulate guns, they should ammend the Constituion. There is a process for doing so and it is not a perogative of the courts.

Toodemo and others don't seem to realize that the ultimate check agains tyranny is the realization that the citizenry may rise against the government.

You assume too much. Toodemo specifically said he understood that. Why would you then say he doesn't? His point is that you're a fool to think our current government is tyrannical right now.

Interbane wrote:

Toodemo and others don't seem to realize that the ultimate check agains tyranny is the realization that the citizenry may rise against the government.

You assume too much. Toodemo specifically said he understood that. Why would you then say he doesn't? His point is that you're a fool to think our current government is tyrannical right now.

And both of you are fools to say that I or the Tea Party think, believe or say that of our present government. It's like talking to tat all over again.

I haven't said nor implied any such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're obviously not understanding your opponents position here. The reason the topic of guns/2nd amendment was breached was due to comments by tea party politicians such as Sharon Angle. Follow johnson's links and read. If you don't endorse such words, then say so. But if you consider yourself a Tea Bagger, it's not an unreasonable generalization to assume the same political perspectives apply.

Interbane wrote:I haven't said nor implied any such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're obviously not understanding your opponents position here. The reason the topic of guns/2nd amendment was breached was due to comments by tea party politicians such as Sharon Angle. Follow johnson's links and read. If you don't endorse such words, then say so. But if you consider yourself a Tea Bagger, it's not an unreasonable generalization to assume the same political perspectives apply.

Then you should stop interpreting other people's posts. Let them clarify their positions themselves. I think you mean broached although breached is an interesting pun or is it Freudian? I am a supporter of the Tea Party movement but Tea Bagger is a reference to an obscene act and is associated with the Tea Party by the simple minded instead of using intelligent argumentation. I suspect that in time the derragotory connotation will be lost just as it was with Yankee when the British introduced it.

Interbane wrote:

Toodemo and others don't seem to realize that the ultimate check agains tyranny is the realization that the citizenry may rise against the government.

You assume too much. Toodemo specifically said he understood that. Why would you then say he doesn't? His point is that you're a fool to think our current government is tyrannical right now.

Thanks for the backup! However, people don't seem to realize that the concept of the ULTIMATE threat means last resort. Not the action to take if Rand Paul loses an election. The tyranny that rises to the level of insurrection in the streets is when the government denies fundamental rights to the people. Evidently, Tea Baggers and those of their ilk seem to think that the only "WE" is "We the People" is they. If every person who felt disenfranchised resorted to violence against the government everytime they felt that way, we would not even have a country to call ours. Their can NOT be 300 million individuals with 300 individual governmental concepts. The We The People is also associated with another familar phrase.

E Pluribus Unum.

From the many, one.

That time tested concept must also be considered when the idea of revolution in the streets is professed. It's not about what's right for YOU. It's what is right for all of us. There will be differences of opinion. But you can't start a war just because you don't get what you want. That is what the republic is all about.

This is the whole point i make about team politics.

If Sharon Angle's second amendment remedies sound like a terrible plan, then SAY SO!

Your wandering defense of second amendment minutia gives the appearance of tacit agreement.

Is it too far outside of your party affiliation to declare, publicly, that an armed insurrection against the government after this election, even if the conservatives lose, is a completely unnecessary, irresponsible, harmful, destructive, foolish move and that advocating it, or implying it might be a good path immediately writes you off as a good candidate for governance?

stahrwe wrote:

seespotrun2008 wrote:Great idea studying the constitution toodeemo. It is very important to know it through and through if one is American. So I have been thinking about some of the comments on this post. I did a Google search of Sharon Angle and the 2nd amendment. It seemed to me that much of the uproar is in the liberal media. Not that liberals are not right but is there much interpretation about this by objective news writers? The 2nd post that johnson1010 offered seemed like it was from a local news station. I would not think that they would be partisan and they were actually talking to the person. If this is a movement in the Republican party it is very disturbing. This is basically terrorism. It is no better than what the Taliban do in Afghanistan. Using violence against each other because you do not get your way is antithetical to Democracy.

We do not have a tyrannical government. You may not agree with the choices our representatives make at times, but that does not mean it is tyrannical. Tyrannical would actually be a group of people using violence to control the choices of other members of the society. Just because one does not like the way that someone votes does not mean they have any right to use violence. That goes for both liberals and conservatives.

I was also looking at the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does bring up a militia as a positive thing - it is necessary to the security of a free State. So does that mean security against other countries? Or does that mean security against the people in our own country? I know there have probably been many court decisions concerning this amendment. What knowledge do you have about that toodeemo?

I am also wondering why it is so important what the founding fathers initially meant. Let's say that Sharon Angle's statements are correct and the founding fathers meant for people to keep arms in case the government becomes tyrannical. So what? The founding fathers do not live here, we do. The founding fathers who were so pro-liberty and democracy oftentimes owned slaves. Women were not equal in any way to men. The founding fathers were imperfect. I think that they would probably have expected that each generation would struggle with how to interpret their original document. We do not live in the same world that the founding fathers lived in. Why is it not ok to try to figure out how to apply this document to our world?

It's pretty simple. In fact, Thomas Jefferson explaine why as noted in a previous post:

When the government fears the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny.

The constitution provides for the federal government to raise and field an army to defend the country from outsiders. Early on there were concerns that the federal government would be able to use the army against American citizens so The Insurrection Act of 1807 was passed limiting its use. This was subsequently strengthened by The Posse Comitatus. Toodemo and others don't seem to realize that the ultimate check agains tyranny is the realization that the citizenry may rise against the government.

The ironic thing is that the Second Ammendment is the most violated of all the Bill of Rights. The language is clear and any gun control must deviate from the ammendment. All such deviations are in fact unconstitutional. If the government wants to regulate guns, they should ammend the Constituion. There is a process for doing so and it is not a perogative of the courts.

It is ironic that despite all this armed paranoia about the government using its organization to oppress the people, all the urgings of eternal vigilance, in a sense the dreaded event has already happened.

A small group of ill-meaning conspirators, for whom the freedom and best interests of the American people hardly register on their priority lists, have managed to take the US government, and make it do contortions that would even have the Cirque de Soleil gasping in amazement. Economy moving too slowly? Cut taxes for the rich. Economy overheating? Then cut taxes for the rich. Social programs under funded? Well, you guessed it didn’t you- cut those taxes. If it becomes too onerous maintaining a huge military, of course, lower taxes on corporations and the affluent will free the light of the entrepreneur, and make all things right.

Just in case there is any confusion, I am not talking about the black-Muslim-communist- Satanist currently in the White House. The engineers of this virtual coup d’etat are simply the affluent, well-healed, rentier class that has always sought to influence government to their advantage, but it is just that they have had spectacular success in recent years.

In a society famous for being classless, things are getting ever more polarized. The middle class, formerly the majority, are now being squeezed hard by policies that favor the above mentioned. At the bottom end, workers sleep in their cars because wages are not enough to provide rental accommodation.

In the meantime, the Tea Party adherents wander the landscape, either unaware or uncaring that huge sums of money are flowing to their movement from those very conspirators. The libertarian policies advocated by the Tea Party would, of course, if they wherever written into law, reinforce the position of that happy inner circle at the top of the food chain. But the “average folks” in that movement party on, guns pointing in the wrong direction, oblivious.

That you toodeemo for the information about the 2nd amendment.

When the government fears the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny.

I am not sure when or in what context Jefferson said this. I did a google search of this quote and there are even people who argue that Jefferson did not say it. I still do not feel that the best way for us to handle disagreements amongst each other is to become violent. It does not matter what Jefferson said.

I do think the government fears us to a certain extent. Individual politicians are terrified of losing their jobs. We voted them in and we can vote them out. Could this be more of what this quote means rather than fear of bodily harm or violence?

The constitution provides for the federal government to raise and field an army to defend the country from outsiders.

That is true. I forgot about that. So militia is separate from the armed forces that fight against other countries. I think that Todeemo made an interesting observation:

I disagree with the definition of militia in the 2nd, and I question if the founders actually intended it to mean that the right to bear arms actually means that there is a right to insurrection and to attempt the overthrow of the United States government. As I stated in an earlier post, the Federal government clearly has the power to react against acts of insurgency and attacks on the government. It is unlikely that they meant that a militia from Arizona somehow usurps that authority.

He also made a good point that at the time of the founders what existed was muskets. If any of them knew that the types of guns that we have today existed would they have put that amendment in there? Does just anyone have a right to carry around a machine gun? And most of the society when the founders were around was farming. Most people did not live in cities. I would imagine that most people used their guns for the purpose of getting food or self protection. You could not just call up the police to come out. What is a gun used for in a city besides killing other people. We can get all of our food from the grocery store and the police will come if we call. It does not make sense to me that we would not be allowed to grow and change as our society does.

That time tested concept must also be considered when the idea of revolution in the streets is professed. It's not about what's right for YOU. It's what is right for all of us. There will be differences of opinion. But you can't start a war just because you don't get what you want. That is what the republic is all about.

Yay! Right on.

In a society famous for being classless

We may be seen by the rest of the world as being classless but that has never been true. There have always been struggles between the wealthy and the poor. It is just that our class struggle is not given by birth. It is the myth that if you work hard then you will be rich and have all of the wonderful things that you want. It's not true, but we continue to perpetuate it. But you are right, it is bad right now.

In the meantime, the Tea Party adherents wander the landscape, either unaware or uncaring that huge sums of money are flowing to their movement from those very conspirators.

I think that the Tea Party Adherents do care a lot. I think that a lot of Americans know that there are problems and we are trying to come up with solutions. We just do not agree on what that solution is. It was the same when Howard Dean or Barack Obama excited people. I really like that about Americans. We do look for solutions. It is true there is also apathy in this country as well. That is very much to our detriment. The only way that the people can rule the country is if we are involved in the country. Maybe we would not be in the place we are if everyone were involved.

stahrwe wrote: It's pretty simple. In fact, Thomas Jefferson explaine why as noted in a previous post:

When the government fears the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny.

You really think that citizens with guns can take on the US military? Besides, if the citizens who own firearms took control of the country, it would be a much worse place.

stahrwe wrote: The ironic thing is that the Second Ammendment is the most violated of all the Bill of Rights. The language is clear and any gun control must deviate from the ammendment. All such deviations are in fact unconstitutional. If the government wants to regulate guns, they should ammend the Constituion. There is a process for doing so and it is not a perogative of the courts.

Come on. The constitution is vague, and different people honestly reach different interpretations. Those interpretations are often shaped by an individual's personal preferences: gun control opponents argue that the 2nd amendment blocks it, while school prayer opponents argue that the 1st amendment blocks it. It's naive to claim that your interpretation is the only valid one, and that those who disagree don't understand the constitution, even if they're constitutional scholars like Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor.