Speaking up for gun ownership
I do not own a gun and in Oz gun ownership is not the norm. Certainly not by the ordinary city-dweller. But in America it is quite usual and a ‘debate’ rages.
It is not a great debate based on sound Principle. Such Principles were established a long time ago and enshrined in a Constitution which could serve as a model for many nations. No, it is based on ‘social engineering’ generated hysteria in order to counter those early Principles.
But those sound Principles provide for free speech too (which are under similar attack in Oz). Here is an ordinary citizen making his points before TPTB.
He repeats cogent arguments, provided by people far more eminent than himself, yet ignored by the drones in Government.
One point that has always impressed me about America is the ‘Public Hearing’ and its televising/broadcast. It is a powerful means for the average citizen to make him/herself heard. Of course this is ‘balanced’ by the agitprop pumped out daily by the media, particularly the ‘news’ and entertainment industries.
Impressive about this gentleman’s short speech was his early identification of the real issue: the decline in society, rather than ubiquity of guns. Yet the thrust for gun restriction comes from the very same people who work so hard to ‘change’ society, the ‘social engineers’ who have so far succeeded in ‘changing society’ with such disastrous results.
Perhaps the discussions and debates might yet turn to restricting Socialists from changing the Constitution.
Filed under: Amfortas, History & Culture
Agreed. A peaceful harmless man like me is peaceful and harmless with or without a gun. A criminal is going to get hold of a gun anyway, illegally. Incidentally, I saw off a couple of burglars once by the simple expedient of pulling back the hammer on an unloaded shotgun. One click and they were gone, no loss, damage or injury. A win-win situation and no need for violence.
I agree that the decline in society is a root cause of the increasing incidence of mass shootings in the USA – but easy acquisition of very powerful firearms in tandem with society’s decline has to factor in to the problem.
Nobody is trying to change the Constitution (re 2nd amendment anyway), they are trying to regulate only.
PS Socialists? In the USA? Are you kidding? If there are any I’d like to know where to find them . Use of that word to describe Democrats (who are by UK standards centre right-ish) is a Republican and Tea Party ploy – either that or they don’t know what a socialist really is.
LOL – straight out of Obama’s policy book. We’re not trying to enslave you, just regulate you, as the Politburo said to the people of the USSR.
Heinlein:
Yes. The !0th amemdment has been regulated out of business. Others are not far behind.
The Founders were clear. You don’t like a particular part of this legal document, here is the process for change. Prohibition, and that 2% income tax on the rich, come to mind as disasterous outcomes. But we don’t even go to the trouble of amendments anymore. We have emanations and penumbras for that.
The Constitution was an anti-trust act against government. The purpose of the second amendment was to enforce that sentiment, and keep government in some fear of citizens. There was no other purpose.
“PS Socialists? In the USA? Are you kidding? If there are any I’d like to know where to find them . ”
Look under – and in – your bed.
In America at least it is a curious fact that most socialists see themselves as centrists. This red shift, so to speak, in political light then views centrist as right-wingers and right-wingers as lunatics. It has also the curious power to invert the meaning of words and change red into green, blue into red, regressive into progressive, authoritarian into liberal, uniformity into diversity, and even confuse it’s fascist mind with the term social.
“If a lion could speak, we could not understand him.”
@ james wilson and others ~ I find it equally curious that people on this blog and on many others from right of centre and so called “libertarians” – can possibly term Obama’s and the Democrat’s weak-kneed efforts to be socialist. They are corporatist, plain and simple – the lot of ‘em, just as clearly as are the Republicans.
For as long as this silly rivalry goes on between left and right, authoritarianism and libertarianism there’ll be no improvement. The real and serious conflict is between the people and the corporations and banking cartels – both in the USA and worldwide.
Stay with your “side” , pretend you’re at a soccer match instead of real life – hurl insults at t’other side….see how far that gets you! Tsk!!
According to the FBI statistics, mass shootings have actually decreased over the years; the mainstream media tends to wallow in them more these days.
Twilight, it’s been explained here many times over. Obama is socialist. He comes from a Marxist background which sees state solutions for what should be private matters. That is socialism, whichever way you cut it.
When you support the state intervening in and interfering in private lives, that is socialism. State socialism. This attempt by the left to disown Obama and put him in with the wicked capitalists was also tried over here by disowning Blair and putting him in with the same.
James Wilson is right when he says the American left is trying desperately to be seen as not socialist – over here, they disguise it by writing “democratic” as an oxymoron in front of the word socialism and relegating the phrase [which Labour still subscribes to] in a hidden away part of their website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV
It is simply not done to be seen as what they are these days. Remember – state solution = socialism.
This blog has explained many times and even named Them – the global socialists, including the CFR, the TLC, UN, IMF, CBs, WB, BIS – these are the people Obama and Blair are in with – the logical state/corporatist extension of socialism.
The fact that it takes free enterprise and skews it awfully, criminally, is a measure of these people, not of free enterprise as a concept and economic basis of society. Free enterprise is buying and selling freely, the man with the corner shop, grandmothers selling milk products from the side of the road, children’s stalls.
Twilight is a proper handle to describe the condition of light in your cartoonish philosophy.
Garet Garrett, 1951–
“The shivering ghost that now inhabits the words laissez faire was once an unconquerable fighting spirit. It did not belong to capitalism. It belonged to liberty; and to this day its association with capitalism is valid only insofar as capitalism represents liberty.”
Or as Adam Smith and Jimmy Madison would put it, the only effective regulation is to pit ambition against ambition–both public and private– because history had revealed all “better motives” to be defective.
Socialism was once represented with cartoons during the phase of it’s worst failures. Then, in 1933, the disease evolved. It was realized how fruitless that it was to be managers of ruin and continually soil their brand, when they could better rule with production as a subordinate partner, willing or captive.
Obama and the intellectuals of his teleprompter are not tepid; they are sophisticated revolutionaries. You are the proof.
The difference between socialism and fascism is the timing of the boot in your face.
I’m caught in two minds over James W’s comment. The substance of the comment is good but the ad hominems at both ends of it trouble me as they snuff out dialogue.
At first I removed them but then had to put them back, otherwise I’m breaking my own rules here.
Twilight is actually a friend of mine and I don’t like things being said about her but how can I defend her remarks?
I sighed when I saw James W’s comment – he’s not noted for being retiring in his own remarks, as I’m not and some of our readers here do rather go for the jugular at times.
Which is all well and fine. Sigh. I think you know how I’m feeling on it. If I subscribe to comment being free, then I have to allow opinions to be put, rather than censor them.
It does show the chasm today though, does it not? James pointed out some time back about the orthodox Reds, the Blues and then the 5% of thinkers.
I’ve been saving the Brandon Smith article for Monday but here is part of it:
“Instead, I speak of institutions which introduce the newest paradigms. Who write the propaganda. Who issue the orders from on high. I speak of the hubs of elitism which have initiated nearly every policy mechanism of our government for the past several decades. I am talking about the Council On Foreign Relations, the Tavistock Institute, the Heritage Foundation (a socialist organization posing as conservative), the Bilderberg Group, as well as the corporate foils that they use to enact globalization, such as Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Carlyle Group, etc.”
I should know better than to comment on posts such as this one…..still, it gives y’all opportunity to sharpen your claws, and lecture me doesn’t it!
Singing to the choir has to become tiresome after a while.
My last words on this:
However you label Obama – and it seems to me that much of our argument is little more than difference in labelling – he surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures from day 1 in 2008 – many from previous administrations, with an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defense spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. You portray him as a socialist. His liberal apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. US is a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.
Whatever label one attaches to Obama – he’s dangerous.
Yes but Twilight, what do you think of the more important issue:
England 38
Scotland 18
?
Oh, I say….good show!! (spoken as Terry Thomas)
Here across t’pond, on Superbowl Sunday I’m still trying to understand stuff like this:
“The Ravens are counting on quarterback Joe Flacco standing tall and delivering from the pocket while the 49ers will rely on the arm and legs of quarterback Colin Kaepernick in Super Bowl XLVII on Sunday in New Orleans”
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0203-super-bowl-20130203,0,6208493.column
I apologize for causing you this stress, James. Operating a blog of any kind invites pressures which I frankly would not volunteer for.
The socialist mind, and twilight has one, is the natural mind. It is my experience that with young people arguments made with kindness can make some progress over time because it alters what they may be capable of seeing, but that those same arguments are completey blunted by the adult socialist mind. At any rate, to make important distinctions with kindness which actually penetrate the socialist defence requires a degree of talent which very few people have indeed, and over which I own no pretension. You have made an excellent run at it. The degree of difficulty is 10, and I wear down at 6.
Mr. Tocqueville-
“If despotism were to be established in present-day democracies, it would probably assume a different character; it would be more widespread and kinder; it would debase men without tormenting them.”
Btw, you share Tocqueville’s approach to people. None better.