tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post3216761373024718371..comments2024-03-28T16:08:29.578-04:00Comments on Sardonicky: The Obama Doctrine: Killing Beyond the HorizonKaren Garciahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15612731479365562803noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-42047726085889569672012-01-02T07:38:05.156-05:002012-01-02T07:38:05.156-05:00@Anne and Zee
This report suggests China was behi...@Anne and Zee<br /><br />This report suggests China was behind Iran’s recent heist of a US drone, by hacking into its computer system to take control of the drone. http://www.freedom-won.net/china-behind-iran-stealth-drone-heist/533196/<br /><br />Forget firearms, take computer and programming classes, and hack to victory. <br /><br />Brute force is our government’s strong suit. Why fight them on that front? <br /><br />The unanswered question in these opposition scenarios, and OWS for that matter, what will follow, what will replace the current corrupt system? <br /><br />The Achilles’ heel in our corrupt system is the economy. The people have the power to withhold debt payments and consumer spending and bring down the corrupt system without firing a single shot.Neilhttp://yousue.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-88643547063899300612012-01-01T22:01:08.578-05:002012-01-01T22:01:08.578-05:00@Zee
I believe that if push came to shove, the go...@Zee<br /><br />I believe that if push came to shove, the government wouldn't be interested in everyone with firearms. Instead they would attempt to identify only those who may be leaders or activist types (and that's where an NRA list may be helpful). More than likely they would simply enlist their skills and maybe even put them on the payroll, upgrading their weapons too.<br /><br />This is the same screening they've learned to do in all those foreign lands in an effort to favorably manipulate the 'battlefield' dynamics. They have it down to a science. Identify clans, influence leaders with money, detain those who are not compliant, arm the leaders, etc.<br /><br />Actually, I seriously doubt if the government feels much of a threat from the millions of gun owners. All the guns in the country are no match for government weaponry and resources. <br /><br />The good thing about the Occupy movement is that it has caused law enforcement to put on full display their militarized armament. Armored vehicles and body armor are adequate shields from personal firearms, plus they have a whole lot more at their disposal. Extra strength teargas, pepper spray, and all kinds of special tools, such as those that make a person feel like they are on fire, painful and deafening sound machines, blinding lights, etc. It would be very difficult to aim a gun, even if you were still on your feet and could see through tearing and burning eyes. As if your ammunition could penetrate all that armor anyway.<br /><br />We need a government that respects the Rule of Law so we never get to the point of needing to defend ourselves from its abuses. We need a government that applies the law fairly to all, including Wall Street and War criminals. We need a President who will actually uphold his sworn oath to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution' which is his sworn DUTY. We need to speak up over and over and never accept anything less than our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights.Anne Lavoienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-35159038509611851512012-01-01T16:36:11.856-05:002012-01-01T16:36:11.856-05:00@Anne Lavoie--
Yes, that small fraction of gun ow...@Anne Lavoie--<br /><br />Yes, that small fraction of gun owners--from all walks of life--who have joined the NRA have, in fact "registered" themselves with the government as being likely to possess firearms. <br /><br />Stupid us. How foolish of us to stand up for what we believe is one of our fundamental rights, regardless of whether or not we wind up on a government list.<br /><br />Maybe the government will intern <i> US </i> first as the most dangerous potential troublemakers currently at large in society.Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-43146652699127831592012-01-01T13:29:15.591-05:002012-01-01T13:29:15.591-05:00@Anne
According to Wikipedia, membership in the N...@Anne<br /><br />According to Wikipedia, membership in the NRA is 4.3 million. The US population is approximately 307 million. A 2005 Gallup poll showed 3 in 10 Americans personally own a gun; that rate would amount to about 100 million Americans today, far more than the NRA’s membership. http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx<br /><br />So only a small percentage of gun owners are identifiable through NRA membership. <br /><br />Thanks for the information about drones, that was informative.Neilhttp://yousue.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-43625115814126192292012-01-01T12:09:32.147-05:002012-01-01T12:09:32.147-05:00If I was the government and wanted to know who own...If I was the government and wanted to know who owned guns in order to confiscate them in the event of an 'emergency', I would gain access to the NRA membership list, and probably on an ongoing basis, well in advance of any real need. <br /><br />Who needs gun registration when the owners have already registered themselves?Anne Lavoienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-50422730063905716802012-01-01T11:59:42.425-05:002012-01-01T11:59:42.425-05:00@Anne Lavoie—
I can’t speak for all NRA members, ...@Anne Lavoie—<br /><br />I can’t speak for all NRA members, which actually are a pretty diverse group.<br /><br />For myself, I am opposed to those aspects of the NDAA that allow for the indefinite detention—without trial!—of American citizens suspected of terrorism. <br /><br />Like you Progressives, I am very concerned about the future of civil rights in this country. That’s why—as I believe I said in an earlier thread—that if I’m a Life Member of the NRA, I’m also a member of the American Civil Liberties Union.<br /><br />Hope that answers your question.<br /><br />@Neil—<br /><br />Thanks for your data on firearms deaths which segregate homicides from suicides. Like you, I am not insensitive to the number of suicides carried out by firearms. But, as you say, there will always be any number of alternative means to that same tragic end. Actual homicides are a different matter.Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-50489430208724056962012-01-01T11:41:28.619-05:002012-01-01T11:41:28.619-05:00@All—
As I feared, I opened up a discussion which...@All—<br /><br />As I feared, I opened up a discussion which has so many detours and side alleys that it would be impossible to respond to every comment within this limited space. And were I to try to do so in repeated postings, Mrs. Zee would probably file for divorce, or claim in court that she had become a “computer widow” and have me declared legally dead. So let me hit a couple of high points, and then call it quits.<br /><br />@Denis Neville—<br /><br />You have your reading of the Second Amendment and I have mine. I respect your right to disagree with me, and if we were to have a long discussion, I would probably acknowledge that many of your arguments legitimately cast doubt on my interpretation. <br /><br />But at this instant in time the Supreme Court prefers my reading of the Second Amendment. They recently decided that the Second Amendment affirms a fundamental right of private citizens to own firearms, <i> subject to reasonable controls. </i> Exactly how those “reasonable controls” will evolve will probably take many court reviews—and many years—to decide. This is as it should be, given that—as you acknowledge—“gun ownership is fundamental to the American way of life.”<br /><br />Ultimately, I will probably find that those “reasonable controls” are somewhat onerous, and you will find them to be too lax. Again, this is as it should be.<br /><br />Finally, you asked “Shouldn’t we, like nearly every developed country, register all guns and license all gun owners and users?”<br /><br />Well, Neil has offered the most powerful argument against registration that I can think of: the unconscionable behavior the “authorities” in the chaotic aftermath of Katrina, wherein they illegally confiscated—without warrants and sometimes with undue force—the firearms of law-abiding citizens who needed their weapons for protection from looters, and, yes, even worse criminals.<br /><br />This was “jackbooted fascist” behavior on the part of the “authorities,” and the belief that “registration leads to confiscation” has only been reinforced in the minds of firearms owners. <br /><br />And have you considered the magnitude and intrusiveness of the effort that would be required to license gun owners and register their guns? Are you going to go door-to-door to identify that 35-45% of American households that have a rifle and ammunition squirreled away in a closet, and to find and register those 250 million firearms that are already in circulation? How do you plan to do this?<br /><br />@Anne Lavoie—<br /><br />I don’t think I suggested in my original post that we should “rely on some big gunfight to solve things,” and never once did I refer to a “Second Amendment remedy.” I thought I asked “What will you do <i> if </i> they come for <i> you?” </i> I absolutely agree with you that “We need to use our brains as weapons and reclaim Democracy.”<br /><br />But much of the discussion surrounding the NDAA in this forum and others has evolved to talk of internment camps and the potential “disappearance” of suspected “troublemakers” (for want of a better word). <br /><br />Even if this talk kinda reminds me of the Looney Right’s hushed talk of blue helmets, black helicopters, and concentration camps back in the nineties, I won’t say that it could <i> never </i> happen here. If “they” were to appear on your doorstep to disappear you and your family, would you rely solely on your brain—or the brains of others--as your sole recourse?<br /><br />@Jay—<br /><br />You raise many valid concerns about the unconscionable number of firearms deaths in this country. I would like to see these reduced too. But how did our discussion stray from civilian gun control--which I never wanted to start anyway--to include the arms trade, the Pentagon and military bases around the world? <br /><br />As I said, too many detours and side alleys in this discussion<br /><br />Well, I’m sure that I’m at—or close to—my 4,096 character limit. Gotta go start the new year..Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-56546352165433159242012-01-01T10:38:40.507-05:002012-01-01T10:38:40.507-05:00@Jay - Ottawa
The statistics you quoted on gun-r...@Jay - Ottawa <br /><br />The statistics you quoted on gun-related incidents are sobering, and should give anyone pause to consider, especially the 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 of which 12,632 were homicide deaths. I am less concerned, but not insensitive to, the suicide data (suicide being a pejorative term) since some people believe self-deliverance is a right, and can be accomplished in many alternative ways, from rope to pills. <br /><br />We all know rights have responsibilities and consequences. The right of one person to smoke a cigarette can impeded the right of another to breathe clean air. The right to drink fine wine can wreck havoc on the highways when driving drunk. The right to abortion ends a life that might have been. Wikipedia reports that "According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States." That is 50 million lives ended since 1973. (keep your powder dry, I am not against abortion)<br /><br />Some say the American Military Empire brings unnecessary death and destruction worldwide, as well as bankrupting the country, both financially and morally. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate talking about stopping the war machine. <br /><br />Presently it appears either Dear Leader Obama or Mitt Romney will be elected president in 2012, each of whom are lawyers who will continue the American war machine. Death and destruction will continue worldwide, along with financial and moral bankruptcy at home. <br /><br />Other than OWS, what are we doing to stop the American war machine? Should people of good conscious act "By any means necessary" as suggested by Brother Malcolm (quoting Sartre) to stop the death and destruction, the erosion of civil rights, our financial and moral bankruptcy? Or should we just follow orders, and the ‘rule of law’ parody? <br /><br />Happy New Year everybody! Let’s make 2012 the year of TRUTH!Neilhttp://yousue.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-79735844040942194012012-01-01T09:20:38.320-05:002012-01-01T09:20:38.320-05:00@Zee
I have been curious lately about where NRA m...@Zee<br /><br />I have been curious lately about where NRA members stand on the NDAA. That's the one I call the National Detention and Assassination Act. <br /><br />I have been eagerly awaiting your conservative comment here about that, but all I have learned is that you are a gun owner who is curious about our gun ownership and our view on guns. <br /><br />You asked us to share our views on gun ownership and we did. Now that we have addressed that old topic, will you please share your take on the very new and unusual NDAA, coming from a conservative perspective? <br /><br />No need to go Offline, Zee. All of the discerning minds here want to know. Thanks!Anne Lavoienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-45195569781291192152012-01-01T08:40:50.116-05:002012-01-01T08:40:50.116-05:00@Zee,
You made a number of good points. Your view...@Zee,<br /><br />You made a number of good points. Your view represents that of many Americans. <br /><br />However from a practice standpoint, consider the confiscation of firearms in Louisiana in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Firearms were confiscated by the government from law abiding citizens in their own homes, arguably when those firearms were needed for self defense, to defend one’s family, home, and possessions from looters. <br /><br />This is from Wikipedia, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, Confiscation of firearms:<br /><br />Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, National Guard troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm. Even National Guard troops, armed with assault rifles, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina<br /><br />While the NRA and others took legal action, it was like closing the barn door after the horse ran off. Here is a video of Patricia Konie, the little old lady being tackled to the ground by a law enforcement thug. http://youtu.be/B1Qx0cTze0M<br /><br />Here is a RT video from 2010, a Russian news channel reporting on the Katrina gun confiscation http://youtu.be/4L9WuUuEhGE<br /><br />Obama’s support of the draconian NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, shows his disregard for civil rights. Blogs like Sardonicky inform readers about the latest attack on our civil rights where the MSM often fails. But civil rights abuses are commonplace in America, you just don’t read about it, until someone like Patricia Konie catches the national attention. <br /><br />As for mandatory gun registration mentioned in this thread, that is opposed by many Americans because the registration list would be used by the government to confiscate private property at any time, as in Louisiana. <br /><br />Credit should be given to the NRA and other groups who took legal action in the Katrina gun confiscation. However in most cases of civil rights abuse in America the ordinary citizen is defenseless, unless they can afford expensive private legal counsel. If you cannot pay to enforce your civil rights, those rights have little meaning.Neilhttp://yousue.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-21630447967809143882012-01-01T02:50:09.078-05:002012-01-01T02:50:09.078-05:00A long time ago I stopped renewing my membership t...A long time ago I stopped renewing my membership to the NRA. Full disclosure: I was captain of the rifle team in college. Like you, I had some good times with nice people on the practice range and in school competitions. I don't slow my heart rate and squeeze the trigger anymore, but, hey, people who like me say I'm still a straight shooter. Awww....<br /><br />There's another side to the ledger when it comes to guns, a side the NRA skips over when recounting the glories of gun ownership. A random sample from Wikipedia:<br /><br />"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths."<br /><br />Oh, dear. That's a lot of blood and guts for the NRA to walk away from with clean hands. The iron rule: As guns add up, the bodies pile up. Sure, I’m advancing a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy, as our friends in the NRA keep insisting. You decide.<br /><br />The domestic havoc from guns is next to nothing when you look at the effect of the arms trade carried on year after year by the Pentagon. Nobody sells arms and ammo so fine and so much as Uncle Sam. Sales abroad, like those at home, are in support of freedom and social understanding. And profits.<br /><br />Lanza del Vasto used to say that when you want to find the natural level of some service or enterprise, “Just take the profit out of it." <br /><br />Wouldn’t a lot of congressional representatives and senators vote differently if the NRA (read gun manufacturers) weren’t breathing down their necks with the threat of well-funded attack campaigns?<br /><br />Would the Second Amendment be interpreted differently without gun money flooding the halls of justice?<br /><br />Would the argument for guns as the last line of defense against tyranny at home be laughed off the face of the earth? <br /><br />Would our military be following fewer political directives to arm the rest of the world with guns made in America? <br /><br />Would we need hundreds of military bases and enormous stockpiles of weapons around the world? <br /><br />Back to the subject of Karen’s post, would we have placed our trust in drones if we weren’t conditioned to be so trigger-happy?<br /><br />Did I mention it's all about business and profits?Jay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-64653709145802262912012-01-01T02:34:04.093-05:002012-01-01T02:34:04.093-05:00"And no, I’m not a spy for Homeland Security ..."And no, I’m not a spy for Homeland Security who is seeking to entrap you." -- Zee<br /><br />That’s reassuring, but not to worry, Zee. We understand you're a moderate conservative seeker after truth extending the hand of peace and friendship across the ideological divide to moderate progressive seekers after truth who happen to gravitate around Sardonicky in great numbers. Trolls and spooks do come by now and then, but you're too new for us to reveal how we dispose of them. Usually without side arms. BTW, it’s easy to pick out the trolls: they consistently draw us off topic, draw attention to themselves, or try to put another commenter on the spot. Let’s move on. <br /><br />Sometimes a good thing gets out of hand, usually when there's money to be made. Can we establish a little “common ground” at the outset and agree that guns are, if anything, big business?<br /><br />I’m not persuaded that millions of gun-toters across the land serve as the last line of defense for the Republic should it come under attack from enemies from within or without. The NRA is the gun makers’ front doing good works for the business, something like a lobby, but with the whole membership turned out for the missionary work of preaching virtue and salvation by guns, while the not so incidental profits keep rolling in to corporate headquarters.Jay–Ottawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10360356126450612113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-28852893430678082672012-01-01T01:15:58.542-05:002012-01-01T01:15:58.542-05:00an excellent - and much needed - piece, Karen (and...an excellent - and much needed - piece, Karen (and accompanying visual: 'a picture's worth . . . ').<br /><br />i'd been sent the (belated) Washington Post coverage (better late than never?) and thank you for referencing it here. <br /><br />@ Anne: profound (and timely: then and now) quote of Martin Niemöller,<br /><br /><br />@ Denis: likewise, the words of James Madison and D.D. Eisenhower.<br /><br /><br />with best wishes & perseverance of belief in a "new" year -<br />WestVillageGalWestVillageGalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-70853135675522637592012-01-01T00:49:32.062-05:002012-01-01T00:49:32.062-05:00And I emphatically agree with Anne!And I emphatically agree with Anne!Valerienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-12876734364611276342011-12-31T23:28:52.961-05:002011-12-31T23:28:52.961-05:00@Zee
I will never lose sight of our common ground...@Zee<br /><br />I will never lose sight of our common ground - I can promise you that! And I welcome your thoughts and points of view on any and all issues because I know that your have given them a lot of thought. I would imagine, as on so many issues, we will find common ground. And on those points we disagree, we will both be able to recognise that both points of view have merit.<br /><br />I think you will find that many progressives are quite reasonable about gun ownership but maintain the laws need to be far tighter on who can own a gun and what constitutes responsible gun ownership.Valerienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-88736447461360160302011-12-31T22:29:05.710-05:002011-12-31T22:29:05.710-05:00@Zee
Too often guns owners are lulled into a fals...@Zee<br /><br />Too often guns owners are lulled into a false sense of safety. They always have their Second Amendment remedy! Because of that, they let things slide, focused almost solely on securing that precious Second Amendment as the ultimate cure-all when times get tough. Maybe it actually was a remedy in Madison's time, but not anymore. Not by a long shot. <br /><br />'Enterprises of Ambition' is a very apt designation. It's right on the money actually. We would now call it something like the Chamber of Commerce. Madison couldn't have chosen better terms. Enterprise - a complicated business endeavor such as in a conglomerate of corporate interests that insinutates itself into every facet of government. Ambition - strong desire for power, as in favorable tax policy, grants, incentives, government contracts, etc. <br /><br />The EOA isn't exactly the government, it just owns and runs it! There is no need to go into that whole scenario. The Occupy movement has done an adequate job. The vast income inequality in this country is no accident. It is by design, created through favorable tax and government policy written by corporate think tanks and passed by their faithful paid off servants in Congress and the White House. <br /><br />This vast wealth inequality doesn't just create problems for the poorer 99%, it gives inordinate power to the 1%. The Enterprises of Ambition are the 1%. Now that their wealth has bought the government, they can wreak all kinds of profitable havoc for themselves. Just as in the recent economic meltdown/scam, they create crises that they position themselves to Capitalize on and profit from. I refer you to 'Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism' by Naomi Klein for the historical pattern and evidence of this doctrine.<br /><br />Our Constitution calls for 'the common defense' but vested corporate interests have turned it into an ever-growing military Empire, more like a metastatic malignancy on the whole world. What most Americans tend to ignore is that our government is now a corporate Enterprise of Ambition. Trying to fight it with guns is suicide, and trying to shrink it will only hasten and complete the privatization process underway, ending Democracy. <br /><br />What we need to do is to reverse the privatization of our government, otherwise corporations will end up owning not just our government but everything, especially after another one of their constructed crises. Nationalization of vital services could one strategy. It certainly would ensure our country's, rather than corporate, survival and not put us at risk of whoever currently owns the resources, which could be any multi-national corporation. <br /><br />My advice is not to rely on some big gunfight to solve things. It is to do something now to force our government to make corporations legally obligated to serve this country and not vice versa. That was how it was intended and codified by corporate charter laws at the time of our country's founding - before corporations paid to have that changed. Tax them into submission. Enact legislation to remove the power they have over our government. We need to use our brains as weapons and reclaim Democracy.Anne Lavoienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-15330329859004472542011-12-31T20:28:28.141-05:002011-12-31T20:28:28.141-05:00Zee, “Are any of you Progressives firearms owners?...Zee, “Are any of you Progressives firearms owners? Have any of you considered the possibility of armed resistance in the face of suspension of civil rights and internment of alleged “enemies of the state?” Or will you all just “go gentle into that good night?”<br /><br />Many gun owners have strong preconceptions about progressives being anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, and not respecting the values of gun owners.<br /><br />This progressive does not own any firearms. I recognize that gun ownership is fundamental to the American way of life. I do agree with Gary Wills, who said, “Ours is a gun culture, formed on weak history and strong myths about ‘frontier’ virtue. It is the gun culture, not mere gun ownership, that plagues us. And the gun culture thrives on perverted readings of the Second Amendment.”<br /><br />It doesn’t require a close reading of the Second Amendment to understand the insanity of allowing anyone to own as many guns of all types as he wants. James Madison’s original proposal concerned military matters. When James Madison excepted those with religious scruple, no Quaker was to be deprived of his hunting gun, he made clear that “bear arms” meant wage war. The subject of the amendment is how to regulate the militia in order to ensure state security, not whether AK-47s should be widely distributed to individual citizens. The Amendment states a right that “we” do possess, but we possess it, as the Amendment itself says, in a “well-regulated militia.”<br /><br />http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/<br /><br />As Gary Wills wrote, To Keep and Bear Arms in The New York Review of Books,<br /><br />“The recent effort to find a new meaning for the Second Amendment comes from the failure of appeals to other sources as a warrant for the omnipresence of guns of all types in private hands. Easy access to all these guns is hard to justify in pragmatic terms, as a matter of social policy. Mere common law or statute may yield to common sense and specific cultural needs. That is why the gun advocates appeal, above pragmatism and common sense, to a supposed sacred right enshrined in a document Americans revere. Those advocates love to quote Sanford Levinson, who compares the admitted “social costs” of adhering to gun rights with the social costs of observing the First Amendment. We have to put up with all kinds of bad talk in the name of free talk. So we must put up with our world-record rates of homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings because, whether we like it or not, the Constitution tells us to. Well, it doesn’t.”<br /><br />http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms<br /><br />Shouldn’t we, like nearly every developed country, register all guns and license all gun owners and users? The logic being, since it is no different from automobile registration and driver licensing, that gun technology is arguably much more dangerous.Denis Nevillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-15300516696055277192011-12-31T19:49:43.475-05:002011-12-31T19:49:43.475-05:00Hi, Valerie!
It's good to hear from you. I s...Hi, Valerie!<br /><br />It's good to hear from you. I saw the New Year's fireworks display from Sidney this morning and thought of you and your family.<br /><br />You raise many valid concerns about guns and gun control, some of which I share and some of which concern <i> me </i>. This is a topic which I am more than happy to discuss with you at length in our off-line correspondence, but I think that the subject is too vast for thorough discussion in this forum. <br /><br />I hope that you don't think this is a "cop-out", but I believe that we would bore many of the participants, perhaps anger many, many more, and ultimately, test the patience of Ms. Garcia to the breaking point.<br /><br />Look for an e-mail from me soon to start to address the questions and concerns you've raised, but I hope that you will promise me that you will not forget the common ground that we've already found and, I hope, will continue to find.<br /><br />Well, if New Year's Eve has come and gone in Oz, it's only just starting here in New Mexico. Cheers!<br /><br />Best wishes to you, Valerie, and to all Sardonicky participants, for a very Happy (and safe) New Year!Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-47399273140850433822011-12-31T17:22:40.780-05:002011-12-31T17:22:40.780-05:00@Zee
I am for gun control. That doesn't mean ...@Zee<br /><br />I am for gun control. That doesn't mean I think responsible gun owners shouldn't be allowed to own guns. It just means that I think it should be harder to own a gun. <br /><br />My favourite student from my first year of teaching in a tiny Texas town was playing with a gun his father left loaded and sitting around the house. He shot and killed his best friend. His life was essentially ruined from that moment forward and I would imagine the family of the boy who was accidentally shot was pretty much ruined as well. Why was that gun not locked up? Why was his father not held responsible for that “accident?”<br /><br />I recall my friend's brothers who would go out with a case of beer, sit up in those chairs on stilts that can be bought at WalMart, would throw down deer feed and wait for the hungry deer to approach. Then, drunk and silly, they would mow down the deer with sub-machine guns. Real sporting! And incredibly dangerous! How is that allowed? I think if someone sees someone wielding a gun under the influence, it should be a jailable offence.<br /><br />The only people I think are fit to own guns have no criminal record, are psychologically stable, can be trusted to keep their guns under lock and key in a gun safe, and can be trusted not to consume alcohol while using a gun. There should be courses on gun safety that people should be required to take in order to get a gun license just as people have to take classes on how to drive before they are let loose on our streets to drive a car. <br /><br />And I have a REAL problem with the fact that the drug gangs in Mexico who are terrorising entire towns, are doing so with guns they have bought at gun shows in the United States. How is that allowed to happen? Clearly not everyone selling guns is ethical and wise enough to have that great responsibility.<br /><br />In Germany, hunting is a “gentleman's sport.” People can own guns but they have to prove they will be responsible gun owners. People selling guns are put through a rigorous licencing process and are regularly monitored. What is so wrong with a system like that?Valerienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-71101647843865370752011-12-31T16:32:35.750-05:002011-12-31T16:32:35.750-05:00I apologize for coming late to the discussion. Sti...I apologize for coming late to the discussion. Still in Sydney with my in-laws and have limited access to a computer. All I can say is WOW! In addition to Karen's excellent post, the commentary has been outstanding. You have all brought such interesting points, quotes and links to the discussion - thank you for the thought-provoking discussion. <br /><br />I find the whole idea of drones surreal. I can imagine many Americans love the idea of flexing our military might without the potentially messy PR problems of too many dead/wounded American soldiers and the economically unpalatable cost of war when our own infrastructure is crumbling and our safety net has so many holes in it that even the middle, middle class is in danger of falling through. But Karen is right; this is why entire populations of countries hate us. I am now, only finally, getting around to reading All the Shah's Men which is the story of how the U.S overthrew a democratically elected prime minister and replaced him with a puppet leader, the Shah. Look at the blowback from something that happened 50 years ago. Americans need to understand that there are long-term consequences to our actions overseas and people who have been violated have long memories. These drone attacks are only going to provoke more violence against America and Americans. <br /><br />Obama is a disaster - this really hit home with me when I listened to Jeremy Scahill on Morning Joe talking about rendition. As Jay noted, the Prez might be slightly better on domestic issues such as Supreme Court nominees, but unless Scalia and Roberts both kick the bucket at the same time, the SC is isn't redeemable. To compare Gore to Obama is a joke - Obama is a liar and a traitor to those who put their trust in him. I will wager voter turn-out will be at an all time low in 2012. Most people, including me, no longer think their vote amounts to much of anything. If it isn't stolen or corrupted by the voting machines, the person we put into office - the agent of change - will turn on us and do the exact opposite. Who would have voted for Obama had they known the truth about how he would "lead?" What I don't get is how many people, knowing how bad he is, will vote for him again.<br /><br />Jay, thanks for bringing up the "none acceptable" option. If the yellow dogs who understand what is really going on in this country, don’t take that one up, then they aren’t willing to “hold Obama’s feet to the fire.” There is no excuse – we ALL need to register as Democrats and vote a message of no-confidence! <br /><br />It doesn't do us any good to be aware of what is going on in our country if we aren't prepared to take even the smallest of resistant actions.Valerienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-39284455128380321992011-12-31T16:01:11.971-05:002011-12-31T16:01:11.971-05:00@All—
When I introduced myself to Sardonicky a fe...@All—<br /><br />When I introduced myself to Sardonicky a few weeks ago, I described myself as a thinking Conservative—I hope!— who is interested in finding common ground with Progressives. I also recollect saying that while I do already find much common ground with Progressives, there would be times that I would irritate you mightily. This may well be one of them—I hope not—but because @Denis Neville is quoting James Madison, I thought that I would toss out for thought another Madison quote, this one from Federalist #46 according to Wikiquotes:<br /><br /><i> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. </i><br /><br />http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison<br /><br />It appears to me that Madison believed that the existence of subordinate governments—which I interpret as the States—and their associated, locally controlled militias, formed a bulwark against the “enterprises of ambition” of the Federal government. <br /><br />Might we not read “enterprises of ambition” to mean—at least in part—the growing encroachments on civil rights that we have all observed in this country, and which have been the subject of discussion in quite a few of the recent postings here? (And remember, I’m with you here; I, too, fear for the future of civil rights in this country.)<br /><br />If you accept my interpretation thus far, then it seems to me that you must further conclude that Madison envisioned resistance—even to the point of <i> armed resistance by at least state militias, and, perhaps the people </i> --in the event of suppression of civil rights by the Federal government.<br /><br />Our “state militias” are now the National Guard, which can be federalized in the blink of a Presidential eye. Does anyone doubt on whose side they would fall in the event the government chose to suppress civil rights in the extreme?<br /><br />So that leaves about 250 million firearms in private hands—as of about 1999—distributed among 35%-45% of all American households (Jacobs, James B.,<i> Can Gun Control Work? </i> Oxford University Press, 2002. pp.38-39)<br /><br />Now, that’s not an inconsequential number of firearms with which to resist the “enterprises of ambition” envisioned by Madison. <br /><br />Are any of you Progressives firearms owners? Have any of you considered the possibility of armed resistance in the face of suspension of civil rights and internment of alleged “enemies of the state?” Or will you all just “go gentle into that good night?”<br /><br />Please note that I’m not asking this question to provoke an argument on gun control. In the space of this forum, I doubt that I could change your mind if you’re against gun ownership, and you certainly will not change mine. <br /><br />It’s just that I know few Progressives well. Of the few I know, only three friends—one a gay man, another a lesbian!—are gun owners and ardent supporters of an expansively interpreted Second Amendment. Guns are anathema to the rest of them. So I’m curious to get a larger picture.<br /><br />And no, I’m not a spy for Homeland Security who is seeking to entrap you. <br /><br />Moreover, though I own a fair number of firearms for various purposes, I’m not trying to persuade you—or delude myself into believing with certainty—that I would behave “heroically” if “they” ever come for me, my family, my friends, or anyone else, for that matter. <br /><br />None of us actually knows how we will react until the time comes—which I hope never will.Zeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-19622383919330424122011-12-31T15:15:15.499-05:002011-12-31T15:15:15.499-05:00It seems that Glen Greenwald has more to say on co...It seems that Glen Greenwald has more to say on cognitive dissonance today.<br />He pretty much says everything I would wish to say if I could write better. <br />There appears to be some sort of twitter war going on between Greenwald and some other bloggers. I guess Greenwald is boring because he writes the same things again and again.<br />Silly Glenn, doesn't he know that he should inject a few more posts about The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo or his quest for the perfect empanada?Katnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-62857734033301351302011-12-31T14:08:47.798-05:002011-12-31T14:08:47.798-05:00Speaking of scolds...
Is it really hard to see wh...Speaking of scolds...<br /><br />Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate Ron Paul’s candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?<br /><br />Glenn Greenwald discusses the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul.<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/<br /><br />“Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.”<br /><br />“…it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure…who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote - Barack Obama - advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.”<br /><br />“The central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned…progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here - the game that’s being played - is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.<br /><br />“The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives - President Obama - himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested…(see lengthy listing in his article)<br /><br />“The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that - things liberalism has long held to be pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts like the history laid out by Stoller <br /><br />http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html<br /><br />- negate that desired self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist. [cognitive dissonance] And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who insist that they not be ignored.”<br /><br />“The parallel reality - the undeniable fact - is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul…For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.<br /><br />“Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate - not the Democrat - who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?”Denis Nevillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-55926733073734636412011-12-31T12:04:15.417-05:002011-12-31T12:04:15.417-05:00Thanks for those who provided the links to the LA ...Thanks for those who provided the links to the LA Times article. I really had no idea how much manpower was involved in drone operations. Good to know we're continuing Rummy's legacy of a leaner, meaner (well, we got that right), armed forces. Is there no part of our national "defense" that we will not outsource?<br /><br /><br />Forty years ago we had a presidential candidate that dared to call the carpet bombing of Indochina a particularly cowardly way of waging war.Katnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-974773076690597683.post-2846050501551935872011-12-31T11:33:52.493-05:002011-12-31T11:33:52.493-05:00Re Jay - sending the “uncommitted” message to O’s ...Re Jay - sending the “uncommitted” message to O’s Administration in the primaries… <br /><br />I like Cenk Uygar’s argument: “If ‘uncommitted’ beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa, that would make some news. That might even get the attention of The Establishment. So far, he has only responded to right-wing pressure. He is the consummate politician, so if there was actually a little bit of pressure on his left he might have to respond to it, especially during an election season.<br /><br />A lot of “mights,” but what the hell, send ‘em a message.<br /><br />I also like the recall effort of Montana voters.<br /><br />Jonathan Turley, “Montana citizens have decided to try another approach given the non-responsive attitude of our leaders - they are moving to remove their two Senators from office over their votes in favor of indefinite detention powers.”<br /><br />“These politicians, including Obama, have long made the cynical calculation that civil libertarians have no where to go politically and that votes continue to be motivated by party allegiance and the appeal of personalities. These Montana voters are trying to show that they are wrong.”<br /><br />http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/26/montana-voters-move-to-recall-senators-over-votes-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-citizens/<br /><br />Send ‘em a message.<br /><br />“Obama’s failures are not minor; they are world-class major.” <br /><br />Where I would differ with Jay, is that the political wrecking crew is on both the Democratic and the Republican sides.Denis Nevillenoreply@blogger.com