Sandy Braille
Banned
Not this mother****er.
Senator Mike Lee: It's about the Right
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Not this mother****er.
Are you discounting the tesitmony of active gun users as to the speed and easiness with with a magazine can be changed?
Your opinion is that it would save lives. Perhaps it would, but I see it as limiting the 2nd amendment. Taking rights (or even privilages) away from people becasue of a few bad apples is bad policy. I am a responsible gun owner and so I should be able to buy a 30 round magazine if I want.
Thanks for bringing this discussion back to something we can all relate to.
I'm uninformed on Mike Lee's personal finances and/or troubles. Maybe I should have run for Senate. Clean slate on making the mortgage payments.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
https://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/54135277-219/lee-worth-mike-utah.html.csp
Enjoy. It happened less than a year ago. This guy somehow knows what to do about our nation's finances yet couldn't even manage his own... Lol. Mike Lee is a complete joke
Well, the people could make out that sequence of events as a heroic self-sacrifice gone wrong in the bursting of the real estate bubble. Here's the sequence of events:
We had President Bush and a whole lot of liberal folks, even bankers, being on the wrong side of that curve.
But the bottom line is it was bad judgment for the young man to be stretching for an upscale house and making decisions that destabilized his income. . . . in fact he woulda gone down on this even if he didn't run for office, because his job was going down the tubes too. The law firm went under, too.
no, the point of this thread is not Mike Lee, but the idea which is the center of his little article. I'd like to focus on that.
OK, this seems to be something we can discuss on civil terms.
I'm not the solid Republican partisan who would just think what you seem to assume here. The "Paradox" you refer to? I think I'm on record in here being against Corporate "rights" such as the Supreme Court imputed in the recent rulings. In my view, there is the same oligarchical stratification among corporations as there is among citizens. The bigger class or Corporations use their influence with the government to beat down the competition every chance they get. We do not and should not give Corporations the right to vote, and there is no Constitutional justification for considering a legal entity to have any "rights". No Bill of Rights for "Corporations", they are entirely creations of the State, well of various States who grant them existence according to certain statutes enacted by Legislatures. However, it's people who own and control all corporations, and people who manage them, and people who are employed by them, and people who do business with them in some general sense.
I think, ideally, it is criminal for anyone, even Corporations, to do the kind of business where they buy politicians by being notably significant financial backers of elected officials. However, the problem with laws like that, ultimately, is that money can buy Judges too, and does.
Our best chance to restore the United States to being an effective government of the People, by the People, and for the People requires returning to the concept of limited government as was originally specified by our Constitution. Smaller government, with fewer favors to grant, and less money to spend, would draw fewer corrupt money/power brokers to the cloakrooms of Congress and the golf clubs where presidents idle their days away. . . .
From Siromars above questions:
As for the comment on controlling the government. I'm not really sure what you mean. Can you give me an example of where the government is not threatened by the people because they control it? Can you give me an example of the opposite?
Ideally, under our Constitution, the people can control their government through the political process of electing local, state, and federal representatives and executives, and in some cases, judges. If that is in question, the next question is how the people can regain control generally. This country was established by people who used their guns to eject the representatives of the English Crown. The right to keep and bear arms is the right to eject the representatives of any usurpers who might, contary to the interests and will of the people, establish themselves in governing power over them.
obviously you did miss my point as restated above. Arguably, if a dictator like Hitler, or Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or any of a hundred lesser known examples in modern times, gained power in this country, and had a loyal military establishment backing him, would be examples where the general population indeed had no control of their government. They complied in fear, and tried to appear loyal or at least not draw attention while going about the business of survival. These are in some sense, the opposite of a constitutional republic.
I would include modern socialist states where while the people do vote and support a government, there is a real clique of more important decision-makers who do their work out of the public eye. And that is where we are at now, though if the people became aware of the fact and could be aroused to a coherent line of action, the people in this country could arguably restore their actual control through the election process.
As for the comment on controlling the government. I'm not really sure what you mean. Can you give me an example of where the government is not threatened by the people because they control it? Can you give me an example of the opposite?
Ideally, under our Constitution, the people can control their government through the political process of electing local, state, and federal representatives and executives, and in some cases, judges. If that is in question, the next question is how the people can regain control generally. This country was established by people who used their guns to eject the representatives of the English Crown. The right to keep and bear arms is the right to eject the representatives of any usurpers who might, contary to the interests and will of the people, establish themselves in governing power over them.
obviously you did miss my point as restated above. Arguably, if a dictator like Hitler, or Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or any of a hundred lesser known examples in modern times, gained power in this country, and had a loyal military establishment backing him, would be examples where the general population indeed had no control of their government. They complied in fear, and tried to appear loyal or at least not draw attention while going about the business of survival. These are in some sense, the opposite of a constitutional republic.
I would include modern socialist states where while the people do vote and support a government, there is a real clique of more important decision-makers who do their work out of the public eye. And that is where we are at now, though if the people became aware of the fact and could be aroused to a coherent line of action, the people in this country could arguably restore their actual control through the election process.
third response to Siromars above questions:
well, I can understand the difficulty of coming out from the general public perceptions that have prevailed in the past hundred years in this country, under the onslaught of determined progressives with certain tenets of political thought that have suffused our educational institutions and our social media, and our political arena. The kind of Americans that sought relief from the British overlords in the war for independence were indeed quite different from out current generation. However, we have been brought back to the same kind of government we once rebelled against because it grew arrogant and abusive of the people, and a few people are beginning to discuss the principles which can better re-direct our course.
In my view, it is the excesses of power and control of the top-down variety which warrant renewing this discussion.
If there are problems unique to our time. . . let us say our environment is in fact threatened by unchecked discharges of pollution, for example, it is entirely in the power of the people to preserve their essential environment and health from such gross abuses. The question is in these types of issues, how to effect actual solutions without doing it some way that feeds the cartelists who are in fact our moneyed hijackers of our political government.
well, I can understand the difficulty of coming out from the general public perceptions that have prevailed in the past hundred years in this country, under the onslaught of determined progressives with certain tenets of political thought that have suffused our educational institutions and our social media, and our political arena. The kind of Americans that sought relief from the British overlords in the war for independence were indeed quite different from out current generation. However, we have been brought back to the same kind of government we once rebelled against because it grew arrogant and abusive of the people, and a few people are beginning to discuss the principles which can better re-direct our course.
In my view, it is the excesses of power and control of the top-down variety which warrant renewing this discussion.
If there are problems unique to our time. . . let us say our environment is in fact threatened by unchecked discharges of pollution, for example, it is entirely in the power of the people to preserve their essential environment and health from such gross abuses. The question is in these types of issues, how to effect actual solutions without doing it some way that feeds the cartelists who are in fact our moneyed hijackers of our political government.
This is the one issue where I break away from my leftist brethren (though I'm more of a hybrid leftist/libertarian). Mostly because I see the parallels between trying to ban guns and the drug war.
The irony being that the right loved the drug war and know their tactics are being used on them for the upcoming gun war. The anti-gunners will exploit every tragedy that involves guns (ala Len Bias and the insane sentencing guildlines they got for crack cocaine after his death), say it's all for the children, and all for public safety.
Even though I'm against it the irony amuses me to no end.
The irony being that the right loved the drug war and know their tactics are being used on them for the upcoming gun war. The anti-gunners will exploit every tragedy that involves guns (ala Len Bias and the insane sentencing guildlines they got for crack cocaine after his death), say it's all for the children, and all for public safety.
Even though I'm against it the irony amuses me to no end.
Returning to the specific issues raised in the article written by Mike Lee. Well, it's of no consequence to my debate here whether or not he's another demagogue, just rushing to claim the "high ground" he thinks the people want their representative to take, as far as the principles involved may go. I'm sure there are plenty of politicians with bad financial judgment, and an inclination towards personal extravagance who will do that. Well, probably we have them on every political ticket.
In a modern age, what actual means do we want to have, if our government is hijacked by any kind of totalitarian, or in any significantly intolerable way has destroyed our basic human rights?
Do we want to depend on a standing army, navy, and air force that is administratively defined as being subject to the "Commander in Chief" who is the very same identical person who has actual control of the State?? Armies, by their nature, do what they're told. Tienamen Square for example. But maybe not always. . .. One recent example where a national army deferred to the will of the people and helped depose a dictator is the case of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. I actually lived there then. I have lived under martial law, where there was no freedom of speech. I daily crossed a river. On one side it was Marcos' army. On the other side, there were actual communist rebels riding around in jeeps, three or four men hanging out all armed with AK-47s. On one day, I was invited to the home of their leader and fed a nice meal. On the next day I went to the Marcos army compound and talked to the general. I don't know why either of them decided not to kill me. hmmm..... I was an American, and a missionary. All I wanted was to pass out some copies of the Book of Mormon.
I don't think we actually have to have guns to keep our freedom. But I don't think we need more gun laws exactly. If we got ourselves out of the UN, or if we got the UN to ratify an actual Bill of Rights like our own, which is of the form our is in reserving to the nations, states, and people all powers not specifically delegated to the UN, and if we had elected direct representatives forming its legislative and standing committee bodies writing only appropriate laws within the specified powers. . . maybe. But for me the whole problem, and my whole reason for categorically rejecting further gun regulations, is the UN stated objective of totally removing private arms from all private citizens.
IN this specific view, I agree with Mike Lee in that this is not about our guns, it's about our right to have them. And use them.
Now, if anyone commits murder or mass shootings, that is so offensive I think we make an example of them in a public trial, and have appropriate graded classes of offenses and actually enforce those penalties. But prior restraints???? Nothing better than concealed carry. And while I support open-carry without a permit, let's say why not have a serious training program. The government can give the training, and issue a certificate of training. . . . maybe even do some serious evaluation of the people trained...... and keep a roster. . . . called "The State Militia", with a phone tree call out system or something. Give these guys/gals a wallet card with photo id, and ask them to be prepared when going about in public to put an end to any incident of shooters-gone-amok.
I think this would fill our public places with qualified first-responders who could really serve the public need. The whole idea of doing some high-profile rampage would begin to look just stupid, even to actually crazy people. But even more important, it would make rogue government false-flag/psy-op events staged to create a public howl for "protection" through more gun laws just that much more likely to be ineffectual.
It's not "Please, don't" when jackbooted thugs come to do us harm, it's "Hell NO!!!!" It doesn't really matter if those thugs are communist insurgents funded, supplied, and armed by agent-provocateurs form timbuktu, or our own military doing a coup de etat.
It's not going to work.
In a modern age, what actual means do we want to have, if our government is hijacked by any kind of totalitarian, or in any significantly intolerable way has destroyed our basic human rights?
Do we want to depend on a standing army, navy, and air force that is administratively defined as being subject to the "Commander in Chief" who is the very same identical person who has actual control of the State?? Armies, by their nature, do what they're told. Tienamen Square for example. But maybe not always. . .. One recent example where a national army deferred to the will of the people and helped depose a dictator is the case of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. I actually lived there then. I have lived under martial law, where there was no freedom of speech. I daily crossed a river. On one side it was Marcos' army. On the other side, there were actual communist rebels riding around in jeeps, three or four men hanging out all armed with AK-47s. On one day, I was invited to the home of their leader and fed a nice meal. On the next day I went to the Marcos army compound and talked to the general. I don't know why either of them decided not to kill me. hmmm..... I was an American, and a missionary. All I wanted was to pass out some copies of the Book of Mormon.
I don't think we actually have to have guns to keep our freedom. But I don't think we need more gun laws exactly. If we got ourselves out of the UN, or if we got the UN to ratify an actual Bill of Rights like our own, which is of the form our is in reserving to the nations, states, and people all powers not specifically delegated to the UN, and if we had elected direct representatives forming its legislative and standing committee bodies writing only appropriate laws within the specified powers. . . maybe. But for me the whole problem, and my whole reason for categorically rejecting further gun regulations, is the UN stated objective of totally removing private arms from all private citizens.
IN this specific view, I agree with Mike Lee in that this is not about our guns, it's about our right to have them. And use them.
Now, if anyone commits murder or mass shootings, that is so offensive I think we make an example of them in a public trial, and have appropriate graded classes of offenses and actually enforce those penalties. But prior restraints???? Nothing better than concealed carry. And while I support open-carry without a permit, let's say why not have a serious training program. The government can give the training, and issue a certificate of training. . . . maybe even do some serious evaluation of the people trained...... and keep a roster. . . . called "The State Militia", with a phone tree call out system or something. Give these guys/gals a wallet card with photo id, and ask them to be prepared when going about in public to put an end to any incident of shooters-gone-amok.
I think this would fill our public places with qualified first-responders who could really serve the public need. The whole idea of doing some high-profile rampage would begin to look just stupid, even to actually crazy people. But even more important, it would make rogue government false-flag/psy-op events staged to create a public howl for "protection" through more gun laws just that much more likely to be ineffectual.
It's not "Please, don't" when jackbooted thugs come to do us harm, it's "Hell NO!!!!" It doesn't really matter if those thugs are communist insurgents funded, supplied, and armed by agent-provocateurs form timbuktu, or our own military doing a coup de etat.
It's not going to work.
I have to agree with this.
If we do a new constitution, lets have a statement about the government not having the power to regulate personal use of any substance. The Right to Free Chemistry!!!! hmmmm..... there might be a necessity to make laws regulating releases of chemicals into the land, air and water. . . . .. I think the cities and counties do that, OK???
hmmmmm....... trying to bring this wild freedom idea back to something that sounds responsible. . . . .
At the very least, we need the right to possess naturally-occurring substances, and maybe some kind of chemical-control regulations including a license for dealing them or manufacturing them. Somehow, in this sphere I as a chemist who knows quite a bit about the effects of chemicals and how people are trashy/sloppy/ignorant in handling them, sorta have the feeling regulation is not such a bad thing. . . .
yep. It's only the communist/progressive/UN push for an ideological State inherently authoritarian and totalitarian and fascist that has me on the side of "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".
For Siromar, and many others. . . . here is a link I have read:
https://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html
Again, this is a plan, now over fifty years old and progressing, to create an unchallenged military state run by unelected officials selected by elites. . . . not one elected office in the whole UN, and no "rights" not specifically granted by and actually upheld by said totalitarian state.
Again, this thread in not about the the weapons, but about people having inviolable human rights that they can actually defend by whatever means necessary.
True peace can only come from people who find their governments tolerable,and from people who will uphold the rights of others. This is the true challenge. Limit the power of governments, not the rights of people.
https://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html
Again, this is a plan, now over fifty years old and progressing, to create an unchallenged military state run by unelected officials selected by elites. . . . not one elected office in the whole UN, and no "rights" not specifically granted by and actually upheld by said totalitarian state.
Again, this thread in not about the the weapons, but about people having inviolable human rights that they can actually defend by whatever means necessary.
True peace can only come from people who find their governments tolerable,and from people who will uphold the rights of others. This is the true challenge. Limit the power of governments, not the rights of people.
The people who handle guns have not been all that impressive with their handling of them as well, especially the ones who shoot up schools and leave all sorts of dead children behind. Hence the people for gun control sorta have the feeling that regulation is not such a bad thing.
And the beauty of a war on guns if it's launched is that the Constitution doesn't matter. The drug war pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the 4th Amendment. Those wacky courts can rule however they want!
well, you may want to wander over to a pretty solid left-leaning political movement like the LaRouche movement. I dawdle around there a lot, and follow their rhetoric with interest, and so do a whole lot of conservatives, actually.
https://larouchepac.com/
they have some books on the drug traffickers in this country and around the world, going back to the days when George Bushes progenitors had interests in the opium trade in China, alongside their British peers. Clear down to the present, our major banking cartels are creatively involved in laundering the drug cartel loot, and in my opinion the DEA is corrupt and acts effectively as the "enforcer" for the drug cartel racket. The people they catch are mostly the upstart competitors trying to get into the racket somehow.
The whole "war on drugs" has functioned that way, imo. We throw millions of petty dealers and users in the hoosegaugh for an ounce or two of MJ, and never effectively curtail the suppliers who move planeloads and truckloads. And we lost a lot of our basic human rights in certain respects under this false flag "war".
@Babe,
I obviously misjudged your position somewhat. But I am still confused by your insistence on describing categories like "government", "people", "right", and so on, as if they're unchanging entities with set meaning. That's not the case. To say that we need to find a way to keep the government in check while empowering the people shows the bias in your argument. Governments are made up by people. And they are created for a certain purpose.
Take your pollution example. You say it is up to the people to solve such a problem. But as long as those people aren't government. Well, a local government is acceptable, but as long as it's not a large government...
It's just arbitrary. The government regulating pollution is precisely the same as "people taking care of a problem". There is no difference. It is about the best, most efficient way, of dealing with a problem. Additionally, nobody has any inherent rights. Regardless of what any document says. Rights are self-assigned by men, and like governments, they serve a purpose. If free speech proves beneficial (if we decide that we care about benefiting ourselves), then it must be protected as a right. If guns prove to be an effective deterrent for crime, or if it can be argued that their social utility outweighs the harm they cause, then the possession of guns can be a right.
In other words, nobody has the right to pollute in virtue of their existence. Rights are given, not just taken away. Since the modern world is complex, and its problems are sizable, I doubt the ability of small government to deal with them. What are we to do if an asteroid is on a collision course with the planet? We would clearly need a large organizing body to deal with it in the best possible way. The same applies to global problems like the green house effect.
Don't get me wrong. Maybe big governments can't work efficiently. Perhaps a better solution would be small local governments, with a mechanism for cooperation in face of larger problems. I have no problem with that. I simply want the best possible life for everyone. I think others should want the same if this is to be accomplished. And I'm willing to accept whatever system that helps us reach that goal.
I obviously misjudged your position somewhat. But I am still confused by your insistence on describing categories like "government", "people", "right", and so on, as if they're unchanging entities with set meaning. That's not the case. To say that we need to find a way to keep the government in check while empowering the people shows the bias in your argument. Governments are made up by people. And they are created for a certain purpose.
Take your pollution example. You say it is up to the people to solve such a problem. But as long as those people aren't government. Well, a local government is acceptable, but as long as it's not a large government...
It's just arbitrary. The government regulating pollution is precisely the same as "people taking care of a problem". There is no difference. It is about the best, most efficient way, of dealing with a problem. Additionally, nobody has any inherent rights. Regardless of what any document says. Rights are self-assigned by men, and like governments, they serve a purpose. If free speech proves beneficial (if we decide that we care about benefiting ourselves), then it must be protected as a right. If guns prove to be an effective deterrent for crime, or if it can be argued that their social utility outweighs the harm they cause, then the possession of guns can be a right.
In other words, nobody has the right to pollute in virtue of their existence. Rights are given, not just taken away. Since the modern world is complex, and its problems are sizable, I doubt the ability of small government to deal with them. What are we to do if an asteroid is on a collision course with the planet? We would clearly need a large organizing body to deal with it in the best possible way. The same applies to global problems like the green house effect.
Don't get me wrong. Maybe big governments can't work efficiently. Perhaps a better solution would be small local governments, with a mechanism for cooperation in face of larger problems. I have no problem with that. I simply want the best possible life for everyone. I think others should want the same if this is to be accomplished. And I'm willing to accept whatever system that helps us reach that goal.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
How about taxation without representation?
Corporations are taxed up the ying yang and they ain't supposed to have any influence toward those tax policies?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Pathetic exploitation, and bad logic.
All actual evidence suggests that concealed carry laws have been the only policies to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings. Limits on magazine capacity, background checks, and assault weapon bans accomplish nothing.
FYI: There is a reason the guy in Colorado went to a stupid liberal "gun free zone" theater to shoot up people, not the theater closest to his home.
Pathetic exploitation, and bad logic.
All actual evidence suggests that concealed carry laws have been the only policies to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings. Limits on magazine capacity, background checks, and assault weapon bans accomplish nothing.
FYI: There is a reason the guy in Colorado went to a stupid liberal "gun free zone" theater to shoot up people, not the theater closest to his home.
There's a closer theater to his house? Not really. He lived near University Hospital and at best Harkins near old Stapleton is a wash in terms of distance from the Aurora theater (which is a whopping mile from my house). Not to mention the odds of someone actually carrying at Harkins would have been pretty unlikely. Unless you mean the Latino theater on 6th and Peoria, which not a great theater that many people go to.
That's hardly the point though. The point is that there are thousands of instances where you can point to people with guns who have gone out and killed people with them. There's literally tons of ammo (no pun intended) for the gun grabbers to work with, and the evidence they use (dead children) has about the most emotional impact you can have.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I see now that you were reacting to babe's statement about drug regulation. I should have known.
Yes, and the gun grabbers are going to take the prohibitionists arguments and run with them. And they will work like a charm.