#22: Our Parties & Our Guns
THREAD BEGAN: December 2nd, 2004
Well 50+ posts in 4 days...not bad.
But now it is time to put together a coherent thread.
---The Topics---
FROM THE LEFT:
After this devastating election, it is time for us to stop pouting and start talking about what changes need to be made within The Democratic Party. What kind of leadership changes do we need to make, what adjustments need to be made to the platform or the message or the delivery?
(Feel free to talk about 3rd party alternatives as well.)
FROM THE RIGHT:
To continue to talk about the 2nd Amendment we need a strong pro-gun voice. Explain your case.
(Also feel free to address changes that you feel need to be made within The Republican Party.)
ALSO:
The Left should address Pete’s concerns about the Oil for Food Scandal and the relevance of the UN.
The Right should address Chuck’s concerns about Bush’s non-implementation of the 9-11 recommendations.
More self-reflection, less finger-pointing. Good luck. -Bob
posted by Robert @ 10:32 AM
45 comments
45 Comments:
From what I have seen, the Democrats are not doing what they need to to get back power. They will have to hope the Republicans over extened their power and people get mad. The Dems are moving farther to the left. In a country where the House is Republican, the Senate is Republican, the local statehouses are Republican, there are more Republican Governors, and Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections - so would this be the right move?
I dont think so. But keep doing it.
I hate third parties.
The 2nd Amendment says:
“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.”
Now I think that there are two points to consider about the wording of this Amendment:
(1) What did the word ‘Arms’ mean to our forefathers?
(2) Is a militia (an army composed of ordinary, armed citizens rather than professional soldiers) really necessary to secure our free state?
In regards to the first, obviously our forefathers were talking about the definition of an Arm in the late 1780’s: Muskets and Rifles. Now I am not pretending to be an arms historian but this was nearly half a decade before Samuel Colt invented the first revolver - named after its revolving cylinder (1836).
Up until this when you went on a killing spree, you needed to reload each shot. What a drag! (A nut with a musket can’t do so much damage down at the Post Office.) Automatic and semi-automatic guns are 100 times more deadly and I believe they have exceeded what our forefathers had invisioned.
Second, does anyone at this site think that a militia is necessary to uphold our great democracy? You know those hicks who live in the hills and are stocking up for the great war with the government? They are crazy. So, in my eyes the reasoning given to justify the amendment is clearly out-dated.
Despite both of these points I strongly defend the 2nd Amendment. Sound ridiculous? Here is why…
Even though the amendment was written for other reasons, I think that today it plays an important role in personal protection.
Let me use Brazil as an example.
In the past, any Brazilian could own a firearm (if they could first pass a rigorous background check). Now no one can carry a firearm outside of law officials.
I don’t know if you see this stuff on the news, but Rio is out of control. It is possibly one of the most beautiful city in the world and the international tourism has dropped off cause the cops and drug lords are having an on-and-off full scale war in the streets.
When a gun ban is enacted, the price for guns on the black market sky-rockets, those Al Capone-type drug lords get more powerful and the guns don’t disappear. Instead you have upstanding citizens who have been told that despite living in a gang-ridden neighborhood, they are not allowed to defend themselves.
I know a group of kids here that live in a Brazilian Fraternity. One night all of them but one went out to the bars. That night some punks broke into the house and started stealing a motorcycle. The lone housemate just watched from his bedroom.
He later told me, if he had called the cops or done anything, some months later they would’ve come back and beat the shit out of / killed him. Unfortunately for him, here in Brazil, he isn’t allowed to keep a gun to protect himself and his home…even when someone kicks in the door and robs him right in front of his own eyes!
The second reason (and most important) is that I really feel strongly about the concept of Rule-of-Law. By that I mean, follow the Constitution like a Bible, if you don’t like something, then change it. So as long as the 2nd Amendment stands, I will support it. Plain and simple.
Bob I agree with your last statement - I do support the 2nd Amendment as well, even though I am against guns. The law is the law. I am against some laws, as we all are, but i respect them because they are the rules. If we just diregard the 2nd Amendment, what would be next?
Bob, your initial analysis was amazing. I love it. That is a completely perfect argument that could win in the Supreme Court and overturn our modern gun laws.
Thank you for the real concept of a militia. I had never considered the law in that regard.
Then I lose some enthusiasm after your acceptance of the laws. While I understand your point, Brown v. Board of Education would have favored segregation because of deference to the law. We would have no labor law. Etc.
colors would be nice
Well first off, all apologies for any blue balls that I may have given. Second, no one missed the colors more than me. Don’t worry I have an idea.
One last word to clarify my 2nd Amendment stance:
In my eyes, there are some clear gun categories.
(1) Those for personal protection…EX: handguns
(2) Those for sporting…EX: rifles
(3) Those for military use / use in the matrix / use by the Men-in-Black / use for robbing a really well protected bank etc…EX: AK47
When I argue that I support the 2nd Amendment…this DOES NOT mean that I support private ownership of ALL these types of guns. As I said, the first two were what our forefathers envisioned as ‘arms.’ The third type should NOT be protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Second, some people talk about getting rid of all guns in the private sector. I just think this is really idealistic. The reason that I gave the Brazil example, was to show a real example of a country where a private gun ban did little or nothing to eliminate gun crime…(and in fact some people argue that it even increased crime in general, now that the criminals know that they can rob your house without the risk of getting shot in the process.)
America is saturated with firearms. If we passed a private-ownership gun ban, the guns wouldn’t disappear. Upstanding citizens would turn them in and ‘the bad guys’ wouldn’t. (So good luck running your 7-11 in the ghetto, now that every thug on the block knows that the shotgun under the counter has been replaced with a baseball bat.)
Nothing pissed me off more in these last 2 years (besides the election) than when Congress signed off on that ‘Authority to use force in Iraq’ resolution. In my eyes, the constitution is very clear. ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. (Without arguing about semantics, I believe that our forefathers would have considered sending 135,000 troops to overthrown a foreign government, a war.) And when the Congress lent this power to Bush it pissed me off to no end…cause it was a clear disregard for the checks and balances written into our Constitution.
What’s the point?
The point is that we can never start selectively ignoring parts of the Constitution because it is easier, more convenient and quicker than working to change them. We claim to represent freedom and democracy in the world…today we are even claiming to be the great spreaders of this form of government. So it is crucial that we stick to our own principles…everyone is watching (whether we know it or not)
So Chuck + John, if you want to argue that semi-automatic weapons shouldn’t be protected by the 2nd Amendment…fine. I agree. If you want to push for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the 2nd Amendment…probably I wouldn’t join the cause, although I would support your right to do so. But I will never support any cowboy lawmakers / politicians / judges who disregard the parts of the Constitution that they don’t like.
Ben, you seemed to agree with me about the Constitutional issue, saying that ‘the law is the law.’ And, 'If we just disregard the 2nd Amendment, what would be next?' What are your thoughts about that ‘Authorization to use force’ resolution that Bush got by Congress. Do you think that this was Constitutional…the Legislative Branch voting to hand-over specific powers/responsibilities to the Executive Branch?
Bob, well put. I cannot disagree all that much. I would just argue for very restrictive standards on guns needed for 'protection.' I still think its silly when people think a gun in their suburban homes protects themselves, but I guess we cannot discriminate against the suburbs (no matter how great it would be).
I agree that the war authority did violate the constitution. It is important for the future for the Court to step in and make that clear. However, its unlikely.
What is the controversey? Isnt Congress supposed to authorize war (I am not sure exactly on this one). I thought they were supposed to give the President power - which they did. As Kerry said many many many times he only voted for the authority to go to war - not for the war when he was triyng to explain away his vote.
I am not exactly sure about this
Congress must vote for war, not just a general authority. There should have been an up and down vote in February or March on whether we should ivade. (very generic answer). Bush was granted the most broad, unspecific authority ever.
I am sure Bob has a better explanation.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry, not sure why that previous thing posted 3 times
I just wanted to comment on the Oil for Food. In my initial findings, it seems like there is blame to go all around. The US was on the Security Counsel who had oversight for the program. Primarily US forces had the oversight of the borders where the shipping was occurring. And Sadaam was skimming off the top for years, stealing the money. Foreign companies were profiting….many likely linked to US companies. There is no sign of direct profits to French/German governments, from what I see. Additionally, it seems that oil companies were in on this. Who? Time will tell.
Then this Norm Coleman is coming in w/ wild claims. One fun claim is that Sadaam used this money to build up his military....really? he must of only stolen $20 dollars, not $20 billion dollars. By the way, he seems to be making up the $20 billion claim, because the CIA estimates more like $10 billion.
Either way, time is going to unfold more.
And there still weren’t WMD in Iraq.
Ben, the controversy is this:
The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to declare war. I believe that this means that it is Congress’s job/responsibility to consider the case for war and make the final call. Yes or No.
Now that resolution was not a vote on whether on not we should invade Iraq. It was a resolution on whether Congress should lend this power to the Executive Branch indefinitely. Basically it was like saying, ‘We the Congress are ignoring the checks-and-balances written into the Constitution and giving one man the awesome responsibility of weighing the facts and making the final call.’ This is not in the President’s Constitutional job description.
Yes, the Congress has the power to declare war, but they do not have the power to ceded or lend or give that power to me, you, the president or anyone else. It is their entrusted duty under the constitution to make the final call on war.
This is why I was pissed. Our Constitution is incredibly brief and concise and clear. How is it so often misinterpreted and overlooked? I think that nothing is more dangerous than straying from it. We all need to study the Constitution. It should be the Bible of both political parties.
Chuck
semes to me you are already trying to undercut Coleman in an attempt to boost frankens wild dreams he is going to beat Coleman in Minnesota in 2008 for Senate. Norm Coleman is going to be star and he isnt going to be derailed by Al Franken
Well, I adjusted the Blog clock to Eastern Standard Time. I am currently shopping around on other Blogs for cute little things to copy to our Blog...I have my eye on a multi-time-zone clock to give the Blog a real international feel. God, I love the internet.
Franken 08 seems to be fading. But if the Dems are really serious about turning it around, they will find someone big and knock off Coleman. That and he 06 races where dems clearly control the state, but there is a GOP Senate seat. They must target those seats and win them.
The thing is, despite the overall failure of this years senate seats, the democrats did an amazing job of nearly winning senate seats several hugely republican states. The test will be what they do in 2 years.
Ben, My Hopes (maybe dreams) in 2006:
Pick up Senate Seats in:
Nevada (possible)
Missouri (unlikely)
Pennsylvania (if there is a god)
Rhode Island (if the current GOP loses in primary)
Tennessee (possible. Ford?)
Virginia (possible. allen may not run, or face warner)
Arizona or Ohio (doubtful)
Seems doubtful that this would all happen, plus keep our seats that are up. But it would give us the Senate back. Odds are, though, a success would be to not lose more ground.
If Bush doesnt figure out how to quit producing disappointing job numbers, and chaos parades on in his war....all republicans may be held responsible
Before we change the subject...
I asked the DEMs, "What changes does the party need to make for better results in 2008." We had some half-baked ideas like "less Federalism" and some obvious ones like "win more senate seats" (Of course the party needs to win more.)
My question was about the general direction of the party. I mean, the DEMs were up against historically dreadful competition (a president with an approval rating below 50%) and they still couldn't win...Obviously, some major changes need to be made.
Do we have no concrete suggestions?
(Philosophical or Strategic or Tactical or Operational)
I can preface everything I am about to say, by noting that there are much larger problems then a party. I know I am often mocked for my claims about corporate media (by the way, where is Jay? exams?), but i think there are major fundamental problems that kill real discourse.
Briefly (and generically), here are the Changes I would like to see in our system:
1. Get rid of the electoral college.
2. Computer generated districts (eliminate gerrymandering)
3. Cut way back on the rules for media consolidation.
4. You take money, a gift, or a lunch you get removed from office. (outlaw lobbyists, etc)
I have more. But just one of these would have a huge impact, which would create greater involvement in the process.
All of these suggestions would generate huge masses of people that would feel their voice and vote matters a lot more.
CHANGES FOR DEMS:
STAY CALM: We barely lost. Yes, as ben points out, we have lost our grip on everything, but just barely, and just recently. We can come back by just nudging a few things in slight directions.
MORALS: The biggest thing the dems need to do is take on this 'morals' stuff. Its very broad and generic topic, but its obviously the difference. And its not because they are more moral. They just dominate the discussion.
Here are some of my ideas:
- QUIT RUNNING: We need to push OUR morals. (poverty, human/civil rights, trade, etc). This doesnt mean that we have to even put forth a grand plan, we just need to yell alot about how nice we are. Seriously, that's all the republcans do. have they changed abortion or stopped gay marriage? no they just yell about how holy they are for not liking it. well, its easy and we should try it.
We are on the higher moral ground. We need to explain that to people. And not in such a condesending way (act like bill clinton, instead of hillary clinton)
- HIDE: Avoid these wedge issues. (again, just like bush). I am not a huge abortion guy. Neither are union guys or other working class men. I mean, we support it, but its not what makes us tick. We need to let others rally those causes. Its like how Rev. Falwell gay bashes and yell at single moms. Bush thinks that, too, but you dont here him out there talking that smack. When people dont like the gay rights movement or late term abortion, we need a voice from somewhere....just not the party leader.
This hurts to say, but its realistic for the democrats success. And for those that don't like it, there is always a third party. 3rd parties dont win, but they move agendas. (EX: fear of nader has moved the democrats left)
I think we are off to a good start by having a pro-life democrat leading the senate.
- THING BIG: It would be nice if they championed 1 or 2 of those large-scale issues I had mentioned. Explain to the masses how they are being disenfranchised. its hard, but we are the party of thinking americans. Imagine if all the dems said "we are willing to submit to computer generated districts," knowing that many would lose their jobs. But what do they have to lose? At this pace, they will all lose their seats anyways. Plus, the GOP would have to explain why this is a bad idea.
I have more, but i'll stop, because no one is going to read all this. Good topic.
John,
Here is how you merge the party (rich and working class). Just like the republicans merged.
You say you are going to help the working class, but you don't. You tell them you are trying but the obstructionists republicans block everything.
Then you allow trade agreements to run wild, and the rich to get rich.
Then you throw a bone every once and a while (increase education spending) and you are a dynasty.
It works. For the politicians. Not for the country, though.
this blog is just becoming a liberal love fest
Well, maybe if anyone on your side had an answer to bob's q on the war authority, we could debate. especially when bob specifically asked you to debate.
also, rally your proponents. (i.e., viscione, bob a, file, nugent, etc). you have similar amount of 'minutemen', but fail to rally support. could it be cause we lost, or because we know we fight the good fight?
rally your troops. i want to hear your people. bring on steve and craig, or similar GOPers....or could it be that those people voted w/ basis or true concern.
this is my thing, we are on the side of passion and concern. the other side (republican) is on the side of 'well we won more tax cuts, so nothing matters'.
PROVE ME WRONG. RALLY YOUR TROOPS. I dont care. bring adults. bring your parents. but lets have some discourse.
But what does the dark side have to offer?
what am i supposed to prove - i dont really have anything to prove. i am content with how things turned out and i dont need to go recruit some people to defend me on a board.
I am not going to beg anyone to help me out - I dont need it or want it. i also dont think our party is "high and mighty" like the democrats here are sounding like - just absolute disbelief that us commoners and poor southerners wouldnt vote for their liberal agenda. its going to be tough to not be a permanent minority party when you just got thumped by 3.5 million votes in an election you had no business losing and still dont get it.
I was just fired up from meeting the japanese NBA player last night when I made my post.
You are right, that you have nothing to defend or do. You should be happy. I do think, though, that these overbroad comments about us not getting it are wrong. I think we do have a grasp on some of these problems, but just don't have a voice yet. That will come, hopefully sooner then later. Its only been 1 month.
I think the point I was trying to make (which i can clear up w/out alcohol in my system) is that the lack of interest by those 'loyal' Bush supporters proves one of my feelings about the dominate party.....they control because the apathetic support them based on silly impressions and fears.
it would have been tough for me to contain myself if I had met the Japanese NBA player. I think I would have gone crazy
Yuta Tabuse. Featured last month on the Keeler Report.
BEN, I couldn't agree more. This Blog IS becoming a liberal love fest. Rest assured...I don't want that anymore than you do. I think I took the most conservative stance on guns this thread...that’s not a good sign.
I don't know what to do about it though. No matter what I try to do the Liberals just seem to post more and join more. Jay and Maney said that they wanted to continue the Blog, but haven't posted yet. Nugent, Abramovich and Pete never even sent a final post! Dan has popped up occasionally at best.
Here is the bottom line:
After the election, I had my doubts about this type of all-politics, all-the-time Blog surviving. If this Blog continues to be a 'liberal love fest' it will die off in no time. We need more serious fresh REP blood or we need to expand the discussion to Politics+gossip+sports+whatever.
So Libs and Ben, look through your address book one more time and dig up one or two Conservatives if you can. I honest to God, don’t know any others (did anyone ever get a hold of Huffman?)
If we can't find any, I may search for a random Republican Blog Forum and try to pick a big fight. But I'd much prefer to keep it in the family.
Well, I was curious on anyones opinion. I have been giving this a lot of thought, and cannot form a final opinion. But part of me really thinks these other EU nations should jump into Iraq thru February. I know its not in their immediate interest, but these elections are going to take place in January (because Bush is so blindly stubborn, among other reasons).
My fear is that they have elections, and they are widely viewed as a sham. Then the country really goes nuts. Bush wouldnt care, he would just say its all good, and start pulling troops. This will in the long run be the end of civilization.
There must be a half way legit election. As of now, there is no chance. Its over for these countries to make us look bad. We look bad (and based on the election, we dont care). So these nations should in the interest of the entire middle east, join in.....just for 2 months.
Not that my posting this will lead to nations signing up. I just think there should be renewed pleas to get support for a few months. If Bush pushed hard, and maybe even went over there w/ Kerry. I mean, its worth a shot.
Chuck
I agree with the premsis of your idea. The elections are crucial - if they are not accepted by most Iraqis as legitmate, the country could plunge into chaos (some would argue that is the current situation). If they go poorly, then we are in serious danger there. I do agree that after elections - no matter what- we will start our gradual pullout, which makes them even more important.
If only they could go as well as Afghanistan - but that is highly unlikely. But no one thought that could be pulled off.
As far as Bush going there w/Kerry - I actually like the idea - though I doubt highly either one would go for it. It would be a good symbolic move.
Well Dan, I too have a band suggestion. I know what you are thinking...we don't listen to Tree-hugging Goth, Bob. Well, it isn't even remotely sinister or world-peace oriented. The band is called "THE POSTAL SERVICE" But I must warn you...they are Canadian! Anyhow check it out.
So Patty will be going back to Ohio soon and my cable T.V. just got cut-off. What does this mean? I will be hanging onto the internet/Blog for my daily fix of English and human interaction.
But first Patty and I are off for one last trip to RIO DE JANEIRO. So I'll be back to start a new thread next week. See you all then.
Canada is so great. Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are better then just about every city. Just too cold.
If I were one of the "Hollywood Elite" and had money, I would clearly move to Canada for half the year and Mexico half the year....in protest of our embarrassing reelecion of Dubya
i have been playing alot of van halen lately
Well, John thanks for asking.
Kind of a scary month. I went and did some interviews last month (in Portuguese) and now I am waiting on the results. I am currently unemployed, broke and borderline homeless...but I'm heading to the beach this week to drink my worries away with Patty. Talk to you guys next week.
Have you guys heard of this new band....i don't know, they might only be in New York City.....Smashmouth
Chris Nugent, Freshman at Columbia
fuinniest post I have read in a while
I have to say Bush looks good today for that intel bill passing.
I do find it interesting that the guys that voted against it, say it didnt address illegal immigrants licenses properly. Are these guys aware that the 9/11 commission didnt make specfic recommendations.
Ben, it seems unfair that JD Hayworth is my Rep. That would be like you have Kucinich. I need to move.
yeah i live in a dem district here and at home...awful. perhaps switching
Your democrat is probably so moderate. Hayworth is such a jerk off. I dont know much about him, but he was one of the guys that tried to hold up the intel bill. and i've heard bad things. and he just seems really sleazy.
but the girl from the gas station is one of his constituents.
Zoooooos.
I think you have an interesting idea. I dont really think its needed, though. I mean, these guys arent going to learn a bunch about their practical situations from observing our zillions of different branches, which wouldnt apply there (i.e., i dont think the iraqi FDA is that important at this point). They just need to know how to not kill eachother and how to deposit checks to from the US to build their schools. additionally, i dont think a government that leaks CIA operatives and promotes those in the chain of command for mass torture, etc.
Most importantly, though, is that the Iraqi's have to want it. If they want their own government, then they will be passionate enough and form whatever government is best for them. And right now, I am a bit sick of hearing about the 'silent' iraqi's that want change, but are afraid to do anything to help stablalize their nation. That hardly sounds like the glorious struggle for freedom and independence that our nation fought for. These Iraqi's need to step up.
c'saw - 100% chance the girl at the gas station voted Hayworth though. she was clearly republican
I've been waiting to jump in, but I know as soon as I do Bob will start a new thread and then I wasted my time.
Chief, get Congeni to jump in. He claims to discuss things w/ you. We need some more of his side/nonsense
Congeni will be here soon I'm sure. I've asked him to jump in on The Chief Source, but he wants to bill me hourly for his time.
Post a Comment
<< Home