Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"..an Armed Citizenry is Not the Basis for our Freedoms. ....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:44 PM
Original message
"..an Armed Citizenry is Not the Basis for our Freedoms. ....
.... Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.

On the contrary, violence and the threat of violence have always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons. But our country has a tortured history on these questions, and we need to be honest about it. Those with the guns should know what memories they are stirring.

And will someone please tell the armed demonstrators how foolish and lawless they make our country look in the eyes of so much of the world? Are we not the country that urges other nations to see the merits of the ballot over the bullet?

All this is taking place as the country debates the president's health care proposal. There is much that is disturbing in that discussion. Shouting down speakers is never a good thing, and many lies are being told about the contents of the health care bills. The lies should be confronted, but freedom involves a lot of commotion and an open contest of ideas, even when some of the parties say things that aren't true and act in less than civil ways.

Yet if we can't draw the line at the threat of violence, democracy begins to disintegrate. Power, not reason, becomes the stuff of political life. .........

this entire editorial is VERY good, and can be read in it's entirety here:
The Politics of the Jackboot
E.J.Dionne
8/22/2009
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2009...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. If I remember correctly...
...some of the first gun-control laws in America were passed to keep firearms out of the hands of minorities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pangolin2 Donating Member (560 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. And so were the drug-control laws.
Anyone can read up on Harry Anslinger and the 'marihuana tax act'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
52. Yep. It's been a political leveraging tool all along. another phony "war."
Edited on Mon Aug-24-09 01:11 PM by Echo In Light
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pangolin2 Donating Member (560 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. There seems to be a lot of hysteria over a few incidents that have resulted in zero
acts of violence...not one single person has committed any, or even stood accused of actually threatening anyone or even pointing or brandishing a weapon. An agent provocateur for the other side might very well be pleased at the reaction. Or might have been responsible from the start.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. you seem to have missed the entire point of the article-
:shrug:

And you are mis-using the word hysteria.
Hysteria might be a fitting way to describe the way any dissenting message was so greatly feared by our last administration, that special CAGED zones were set up to 'hold' those of us who sought to exercise our right to simply voice a message- a message directed not designed to incite violence against the administration that was in power, but rather to STOP the violence they were promoting.

Will it take an act of violence in order to realize that Brandishing- (and yes that word DOES fit) a firearm at what is claimed to be a peaceable assembly is not only inappropriate, it is a kind of intimidation which some who are using this tactic, feign innocence of.

Are you seriously suggesting that people on the Left are behind this????
If you are, then you need to either do some re-thinking, or seek some professional help.

I'm not being sarcastic- i mean it.


:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Er... Bill Clinton's administration created the "free speech zones". n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. yes,but were they EVER utilized by him?- except to allow
safe access into clinics because of out of control Anti-Abortion crowds?

Did he demand that protesters holding signs not be alowed on his route? Were people removed from his appearances because of messages on their t-shirts?

Maybe i'm wrong- please educate me if so.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. I don't know who made the decisions, but yes, although certainly not to the degree that
Idiot Frat Boy did. Protesters were caged up well away from both party conventions in both 1992 and 1996. Their use has become more and more common since they were begun, IIRC, in the late 80s. The very idea that we so complacently go along with this outrage demonstrates how far we have fallen.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. the late 80's? can't blame Bill for them then Greyhound-
and that really isn't the heart of what this OP is all about.

It wasn't till GWBush that I was ever NOT allowed to attend a primary event here (NH)- My oldest son, even shook hands with with Barbara Bush,(mrs.h.w.) while carrying a sign saying "read my lip's no more broccoli" ;) he was pretty young,..7? and it was a 'Social Studies Field Trip'. My youngest son shook Pres. O's hand back in Oct. of '07 on the State Capital lawn.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. I always wonder what age people who make this argument are. Violence is as American as apple pie
... as Stokely Carmichael said back in the 1960s.

Americans didn't really like to hear that about ourselves, but we were in the midst of a string of political assassinations that took out the best and brightest of a generation of leaders.

Carrying guns to a town hall meeting says loud and clear that if you can't have your way, you will kill someone. What else do you think it could mean?

Weapons have no place in the public discourse. They are the coward's way of silencing ideas they can't win with words.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Very good editorial. NRA president said "whoever has the guns wins" at a speech to the NRA several
months ago. IMO he was advocating using the gun instead of debate. It's starting to happen now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Wayne LaPierre doesn't speak for me
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I'm glad you say that-
I hope you'll say it to those you know who may quietly be in agreement with LaPierre.

I'm not against gun ownership. I'm against the mis-use of guns. Using a gun to threaten or intimidate others, as in this situation, is mis-use. imo-

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
35. I googled "whoever has the guns wins" with LaPierre and with NRA and nothing popped up

Do you have a link or reference to this speech?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #35
53. The quote is not accurate which maybe explains why you couldn't find it.
Here is the exact quote:

"You know, it's not politically correct, but I don't care if their butts pucker from here to the Potomac. Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."


LaPierre delivered that little piece of wisdom at CPAC this year.

You can watch him here. The relevant quote starts at 8min43sec.

A disgusting individual.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yet if we can't draw the line...
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 03:07 PM by Lagomorph
Yet if we can't draw the line at the threat of violence, democracy begins to disintegrate. Power, not reason, becomes the stuff of political life. .........


Violence and/or a show of force has been an effective protesting tool for ages. It's been used in strikes, anti-war protests, anti-racism and civil rights marches with great effect.

The only reason we're seeing it now is because people have come to realize that it works, after years and years of watching it on TV. Face it, when the shit hits the fan, TV is right there to cover it and interview the noisy ones. They've been doing it all my life.

God help us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. you are twisting this to attempt to fit something that
just doesn't fit.

Where was the violence employed by MLKjr. or any of the civil rights protesters who marched with him? Violence was THERE alright, but it was directed AT those who sought to peacefully stand up to those in control.

A show of force? If you mean to say that the POWER of the collective public is a show of force- then yes, the groups you mention DO represent a force- but the force the hold is in their collective agreement to stand together and make a PUBLIC STATEMENT- not to intimidate or threaten.

"the only reason we're seeing it now is that people have come to realize that it works..."....


Um...HELLO.... what we are seeing now, is not the force of the Power of the People - armed with nothing other than a dedication towards a common goal- not with weapons or threats or intimidation.

Are you too young to have been involved with the anti-war marches and demonstrations that happened during Vietnam? How about the first Gulf War? - or any other cause for which peaceful demonstration has been used and used effectively to bring about change?

The guns ARE new- I've not come up against anything like this in my 50+yrs- of being alive, or in my 35 yrs of publicly standing and marching for what I believe in. But then, i've never marched or gathered with those who saw violence as being able to bring about any lasting meaningful change.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. See Robert F Williams..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

Or Maetwan & War Eagle, WV, or Harlan County, KY

The left has used arms to make their point repeatedly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I'm well aware of those who mixed violence
and threats of violence into their efforts towards change.

MLKjr was under a LOT of pressure to not remain peaceful and non-violent.

The Black Panthers and Malcolm X had come to mind- as did John Brown's attempt to end slavery.

But those tactics aren't representative of the majority. And only ended in violence.

Civil Disobedience is not a new concept.

But it requires a hell of a lot of courage and willingness to suffer for a cause.

peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
32. And you realize
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 10:42 PM by pipoman
"But those tactics aren't representative of the majority."

that it doesn't appear that carrying guns to health care forums are the tactics of the majority either don't you? I want health care reform and I think these gun toting demonstrators are idiots, but hardly the majority or even common.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. I do realize that- but the fact that those who ARE bringing weapons
to "Health Care 'Town Halls" are using a twisted kind of 'patriotism' and claiming all they are doing is exercising their constitutional rights is happening, and is a kind of intimidation. It doesn't matter if they are only a handful- they are there, and they are having an effect.
The editorial speaks to this much better than i ever could.

I think you understand- They ARE in the minority- but they are in an in your face threatening minority.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #37
44. I believe they are having an effect because
so many on our side are allowing them to have an effect. Right here on DU, hardly a day goes by without a new thread quaking on about these tiny handful of disembodied (as in I don't believe they have a common reason for carrying at these rallies) loons. Our side must stay focused and not allow this to get in the way of our objectives. Maybe, otoh, it is time for supporters at these rallies to show up packing? I wonder if that would cause enough law enforcement concern to come up with a creative solution to limit the visibility of this minor contingent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
41. Look at my Avatar.
Edited on Mon Aug-24-09 02:11 AM by Lagomorph
Are you too young to know what that means? I lived through everything you're talking about and there were plenty of bruises for everybody. Civil rights marchers and anti-war protesters would never have gotten anything done with picking a few fights. I watched anti-war protesters start fights with my own eyes. It distracted the police so another group of protesters could accomplish other goals. I thought it was great fun when I was that age.

You go ahead and think what you want, but what you see is not what I see and I've seen it before, many times.





There's your guns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. "..an Armed Citizenry is Not the Basis for our Freedoms. ...."
Bollocks.

Maybe it isn't today but the BASIS of our freedoms was exactly that armed citizens who dared to stand up to what they considered abuses of the Crown.
It wasn't simply a moral consensus that achieved our freedoms (freedoms that we consider Pedestrian today but were down right radical in 18th century).

What a stupid quote to an otherwise decent article.
People shouldn't feel threatened and they shouldn't allow threats to silence discourse however to pretend this country wasn't founded on armed (and illegal under English law) rebellion is kinda foolish.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. NO- take a minute and really think about
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 03:53 PM by Bluerthanblue
the sentence-

IN CONTEXT- I had the very same response as you when I first read it- but when i really stepped back and thought about it, the BASIS- the foundation of this country does NOT lay in the threat of killing anyone who gets in our way- It does NOT rely in the concept that we can become a group of thugs and threaten the government -

A government kept by force- and NOT the consent of the governed isn't America. Or if it is, it isn't the America that so many "patriotic Americans" make it out to be-

If you'll really do some reading about all the ways SHORT of an Armed rebellion that were tried in the years leading up to the Revolution, you might be very surprised. The taking up of arms WAS a 'last resort'- We (and my ancestors are among them) weren't a bunch of thugs trying to manipulate the masses- England was an ocean away, trying to rule a people it was not a 'real' part of. There is a vast difference between the colonial birth of America, and what is being talked about and threatened today.

If there is a comparison to be made, it would be to the American Civil War- and if that war didn't teach us that taking up arms against each other is a futile, self-destructive waste of life and effort... we will probably be condemned to see once again that violence and intimidation are horrible masters, and only give birth to endless generations of violence.

edit for speling ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Shay's rebellion, the Whiskey Insurrection, over 250 documented slave rebellions,
Homestead, Pullman, Ludlow, Haymarket, Triangle, and on and on and on...

These are just off the top of my head. There has been an unceasing use of force by the ruling class to enforce their theft and the only way it has ever been minimized has been through armed resistance. When the workers try to address grievances non-violently they are simply slaughtered.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. the examples you are giving
are all labor union/worker ones aren't they?

Not sure we're really on the same page here.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:29 PM
Original message
How many successes are on that list? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. There has been an escalating
trend of the ruling class in this country of ignoring the wishes of the masses in favor of what the ruling class either believes to be the best for the ignorant or to cater to those who have purchased their allegiance. This escalation we have been seeing from both sides of the political spectrum are predictable. The most glaring example of the complete arrogance of our rulers I can think of is entry into trade agreements against the will of the vast majority on both sides which are largely responsible for our current financial crisis. What good did opposition to these agreements by the masses do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
34. Not true at all.
The basis of our freedoms? English legal tradition and common law. What were the colonists fighting for? What did they want? Recognition of their rights as Englishmen, which they felt were being abused by the King and his representatives. Our freedoms come from Magna Carta, from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, from centuries of English common law tradition, and from the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu (many of whom were expanding upon the extant Anglo-Saxon tradition).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. to those who neg. rec. could you explain why?
The message, or the messenger?

thanks-
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. I will show up with my six-gun strapped to my hip...
I really don't care if you are scared or intimidated. I am exercising my 2nd Amendment right. If it helps to keep our Congress from passing socialistic laws, then so much the better. The key to the whole thing is that they don't know if I am crazy enough to use the gun or not. That's what makes it so effective. We can get what we want without firing a shot. Pretty clever huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. your right supercedes mine then?
You say you don't care if you intimidate or scare people by using your gun, and acknowledge that it is being used for that purpose-

did i miss your sarcasm tag?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Oh, did I need one of those?
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. sorry Kentuck-
sometimes my perspective seems to be at odds with everyones.
So, i have a difficult time being sure-

It isn't you, it's me.
:blush:
glad it was sarcasm.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. If You Have Over 49,000 Posts Here At DU.....
....you know Goddamned well that you need a sarcasm alert for that kind of statement. I hope you acted quickly enough to avoid being nominated to the board of the NRA......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. delete
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 10:31 PM by kentuck
duplicate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. I am probably one of the more heavily armed DUers...
I'm sure there are others that have more weapons but I do have a 12-guage shotgun, with Spanish markings, a 9mm Makorov, a .22 caliber rifle, an old ATF .32 caliber, a 30-30 with a scope, and another old rifle I keep for my brother. But other than that, I am totally unarmed. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #30
43. yeah you're right
you're not the most heavily armed :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. Yeah, I don't have any automatic or semi-automatic weapons...
But I have no problem that some do, so long as they don't take them to show off or whatever at a speech by the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #48
60. What is the makarov?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Biker13 Donating Member (609 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
54. Why?
Why would an inanimate object scare you and why should it be a problem to whoever is carrying said object?

Your fear is your problem.

Biker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. nice try-
the inanimate object doesn't 'scare' me- I learned to shoot when i was seven. I don't own any guns, but my son does, and i understand the concept of responsible gun ownership.

The problem isn't "me" - the problem is identified by the editorial written much better than i ever could- i hope you'll give it a read-


:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Biker13 Donating Member (609 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Oops..
I guess I misread your post. No offense intended.

Biker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. no problem- none
taken.

:hi:
And welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
27. Indeed it is not. The most essential feature of a state
is the capacity to overwhelm private power with those forces under its command.

We are free to the extent that state institutions serve us, not to the extent that we have the weaponry to defend ourselves from it--because we will never have enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. that is a very good point-
and very well said.

thank you.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
36. moral consensus? hardly.

I know some people are hand wringing over a couple of people who open carried outside town hall venues, and are calling for people to not do it, to have law enforcement step in to prevent it, or have legislators create laws to punish it.

But really what would that achieve. If no one opens carries, will that prevent someone from illegally cpncealed carrying in those crowds whether they have malicious intent or not. Will it stop people from wanting to do harm to the President? Will it stop people from plotting to overthrow the goverment? Will it stop someone from being the next Timonthy McVeigh? The next Oswald? Hinckley?

Give me a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. did you take the time to read the editorial?
this isn't about stopping an assassin. This isn't about Hinckley or Oswald, or McVeigh-

That is not what I got out of it anyway- nor was it the reason I felt it to be worthy of reading.

I'm giving you a 'break' by asking you to read Mr. Dionne's words, and think about what he's saying.

thanks

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Yes, I did.
I think the Dionne's point is summed up well with "Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them."

What do you think violence or the threat of violence looks like. Hinckley, Oswald, McVeigh are all relevatively recent examples of that.

So even if we keep the attention seekers from from open carrying, those threats are still there. What is achieved if no one open carries except the illusion that those threats are not there anymore.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
56. are you seriously trying to make this into a 'good thing'?
you've got to be kidding.

If you think people haven't been WELL aware of the threat of violence against our President, before these bozo's started up- you haven't been paying attention. And the lack of " visible guns" doesn't mean NO THREAT- only a fool would think that. The message is being sent- look at this thread for example- There are gun owners who are Dems, who never seriously talked about brandishing firearms at a political gathering until this assholery began. I sincerly believe that it isn't too unlikely that there's going to be an incident where someone gets hurt or killed, if this continues. There are people who lose control pretty easily lately. It's one thing to lose control with your fists it's quite another to do so with a loaded weapons- I hope like hell i'm wrong, that everyone can laugh about this years down the road- nothing would please me more.

peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
40. How'd that 'moral consensus' work out for the protestors in Iran?
The ruling party made some minor concessions, but goes on unimpeded.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. And if they had had guns
the only difference would have been that more of them would have been shot.

The notion of armed citizen protesters bringing down governments is ridiculous. Governments fall in response to mass popular protest when the people tasked with inflicting violence, the military and the police, refuse to obey orders. They are not defeated militarily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
42. Considering that most every other western nation is freer- often MUCH freer than America
and have much tighter gun firearms laws pretty well puts any notion to the contrary right to rest.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. How about some examples of
MUCH freer western countries and what policies make them MUCH freer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Start with incarceration rates- continue on with health care
that doesn't bankrupt millions- then pick 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 05:43 AM
Response to Original message
46. The real basis for our Freedom
is the peaceful change of power. This is the standard used internationally. If the opposition can take power through the ballot box without the force of arms, you have a stable free society. All else is authoritarian, at least at some level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
50. Guns are one way we could protect our freedoms...
...rather than being a mere end in themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
51. Shouting down speaks is un american
They people need to controlled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
57. A free people base their govt on getting an oath from an individual
Not by putting a gun to their head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC