Fred on the US political system - scary stuff!

[Otherguy Overby]

A differing opinion

jdberger:
Corncob, your position on the gun rights thing and my position on the gun rights thing and even Sarah Brady's position on the gun thing are what makes this country so great. The three of us tugging for the soul of America in open debate without fear of violence or imprisonment is primae facie evidence of the bankruptcy of F-f-f-Fred's assertion that we are lemmings.

Sorry grasshopper, but here's where we go opposite ways with our opinions.

The caca that Sarah Brady and her commie cohorts scream should not even be open to debate. (PERIOD) What they all propose/desire/pander for is really unconstitutional, immoral and irrational.

IOW, what part of "infringed" don't you get?
How about prior restraint, taking property without compensation, losing rights without trial, whatever. Their strategies would use those as tools.

If everyone was following our constitution, the Ten Commandments, ethics, morality and/or logical standards we wouldn't even be having this debate.

How about:
Thou shalt not cut the devil Bradys and their minions any slack.

After all nearly everything they say is bearing false witness. They worship false gods and/or philosophies, take your pick...

 

[Don Gwinn]

The caca that Sarah Brady and her commie cohorts scream should not even be open to debate. (PERIOD)

You can either have a constitutional republic OR set your favorite issues aside as too precious to allow any debate.
You can NOT do both.

You must CHOOSE, Spiderman!

 

[jdberger]

Yeah!!

What he said!

 

[ravinraven]

And now I hear that there's...

...a group of meatheads tying to "rehab" the constitution.

What's that all about? OK, OK. I know what it's about.

Anybody know anything about it?

rr

 

[Art Eatman]

jdberger, I think one place where you and I get into disagreement about Fred is that you see his commentary as including "all" where I see him as saying "some" or "most".

I admit my view is colored by my having read all of his columns since "Day One". Possibly I'm more aware of his deliberate hyperbole? Dunno. I also think you've taken some of his irony at face value...

Just to look at one point, about the stability of Democracy as a political system: To support Fred's comment, I look back at the 1797 comment that democracies are wonderful until the public learns it can vote itself "largesse from the public coffers". Is that not what our welfare system has become? And is not voting for largesse into one's own interest group (farmers, e.g.) not part of this? So, can we remain stable as a democratic republic as government grows ever larger and more costly? As our government policies continue to devalue the currency? Quo vadis?

, Art

 

[Otherguy Overby]

You missed my point...

Otherguy:
The caca that Sarah Brady and her commie cohorts scream should not even be open to debate. (PERIOD)

Don Gwinn:
You can either have a constitutional republic OR set your favorite issues aside as too precious to allow any debate.
You can NOT do both.

I'm pretty sure you missed my point on this, Don. You can't have a debate when one side is basing all arguments on doctored facts, concocted statistics, white lies, plain lies and damn lies, too.

IOW, what good is a government/legislative debate or any kind of debate, for that matter, when one or more particpants ignore facts and truth?

 

[RealGun]

Okay. I'll take a shot, although I think Don already covered the essentials.

If everyone was following our constitution, the Ten Commandments, ethics, morality and/or logical standards we wouldn't even be having this debate.

If everyone was following our constitution, - stop here


the Ten Commandments, ethics, morality and/or logical standards we wouldn't even be having this debate - forget this part

KISS. You can't really defend the latter part in a governmental context intended to represent literally everyone. It would be your own tyranny, if really serious and specific about standards. There was a price to pay in cultural dominance for inviting or allowing immigration of other cultures, not to mention subsequently or concurrently giving the vote to women and freed slaves. It's a little late to try to declare America ideally either this or that. It's easier to just care about and argue for no more than essential government, for personal freedom and responsibility, and to defend the Constitution.

 

[longrifleman]

You can't really defend the latter part in a governmental context intended to represent literally everyone.

I have to ask then what is the underlying justification for all the principles laid out in the Constitution? All systems of govt are based on some theory of ethics, wether we agree with those ethics or not.

I think I understand the point you are tyring to make, that specific religous dogma shouldn't be codified into law, but to deny that the Constitution is based on morality or ethics is a dangerous proposition.

I see the original purpose of the Constitution as the protection of the individual against arbitrary govt power, and that philosophy comes from a very specific system of ethics. If the time comes when that system is completely undermined or ignored as the reason for our freedoms, then the Constitution really will be a "living document" because it will be meaningless.

It's easier to just care about and argue for no more than essential government, for personal freedom and responsibility, and to defend the Constitution.

I completely agree, just don't forget where that ideal comes from.

 

[jdberger]

To support Fred's comment, I look back at the 1797 comment that democracies are wonderful until the public learns it can vote itself "largesse from the public coffers".

You are right. Dictatorships surely aren't as messy.

No one ever claimed that democracy was a perfect system. People are always going to try to game the system, and it is human nature to look for an edge (for example, in your personal defense piece, do you carry JHPs or FMJs?). BUT the system is fixable and we are (hopefully) learning from past mistakes. For example, the welfare of the 80's no longer exists, the AWB is gone, Brady's federal 10 day wait is gone and the estate tax is going. IMHO, that is progress.

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to roll back the excesses of the 60s and 70s. I'm an optimist. I believe that truth, justice and the American way will triumph. I will not bury my guns and hide in my house wearing a tinfoil hat. FrightenedFred, from his lawnchair, is doing just that (and cutting the crust off his PB&J).

You can't really defend the latter part (the 10 Commandments) in a governmental context intended to represent literally everyone.

Actually, I think that you can. The whole philosophy of liberal democracy rests on the Judeo-Christian concept of a caring god. "Man endowed by his creator with...inalienable rights," (not absolute rights) is a logical growth of doctrine introduced with the 10 Commandments. As a historical document, 10C is very relevant and should be venerated. HOWEVER, I'm do not think that it should be taken literally...cause if I can't covet my neighbor's guns, I'll have nothing to aspire to...

 

[RealGun]

Actually, I think that you can. The whole philosophy of liberal democracy rests on the Judeo-Christian concept of a caring god. - jdberger

It will remain a sticky question, but I believe all that is neutralized by the First Amendment. The SCOTUS seems to think so too. I think you would certainly be right about the baseline of our government, but the plan was to go forward without favoring a particular religion. "our Creator" is pretty generic, don't you think...kinda like the AA's "higher power".

 

[jdberger]

neutralized by the First Amendment

The way I understand 1A is that it prohibits the government establishment of religion. It doesn't prohibit the public reverence of it.

IMO, 10C is a historical document that deserves some respect and attention. I also wouldn't have a problem with a replica of the Code of Hammurabi in a courthouse.

I'm not a religious person - or even 'spiritual' as they like to call it in my neck of the woods, but the groundbreaking concept of individual rights granted by a creator and the power of government being granted by the governed deserves some credit.

BTW...if GOD is universal, who cares what you call it?

 

[RealGun]

BTW...if GOD is universal, who cares what you call it?

Try another name, and see who screams.