If you already know everything then what are doing on this board?
I’ve lived long enough to know that your bumper sticker statement is simplistic and entirely inaccurate in a functional democracy.
Let me help you here. You seem to disagree with my opinion, but, instead of pointing out the nature of your disagreement, you’ve declared my perspective inappropriate for this message board … no specific reason given, except that the short version of my observations could fit on a bumper sticker, or perhaps reminds you of something you once read on a bumper sticker. To me, this is no argument at all. If you’re going to bother objecting to my views, why don’t you make an effort to point to the elements of my appraisal with which you take exception, and tell us why they are inaccurate, and most importantly, why they are not suitable for posting on these boards?
Furthermore, since you are apparently unable to put your argument into more words than “inaccurate” and “simplistic”, you engage in what amounts to an ad hominem exaggeration, namely that I somehow implied that I am under the delusion that I “know everything”. Show me where I used the word “everything”, or words to that effect.
If you’re going to stand in opposition to my views, you may want to make a better challenge than “You think you know everything!” Really.
A very cogent response.
Of course, I’m not Damuri Ajashi. But perhaps I can help.
The original statement from you, the one which spawned the bumper sticker rejoinder, was: “Look people, either we tell the government what they can and can’t do … or they tell us. Chose one.”
And my response would be: this statement is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle.
In our system of government – representative democracy – both things occur. Ultimately, of course, sovereign power is held by the people. But the people exercise that power by electing leaders and empowering those leaders with the authority to create and enforce law, and to appoint those who interpret the law. So our government actually consists BOTH of “us” telling the government what to do, by means of electing leaders sympathetic to our preferred position, and our government telling us what to do, by means of those same leaders creating and enforcing laws.
The gun control advocates keep shooting themselves in the foot.
What he said.
Like I said, in a functional democracy we choose the government that tells us what we can and can’t do.
“There can be no bosses in our country except the people. The job of the government is to serve, not to dominate.” Henry Ford
Henry ford may have been a racist. He certainly had some odd views on history, literature, art and cows (he wanted to abolish them), but his comment on the job of government sounds reasonable to me. In fact, I’ll say that my condensed take on the role of government in our lives as stated above is essentially a coincidental paraphrasing of Ford’s quote.
Now, let me paraphrase the eloquent (thank you Bricker) reply I read in the previous post using Ford’s words.
…our government actually consists both of “us being the government’s boss, being served by the government … and the government dominating us …”
See, I disagree that both conditions should exist simultaneously. I’ll grant that laws must be enforced, but I don’t accept the premise that law making, courts’ interpretations, and the enforcement of same laws can be properly defined as “government telling us what to do.”
That would be “ruling ourselves”, not a minor distinction, in my estimation.
Unfortunately, I see a disturbing aspect of government that isn’t explained in Bricker’s concise explanation … namely, the inclination of the authorities to generate policies that are self serving to the “governors” and at the same time destructive to the “governed”.
I won’t make a list of gripes, from examples like Congress voting themselves pay-raises that momentarily attract the attention of a few watchdogs, or representatives (and executives) enjoying a level of healthcare unattainable by most of the rest of us, but paid for by all of us.
I’m talking here, to respond to the subject of the thread, of the authorities developing an anti-gun agenda and cloaking it in a law-and-order wrapping, while they make it appear to be a response to the events that have generated outrage among a relative few, and ultimately decorate their disarmament policies as _the will of the people". I don’t believe it’s the honest will of most Americans that the 2nd amendment is de-clawed or even “written-out” of our law;, but if a powerful government invests enough effort in pushing that agenda, the will of the “governors” is re-labeled the will-of-the-people, and we’re told this is for our own good … it’s what we-the-people want.
I don’t think it is.
You know we still get to choose whether or not we want anti-gun people charge of government, right?
I suspect the Democrats will get spanked in 2014 over this and they will stop proposing stupid gun laws like the AWB but I don’t think most people in this country agree with your assessment of things.
The Democrats will not stop proposing stupid gun laws. That’s their job. They are the “Good Cop”. While we nervously shift our weight watching the little puppet show provided us by the media, the respective political parties, much like rival quarterbacks working for the same coach, will carry on with the role playing, one chortling “Won’t someone please think of the children?”, and the other “Teach Creationism in public schools!”
It’s all part of the (apologies to Monty Python) “confuse-a-cat” play-acting that is this thing called “Democracy”. In the end we’ll all have fewer (and less secure) rights, and many of us will be made to believe it was “our idea”, or at least our will.
**“I don’t think most people in this country agree with your assessment of things”
**
You got that much right. If the opinions of the people are falsely, albeit cleverly, swayed by propaganda and brainwashing, then the will of same people is a hollow declaration.
It is not a relative few. There is a very large percentage of people who want gun control: random cite from Google
“Outrage” and the desire for some forms of gun-control are not fungible terms. You should re-read my post.
While polls may show that a large number of respondents are falling prey to the insidious manipulation of the media by the authorities, and therefore misguided in their opinions of gun rights, a relative few, IMO, would still be fooled into letting outrage at random (and seldom) acts of senseless violence sway the judgement of lawmakers. Laws shouldn’t be written to achieve popularity based on sensationalism, or to assuage the overt reactions of the “politically correct”.
Sadly, lawmakers still try to take advantage of emotional responses to horrific events.
It is too bad that so many believe that disarming the law-abiding will serve to prevent crimes by the law-breakers.
Sadly, internet posters use emotion as well, using terms like “insidious manipulation”, propaganda, and brainwashing.
I don’t find these to be emotionally charged terms. The idea of a madman murdering children evokes a strong emotional response. I suggest the cold and calculating nature of propaganda, while it may employ emotional triggers to accomplish it’s goals, do not generate emotional responses in the analytical reader.
I gather you were angry at the last “psycho-of the-week” mass murderer, but are you really emotional about being managed by the authoritarian controlled media?
I don’t think you’re angry at your masters. They give you Football, Reality Programs, Filtered News, and a variety of scapegoats to rail against.
Then they’ve been doing a really shitty job. I don’t think I’ve heard much about gun control since the mid 1990’s.
At this point you are very close to saying saying that democracy cannot work because we are all so easily manipulated… that you effectively don’t believe in democracy.
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention but Americans aren’t as stupid as you might think. They caught onto the fact that the AWB was a stupid ineffective means of addressing the problem that infringed on our rights for no good reason at all. Noone but Feinsteing and Obama seem to be talking about it anymore (I think Obama is an idiot for continuing to pursue it, he should have traded it weeks ago for licensing and registration requirements).
Horrible events can be then precipitating factor for long needed reforms and perhaps we need better gun laws but we haven’t seen any of those proposed yet.
I don’t think the people that believe this have thought this through.
Authoritarian controlled media? What does that mean?
He’s saying we are all mindless sheep and we do what we are told (while being convinced it was all our idea in the first place). Only Sir Galahad can see the REAL truth.:rolleyes:
Well, my heart is pure, after all. Governments controlling the population is not a new idea, it’s been going on since the first clan chieftain decided that the witch doctor threatening bad hunting or weather was more effective than smashing all of the free-thinkers in the head with a club. If you don’t think that the Authorities have spent billions studying and devising ways to manage you and the rest of us, I think you missed part of the movie.
There is, by definition, only one real truth, whatever that is. Ad hominem asides like your last sentence don’t “really fly too well on this board. You’ve been around long enough to know that.” Or do they? Maybe they do, but they shouldn’t.
I’m not sure you’ve been paying attention then. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
Also, CA, NY, NJ are all getting in on the gun-banning action. I’m sure other liberal states will follow suit.
I guess I should have said: until Newton.
Are you saying this is how most guns used in crime are obtained?
Right, it’s the “authoritarian controlled” part I was curious about. Does he mean that our government is both a) authoritarian and b) controls the media?
The population controlling the government is not a new idea either. See John Locke, and the consent of the governed.
No so, truth can be wholly subjective.
Hate to drag this hijack back, but Post 4 includes the following:
I’m too confused now to determine if this is one of the older wordings or a current one. But I am surprised that no one has yet commented on a provision as troubling as the (missing) inspection.
My reading suggests that the only places such a weapon can legally be possessed is at the home, or at a “duly licensed firing range” or between. So such a weapon could not be used for, say, plinking or varmint hunting. Or any other possible recreational use. Only target shooting, or whatever else that licensed range might provide. Or am I missing something?