Liberals Bearing Arms

[Trusty]

You don't hear much about gun control these days. Is it because gun control advocates are considering ways to defend themselves against the most right-wing fascist government the US has ever had?

Here's the LINK. What do you think about this?

[joew]

admin said:

You don't hear much about gun control these days. Is it because gun control advocates are considering ways to defend themselves against the most right-wing fascist government the US has ever had?

Here's the LINK. What do you think about this?

I think it is stuff and nonsense. Bush more right wing than Reagan? No way. Fascist? What the hell do you mean? Define fascist. He's no Hitler or Mussolini. What is fascist is to suppose that the government, elected by the free vote of the people should be taken over by some much smaller number of them who have decided to demonstrate against that government's policy.

If anything ultimately puts the lie to the suggestion that the Bush administration is stifling democracy, it is the fact that the Democrats won last year. Hitler would not have allowed the opposition to win an election. Mussolini would not have allowed the opposition to win an election.

[juliastar]

admin said:

You don't hear much about gun control these days. Is it because gun control advocates are considering ways to defend themselves against the most right-wing fascist government the US has ever had?

Here's the LINK. What do you think about this?

I think it is a matter of the Democratic party picking its battles and when fear is in the air, gun control isn't going to get a lot of traction. I think the essay is fairly radical. While I think the infringements on human rights and civil rights and our traditional freedom from government intrusion are cause for concern and political action within the system we have, I think we should try banging on the pots and pans and writing letters before we decide a second revolution is in order. How much sense does it make to be trigger happy because we are mad that the neocons are trigger happy?

[Trusty]

joew said:

admin said:

You don't hear much about gun control these days. Is it because gun control advocates are considering ways to defend themselves against the most right-wing fascist government the US has ever had?

Here's the LINK. What do you think about this?

I think it is stuff and nonsense. Bush more right wing than Reagan? No way. Fascist? What the hell do you mean? Define fascist. He's no Hitler or Mussolini. What is fascist is to suppose that the government, elected by the free vote of the people should be taken over by some much smaller number of them who have decided to demonstrate against that government's policy.

If anything ultimately puts the lie to the suggestion that the Bush administration is stifling democracy, it is the fact that the Democrats won last year. Hitler would not have allowed the opposition to win an election. Mussolini would not have allowed the opposition to win an election.

Please excuse me, Joe. I've been trying to catch up on things, and I just reviewed the somewhat senseless arguments against the elimination of the now outdated right, or even concept, of habeas corpus (which I don't think is on Reagan's record). Please forgive me for over-reacting to the destruction of something that is no longer needed, respected or cherished in this country today.

[joew]

admin said:

joew said:

I think it is stuff and nonsense. Bush more right wing than Reagan? No way. Fascist? What the hell do you mean? Define fascist. He's no Hitler or Mussolini. What is fascist is to suppose that the government, elected by the free vote of the people should be taken over by some much smaller number of them who have decided to demonstrate against that government's policy.

If anything ultimately puts the lie to the suggestion that the Bush administration is stifling democracy, it is the fact that the Democrats won last year. Hitler would not have allowed the opposition to win an election. Mussolini would not have allowed the opposition to win an election.

Please excuse me, Joe. I've been trying to catch up on things, and I just reviewed the somewhat senseless arguments against the elimination of the now outdated right, or even concept, of habeas corpus (which I don't think is on Reagan's record). Please forgive me for over-reacting to the destruction of something that is no longer needed, respected or cherished in this country today.

Ah. Habeas corpus is it?

In Article I of the Constitution (dealing with the Legislative Branch) Section 9, the second paragraph reads, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Very interesting. It seems that the Congress is the branch of government with limited power to suspend Habeas Corpus. And yet it seems to have been the proto-fascist A. Lincoln as President, rather than the Congress, who suspended the Writ during the rebellion of 1861.

It is arguable that the events of September 11, 2001, and ongoing attempts at terrorism within the US constitute an invasion, in which case there is a basis for suspending the writ. It is also arguable that it there has been no invasion. (Indeed, I sometimes think that, to paraphrase that great intellectual and statesman James Earl Carter, we should overcome our inordinate fear of terrorism and learn to accept the fact that in the 21st century there will be terrorist acts, and security is an illusion which causes us to waste considerable energy and resources and accept futile restrictions and inconveniences.) But whichever side one leans to, I think that it is an arguable point. The Framers recognized and accepted the ancient principle "Salus populi suprema lex esto." The public safety shall be the highest law. So that procedural requirements must yield to the necessities of public safety.

Again, it is debatable whether under the present circumstances, the denial of habeas corpus was justified. But clearly the right is not absolute under the Constitution. I would contend that, in the first place, that thinking that a certain set of circumstances justify suspension of habeas corpus is neither left wing nor right wing, and, in the second place, that this single item hardly proves that Bush is to the right of Reagan, who never faced the post 9/11 world, much less justifies the use of the word "fascist."

[hartlikeawheel]

As a young mom I ws determined that my children that my children would not have toy guns to play with a somewhat hypocritical, but politically correct, idea at the time. After all I was taught to shoot by my dad - rats at the dump, clay pigeons and pheasants. But different times I thought.

The wheels started turning one day in my mind when I glanced out the window to see all the little boys playing with their guns and Matt had selected a stick which was serving him well enough.

TV changed and suddenly he was exposed to a lot of gun-shooting. Where I grew up every farmer had a shotgun in the bedroom or by the door. Wasn't exactly like any police were going to show up really fast if you needed help right now.

And The Packrat kept a loaded gun by the bedroom door until I became so worried about it, Matt never having been exposed to gun safety, that I insisted that Marion lock his guns up.

Time passed and with it an increase of home break-ins while people were in their homes. Eventually I capitulated and sent both kids to the police gun safety classes. We could control gun use in our homes but who knew what other homes they visited had available.

Neither has an interest in shooting creatures nor owns a weapon which I know of but I think now, in retrospect, that it was a good decision.

Just this week in a small town nearby someone broke into a farmhouse and, for no understandable reason discovered yet, shot all three family members. There are a lot of methheads stealing anhydrous amonia from farmers and there is no prodicting their state of mind.

In Mpls this week a seventy-year-old man described as a pillar of the community apprehended young people siphoning off of his neighbors' tank, took an unloaded shotgun out after calling the police and attempted to hold them until the police arrived.

They ran in their car. He gave chase. Guess who got in trouble for speeding and the gun in the car? Vigilante justice.

[joew]

If he's found guilty I hope they fine him a dollar. And, if possible, assess court costs on the D.A.

[hartlikeawheel]

Incidently, a college kid was refused entrance into the Prez Bush rally before the last election when, upon searching his wallet, it was proved that he was a card-carrying Democrat.

Elderly people had to park far away in intense heat and then were refused admitance because they were a few minutes late. Sounds a little radical to me.

Then the Bush crew stiffed our police departments by not reimbursing them for their security assistance.

[gailkate]

"Cases of rebellion or invasion" is unambiguous. Unless one sees 19 men carrying out an attack on their own, not on behalf of any country, there is no way to argue that 9/11 meets the Constitutional standard.

Why is it so hard for people to say that Lincoln could have been wrong? He did have a rebellion on his hands, giving him Constitutional authority, but I would still argue he went farther than necessary. Good grief, he was a man, not a god.

As for the call to arms, Trusty, I think that's a hoax. It reads like a put-up job, authored by lamebrain right-wingers. (Not that only lamebrains make up the right.)

The dangers to our government, however, are real. We have only to look at Bush's signing statements (though there is much more)to see the undeniable threat. I think he's going to be stopped, but I'm not sanguine about the average American's understanding of what he and the neocons have done.

[joew]

The 19 men were not acting on behalf of a country, but they weren't exactly acting "on their own," either. They were acting as part of an organization which seeks to inflict harm on the United States, eventually and ultimately to destroy it, and that organization continues to exist. The Framers did not foresee such non-state international actors. A strict constructionist might argue that since the specific words of the Constitution, taken literally, do not cover the activity of al-Qaeda, there is no ground for suspending habeas corpus. An advocate of the theory of a living Constitution which must grow to meet unforeseen circumstances might be much more comfortable with the idea that our understanding of "invasion or rebellion" must grow to fit the reality of the 21st century.

[gailkate]

I love that Joe and I have switched sides. I guess I'm now a strict constructionist.

Did we suspend habeas corpus during the Cold War?

[joew]

gailkate said:

…Did we suspend habeas corpus during the Cold War?

Not that I can recall.

[rogesgallery]

Liberals Bearing Arms. Wasn't that Vietnam?