Posted on 04/13/2009 10:12:45 AM PDT by presidio9
If John Travolta, an avid user of his private jet and a reported Republican, were to be stopped by law from purchasing an armed fighter plane, would the film actor suddenly be surrounded by the same people who sanctimoniously claim that the Constitution protects the private citizen's right to buy and own an assault rifle?
That seems an absurd question, but we often find ourselves in absurd circumstances when we get to the gun issue. A hard fact leers before us: on the subject of guns, constitutional meaning and misinterpretation have been mixed together for so long that far too many people think our Constitution advocates things that it does not.
Confusion over history and the law are not new, but our trouble with gun ownership truly stands apart from the rules of how things are usually done.
In our democratic history a process leading to important policy changes has appeared over and over. It reveals a sense of ongoing injustice and the proof of blood sacrifice made by those who experience pain, mental suffering and death resulting from abusive policy.
The sequence of events is fairly simple: Something terribly wrong is discovered, it is then studied, conclusions are reached and a case is made for better laws being drafted.
Once the issue is raised into plain sight, the proverbial ball starts rolling.
Our attempts to create a mature and rational gun policy have not gone well. The lobby representing the NRA has had so much sway over Congress that the politicians run for cover rather than get on the lobby's enemies list. If they do, reelection becomes much harder.
The trouble has nothing to do with the right to hunt or the right to own a weapon for self-protection. The trouble is that any change is interpreted with the logic of a survivalist. Any limitations on what can and cannot be bought, can or cannot be stockpiled, are indisputable proof that "they" are taking our rights away and making us so docile or so vulnerable that "we" will be pushovers when the marching boots arrive and strip us of our liberty.
What is most startling about it all is how invulnerable that species of thought is to true domestic terrorism and lunatic slayings. The logic of freelance survivalists in government or the gun lobby is made ridiculous by the blood sacrifice all around us.
There is no civilized or reasonable reaction to all of the murders committed by urban street gangs or the highly publicized nuts so isolated from reality that killing becomes a terrifying way of getting attention or proving your alienation from others.
Add the fact that purported supporters of law and order manage to ignore the legions in law enforcement who oppose the sale of assault weapons to the citizenry. Why would they not? They know all of the details about the urban terrorism of street gangs and the tragedies unleashed by armed loons. We can add in the documented fact that weapons bought at unmonitored gun fairs are arming Mexican drug dealers who will end up fighting American troops very soon. Makes no difference. There is always a cost to following the Constitution. Enough said.
But not quite. Perhaps money is the real answer. I think that Russell Simmons, Arianna Huffington, George Soros and other limousine liberals should gather their forces and raise enough money from the wealthy who are actually interested in our civilization. With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the gun lobby.
Worse things have been tried.
crouch.stanley@gmail.com
If I recall correctly from my readings several years ago, at the time the Second Amendment was written the word “arms†referred to weapons typically employed by individual soldiers (i.e. rifles, pistols, knives). At that time, large crew served weapons was referred to as “ordnanceâ€. The founding fathers were very intelligent men and used words with precision, a concept some of our fellow contemporary Americans could could learn from.
Wasn’t there an armed version of the T-37 called the Dragonfly? Just wondering. Thanks, in advance, for your assistance.
This reads like an essay for English class from a junior high school student who is trying to impress the teacher by using big, important-sounding words.
I wouldn’t even begin with passes for flawed logic. I would begin with his writing style. Does that newspaper even have an editor? Or did they publish him without editing to make him look utterly foolish?
“If John Travolta, an avid user of his private jet and a reported Republican...” Eek!
An avid user of his private car and a reported actor?
“A hard fact leers before us...”
Is it, well, turgid? Excited? A sexually aroused voyeuristic fact?
“...but our trouble with gun ownership truly stands apart from the rules of how things are usually done.”
How far is your trouble from your rules, say, in inches?
“In our democratic history a process leading to important policy changes has appeared over and over. It reveals a sense of ongoing injustice and the proof of blood sacrifice made by those who experience pain, mental suffering and death resulting from abusive policy.”
WTF? I mean, seriously, WTF is he talking about?
“...proverbial ball starts rolling.”
And which proverb would that be?
“The logic of freelance survivalists...”
As opposed to survivalist contract employees?
“There is no civilized or reasonable reaction to all of the murders committed by urban street gangs or the highly publicized nuts so isolated from reality that killing becomes a terrifying way of getting attention or proving your alienation from others.”
Well, uh, actually there is. If you can, you arrest them. If you can’t, then you stop them with other means. Citizens and police do this all the time. It is perfectly civilized and reasonable.
“We can add in the documented fact that weapons bought at unmonitored gun fairs are arming Mexican drug dealers...”
Here, I’m actually surprised that he didn’t cite the bogus “90%” figure. He probably assumes that everyone else already knows that false “fact”.
“I think that Russell Simmons, Arianna Huffington, George Soros and other limousine liberals should gather their forces and raise enough money from the wealthy who are actually interested in our civilization.”
Well, George Soros for one consistently bets *against* our civilization, but other than him, there is quite likely a goodly number of wealthy people who are “pro-civilization”. Like, what good is a billion dollars if you wear animal furs and live in a cave?
“With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the gun lobby.”
Because as everybody knows, there is nothing like money for putting holes in buckets. Probably some acid in the ink or something. And believe you me, if my bucket had holes in it, you can bet your bottom dollar I wouldn’t be lobbying for gun rights. Huh?
Yes, just like the other plane - some countries in S.America used them for close air support .... I think (will have to ask my dad) they were also used in Vietnam by the Vietnamese for ground support ....
It works perfectly via a God given right via the Constitution.
It's the attempts to create an alternate policy that f%$ks everything up.
Yeah, this is just like 1993 all over again. And 2010 is gonna be a lot like 1994, in that the Democrats will probably be kicked out of both houses of Congress, just because of stupid limo liberals trying, again and again, to deny us this fundamental right.
This time, however, we have the Heller decision on our side.
CAF
In it's true form. : )
Sorry....
Ahm, the second amendment stands in their way so far..
How many lies can Crouch cram into this feckless screed?
There is an answer to his blatant lies and misrepresentations, though. Try this thought experiment on for size:
If Stanley Crouch, an avid user of his word processor and an avid Communist Dupe, were to be stopped by law from publishing an article full of lies and misunderstandings, would the writer suddenly be surrounded by the same people who sanctimoniously claim that the Constitution protects the private citizen's right to freedom of the press?
Confusion over history and the law are not new, but our trouble with so-called press freedoms truly stands apart from the rules of how things are usually done.
Our attempts to create a mature and rational publication policy have not gone well. The ACLU and the lobby representing the media has had so much sway over Congress that the politicians run for cover rather than get on the lobby's enemies list. If they do, reelection becomes much harder.
The trouble has nothing to do with the right to free speech or the right to jot down your own thoughts on a scrap of paper. The trouble is that any change is interpreted with the logic of a survivalist. Any limitations on what can and cannot be said in public, can or cannot be written or published, are indisputable proof that "they" are taking our rights away and making us so docile or so vulnerable that "we" will be pushovers when the marching boots arrive and strip us of our liberty.
What is most startling about it all is how invulnerable that species of thought is to true domestic treason and unhealthy thinking. The logic of freelance writers in America is made ridiculous by the egregious offenses to public order that are occurring all around us due to people's unfettered ability to publish hyperbole and treasonous lies and incitements to riot without commonsense control by a Ministry of Truth operating in the public's interest.
etc. blah blah blah
So. let's see a show of hands - who else thinks that it is a good idea to impose commonsense restrictions on what Stanley Crouch is permitted to publish? No law abiding person needs to be able to publish more often than once a month. Just as no law abiding person would have any difficulty with requiring all of their writings to first be submitted for approval by government agents before publication can be permitted. All for the purpose of ensuring public order and safety, of course.
No doubt misguided people like Crouch would object that this would be a violation of the First Amendment - There is always a cost to following the Constitution. Enough said.
But not quite. Perhaps money is the real answer. I think that Russell Simmons, Arianna Huffington, George Soros and other limousine liberals should gather their forces and raise enough money from the wealthy who are actually interested in our civilization. With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the "free speech" lobby.
Seems it is. I once saw a cool show about the man who owns Dillon reloading. He has a plane with a mounted .50 machine gun. He flies over his ranch staffing old cars with it. Too cool!
that in itself is an infringement...
once I realized that every sentence was gonna be so thoroughly ignorant in this 'piece' I stopped readin...
this tool would soil his panties to find out what I [WE the People] really think...
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’”
This is the motto and modus operandi of the “journos” these days.
Yes, there is a civilized solution. Kill them.
They have shown that they have no compulsion to live without harming innocents. They forfeit the right to live at that point.
Now if the bleeding hearts who turn every death penalty convict into a celebrity of protest can rationally explain their actions as being "civilized or reasonable" to me, I'd be interested in listening. If not, they can shut up and leave.
"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."
Some of these nincompoops have a problem parsing this thing, which to anyone with at least a 6th grade education (but not a Harvard degree!) can read and comprehend with no problem at all.
The first part, regarding the "militia", is at once self-explanatory and hidden in plain sight.
The thing is, the 2nd Amendment is, as many have stated over and over again, the Constitution's reset button. It is a doomsday device aimed at out-of control leaders and politicians.
This phrase has nothing to do with any armed unit(s) the state might deem necessary to form. By it's very wording, like all the other original 10 Amendments, it is aimed at the people!
Because of it's provocative nature, the Founders knew exactly what the militia is, was, and will be. Their foresight should be applauded for eternity.
The whole idea behind this is, once invoking the 2nd Amendment is deemed necessary (most assuredly by the people who face oppression and repression from the leaders of the day), what the Founders regarded as the militia will arise and form from the body politic, making manifest the reality of the most dreaded and most powerful part of the document meant to protect and insure for our posterity the safety and viability of the Republic.
Clearly, without this kind of protection the people would be powerless in the face of a coup, regardless of it's origins or intent.
For many, many decades the Republic has been under direct and dramatic assault from it's enemies all over who seek it's dissolution and destruction by means many and nefarious. Infiltrating and taking over most, if not all, pillars of society that were/are non-elective, and spreading their venom from there, they have succeeded in altering the American ideal within the nation's young minds, through "education", media, marketing, and government entities not subject to voter review and approval.
Becoming society's "influence makers", they have sought to re-craft, subvert, and eventually destroy that document that has give us all so much.
It appears the time is approaching when the People's last source of strength in regards to the society that the Founders gave us will be brought into play.
This is all that stands between us and a legacy of tyranny that will be bequeathed upon our posterity - unless we do something with it.
When the time comes, when the need arises, the militia foreseen by our forebears will most assuredly arise and coalesce. The true meaning of their wise words will at once become self evident.
If you need help with the second part of that amendment sentence, you are probably beyond redemption, and I won't be able to help you.
As we live and breath, may God save the Republic.
CA....
Isn't that what Nicolas Cage did in The Lord of War when the feds tried to pinch him for gun running to proscribed states? LOL I loved that move.
You might as well claim that the Second Amendment protects "bullets" but does not protect the delivery systems for them.
Perhaps you can point out some "anti-ordnance" laws from the early years of our republic? Perhaps some laws against black powder purchases, or banning cannons or cannon balls? You might want to realize that the Constitution mentions "letters of marque and reprisal" which authorize the use of private ships to make war on the enemies of the U.S. Let me know if you find any indication that the government expected to supply the "arms" for such ships.
Ever heard of the "SALT" talks, which stands for "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty"? What do you think are the "arms" to which they refer? I'll tell you; strategic bombers armed with nuclear weapons. Do you think our generation just invented a new use of the word "arms", attempting to understate the power of the weapons?
There may be justification for banning the possession of nuclear weapons by individuals. But you can't look to the Constitution for the power to ban such a thing because it isn't there. Our Founders included a mechanism for amending the document when changing conditions warranted such a change. But you don't get to just change the meaning of the words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.