We're still out here
Posted on 05/14/2013 7:09:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
We are certainly in a bad place. A simple majority believes that we can vote ourselves riches. No government that has ever tried this has survived the attempt.
Sympathy for the poor, the disabled, the disadvantaged, the down-trodden, and any other group whose needs cry out for government attention has destroyed our nation. I see no simple way back to a government dedicated to preserving liberty.
That is, indeed, "where we are".
In 1776 it was legal for, and many did, people to own cannon.
I think we need to return to those days when it was legal to own personal artillery.
Nothing could be more “American.”
And yes, the good professor must indeed know that we are a Republic. If not, fire him and hire someone who has that knowledge.
A “government” didn’t issue and ratify the constitution. The constitution was issued and ratified by free men exercising their god-given rights and laying claim to them telling a fledgeling government to keep its collective hands off of said rights as per natural law.
This professor is a dunderhead!
Not just the cold war;
“If we were to invade the United States there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Admiral Yamamoto.
Anti-American twats talking trash about real Americans really piss me off!
We're still out here
Eat sh*t and die, “professor”. I’m fed up with this crap.
NYT and Fish. That’s a perfect combination.
Let's be clear about one thing: America is what it is as a result of rejecting a level of power that was regarded as perfectly acceptable nearly everywhere else in the world at the time. Those who recognized this relatively gentle revolution - yes, it was a river of blood but compared to elsewhere it was gentle indeed, as Edmund Burke knew and Robespierre was about to demonstrate - those who understood le déluge that resulted from the refusal of power to limit itself knew that it had to be limited by reason from its source - the people - or lead its polity into bloody chaos and brute force.
It takes quite a bit - "prudence indeed shall dictate" - to force a fellow who would be perfectly happy plowing his field to take up arms. That is demonstrable, historical fact. What appears difficult for Fish is that fellow's right - no, his obligation - to do so.
I think what we see here is the misunderstanding of a protected academic class that the peace purchased for it in blood is inexplicably permanent contrary to every bit of historical evidence. Fish should know better. Because in the space of a few short days, this can happen:
Another version of the commonplace is, no man is above the law. The opposite view was famously declared by Richard Nixon when he said, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
How richly ironic that one might exchange Nixon's name for 0bama's with not a single pause in recitation. It fits here as well:
Unlike Nixon, they don’t have an F.B.I., a Treasury Department and a standing army; but they do have the Second Amendment and the right, or so they claim, to take arms against a government they have judged to be wayward.
Yes, actually they - we - do. Because when those organs of government chartered to protect the Constitution are charged with doing everything they possibly can to flout it through legalistic twisting and rhetorical and even physical bullying, it is simply, demonstrably, historically un-American to put up with it. Bloody, unrestricted, uncontrollable violence on the part of an individual presented with a smothering and oppressive government is very American. It isn't always pretty. Too bad.
A corner stone of this Republic is individual liberty, not the orderly transfer of power. The Soviets had an orderly transfer of power, as has North Korea.
This ass wipe fails to understand what the United States is. It is not simple majority rule. It is the recognition of the individual as sovereign. If he wants a fight, he’ll get it, but I doubt he intends on being physically involved himself.
Stanley Fish
Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor of Humanities and Law
305-348-7820 (phone)
305-348-1118 (secondary)
305-348-1159 (fax)
Stanley.Fish@fiu.edu
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
This Stanley Fish?
{All quotes Wikipedia]
“Stanley Eugene Fish (born April 19, 1938) is an American literary theorist, legal scholar, academic, and public intellectual. He is often associated with postmodernism, at times to his irritation, as he describes himself as an anti-foundational”
“Anti-foundationalism (also called nonfoundationalism) as the name implies, is a term applied to any philosophy which rejects a foundationalist approach, i.e. an anti-foundationalist is one who does not believe that there is some fundamental belief or principle which is the basic ground or foundation of inquiry and knowledge.[1]”
anti-foundational = dingbat
I suspect Mr. Fish knows what the Founders instituted, but that deep in his elitist, authoritarian heart he despises it.
“those who read the Second Amendment as proclaiming the right of citizens to resist the tyranny of their own government, that is, of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place.”
He seems to be talking about me and those who received a passing grade in reading comprehension, or perhaps a 5th grade civics class.
Thats okay prof, we can shoot you last.
Ignorant SOB
I wonder what he is in private. Don't tell me. I probably already know.
Good point, probably often overlooked (or not considered, considering our mindsets today).
Rotten Fish. Ignorant, rotten Fish. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to have the citizens better armed than the government that SERVES THEM. It is how we preserve a free state.
Fish is probably one of the most destructive people in America, a postmodernist who has contributed greatly to the insanity of Leftest Liberalism. Check out his Wikipedia post. This logic will be the down fall of our freedoms.
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.