This has nothing to do per se with the AZ shootings, but was sparked by a tangential comment in one of the threads on it.

If you read the works of our Founders, you will see that the second amendment was intended as a bulwark against tyranny. The people being armed was viewed as a sure final check on the government, and revolution (kind of like the one they had just completed) a necessary final step in keeping the government in line. Why should it be completely out of line to talk of revolution? If the government has thrown away the founding principles and trampled our rights on the road to tyranny, those same founding principles say we should revolt. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I am not implying here that we have definitively reached such a time, but revolution for the proper motivation is truly the original patriotic act.

will i be required to kill people, or can i just get drunk and fart in their general direction?

Well...

A. It's a gross oversimplification to say the government has "Thrown away the founding principles and trampled....", which is actually a big part of the problem in and of itself. Politicians take these incredibly complex issues, pick out a few key talking points to bolster their argument (usually out of context), and throw reason to the wind in driving home their point. I really do feel sorry for anyone who thinks that things like death panels, where the President was born, and whether or not Sarah Palin is influencing people subliminally are the most important issues we face as a nation.

B. Even given the current status of things, I'd say we are a far cry from what those on the left would like their constituents to believe, so what is being done now (on both sides, to be fair) is more subversive than revolutionary. I'm sorry, but those crying Tyrants/Socialists in today's political arena at the top of their longs are making an absolutely uninformed accusation more in the hope that the stigma of it all sticks than that people actually come to understand it.

C. I'm pretty sure the founding fathers had a fairly different idea of the imposition of Tyranny on the US than the way things are today. Of course, that's just a guess...my cart broke a wheel on the way to the signing, and they were all gone by the time I got there.

I definitely agree the purpose is to allow people to stand up against a tyrannical government.

We are so far removed from anything worth revolting against it boggles my mind.

Everyone still has a vote, and unless you live in Florida it gets counted. The only reason you would revolt not is because you dislike the people that have been voted in - and that is 100% contrary to the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Few observations:

1) The second amendment's creation is a hotly disputed topic that delves all the way down into which version of the Constitution are you reading because the actual placement of the commas varies among them. I listened to two linguists debating this once.

2) To quote Pres. Reagan, "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." It's probably even less than a generation depending on the situation. Students of history would remind people that pre-Reichstag fire, Nazi Germany was a Democracy. A series of events within the span of only a few dozen months literally converted the country to autocratic despotism. The moral is to be careful in assuming "it can't happen here."

3) Politicians do take a few key talking points because that's all the attention people will give them. I've heard so many people complain about negative campaigning, politicians talking in short sound bites, etc. Realize that like a marketplace, politicians follow what works. If people rise up in resentment to these practices then they will end. But like infomercials, so long as the balance tilts in favor of the practices then they will continue.


I think there is truth to the explanation provided that the Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment primarily for purposes of preventing the government from seizing weapons in case of a need for revolt. With that said, I think if you asked them about their government banning firearms they would have called you crazy. They didn't elaborate on this belief because they assumed if they won they would be writing the code. It's sort of a pattern you see in the Constitution--no quartering of soliders, no illegal search and seizure, etc etc.

sinclair lewis, i'm reading that right now.
i should point out i'm not very far in, but never the less..

I think on #3 (trumper), just people verifying things before compartmentalizing it as a convenient fact would go a long way towards resolving that problem.

I would agree. I guess from my perspective of working in the industry (haha, I don't think I should dignify it by calling it an 'industry') is that there is a broad variety of subjects people want to know about, but they want to know it all in about 30 seconds or less.

When politicians talk about conviction versus electability I think a lot of times they're making a veiled reference to the public. If they had the ability to hold the public's attention to explain a given issue then they may vote different, but they all know it's next to impossible.

One has to wonder just how much of this stuff those politicians fall victim to themselves.

I know everyone believes the other guy is partisan/evil/trying to get them in DC, but it would be interesting to see just how much of the hot air they spew they actually believe versus how much is nothing but campaign bluster.

The problem is the vast majority of votes are actually non-controversial believe-it-or-not. The few that are controversial are usually where the members generally have the strongest conviction. I would say an interesting case study to look at would be the TARP vote.

people should be less stuck on what the founders supposedly thought and more concerned with contemporary issues. You don`t live in the 18th century under the thumb of Imperial England anymore.

You can't properly address the present without a firm grasp of the past.

You're not actually suggesting that the founding principals of a country and their application in modern society aren't "contemporary issues" are you Eric?

They could be contrived though. If the government has passed a law on the minimum axle thickness for horse-drawn buggies, the application of that today would be contemporary although realistically it would be quite dated.

We need a second Constitutional convention as allowed for by the Constitution rather than armed revolution. The problem is that the system is paralyzed by political fears that lead to debates on death panels and Obama's citizenship rather than real issues. They're just too afraid to deal with the big issues. A balanced budget amendment would be a good place to start, requiring a balanced budget except in cases of negative GDP growth or a Congressional declaration of war. At the very least, limit deficits to a small percentage of GDP. If Congress has no choice but to make tough decisions, they won't be so reluctant to do so. Congressional term limits would be another good amendment, Congressional lame ducks should be more willing to tackle big issues than those perpetually running for reelection. Also, something has to be done about how Congressional districts are drawn up. This change would allow more moderates to be elected rather than these highly polarized politicians that refuse to compromise.

Wow....I agree with you %100 Klown.

MN's state constitution has a requirement for a balanced budget, and as much of a difficult process as it was, it has been hugely beneficial for the state.

Yes. Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. Congressional term limits in particular is something I consider absolutely essential.

Wait... you guys agree with me? :P

Actually, I don`t think what the legislator (in this case the founding fathers) thought or wrote is in any way as important as what actually ended up being the written constitution.

What the "founders" thought or did is historically important, but far from the perfect or ultimate method of law interpretation.

It is just one among many different methods of interpreting the law of the land, and far from the best one at that, since, like I hinted at, their solutions and dogma were suited to dealing with a society that lived under the thumb of Imperial England, built upon slave labor, with a very different set of human behavior, economical and technological circumstances.

Moving on to another topic, regarding what Klown said about highly polarized politicians being elected... come on, the whole political specter in the USA goes from center right to right. That is not polarized. We from the outside have to really think hard to note a REAL (instead of imaginary) difference between democrats (Obama) and republicans (Bush) in power. It mostly turned into a shades of gray distinction now.

Thats just false Eric. There is more of a difference between the two parties now perhaps more so than at any other time in our history. No, there isn't a socialist party, which maybe is what you consider left, but there are clear ideological divides between the parties.

Jefferson changed his tune when he became president. No other president (with the exception of Lincoln, and he served in extraordinary times) did more to strengthen the central government.

Also, I disagree that the two parties are further apart than at perhaps any other time in history - the more conservative part of the republican party is more vocal than ever, but the moderates are still there in force, as proved by the failure of the tea party candidates in many states against moderate conservatives running third party campaigns and moderate democrats. Of course that doesn't generate ratings, draw clicks, sell papers, or advance media political agendas, so it was under reported.

What Klown said + the original intent/design of the founding documents of the US were very intentionally designed to be liquid as far as legal implication. Hence the vague and broadly defining language.

Of course the founding father's couldn't anticipate the directions society would go 200 years after their initial works. If you look at the historical documentation though, I think you'll see that one of their primary concerns was building a set of guidelines that could be adjusted to the needs of society as it changed and evolved - which makes both the thought process and the documents themselves incredibly important.

In the US, courts spend thousands of man hours per year determining what the INTENT of the law is to determine how it should be enforced. NO system is perfect, or even close for that matter, but the good ones recognize that they will change over time and must allow themselves to do so based on some core principles/common beliefs.

If you can't see the major differences in political parties, you're either incredibly uneducated on the issues and the various approaches to solving them (don't think this is your case), just not looking hard enough, or getting some incredibly crappy/slanted news (my odds on pick).

there isn`t even a center left. what you guys consider clear divides between the two parties usually is minor stuff for the rest of the world. The biggest difference I have seen so far is don`t ask don`t tell repeal, so I will concede there.

Note that I am talking about people in power (a Bush government vs. Obama government comparison), not what this or that isolated member of congress think.

I am perfectly aware that discussion about what your courts do is stuck in an endless "constructionism" vs "judicial activism" rethorical fight.



eh, nah. I try to avoid all the rhetorical fluff and focus on what the government actually is doing. For example:

sucking up to big banks.
indefinite detention.
black sites with likely torture.
presidential ordered assassinations on citizens.
Guantanamo.
declaring everything state secrets.
implementing a health insurance program that republicans from 10-20 years ago would embrace/propose.
tax breaks as an economical tool.

Stuff like that are all shades of gray when we compare the two mentioned governments and I actually am missing Bush because at least he was authentic. =D

Constructionism vs Judicial Activism? Really? You think that's what drives the system?

Can we maybe just leave it at you're wrong, instead of me making a long, drawn out post as to why? Those are nothing but labels for 2 separate view points (conservative and liberal) on how justice is best enforced - the same thing you were just denying the existence of in your previous posts.

I'm also not sure how those policies you mention(which, btw, are mostly Bush era or before, and also redundant in a few places) are in any way relevant to political parties and their separation on issues. Or how comparing two governments applies for that matter.

If you want to hate on the US, feel free....but you don't have to try to pretend like you understand our politics, judicial system, or political viewpoints to do it.