The slogan to beat
They call Denver the Mile High City. "A mile high, an inch deep" - the slogan on the wall of the Republican war room here in Denver - is the claim to beat this week; not with counter slogans but with actions and words that make the claim itself look ridiculous and desperate.
Interesting take here on Biden and guns , though in stark political terms, does it not put the Mountain West (Montana's Democratic governor told me months ago: "Gun control is hitting what you shoot at!") out of reach?
Meanwhile, a spot-on piece in the Washington Post, with this crucial paragraph:
"The decision to pick Biden rather than someone who reinforced the change message at the heart of Obama's candidacy no doubt disillusioned some of Obama's grassroots supporters, but it said something about the Illinois senator that while obvious is not often remarked upon. His will to win is overpowering. The choice of Biden was a hard-headed, cold-blooded calculation that he may need a Biden to win and will certainly benefit from a Biden in governing, if he become president. It was the action of a politician, not a crusader."
The whole piece is here.
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~21~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
That slogan was derived from a common description of the Platte River as "a mile wide and an inch deep." Do we have another plagiarism controversy brewing here?
Complain about this comment
Biden's off-the-cuff response is far more brutal than Obama's "guns and religion" remarks (which were made behind closed doors) and I believe that at the time, during the debate, he was considered to have won the point.
He won't be able to shoot from the hip (sorry) like that now he's joined the big boys. Its sad that spontaneity gets totally squeezed out. I believe this was one of the things that Obama was trying to say at the beginning when he set out on this journey - but as the Washington Post confirms we have now come full circle into a staged and carefully managed spectacle where every word has been carefully chosen and vetted.
That's 24-hour news for you, not to mention folks like us blogging away courtesy of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
All the Republicans have is a slogan. Having McCain as a candidate who promises change is too much of a stretch so they are letting him serve out Bush 4th term. This old Cold War Warrior has to use Pavolian training on the people: He's a hero. But the slogan can be changed to: A HERO AIN'T NOTHING BUT A SANDWITCH. Cruel, but politics is politics.
Complain about this comment
The BBC coverage of the obama campaign in recent days is quite embarassing to be honest. In the first instance, the democratic convention is suppose to be about obama nomination, they've made it about Hillary's loss and her unhappy supporters. There's no doubt senator clinton ran a spirited campaign, and was disappointed to lose in the end, but barack obama ran a great, discplined campaign, and in the end deservedly won. it's high time the bbc give the obama campaign the full credit it deserves, and show some respect with regard to the historic democratic convention.
Again, watching the bbc news tonight, the impression you get is that everything about obama, wife and family is unreal playacting contrived to make them look nice and likeable to the American public, including the year old daughter shouting to the mic on stage... What kind of reporting is that
Finally, Justin, your misrepresentation of Michelle Obama tonight is disingenous to say the least. So at what time did she say she was proud of the country for the first time because her husband is running for president? Any informed person knows that's not what she said, but that's what the press- and you Justin- has made it out to be. Oh i forget- didnt you predict in January that McCain will win the presidential election? You' re now on McCain's payroll, and pretending quite artfully to be objective, right?
Complain about this comment
I think Intrade has the odds about right - Obama with a 60%+ chance to win. But if he follows marygrav's advice and adopts the slogan "A HERO AIN'T NOTHING BUT A SANDWITCH" he'll struggle to carry Illinois. Even if he spells sandwich right.
Complain about this comment
We should have sympathy for a journalist who must write his stuff of the plane while
trying to solve complex problems of personal logistics.
Is it not sufficient to capture the spirit of the times by repeating and making much of the political catch phrases being thrown about?
Can we not call that journalism?
If, perish the thought, some issues might be addressed this evening, to what source may we look for presentation and analysis?
Lustig?
Complain about this comment
Whoa whoa whoa marygrav #3
"Having McCain as a candidate who promises change is too much of a stretch so they are letting him serve out Bush 4th term"
What, that's the Nobama mantra. GW and McCain't are worlds apart united in the hip by party only. Don't put that Bush fourth stuff, (wheres the third term then).
Such a tactic the left has, claim a position for the primary, when it no linger works, say the right had that position. Guns and Religion now, how far right is Nobama moving, is winning at any cost really winning?
The real Nobama change it seems at this point is that the informed are reaching to stay with him, not tha McCain't is better, just not as bad. Will actually see when the prepublican picks his Veep. That pick will transend to the next President.
How'd ya'll like Nobama introducing Biden as "the next president"
lol hahaha, this joke is like the energiser bunny, it keeps going, and going
Complain about this comment
Xing_Ming
I feel your pain.
Complain about this comment
Free from gun violence, can anyone say 'England'. God forbid this pair win, we will be paying for them to take our guns, giving them to criminals and hiring more police because of the rise in crime, to control the masses of innocents while they 'fine' all good people by traffic, garden and grass laws and 'Look" for the bad guys.
Same is as ever was
Complain about this comment
#4, ProfCapelo, as soon as they let Justin
and his BBC compatriots on Obama's plane,
you'll see an attitude change.
They're just afraid that he'll ask something
silly, like, "How many Ferraris do you own?"
#9, DT, I'm with you. I don't care what
this guy from Montana says, if Obama
and Biden get in, they'll want to take away
everything in my life which is fun.
You'll have to pardon me now, I'm going
to watch "Red Dawn" on a DVD. Only, this
time I think I'll believe that it's really going
to happen.
Complain about this comment
Too true about Obama picking Biden Justin! "Hope and change" until the victory line is in sight!
Complain about this comment
One cannot disregard the question that common sense begs an answer: The US is indeed at the cross-roads or on a economic cliff-hanger where it has been placed by the Republican party after 8 years of irresponsible governing and at this point does anyone want more? The importance of this election cannot be overemphasized. The Democrats must win and the standard must only now become excellent leadership irrespective of race or sex. So many of us are depending on this. It is almost a matter of life and death for us the middle and lower class.
Complain about this comment
A response
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Dougy,
#9, England is largely free from gun crime, except for the drug gangs who are by and large less obvious now that some soft drugs have been decriminalized.
I have a gun there. I have guns here. All legal, all licensed, all controlled to a greater or lesser degree. No one is talking about taking the right to own a gun away, despite what the NRA would tell you.
However, there is a debate about what guns you should be able to own. A nice Krieghoff 12 gauge (bore) over and under for hunting or shooting skeet (congrats to the Gold medal boy from Texas, BTW)? Obviously yes. A 155mm self propelled howitzer? I would argue obviously no.
I would also suggest that the grey area in between should be regulated by individual States and Cities. What is reasonable in Texas, for example, or Wyoming, is unsuitable in New York City. I live in the UK, Manhattan and Pennsylvania. I totally support your right, and mine to own a gun. I even support your right to carry a handgun concealed if your local community and government is in favor.
But I would beg to offer that it is disgusting that Philadelphia police officers can be gunned down with an assault rifle with armour piercing rounds and that the City cannot outlaw such weapons. I mean, WTF would you hunt with that? There wouldn't be enough deer left for a barbeque. This is another area where the partisan extremists have made the law a mockery. I blame the NRA the most, which is why I refuse to be a member despite being a gun owner. The 'I can own anything' arguement is irresponsible.
There has to be a middle ground.
Sad Sam
Complain about this comment
Brilliant!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#12
Sylbia,
You have a good point. Another is that the wealthy need to do better as well. Not trying to be funny but it is better to have a smaller piece of a much bigger pie than a bigger piece of an old smaller pie. The last 8 years, while they have not exactly sucked, have not been great either.
And if you don't have any kind of diversified portfolio, the Bush policy of allowing the dollar to devalue while following borrow and spend policies has been the biggest asset rob in history. I'm lucky to have some UK assets which have insulated my net worth. But otherwise even as a 'rich' person (by most standards but not John McCains. I have 3 kitchen tables. I guess you lose count at around 5) my global purchasing power and net worth has dropped over the last 8 years.
It's a dirty little secret. Unfortunately if you are all US based and fairly well off you wouldn't notice it, except for the increasing price of good French wine. You may even think you bought well . . . .
Sick Sam
Complain about this comment
All of Obama Copacabana's actions are those of a "politician not a crusader", and have been all along despite the disingenous rhetoric. His pious promises of "hope" and "change" are as phoney as the man himself, they are a 'mile high and an inch deep'. As the pompous Post redundantly observes this "is obvious" and has been from the start. The choice of Biden obviously put paid to any lingering notion of Obama as a reformer let alone a radical i.e. "crusader". Obama is the American analog to Tony Blair, a fresh face after an umpopular reactionary administration that can lull the proles back to sleep with false promises while giving the people who count, the ruling elites, everything they want. Like Blair, Obama even has the stamp of approval of the redoubtable Rupert Murdoch. And Biden has been a dutiful corporate waterboy in the Senate and a loyal AIPAC stooge for years longer than Obama has, so he fits the bill just fine. If Biden is really so concerned about keeping automatic weapons, and worse, out of maniacs hands, he should long ago have stopped supporting arms shipments to homicidal butchers like Sharon and Shaakavili and many other tyrants. Obama/Biden - deadly business as usual Get ready world, here they come!
Complain about this comment
Proles,
I know a good anger management counselor.
Lighten up!
Sam
Complain about this comment
What the Republicans need to have a fair chance to win in November is fewer slogans and soundbites and a lot more substance in their message. Placing their hopes on a few cute quips and assurances that the policies that are bankrupting our country will continue unabated is not going to do it for them.
Complain about this comment
#14, Sam, there you go again...
What's wrong with a 155mm artillery piece?
We have some big deer here.
And, actually, I've been shopping for new
wheels ever since the price of gas went
up. Something like this.
Complain about this comment
#20.
Guns, if you own 50,000 acres to shoot it on and promise to go to jail for 20 federal if it ever points outside that range, and you ain't killing an endangered species, I'm OK with it.
Shermans are cool. Won WWII.
Gunner Sam
Complain about this comment
#14. SamTyler1969: "I have a gun there. I have guns here." Why would you ever want a gun in England? Presumably it is a rifle of some kind since handguns are banned, although the government has made an exception for Olympic shooting. I assume you have taken American citizenship since aliens are barred from gun ownership, but unless you live in a particularly dangerous area (which seems unlikely given your multiple residences) I cannot see any reason to ever possess one.
Complain about this comment
The slogan to beat is that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President of the United States because he doesn't have enough experience. Who made up that slogan? Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Who will have to beat that slogan? Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama. Were they lying then or are they lying now?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Having just seen Michelle Obama speak, I must say how well she has softened her image. I couldn't determine whether she used a TelePrompter or not, but in any case, her words seemed to come from her heart. Possibly a wee bit saccharine and even weepy in parts, but nevertheless she was able to present a family appeal which resonated with those present. Even the well placed reference to Mrs Clinton was attractive, although perhaps she might have let the delegates cheer just a little longer. The best I've seen her do yet and she may be the most valuable player on the team.
Complain about this comment
#22
Hi David,
I have a Beretta Montecarlo for pheasant in the UK. It is the one time of the year I really enjoy challenging myself by using something that makes the event harder than it could be. Plus you have to give the birds a chance and appreciate the hit.
BTW I believe if you don't eat what you shoot, don't shoot. That is disrespectful of the bird and the challenge. I don't use beaters, I believe in walk the hunt and work it with one dog. I get one pheasant in 5 days. But I'm not very good. And that one pheasant does taste good.
In the US I tend to shoot sporting clays because there are so many great courses near my PA home. I have a 20 gauge Cynergy Euro Sportsman and a faithful 12 gauge Citori 525. I like the 525 for competition and the Cynergy for long days of fun and training. It is the old trade off of tech vs tradition. My wife shoots 20' so it's also nice to shoot the same gauge together.
BTW, Aliens are not barred from gun ownership in the US, any green card holder can buy a handgun in 2 hours, a long gun in 5 minutes. Except at gun shows, there you can buy a semi auto assault rifle on the spot. Dumb?
I am also a US Citizen first and a UK resident second. Not the other way around.
Sleep well,
Armed Sam
Complain about this comment
Back in the day American politics used to bring in people from both parties of different viewpoints to strengthen the bond of the country. Biden might be viewed as calculated and not one of stark change, but perhaps it's more of a way to try to end the polarizing makeup of American politics and bring people together to bring about results that people on both sides of the political spectrum can agree upon.
Complain about this comment
#28, PaulieNumbers, of all of the people that
Obama could have chosen as his running mate,
Biden is probably the least acceptable for me,
due to his position on the bankruptcy bill.
I have friends who were dumped by the airlines,
who got out of paying them their pensions by
declaring bankruptcy. I don't think we should
have one bankruptcy law for the rich and another
for the poor.
Biden is the kind of Democrat who pretends to
support the middle class, but who actually does
the opposite.
To put it another way, if I see a wolf in my
neighborhood, I bring my cats in, and let it
pass because I know that it's just doing its
job. But if I were to see a wolf dressed up
like a sheep, then I would kill it, and appropriate
its clothing.
Complain about this comment
Dear Justin:
This string of postings seems to have lost the trail, and has degenerated into some kind of personal chat line. No doubt that comes as a bit of a disappointment.
In any case, since the plot has been lost, perhaps we could move on to something else. I notice that your colleague has written an article entitled "Intel Cites US Education Crisis", but there doesn't seem to be any place to submit a comment. This comes just after reading a long piece in the NY Times "In classroom a Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash" pages 1, 18 and 19, August 24, 2008.
There was a time when America believed in science and technical advancement. It had that great faith in technology that underlies "The Right Stuff". In some ways, belief in scientific advancement was the prevailing faith of the times. It was the era when America was known for its optimism and can-do spirit. Science, knowledge and progress were the way of the future (along with the Interstate system, the Ford Mustang, mini skirts and transistors). Everybody learned that the founding fathers included Washington, Jefferson, and above all Franklin. They were all men of learning.
I do not recall, as a child, the prevalence of uncritical religiosity that seems to have grown like a weed in the last 30 years. Nor do I recall that there was a right wing evangelical monopoly on Christianity, nor that to be a Republican anyone had to go to church rather than golfing on Sunday morning, nor that to be a Republican a person had to be against abortion as a defining litmus test issue, nor to be against education. It seems to me that in those days Republicans tended to be more highly educated, and generally better off. At the time it was important to be well read, and to have a well rounded education. A broad based education in the liberal arts was something to be admired, not scorned as it is now. I also do not recall widespread attendance at bible colleges, or widespread home schooling. I do not recall presidential candidates having ritualistically to make pilgrimages to, to bow down before, and to pander to, religious demagogues. At most, Billy Graham was a very public friend of Richard Nixon.
Yet now we are treated to the embarrassing and demeaning spectacle of one candidate tying himself in knots trying to placate the God squad without actually lying or alienating his own base, while the other candidate simply gives them the answer they want on the first go. Bible colleges proliferate and ignorance is celebrated in popular culture. We have teachers unions that have been adept at entrenching themselves, at protecting wages and benefits in teaching, yet remarkably poor at turning out well qualified graduates (the Intel article). Somehow the impregnable power of the teachers' unions and the subsequent rise of the evangelical Christian madrassas seem related.
Which leads to the topic: How did this happen ? When did America lose its way so dramatically on education ? How is it possible that 150 years after the voyage of the Beagle a candidate for any public office could endorse "intelligent design" and not be laughed off the stage, let alone run for the Republican nomination and receive 30 % of the votes cast in some primaries ? How is it possible that with America visibly in decline, facing very serious problems of financial overstretch, and facing a softening economy, a substantial sector of the electorate not only appears to think that opposition to abortion is an important public policy issue, but the defining and only public policy issue at stake in the present election ? Do these people not read ? Do they pay no attention to the news ? What planet are they living on ? This is utterly baffling. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic: these people more than any other group are responsible for the election (twice!) of a man who seems almost certain to be remembered, if at all, as the most incompetent President of all time.
This abdication to the religious demagogues is a public disgrace and the subject of widespread ridicule outside America, and yet it receives virtually no critical comment in the press inside America. How did this happen ?
Complain about this comment
The lyrics to a song that was number one in America for months in the 70s could not be printed by BBC because it "broke the rules." BBC is the sewer of journalism, the cesspool of fairness. And they didn't like at all what I had to say about a certain Senator who drove drunk off a bridge and didn't report that a woman died in his car as a result. Glad I don't live in a country where one media outlet controls most of what is seen and heard on radio and TV. Britain has nothing over Russia or China.
Complain about this comment
#26
I was looking forward to hearing Mrs Obama.
However, the plans of NEWSHOUR went awry and I was streamed thirty minutes of two souls lamenting the misery of those who die alone ( I think it was called "Outlook").
It appears that BBC management has no way of adjusting schedules to events.
It is good to hear that you were impressed.
The selected quotes posted were very well done!
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, I don't know how this
happened, but I agree with your observations
that the "religious right" has overstepped its
bounds and taken over Christianity somehow.
It's time for the man upstairs to do something
about it. The rest of us are just ushers in the
theater.
Complain about this comment
Justin:
Al Gore was the first candidate in modern history to not even carry his home state. That is how powerful the gun control issue in America. Championing gun control wins no one over and in some parts of the US guarantees political defeat.
Q:
Am I the only one who would like to see in-depth objective reporting on the local politics in Chicago? After all the refernces at the DNC tonight Chicago -- where the Democrats have ruled unchallenged for about 50 years -- I think it warrants a close professional examination to better inform people more about what Obama is really about.
We've seen enough of the partisan puff pieces -- why not talk to some other people beside Chicago Democrats about Chicago Democrats?
I think the world should know about Emil Jones -- Obama's political godfather -- who is retiring and leaving his seat to his son. This follows a grand Chicago tradition like Todd Stroeger on the Cook County Board accepting the presidency there from his loving father.
Or how about Governor -- ROd Blagojavich -- an early Obama supporter and "un-named unindicted (yet) co-\nconspiritor?
With all the Illinois Dems speaking at the DNC -- why have they left out the Democrat governor of that state?
Seriously BBC folks -- there are some great and interesting stories here -- if you are willing to challenge the party line (quite literally) given at the DNC.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and Interestedforeigner, while we're at
it, let's go ahead and waste time passing
an anti-flag waving amendment, or something
like that.
There's nothing like a political circus to take
attention off the issues that really matter.
Complain about this comment
#30
Obviously, you fail to recognize that Jesus Christ was a Republican!
The question is a good one, however. In 1942, the evangelicals were still populists and very distrustful of banks.
The New York Review of Books discusses this in "What's the Matter with Arkansas?". There, the solid folk are losing farms, homes and jobs following false prophets of Republican exploitation.
As speculation, one could suggest the ingrained sense of personal guilt makes evangelical people look for some external devil on which to project that feeling of guilt.
The indoctrination of the media and the religious establishment blocks any thought of attacking of changing the imposed system.
Thus, one must go after "liberal" schoolteachers, "Darwinists", gays, and all sorts of easy targets- rather than direct their anger against the real trouble.
One may also note the great funds that become available through TV "ministries" and the bribes arranged through "Faith Based Initiatives", etc.
You raise a good question. Perhaps some have already sought to answer it.
Complain about this comment
Why is it that some people (#6) just can't get it? This isn't journalism; it's a blog. There's plenty of hard journalism out there, including some on this BBC web site.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and Interestedforeigner, big companies
like Intel, Microsoft, and Google are crummy
places to work. Most engineers work there
for a few years, and then move on to start-ups.
It doesn't bother me at all that Intel wants
slave labor and can't get it. Here's what is
really going on.
The problem with America is not that we don't
graduate enough good engineers; the problem
is that our management culture sucks.
On the other hand, having a technical
background is a great way to succeed in
America, because you can outsmart just
about any of the MBA crowd.
Complain about this comment
#35, I meant "flag-burning", not "flag-waving".
Complain about this comment
#27. Sam: "I am also a US Citizen first and a UK resident second" - British spelling seems to have rubbed off on you - grey rather than gray (#14) which is why I made the assumption. Green card holders come up against different regulations in different states, but it's never occurred to me to own any kind of firearm, not even for sport. Killing animals for fun isn't my idea of a good time, although I concede that I do eat meat and enjoy pheasant and grouse - the grouse season just opened in the UK and it is shot on the wing, unlike here where it is "farmed" and thus flavourless. As a rule, "London's Oldest Restaurant" has splendid game next time you're back.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #30, Interestedforeigner:
To answer your question, the "God Squad" got angry and involved after their political opposites infiltrated the school boards and rather than look out for the best interests of children, forwarded a political agenda. The way was paved first by the other side, who filled the classrooms with progressive experimentation. Now you see the back lash, where the religious right feels justified to do the same. It's your children's educations that will suffer from this war of ideologies fought at school board elections across America.
Religion is philosophy, and evolution is science. The two are compatible within a school, but only when taught as originally intended as separate disciplines. When you make science a religion, or religion a science you extend and corrupt their tenets to the fringe of lunacy.
Don't try to lay it all at the feet of the "God Squad". It takes two to tango. Imagine how the "God Squad" feels when the school health program is teaching 10 year old girls how to use condoms.
Until the two sides reconcile, you will continue to get the worst of both sides, and you will continue to pay a horribly high price for poor education.
Complain about this comment
Rather strange fruit. Unripe. I wonder if it will be picked. Or maybe just passed over and left there hanging.
Complain about this comment
#30. Interestedforeigner: "This string of postings seems to have lost the trail, and has degenerated into some kind of personal chat line." For goodness' sake, do lighten up! Some of the comments here can get very heavy and it makes a pleasant diversion to read - and respond to - some more lightweight topics. The information about various posters helps us know how opinion comes about; not all of us bother to write (or read) postings of seven hundred words, however scholarly they may be.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #14, SamTyler1969:
"I would also suggest that the gray area in between should be regulated by individual States and Cities."
The problem with your proposition Sam, is that with "rights" there can be no middle ground. Otherwise, you have partial rights.
Either, you have the right to bear arms, or you do not have the right to bear arms. When you dilute a right, you allow the government to tell you when you may or may not have rights. According to the founding fathers of America, these were natural rights.
Substitute in "freedom of speech". How would you like a nation where the government guarantees your "freedom of speech" sometimes. Perhaps in such a nation, you would be free to submit your grievances to the registrar of complaints. Or, perhaps "news" organizations would need to be registered with the government.
Regulated speech smacks of tyranny, and to many Americans (who have traditionally had the right to defend themselves) the right to bear arms is also a bulwark against tyranny.
Yes, there are problems with having "arms" available to citizenry. They are involved in accidents. They are used in committing crimes. They are a machine meant for one purpose, killing (human beings). The burden of a free society is that freedoms will be misused, however the solution to this misuse is not dispossession of rights for the innocent.
Here is an interesting rebuttal of your proposition, by William Rawle.
A View of the Constitution of the United States by William Rawle
He even goes on to describe your false premise of needing weapons for hunting purposes. The ability of a nation of citizens to stand against tyranny should not be regulated by foresters and game keepers.
Complain about this comment
Will the real MAII please stand up....you have finally been found in Sagalassos...so much for being in Ca.
Complain about this comment
Guys, not having guns is why the Nazis ran,... walked over you. A hunting rifle, a shotgun with bird shot, in todays world is a pitchfork against an armored Knight.
The reason the United States exists, is because when the British came to make us whimper, we shot back, they died and we moved on. No one fought 'for' us, we did it.
We stand in contrast to the world today, on one hand, the extolled evil empire, corrupt and violent, a bully to be feared,.. by those who would enslave us,.. on the other, a country of free people, just and giving. A beacon for the oppressed and hungry, a hope where none is to be found, a grocery store with the lights on at midnight. A soup line for the poor.
"We" the United States, are so by choice, as stated in an earlier post, one about the olympics, we don't look German, Chinese, European or African,... we are all of them, all of you, and damn proud of it.
We also encompass the dark side on mankind as well as good, in our mist as in yours, evil resides, it is our curse and our glory. Freedom is never free and there is always evil lurking at the dark corner on every street. We prepare for it.
We are not afraid to fight back, we fight to survive, to exist for one reason only, freedom. And for us to look for, or to another to ensure freedom, is to enslave ourself to the giver. Not us.
That is why, from my dead cold hands you can have my gun(rights), because 'you' nor 'anyone else' makes me free, "I do". People fear guns, only when they fear evil, and won't protect thier neighbor nor themselves. Good men are nothing to fear, armed or not.
Rely on your Government for all things and they rule you, like in England. Rely on yourself and neighbors and your Government exists by my/your, choice as mine now does.
the times they are a changing, can you smell it?
texas rocks, america rules, n0bama,
peace, because we said so
Complain about this comment
37, Gary.
And blogs are much less constrained. There is no policy to adhere to and no editor to please. (Not entirely true. The moderator occasionally punishes us.)
Complain about this comment
#34, MikeIl, you make a good point about
Chicago politics. It goes all the way back to
"ward politics", and the Kennedy-Nixon election
after that.
I'm sure they know about that at the BBC;
they probably know who killed Kennedy and
how many bullets were used, and are just
waiting until the right moment to tell us.
Complain about this comment
43, David.
I like comments that are short and snappy, and informative or funny. When they read like dissertations and dwell on minutia -- well, I go on to the next ones. I am probably mssing a lot, but....
Complain about this comment
Real Frigid #44.
Amen, when Americans speak, you can feel 'em. The passion for freedom isn't in the gun, nor that we look to overthrow our Government, it is in the ability to be self (free) dependant, and most of the world cannot 'feel' that which they never had.
Freedom by dependence is an oxymoron, but those so indoctrinated feel:threatened by us, sorry for us, have pity on us or know we are ignorant of the 'higher' cause of being cared for, cradle to grave.
welcome young skywalker, feel the darkside
peolple of peace
Complain about this comment
45, Kecsmar.
I think staphylococcus aureus is writing under three different names. How many have you found?
Complain about this comment
Hey Europe
America is not voting for the President of the World. The American people are smart enough to see that the liberal media across the world want America to be like the rest of the world ( without direction and always politically correct). America is still strong and the American people are too smart to fall to the IDOL image of this left wing wimp we know as Barak Obama. Go McCain.
Not a sermon just a thought.
Mark from America
Complain about this comment
"His will to win is overpowering. "
Indeed. That's all he has, he has yet to articulate anything remotely concrete other than vacuous twitterings about "change".
140+/- days in the senate and he's qualified to be CinC ? Sick joke.
Maybe his teleprompter isn't loaded with the right script yet - ever see him try to function without one ? It's not pretty.
The Democrats are yet again about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Complain about this comment
41, Real. Now that school textbooks are produced on a large scale, no matter where you live the children are, for the most part, reading the same books.
When I was in elementary school, the books reflected the region we lived in. In New York City we learned about Peter Stuyvesant and the Dutch East India Company. We also read local Dutch folk tales and could recognize houses that were in the Dutch style.
When we briefly lived in a market town in upstate New York, our reading included diffrent kinds of cows and local architectural styles.
The history and culture of the region we lived in was preserved and we felt a part of it.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #46, DougTexan:
"The reason the United States exists, is because when the British came to make us whimper, we shot back, they died and we moved on. No one fought 'for' us, we did it."
Technically, when the most powerful military and naval power in the world came to make the Americans whimper, they would shoot, whimper and run away to hide in the brush to fight another day. Nathanael Greene's motto was, "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." The Brits were used to marching out into a field opposite their opponent in an orderly fashion and blasting away at 50 paces until once side broke and ran. There was probably also as many Americans who were loyalists or neutral, as there were "patriots".
George Washington lost the bulk of his armies engagements, but won the war because of the tenacity to wait for a moment of audacity when they could catch the Brits with their pants down. Then, after a few fortuitous wins, the French felt they would not be siding with a sure loser.
So, I would say that the US exists today due to unconventional tactics, better knowledge of the wilds, better use of propaganda, the alliance with the French, the leadership of Washington's masonic brothers from Europe (Lafayette, Rochambeau, etc.), and the contumacy, temerity or audacity of not giving up in the face of certain slaughter.
It is a disturbing thought to juxtapose their King George, for America's current President George and think about America's foreign excursions and the "patriots/insurgents" who use the same approach on what they see as a new tyrant.
If your point was that having arms helped American "patriots" resist the British, then yes, absolutely it was essential. Without the ability to muster a militia, there would have been no United States.
Complain about this comment
#53, Stan_Expat, are there any recordings
of Obama online without his teleprompter?
This sounds interesting, I'd like to take a look.
Complain about this comment
53, Stan.
Obama spent many years in the Illinois State legislature before he went to Congress as a senator. He has, in fact, many more years experience as an elected official than does Clinton.
Clinton was calling her husband's experience her own. Not valid. It's not yours if you are not responsible. She was the first lady, a sort of public relations figure, not the president.
Complain about this comment
#54, when I was in school, starting at about 5th
grade, I was introduced to literature via the
Great Books program.
I realize now that this is why I am not a typical,
illiterate, "fat, gun-slinging idiot." I wonder
if this is a prevalent program today?
Complain about this comment
So the Post thinks Biden is a brilliant decision based on cold desire for power?
Too absurd.
Biden will not add a single vote to Obama's tally. He is neither an asset or a deterrent.
If that is Obama's idea of playing hardball and making a pragmatic decision, he is living in a dream world.
Complain about this comment
#44, and #46--Amen, and amen again.
Mr. Webb: The Dems have a terrible task ahead of them: How to stage a week-long public lie for public consumption, to convince us that they
1. Aren't socialists to quasi-Marxist in their beliefs (they are).
2. Don't feel contempt for middle-class Judeo-Christian values (they do).
3. Don't desire the US military to lose the wars in Iran and Afghanistan (they do--they revelled in the defeat in Southeast Asia, and turned their backs as millions were slaughtered by Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh)
The breathless Ken Burns tribute to Teddy Kennedy was just breathtaking, a true piece of Democrat work. Wonder what the Kopechne family would have to say in response?
Complain about this comment
#51 AllMM
several..and you?
Complain about this comment
52, Splendid.
The "idol image" is a label used by the McCain people to diminish Obama. It is effective.
Complain about this comment
61, kecsmar.
Three so far:
MarcusAureliusII (staphylococcus aureus)
MarkTribet
MikeII
Are there others?
Complain about this comment
60, OldSouth.
The Kopechne family won't say anything. They took the money. I would say that that whole disgusting affair shows little virtue on either side.
Complain about this comment
#46. DougTexan : "Guys, not having guns is why the Nazis ran,... walked over you." I hate to break it to you, but Britain has not been invaded by anyone, including the Nazis, since 1066. Can't say the same about the USA! The Luftwaffe was defeated in the Battle of Britain in 1940, before America was brought into the war by the bombing at Pearl Harbor over a year later.
Complain about this comment
#52, #62, I thought the whole ad was
amusing, but did nothing to diminish my
opinion of Obama.
I'm interested in what the guy would do,
not whether or not he is glamorous.
It wouldn't hurt McCain to hang out with
the Hollywood set. It wouldn't help either,
but he would get more airtime.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #54, allmymarbles:
I suppose that is good and bad. At least they need to cater to the average opinion, and not stray too far beyond what is acceptable to the masses. Textbooks are a modern convenience which free a teacher from having to design a curriculum.
America is still seduced by the myth of consistency in education (e.g. standardized curriculum, standardized testing). The only outcome they will find is consistently mediocre or poor.
If you want education to be better, make and hire better teachers. This is where the unions hamper the pursuit of quality. A school is not a factory, but it is run like one. Their students are a product that are shaped to be a cog in the American society. I almost said, "labor force", but that would be wrong. There is little need for Americans to be laborers anymore. The bulk of them are probably more likely shaped into dutiful consumers.
What I see missing in teaching is transmitting the lust for knowledge to students. Everyone is rather trying to stay above a bar, that keeps lowering to the least common denominator.
Complain about this comment
#65, David_C, don't confuse us with the facts.
Complain about this comment
65, David.
I think we read different history books. If England was doing so well all by herself, why did she need us? What a waste of our effort. We could have just sat out the war.
Complain about this comment
I watched Michelle's speech ala teleprompter. It seemed to evoke tears in some of the lady hearer's eyes. It evoked a weariness in me, and I think I'll do what all of us should do--get some shut-eye. There will be more blandness to come that will out-bland Teddy. Now that's bland. The miracle is that they say that stuff with straight faces. I just try to keep a stiff upper lip. Well, good night and good hunting.
Complain about this comment
allmy, if it weren't for the Brits, you and I
would be speaking Japanese, German, or
nothing at all.
Complain about this comment
#69. allmymarbles "I think we read different history books." We must do, since Britain declared war on Germany on September 3rd, 1939. The US declared war on Japan (or at least, President Roosevelt called upon the Congress to do so) on December 8th 1941, following which Germany declared war on the United States. And of course, for that first year, America did sit it out. It was in her own interests to assist Britain - a nation who later paid back every red cent of what had been loaned - with interest. Had the US not become involved, an attack by Germany would have been possible, after all, their submarines travelled as far as the East Coast. England (actually Great Britain) was not "all by herself"; the Empire nations rallied to the cause: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and others. Americans, however well educated, have come to think it was all their doing, which it wasn't. And, horror of horrors, it was the Soviet Union who lost most troops , nearly eleven million, with a similar number of civilian deaths. The US lost less than 500 thousand and under 2,000 civilians. Since you were approaching adulthood during the hostilities, surely you knew that it was a global war, or was it presented as America versus the World? The British (and French) are eternally grateful for American assistance, but it was mutual assistance, for the benefit of mankind, not one particular nation.
Complain about this comment
#63...one i missed, ta. But im certain spendidUSMark is too
;)
Complain about this comment
The latest in Dis... Unity at the DNC.
Complain about this comment
73, kecsmar.
So now we both have them all (maybe). Thanks. Do you think they are products of the human/simian cross experiment?
Complain about this comment
allmy, kecsmar, is there a term we can use
for all of these sockpuppets?
Complain about this comment
72, David.
Thank you for acknowledging our marginal assistance. How did you get all that equipment that allowed you to win the war practically without our assistance?
The more you talk the more I think we really should have stayed home. At the time, you know, we were more than self-sufficient in everything. We did not have to go beyond our shores for manufactures, for raw materials, for oil, or for food.
I am sorry we did not lose as many fighting men as other nations. Maybe we were better equipped and fed.
Complain about this comment
71, guns.
Read my #77. It is a shame that we of such little help. It is obvious they could have won the war without us.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #72, David_Cunard:
The delay in US direct involvement in WWII, is a direct consequence of their involvement in WWI. It was perhaps the not so great part of FDR's presidency. Prior to the repeal of the neutrality act of 1939, it was illegal for the US to trade certain goods with nations involved in war.
You forget about the volunteers, many whom were prosecuted under the neutrality act. The masses of Americans who crossed to Canada, and joined up. And, remember the three Eagles squadrons and 8200 Americans serving in the RCAF recruited by Clayton Knight, Charles Sweeney and Billy Bishop, former members of Lafayette's Escadrille. Thousands volunteered to join the Eagles, RCAF, and other foreign services (e.g. Flying Tigers).
You forget about the US merchant marine who braved treacherous waters and died from German domination of the Atlantic. 8,651 of the 215,000 who served died.
The Soviets banner of losing 10% of their population is what I call a pyrrhic victory, more a statement of their incompetence.
How many died due to Stalin's paranoid purges of his armies best leaders. How much US aid did the USSR receive in WWII? $11 Billion. The US army is the only reason that the USSR did not march all the way to France.
Also, how much the British $31 billion of Lend-Lease was paid for by Reverse Lend Lease?
Complain about this comment
in reply to #73, kecsmar:
Perhaps they relate to different schisms of personality. At least when they complement each others brilliance, we know that herring still stink in Denmark.
Complain about this comment
72, David.
You talk of rallying Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians to your cause. (I will leave out India because I do not know what part she played or where). These nations you mention had very small populations and a very small manufacturing capacity.
America had a huge population and the wherewhithal to convert its massive industry to the production of planes, tanks, ships, and whatever. Without us who was going to help you win the war? The French? The New Zealanders? Or would you not have won at all?
It is true that on the homefront we did not sufffer, and that the mainland was never attacked. We had rationing, but it was a joke. The only shortages I was aware of were silk stockings and gasoline for private cars. We were lucky, we had abundant food. Some of the British resented us for this, and probably still do. I presume you are one of them.
Complain about this comment
I don't know if anybody is still looking at
this web page, but I continued the thread
about US participation in WWII on the new
"Did she connect with you" page.
Complain about this comment
#75AllMM
well, there are many experiments not documented, owing to failures and not wishing to cause the general public alarm...this could be one...or some rouge S.Korean doing more suspect genome expts ;)
Complain about this comment
Need I point out that Bill Clinton, himself no friend of the gun lobby, won Montana in 1992?
In fact, he came within 3% of repeating the feat four years later, even after signing the Brady Bill.
Can we stop with the "so and so issue will deliver this state for this candidate" stories? Elections are complex, subtle things that don't deserve dumbing down like this.
Reducing not just a state but an entire region to one issue is lazy reporting of the worst kind.
Complain about this comment
79. At 08:48am on 26 Aug 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
In reply to #72, David_Cunard:
"The Soviets banner of losing 10% of their population is what I call a pyrrhic victory, more a statement of their incompetence.
How many died due to Stalin's paranoid purges of his armies best leaders. How much US aid did the USSR receive in WWII? $11 Billion. The US army is the only reason that the USSR did not march all the way to France."
Really, a statement of their incompetence eh? Well the survivors of Auschwitz were cetainly grateful for that "incompetence"
And if you believe for a moment that the US army could have even landed in Europe if the USSR had not taken on and largely broken the main German armies, then your ignorance of matters historical and military sets new standards even in the US, whre history is very badly taught (as it is elsewhere).
And certainly US dollars did help the war effort , but some of us think men's lives were just or even more vital.
Complain about this comment
81. At 09:05am on 26 Aug 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
72, David.
"It is true that on the homefront we did not sufffer, and that the mainland was never attacked. We had rationing, but it was a joke. The only shortages I was aware of were silk stockings and gasoline for private cars. We were lucky, we had abundant food. Some of the British resented us for this, and probably still do. I presume you are one of them."
No what the British resent, if they do, is the attitude by a surprising number in the US that somehow Britain did not fight in WWII but rather sat back and waited for the US.
Indeed reading some US comments (not all) one gets the impression that WWII started in 1941 and that nothing happened until the US joned in.
No wonder the Russians feel that their massive achievement, practically in defeating the Nazis, single handed, has been constantly underplayed.
Complain about this comment
I only post under one moniker but I was thinking of changing it to "If it pleases your lordship Marcus" because I am clearly smarter and better than ..... Where the Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal" it means in the eyes of the law, not in intelligence or other attributes. Proof? BBC moderators deleted the wrong ones of my posts. See if anyone can figure out why. Obviously you can't see the ones that didn't get published, BUT....It's an impossible uphill battle, almost vertical when you play in the other guy's field with his rules you don't understand. You're sliced to ribbons before you even understand the game. Allmymarbles, you didn't even get the riddle in the other thread, I'm not surprised this one flew right over your head along with everyone elses. You don't even know what I'm talking about. Are you sure you are from New York City? Funny, being from there myself, I never would have guessed.
I wouldn't trust one word Europeans say. How lucky we are that there are countless thousands of documentaries which tell the real story of World War II or some of us might beieve their lies. They didn't call America the arsenal of democracy for nothing. And there is no doubt that 80% of America wanted nothing to do with that war which is why President Roosevelt couldn't enter it even though he personally wanted to. Churchill went to bed every night praying that somehow America would come into it before England, I mean Britain or whatever its called fell to the Nazis. They were the last holdout and were on their knees about to fall. Roosevelt got around Congresses' ban on selling weapons to Britain before we entered the war by the ruse of lend lease which was undoubtedly illegal. There isn't the slightest doubt that had America not entered the war in Europe, Britain and the USSR would have fallen to the Axis. As it was they almost lost anyway.
As for paying the US back, after the war, Britain was broke. Because the war was over, there was no justification for sending more taxpayer money to them for free as had been done to fund the war. The US gave them huge loans for 50 years at 2% because nobody knew how long it would take them to recover. They just finished paying it back a few years ago, they just made the last payement. That's gratitude British style.
Funny how so many of them think we owe them something, think we like them, think America is somehow an extension of them. They think Obama will somehow change America to serve their interests. They are utterly confused. Politicians say nice words for photo ops but the deeper truth is that nations don't have friends, only interests and now America's interests and those of Europe's are sharply diverging. In the one remaining area of common interest, they won't even do their fair share to fight the war on terror even though it's in their own self interest of survival. If they lose and get taken over by militant Islam, it's their own fault. It could happen. At the rate things are going, I think it will. Even the Archbishop of Canterberry recently said adoption of some of Sharia law in Britain is unavoidable.
Complain about this comment
At 11:45am on 26 Aug 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
..... Where the Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal" it means in the eyes of the law, not in intelligence or other attributes."
Did they? So they considered slaves to be equal to themselves under the law?
Don't think so. Read the documnet first.
"They didn't call America the arsenal of democracy for nothing"
No they didn't, Roosevelt did., Again a glance at a history book would help.
"There isn't the slightest doubt that had America not entered the war in Europe, Britain and the USSR would have fallen to the Axis. As it was they almost lost anyway."
Despite the slightly awkward fact that Germany was defeated in Russia before US troops, aircraft or navy had made any impression in the fighting.
Now that is a fact.
"Funny how so many of them think we owe them something, think we like them, think America is somehow an extension of them."
America is, from its government, religion and language. All largely British.
Unless you claim to speak Algonquin.
Complain about this comment
There were some very misleading paragraphs above concerning the interpretation of the US Constitution concerning "arms".
Perhaps someone can quote the passage.
As I vaguely recall, it says "A well-regulated militia being necessary.. the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Nearly all of our posters can see the room for interpretation in that.
Complain about this comment
#44
Fridge,
By extension you have no rights. The right to bear arms infringes on anothers right to 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' by placing them in fear. The arguement that I can have anything I want and to hell with everyone else is narrow, twisted and inarticulate. The logic is that schoolchildren can carry heavy machine guns?
We can all quote scholars to support our point of view, although generally I have a low opinion of lawyers writings. I take your William Rawle and offer you Kant's Critique of Practical reason in return.
The reality is that there is a trade off between the rights of each individual. The debate isn't about control, it's about who does it and how much.
It's also slightly ridiculous to think that a bunch of rednecks could protect us from our government or from foreign powers. If you believe that you should go spend the weekend in the woods with the 82nd Airborne, Gurkhas, Marines or some other elite unit. You'd last precisely 2 seconds.
It strikes me as deeply ironic that those who carp on about States rights so much only believe in them when they want to do something and don't believe in them when they want to tell me what to do, who I can marry or sleep with and so on. Lets get back to the original idea of the federal government. Let them handle defense, foreign policy and foreign trade. Hand everything else back to the States.
Doug I would fight for your right to bear arms. But within reason.
Libertarian Sam
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
You need to get out more. Travel, take in some sights. And read. Reading is so important.
With regards to WWII, we all owe each other, or rather our parents and grandparents did since I for one was not around for the fighting. Could America have stood against a united Germany and Japan if the UK had captulated and used the RN, it's last bargaining chip' to secure some form of Vichy government?
Unlikely. Sooner or later Russia would have fallen and China too. Eventually America would have been out produced and onsumed by the global regime of slave labor and horror. Our parents and grandparents saved the world for us, all of us, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Nazis suck.
Live long and prosper!
Historian Sam
Complain about this comment
#91
For Sam the Historian:
The construction of Roosevelt Rhodes, (between Vieques and Puerto Rico) was exactly to receive the British Home Fleet
after Britain had collapsed to Operation Sea Lion!
Complain about this comment
Sam, I agree, the part of lasting two seconds I mean, but I don't ever think I'll be fighting my own Government nor military in open confrontation. It is absurd to think a small , say Texas Militia could stand against a fed and supplied army. Our army is our Militia, our States National Guard.
Heck, in Afganistan, the militia fought the Russians and now the Amerians, with little gain but freedom from the (as perceived)oppressor.
My rant wasn't about guns as much as the slippery slope of lost rights, for every one right taken that is noticed, untold others are effected or lost as well.
wait for the world and the world
waits with you, not for you.
Complain about this comment
DougTexan (#46) wrote"
"Guys, not having guns is why the Nazis ran ... over you."
What a simplistic analysis. No militia would have held off the Nazis. It took a few years of assembling heavy armament, and considerable effort, to defeat the Nazis, who had a huge head start in arms production.
I don't think Americans are in any position to lecture Europeans about the Nazis. We in North America had it easy in WWII, protected from the Axis powers by geography.
Complain about this comment
83, kecsmar.
Maybe staphylococcus et al. represent failed experiments.
Complain about this comment
83, kecsmar.
Read #87. Definitely a failed experiment.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #85, Simon21:
You are claiming that Stalin was a friend of the Jews? However beneficent the Soviet soldiers were in killing Nazi's, is more than offset by Stalin's ruthlessness. How many died to Cheka, GPU, NKVD? How many of the Soviet 10% loss was due to Stalin's purges, and paranoia?
"If you believe..., then your ignorance of matters historical and military sets new standards even in the US..."
Ah, the fallacy of the false premise. You know better.
Complain about this comment
David.
I think there is little doubt that, without our supplies and troops, the British would have lost the war. Before we entered the scene, It was one nation against the Axis forces. It is ungracious, to say the least, to say our efforts meant so little.
America's true enemies were the Japanese. We diverted troops to Europe because it was agreed to end the war in Europe first. For this reason we suffered very heavy losses in the Pacific. If you were doing so well, you would not have needed us.
Once the war in Europe was over, America could finally concentrate on defeating Japan. We made advances, island by island, at great cost, and finally decided to end things with the atom bomb.
Complain about this comment
"97. At 4:10pm on 26 Aug 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
In reply to #85, Simon21:
You are claiming that Stalin was a friend of the Jews? However beneficent the Soviet soldiers were in killing Nazi's, is more than offset by Stalin's ruthlessness. How many died to Cheka, GPU, NKVD? How many of the Soviet 10% loss was due to Stalin's purges, and paranoia?"
Blather. The fact remains the Soviet Union defeated the German army in WWII at great loss and liberated the worst death camps.
If liberating death camps was unworthwhile to you then fine, it wasn't to the inmates - according to Primo Levi
Incidently what is a "friend of the jews"? What jews?
"The purging of the army, meanwhile, saw about 35,000 military officers shot or imprisoned. The destruction of the officer corps, and in particular the execution of the brilliant chief-of-staff Marshal Tukhachevsky, is considered one of the major reasons for the spectacular Nazi successes in the early months of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941."
Is it? By whom? What are the other factors the author alludes to?
""If you believe..., then your ignorance of matters historical and military sets new standards even in the US..."
Ah, the fallacy of the false premise. You know better."
I know basic history, I suggest you learn it too.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #90, SamTyler1969:
"By extension you have no rights. The right to bear arms infringes on another's right to 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' by placing them in fear. "
The premise of the US Constitution is that these inalienable rights are extensions of "Natural Law". You can toss in all the great philosopher's you like, but that does not change the reality of the Lockean basis of the US government. The right to bear arms is in support of your natural right to defend life from those who would take it from you.
"The argument that I can have anything I want and to hell with everyone else is narrow, twisted and inarticulate."
Who is making that argument?
"The logic is that schoolchildren can carry heavy machine guns?"
You have taken the concept to a ridiculous extreme. Children do not have full civic rights, except as given to them by their parents. You don't allow children to drive cars, until they are taught.
"We can all quote scholars to support our point of view, although generally I have a low opinion of lawyers writings. I take your William Rawle and offer you Kant's Critique of Practical reason in return."
Your opinions on lawyers aside, they do write the law, as opposed to philosophers.
"The reality is that there is a trade off between the rights of each individual. The debate isn't about control, it's about who does it and how much."
Sure, there is a social contract encoded in law, but the "reality" is the US Constitution that has set up certain guarantees of freedom regardless of how you would desire to erode them.
"It's also slightly ridiculous to think that a bunch of rednecks could protect us from our government or from foreign powers. If you believe that you should go spend the weekend in the woods with the 82nd Airborne, Gurkhas, Marines or some other elite unit. You'd last precisely 2 seconds."
Maybe I'm elite. Yours is a straw man argument. The original intent was that the US would not have a permanent standing army, but that each State would keep a well trained militia to be mustered as needed for national defense. It was considered the responsibility of every citizen to be well schooled and prepared to serve in their States militia. Those elite units would be your friends and neighbors. You can see how far the US has strayed from the original intent. The modern US military, and their occupation of foreign soil would have been considered an abomination by the founders. The US never demobilized after WWII, and has had to perpetuate conflicts ever since.
"It strikes me as deeply ironic that those who carp on about States rights so much only believe in them when they want to do something and don't believe in them when they want to tell me what to do, who I can marry or sleep with and so on. Lets get back to the original idea of the federal government. Let them handle defense, foreign policy and foreign trade. Hand everything else back to the States."
Well, Sam, it's called the Bill of Rights. Those rights not outlined specifically in the US Constitution are reserved for the States to manage. You are stepping on one of the original ten.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #99, Simon21:
"I know basic history, I suggest you learn it too."
You certainly claim to know it, although you are short in demonstrating it. The Soviets made a huge contribution to defeating Nazi's, but they didn't and couldn't do it alone. Without British and American help they would have fallen. The reverse is also true. It is nationalistically childish to claim as you do that the USSR won the war, as it would be to say the US won the war.
Complain about this comment
98, addendum
David.
And after the war in Europe was over, I do not recall Britain helping us in the Pacific. Apparntly that was our affair.
Complain about this comment
"101. At 4:48pm on 26 Aug 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
In reply to #99, Simon21:
"I know basic history, I suggest you learn it too."
"You certainly claim to know it, although you are short in demonstrating it. The Soviets made a huge contribution to defeating Nazi's, but they didn't and couldn't do it alone. Without British and American help they would have fallen. The reverse is also true. It is nationalistically childish to claim as you do that the USSR won the war, as it would be to say the US won the war."
Sorry but facts are facts. The German armies were crushed by the Soviets. The first major offensive was stopped by the Russians on their own, with very little help from the western allies
There were no US and British soldiers at Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk etc that is a fact.
Yes the US and the UK gave what assistance they could, but to say this would have materially effected the outcome is wrong. Anthony Beevor, Simon Seebag Montefiore make this very clear (the comment of the Bulgarian ambassador to Molotov was very prescient).
Stalin, surprisingly, also proved himself a competent CiC able to recognise talent. He tuned out to be better than Churchill and Hitler.
Complain about this comment
#98. allmymarbles: " It is ungracious, to say the least, to say our efforts meant so little." Now where did I write or even imply that? No-one doubts the contributions America made, but you just cannot rewrite history to suit yourself. I know all too well how easy it is for Americans to say "we won the war you" but it is a great deal more complicated than that, about which you might read #35 on the next subject, “Did she connect with you?” posted by gunsand religion - an American no less. You seem to be a well-informed and educated woman, but your grasp of the events of World War II is woefully lacking.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #103, Simon21:
The aid provided during the First Moscow Protocol, while the Germans occupied most of the Soviets arable land and industry, was what enabled Stalin to rebuild his factories further east, and eventually rebound to repel the Nazi's. As I've said before, without food, guns and bullets the Soviets would have fallen. You seem to have this mental block about acknowledging provable facts, except when they support your notions of history.
It is a pretty lame and useless argument to keep hoisting up the foil "if you don't believe what I say/do, then you are ignorant and your schooling deficient". Please stop.
"There were no US and British soldiers at Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk etc that is a fact."
That is true. But, I do believe the British were engaged in fighting Hitler, even before the Soviets decided to switch sides. Unfortunately, after WWI, the US passed laws to remain neutral and stay out of Europe's mess. It didn't work, and it took Pearl Harbor to convince Congress to get involved, again.
"Stalin, surprisingly, also proved himself a competent CiC able to recognise talent. He tuned out to be better than Churchill and Hitler."
He might have also been a great polka dancer (probably Dadaev), I'd rather have back those 60 million people he exterminated. I'd say that Churchill was the better man, and the better leader. Churchill never had to resort to "fear of death" to gain compliance to his ideas.
Complain about this comment
104, David.
What I do remember clearly was that the West did not begin to turn the tide in Europe until America was fully mobilized and engaged. Up until that time Britain was on the run. That is not to say that she was not fighting brilliantly and bravely, but she fought against a greater power. The odds changed when we joined forces.
I never meant to suggest that we won the war all by ourselves, merely that the war could not have been won without us.
And I am also aware that we got no help from Britain in our fight in the Pacific. The Australians were there, however.
Complain about this comment
One of the tremendous British contributions
was breaking the ENIGMA code.
Otherwise, the Russians would have been destroyed around Kursk.
Similarly, submarine warfare was checked by the intelligence from that code.
etc.
Really, it was a team effort!
Complain about this comment
Simon21 (#103), I've never heard another person describe Stalin as a "competent CiC." Stalin murdered thousands of Red Army officer in the Great Purge just before the beginning of WWII. Then he thought he could protect the Soviet Union from the Nazis by making a deal with Hitler. Had he been competent, he might have prepared to resist the Nazis with arms rather than treaties. What defeated the Nazis was the fighting spirit of Russians defending their homeland, not the "competence" of Stalin.
He may have been a little smarter than Hitler, but that's not a particularly high standard.
Complain about this comment
30. At 04:30am on 26 Aug 2008, Interestedforeigner
One of the first places to look is the "Primary" system. It is little more than a celebration of special interest influence peddling. Not only does this greatly increase the financial burden a candidate must overcome (greater indebtedness to political supporters) but removes the party from the selection process and moves it into the hands of the motivated, and well organized minority special interest factions. Here is another way to think about it of all registered voters, not eligible voters, only 27% voted in the primaries, which was a record. When you spread those votes out among all the participants in the primary these special interests, such as evangelical christians who may be only worth a few points, become a electoral colossus on the path to office because they will more than likely vote en masse as a bloc. When they begin to cooperate with other factions say gun rights groups espousing conservitism you can see how a party of the Republicans and Democrats can make a dramatic change. So in the name of democracy we have created a monster of the fringes of the political spectrum battling it out creating a government that has a great deal in common with a bi-polar child with ADD.
Complain about this comment
#106. allmymarbles: "I am also aware that we got no help from Britain in our fight in the Pacific." Actually, you did! Although mostly forgotten, if came from the British Pacific Fleet, known as Task Force 57. There is a book about it by Peter Smith and another, Walter Hixon's "The American Experience in World War II", which says that Fleet was only "allowed into the Pacific on sufferance, much against the will of Admiral King, only after Churchill had pressured FDR at the 1944 Quebec Conference." As #107. Xie_Ming notes, "Really, it was a team effort!"
Complain about this comment
#100
Natural Law IS a philosophical construct. As such, your post is a circular arguement.
Respond?
Next point - You
Children can buy any legal firearm in the US under the second amendment. There is no age limit.
Re 82nd airborne. Uh huh. I know. 1776 and all that. But NOW? Your point?
Re Bill Of Rights. Exactly my point. Thank you.
Professor Sam
Complain about this comment
110, David.
I shall have to look into that. I never heard our sailers talking about the British in the Pacific. It may be that your force was small, or that the boys I knew had no contact with them.
I know about the Australians from my other brother, who was in the army. They had problems with some kind of disease because they wore shorts instead of long pants. (Peculiar the things that stick in your mind.) The Australians had little toleration for Japanese POW's and would drop them out of the bomb-bay doors mid-Pacific.
In combat the Americans would sometimes shave their heads and grow their beards to look repellent and evil to the Japanese. The combination of their barbaric appearance and the wild rebel yells when attacking often unhinged the enemy.
Complain about this comment
105. At 5:38pm on 26 Aug 2008, RealFrigid wrote:
In reply to #103, Simon21:
The aid provided during the First Moscow Protocol, while the Germans occupied most of the Soviets arable land and industry, was what enabled Stalin to rebuild his factories further east, and eventually rebound to repel the Nazi's."
Sorry what Moscow priotocol is this? The only one I know had to do with the Prague Spring.
"As I've said before, without food, guns and bullets the Soviets would have fallen."
Well you have said it before but it is still wrong. It is men to use them who win wars. Iwo Jima was not stormed by machines.
And the the US did not supply the Soviet army the T 34, and soviet artillery were not made in the US.
Indeed Simon Montefiore quotes sources as saying that if Beria had been in charge of the US production, it would have increased.
Soviet bullets wer=e made in Soviet facotries by Soviets. The US did help but that had a minor impact.
"You seem to have this mental block about acknowledging provable facts, except when they support your notions of history."
Well I know soldiers win wars, You seem to have the ludicrous view that somehow the Soviets would have collpased if not for the Western allies.
Sorry that is totally wrong, read about the war and look at the dates.
"It is a pretty lame and useless argument to keep hoisting up the foil "if you don't believe what I say/do, then you are ignorant and your schooling deficient". Please stop."
Sorry but this is beyond dispute, Its like claiming the South won the US civil war, no they didn't.
And one can understand how the Russians feel their terrible sacrifices and success in WWII have never been fully appreciated by the West.
"There were no US and British soldiers at Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk etc that is a fact."
"That is true. But, I do believe the British were engaged in fighting Hitler, even before the Soviets decided to switch sides. "
True but these were the biggest battles of the entire war and the UK had been driven out of europe and was holed up behind its sea walls - with the exception of the RN and teh far East.
"Unfortunately, after WWI, the US passed laws to remain neutral and stay out of Europe's mess. It didn't work, and it took Pearl Harbor to convince Congress to get involved, again. "
That's not quite true. Non-intervention was a popular policy. It is also a great mistake to assume that Hitler did not have his supporters in the US, as he did elsewhere.
"Stalin, surprisingly, also proved himself a competent CiC able to recognise talent. He tuned out to be better than Churchill and Hitler."
"He might have also been a great polka dancer (probably Dadaev), I'd rather have back those 60 million people he exterminated."
I am talking about WWII not dancing. And it is a fact that Stalin turned out to be a better commander than his opponent, or Churchill who frequently came up with wild schemes. Anthony Beevor (no apologist for Stalin) makes this clear.
I'd say that Churchill was the better man, and the better leader. Churchill never had to resort to "fear of death" to gain compliance to his ideas.
That is beside point, though Churchill had no problems with bombing Dresden and his advocacy of gas warfare in Iraq before WWII hardly makes him a tribute to humanity.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #113, Simon21:
World War Two: How the Allies Won
It took the Americans a while to rewrite Lend-Lease to allow American aid directly to the Soviets, so up until the summer of 1942 the aid came from the British. By the end of June 1941, the Russians had started requesting materiel from the British and Americans. They asked for 3000 fighter planes, 3000 bombers, anti-submarine sonar (ASDIC) as well as a massive quantity of raw material and other goods. The US and Britain also supplied transport aircraft, locomotives, and heavy trucks.
Inventories of equipment at the time of the battle of Moscow show that LL equipment made up to 35% of the Soviets heavy tanks, and field artillery. The ratio of LL was 15% to 28% for airplanes, where the Soviets were mostly savaged in the air (losing over 18,000 LL planes and crews).
"It is men to use them who win wars. "
That is a ludicrous statement. The naked and starving do not win wars, no matter how bravely they face death.
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics ..." --Sun Tzu.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #111, SamTyler1969:
"Natural Law IS a philosophical construct. As such, your post is a circular argument."
It is not circular, you only need to read the language of the documents to understand their origins and therefore meaning. The phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." These fundamental rights cannot be surrendered in a social contract (i.e. government laws).
Children cannot vote. Children cannot represent themselves in a trial. Children cannot do many things, even though they are not explicitly proscribed in the Constitution. There is a concept in jurisprudence called competency. Until they are adults(competent), children rely on their parents to protects their rights.
"Re 82nd airborne. Uh huh. I know. 1776 and all that. But NOW? Your point?"
The US would be better off by stepping back from concept of Pax Americana, and focusing on what America needs for its own defense. Yes, America has the most powerful armed forces in the world. For what reason?
"Re Bill Of Rights. Exactly my point. Thank you."
I don't think you understand my point.
Article X - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So when you complain about States rights in relation to the second amendment, you contradict the tenth.
Complain about this comment
"14. At 01:22am on 26 Aug 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
Dougy,
#9, England is largely free from gun crime, except for the drug gangs who are by and large less obvious now that some soft drugs have been decriminalized. "
As it was before the gun bans. Legal guns and legal gun owners (with a couple of tragically high-profile exceptions) were not the problem. But the criminals (and their illegally obtained guns) who were the problem have continued to break the gun (and violence/robbery/murder) laws, as criminals are wont to do.
"I have a gun there. I have guns here. All legal, all licensed, all controlled to a greater or lesser degree. No one is talking about taking the right to own a gun away, despite what the NRA would tell you.
However, there is a debate about what guns you should be able to own. "
So no one is talking about taking away your guns (abart from the types of guns that they are talking about taking away).
"But I would beg to offer that it is disgusting that Philadelphia police officers can be gunned down with an assault rifle with armour piercing rounds and that the City cannot outlaw such weapons. I mean, WTF would you hunt with that? There wouldn't be enough deer left for a barbeque. "
Assault Rifles are automatic weapons, and are regulated by US federal law, and banned outright by certain States.
"Assault weapons" are an arbitarily defined collection of "military style" (i.e. scary-looking) semi-auto rifles that are functionally identical to many ordinary hunting/target rifles. And most hunting/target rifle rounds (certainly anything capable of taking down a deer) are "armour piercing", because most bullet-proof vests are designed to stop larger, slower, and less powerful handgun rounds.
And to merge this with the WWII discussion (and this seems to be one of the few times I've seen a gun-control argument drowned out by some other more heated argument):
Yes, its true that one man, or a small group, couldn't stand up against a modern state (either the Nazis or a contemporary equivilent). But look at how much trouble the Nazis had putting down the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Now imagine if that sort of revolt had occured all over Germany and the occupied territories, and among a much greater proportion of the population (rather than the 3000 survivors of a ghetto that had at one point contained about 100,000).
Alternatively look at Iraq to see how a relatively poorly armed militia can make life a nightmare for a great power. (Of course, looking at Iraq shows how awful it would be to live in a country where that sort of conflict was going on, so one would hope it would never come to that. Which, given appropriate use of the ballot box, protest, etc, it shouldn't).
Complain about this comment
#116
You are correct, the weapon in question was a semi automatic assault rifle.
Re Warsaw and the insurgents. They lost, didn't they?
Sad Sam
Complain about this comment
#117:
1) I.e. something functionally no different from numerous acceptable hunting/sporting rifles.
2) Yes, but after tying up significant military assets (including aircraft, artillery, and Waffen SS) at a time that the Nazis needed everything they had to repel the Allies.
Now, if rather than a very small proportion of an opressed minority fighting back when all hope was lost, a larger proportion of a generally well-armed population had resisted sooner, they might have won. Or at least made the "final solution" much more costly and much less complete. Or maybe been a sufficient deterrent to it being instigated in the first place.
Also, don't underestimate how cowardly bullies can be: I have a book of eye-witness accounts of life in the Ghetto (for the whole war, not just the uprising). Throughout the occupation, Nazis would periodically go into the ghetto to kill/abuse residents for fun.
In one case (towards the end, when people were finally starting to fight back), one Nazi walked into a kitchen, drew his gun, and shot two of the three cooks. The third cook picked up a knife and went for the Nazi. The (gun-wielding) Nazi *ran away*.
Similar acts quickly put a stop to the Nazis' habit of randomly abusing people in the ghetto.
Remember, you don't (necessarily) have to defeat all your enemies in a fight to the death to win. You just need to persuade them that attacking you is too much of a risk to be worth it.
Complain about this comment
#118
1) not at all. The weapon in question was the equivalent of an AK47 with the auto function not available. You can shoot 22 rounds in about 15 seconds. Hardly what you need for hunting, and in no way the equivalent of a hunting rifle
2) Nonsense. They both lost. There is no instance in history of a civilian population taking up arms and defeating a trained army. None.
Complain about this comment
oh me they banned assult rifles in some startes. Big woopdedo.
so they go over the boarder (ie,into oregon) and get a howitzer instead.
Complain about this comment
so how did a talk on the elections get back to ww2.
?
Complain about this comment
In reply to #119, SamTyler1969 wrote:
"1) not at all. The weapon in question was the equivalent of an AK47 with the auto function not available. You can shoot 22 rounds in about 15 seconds. Hardly what you need for hunting, and in no way the equivalent of a hunting rifle"
Your Constitution does not protect your right to hunt. It protects your right to bear arms against tyrants. When fighting tyranny, I'd rather have the AK full auto with the 22 round magazine. Eventually, the "Assault Weapons" ban will not stand Constitutional scrutiny. People on both sides are afraid to take these issues to the Supreme Court, because reason dictates that citizens in M1A1 tanks is a bad idea. There needs to be a rational middle between wet noodle and nuclear weapon.
"2) Nonsense. They both lost. There is no instance in history of a civilian population taking up arms and defeating a trained army. None. "
Well, there was the American Revolution.
Complain about this comment
#119
1) You're right - most hunting rifles would be powerfuler, longer ranged, and more accurate.
But for some hunting, and a lot of target shooting, a medium-powered rifle like that would be adequate, and in the US (and indeed most countries that aren't as restrictive as the UK) semi-autos are legal and commonly used for such purposes.
2) I don't deny they lost. But they did make life very difficult (and in some cases short) for their enemies. And there were only a few of them. My point is that if such resistance was widespread, they could have made things so difficult that the Holocaust would have been much, much less "effective".
Complain about this comment
Doug Texan
How would you compare the history of Canada and the US... comparing the way each broke away from Great Britain?
Complain about this comment
"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. "
So people who own guns should be doing so with the purpose of being part of a "well regulated Militia"
That means classes in dealing with guns should be part of gun ownership imo
No one should be able to purchase a gun without passing gun safety classes or gun training of some sort.
Any crime that is committed because a gun was not safely secured should be the financial and legal responsibility of the gun owner.
If you own a gun and someone easily takes your gun and then commits a crime you should be financially bankrupted by your negligence.
Complain about this comment
Well, the Supreme Court has recently ruled on how the Second Amendment should be interpreted, and ruled that D.C.'s gun control law was unconstitutional. An insane ruling, in my opinion, but they do have the authority to make it.
As a college student in the early 70s I took up target shooting. Not because I particularly liked guns--it was right after the Kent State shootings. I figured that if the government was going to shoot students, the students ought to learn to shoot back. I'll bet right wingers don't realize that since the U.S. Civil War the only people who have been in any danger of being gunned down by the government have been leftists, union members, and racial minorities. How comfortable is the Right with the idea of those groups stockpiling weapons?
Looking back on my brief experience with shooting, it was an absurd thing to do. But like the gun lobby today, I was caught up with this romantic notion of defending myself against tyranny, etc. etc. etc. And the point one poster has made about the chances of an armed rabble standing up to trained troops is correct. I grew up in Detroit in the late 60s. When the National Guard couldn't restore order during the 1967 uprising, the federal government brought in paratroopers. Things quieted down pretty quickly after that.
And to correct one poster who thought that Iraqi militants were holding off American soldiers with AK-47s: except for episodes like the battle for Fallujah, most of the American casualties in Iraq after the initial invasion have been from roadside bombs, not small arms fire. Is anyone suggesting that we should stockpile plastic explosives and obsolete artillery rounds in the basement--just in case?
I have no problems with people owning guns, but I do think there should be stringent background checks (as opposed to what we have now), that certain types of weapons have no place in the average person's closet, and that guns should be registered and periodically inspected to be certain that they are stored safely. And I think that large numbers of handguns in an urban environment is insanity. I believe there are statistics showing that the average homeowner (to say nothing of their family) is in greater danger from their own weapon than from a burglar.
The problem with leaving gun control up to cities and states is that it is too easy to drive to a nearby state with loose gun laws and buy whatever you want. It really should be a federal law. But that will have to wait until the Supreme Court changes.
Complain about this comment
Shotguns are great for home defense, but what can one do on the street?
Complain about this comment
#122 - Fridgy,
1) Thank you fro agreeing with me
2) That was an army trained at Valley Forge and drilled until it was a professional force. Then used to supplement a professional French force (see previous posts regarding the numerical superiority of the French in the War of Independence).
TTFN
Sam
Complain about this comment
#126
But if you made it a mandatory 15 yeasr sentence for carrying an illegal firearm in the jurisdiction that you are in . . .
Complain about this comment
Just how crazy are people in Texas about guns?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html
quote from article:
“Our people just don’t want their children to be fish in a bowl,” said David Thweatt, the schools superintendent and driving force behind the policy. “Country people are take-care-of-yourself people. They are not under the illusion that the police are there to protect them.”
...............
So the students in this school system are learning "that the police are not there to protect them" from the SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT!!!!!
Complain about this comment
In reply to #128, SamTyler1969:
#1 Between the Devil and the deep blue sea, are obviously desperate for a win.
#2 The American troops were terrible, and Cornwallis counted on American units to flee in the face of a bayonet charge. General von Steuben worked with the army at Valley Forge from March to May, 1778. Two years after the war began. Is that is enough time to make professionals? American militia were not comparable to the British troops.
Complain about this comment
re: #129 and #125
The problem with penalties for carrying an illegal firearm and suggesting that crimes committed by an unsecured firearm should be the legal and financial responsibility of the gun owner is that any penalties come after the damage has been done. It is much the same with laws that add prison time for any crime committed with a gun. It won't bring back a person killed with a gun and it won't ease the pain or pay the medical bills of someone wounded by one.
Guns have such a devastating impact and can be used on an impulse. Look at police officers in the US, a group that carries guns on a daily basis and is trained in the safe use and storage of guns. The suicide rate among police officers is higher than for the general population. Three times more police officers commit suicide than are killed in the line of duty. Care to guess what they use to kill themselves? Stress from their jobs is certainly the root cause of the problem, but the ease of access to guns is a big contributing factor in the actual suicide.
The answer to the problem of gun violence in the US is not to pile more penalties onto the offender after the crime has been committed. You have to reduce the number of guns, carefully scrutinize the background and stability of anyone who wants to buy one, make gun safety classes mandatory, and inspect the guns on site on a regular basis to make sure they are stored properly.
Really, we are more careful about car ownership in the US than we are about gun ownership. No one would suggest that we do away with driver's training or driving licenses, and millions of people go through emissions testing of their cars before renewing the auto licenses. It's insane that we are so casual about something as deadly as firearms.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #125, bethpa, #132, timohio:
Of course, the Bill of Rights does not guarantee the right to drive a vehicle. It was considered by the founders an important idea that one should be able to defend their life, liberty, and property. Firearms were just as deadly back then, so they must have felt it acceptable to give lethal force to every citizen.
Work on the Constitutional Amendment then to repeal amendment #2.
Complain about this comment
"Firearms were just as deadly back then"
Real Frigid quote
There is no comparison between the weapons used in the 1700's and today's far more lethal weapons
This was the gun that was used by the colonists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_bess
some quotes:
"Estimations of hit probability at one hundred yards ranged from just over fifty percent to seventy five and over eighty percent for the shorter and taller targets"
"The flintlock mechanism, which was prone to misfiring, especially in wet weather, "
.............................
Laws should change as the situation changes. Children carrying guns to school and killing classmates is a change in society.
Complain about this comment
re:#133 RealFrigid
In addition to the points made by bethpa in #134, you have to remember that in the late 1700s a trained infantryman could expect to load and fire no more than about 6 shots a minute. That would be with a smooth-bore musket. A rifle, which was at first a hunting weapon rather than a military weapon, was more accurate but slower to load and fire. That's why infantry grouped in ranks. One rank could fire while the others reloaded. And the gunpowder used at that time would have created clouds of smoke that after the first few volleys would make aiming at anything other than a mass of people unlikely.
In the worst part of the Virginia Tech shootings, 30 people were shot dead and 30 others injured in about 15 minutes. The shooter in that case had two handguns and plenty of ammunition. And heaping legal penalties on a shooter won't work if the shooter has no intention of living after the massacre. The only way to stop that kind of thing is sensible gun control laws.
As I said in an earlier post, the problem with easy access to firearms, especially handguns, is that so much carnage can happen so quickly, and sometimes on an impulse. What made sense in the early 19th century, when the US was largely a nation of farms and villages, doesn't make sense in a modern urban society with the vast inequalities we see today.
Complain about this comment
Also in response to #133 RealFrigid:
"Work on the Constitutional Amendment then to repeal amendment #2"
The first part of the job in repealing or amending the 2nd Amendment is to change opinions. With the NRA staking out such an extreme position on gun control and using its financial resources against any member of Congress who votes in favor of it, we need to have a long term campaign, like the one going on now against tobacco use. After people are convinced that handgun control is a reasonable thing for a civilized society to have, then the gun lobby can be shamed into backing down. Then there can be a reasonable debate and either laws can be enacted that meet constitutional tests, or the 2nd Amendment can be modified.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS