Here is the problem with the Second Amendment (and related individual rights).

While I support the 2nd Amendment and all of the citizens' rights as enumerated in The Bill of Rights and implied by both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of The United States there is a problem with its security over time. The problem is that the principles that gave birth to our nation through violence revolution or rebellion against the Crown of England and his armies are not sustainable as the nation grows. There is a growth dynamic that leads to a new paradigm. The several and united states as representatives of the people becomes collectivized and federalized leading to the United States of America which like many other nation states evolves into its own entity and grows its own institutionalized self defense mechanism that transcends the national defense from outside enemies. Consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1789 (particularly the later) just over a decade after the new country formally adopted its own and unique Constitution. There was a sense of paranoia about certain citizens, aliens and friends of aliens loyal to France during some increasing international tensions after the end of the French Revolution. Some, like Thomas Jefferson, thought that these new laws were unconstitutional (more the 10th than the 1st Amendment but certainly both). My aim is not to review history but merely point out the tendency for a nation to change over time. It is kind of like your fiancee guarantees you that it is ok to go out drinking with your friends on occasion after you get married and then 6 months after you tie the knot she changes her mind. That sense of changed nation paranoia vis a vis its citizens has been growing for well over two centuries now and the technology now exists to spy on citizens that did not exist in the late 18th century. The bottom line is that our government fears its own citizens and will seek to limit the power of the people (including the power of the citizens to defend themselves against "all threats"). Indeed our republic has evolved and its underlying principles are no longer sacrosanct as they were during its infancy. Welcome to the new republic (a long time in making).....one that has benefited from a liason with corporate and finacial special interests that are now global in nature and is fast becoming a fascist state where the locus of power resides not with the people but with the nation state itself.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


So with what you said, do you not find as I do that it became that way due to corruption and the desire for control?

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


The solution is contained in your own metaphor re the fiancee.

If your fiancee says it's ok to go drinking with your friends, then after your married says it's not, the answer is to keep going drinking with your friends.

If she leaves you that's her problem.

You're right to pursuit of happiness with your friends is all yours. If you subjugate yourself to another's wishes, you might as well not have a life.

Same with all our rights. The first line says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no problem with the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The growth of the government makes these rights even more important.

Without them we are married to the proverbial bitch who doesn't want us drinking with our buddies. That's no way to live, bro....

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

The problem is not gun violence per se (red herring). The number killed this year from mass shootings (not total killings but just the mass shootings like Aurora and Sandy Hook, etc) is approximately 100 victims. The current population is approximately 94 x that of the country in 1790 (much larger land mass plus immigration plus population growth). Everything is relative. Comparing 2012 mass shooting deaths to the population of the year 1790 (the first census after The Bill of Rights was adopted) would be like having one shooting with one total fatality. Innocent victims should not be trivialized but in relative terms the 2012 year of the shooting rampages is like one death in all of 1789.

you commies are just scared of gettin' shot.
quit your whinin'.

reply to post by sconner755

The government is like the proverbial bitch who wants to know where you are going, who did you see and what are you doing, et cetera, ad nauseum. Even worse; it is like the house is in her name and everytime she is mad (you break one of her increasingly restrictive rules) she threatens to throw you out. At some point in most relationships the abused realizes that the comfort and security are not real and that he (or she in opposite cases gender wise) is better off (such was the conclusion of our Founding Fathers).

reply to post by tinhattribunal

Excuse me! IT is the commies who are taking control of the government. Obviously you just reacted to the title and didnt read or understand how the dynamic of government changes over time. You do not know me.

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This law as put forth in the Bill of Rights. It CANNOT be altered, changed, or amended.

reply to post by seeker1963

Our plight as a dying republic is exacerbated by plans for a New World Order where nation states surrender their sovereignty to global governance and individual rights (especially the right to be armed) are in the way. Corruption is a part of that process and it is facilitated by special interests, crony capitalism and government created monopolies and oligopolies. BUT what I was drawing attention to is the process of growth in government itself whereby it changes (absent the other factors like corruption and global designs) and thus those original concepts of freedom are no longer cherished by the new nation that adopted them in its inception.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


The paradigm of the relation to the state and the people or power vs the power of the people has not changed. Free speech and the right to redress are more important than ever. The relationship between the people and the state has been one of ever increasing encroachment by the state into the rights of the people. Thus the rights of the people should be guarded with as much vigor as they ever were.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by seeker1963

 

Our plight as a dying republic is exacerbated by plans for a New World Order where nation states surrender their sovereignty to global governance and individual rights (especially the right to be armed) are in the way. Corruption is a part of that process and it is facilitated by special interests, crony capitalism and government created monopolies and oligopolies. BUT what I was drawing attention to is the process of growth in government itself whereby it changes (absent the other factors like corruption and global designs) and thus those original concepts of freedom are no longer cherished by the new nation that adopted them in its inception.

Yea it would shock madison for one if he could see the way that many intrusions have come upon the rights of the people because they are no longer "jealous for their rights".

Interesting post - I almost took the bait on first reading.
IF the problem is REALLY that the government representing our "new republic" fears the citizenry....
I'm having a difficult time seeing that as a problem!

ganjoa

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Our plight as a dying republic is exacerbated by plans for a New World Order where nation states surrender their sovereignty to global governance and individual rights (especially the right to be armed) are in the way. Corruption is a part of that process and it is facilitated by special interests, crony capitalism and government created monopolies and oligopolies. BUT what I was drawing attention to is the process of growth in government itself whereby it changes (absent the other factors like corruption and global designs) and thus those original concepts of freedom are no longer cherished by the new nation that adopted them in its inception.

Thus back to my first post!


People have been conditioned and brainwashed, YES???? Were those things not done for a sinister reason?
OP, I really do appreciate your thought process and the work you put into your post, however, I am not buying into it being solely due to people and the process of change. We have to take a look at the mind control and propoganda behind the change! Change is good when it is done without having ones mind manipulated by the ruling class for it to occur.............

reply to post by rival

BUT IT HAS BEEN INFRINGED, CHANGED AND ALTERED....and all under the "color of law" given that the Judicial Branch (court system up to the Supreme Court) has the power to interpret Legislation and the Constitution. First they take away automatic weapons but allowing existing weapons to be grandfathered provided you are approved, the guns registered and you pay a tax to the federal government. Then you cant shorten the barrel on a shotgun or rifle without similar registration and taxation. Next they classified certain shotguns that can accept a clip or drum magazine as "destructive devices" and banned their manufacture and importation also (allowing owners to keep them if the register and pay transfer taxes like are required with machine guns). Then they banned the domestic manufacture and importation of "assault styled" weapons but the Congress gave it a ten year sunset....which they now want to resurrect. Despite the Second Amendment being on the books and containing the explicit language ("shall not be infringed")....it has slowly been marginalized over time. I am trying to address one of the reasons why (and it isnt gun violence like the media is trying to sell on public emotion and opinion).

reply to post by Logarock

I agree that given the growth of the state that the individual rights of citizens (especially the original intent of 2A) is more important now than at any time since the Civil War (also a time when the Federal government usurped power from the states and the people; to wit, a suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus). And, I might add, our government is much more powerful now than it was then.

reply to post by ganjoa

Thomas Jefferson said that freedom exists where a government fears its citizens and tyranny exists where a people fears its government. I cant add to that.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Obviously it should fear nut jobs that want to assassinate the head of state or start fires and shoot the first responders but I am talking in generalities.

reply to post by seeker1963

I am not denigrating "change" for its own sake,,,,just lamenting the change that lessens the power of the people. I am talking about an institutional dynamic of government not necessarily the american condition (which has been covered at length on this site). I apologize for the title of the thread as it does appear to be attacking the Second Amendment (and ancillary rights) but as you read the original post that is not the case at all. BTW, this has happened with many communist countries (ie Soviet Russia) also where the revolutionists bought the party line (revolution) but found themselves no better or worse off after same and that the benefit only went to the party elite (corruption as another poster mentioned).

reply to post by rival

In short then the problem is not the Second Amendment (and related individual rights) per se. It is the problem of the dynamic of institutionalized government growth...but that comes back to the 2A and how it is treated by the government. Relative to this dynamic of government growth (which also is represented by the size of both government and its debt) I have several suggestions: 1) Limit the amount corporate control over our governing process (from elections to special interests sponsoring legislation to amicus curiae briefs), 2) Limit the terms of Congress (House and Senate) and consider limits on bureaucratic office (I welcome the debate and consider the power that people like J. Edgar Hoover had at one time), 3) Encourage greater citizen participation in government (including election boards in preventing voter fraud) and 4) While not representing a threat continue to be outspoken for the basic rights that make our republic unique (especially the Second Amendment which is the guarantor of the others).

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


My post is just a knee-jerk reaction to US gun related issues. I have made the decision
to inform everyone, pro or con gun bias, of the law.

You know how they say that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. I'm hoping the inverse
happens---repeat the truth often enough and it becomes the truth.

The buck stops at THE LAW. All discussion should start with THE LAW.

We seem to enjoy discussing the details, and being either pro or con of that which is
inconsequential. The law is stated in plain language. There is no room for interpretation
for either layman or supreme court judges, "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed." and yet we allow for the infringement of our lawful rights as a matter of course.

Sorry, not to add to your particular discussion, but this is my whole response to gun related
threads from here forward........