Baritone,

I would have agreed with you a year ago. I was over joyed to read Kevin Phillips then.

I think the climate has changed. The fall of Haggard, the destruction of the Republican mystique by Bush and Co, Dobson and Sponge Bob, Ralph Reed's scandal, the war, Pat Robertson's insane ramblings and Falwell's death have all sealed the demise of this movement. Who is left to lead? The top evangelical today, Rick Warren, apposes the ideals of this group and closeted decenters in the ministry are now coming out expressing their disdain for what has been taking place.

Perhaps my assessment is premature but I cant imagine where the momentum for the propagation of this groups views would come from.

People are tired of being frightened. The strength behind this group was fear. We've been told to be scared of so much lately that its gotten old. I think John Bambeck missed the memo though, he's still scared of everything.

Zedd, if they are on the decline and under the gun, that makes these people MORE dangerous, not less. Maybe they will be driven out of the GOP as they should have been when Barry Goldwater first pointed out how dangerous they were in the 1970s, but that's not the only threat they pose.

Take a look at groups like Christian Identity and you see exactly the kind of group which when denied political power and pushed to the fringes where it belongs, is likely to have its members start to turn to terrorism.

I maintain now as I have for a long time that the real threat to America is not Islamic terrorism from outside the country, but domestic terrorism from religious and political fanatics.

Dave

Dave wrote: "I maintain now as I have for a long time that the real threat to America is not Islamic terrorism from outside the country, but domestic terrorism from religious and political fanatics".

Can't agree with you on that one Dave. While they undoubtedly DO pose a slight risk to good orderly conduct and the well-being of your country, they are nowhere near as dangerous as the other clowns. They might even be willing to talk before they act, which puts them on a different wavelength to the other idiots.

Dave,

Wow. I agree with you fully. I agree also with Zedd to the extent that things with the dominionists are presently in some disarray, but, frankly, just as with Al Qaida, the theocratic movement won't disappear owing to the loss of some of their leaders. Since its beginnings in the 1960s the movement toward an American theocracy has had its ups and downs, but has nevertheless weathered many storms, sometimes almost disappearing from sight, only to reappear usually bigger and stronger than before.

Think what could happen, say in the event of another successful terrorist attack. It might cause an instability that could change people's outlook and their willingness to allow dominionists to move forward at a much faster pace.

Such an attack could play right into the theocrat's hands. Couldn't you see Bush and company declaring marshal law, curtailing most civil rights? Suspending the election process, and that with the blessings of Congress, the courts, and, most importantly, the people? The fear would return in spades, would it not?

By the way, Dave. You suggested some reading to me some time ago of material written from the conservative perspective. I won't go into all of it now, but I did read all or part of 3 or 4 of the titles you mentioned. See. I want to be "fair and balanced." I must tell you though, I was not moved much. Again, I'll detail some of my response at a more propitious time.

Baritone

Dave

I was referring to the evangelicals. You are talking about people who consider themselves to be christian in general. You wont get the extreme fringe out of the the evangelical community unless you are talking about some mentally ill types who would go wacky no matter what ideology they have globed on to.

Evangelicals pride themselves in not being extreme. They don't typically do the tongues thing or anything gimmicky. Falwell is actually much more charismatic than most. It is the WASP-est version of Christianity that there is. Many evangelicals look at Methodists and such as extreme liberals :o).

Had Oklahoma City and 911 never happened, I would agree with you about the extremists in our midst. The Branch Davidians are rebuilding. Their suppression the first time around brought out a great deal of outcry from the conservative community and caused a lot of sympathy for such groups by paranoid Americans, conspiracy theorists and Libertarians. It was that point when things got dangerous. Those groups became even more paranoid and emboldened.

I think its uncool now to express an anti government position because ears perk up. We are no longer innocent. There will always be fringe groups just as there will always be the insane in society.

I hope I'm right.

Baritone,

Excellent article on a topic that needs to be illuminated and explored by everyone.

The Christian right has indeed acquired much too much influence in contemporary politics, and as you pointed out, the socially conservative Republicans ARE to blame for having pandered to them for votes...to the point that their influence now reaches into the WH.

Strong evidence of how much the country has regressed into mysticism and superstition is the return to prominence of the evolution vs creationism debate. We have literally slid back to the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

It's ironic that the dangers we face from both within and without have in common the characteristic of being fueled by religious fanaticism.

It's frightening that a significant portion of a modern, educated population can be so easily swayed by charismatic would-be demagogues.

And you're right; it IS dangerous.

Zedd,

If you are so inclined, I invite you to go back to an article I submitted in March titled "American Theocracy." Scroll down and read the lists of names and organizations that are identified as being in whole, or in part dedicated to the creation of a christian based theocratic government. We are not talking about cult crazies. We are talking about what are steadily becoming main stream individuals and organizations, many of which receive considerable "faith based" funding from the feds.

I am not talking about some wacko Waco type group venturing into guerrilla warfare. I'm talking about a patient and very methodical government take over, one job, one statehouse, one federal agency, one cabinet position, one Congressperson, one federal (or state, or local) judgeship, one presidency at a time.

Baritone

Hey Clavos,

Good to hear. Chris Hedges' opens his book with a bang with a thorough distillation of the theocratic movement and its attendant dangers. I just reviewed Christopher Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great which covers some of the same territory, but is more historically oriented.

The one problem I find is that after reading all of the books I listed in the post, I don't really have any idea how to effectively counter the dominionists beyond these little warning diatribes. I have no particular stature in my community, having lived most of my life in relative obscurity. Perhaps, at my age I just shouldn't give a shit. But things could almost literally turn on a dime given certain possible catastrophic events. And, of course, I have concern for my kids' future. What kind of a world will they be obliged to endure? If things here in the US go to hell in a hand basket, which I believe they could, what will their lives be like? One is an operatic tenor and one a poet. A fascist christian nation ruled by biblical law could be quite uncomfortable for them.

Baritone

When I suggest that the ACLU has an ugly agenda and ulterior motives I get lambasted.

When someone else suggest that Christians have a suspicious agenda they get applauded.

Yet there's no bias at BC. No... there really isn't.

Would I be out of line if I argued a little complacency? In my little part of the world... both my geographical terrain (i.e. my friends in NYC and DC) and in my virtual terrain (i.e. people I associate with online)... there's very little fundamentalist, or "dominionist," sentiment. Too little, in fact, for me to really worry about it.

I have suspicions that this religious nut-job thing is less a social phenomenon and more a media phenomenon. I think people like Falwell and Phelps have learned to work magic with news agencies and talk shows, and the media, being obsessed with representing the supposedly "marginal" views of extremists, tend to give them disproportionate amounts of attention.

Don't get me wrong... I'll still be the first with a molotov if the WH decides to establish a state theocracy. Still, I see the problem as being more about misrepresentation and a confused media environment. I still have faith that if it comes down to the wire, the American public won't accept a truly fascist state.

Such an attack could play right into the theocrat's hands. Couldn't you see Bush and company declaring marshal law, curtailing most civil rights? Suspending the election process, and that with the blessings of Congress, the courts, and, most importantly, the people? The fear would return in spades, would it not?

I don't see Bush doing any of this. Bush and his followers have a much more pragmatic perspective on terorism than you suggest, and too many of them have personal power based in state government and the national legislator for Bush to piss them off by riding roughshod over them. And I think it would take a hell of a lot more than another 9/11 to make the people scared enough to put up with anything radical from the government. The key thing about 9/11 is that while it was a real tragedy for all involved, it was the kind of attack which doesn't threaten the general population. A major biological attack is the only thing I can see as a real nationwide threat.

By the way, Dave. You suggested some reading to me some time ago of material written from the conservative perspective. I won't go into all of it now, but I did read all or part of 3 or 4 of the titles you mentioned. See. I want to be "fair and balanced." I must tell you though, I was not moved much. Again, I'll detail some of my response at a more propitious time.

I don't remember recommending any books, but if I did I hope they included some Friedman and some Hayek.

Dave

"The key thing about 9/11 is that while it was a real tragedy for all involved, it was the kind of attack which doesn't threaten the general population. A major biological attack is the only thing I can see as a real nationwide threat."

If this occurs, the only safe place to live will be a fortified coumpound.

"When I suggest that the ACLU has an ugly agenda and ulterior motives I get lambasted. When someone else suggest that Christians have a suspicious agenda they get applauded. Yet there's no bias at BC. No... there really isn't."

Perhaps they consider the source...

Yet there's no bias at BC. No... there really isn't.

Archie, if you search the wider net for criticism of BC - and there is some out there - you will find that overwhelmingly the criticism of BC (wrongly I think) is that the Politics section slants too much towards a conservative perspective.

Dave

No-one is free of bias Arch and anyone that thinks they are is either mistaken or not human. There is a big difference between bias and prejudice though...

As to your point, I know you find it hard to accept, but the ACLU simply tries to protect the US Constitution, a relatively simple document.

Christians, along with Muslims and Jews, campaign for their own private agendas, which are often based upon highly subjective interpretations of books that they purport to be written by a god, exactly the same god if I understand their dogmas correctly.

The facts that there is no evidence at all for the existence of this god or that humanity as a species predates the one god theory by thousands of years don't seem to cause these faithists to question the plausibility of their position.

I think that leaves plenty of room for doubt as to the motives or even good intentions of the believers.

That may well mean that I am biased against people of faith, but I think with good cause. On the other hand, if this god actually manifested itself, I would have no qualms in admitting the error of my ways.

Finally, I just wanted to express my appreciation for the excellent restraint you have shown recently. Please keep it up.

I maintain now as I have for a long time that the real threat to America is not Islamic terrorism from outside the country, but domestic terrorism from religious and political fanatics.

Dave

Wow, when I was here several years ago, I was a very vocal screamer about the dangers of the religious right. I even wrote an article about the rise of Christian extremism and their ties with homegrown terrorists. You dismissed me, Dave. Glad to see you've come around. Is it because your party no longer wants the price that comes along with their votes?

I agree with you that they are far more dangerous to this country than terrorists overseas. Someone who wants to blow us up, is a tangible enemy we can face and fight. Someone who slowly and secretly strips our freedoms and civil liberties from within is far more dangerous because we do not see them, and so do not fight them, and the end result is often the same.

We all know the analogy of the frog and boiling water. If a frog comes across boiling water, it knows it for what it is and saves itself. But if the frog is in the water and it gradually comes up to boiling, the frog doesn't know, doesn't react and perishes. The same principle applies to that which is slowly and gradually dismantling the U.S. Constitution. The greatest danger is always from within because you don't expect it.

Dave writes that: '...you will find that overwhelmingly the criticism of BC (wrongly I think) is that the Politics section slants too much towards a conservative perspective.'

The critics are right to suggest this. The left wing is dead to many article readers that subscribe to the politics section. People like myself living outside of the US often view US politics as having no true choice between Right, Center and Left wing parties/ candidates; there are only Right or Right of Centre parties and candidates... at least this is the picture we recieve from mainstream American media channels that broadcast outside of the States.

Graham,

I think to a great degree, you are correct. There are damn few true liberal democrats, or liberal anything in government in the US. It stems largely, I believe, from the quantam shift to the right which took place with the initial election of George Bush. Left wingers had no purchase on which to stand. Consequently, the Dems have by and large drifted to the right. The paradigm has shifted. I noted after our mid-term elections that many of the Democrats who had won seats in congress were, on the whole far more conservative than many of their predecessors. Many claimed to be anti-abortion and/or anti-gay. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that was the only way to win an election. They were vocal against Bush's Iraq war, but maintained much more conservative stances on most social issues.

Still today, few Dems have the stomach for taking positions in favor of abortion or gay rights. And even fewer will voice opinions against the theocrats.

Baritone

Thanks Baritone. What a scary place you describe!

Finally, I just wanted to express my appreciation for the excellent restraint you have shown recently. Please keep it up.


I have been trying but i did find it quite annoying that Jet was allowed to call me a feeble minded dumbass several times on the post regarding the post regarding the young girl with the "god hates fags flyers," and he also aid that my attack on NAMBLA somehow meant I was implying that all gay men were pedohpiles........a sentiment I never even came close to expressing. But when I responded to him for some reason my comments were deleted.

Graham,

It is scary here. I think it's the worms.

Baritone

Arch Conservative, the organization you bring up (and if I recall from when I was here previously, you or someone else brought up on EVERY gay thread) is so 70's. The rest of society has moved on. It's time to quit dwelling on it.

Dave,

No Friedman or Hayak. Two titles you suggested were Dan Flynn's Why the Left Hates America
an York's The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy

While I can't remember many specifics, I know my initial response was that they seemed both seemed to have their Fruit of the Looms in a twist about how the evil liberals were basically working through the electoral process, and without irony I might add given the unorthodox approach to campaigning developed by the great Mr. Rove.

None of the books you suggested dealt with the question of radical christians' efforts at creating a theocracy, rather they focussed on how evil and demonic anyone left of Attila the Hun is.

Baritone

Baritone,

As a member of the evangelical community, I have been concerned about what is taking place since I became politically aware (after high school). Many of us saw the diversion from the message of love to the message of power, control and the flag.

What I also noticed was just how manipulated this group was by politicians. Regan was the first who was more blatant in his efforts to woew them. They were being used and they just couldn't see it. His statement of a "religious experience" was expressed solely to make these guys feel as if he was one of them. For me it was clear then but for them, it was a sign from God. What was really odd was that for evangelicals, a "religious experience" is not by any means an indication of Christianity. Falwell and all of these guys had been courted by the Republicans as part of their entire slaughter and overtake strategy over the American mind. When Regan made that statement, they went nuts, he was the nearest thing to the messiah.

From that point on these guys were made love to and patted on the head on a regular bases by Newt and the Roves of the day. It is that closeness to power that became addictive and they thought they were part of a greater revolution. A revolution to take back America; an adjunct to Newts contract.

The reason that I believe that they are no longer as significant is because Newts contract collapsed this past year. The Republicans finally got the power that they have been seeking for decades and they failed miserably. They hand nothing to offer other than the fear mongering rhetoric that got them power. America saw just how spin driven this party was and got grossed out. It became clear that there was no substance left in the party, just tough talk about nothing. Rush was exposed to be a drug addict, the various legislators as crooks and perverts (apre family values campaign)and off course the list of exposures that I mentioned in the past post.

What we end up with is a movement that was REALLY created by politicians. They were made to think that they were controlling policy when actually they were being given mini treats to keep them coming to the polls and preaching Republican on the pulpit (a la Justice Sunday) The politicians that invented them, no longer exist. That type of politics is outmoded. In the past year, the public has grown up.

Grahm,

I think that in the US since the 80's when liberal became a bad word due to a very successful yet eventually destructive campaign, those with left wing views must mask their leanings in order to succeed. Hillary was clearly a left leaning individual during the first part of her husband's presidency. She was thoroughly chastised by the "vast right wing conspiracy" (the right spin machine) and made into a major villain.

Now Hillary is probably the most undefinable candidate of all the candidates. She learned the lesson of what it takes to play the game and she is playing it hard, much to our loss. She works hard at being ambiguous. Still to this day people are afraid to vote for her in the democratic primary because of her vilified legacy among the more right leaning Americans.

What is sad is that what is hated about her and liberalism is not anything tangible, just the idea or word itself.

Baritone, I suspect those were someone else's book suggestions, not mine. Unless you were asking for recommendations of opinionated ranting, which seems unlikely.

As for this concept that's being batted about that the Democrats are moving to the right, it's totally ill-informed. The Democrats as a party are splitting down the middle between traditional democrats who are pretty middle of the road and radicals who are moving farther and farther to the left.

If you are perceiving moderate democrats as moving to the right my guess is that you're actually moving to the left.

And as for Europeans judging the US political system and finding it bizarrely conservative, they might consider the possibility that the US political system is still far more liberal in the true sense of the word than anything they have to offer, and do-gooder socialism and giving over more and more power to bureaucrats are really not political accomplishments to be proud of.

Dave

And Zedd, never make the mistake of thinking that Hillary Clinton is a Liberal - she's anything but, though she's certainly a leftist. Richardson is a Liberal.

Dave

Arch, fair enough.

And corrected, sorry for the oversight.

"Arch Conservative, the organization you bring up (and if I recall from when I was here previously, you or someone else brought up on EVERY gay thread) is so 70's. The rest of society has moved on. It's time to quit dwelling on it."

Steve the organization is called NAMBLA and let me state for the record that I have never claimed or even implied that I believe all gay men are pedophiles as Jet said I did. What I did say and will always say is that NAMBLA and anyone who has anything to do with supporting them is disgusting because the only reason NAMBLA exists is to promote the idea that grown men having sex with young boys is something to be viewed as normal and acceptable.

Also it is not "so 70's" as you put it. In one of my posts I pointed out that as a 10 year old Massachusetts boy named Jeffrey Curley was murdered in and raped in 1997 by a man who had ties to NAMBLA. Now I believe in free speeeech as much as anyone else but I also believe that if your free speech incites others to commit crimes and/or to harm others then it is only fair for the rest of us to examine your speech and behavior to see if some sort of punishment is not deserved. That means if you have an organization whose sole purpose it is is to provide comfort and enable pedophiles, they should be subject to a great deal of scrutiny even if they technically have broken the law themselves.

Steve.....maybe you would like to tell the parents of Jeffrey Curley or of the next young boy who gets molested by a pedophile because he was told it was OK by NAMBLA that "it's so 70's and we're all moving past it so you should to."

Dave,

I got you on tape, as it were regarding your reading suggestions. Check out your comment (#12) on my March 5th post, "American Theocracy," scroll down a bit. Perhaps you were in an "altered state" at the time.

Again, I don't agree with your assessment of what's happening with the Dems. The water may be a bit muddy right now owing to the shifting and posturing of the 6000 or so people who have declared their candidacy for president in both parties. Each candidate is attempting to distinguish themselves from the pack, in part by coming out for or against any number of hot - and even luke warm - button issues. Currently, I'd say that no one has succeeded in that effort except perhaps for Mike Gravel who has convinced many of his being marginally insane.

I know that many of the freshman Democratic Reps in particular openly professed to being socially conservative. True or not, this was perceived to be the only means to a successful campaign, especially in the red state heartland.

I certainly would not say that I have moved to the left except insofar as I have "come out" regarding my atheism in the last couple of years.

There are, no doubt, some far left liberals around, there always have been for that matter. They are, however, fewer and further between than say, 12 to 15 years ago.

Baritone

"Baritone, I suspect those were someone else's book suggestions, not mine. Unless you were asking for recommendations of opinionated ranting, which seems unlikely."
- Dave Nalle, #26

-------------------------------

Dave Nalle, Mar 5, '07:

"Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness by Daniel J. Flynn

The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of the Democrats' Desperate Fight to Reclaim Power by Byron York

This one is a bit conspiracy nutty:
The Making of a Police State: The Socialist Agenda for America by Steve Lawrence

This one is coming out next month and ought to be a pretty definitive work on the subject:
The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Paperback)
by David Horowitz"

Zedd,

I would prefer that you are correct on this issue. You likely see all this from a different perspective than I do.

I will say, though, that the books I noted and other sources I have seen or read are the result of some rather lengthy and painstaking research. All were written from people having different experiences and perspectives.

Rabbi Ruden, obviously is seeing things from the Jewish perspective. Michelle Goldberg comes out of the Jewish tradition but is, I believe, more of a cultural Jew, not now actively involved in the faith.

Chris Hitchens is now an American citizen (as of April 13th of this year,) but was raised in Britain.

Chris Hedges, as I noted above, retains his faith but, through his experience and extensive research came to his alarming conclusions regarding the level of success the theocratic movement has achieved, how ubiquitous it has become, and his conviction that it presents the chillingly real possibility of the advent of a fascistlike state.

I do understand that the political landscape has changed somewhat since the mid-term elections with a shift away from the Republican domination of government. However, this shift is mostly in response to the deterioration of the Iraq situation. In large part, the majority of the population remains archly conservative as regards the politicized social issues of abortion and gay rights among others. Their voice may be quieted for a time, but I don't see the dominionists folding their tent and giving up the fight. Many believe that they ultimately will prevail.

Baritone

Dave,

One more thing. I know that my suggestion that Bush might declare marshal law is "out there."

However, you, I believe, give Bush and company far too much credit. They are not so pragmatic that they are beyond saying stupid things and making stupid decisions, of which there have been many. Their audacity is without limit.

Baritone

Arch Conservative, in regards to your comment #30..

I don't know what transpired between you and Jet. I don't even know what thread it was on, but let me guess, the thread had nothing to do with that organization, yet you turned the topic around to it, much like you are trying to do here. Is that a fair assessment?

Baritone,

I think people who look at this from the outside and don't understand the christian community would be frightened because they see this as more significant than it is, regardless of research. As you state, it is a matter of perspective.

The truth is that it is the spin doctors and not even the politicians that are running this "movement". They are the puppet masters. They find out what the hot buttons are for this group and they teach the politicians to parrot those ideas in order to convince these needy religious types that they are part of something huge. I see the concessions that have been towards this group as nothing more than a pacifier. After 30yrs of pretending as if this group is significant, abortion is STILL in place and we don't have prayer in school. They've been promised these two tokens since Regan and nothing tangible has taken place. It's just talk. We actually have Republicans who are openly pro choice now.

What they believe (that they are going to take America "back" for God) is what they are made to believe by political operatives. They are pumped up and brought to the White House for special dinners and made to think they are important. Of all of the interest groups, they are the most USED. Their message is not taken seriously. Its only their vote that is regarded.

Again as someone with the inside scoop and someone who saw the build up from within, and rolled my eyes, smirking the entire time, stunned when it got really nutty (along with many others BTW), its not as scary as you think it is. Its more sad than anything.

The next thing to watch is the focus on Asian countries by this group. That is the latest mission. There is a latitude and longitudinal section of the planet that has been earmarked to be changed and a great deal of the efforts of this group will be towards that. Keep your ears open.

It seems to me that the Left does not hate America, but America hates the left.

Or let me be more specific; any traditional lefty worth their salt dislikes the idea of investing time and money into the concept of nation ('America'), but will spare no nickle or dime in raising the living standards of every man, women and child ('Americans').

Left-wing folk like myself generally view nationalisim as a false imagining that serves only to distract society from 'real' issues (such as poverty and illiteracy etc). Given that fact, why would you hate the Left unless you consider profits more beneficial than people?

...Or am I being a little to European for you yankies?

Graham,

I have read a good deal of A.C.Grayling's work over the last several months - mainly his collections of essays. I like reading essays. They are generally short and to the point.

If I'm not mistaken, Grayling is very much opposed to nationalism as it is simply another means to divide all of us. I, too find nationalism much less compelling than, as you note, giving aid to the indigent, schooling the illiterate, etc. Zealous patriotism fosters jingoism and a concomitant condescension and hostility toward other nations.

Many right wingers, often pure capitalists, hate any kind of public "welfare," and government oversight or intervention in business in the belief that the private sector will naturally take care of any and all problems and provide in its own way for the needy owing simply to competition in the market place. They also tend to believe if one is poor, it is no one's fault but their own. If they can't manage their own lives, perhaps they should just leave the planet so as not to offend or otherwise perturb more responsible people.

I rant.

Baritone

Zedd,

It's obvious neither of us are apt to turn the other around on this issue. As I said above, frankly, I hope you are correct. But, I do believe that more people should be made aware of the dominionist's efforts. I believe few have any idea such an endeavor even exists. If suddenly we wake up to find ourselves being led down the evangelical path to a theocratic government beholden not to the constitution and democracy, but, rather beholden only to god via the institution of biblical law as interpreted by self-righteous theocrats, those of us who are aware would have largely ourselves to blame. Complacency can kill.

Baritone

However, you, I believe, give Bush and company far too much credit. They are not so pragmatic that they are beyond saying stupid things and making stupid decisions, of which there have been many. Their audacity is without limit.

I humbly submit that you don't quite 'get' the mentality that occupies the white house. They would not declare martial law, because they absolutely see themselves as the good guys and the good guys don't do things like declare martial law. The good guys make honest mistakes and try to fix them and at the very least expect their mistakes to be excused because they were made with good intentions.

Dave

Dave,

You really love those guys (and gals) don't you? You nearly gush.

Perhaps I am unfairly too far in the opposite camp, but regardless, I find Bush & Company to be despicable, and not by any stretch of the imagination the "good guys." Granted, I assume they believe themselves to in fact be the good guys. However, it is likely that Osama does as well.

Baritone

#15

"As to your point, I know you find it hard to accept, but the ACLU simply tries to protect the US Constitution, a relatively simple document."

Take for example, Article [II] It's about as simple as you can get.

"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."

What part of "the right of the people" isn't simple enough for the ACLU to understand and protect? Article II was understood for about 200 years. Now the ACLU wants us to believe it was wrong for two centuries?

Why? Because crime has gotten out of hand, and the ACLU wants to excuse criminals who misuse the right.

MBD #42:

I'm a little puzzled as to what point you're trying to make in regard to the ACLU. Are you accusing them of inappropriately taking sides in the gun control debate, or of trying to get firearms convictions overturned on 2nd Amendment grounds? In other words, are you angry because you think they're pro-gun or because you think they're anti-gun?

In either case, I would refer you to the following quote from the ACLU's position statement on gun control (from their website):

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

"Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

So what's your beef?

Here's some beef...

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control."

Why?

On what other Constitutional issues has the ACLU declared neutrality?

"If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

That is the question. Is it left open?

The answer is No.

It takes a Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution.

Article. V.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

MBD,

With respect to the right to keep and bear arms two words in Article II that always seem to be ignored, those being "well regulated" regarding the maintenance of a militia. We have a militia do we not, in the National Guard? It is, as well as I can determine reasonably well regulated (although most of them currently find themselves in the heat of Iraq or Afghanistan.)

What would possibly be "well regulated" about a bunch of nutballs with their arsenals of gawd knows what kind of armaments coming together in defence of their town, state or country? Who could possibly "regulate" them? It would be deadly chaos. I can see bunches of these people, mostly guys, I would imagine, screeching up in their pick-ups at the local high school gym all decked out in their camo outfits armed to the teeth, each imagining themselves the one true incarnation of Rambo, ready to blow the shit out of everything and everybody. It wouldn't be pretty, nor would it be "regulated." The ACLU apparently read all of Article II while most people, apparently, do not.

Baritone

"With respect to the right to keep and bear arms two words in Article II that always seem to be ignored, those being "well regulated" regarding the maintenance of a militia."

I read that as a well-regulated militia is an adjunct to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

At least that is what was believed for 200 years. And it should be clear that when the Constitution was written most of the country was on a frontier and guns were used for protection. On top of that, people got food from hunting. Admittedly, that has changed but the Constitution hasn't changed. It all depends on how the Constitution is viewed.

MBD,

In other words, you pick and choose what parts of the constitution to follow, and what not to follow? Kinda like fundamental christians and the bible, or radical muslims and the koran. And what is your source with respect to "what was believed 200 years ago?"

It was a very different world in the 1780s. The damage one could do with a single shot muzzle loading rifle was minimal compared to today's weaponry. Back then, after one shot you could take the guy down while he's reloading. Now a guy (or gal) with an automatic or even a semi-automatic weapon can take out an entire classroom
before anyone realizes what the hell is happening.

Frankly, I've never understood the romance of guns. Most of the guns people covet today were designed with one purpose in mind: to kill people.

I've managed to live for over 60 years never having owned, nor wanted to own any type of gun.
(Except when I was a kid I really loved my 2 "Stallion 38s, but I got over that when I was around 10 or 11.)

Do we really hate and mistrust one another so much that we feel compelled to keep loaded firearms at the ready?

Baritone

"Frankly, I've never understood the romance of guns."

I give you one word: Freud.

Although I have major reservations about an armed America, guns can be great fun. On the other hand, Freud is nothing but a fucking loon.

"Do we really hate and mistrust one another so much that we feel compelled to keep loaded firearms at the ready?"

Baritone,

I live in a war zone. A loaded pistol or rifle can be very handy when the "neighbors" come to call - with plans to crumble your home and slit your throat...

But you guys in America...

Tabbing Freud may be apt, but it's a bit too simple. It doesn't explain it all. Hell, you'd figure that most Austrians would be sitting around massaging their guns day and night. But not everyone in the western world responds to guns as many Americans do. No doubt there is a sexual connection as it were. There are guys who "love" their guns.

I believe it also has a great deal to do with America's pioneer heritage, the yearning for the wide open spaces, coupled with a basic mistrust of people in general. We just don't like each other very much.

Baritone

It is a desperate Palestinian indeed who resorts to unleashing a barrage of out-dated weaponry into the nearest Israeli forward base... sorry I meant 'town'.

Okay that was a little harsh on the Israeli domestic policy, but the Palestinian who shoots his third-rate rocket into Haifa does so because he has been reduced into taking such action after witnessing that Israeli helicopter blow up his political representatives on their way to work, or that Israeli gunboat knock off a few shells into his Grandparent's apartment block, or that Israeli tank battalion roll across internationally recognised borders without a jot of respect for the right of his family to live in a state of peace.

Since you had to drag us into this, Gordon, I have a little video for you and especially the Americans to watch, one that was banned from Youtube!

Have fun!

I tried sending you an answer, Gordon, but the "spam filter" didn't let it through...

Why am I not surprised?

"Now a guy (or gal) with an automatic or even a semi-automatic weapon can take out an entire classroom"

Hell, Timothy McVeigh took down the entire Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 with no guns at all.

All he had was ammonium nitrate, an agricultural fertilizer, and nitromethane, a motor-racing fuel.

Any crazed person with the motivation to kill will find a way. Guns aren't needed.

Of course guns are dangerous and we need to have rules. But its the Constitution that gives citizens the right to own them.

All we have to do is put criminals away where they can't harm others.

Baritone,

I think guns have a great deal to do with fear. America has not dealt with a lot of guilt about its conception like most other nations like Australia. Australians make fun of themselves and have moved on without relying so heavily on folklore about themselves. America has so many skeletons and we gloss over them and pretend as if we have moved on. Not being truthful about who we are leaves us unsettled and in a constant state of distrust.

From the start we had the Natives who we feared would realise what our intention was and take back what was theirs. Many Americans were isolated and had no access to any other form of protection. We then had to manage slaves who out numbered us in many situations. After the civil war everyone was afraid in the South especially. They had lost so much and were in a defiant state of mind, guns were a must.

As is typical about us, we turned the reason for our paranoia into something different, a sign of valor. We changed the script instead of dealing with who we were and why we were, we talked big.

The civil rights movement started and the good old boys got scared and weren't gonna get over run by those boys who they heard about in the North. They used the power of the gun to keep the locals in line.

The last stage to seal gun mania in our culture, were the westerns. The gun became synonymous with being a real American, the rugged individualist, who never existed. Politicians hijacked that notion in the 80s to sell patriotism. The demonizing of Black males was also escalated during that time (while efforts that deteriorated the Black community, despite warnings, were in full affect), the self fulfilling prophesy took shape, carjackings ensued and more guns were purchased.

I suppose the more Muslims and Mexicans come into our midst, the more guns we will purchase.

The obsession with guns comes out of fear and paranoia.

Zedd,

Exactly! Good comment. While people everywhere are generally proud of their heritage, warts and all, and periodically celebrate them, none are so vehement about how great they are than Americans. And it's all voluntary. You see huge displays of supposed patriotic enthusiasm in places like North Korea, or Iran, but they are conscripted to do so.

You are correct, in my opinion, that Americans tend to thump our red blooded (and often bloodied) chests about just how great we are, giving no thought to how we came to this pass. We cite Lexington and Concord, Valley Forge, Gettysburg, even Little Big Horn, etal, but ignore Wounded Knee, the Trail of Tears and the slave markets.

I believe that Americans are no worse than other people, but neither are we any better. We all have dark chapters in our pasts. Lest we acknowledge them, we are bound to repeat them.

Baritone

MBD,

Gosh, I didn't realize just how simple it all is. "And throw away the key!"

Indianapolis, Memphis and other cities are in the midst of what seems like out of control crime increases, mainly murder. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it is unusual not to wake up with news of at least 1, and often 2 or 3 or more newly discovered murders being reported. And I can tell you that around 90% or more of them were shootings. Some gang and/or drug related, some coming out of arguments between family and/or friends, some crimes of passion - ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-girl or boy friends, etc.

In one fell swoop Timothy McVeigh managed to murder, was it 168 people? But more than that die everyday across the country due to the easy access we have to guns. Many of the victims are young - young adults, teenagers, even pre-teens. So, too, are many of the shooters. Most are poor.
So, let's just lock them all up. Then we can live the good life.

Baritone

Ruvy, you seem particularly out there this week. what's happening with you?

Indianapolis, Memphis and other cities are in the midst of what seems like out of control crime increases, mainly murder.

If you do an analysis of areas where crime has increased dramatically in the past year, you discover that they are areas where large number of Katrina evacuees have settled.

In one fell swoop Timothy McVeigh managed to murder, was it 168 people? But more than that die everyday across the country due to the easy access we have to guns.

You have evidence of this? Most of the guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, not legally. The fact that we allow honest, law-abiding citizens to have guns is entirely separate from the methods by which the criminal subculture acquires guns, and it's a pure lie to suggest that controlling legal guns would have any meaningful impact on gun crime.

Dave

Ah, it's those damn cajuns. No wonder. Yeah, Indy has hundreds and hundreds of Katrina refugees. Or not.

Most of the guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, not legally

Not true in Indiana and a few other states. Indiana and, I believe Virginia make obtaining guns very easy. We have gang members from Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, even as far away an New Jersey coming to the state to purchase their guns LEGALLY. Likewise, many "criminals" go to Virginia and other states where gun laws are lax.

That gun laws have had little effect on gun violence is only proof of how badly most such laws have consistently been gutted before being signed into law. If many enacted laws had retained any of their clout as originally submitted, access to guns might well not be so easy. Penalties for gun violence might well be stiffer.

Again, I ask, what the hell is it about guns that makes them so alluring to so many people? It is incredibly infantile. Bang! You're dead!

Baritone

Ruvy, the USA purchased the land in question from Mexico lawfully. Israel simply declared Palestine to be their own.

I could write a book, given enough time, that would highlight everything that is wrong with the way in which right-wing Israelis like Ruvy consider such subjects as the one depicted in the video link on post #53.

For now though, it is enough for me to simply voice my disdain at such poor accounts of contemporary events, whether they be in Mexico, Haifa, Lebanon, Bhagdad et al.

Dave muses that 'it's a pure lie to suggest that controlling legal guns would have any meaningful impact on gun crime.'

Dude! Britain! Check it out sometime! No gun privilages means less people effected by gun crime in this country. Makes perfect sense to me.

Baritone,

Yes! Every culture or country has its demons and skeletons. Human nature.....

Perhaps a nation of people who wanted (to be) more than most in their homelands, is not a nation of people who would apt to admit imperfection easily :o)

Perhaps we are all genetically wired to be smart alec know-it-alls.

we are genetically wired to confuse relative knowledge as universal truth.

Graham,

In other words, we believe in bullshit?

Baritone

Zedd,

I suppose it's difficult to define the psyche of a nation. The forces that brought us to where we are now are many and varied.

But it does seem that Americans continue to have a chip on our collective shoulders. We always have to prove to others how great we are, and we challenge anyone voicing doubts. Perhaps some believe that having a gun provides an edge in such an argument.

Baritone

Baritone,

You are right. However each nation has elements which make it unique. I don't think that we as a nation have even begun to really define ourselves (without the bravado).

Its almost like when you watch the athletes that came from poor backgrounds who are excessively boastful. While they think everyone is impressed with them as they beat their chests, they don't realise just how sad and wince inducing their behavior is. More so they don't realise just how shallow and un-self aware they appear. Sad really.

While we talk a big game, we haven't begun to go deep about who we are. It makes us not be taken seriously if though we are so successful.

I really haven't thought this through but....

I often wonder who we will be once we outgrow this stage in our evolution.

Zedd,

Who will we be? It's hard to say. I suppose the Romans went through such a time. Perhaps they never outgrew it, maybe promulgating their downfall.

The British were thoroughly full of themselves during the height of their Empire. While there remain some Brits who are insufferable, overall, they have accepted a more humble role in the world.

My son lives in Germany and is sometimes embarrassed by what the Germans refer to as "loud Americans." We do tend to be loud. Of course, Americans are not very popular abroad for a number of reasons, some obvious, some not. When visiting him, he urges us to not be loud, to not act too "American." Again, owing to our lack of international popularity, there are obvious practical reasons for not drawing attention to ourselves as Americans.

Baritone

Nice video link earlier, Ruvy. Propaganda, but well done and with a valid point.

As for gun control in Britain, which Graham brought up, every indication is that Britain had a lower crime rate than other comparable countries before they restricted guns, and none of the increasingly restrictive laws passed to put more limits on gun ownership has been accompanied by anything except an ongoing increase in violent crime.

Dave

Baritone

Perhaps the insanity of this administration is the best thing for us. Perhaps we will seek only that which is true and real as opposed to what sounds good and emotional. Rove pushed the envelope on the lie/denial/cocky thing and we are all just yucked out. It doesn't help that the President comes across as an imbecile.

Perhaps who we will be is a more perfect union; smarter, wiser, more humble. We certainly have every reason to be humble as of late thanks to GW.

Zedd,

You may be correct about the possiblity of us growing as a nation. However, it's a heavy price we are paying for any increase in our maturity. People are dying. Our president is an embarrassment. We are hated by much of the world.
All I can say is, good goin' Reps. Great legacy.

Baritone

When so much of the world has become hateful in its behavior and corruption, might it not be a good thing to have earned their hatred?

Dave

Baritone says:

"If many enacted laws had retained any of their clout as originally submitted, access to guns might well not be so easy. Penalties for gun violence might well be stiffer."

Or not. The drug laws are pretty stiff.

Dave: "As for gun control in Britain, which Graham brought up, every indication is that Britain had a lower crime rate than other comparable countries before they restricted guns, and none of the increasingly restrictive laws passed to put more limits on gun ownership has been accompanied by anything except an ongoing increase in violent crime."

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... Dave, come on, you sound a broken bloody record. Of course, the Poms have their violent crime like anyone else, and there are suburbs of London (as youb well know) that anyone with half a brain wouldn't go to. These are the types of places where such crime is on the increase. It tends to be black on black there right now, with specioal police task forces being set up to crack down on it. Same as the increase in gun crime in Australia that you (too gleefully) pointed to recently is largely down to a bloody, old-style gangland war in Melbourne between the Old Painters and Dockers mob and the mafia. I think the kill count is 39 so far in the past few years, with some extraneous ones added on just for good measure.

No bystanders have been killed in the crossfire - so far. It's crim vs crim, up to now, and usually in the comfort of their own homes. The average Joe in either country is not walking around in fear of their lives just yet.

Nice try, but.

there are suburbs of London (as youb* well know) that anyone with half a brain wouldn't go to.

This is true, but it ain't down to fear of crime. I can't think of a part of London I wouldn't be perfectly happy to walk around in at any time of the day or night. Of course, I may be suicidally insane, or it may just be body language. I feel that if you go around looking confident and comfortable in your surroundings, you make yourself less of a target.

I hope you weren't thinking of Brixton when you wrote that. I love Brixton, which is on the whole, considering the social deprivation, a very cool and relaxed place. It's had a very bad press on account of two isolated incidents which happened over 20 years ago. Harlesden and Willesden, in north-west London, seem to be the 'no-go' places nowadays - they're the battlegrounds for the Yardie drug gangs, which I think is what you were referring to.

As for Sydney, well, I know about Redfern. At least I know there was a big riot there once and I had to listen about it from our tour bus driver, who was a bit of a racist bastard to judge by his ramblings about how great things used to be in Australia before all these Mohammedan buggers came over. So I'm inclined to take all the dire warnings with a pinch of salt and would be quite happy to give Redfern a go, too.

Frankly I think my own current home town (Fresno, California) is a more dangerous prospect than any major city. I think we have more homicides every month than a comparable British (or Australian) city could expect in a year. Even so, the murders are usually down to gangs whacking each other. The trick is to stay out of their way, which is not as easy as it sounds when a lot of the buildings are apparently made out of papier maché. We had an incident three or four years ago where a bloke was happily minding his own business eating lunch at a restaurant when out of the blue he suddenly dropped dead. He'd been hit by a bullet from a pair of gangs who'd been having a gun battle in the parking lot.

Back to Britain - the gun lobby's poster child - I concur with you, and have argued previously on Blogcritics (until I turn into a Smurf**), that the rise in crime is more a symptom of a general trend than of legal restrictions on gun ownership.


*youb: Is this a contraction of 'you bloody'?

** i.e., until I'm blue in the face.

Actually, Doc, Redfern is a really dangerous place if you don't belong. It's the only suburb of Sydney where I'd be worried. You simply can't walk around there, even during the day, without at least running the risk of being robbed. It doesn't happen mostly of course, but it is a risk.

The local people are good, but some folks from the country end up there and bring some bad habits. Sad, but true.

I have been robbed there, by some kids who stood in front of my car, opened the doors while I was still in it and began taking anything that wasn't nailed down. Then I told them I was looking for a local man who is well respected by his people, and they started putting it all back. They helped themselves to a smoke each but the rest was returned.

They were only young, too, so it's a real problem. The cops can get a bit nasty in that area too.

Back to Britain - the gun lobby's poster child - I concur with you, and have argued previously on Blogcritics (until I turn into a Smurf**), that the rise in crime is more a symptom of a general trend than of legal restrictions on gun ownership.

I actually agree here. I don't think the recent rise in crime has anything to do with the recent increased restrictions on firearms. But what the rise in crime DOES demonstrate is that further restricting firearm possession does NOT have a marked impact in reducing crime.

Dave

Dave, you just can't make this kind of comparison to support your own arguments about guns because what happens in Britain and Australia is just so totally different.

In Britain, most of the gun crime is retsricted to certain areas and has more to with socio-economic issues and the rise of gangsta/rap culture and its misguided notion of "respect". Believe it or not, most of the shootings have been in relation to that one issue.

It's worth noting too that outside those areas, most British police remain unarmed, particularly beat coppers - and still catch an awful lot of crooks.

Also, in both Britain and Australia, the majority of police are against any laws that would bring more guns into the community. They want laws that bring less.

The differences in gun/culture and attitides are key - they don't compute when comparing to the American experience. Britain has never really had a gun culture, and while Australia has, most Aussies couldn't care less one way or the other.

That is true in my case, and I was around guns as a young fella. We just don't have the gun culture, therefore we don't have the kinds of problems you have in the states.

The figures back it up. Gun crime rates in the US are so high compared to ours, they are frightening.

The figures back it up. Gun crime rates in the US are so high compared to ours, they are frightening.

But yet Americans aren't frightened and our crime keeps going down as we liberalize our gun laws.

You've got a key point about the gun culture. It does make comparisons with other countries/cultures suspect. And a ban on guns which might work in another country might be disastrous here, just as liberalizing gun laws in a country like britain might have negative results it hasn't had here.

Truthfully, the rate of violent crime in the US is NOT high in comparison with most countries, and while it may be higher than a few of the most anti-gun countries, those countries are also different in so many other ways that there's no possible way to duplicate everything that has happened in their long histories and create the same result here.

Basically, we've got to do things our way, and trying to do it some other way just isn't likely to be worth it.

Dave

And on that note, I really enjoyed watching 'Bowling for Columnine' when Mr Moore opens up a bank account and was given a free rifle for doing so.

I also liked the part when a small-town militia, armed to the teeth, went about their 'training' so as to be prepared for the day that their town is invaded by Commi-bastards.

You crazy kids you!

the usa is run by bible law the churches brainwash the politions and thay get there laws in there that way the way thay try and stop thing like the stem cells the church is holing back the usa and in some cases makeing the usa look like fools like that place in kentucky creation fairy land the church runs the usa