Sad conclusion… [Reader Post]

@Scott in Oklahoma:

No they’re not. One piece of proposed legislation has been brought up which a single legislator claims could be interpreted to outlaw pump action shotguns because their tubular magazine “could” be altered by screwing an extension on. That’s an easy legislative fix to make, and nobody wants to outlaw pump shotguns.

@Scott in Oklahoma:

I don’t rant about the militarization of the police, since the police must be able to readily address the threats they are called upon to face in an increasingly militant and well armed society. I certainly regret that such a militarization is necessary in some functions, but that’s the nature of the world we live in today.

I served many years in patrol carrying a Mod. 19 with two extra speed-loaders and an 870 in the rack. Times changed, particularly with the cocaine and crack years of the late 80’s and early 90’s, so we had to change our weapons to deal with the fact that criminals were using Glocks and AK’s.

Sure, I liked the old days better, but the record shows that violent crime was higher then, attacks against police were higher then, and the world was a more dangerous place for all of us than it is today.

@SkippingDog:

It is exactly the incremental encroachment of our rights that you suggest that many people have a problem with.

@johngalt:

John, there is a big difference between people preparing for the “worst”, and people preparing to fight their own government and fellow citizens. I understand that you are likely one of the former, but I think I have a right to be alarmed when people are stockpiling weapons, issuing vague threats, and huffing and puffing about their “right” to do anything then damn well please because they’re upset about who won a free and open election, and they don’t want to address those concerns legally, whether through free speech, advocacy, legal financial support to candidates of their choice, or simply at the ballot box.

@Tom:

I agree that you have the right to be alarmed. What you don’t have a right to, and I’m not suggesting that you are engaging in this, is to wrongly group together everyone who is buying up weapons and ammo.

As I’ve said before, the 2nd Amendment was never about hunting, or target shooting, or competitions, or anything like that. It was, and still is, a means of deterrence to an overreaching and tyrannical government. Whether one feels the current government is tyrannical or not is completely beside the point.

As well, I’d suggest that simply because someone says they are “ready” in case the SHTF, so to speak, regarding our government, doesn’t mean that the person is actively looking to engage our government with violence. Some of that kind of talk is bravado, sure, but it is also a statement of fact, from that person’s point of view. Hell, I’ve heard people in NO, who experienced Katrina firsthand, and the lawless violence there, who prepped themselves for natural disasters such as that, claim the same thing about tyrannical government. Again, doesn’t mean those people are actively looking to overthrow the current government, or even future ones. Just a statement of being prepared.

Anyone who is actively looking to overthrow this particular government, should be criticized. I don’t believe that Scott is one of those. Just my opinion, of course.

@johngalt:

Ordered liberty is a difficult concept for some people to understand.

@SkippingDog: Agreed that there comes a time to spin down the war machine, however care must be taken when doing so. Normally it is spun down too much and when the next war comes along, and there will be another, the military is caught shorthanded. About the only war this country was prepared for was the Gulf War and that was mainly because we still had the war machine from the Cold War. The ones who pay are those serving, often with their lives.

@johngalt:

If you reject the concept of ordered liberty, you reject the very precepts upon which our constitution and laws were written from the start. Unordered liberty is nothing but anarchy.

J.G. re 109?? Although I disagree with you on many things, on balance, I see you as sane and reasoned.
Soooo–when I see YOU storing gold and silver, arms and ammo etc., I do sit up and take note.
The questions Tom asks are quite legitimate and well thought out. I share his concerns about the actions of some on the right—not all.
One can disregard the statement deleted today if they wish but ==

“preppers” never heard that before today—preppies yes
“Hope for the best but prepare for the worst” Exactly what I did prior to N.D.-Alabama–Didn’t make the outcome any less painful.

Johngalt
with your equation of freedom,
and your explanation on it’s defense you are a person of good wisdom,
a one who could lead this NATION, INTO THE BEST ERA EVER,
AND YOU SURE QUALIFY ONE HUNDRED PER CENT,
THAT SkippingDog said it’s a difficult concept and not all can understand it.
he has it upside down,
the PEOPLE HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT , NO MATTER HOW COMPLICATED SkippingDOG
and any leader can express it to create the confusion to the PEOPLE,
THEY AND YOU Skipping Dog did not achieve to confuse anyone here and any REPUBLICANS GOPS OR TEAPARTY ELECTED, NEITHER THE PEOPLE WITH BRAIN ENOUGH TO READ YOU ALL,
AND HEAR YOU ALL REPEATING THE DOOM AND GLOOM ON AND ON FOR TOO LONG,
THE PEOPLE HAVE OBSERVED THE MADNESS IN IT AND THEY KNOW TO BE READY FOR
ANY INTENT COMING FROM THE TOP, WHICH IS UNCOVER NOW.
ALL YOUR EFFORT TO EDUCATE HERE ARE WASTED, BECAUSE THEY SEE YOU COMING, AND POLITELY PUT YOU IN YOUR PLACE,

@Richard Wheeler:

I share his concerns about the actions of some on the right—not all.

As I explained previously, as well as to Tom, it is not just those on the “right” that are prepping. These people come in all types. A truly wide and diversified peoples. And while it is generally accepted that only those on the “right” are prepping for governmental takeover, that is not exactly an accurate statement to make. Many, who tend liberal and vote Democrat, also prep for that reason.

@MataHarley: Okay MataHarley, I will agree that MRAP’s would be useful along the border, especially the southern border where the terrain is unforgiving and the risks run high. In the urban environment I worked in, even on SWAT raids, silence and surprise were the most effective ways to deal with our situations.

@johngalt:

The Federalist Papers were an interesting and not always accurate piece of advocacy journalism in support of our constitution, which has since undergone twenty-seven amendments and a Civil War. In reality, that means our Constitution is twenty-seven times removed from the original document, since each amendment requires that the entire charter be reinterpreted as a whole under the jurisprudence of constitutional law.

The authors of the Federalist Papers, whom you claim to admire, included Alexander Hamilton, himself a proponent of strong central government. After the failure of the Articles, founders such as Jefferson, Franklin and Adams all spoke and wrote about the essential concept of ordered liberty and a republican form of government.

Whatever your feelings may be about either the “tyranny of the majority” or the “tyranny of the minority,” you are correct that the protection of minority rights is an essential component of a fair and just government. But protecting minority rights is a concept that also requires balance, since the purpose of a republican form of government is also to establish laws, policies and courses of action agreed upon by the majority, and it is that majority support which makes such a government valid in the first place by reflecting “the consent of the governed.”

ANOTHER VET
I love THOMAS JEFFERSON,
THANK YOU FOR GIVING THIS MESSAGE FROM HIM ,
it sure fit for this time perfect,
bye

@Scott in Oklahoma:

you like to read way deep between the lines, don’t you Tom.

What part did I read “between the lines, exactly”? The laundry list of accusations against the President, including his alleged desire to set up a civilian security force, or his alleged push to disarm America, neither of which you offered a shred of evidence for or proof? Did I read between the lines your little Birther rant about how Obama was “not raised an American”? No, you were pretty clear.

Or perhaps you believe I was reading between the lines your implied remedy for all these alleged actions by Obama? That, I will admit, you are a little more coy about. Should I not be able to figure out where you’re going with lines like: “I understand a little more about how our forefathers felt leading up to the revolution.”?

The thing is, Scott, when you base a fear-mongering post intended to whip up fear and hatred on half-truths, disproven conspiracy theories, wild accusations, and “instinct”, you’re doing your readers a disservice. Perhaps for you, this is merely blowing off steam, but you really should be more conscious of how people might take what you’ve written at face value. Stating that Obama is building a secret security force, or preparing to come take away peoples’ firearms, are pretty serious accusations to make without a shred of evidence to back them up. Just because your theories crumble like dust under the most basic scrutiny (If he was going to build this security force to stay in power, don’t you think he would have done so BEFORE the 2012 election? Don’t you think one person associated with such an endeavor would have come forward by now? Do you really believe in conspiracies involving THOUSANDS of people? Etc.), doesn’t mean that some people won’t happily lap them up and add them to their lists of grievances. Like I said, pretty irresponsible.

TOM
get a hold of yourself, you look like you are loozing your nerves,
remember your not talking to little kids in here, they know more than you
on the subject,so no need to give advices, and attack other,
just take the advice instead,
oh the fear monger is OBAMA, AND HIS MINIONS REPEATING THE APOCALYPSE COMING

SkippingDog
of course you’re not spending enough, judging by the blood spilled by the braves, and the VETS WAITING FOR WHAT IS DUE TO THEM, WAITING FOR YEARS HOW ABOUT THAT UNFAIR TREATEMENTS TO THE BRAVES, WHO DESERVE MORE, MUCH MORE, COMPARE TO ANYONE WORKING IN GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE VETERANS DESERVE MORE THAN ANYONE OF THEM
they would expect more concern and care from the government ready to cut them
now while they still get killed,
the spending is instead favoring other COUNTRIES WHICH HATE AMERICA AND ISRAEL,
ALL WHICH IS SPENT ON THEM COUNTING ALL OF IT IS TOO MUCH IF YOU EQUATE IT WITH
THE NEED OF THE MILITARY, THE WAR IS NOT OVER YET.
THE CUTING WILL HURT THEM TREMENDOUSLY, HOW MUCH HAS BEEN SPENT ON COUNTERING THE EIDS, NOTHING BUT
A SMALL IDIOTIC PITANCE,
BUT OF COURSE IT WONT HURT YOU OR ANYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WHICH MANY ARE OF NO USE TO AMERICANS EXCEPT TO BE IN THEIR FACE,
OF COURSE THEY SHOULD GIVE MORE, BECAUSE THEY EARN IT,
CUT ANY OTHER BUT NOT THE MILITARY, UNTIL THE WAR IS
FINISH AND THEY ARE SAFELY HOME, AND DON’T NEVER CUT THE VETERANS AND THE WOUNDED VETERANS,
CUT THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING INSTEAD CUT THEIR FEES, CAN YOU COUNT FAIRLY ENOUGH
TO KNOW WHERE THE MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT AS PRIORITY FIRST, NO YOU ARE NOT DOING IT.
how about spending the money given to EGYPT TO THE JOB CREATIONS IN AMERICA,
WHAT SIDE ARE YOU IN?

@Wordsmith:

I don’t think you’re listening to my point of argument in your desire to get across the point that you’re hung up on.

I’m not “hung up” on anything. You simply dismiss what you don’t agree with.

Yet, there have been no mosques burned, no Muslims taken out to the woods and hung, no Muslim businesses destroyed by angry vandals.

Do you still stand by this statement?

Perhaps you would like to example mosques that have been burned, as in a truely damaging fire? Or tell he how many Muslims have been taken out to the woods and hung? As to Muslim businesses being destroyed by vandals, I’m sure some have been. Just as there have been vandals who destroyed Jewish businesses, businesses owned by Christians, and in the case of the L.A. riots, businesses owned by those who were probably Buddhists.

My argument is, that you want to dismiss, is that the vandel, or the robber, has no particular concern about the religion of the owners of the business he wants to vandalize or rob. When the OWS crowd was vandalizing businesses, do you think they stopped to ask the religion of the owner before they engaged in vandalism?

So do you believe anti-Muslim bigotry, prejudice, hatred is wrong, misguided, and misdirected? Or do you think it’s only fitting that it happens, given the 19 attackers and their religious/ethnic identities? Are you excusing the behavior of those who express anti-Japanese/anti-Muslim sentiments, or merely stating the obvious observation?

I think bigotry is wrong. Period. End of story. But I also understand fear. And I understand human emotion that shows anger at those that harm us, which often is expressed in what you would call bigotry. Talk to any Chinese American whose parents migrated here after WWII. Ask them how they feel about the Japanese. Talk to the children of the Jews of Germany. As they their opinion of Germans. Ask Native Americans from Plains tribes how they feel about the black who made up the Buffalo Soldiers. You want to conflate bigotry with the cause of anger. They are not one and the same.

Instead, you’ve launched on the path of moral inequivalence, paved with straw.

You accusations of my using strawman arguments shows only that you use strawman arguments.

Your FBI stats show greater number of crimes against Muslims than Catholics.

But what if we reduced the stats to just Jewish, Islamic and Christian? What happens then? If we do that, including Catholics, Protestants and Other, the number becomes greater than the hate crimes committed against Muslims. Since Buddhists probably represent a very, VERY small segment of our society, it stands to reason they would not be a contributing factor to the not-Jewish, not-Muslim catagory.

Crimes by Muslims and those motivated by terrorist sympathies, anti-Americanism, pro-jihad and radical Islamic beliefs are reported by the mainstream media, despite what conservatives wish to overstate and overclaim regarding media bias.

You missed the point entirely. Do you disagree that some talking heads have no problem slamming Catholics, but will go out of their way to excuse the actions of a Muslim? Do you disagree that hateful, snide remarks are made with regularity about Catholics, but never about Muslims? I noticed you also didn’t adress the fact the women’s groups like NOW never address the horrible human rights conditions that Muslim women live under in ME nations. This is the same group that slams the Catholic Church with regularity.

The bottom line, Word? Muslims are treated no worse, suffer no more bigotry, than any other group in this nation.

Skipping Dog
no not confuse and not laughing either,
you had your say,
and I have mine , take it or leave it,

@SkippingDog:

We’ve spent most of the last 75 years at a hot war level of military spending. There were a couple of short lulls, for about two years after WWII and for a few years after the fall of the Iron Curtain. If you want to know why we have a high national debt, that should be the first place you look.

True to your progressive leanings, the first thing you want to cut is the one thing provided for in the U.S. Constitution.

It’s time for us to rein in our spending in that area so we’re not spending as much as the next 15 or 20 nations combined on defense.

I am constantly amazed how you on the left are always so worried about comparing us to other nations. Didn’t we fight a long war to not have to be like other nations? Yet, to hear you tell it, they do things so much better than we do. Fine. Let’s close all our bases in every foreign nation including South Korea, and tell them they are on their own. Let the European defend their own borders. How’s that sit with you?

Unless, of course, you just see defense as a government jobs industry like most defense contractors and their employees do.

Do you really think those companies care where their money comes from? Do you think that if they could make a profit, which gives a return to their stock holders, like Dianne Feinstein’s husband, they would care if it was from the manufacture of widgets?

Here’s a thought: let’s end Medicaid except for only those who are truely handicapped. Let’s close down all public housing, end food stamp programs, stop giving $$millions to Planned Parenthood, end utility subsidities, take back all Obamaphones, end TANF and WIC. We can give those people one year to make arrangements to be trained for a job, and then they are now responsible for themselves. No more public welfare for anchor babies, and their illegal mommies. Limit those programs to only the very handicapped that cannot possible work in any position. Would you go along with that?

@retire05:

Not only Eisenhower, but national leaders as far back as Washington warned us about getting too cozy with defense suppliers. Recognizing that a hot war footing for three-quarters of the last century has drained our economy isn’t a liberal or conservative observation. It’s reality.

The preamble of the Constitution also tells us the purpose of our government: “…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….” It hardly holds out defense as some kind of holy national expenditure that can’t be questioned or controlled.

Comparing the amount we spend on military activities with other nations is one way of letting us know how well our own experiment is working, as is comparing things like income, poverty rates, life spans, etc. Those would be the “more perfect union” and “general Welfare” parts you conveniently ignore.

Frankly, we’ve been carrying the defense of the world on our shoulders for far too long, allowing the nations of Europe and elsewhere to develop their own industries, tend to the needs of their people, and engage in commerce with our unpaid protection. It is far past time that they started paying in full for their own defense needs.

Dollars spent in defense – at any level – may be necessary, but they are a direct loss to our overall economy. Defense doesn’t produce anything except weapons of war, the use of which costs even more when it is required.

Time to take a hard look at where you money goes.

SkippingDog Yes everything is on the table though we should use a scalpel rather than a hatchet. Lets be smart and be fair.Always view compassion as a virtue not a weakness.

@Richard Wheeler:

Don’t think I can agree with your total position. We are now winding down over a decade of active warfare, during which the defense budget more than doubled in size. Since we are returning to what passes for a “normal” defense posture, and don’t really have a significant strategic enemy like the old USSR to worry about an existential threat, we should return military funding to the level it was before the war started. That would mean a 50% cut in the current budget, adjusted upward for whatever inflation might have occurred during the same period.

@Richard Wheeler:

I always do, which is why so many conservatives dislike my posts.