Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[JoeyB]

You obviously have a different view of the current state of the United States. We must have had different History and Civics teachers.

 

With regards to the Civil War, it was started because the United States believed that the South's succession was illegal. There was even a meeting in 1861 that tried to reach a compromise and avert the War. If the United State had said, it was OK for the Southern States to succeed, there wouldn't have been a war. The war was the Southern State's exercising their rights to challenge the United States government. No way they would have been able to contemplate that if the United States government had taken their arms.

The Confederate States of America started the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter. As I said, they had formed a new Nation and manned a uniformed Army. It had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. 

When the President signs an executive order to restrict guns, it is NOT beeing done with our participation and approval ... other than slightly more than half the people who voted elected him. Letting Congress pass a law, or Amending the Constitution on the other hand gives 'participation and approval of the people' a lot more weight.

Sure it is. Slightly more than half elected him, or more as in the case today. His approvals and certainly the communication we have today plays into it. But as I said, the President assigned the Vice President to explore what The People want and he has. Their plan is to present the results to Congress. If the Republican/conservative led House fails to act then we can discuss the President's Executive Order. 

 

The Founding Fathers believed that the Federal government should be as small as possible and should do as little as possible. We were formed as a union of States. Big difference in thought process. Essentially they wanted the Federal government to defend the Union and only do things it wasn't practical (or wise) for the States to do themselves. They would never have envisioned the size and scope of the current Federal Government.

I disagree. They made a Constitution, and as pointed out earlier, sold the idea of the Constitution and states giving up some of their sovereignty to be part of this Nation. 

Also, as pointed out earlier, our Founders made the Constitution a 'living, breathing document of government' that could and would grow as they envisioned, and as we have. They certainly expected this Nation to grow from 13 States to a country that stretched from coast to coast, and they knew we would not be a nation of farmers for long. 

Our current leaders violate the 10th Amendment more often than anyone can possibly keep up with, and don't even get me started about the trampling of our right to privacy. If you knew all the data the government collected about you it would scare you.

10th Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

I disagree. If you think your privacy has been invaded, sue. I do know. I told them. 

[JoeyB]

Precisely.  And though I posted it before, I'll just add that The Declaration of Independence wasn't written to address just the people in the Colonies.  "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world".

That is absolutely correct. There is now a long line of Nations that were formed by people who demanded to be free. 

[JoeyB]

It's tough isn't it?

Every time one of these threads come along I dread reading them.

So tempted to explain things and try to enlighten the misinformed.

Several here do a wonderful job of it though. The real reason I don't speak more in these things is the nature if this wonderful forum we have.

The very people that think what I know is wrong....are the very people that are so nice and helpful otherwise.

Americans have a huge mess on our hands right now, history in the making. I pray we can stay with the Constitution on all things.

It is tough. Not only is the U.S. quite different in thought and attitude than most any country anywhere else, but it is so regionally as well. The viewpoint in Texas is different than the viewpoint in New York or California. But then the viewpoint in Dallas is different than the viewpoint in Amarillo. Here in Chicago some are still waiting for Texas to secede again.   

 

 

“America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”

 

I pray we can stay with the Constitution on all things.

Thank you. 

[Nanuq]

Not only is the U.S. quite different in thought and attitude than most any country anywhere else, but it is so regionally as well. The viewpoint in Texas is different than the viewpoint in New York or California.

 

Precisely.  Many foreigners don't understand that.  Each of the Many States is sovereign and establishes its own government as well.  People are free to relocate to a State that governs to their liking.  Power and consent flow from these sovereign States to the federal government, not the other way around.  The Constitution they ratified spells that out.

 

By law, the federal government cannot rule over the Many States, unless given prior authorization by the States.  Should the States decide they want to change their "right to keep and bear arms," then the States will amend and ratify the Constitution again.

[JoeyB]

Precisely.  Many foreigners don't understand that.  Each of the Many States is sovereign and establishes its own government as well.  People are free to relocate to a State that governs to their liking.  Power and consent flow from these sovereign States to the federal government, not the other way around.  The Constitution they ratified spells that out.

 

By law, the federal government cannot rule over the Many States, unless given prior authorization by the States.  Should the States decide they want to change their "right to keep and bear arms," then the States will amend and ratify the Constitution again.

Many Americans don't understand that as well! 

 

 

 

While others go for more control, we want to expand rights.  http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130110/EDITORIAL/130109553/1015

Indiana has  a few who have a different view. 

[tomhorn]

The Confederate States of America started the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter. As I said, they had formed a new Nation and manned a uniformed Army. It had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. 

Sure it is. Slightly more than half elected him, or more as in the case today. His approvals and certainly the communication we have today plays into it. But as I said, the President assigned the Vice President to explore what The People want and he has. Their plan is to present the results to Congress. If the Republican/conservative led House fails to act then we can discuss the President's Executive Order. 

 

I disagree. They made a Constitution, and as pointed out earlier, sold the idea of the Constitution and states giving up some of their sovereignty to be part of this Nation. 

Also, as pointed out earlier, our Founders made the Constitution a 'living, breathing document of government' that could and would grow as they envisioned, and as we have. They certainly expected this Nation to grow from 13 States to a country that stretched from coast to coast, and they knew we would not be a nation of farmers for long. 

10th Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

I disagree. If you think your privacy has been invaded, sue. I do know. I told them. 

 

Yes, the Confederate States started the war ... only because the United States told them it was illegal to succeed. The United States could have allowed it and no war would have taken place. They didn't. What you don't seem to grasp is the correlation between that and the 2nd Amendment, which was put in place specifically to allow the people to keep and bear arms not only to protect the Union, but also so that 'the people' could oppose what they thought was an oppressive government. Exactly what the Confederates wanted to do. They started peacefully by succession, and when the United States told them they couldn't, they rose up against what they believed to be an oppressive government. If the United States had taken away all of their 'arms' they wouldn't have been able to oppose the government. The 2nd Amendment didn't cause the war, but having it allowed the Confederacy to fight for what they believed in.

 

If you honestly think the Vice President is on a mission to find out 'what the people want' I've got a bridge to sell you. This is nothing more than a dog an pony show to set up the President to push for what he wants. Do you honestly think Joe Biden is going to come out and say 'I'm sorry boss, the people don't want any gun restrictions'? If the 'people' really want gun control, then they can work to change the Constitution. I'm not saying they can't (or shouldn't), I'm just saying there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. I'm no fan of the NRA, but did you read their quote after the task force met? "We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.  While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners ..."

 

Yes, the Founding Fathers created the Constitution as a living and breathing document that was intended to be changed ... but only by using a very specific process. Unfortunately, the Congress and the President (not speaking about just the current ones, mind you) have decided many times throughout history to look the other way and just do things that should have required changing the Constitution.

 

I'm very familiar with the 10th Amendment. Show me where in the Constitution that the United States Goverment can require its citizens to purchase a consumer product. Show me where it says the United States is allowed to collect data about every penny its citizens spend. Show me where the Constitution allows the government to collect information about every location its citizens travel to (and I'm not talking about crossing borders, I'm talking about going down to the corner store), or what they watch on television and read on the internet. Where is it written that the government is supposed to bail out private industries, or individual companies. These are but some of the examples of the way our government violates the Constitution on a regular basis. By all means, bury your head in the sand if you want. I'd love to sue, but I have neither the time, nor the money to take on that fight. Nor do most citizens, which is why the government keeps on going.

 

PS ... thanks to JoeyB and Nanuq whose responses came in while I was drafting this.

[Nanuq]

@Tomhorn,  how about a taste of radical patriotism for your Friday? 

 

This comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter to his friend William Smith.  Jefferson was concerned about the new Constitution, specifically the role of the Executive branch, which he thought would be too powerful.  Shay's recent rebellion had scared the elite, who began to support a stronger Executive branch out of emotion, not reason.  Jefferson recognized this as passions clouding judgment, resulting in an atmosphere of panic and fear.  Sound familiar?  Here goes:

 

 

"Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying.  The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.

 

"Yet where does this anarchy exist?  Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts?  And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted?  I say nothing of it's motives.  They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. 

 

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.  The people cannot be all, & always, well informed.  The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. 

 

"We have had 13. states independent 11 years.  There has been one rebellion.  That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state.  What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion?  & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? 

 

"Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.  It is it's natural manure."

[JoeyB]

Yes, the Confederate States started the war ... only because the United States told them it was illegal to succeed.

Outgoing President Buchanan and incoming President Lincoln rejected the legality of secession. But Lincoln announced in his inaugural speech that he would not start a civil war. There were negotiations that failed. Both sides prepared for war. The CSA created a new nation, raised and manned and equipped a uniformed standing army. The CSA then attacked Fort Sumter. 

The United States could have allowed it and no war would have taken place. They didn't. What you don't seem to grasp is the correlation between that and the 2nd Amendment, which was put in place specifically to allow the people to keep and bear arms not only to protect the Union, but also so that 'the people' could oppose what they thought was an oppressive government. Exactly what the Confederates wanted to do. They started peacefully by succession, and when the United States told them they couldn't, they rose up against what they believed to be an oppressive government. If the United States had taken away all of their 'arms' they wouldn't have been able to oppose the government. The 2nd Amendment didn't cause the war, but having it allowed the Confederacy to fight for what they believed in.

What you don't seem to grasp is the difference between organized governments manning and fielding an army, and private citizens owning firearms.  The CSA made a government, manned, armed and fielded an Army. It was not about, through, or in any way to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is for civilian ownership of firearms, including militia which is manned by civilians. 

If you honestly think the Vice President is on a mission to find out 'what the people want' I've got a bridge to sell you. This is nothing more than a dog an pony show to set up the President to push for what he wants. Do you honestly think Joe Biden is going to come out and say 'I'm sorry boss, the people don't want any gun restrictions'? If the 'people' really want gun control, then they can work to change the Constitution. I'm not saying they can't (or shouldn't), I'm just saying there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. I'm no fan of the NRA, but did you read their quote after the task force met? "We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.  While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners ..."

Yes, I do and I won't need the bridge. The President wants to solve a problem of Americans being killed. He wants it done without taking any of our rights away, in this case any of the 2nd Amendment.  Had Joe Biden found that the majority of Americans want to keep assault weapons and large capacity magazines he would have said so. If you think for a moment that Biden wouldn't speak the truth in his findings, then you don't know Joe. 

The polls are showing that a full 2/3 of Americans favor an assault weapon ban and a ban on large capacity magazines. That is what Biden reported. He reported other ideas that Americans had as well. covering both sides of the issue. 

 

Anyone who believes the total and complete B.S. that is all over the internet about President Obama wanting to take the guns away is simply lying to themselves. The President has stated, and in no uncertain terms, that he does NOT want to change or repeal the 2nd Amendment. 

Yes, the Founding Fathers created the Constitution as a living and breathing document that was intended to be changed ... but only by using a very specific process. Unfortunately, the Congress and the President (not speaking about just the current ones, mind you) have decided many times throughout history to look the other way and just do things that should have required changing the Constitution.

I do not agree. In those instances when authority was overstyepped it was then corrected, by the Constitution.

I'm very familiar with the 10th Amendment. Show me where in the Constitution that the United States Goverment can require its citizens to purchase a consumer product. Show me where it says the United States is allowed to collect data about every penny its citizens spend. Show me where the Constitution allows the government to collect information about every location its citizens travel to (and I'm not talking about crossing borders, I'm talking about going down to the corner store), or what they watch on television and read on the internet. Where is it written that the government is supposed to bail out private industries, or individual companies. 

Show me where is doesn't. When questions come up our Constitution provides that the checks and balances of government govern. The Supreme Court has ruled on Social Security, Medicare and now the ACA. Requiring our citizens to take care of themselves rather than have the rest of us take care of them is the debate point that is now law. I fully support that. 

The government doesn't know every penny you or I spend. look around where you are posting. Think about how much money moves due to this site alone. 

Unless you are a 'Person of Interest' you are not being watched as the TV show 'Person of Interest' depicts. We have no machine like that. 

TV rating are done by private companies as are internet hits. They make those numbers public. 

 

It is not written anywhere that the government should bail out any business or industry, nor invest in any. It has been done 'for the good of the Nation' at least since the 1830s financing the building of railroads and telegraph. This Nation profited from that. 

This Nation profited when Lee Iaccoca borrowed money to save Chrysler ands paid it all back early with interest, saving jobs in the process. 

And while I opposed the Bush 'give-a-way' TARP, I applaud President Obama for turning that program into a loan program with 8% interest rates applied.  Most all of the $700 billion is back in the Treasury, and it's likely we will have a profit when all is done. I like a politician that gets my tax dollars back, with interest. And, as before, jobs were saved in the process. 

It was for the good of the Nation. Doing good for the Nation doesn't have to be in the Constitution to be good for the Nation. 

 

 

These are but some of the examples of the way our government violates the Constitution on a regular basis. By all means, bury your head in the sand if you want. I'd love to sue, but I have neither the time, nor the money to take on that fight. Nor do most citizens, which is why the government keeps on going.

I think it's those who believe that  B.S. who buries their head, right up to their shoulders, and not in the sand. It's just a lame excuse when citizens complain about missed perceptions but won't do anything but complain. 

OUR government keeps going because it is right. And when we get it wrong, we make it right. 

 

"WE, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." 

 

Do you think that charge to us by our Founders stopped? 'in order to form a more perfect Union' is an ongoing, never ending pursuit. If you haven't the time or money or inclination, then stop complaining. 

[mastrmindalliance]

You think you got the idea elsewhere?

 

I don't believe that was whining at all.

 

Wake yourself up. You followed our lead.

 

I'm not your "mate". 

Oh, so you think you invented the word 'Constitution' now do you? How sadly American of you.

 

The Australian constitution is 'based' (the term you used earlier, before you changed your argument to naming conventions) on the British Bill of rights of 1689. Sound familiar? Your Bill of Rights was written in 1791. The American Constitution came 8 years later.

 

Honestly, if all your points in this thread are as poorly thought out as this one then i feel like right royal mate for reading them

Edited January 11, 2013 by mastrmindalliance

[JoeyB]

Oh, so you think you invented the word 'Constitution' now do you? How sadly American of you.

 

The Australian constitution is 'based' (the term you used earlier, before you changed your argument to naming conventions) on the British Bill of rights of 1689. Sound familiar? Your Bill of Rights was written in 1791. The American Constitution came 8 years later.

 

Honestly, if all your points in this thread are as poorly thought out as this one then i feel like right royal mate for reading them

Now you're whining about how you country came up with the idea to become independent? Let's see, the U.S Constitution was Law in 1788, the Bill of Rights came in 1791. 1788 to 1901. It took you 113 years to get there? 

 

You can feel as royal as you like. We have no royalty here, but we do lead. And did. And you followed. 

[gasebah]

Germany's autobahn which for the most part has no speed limit has less vehicle fatalities and accidents In general than on the US highways.

 

http://www.upsb.info/forum/index.php?showtopic=20198

That is probably because we don't have highway shootings. :-)

[KB]

Ok this is interesting...

 

As stated earlier gun lobbyist are trying to hang Senator Dianne Feinstein for wanting to reintroduce a bill that regulated semi automatics and large clip magazines which expired in 2005

 

I see Bill Clinton stated the other day that half of all recorded mass shootings in the history of the United States have occurred in the 7 years since it expired.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Ken

[freddy333]

I see Bill Clinton stated the other day that half of all recorded mass shootings in the history of the United States have occurred in the 7 years since it expired. 

Thoughts?

Without getting into the accuracy of Clinton's comment, I will say that, in general, I suspect he is correct. However, & I have had this debate among friends for the past 25 or so years, I believe the problem is due more to the continual coarsening of society, not the number/style of guns. Of course, this is a far more complicated subject than can be explained (with complete accuracy) in this context, but I trace the beginning of the end, in great part, on LBJ's 'Great Society' programs of the mid-60s. Prior to that, we lived in Leave it to Beaver land, where doors were routinely left unlocked, women walked the streets in safety & mass shootings were, for the most part, a fluke. After that............well, we have the world we live in today.

[JoeyB]

 but I trace the beginning of the end, in great part, on LBJ's 'Great Society' programs of the mid-60s. Prior to that, we lived in Leave it to Beaver land, where doors were routinely left unlocked, women walked the streets in safety & mass shootings were, for the most part, a fluke. After that............well, we have the world we live in today.

Interesting. Would you expand on that please? 

[ldegeneve]

 Prior to that, we lived in Leave it to Beaver land, where doors were routinely left unlocked, women walked the streets in safety & mass shootings were, for the most part, a fluke. After that............well, we have the world we live in today.

 

I hope this is sarcasm.

 

This "Leave It to Beaver Land" you speak of was certainly not the experience for us non-white folk. In fact we were literally kept out of it.

 

[KB]

I also do not like the idea that every fact thrown up gets dismissed without anyone actually saying "well we have a heck of a lot at stake here, if it seemed to work before maybe we should give it another go?"

 

You have everything to gain and nothing to lose...2005 was a very long time after 'Leave it to Beaver.

 

 

Ken

[freddy333]

Interesting. Would you expand on that please? 

 

 

I hope this is sarcasm.

This "Leave It to Beaver Land" you speak of was certainly not the experience for us non-white folk. In fact we were literally kept out of it.

No, not sarcasm & there were certainly problems (there always are). But, & you can insert whatever politically unfashionable issue you prefer here, the fact remains that, as far as mass killings with firearms go, something changed in the US culture since the Leave it to Beaver days. I believe it was the unintentioned consequencies of LBJ's Great Society programs that, while well-intentioned, caused a lowering of the bar for acceptable levels of violence & courseness within society.

[JoeyB]

I'm not looking for implication, but rather education. I grew up then. I thought that the Great Society was a result, not the start, of change in American culture since World War II. 

[freddy333]

No, it was the largest federally sponsored set of social welfare programs (implemented by LBJ's administration) since FDR.

[JoeyB]

That's true. But isn't it still a result of what was happening in our culture already? 

[freddy333]

No, it was LBJ's attempt to - putting it as generic as I can - level the playing field & redistribute wealth. Of course, depending on which political winds sway you, your mileage may vary.

[JoeyB]

I agree, it was made to "level the playing field". But I think as a result of cultural changes brought on by WW2. It started with the use of black soldiers in a combat role leading to Truman's integration of the services, Jackie Robinson breaking the baseball color barrier, and music, specifically Rock and Roll, was significant in changing attitudes of young Americans - the baby boomers.  

[ldegeneve]

No, not sarcasm & there were certainly problems (there always are). But, & you can insert whatever politically unfashionable issue you prefer here, the fact remains that, as far as mass killings with firearms go, something changed in the US culture since the Leave it to Beaver days. I believe it was the unintentioned consequencies of LBJ's Great Society programs that, while well-intentioned, caused a lowering of the bar for acceptable levels of violence & courseness within society.

 

I'm sorry but I can't let this go. Lowering the bar for acceptable levels of violence & courseness (sic)?!!!

 

Umm...lynchings? That was pretty widespread then don't you think? How dare you imply that we've gone lower since then in terms of violence and coarseness? Try growing up black in America at any point before 1980, and I guarantee you that you will not look back fondly at those "Leave it to beaver days," when you could be killed for the color of your skin every time you stepped out your front door.

 

Your "Sure, there were problems then (insert problem)" sounds to me like an absurd dismissal of the staggering oppression during your "Leave it to Beaver days." For chrissakes, back then they HANGED PEOPLE FROM TREES.

 

Indeed, let me rephrase what you said up there by inserting some "politically unfashionable issues":

 

"There were unspeakable acts of violence and evil for people of certain colors (politically unfashionable issue), but at least in those days [leave it to beaver], us white folk lived simpler, happier lives and the fact remains that we didn't have to worry about mass shootings. Sure, black people were regularly hunted down like dogs (politically unfashionable issue). But nowadays society is more violent and coarser. And I blame it on widespread Federal programs aimed at equal opportunity for all."

 

Sir, you have yet to explain your logic.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ldegeneve

[freddy333]

With all due respect, I have.

[ldegeneve]

Please enlighten me. How do widespread social welfare programs lead to (intended or not) a "lowering of the bar for acceptable levels of violence & courseness within society"?

 

Also, thanks for discounting the experience of minorities during your hunky dory leave it to beaver years. Colored people hunted down like dogs but my my how we've lowered the bar since then.

Edited January 12, 2013 by ldegeneve