1st or 2nd Amendment - Which is more important to Democracy?

[Q]

I read another one of those 'I got your back' posts this morning. That's where a gun owner pledges to support his fellow citizens (with his guns) should our government ever become 'fascist' or declare martial law.

It has always fascinated me that many gun owners think of themselves as part of a 'militia' or the 'minutemen' of our day...standing ready to 'defend our liberties' against government oppression. But most of these same proud gun owners voted for Bush & Cheney in 2004 after witnessing four years of Bill of Rights killing laws, legislation and executive orders sponsored by this WH and the GOP majority. They supposedly voted this way because of the fear that Democrats would 'take their guns away' and disregard the second amendment of the Bill of Rights.

It's simply amazing that so many on the Right (and a few on the left) have been fooled into believing they are 'free' because they can own all the guns they want. Yet these same people belittle the Left for wanting the Bush government to respect ALL of the Bill of Rights the same way they do the 2nd.

Of what good is the 2nd Amendment without the rest of the Bill of Rights? What good is owning a gun when you have no right to redress grievances against the government...religious freedom, free speech, free press, peaceably assemble or be secure in your own homes?

Democracy could survive without the 2nd Amendment. But it can't survive without the 1st or the rest of the Bill of Rights. Many on the Right don't seem to understand or care about this truth as long as the Bush Government gives them the illusion of freedom with their support of this one amendment over all the rest.

[adwon]

1. The first

If you get to the point where the guns are necessary, democracy's pretty much dead anyway. And I highly doubt an armed mob could or would restore it.

[spunky]

10. No doubt. Even if the government got to a point

where citizens revolting in the streets require guns, to retake the nation or whatever, that government wouldn't think twice about using the military and all its arsenal.

The only chance for the revolting citizens to win would be if the military deserted. And if they did that, they could just steal their military guns as the left. So there'd be plenty of guns anyway.

The first amendment, however, could very likely prevent us from ever getting to the above mentioned scenario. So first amendment.

[Massacure]

83. Washington didn't have much of a problem with it.

He was basically leading a armed mob up until he left Valley Forge in June of 1788. It's brilliant how he turned his mob into an army.

[Charon]

2. 1st or 2nd

The 2nd amendment exists to ensure the survival of the 1st amendment.
Just my thought.

[bowens43]

5. In what way?

[ProgressiveConn]

74. In that allows the people to stand up to the government and/or military

should either begin to attack democracy in America. Without democracy you don't have any other rights as even if they are granted to you they can still always be taken away.

[Q]

100. BEGIN to attack democracy? Begin?

Thanks for making my point. The very infrastructure of our democratic republic is attacked DAILY and few seem to care as long as they HAVE THEIR GUNS.

Many seem to think that democracy won't be endangered until there are tanks in the streets and a declaration of martial law. But the type of fascism we're now confronted with doesn't need to resort to outright violence or direct oppression. Since they own our government and once-free press...they're satisfied as long as they can give Americans the impression they're still free.

Allowing Americans to have as many guns as they want is part of the illusion of freedom.

[humanriteswritlarge]

11. So how does owning a firearm going to help if..

there is a national religion established, one cannot say what one wants against the government, there are no newspapers that can print anything except the government propaganda(we are very close to that now), one cannot demonstrate against the government without being arrested and jailed (that also is happening) nad one cannot sign a petition against the government or call for redress against oppression without being arrested and thrown in jail? The government will just take your firearms, plain and simple. The 2nd Amendment has no meaning without the First.

[ProgressiveConn]

78. Realize the difference between policy and enforcement

An armed population wont do that much to influence policy. However it will do a GREAT deal to influence enforcement. Imagine the millions of liberal Christians in New England each having a shotgun or rifle. Now try and tell them they can no longer meet because they don't hate homosexuals...

The argument that the second amendment has no meaning without the first is flawed. It an overly idealistic stance due to thinking that freedom comes naturally. It doesn't. As long as freedoms are granted by a government they can be repealed by it as well. The democratic impulse is not universal there are totalitarians everywhere in the world including throughout the US. These people would take your freedoms in a second and as we have seen these people can not only gain great influence but can become the single most powerful person on the planet like Mr Bush has.

The founding fathers decided that our democracy was going to be built on the people. That is a huge deal. Look to Europe and their democracies are often built on top of an existing monarchy who granted freedoms to their people. In the US we are different we TOOK our freedoms and that attitude will never disappear it is the very core of small "R" republicanism that we often take for granted. =(

[Coastie for Truth]

15. That's a bull crap argument that I use on my Pro-Life Friends re: ESC Res

That's a bull crap argument that I use on my Pro-Life Friends re: Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

When they give me their theological, scriptural and "slippery slope" arguments against stem cell research and therapies - I recite the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment - tell them that banning Embryonic Stem Cell Research is a theological call - and amounts to establishing their religious scriptural interpretations on me, and prohibits my free exercise of my religion since my religion permits stem cell derived therapies.

I then smile (you have to smile before , and say "just kidding" afterwards - otherwise its "assault")- and tell them

"Worry! Stem cell therapies have worked on mice in diabetes management in tests in England. When my diabetes reaches the first stage of either macular degeneration or kidney failure or little toe gangrene --- I am going to exercise my Second Amendment Rights on you !"

[ProgressiveConn]

79. They use the same tactics on us.

See the whole evolution debate. "Teaching evolution is an establishment of religion." See the whole 10 commandments debate, "not allowing me to post the 10 commandments is a violation of my right to free religious expression.

It is a valid tactic in a debate but questionably used amongst friends.

[Toots]

20. A wise man once said "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword"

I believe that still holds true today. Without the first ammendment we would not have a country.

[ProgressiveConn]

80. And a man with both is the best off.

Not only can I say what I want but if you try to stop me from doing so I'm going to cut your ass in two!

[knight_of_the_star]

95. If I remember my history right

It wasn't guns that got people to rise up against the British but a little pamphlet called Common Sense.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. 1st for adults. 2nd for adolescents.

[ProgressiveConn]

72. cheap shot.

There is nothing childish about having a massive problem with the factory farms that we get our meat from and thus aquiring meat from hunting.

There is nothing childish about enjoying target shooting. It is as viable a hobby/sport as anything else.

There is nothing childish about wanting to protect your family and livelihood.

There is nothing childish about the second amendment in any way shape or form.

[Toots]

108. And I'm sure you are part of a "well regulated" militia....right?????

Sounds like a fetish to me....

[bowens43]

4. Of course, the 1st is more important.

Unfortunately, for the 'gun nut crowd' the Second Amendment is the ONLY amendment worth defending. I think they just like playing army. Fortunately for them, there is nothing (other then gun rights) that they consider worth defending. Because of this, as long as the government will allow them to keep their little toys, they will never, under any circumstances, have to use those toys 'to defend freedom'.

It's hilarious. As long as no one wants to take their guns , they really don't give a flying fuck about freedom. The government threw them a bone and now they're obedient, oblivious little puppies.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. the "framers" listed them in order of how they rank them in importance

and so do i...1st is more important

[leftynyc]

42. Where does it say they listed in order of importance?

As to the question - I used to think the 1st was most important until this administration - first time in my life I felt it was necessary to be armed BECAUSE of the people in charge.

[tx_dem41]

7. Why do I have to make a choice?

All 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights together are important for democracy.

[Zenlitened]

9. Bingo.

:thumbsup:

[Q]

14. That's exactly right...

...and the point I was trying to make.

But it's clear that the 2nd is literally the only amendment remaining that hasn't been thrown away by THIS government and their rubber stamp congress.

The 'war on drugs' paved the way for the 'war on terror' and the Patriot Act(s).

The recent decision by this government to continue the use of taxpayer funded propaganda is a good example of pretending the Bill of Rights doesn't exist.

[ProgressiveConn]

62. I agree with this post completely.

There is a reason why the Republicans don't mess with gun owners. When you tell an honest citizen that they no longer have the right to arm themselves ie "the liberals are going to take your guns away!" people get scared. Why? Cause the rancher in Arizona or the hunter in Maine use their guns no differently than I use books. They are both tools in the way that we provide food for ourselves and our families.

And they have a right to be afraid of "the liberals stealing their guns" because while I would argue that gun control is a conservative not liberal impulse I would also argue that us Democrats have repeatedly supported anti gun measures. This needs to stop. Just like we need to shift the abortion debate to "rare, safe, & legal" we need to shift the gun debate to "protected, registered, regulated." Explain that gun registration and ballistic logs of every firearm sold does not curtail their second amendment right at all but instead helps protect it. It is obvious that the US has a problem with gun crime right? I mean our cities are getting worse not better. So lets change our tactics and try to actually make a difference in gun crime instead of worrying about retardedly minor things like bayonet locks and pistol grips. Hell if I for some stupid reason want to put a bayonet on the end of a rifle I can do so with ducktape and a kitchen knife and it will be JUST as deadly as a military issue bayonet on an AK-47. We should have the gun owners on board as those expressing their liberty and we should have them as our #1 ally in combating gun violence and crime.

[Mairead]

70. Exactly. All are important. The order varies from moment to moment

with the situation, but ever single one is of equal importance in the abstract.

Good grief, Q, you know that!

[ieoeja]

86. I could live without the 3rd.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Seems like a silly one nowadays, doesn't it? Tells you about the times. Were it being written by liberal minded folk today that particular right wouldn't even cross their minds. I suspect we'd be more likely to see something about the right to use public roads.

[Paladin]

96. If You Bring Up The 3rd Down In The Gun Dungeon........

....some Gun Hugger will give you a lecture about how freaking important it is to this very day, trying to give you the impression that soldiers are about to shack up at your place, drink your beer and fondle your daughters. In point of fact, quartering of the military in private residences ceased to be an issue after the Civil War. So why hasn't the 3rd been done away with? I don't know; who gives a shit?

In order to make their case that the Second Amendment has any relevance today, the gun militants have to make the argument for the 3rd Amendment and other inconsequential parts of the Constitution (and oh, jeez, am I going to get reamed by the Gun Huggers, for daring to refer to ANY constitutional provisison as "inconsequential"). Just like they feel it necessary to support the rights of the blind, the mentally deranged, and suspected terrorists to have full access to firearms. Absolute lunacy.

[robcon]

8. The 1st is the most important.

If you were to start a democracy, the 1st amendment is the basis of the system. The second is secondary.

[jody]

12. Self defense is a personal decision

Philosophers have debated the existence and origin of “natural rights” but if they exist, then the right of self-preservation is often the most basic right.

Self-defense is an act of self-preservation and the earliest state constitutions; e.g. Pennsylvania, Vermont; state that each individual has the natural, inherent, unalienable right to defend self and state.

SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to defend an individual so whether to defend one’s self is a personal decision.

The most effective, efficient tool for self-defense is a firearm, that’s why law enforcement officers use them.

[Q]

16. What about the rest of the Bill of Rights...

You act as if they don't exist. Care to comment?

[jody]

19. Sorry, my reply #18 was to your question.

You asked "Which is more important to Democracy?"

The founders of our country used state to mean a democratic government and such governments were created to protect the rights of individuals including those enumerated in the First Amendment and unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth.

Clearly the rights enumerated in the First Amendment are important but the founders knew that democracy will exist only as long as citizens defend it. First with the pen at the ballot box but the second line of defense is an armed citizenry willing to die to defend the democratic dream.

Will democracy survive even though we vote and keep and bear arms? :shrug:

[Q]

13. It seems the supporters of ONLY the 2nd amendment...

...didn't have a problem with peaceful protesters being penned up in 'free speech zone' cages and beaten by Brownshirts when they didn't move fast enough.

And many of them seem to have no complaints about the 'free' press under the ownership of RWing ideologues and corporations...as long as the propaganda works for their side.

The Bill of Rights doesn't work without due process and a presumption of innocence. Yet the right wants to weaken and destroy our justice system and make the government the arbiter of what is fair and just. The Right hates lawyers and promotes the torture of 'suspected' criminals.

It's stunning...how the Right seems to ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights. They're happy as long as 'their' government leaves the 2nd intact.

[jody]

17. You seem to be asserting that supporters of RKBA are automatically

on the right.

I and many other Democrats support RKBA and that's why the Democratic Party Platform says the party supports the Second Amendment.

How does one classify those who oppose RKBA because they certainly don't support the Democratic Party Platform?

[Q]

111. Why would either party even mention supporting the 2nd amendment?

Why not just state that they support the BILL OF RIGHTS? This is blatant pandering to gunowners and the NRA while downplaying the importance of other rights.

[jody]

18. I support ever enumerated right in the Constitution as well as

unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Do you?

[Q]

112. The question is and remains...

..does your government support them? The Bill of Rights was established to protect citizens from government intrusion and oppression.

[EVDebs]

21. The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword....therefore the First eom

[smoogatz]

22. Lots of Democracies work just fine without unrestricted RKBA

Free speech/press/religion, on the other hand, are the fundamental principles that define EVERY democracy. RKBA, as intended by the framers, is corrupted and essentially meaningless now for two reasons: first, the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment has been thoroughly ignored by lawmakers, so what we have is a society flooded with guns, entirely unregulated and obviously a danger to the citizenry. Second, the framers wanted that well-regulated militia around because the government had no money at the time to keep (or arm) a standing army. They also fully expected that the people would have to rise up again and overthrow the government, because whenever power and wealth is concentrated aristocracies arise, and aristocracies, as everyone knows, are inherently oppressive, and it's the duty of every free man to throw off the yoke of oppression (wise old white guys that they were). If guns are outlawed, they reasoned, only the government will have guns.

[Guaranteed]

23. The 1st. And the 2nd is there to protect the 1st. nt

[Lone Pawn]

31. How?

You think your rifle is going to stop a tank?



You think small arms would have prevented this?

[Guaranteed]

33. So you're saying we should be able to own bazookas and artillery?

That's crazy, man.

:P

On edit: Automatic weapons would defend well against infantry. No, it won't stop everything, but it would help.

[Lone Pawn]

34. Well, if the best justification for the 2nd Amendment is to fight the Army

then even bazookas and artillery are insufficient. I would suggest that rather than Hummers, we begin buying Abrams Main Battle Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles to drive around in--or perhaps Comanche and Apache helicopters.

[Guaranteed]

36. Well, it is the best justification.

I think it's important to be reasonable, though. Most people couldn't even afford those things, in any case.

[Goldmund]

41. LMAO

Don't give them any ideas. I'm sure that most H2 owners would kill for an Abrams instead.

[ProgressiveConn]

49. I would argue that the second amendment guarantees the right

of every American to own any equipment that the military owns.

Although that is strictly a Utopian ideal and that we can't have random people with nukes and FAEs. But it means in the long run we need to demilitarize our planet. And tanks can only destroy they can not control only infantry can control. And yes even against well armored infantry my small arms would work wonders. Remember we've got tens of thousands of US casualties in Iraq. These people are not armed with Tanks and Jets. Same goes for the Palestinian resistance, they are about to achieve Independence and they have no helicopter gunships or cruise missiles. Fighting small arms against bombers is not a fair fight or anything but it can obviously be successful though bloody.

[Lone Pawn]

77. In Iraq they mostly use explosive devices, actually.

And bombs are illegal, so that doesn't really count for much. Speaking of which, your small arms would not work 'wonders.' Your small arms would historically yield about a 10-1 OPFOR-US casualty rate--hardly a wonder.

[ProgressiveConn]

81. I disagree.

Bombs may be illegal but explosives are not. Explosives are widely used as tools just as guns are. Ever try to clear a lot of stumps blast a highway through a hill? Further I believe (at least speaking theoretically) that any restriction placed on the population which is not also placed on all branches of the US military is a violation of the second amendment. So the very fact that such a hypothetical conflict would result in bombers and tanks vs shotguns and rifles speaks to the violation I speak of.

And assuming your stats are correct (which I have no reason to doubt) we must realize two things. First in the event of a totalitarian take over the government and/or military will not wish to destroy infrastructure. As I've explained elsewhere in this thread tanks and planes are tools of destruction not control. Thus any occupation must be done with infantry. And while suicide bombers and IED's may make up a large percentage of our casualties in Iraq how many others were due to AK-47 Ambushes? I've read quite a few stories I can only assume you have as well. =)

And a 10-1 rate is still preferable to what the rate would be attempting to defend yourself without firearms.

[solinvictus]

97. Not that particular incident...

but improvised munitions would certainly damage a tank and turn it into an immobile pillbox. Sozhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" lamented the fact that the Soviet people had no small arms to resist the NKVD. It's like he said, if they come for you and meet an armed response with several deaths on their side, they'll run out of people willing to be Cheka agents.

[Love Bug]

24. The nice thing about the Constitution is ...

we don't HAVE to choose. We get both amendments, plus a bunch of others.

[Q]

30. Do you actually believe that the Bill of Rights is still honored by this..

...government? They have broken every single one of them...except perhaps the second.

Any 'rights' you may have left is mere tokenism to make you believe that you still live in a Democracy.

[beevul]

25. Daylight

"It's simply amazing that so many on the Right (and a few on the left) have been fooled into believing they are 'free' because they can own all the guns they want."

Perhaps.


"Yet these same people belittle the Left for wanting the Bush government to respect ALL of the Bill of Rights the same way they do the 2nd."

No. I mean...They belittle the left alright. I can't disagree with that at all.

They belittle the left for the left claiming to want the Bush government to respect ALL of the Bill of Rights...while an element, albeit a small and vocal one, attacks the second FROM the left. Kind of a "do as I say, not as I do" hypocritical type of thing.

Now, we could sit here all day, arguing whether theres any truth regarding whether the second is attacked by the left, whether or not the second guarantees an individual right, or whether anyone needs assault weapons...

Or, we could chalk it up to perception. Then maybe ask...how did that perception come to be? Is that perception based on truth? What can be done to destroy that perception?

Yep, those are questions with some tough answers. Not tough to find, just to stomach.

Until such time as this party is PERCEIVED to value ALL the bill of rights, this kind of destructive divisiveness is not going to go away, I think.

Maybe if there was no question as to whether the left supported the second, the belittling of which you speak would not be possible?

:shrug:

As to which is more important...

They are equally important.

That it is even questioned might shed light on where some of those perceptions come from.

[Guaranteed]

32. That's one of the first things a couple of working-class Republicans

asked me when I told them I'm a liberal and an ACLU supporter- what do you think about the 2nd Amendment? I told them I was a 2nd Amendment supporter, and that seemed to earn a lot of respect from them- even though I'm a LIBERAL.

This is a big deal. You're totally right about the perception.

[beevul]

59. How do we get past ...

the disconnect though?

How do we get those in positions that influence perception to understand the potential damage to this party that this issue can do, if not handled correctly?

As I said, there is an element...that seems to keep dragging the party image through the mud where this issue is concerned...

How can that be stopped?

It just blows me away. I can think of no single issue, with the potential of turning away as many voters who would otherwise vote D, than the single issue of guns. Not even anything close. Yet, the damage continues to be inflicted, almost like clockwork.

Someone needs to stand up, and say to both parties...

"Look...I know you (points at anti-abortion conservatives) don't like the idea of abortion, and I know you (points at anti-gun liberals) don't like guns, but the concept of freedom is bigger than iether issues, or both issues, or for that matter, ANY issue. There are always going to be freedoms some are going to dislike, maybe even freedoms that are hated. If we continue down this road we are on, only the powerful will have freedom, and those in power will dictate freedoms terms for the rest of us. So both of you, (pointing again)please drop the crusades against the freedoms you hate, for the good of this country, and for your own good."

Yeah, I know...wishful thinking.

[Guaranteed]

61. Great post. nt

[Coastie for Truth]

26. What Did "Militia" Mean When the Bill of Rights Was Adopted?

It meant one heck of a lot more then a bunch of guys with guns who went skeet shooting on Sunday morning.

First - do some "field research" (and see some really neat places)

1. The "Fire Museum" near Independence Hall Park in Philadelphia
2. The Coast Guard Museum (and the Coast Guard History Center) at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT
3. The Mariners' Museum in Newport News, VA
4. Just a random sampling of the North Carolina Light Houses that are collocated with Museums.

I have just described a really nice "American History" tour - that my family has taken over the years.

But - we are talking about "What Did "Militia" Mean When the Bill of Rights Was Adopted?"

You will learn that - generically - "Militia" meant a body of citizens who as local citizen-volunteers (and not as paid, full time professionals) put themselves "in harms way" for their community.

Obviously, volunteer fire fighters (in some of the old "workers comp" laws for volunteer fire fighters in some of the original 13 colonies the term "fire militia" is used).

But - just in the Coast Guard - the predecessor "Federal Life Saving Service" (the Coast Guard is more then just Alexander Hamilton's "Revenue Cutter Service" and the "Federal Light House Service") was originally a loose collection of local "life saving militias" - and was referred to as the "Life Saving Militia" in some state laws).

And, look at your own state's "Disaster Service Workers' Compensation Law" - that is the workers comp for volunteers who are trained and "enrolled" for such rare events as going across high grass an arms length apart looking for the body of a missing person, urban search and rescue, wilderness search and rescue, emergency mass sheltering, emergency mass feeding, and emergency remediation after hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, blizzards, floods, etc. This is defined - in most states - as "militia." But they are not Guardsmen in uniform. They are "just" trained citizens who voluntarily put themselves in harms way for the good of their fellow citizens. Don't even have to be a gun owner or NRA member.

And then there's the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Civil Air Patrol.

"Militia" is an old and honorable term for "trained citizens who voluntarily put themselves in harms way for the good of their fellow citizens" - and the NRA has hijacked the term "militia."

How trained are you for a natural disaster, an industrial disaster, or a terror attack? Here's a reference to the scale of "disasters" where the "militia" might be needed--
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16home.html?hp&ex=1111035600&en=083f2bf6b69b9744&ei=5094&partner=homepage
and it's more then terrorism.

You want to learn about the "real" militia --
1. Citizens Corps - http://www.citizencorps.gov/
2. Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services - http://www.races.net/
3. Coast Guard Auxiliary - http://www.cgaux.org/
4. Civil Air Patrol - http://www.cap.gov/
5. American Red Cross Mass Disaster Services - http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/0,1082,0_319_,00.html

"Militia" is one heck of a lot more then just "gun ownership."

[forgethell]

27. Damn, when

did these religious freedom, free speech, free press, peaceably assemble disappear?? Maybe be secure in your own homes, you know, burglars, drug raids, etc., but not the others. Give me some examples, please, and not just a generic Patriot Act.

What religions have been shut down, and how?

Who is not allowed to freely speak their mind or publish whatever they want?

What peaceful assemblies have been broken up?

Please be specific.

[Q]

28. Freedom of religion...

..as intended by the Founders...means freedom OF and freedom FROM. The idea is that you are free to worship any and all Gods...or none at all. But the central tenet is that the State must maintain a 'wall' of separation between church and state so that no one religion is 'respected' by the state more than others. It's not about 'shutting down religions'. It has always been about the FREEDOM to worship as you choose and not have the state use your tax dollars to fund or promote religion.

Are you saying that the 'free press' is 'allowed' to speak freely or publish whatever they want? Today's media is the antithesis of what the FREE press is supposed to be. They are not free to report truth or facts if they contradict the Bush government. The RWing ideologues and corporations that own the media take their marching orders from the WH. Those reporters who deviate from the WH script are intimidated, threatened or fired.

This is the 'freedom of speech' I'm talking about. The Bush government doesn't CARE what YOU have to say because your little voice doesn't mean a thing in the larger scheme of things. Controlling the once-free press is everything. That is...he who owns the media defines truth.

What peaceful assemblies have been broken up? It's difficult to keep track. I would say that there have been dozens by now. And if dissenters and protesters aren't beaten and gassed...they're rounded up and put in 'zones'...far from the object of their protests or the media. This is the direct obstruction of peaceful assembly.

It doesn't surprise me that you have to ask these questions. That you don't know or care that these things are happening is exactly why this government is able to get away with trashing the Bill of Rights in the light of dsy.

[forgethell]

29. Didn't

have to ask the questions. Wanted to know how you would answer. Now I do.

Just as a point of reference, freedom of the press has always belonged to the man who owned one. Nowadays, with the Internet, we are freer than ever before. Anyone can get his views out there.

[ProgressiveConn]

64. What peaceful assemblies have been broken up?

Man do a search there have been HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS

Here I did a google for ya:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=police+arrest+anti-bush+protesters&btnG=Search

Religious freedom has been attacked by faith baised public funding.
Free speech is attacked just google for Ward Churchill regardless of your opinion of him.
Free press is attacked by the new williams-gannon fake media where 99% of America gets 100% of its news.

They are not GONE they are just being limited greatly.

[forgethell]

66. i did

specify "peaceful", did I not?

[ProgressiveConn]

67. Open your eyes.

If you PM me your address I will send you video of police arresting a young girl because of what her sign said. I've got two or three mpgs that show protestors being arrested or forced to dispurse using unacceptable means for unacceptable reasons.

But I guess my definition of peaceful is different than yours and Bushco's. I don't see someone standing there holding a sign regardless of what it says as somehow not peaceful.

There are thousands of events around the country where the police use rediculous regulations to prevent free speech and free assembly.

[ProgressiveConn]

35. The right to arm yourself is what guarantees every other right

that we possess because of the ability of the people to overthrow any authoritarian government that comes to power. Granted this does not work when we are subverted via propaganda instead of via force.

And why are you presenting it as an either or thing? Cause it is not. I can have both first and second. The Democratic party needs to realize that there are many people who this is their most important issue. Hell I know at least a dozen people in this blue state where if a candidate gets a poor NRA grade they will not vote for them.

Personally the second Amendment is low on my list of priorities yet it is still on the list. All things being equal I will vote for the NRA - A Graded candidate.

[Q]

46. Well...it comes down to either...

...the 2nd amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The thing is...you CAN'T have both the first and the second. Or should I say you DON'T have?

Can you name ANY amendment...except the second...that the Bush Government hasn't trashed for their own political gain? Granted...there are a few they haven't gotten around to yet...but they haven't had a need up to this point.

The first amendment is...for all intents and purposes...extinct. It was the one amendment that they had to get out of the way in order to take over the free press, blend the church with the state and stifle dissent.

The Constitution itself is in danger of extinction...and the congress seems to be a willing accomplice. Congress itself committed an illegal act when they gave one man...George Bush...the power to declare war on Iraq.

[ProgressiveConn]

69. I'd say you're wrong.

that you CAN'T have one without the other. An armed population can assert its rights at any time. An unarmed population must have their rights granted to them by the government in practice even if not in theory.

And for the republicans have not left the second amendment untouched. Remember he did say he would support and sign the assault weapons ban (which IMO is stupid and pointless, do you really think having a bayonet attachment on a rifle or a pistol grip is a big deal?). Further just last week it was "found" that the Feds were not applying their "watch lists" to who can buy guns and it started an outcry which will result in that being changed. So now expect guns to no longer be sold to thousands of liberals nationwide because Bushco sees them as a threat. Remember all the cases of Democrats and Democratic activists being on the "no fly" list? Well guess what now you will be able to apply that same anti liberal bias to the second amendment.

It is the same thing in academia. Republicans push for "free speech and freedom in academics" yet when a liberal uses those rights it is attacked by those same people. Look at Ward Churchill. I may think he is extremely over the top but he is still being attacked for expressing himself in the way that Republicans say conservatives in academia are attacked. Bush isn't out to stop other Republicans from having access to free speech and firearms. They only want to stop liberals from having those same rights.

[_TJ_]

37. Free speech trumps everything !

It is the most important freedom a person can have in any
democracy worth the name.

When they take away your right to voice your objections they
can then take away *ALL* of your rights and you can't do a
damn thing about it.

[Goldmund]

38. 1st is the only one that's important (out of the two).

If the 2nd were repealed, I'd open a bottle of champaigne.

[Guaranteed]

39. Yes, 'twas a joyous occassion when that right was repealed! nt

[Goldmund]

40. That kind of a semantic trap is bullshit.

It's like saying "Yes, 'twas a joyous occassion when the right to invade sovereign countries without a provocation was repealed! nt".

[Guaranteed]

43. Unfortunately, it's exactly what you're saying.

I laughed out loud when I read your "popping the cork" remark.

[Goldmund]

44. eh?

It's exactly what I'm saying?

[Guaranteed]

45. You said you'd celebrate if the 2nd Amendment was repealed.

If it doesn't give us rights, I don't know what it's doing there.

"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."

There's something somewhere in there, for sure.

[Goldmund]

47. I see you already debated that earlier in the thread.

If you think that a budweiser-drinking redneck (or a spring-water drinking liberal, whatever) with a 45 or a hunting rifle represents any measurable deterrent whatsoever against a totalitarian state of the 21st century, then I'm sorry if I laugh.

[Guaranteed]

48. Well, it's part of the basis of democracy.

Do you laugh at the Declaration of Independence, too?

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That's not something to laugh at.

Yes, it's important that we have reasonable restrictions on the weapons that civilians can own. But we have to give them some power.

[Goldmund]

50. Guns give them no power, other than the imaginary;

and being in posession of imaginary power is in effect equivalent to losing power. To trivialize: "I'll acquiesce to this free speech zone law. I'll acquiesce to the PATRIOT act. I'll acquiesce to being fed fake news. Because if things get really bad, I still have my gun!". It is dispowering, not empowering; and the fact that a totalitarian administration such as BushCo is so in favor of the 2nd amendment provides further indication of that.

The "right to bear arms" as it's presently applied is a complete bastardization of the original intent you speak of. There was a practical meaning to citizens bearing arms in a "well-regulated militia" 200 years ago. Now, there is no such practical meaning. For a century almost, they thought that slavery was also consistent with the original intent of the founders. And then for a century more, institutionalized racism. It's time we progress beyond this destructive dogma, too.

[Guaranteed]

53. Your first paragraph is not my argument.

The 1st Amendment is MUCH more important than the 2nd Amendment.

However, you said that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely no importance, and that's just wrong.

If you combine that portion of the D of I that I just quoted:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

with the 2nd Amendment:

"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."***

I think you get the idea of what the founding fathers intended.

That's part of the basis of democracy.

If you're arguing that having only fully automatic weapons is not enough for our civilian population to keep the government in check (which I would disagree with), and if you also plan on keeping the democracy that our founding fathers intended, with the ability of the people to alter or abolish their government, you're saying that civilians really SHOULD be able to have tanks and artillery.

Again, I don't think that's true. But it's one or the other. It's absolutely critical that our people have the ability to abolish the government if they don't respect our rights, so we have to have to power to do it. Your opinion about what would accomplish that is up to you to form.

Edited to include "part of" above.

[ProgressiveConn]

60. I do buy the argument that #1 is more important.

But I feel that the argument that #2 guarantees #1 to be completely valid. However as has been pr oven repeatedly just because a country goes democratic does not mean they will stay that way. Look at Russia. They had their democratic revolution in 1917 and WHAM in the autumn Lenin's coup happened. Same goes for Germany. If Hitler did not go to great lengths to dearm his population maybe a viable German resistance could have flourished from day one.

[Goldmund]

65. I am saying...

...that in order to make your argument effective, yes, civilians really SHOULD be able to have tanks and artillery.

That would obviously be lunacy, and therefore the argument has no practical significance.

So, our disagreement boils down to two things:

1) I think that small arms do not provide a meaningful deterrent against totalitarian government action -- you do;
2) In the history of the US, the 2nd Amendment has never been implemented to protect citizens' freedoms from a government action. The first has -- many, many times. American totalitarians don't keep the US populace in check by firing tank-shells at them, they do it by using much smarter, more effective methods. 90% of Americans still think that we live in the freest society in the world. They still have ways to go before they have to resort to tanks or armed action -- and before that point would ever arrive, they would simply invent another propagandistic device to avert it: another war, terrorist attack, another takeover of the media, whatever. They ain't ever going to use the military to supress the US populace; they control them through their brains, not their bodies. So, is this pie-in-the-sky scenario worth keeping guns on the streets of America? Hardly.

[Guaranteed]

68. You're working backwards, and effectively

denying our democracy.

The quotes I gave are ideas put forward by the founders to make our country a true democracy. Thomas Jefferson himself, along with the rest of those who wrote the Declaration of Indendpendence, said that we have to be able to do abolish it if the government doesn't respect our rights. That principle comes first- and if you're going to argue that it's not enough to only have fully automatic weapons, then, again, you're just going to have to allow tanks, lunacy or not.

It's a prerequisite for democracy that we can take our country back from our leaders. What you're saying is that we can just forego that. No, we can't do that.

So, it's up to you to say what is an appropriate level of armament for civilians. But they have to have enough to at least put up a halfway decent fight. You can't just say "Well, we can't have tanks, so therefore we're going to throw the whole 'It's our country' bit out."

[ProgressiveConn]

71. In the history of the US no party has successfully eliminated democracy.

Should that day ever come than the second amendment will be of great help. And its not a pie in the sky scenario. The US is not special. Its democracy can collapse like so many others have. Many would argue that we are seeing this happen before our eyes today.

The real question is whether the Democratic party as a whole thinks that the millions of votes they lose every election is worth prohibiting firearms in the US. Regulation > Prohibition.

[Goldmund]

73. I agree that the US is not special.

"In the history of the US no party has successfully eliminated democracy."

I think many historians and analysts of current events would disagree with that.

What I'm saying is that if the US democracy finally collapses, it won't be through the use of armed force. It will be through the use of mind control, in all of its many, many forms. One could effectively argue that this has already happened, and one could hardly argue against the assertion that it is already happenING.

Gotta run now, thanks for the chat to both of you (BGL and you) -- I may be back on it later.

:toast:

[ProgressiveConn]

55. Then please laugh.

Cause our soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan did not die to stealth bombers dropping fuel air explosives. They died to AK-47s and improvised explosives.

All the high tech stuff does not help someone control territory. Only people on the ground can do that.

Lets go tin foil cap a second. Lets say that Vermont demands that its National Guard units be send back and as a result Bush decideds to assume command of all national guard troops directly. He then sends troops up to put down the protests and pacify vermont. Wouldn't you then feel better knowing that the people of Vermont are the heaviest armed in the country? The guns in Vermont don't bring crime as Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country in nearly every category of crime.

Let me ramble here:

I don't want that to come off as some sort of group of insane guys in the woods playing soldier and traitor. Cause its not but here it goes: My militia? Is my gun buddies. All liberals: two PDA/PFAesque Democrats, one DLCesque Democrat, a Green, a Socialist and an Eisenhower Republican who was proud to call himself a "Republican for Kerry." An environmental lawyer, a highschool teacher, a union organizer, two graduate students, and an undergrad who is also a Marine. One is black, one is native/black, one is hispanic, one is a homosexual. Two are Unitarian-Christians, one a Methodist, one a Buddhist, one calls himself a Catholic but is practices a fusion of native beliefs and Christianity, and me the agnostic. Before it became a "boys day out" thing three women were part of the group occasionally. A native girl, an Army brat gone Marine, and a black girl. Between the six guys we have three concealed carry licenses and a federal firearms permit. Not all those who are hostile to gun prohibition are rednecks.

In general we feel that the second amendment is a vital part to securing our freedom from our Government should democracy ever die in America. As a liberal you should own a gun. You should be trained to use it. Hell shooting skeet is pretty damn fun as is target practice. We make a game of it. Whoever loses buys the first round of beers that evening.

The difference between a liberal gun-owner and a conservative gun-owner is that I store my Guns and ammo in a heavy vault with trigger locks on everything even though I live alone. Further every single one of us would argue that there are acceptable gun control measures such as full ballistic registration of EVERY firearm in the country. Someone gets murdered? You know exactly what gun it was from. This can be done today easily. Hell our current talk is of starting a club and going door to door in downtown hartford, new haven and bridgeport and trying to get current gun owners to shift towards legal routes of gun ownership. We want these people to be ready to defend themselves and do it legally. Having unregistered handguns just makes you a criminal.

Regulation as Gun Control = Good.
National or State level firearm prohibitions = Bad.

[Guaranteed]

58. That was an awesome post.

I don't agree with CCW, but that's an awesome post.

They sound like good people. It's important to break down that stereotype, too.

[Goldmund]

63. Good post.

"Cause our soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan did not die to stealth bombers dropping fuel air explosives. They died to AK-47s and improvised explosives."

Oh, sure, the US population armed with AK-47s or M-16s (do you think that assault rifles should be legal, by the way?) would be able to kill 1,500 soldiers, for sure. Or 15,000. But the citizens of Iraq have not been able to and will not be able to resist succumbing to the geopolitical plans of the PNACers, unless a genuine military force of some other global actor gets involved. To BushCo, those 1,500 soldiers are a small price to pay. They would be in a government-takeover situation as well.

And that situation, which has been used as the reason to keep guns on our streets is a total pie-in-the-sky. It won't ever happen. The fascists in America are way smarter than that; they deal with propaganda, news suppression, bribery, corporate consolidation and electoral fraud, to make sure that their rule stays in tact together with the veneer of "democracy". Look at American History: when has the Second Amendment been useful at all in opposing government totalitarianism? Never. Only the first has (out of the two), innumerable times. And that is why only the first amendment has been facing repeated assaults from the totalitarians; they are clearly threatened by the first, and not the second.

"Lets go tin foil cap a second. Lets say that Vermont demands that its National Guard units be send back and as a result Bush decideds to assume command of all national guard troops directly. He then sends troops up to put down the protests and pacify vermont. Wouldn't you then feel better knowing that the people of Vermont are the heaviest armed in the country?"

The Vermont National Guard should, obviously, have fire arms -- much stronger fire arms than the civilian population ever should be allowed to have (I think you'd agree with this, since you're in favor of gun regulation). Would I feel better knowing that Vermont's civilians are armed with small arms when they face federal troops? Hardly. It would mean more casualties, and that's it. The only thing that could actually damage such a take-over are the weapons of the First Amendment: free flow of information, protests and economic strikes.

"The guns in Vermont don't bring crime as Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country in nearly every category of crime."

Guns aren't the cause of crime (or if they are, they are only one of the many). But guns help a pre-existent criminal environment become more violent -- and their absence help it become less so. Look at the UK or Northern Europe, for example.

As far as the rest of your post, I agree with you -- I don't buy the stereotypes either. Despite that, one thing that is indicative of the respective roles of the 1st and 2nd amendments is what I said before: look at the actions of American totalitarians. They feel threatened by the 1st amendment, not the 2nd.

[davepc]

94. In keeping with your tinfoil hat theme

With such a registration list, then if it ever got to a scenario that you describe, the no-knock 3AM flash bang and ski mask ATF raid would happen at your house 1st...and everyone else on that list.

You can not argue firearms as a impediment to tyrannical government on one hand and argue that the very government we're protecting ourselves against have an enumerated list of everyone who owns a firearm.

It just doesn't work.

[ProgressiveConn]

51. Man do you think all gun owners

are militant and violent hicks?

My guns have never injured anyone nor most likely will they ever.

[Goldmund]

52. Of course not.

I was merely saying that the fact it's called "the right to bear arms" doesn't fundamentally make it a _right_ that a citizen in a free society should have.

[ProgressiveConn]

57. Others say the same about health care and education.

I don't mind if other countries ban firearms amongst their population. If I moved to another country I wouldn't be lobbying for the right to own firearms. I don't believe owning weapons of any kind is a fundamental human right or anything. However we as a country determined that it needed to be a basic legal right in the whole democracy thing was going to stick.

[davepc]

92. Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you

[Guaranteed]

54. I don't even OWN a gun. nt

[radar]

56. Definately the 1st...

...For the simple fact that an individual utilitizing the 2nd, without the 1st, would be standing alone against the "powers that be;" only the gov't side of the argument would be heard by the people.

Hypothetically, a gov't run media could have an individual looking like the guys in recent shooting sprees. The neighbors would be more than happy to turn in that "kook." "Is there a reward? - Hey, I'm on tv!!"

Conform

Obey

[amjucsc]

75. The first, without question...

Many countries (think Europe) have gun restrictions but are still indesputably Democratic. I can't think of many states that I'd regard as being Democratic that heavily restrict freedom of speech/press/religion.

[FrenchieCat]

76. There's a reason that the 1st comes BEFORE the 2nd.....

Founding Fathers, as fucked up as they were about certain things, got their priority straight on the order of the Bill of Rights in reference to having the 1st come 1st.

[Q]

82. The Bushies will allow you to keep your guns...

...because they don't feel threatened by them and they already have full control over you and your government.

They know that YOU know that they're a bunch of criminals and war profiteers. But they also know there's nothing you can do about it.

The Bushies and their media have dumbed-down America to the point where many Americans don't even care if the Bill of Rights or any other document exists to keep their government from oppressing them. Those who DO care have no power to do anything about it. Their free press and congress is corrupt and devoid of integrity or honor.

And a good portion of the population keeps voting these bastards back into office because they're AFRAID that the other side will mess with their guns. They vote this way...knowing that those who protect the 2nd amendment for them care nothing about the rest of the Bill of Rights. This is the only amendment that doesn't get in their way and muck up the corporate/church/military state.

[derby378]

84. I'll make you guys a deal

I'll support your right to burn the US flag in public, even though I personally disapprove of it - if you'll support my right to own an AK-47, even though you personally disapprove of it.

Now, let's get to work convincing America that the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights are worth fighting for, too.

[AP]

85. If you watch The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, in Venezuela the right

to bear arms played a big part in preserving constitutional government.

The citizens and soldiers loyal to the government all had guns, and having those guns helped counter the fascists.

Watching that movie really helped me make the shift from "gun control" to "gun safety" as my frame for 2nd A issues.

[Township75]

87. This whole thing is bullshit...these two amendments don't exclude each...

other. One isn't more important than the other, and now we have a debate about which is..why? Because a bunch of right wingers only care about the 2nd , or care more about it? Therefore, we should only care or care more about the 1rst.

This is stupid to argue over. Why not argue over which is more improtant, the 1rst or the 4rth, or the 2nd or the 3rd?

I support em both, end of discussion, and that won't change because someone tells me right wingers only support one or none of them.

[Spinoza]

89. Your viewpoint is too reasonable.

We cannot accept it.

[Q]

91. If you read carefully...

...I mentioned that the entire Bill of Rights must stay intact. The point is that THIS White House respects ONLY the 2nd amendment (because it means votes for them) and gives only lip service to the rest.

Do you really believe the 1st amendment is still viable when the Bush WH has paid 'journalists' to spread their propaganda and continues to use tax dollars to produce and market RWing talking points and policy as 'news' reports?

The Bush WH...without the advice and consent of congress...wrote an executive order to directly fund the church with our tax dollars.

Bush demand loyalty oaths of anyone who attends his rallies and anyone showing even mild protest are removed and arrested. There is no peaceable assembly. If you show up to protest...you'll either be put in a cage far from the object of protest or be subjected to beatings or gas.

The first amendment is dead.

Yet so many seem worried that the mean, nasty Dems will take your guns away and VIOLATE the 2nd amendment.

All of this concern about the 2nd seems out of place and proportion when the rest of the Bill of Rights is extinct or becoming so.

[davepc]

93. Maybe we'd have more success fighting for the entire Bill of Rights

if we didn't cherry pick which rights we were going to fight for.

[Q]

113. I'm not sure I understand your reference...

Are you suggesting that I'm the one cherry-picking? Or those who mainly support the 2nd?

Actually...it's the Bush government doing the cherry-picking. In fact...they picked the 2nd amendment cherries and then blow-torched the whole cherry tree.

[Dragonfly]

101. Your logic is consistently

sound when it comes to shining lights on the mechanics of just how this darkly weird cabal is stealing America from us and souring relations with historical allies.

Yeah, the gun thing has been out of control for as long as the RW has had comprehensive control of Congress, state legislatures, etc.

We can find reasonable ground on this issue, methinks. However, the more desperate folks who gain easy access to a handgun as * continues to wreak havoc, the more carnage is going to appear across the land. These little guns are killing innocent men, women and children; look at Philly now.

Going through the active duty infantry training as a Marine Corps reservist in the middle of '69, we were all required to fire a lot of weaponry. What can happen by mistake in a twinkling of an eye with powerful guns can tragically alter a lot of lives, in military life or civilian.

No one I'm talking to who is serious about trying to get a handle this point is pushing to delete the 2nd Amendment. All ten are indeed in jeopardy, as we all know.

[Spinoza]

88. The right to bear arms

sure didn't help the Confederacy.

[w4rma]

90. They are both important and neither can work without the other. (nt)

[Q]

99. It seems that the 2nd is 'working' quite well without the first...

...the denial in America is astounding.

Can anyone honestly say that the Bill of Rights is still honored by this government?

What will prevent the next government from doing the same? The Corporate Congress? The Sell-Out Senate? The unjust Department of Justice? The new FBI, CIA, NSA Gestapo? The Corporate White House Stenographers & Ministry of Truth? The Federalist Courts?

The Bush Government is intentionally tearing our country apart so they can start over and rebuild it in THEIR image. And the ONLY reason they pretend to respect the 2nd amendment is to keep the RWing faithful in line.

[w4rma]

103. Only because you don't really see the 2nd, in action, until the government

or the government allows buisness interests to overstep itself. The the ultra-wealthy corporatists and the Republican leadership are both scared of their base, because the 2nd amendment has allowed the proliferation of guns, imho.

The amendment is there as a threat, and needs to stay as a threat to those with the power from blatant abuses.

[Q]

104. You're still pretending that these things are far away...

...when they are happening right now. Where is the threat to this fascist government from all these 2nd amendment worshippers? What are they doing to stop the reality of the corporate/church/state?

The fact is that they don't even see it. They're perfectly happy living within the illusion the Bushies have set up for them. Their 'team' has the POWER and nothing else matters as long as they don't touch the 2nd amendment. Hell...they actually consider it a WIN that terrorists on watch lists have the 'freedom' to buy guns.

[w4rma]

105. Folks still believe we can pull out of this, politically. And I agree.

If folks in America are actually pushed to the point where they actively use that 2nd Amendment, the result will be almost exactly like the situation in Iraq. That would, obviously, be very bad. It's almost a sort of mutually assured destruction.

[Q]

110. I disagree...

...the time to 'pull out of this' has come and gone. There are too many 'traitors' in the Democratic party to mount any kind of effective opposition and the Bush Banana Republic would just LOVE IT if the 2nd Amendment fans took up arms against 'their' government. You're right...it WOULD be just like Iraq...with martial law and tanks in the streets to keep American Terrorists in line.

There wouldn't be a 'mutual destruction' at all. Martial law would bring the military into the streets and any kind of resistance would be crushed in the name of the 'war on terrorism'. What you don't seem to understand is that the Bushies really meant it when they said that you're either with them or against them. Anyone who opposes them in any meaningful way will be considered terrorists.

[BootinUp]

98. Killin' is easier to comprehend

for many, ow my brain is startin to hurt from reading your intellectual post. :|

[Q]

109. I understand your humor...

...but actually it's the most basic of posts. It's shocking how far this country has strayed...in just a decade or so...from the basic rights and freedoms 'promised' for our Democratic Republic. Even the most BASIC tenets of due process and innocent until proven guily are now optional for a government working in complete secrecy and without checks and balances.

The downfall of our country began with the 'war on drugs'...when FEAR (and loathing) was used to bring about no-knock warrants, harsh sentencing/cruel and unusual punishment and use of the military for civilian law enforcement.

Next came the RWing Fundies. They didn't like the 'experiment' of the Founders that had erected a wall of separation between church and state. They wanted to bring back 'God's Laws' to replace a Constitutional 'rule of law'. And like corporations...they wanted a piece of the tax pie in order to advance their own interests at taxpayer expense.

Election 2000. All of the things that had come before had set up the conditions for the establishment of an oligarchy. The end of the Fairness Doctrine and the telecommunications act of 1996 brought about a Corporate Media Monopoly and RWing Radio where propaganda was spread without an opportunity for opposing views. Liberals became America's scapegoats...much like the Jews in 1930s Germany. The courts had been stacked with RWing ideologues and the media gobbled up by the wealthy with the goal of installing a government of, by and for their industries. Democracy was circumvented in order to install the one man they knew would work within this context.

September 11, 2001. We saw the last gasps of a dying democracy when the CEO president ignored a multitude of warnings and allowed an attack on America to take place without interference. Immediately declaring a 'global war' on nameless and faceless 'terrorism'...he and his cronies locked down the country, blacked out the media and declared a perpetual state of emergency and war. Laws were quickly passed to nullify civil liberties, install an American Gestapo and plunder the treasury for the wealthy in a 'time of war'.

Now working in complete secrecy...the Bush government operates without oversight or any effective checks and balances...making law by fiat with the executive order and using fear and terror to manipulate the people into believing it's being done for their own good.

The Bill of Rights...for all intents and purposes...is nonfunctional. But Americans still have their guns, teevees and SUVs and this is all the freedom they seem to want or expect.

[Q]

102. The 'experiment'

"Freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected, I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:322

"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33

[Lizzie Borden]

106. The first. Nothing to discuss.

The people refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included. I bet we wouldn't have the guts to do that today.

[Q]

107. Monarchy / oligarchy is probably what we would have today...

...wait a minute...that's what we DO have today. What we don't have is the breed of politician...like Jefferson or Madison...with the courage to put their country first.

Today we have two corporate parties...both willing to sell out the people to advance their own power and stuff their Cayman Island bank accounts.

How many Americans have even READ the Constitution? How many have looked at it since their school days? How many understand the meaning and intent of the Bill of Rights?

Rome is burning.

[Q]

114. A very interesting POLL on DU about which 'issues to drop'...

...shows that over 70 percent of those responding would 'drop' GUN CONTROL as a Democratic principle.

I submit that this demonstrates how effective the Right has been at not only framing the issues...but in getting the Democrats to back off on their own principles and values.

The Right and their Centrist Democratic Allies have always framed Gun Control as an issue of 'freedom' and supporting the Bill of Rights. Yet the Right never mentions ANY of the other amendments in the context of a free country.

The truth is that the Right has systematically weakened and then destroyed the 1st amendment...manipulating public opinion with THEIR MEDIA to change the meaning and intent.

Religion is no longer framed as the 'freedom' to worship as one pleases or Congress 'making no law respecting an establishment of religion'. It's about the 1st amendment OPPRESSING and DISCRIMINATING against the church.

Free speech and Free Press issues are now framed in corporate doublespeak. You have 'freedom of speech' and right to peaceably assemble as long as you assemble and speak from within a 'free speech zone'.

The Right says that a Free Press can exist ONLY if they're free to be monopolized by a few wealthy individuals and corporations.

The Right insists that there is no right to petition THEIR government for a redress of grievances during a time of perpetual war.

And now the Bushie Right is using the 2nd amendment as a wedge issue...to keep alive the illusion that the only tangible freedom is the right to 'bear arms'.

[Q]

115. Bill of Rights

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II - Right to keep and bear arms

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.

III - Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor
in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV - Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

V - Provisons concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI - Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in
his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII - Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial
by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII - Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.

IX - Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

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.

[femme.democratique]

116. They're ALL important to democracy!

[Q]

117. That's not in dispute...

The point is that many Americans don't seem to understand that they're all important to Democracy.

[femme.democratique]

118. I was just beeing cheeky :-)

[Q]

119. I know...

...but it's starting to piss me off that too many Americans are virtually living in a fascist state and rarely do they even MENTION the Bill of Rights.