# Obama on violence



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

*WARNING: this is related to political comments about the VT shooting by Obama. Indeed, perhaps some might feel positive comments, others perhaps negative.*

This was under a tag line *Obama on Virginia Tech, and "Violence"*

I'll give you a 'sanitized' taste so you can see if you want to click the link and then listen to the mp3

... Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion. "Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it," he says toward the end. So he moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life. "There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence." There's the "verbal violence" of Imus. ...

Ok, you're either in or you're out! 

https://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_on_Virginia_Tech_and_Violence.html

I don't really like his timing. I don't really agree with him. I'm not sure whether I see this as political courage. I'm trying to keep an open mind and reflect on his thematic point. Perhaps, it's just the timing.

Could this do him in politically?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Ksinc:

Thanks for the tasteful warnings. No one can say they did not know what they were clicking.

I listened to some of the mp3 and read the article. Given it is tax season, I would like to speak out on the violence done to my paycheque. The poor thing is torn asunder in a ruthless fashion and it just wants to be whole again! Also, the headache Barry gave me is violence I could live without. I have to work vs. fulfilling my desire to live like the idle wealthy. I hope Barry addresses that violence too.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Truly, Obama is sick-making! I wish the little man would just go away. What about the violence inflicted on Americans by mass third world immigration (of which the Virginia Tech slaughters are a result)? By nation-destroying multiculturalism policies? By the epidemic of black-on-white rape and violence? By outsourcing and H-1B visa trends? By feminist policies promoting divorce, hyper-individualism, and abortion? The list is practically endless.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> *WARNING: this is related to political comments about the VT shooting by Obama. Indeed, perhaps some might feel positive comments, others perhaps negative.*
> 
> This was under a tag line *Obama on Virginia Tech, and "Violence"*
> 
> ...


I agree, very poor timing. It sickens me that politicians use tragedies like this to promote themselves.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Obama is a child! He should just stick to what he knows, namely running his mouth and making backroom real estate deals.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

This just proves what I have believed all along about Obama, that he is just another opportunistic POLITICIAN. 

There has been all this talk about how he will unite us, not be divisive etc. BS!

Obama is Hillary lite, nothing more.

Why people believe any politician is suddenly different from the rest is beyond me.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I cannot believe how totally tastless Obama was in his decision to politicize this tragic event. Politcos, as well as others, should limit their comments at this point to expressions of condolence and attempts to comfort the victims and their families.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I've read (from Mickey Kaus, who is a conservative and not an Obama supporter) that the speech doesn't sound as bad when you listen to it.

Whenever a public tragedy occurs I think it is legitimate for all of us to consider not just the immediate impact, but also what it means for society, what can be done to prevent future events, and so forth. Nevertheless, given the reactions I've been seeing, it sounds as though Obama didn't handle this correctly.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I've read (from Kickey Kaus, who is a conservative and not an Obama supporter) that the speech doesn't sound as bad when you listen to it.
> 
> Whenever a public tragedy occurs I think it is legitimate for all of us to consider not just the immediate impact, but also what it means for society, what can be done to prevent future events, and so forth. Nevertheless, given the reactions I've been seeing, it sounds as though Obama didn't handle this correctly.


It's not that his speech was so bad, it's that he made it right after the shootings. I feel he is just as wrong as Heston was when he went to Denver 10 days after the Columbine tragedy (although not as tacky). Using events like this to get yourself some "air time" is just wrong IMO. Eagle is right, condolences and comforting words to the families are all that are needed right now.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Laxplayer, 
It goes beyond that even. It was just not well thought out. There is always this dumb tendency on the part of pols to try to expand incidents like this to the culture as a whole; as though this guy was somehow a product of a culture and somehow induces this sort of activity. He also, very stupidly, uses this incident to allude to "verbal violence". 

What Imus did, as tasteless as it was, did not leave a body count in its wake. Given that the last weeks news cycle was pre-occupied with Imus in light of this incident it all seems ridiculous. His mentioning of the two things even in the same speech shows that either:

a) He's so shallow and without an original idea that he just doesn't get it or, 

b) He thinks that people are so stupid as to need his wisdom to put things "into perspective".

The fact is that this was a tragic event and that in retrospect there is very little anyone could have done to prevent it. There is no way to see with such clarity into the mind of a madman and to divine his actions. Perhaps its human to always ask questions like "why" or "what can be done to prevent this from happening again" but I'm afraid it will continue to happen, as it has so many times in the past.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

Old Brompton said:


> Truly, Obama is sick-making! I wish the little man would just go away. What about the violence inflicted on Americans by mass third world immigration (of which the Virginia Tech slaughters are a result)? By nation-destroying multiculturalism policies? By the epidemic of black-on-white rape and violence? By outsourcing and H-1B visa trends? By feminist policies promoting divorce, hyper-individualism, and abortion? The list is practically endless.


Okay, your dislike of Obama's statement is one thing, and I don't mind that. But I take *strong *exception to your other generalizations on the basis of race, gender, immigration, etc.

No one race or gender or nationality or religion in this country is simon-pure -- never has been, and never will. And there never were any "good old days" in America, contrary to what you might wish to believe.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Old Brompton said:


> What about the violence inflicted on Americans by mass third world immigration (of which the Virginia Tech slaughters are a result)?


South Korea is a third world nation? News to me.

Again, my fear is the recent horrible events are going to cause mass gun banning by the left and mass xenophobia by the right. So far, everything seems to be right on schedule.....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I've read (from Kickey Kaus, who is a conservative and not an Obama supporter) that the speech doesn't sound as bad when you listen to it.
> 
> Whenever a public tragedy occurs I think it is legitimate for all of us to consider not just the immediate impact, but also what it means for society, what can be done to prevent future events, and so forth. Nevertheless, given the reactions I've been seeing, it sounds as though Obama didn't handle this correctly.


Jack,

Just in case it wasn't clear ... the link I posted has a link to the mp3 which one can listen to and make up their own mind.

This whole event is so tragic it's hard for me to even judge Obama over his re-action to it. I'm usually cynical and skeptical, and I'm trying to be gracious and open-minded.

I will say this ... I saw some journalists (specifically Geraldo) interviewing kids and asking them who they knew that they thought was missing or they had not spoken to and were worried about. If I was a parent and I saw little Suzy Q. roomate say "well I haven't spoken to Sally" and Sally was my daughter, I'd totally freak and probably not react well regardless of what the facts turned out to be. When did we lose respect for how people hear the worst news of their life? Who really wants to volunteer for that duty? Certainly, not me.

I found that clearly more obviously self-serving and indefensible than Obama's commments. He didn't seem to be being mean or opportunistic as much as attempting to be reflective or thematic as the word was used. I give him the benefit of the doubt, but I could not have said those things.

I thought the "violence of Imus" comment was just typical liberal confusion between intentions/consequences, feelings/thoughts, words/actions.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

*Mickey Kaus?*



jackmccullough said:


> I've read (from Kickey Kaus, who is a conservative and not an Obama supporter) that the speech doesn't sound as bad when you listen to it.


Do you mean _Mickey _Kaus? Just asking.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Doctor B said:


> Do you mean _Mickey _Kaus? Just asking.


Sorry. Exactly right. I'll edit my original post.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

oh my goodness...it's gonna be a long ride until nov 08...

as I always tell liberals when they complain about GWB...we'll all be wishing we had him back if obama gets elected...


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> oh my goodness...it's gonna be a long ride until nov 08...
> 
> as I always tell liberals when they complain about GWB...we'll all be wishing we had him back if obama gets elected...


Unlikely.

And, speaking of violence:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Unlikely.
> 
> And, speaking of violence:


Honestly, you're worse than a mother-in-law.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> South Korea is a third world nation? News to me.
> 
> Again, my fear is the recent horrible events are going to cause mass gun banning by the left and mass xenophobia by the right. So far, everything seems to be right on schedule.....


Fair enough point. Still, South Koreans and others clearly piggy-back on the systematic importation of third world helots so beloved of globalist elites in the West.

You may fear gun control and "mass xenophobia" ("mass xenophobia"?! _O the horror_...It would make a welcome change to the mass xenophilia which gives rise to so many of our problems). My fear is that a similar event may occur as a direct result of our foolish immigration policies.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Doctor B said:


> Okay, your dislike of Obama's statement is one thing, and I don't mind that. But I take *strong *exception to your other generalizations on the basis of race, gender, immigration, etc.


Turn the emotion down. No need to get your knickers in a twist over a simple political disagreement. We _are_ still allowed to disagree over issues of race, sex, and immigration policy, aren't we?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I listened to the whole thing last night. The quoted comments are a small part of a somewhat long and rambling discussion in which Obama, appearing at an already scheduled campaign event, scrapped his planned speech and spends the time trying to make sense of what happened at Virginia Tech. I encourage everyone to listen to it, I think you'll find something very different from what has been claimed about the speech.

I think it's very bizarre to criticize a politician for being self-serving or self-promoting at a campaign event. Isn't that what they're for?

I also think it's bizarre and hypocritical for the wingers to be attacking liberals for talking about the causes of this event, while wasting no time to attack gun control laws, their supporters, and the unarmed students who didn't take the opportunity to attack the killer instead of trying to escape or avoid detection by hiding in their classrooms.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Honestly, you're worse than a mother-in-law.


Whatever. Just keeping it real.

So a politician maybe said something ill-timed while making a larger, even self-serving point. BFD. Get over it.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I listened to the whole thing last night. The quoted comments are a small part of a somewhat long and rambling discussion in which Obama, appearing at an already scheduled campaign event, scrapped his planned speech and spends the time trying to make sense of what happened at Virginia Tech. I encourage everyone to listen to it, I think you'll find something very different from what has been claimed about the speech.
> 
> I think it's very bizarre to criticize a politician for being self-serving or self-promoting at a campaign event. Isn't that what they're for?
> 
> I also think it's bizarre and hypocritical for the wingers to be attacking liberals for talking about the causes of this event, while wasting no time to attack gun control laws, their supporters, and the unarmed students who didn't take the opportunity to attack the killer instead of trying to escape or avoid detection by hiding in their classrooms.


You mean like this guy?
https://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/18/where-is-atheism-when-bad-things-happen/


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wow. That's really something, even for D'Souza.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> oh my goodness...it's gonna be a long ride until nov 08...
> 
> as I always tell liberals when they complain about GWB...we'll all be wishing we had him back if obama gets elected...


Funniest thing I've heard all week.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

Old Brompton said:


> Turn the emotion down. No need to get your knickers in a twist over a simple political disagreement. We _are_ still allowed to disagree over issues of race, sex, and immigration policy, aren't we?


Disagreement I can take. But you need to bring some reason to the forum as well.

I fail to see where immigration had anything to do with this -- the VT shooter had no legal violations beyond a traffic ticket in 15 years, and he and his family checked out when they got their green cards renewed. Even the guns were legally bought under Virginia laws and background checks.

Bringing up "multiculturalism" and miscegenation, or "black-on-white rape," as you so indelicately put it, is not even on the radar screen with this. So why bring it up at all?


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Look, I don't want to get into a heated argument over this. My point was two-fold. 

(1) The shooter was an Asian immigrant. If the US elites had not admitted him as part of their "invite the world" immigration strategy, this tragedy would never have happened. I'm not saying Americans don't commit crimes, but this particular horror was easily preventable, i.e., don't let them in! I won't even get into the numerous drunk-driving murders, rapes, and assaults committed by unassimilable immigrants that I read about each day in the papers. 

And (2) the "black-on-white rape" comment was directed specifically at such crimes as the Wichita Massacre and the more recent Knoxville Massacre, both of which you may not have heard about because they have probably been flushed down the Media Memory Hole. The Duke Rape Hoax gets (inter)national coverage, but somehow the recent Knoxville Massacre gets ignored. WTF?!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Old Brompton said:


> I'm not saying Americans don't commit crimes, but this particular horror was easily preventable, i.e., don't let them in!


Do you think some tribal elders sitting around a fire in the North East said something very much like that about 500 years ago?

Sorry Old Xenophobe, the country was built on immigration. Do not mistake me for an "open borders" person in anyway, some people departed from this board used to try and make me out to be a vigilante border watcher. I 100% believe in controlling the borders, but immigration is a good thing. Of course, I might be biased, as I am part of the uncouth hordes you are so worried about....yes, I am an immigrant!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Make no mistake -- Obama, the messianic darling of the media and many Democrats, chose his words very careful when he said "verbal violence." 

It's a transparent attempt at equivalence (!) between Don freaking Imus and one of America's worst mass-murderers is no accident, "no slip of the lip," as Jesse Jackson described Don "Psycho Murderer" Imus. 

As much as Obama may wish it to be, as much as it may fit with his agenda, verbal insults are not a form of violence. 

There is only one reason to pretend that tasteless insults are equivalent to violence -- violence is a justification for defensive violence. More specifically, violence is a justification for action by the State. 

Obama wants us (or his target market, actually) to accept the idea that verbal insults (i.e., jokes that he does not care for) are fair game for the jack-boot of government. He wants us to believe that the government should step in and crack down on this sort of thing. After all, the government cracks down on rampaging spree killers, right? You wouldn't want the government to be hampered by any pesky Constitutional limits when dealing with genuine, honest-to-goodness mass murderers, right? 

Well, Imus is the same thing, sorta. Close enough, anyway. It's "verbal violence." 

This little phrase, wielded by a man who is seeking vast governmental power, lest we forget, is a blatant attempt at the "manipulation of reality" through "the manipulation of words." I would have thought that such a thing would have provoked a more vigorous rebuttal from some corners of the Interchange, but I guess I was wrong.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I have to say that the more I watch and learn (I finally turned the TV back on) about the VT tragedy, it seems like there was a bigger issue than a non-citizen getting a handgun. The issue of the mental health records not triggering a block in the background check seems real to me. I don't think someone with a history of mental illness and known to be a danger to himself should be able to get a gun. 

We need to find a way to fix that. Pro-gun people and NRA types should be the ones pushing for this solution rather than resisting everything so hard.

I know there's a privacy issue here and some will say there is no right to privacy and others will say the right to privacy is absolute. 

IMHO, it's time to work this out.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Federal law does prohibit anyone who has been committed from owning a firearm, although there are certain exceptions (such as muzzle-loaders).

As I understand it, the killer in this case had been involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital, but not committed, which requires a court decision. This is entirely proper, because it is possible for some people admitted involuntarily who have no mental illness or show no danger to themselves or others, so it would be unfair to apply the collateral consequence of barring them from firearms until a court of proper jurisdiction has had the opportunity to evaluate and rule on these claims.

This is a not unusual concern for my clients because hunting is such a popular activity in Vermont.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

There is a local Vermont blog run by a conservative economist who took the opportunity to harp on the danger supposedly posed by people with mental illnesses. The fact is that people with mental illnesses pose no greater risk of violence than the population as a whole.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I just don't think you sell a handgun to someone found to be a danger to himself. If we are going to do that, then we should just go ahead and help people commit suicide if they want. 

I guess I don't see the unfair part. If someone can't keep their oars in the water I feel some sympathy for them, but I don't see why I have to empower them with a handgun.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I agree that people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to have guns. That's why federal law prohibits it once they have been found by a court to meet commitment criteria. The problem with doing it before then is that the initial decision to involuntarily hospitalize the person is made with limited, incomplete, and often misunderstood evidence. In addition, studies have demonstrated that doctors are no better than the general public at predicting danger, and that they tend to overpredict danger. The Constitution protects us from being deprived of liberty without due process of law, which is why court review is necessary.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I agree that people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to have guns. That's why federal law prohibits it once they have been found by a court to meet commitment criteria. The problem with doing it before then is that the initial decision to involuntarily hospitalize the person is made with limited, incomplete, and often misunderstood evidence. In addition, studies have demonstrated that doctors are no better than the general public at predicting danger, and that they tend to overpredict danger. The Constitution protects us from being deprived of liberty without due process of law, which is why court review is necessary.


Well, I agree with due process, but can't I can be picked up on "suspicion"?

I think perhaps we could suspend the right to have a gun on "suspicion of being a nut". If someone was found to be mistakenly a nut, we could give them this right back.

I'm not saying to ignore the law, I'm saying change the law. States regulate gun ownership. Some have 3, 5, or 10 day waiting periods. The right to buy a handgun is not one of immediate gratification for good reason.

The Constitution IMHO protects us from intrusion, invasion of our liberty, like in our homes and our person. When someone goes out and tries to buy a handgun, I think they have to accept a different set of rules.

Much like when you get a driver's license you sign & submit to search requirements on a quite different set of criteria than granted by the Constitution.

Again, I'm not debating the current status-quo. I'm just saying it obviously has flaws and needs to be fixed. It's far better IMHO for people to fix them with common sense than without.

I would say somethings like deciding whether 7 bullets is ok, but 8 is too many fall in the later category.

I saw this one thing, it was hilarious. It had the Walther blown up great big and the Glock small. I can only surmise the blown up Glock didn't extract as much emotional response from the editorial board. The Walther looks like a bodybuilder with tatoos.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I agree that people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to have guns. That's why federal law prohibits it once they have been found by a court to meet commitment criteria. The problem with doing it before then is that the initial decision to involuntarily hospitalize the person is made with limited, incomplete, and often misunderstood evidence. In addition, studies have demonstrated that doctors are no better than the general public at predicting danger, and that they tend to overpredict danger. The Constitution protects us from being deprived of liberty without due process of law, which is why court review is necessary.


The only problem, and I have seen this happen literally 100's of times in my working life, if you get discharged prior to the hearing, no court order is ever produced. So if you have some issues and disassociate (the state pysch cases are in when dangerous/delusional/etc.), get locked up for the weekend, and d/c'ed on Monday, no court appearance will have occurred. So someone lacking proper treatment, possibly a danger to self and others, could have multiple short stays at the county psych unit, and *never appear at a competency hearing*.

On the other hand, I agree automatic removal of certain priviledges or entry into a Federal d-base for being temporarily committed is also wrong. It is not uncommon for domestic disputes to end with one (or both) parties reporting the other and getting them temporarily committed out of pure spite. I once heard it was a common ploy in messy divorces.

Tough to get a good answer that balances all concerns here.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The Constitution IMHO protects us from intrusion, invasion of our liberty, like in our homes and our person. When someone goes out and tries to buy a handgun, I think they have to accept a different set of rules.
> -quo. I'm just saying it obviously has flaws and needs to be fixed. It's far better IMHO for people to fix them with common sense than without.
> 
> Much like when you get a driver's license you sign & submit to search requirements on a quite different set of criteria than granted by the Constitution.


I am far from a scholar in this area, but the key difference would seem to be the Constitution here ksinc. It never mentions drivers' licenses but it does specifically say something about not abridging the right to keep and bear arms, does it not? Again, I do not feel it is correct to pick and chose what part of that document we are going to follow. Just my $.02, I am sure I will be told the error of my thinking.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> On the other hand, I agree automatic removal of certain priviledges or entry into a Federal d-base for being temporarily committed is also wrong. It is not uncommon for domestic disputes to end with one (or both) parties reporting the other and getting them temporarily committed out of pure spite. I once heard it was a common ploy in messy divorces.
> 
> Tough to get a good answer that balances all concerns here.


I think we have one of those laws here that says in a domestic dispute where the cops are called at least one party spends the night in jail automatically. I know they are in some places and not in others.

I don't find it a negative to say well you might take the guns away from some people only in a domestic dispute. Sounds good to me. If you want to make it temporary or subject to further/deeper scrutiny - that does not argue against my point. I think that's a great idea. However, we should err on the side of caution until that observation and review can take place IMHO.

If a guy loses his temper and tosses something through the wall and the cops have to come, I have no issue with him losing his guns or suspending his right to buy more guns for 3-6 months while it determined if he's just having a bad week or a lunatic. Perhaps in places where the guy spends the night in jail to cool off he already gets this put on his background check, but I think it is the same as this decision is made by the cops not by a court.

Domestic disputes are a cry for help from emotionally disturbed people as well. It's just often well justified! LOL


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I am far from a scholar in this area, but the key difference would seem to be the Constitution here ksinc. It never mentions drivers' licenses but it does specifically say something about not abridging the right to keep and bear arms, does it not? Again, I do not feel it is correct to pick and chose what part of that document we are going to follow. Just my $.02, I am sure I will be told the error of my thinking.


I'm not a scholar either, but much like Martin Luther, I believe most things can be simply read and understood. When they can't I grow very suspicious. Many scholars treat the truth as a 'trade secret'.

No, it does not mention an individuals right to have a handgun. Perhaps go view my posts in the other thread. A fair review of the context of the 2nd Amendment shows an entirely different discussion was taking place at the time. And, I'm VERY pro-gun. There's been a lot of lies told about the 2nd Amendment that served the pro-gun lobbies purpose. Unfortunately, while the anti-gun's reading of the 2nd Amendment is much closer to reality, that does not mean the RKB&A does not exist and is not protected. It just isn't delineated in the Constitution. That DJ guy argued that this was then limited by that failure, but clearly the 9th Amendment disagrees: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And the 10th "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."

The rights to K&BA, to carry concealed, or to use force in self-defense are legally three different rights. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the later two of these for certain. This does not mean they do not, cannot exist - they just don't derive directly from the BoR.

The disputed language about a well-regulated militia had to do with Washington and others arguing about who would arm and house the arms. Would the Standing Army only have arms? Would the Militia keep their arms or show up and be issued arms only when there was a war? Would the Federal Army have arms, but the State Militia not? Wouldn't the States then be subservient to the Federal government entirely and not Free States joined in a Union? Also, there was a shortage of quality arms and the capacity to make more arms being used as the argument for why all arms should be gathered and stored in case they were needed for war. At the time although there was not a great disparity between a hunting rifle and a war rifle as there is today and it was somewhat feasible to consider a private rifle a good war rifle. However, there were issues of logistics and supply and Washington made some great arguments. The States were not impractical and wanted to purchase and store arms themselves too. This created an 'allocation of scarce resouces' issue also. Regardless, pretty much the whole "bring your rifle to war" concept was now viewed as irrelevant.

If you read some of the congressional debating notes, and some of the historical writings of Madison, Mason, and Jefferson. It's clear this is what they were discussing. It's clear the BoR was largely a negotiation as much as the Pork in the War Supplemental Bill today.

Here was what Mason wrote as a proposed draft that became the 2nd Amendment and a bit of context as introduction (see the link below for the full version):

[During the Federal Convention, on September 12, 1787, Elbridge Gerry and George Mason proposed that a committee be appointed to prepare a bill of rights. This proposal was unanimously rejected by the State delegations, and in consequence both withheld their signatures from the new Constitution. Mason wrote his Objections to This Constitution of Government which began, "There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security."

By the time the Constitution had been ratified by the necessary nine States, several had proposed amendments to be inserted in the body of the Constitution, but no proposal had been made for a declaration of rights. On June 25, 1788, the Virginia ratifying convention appointed a committee to prepare a bill of rights. Two days later, the committee reported a proposed bill of rights, and additional amendments to be included in the Constitution.

The proposal by this committee was a nearly verbatim copy of a Master Draft that George Mason had sent to Gen. John Lamb of the Republican Committee in New York on June 9th, a copy of which remains among the Lamb Papers at the New York Historical Society. The receipt of the Draft was acknowledged in a letter to Mason from Judge Robert Yates, June 21:

Your letter of the 9th inst. directed to John Lamb, Esquire at New York Chairman of the Federal Republican Committee in that City enclosing your proposed Amendments to the new Constitution, has been by him transmitted to such of the Members of Our Convention, who are in sentiment with him. In consequence of this Communication a Committee has been appointed by the members in Opposition to the New System (of which they have appointed me their Chairman) with a special view to continue our correspondence on this necessary and important Subject.

*We are happy to find that your Sentiments with respect to the Amendments correspond so nearly with ours*, and that they stand on the Broad Basis of securing the Rights and equally promoting the Happiness of every citizen in the Union

....

*"17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."*

https://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm

Back to me now. Some people say the 2nd Amendment grants and protects the right of an individual to K&BA for the purpose of self-defense and as a member of the 'body of the people' the militia. Clearly they are wrong.
Other people like DJ say that since the 2nd Amendment clearly is talking about an organized milita, then the RK&BA of an individual does not exist. This group of people is wrong too.

One of the big issues I have is people act like this all happened 2,000 years ago and there is no historical record readily available so we must discern from spirits and ghosts what it all meant. The congressional historical records are remarkably thorough and there are extensive writings, letters, and journals that remain available to everyday people today.

Frankly, if both of these groups would lose the selective hearing and be genuine and honest about history this is a simple discussion. Unfortunately, you will find that both groups tend to "teach" propaganda they KNOW is nothing but lies. One group does this in the public schools which I find rephrensible. The other group is a private group that does so with private literature - which I do not support, but strikes me as somewhat protected by the right to free speech. I said in the other thread, I resigned from the NRA because I just got so tired of reading lies all the time about the 2nd Amendment.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled Obama and Imus bashing ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This Peggy Noonan piece is pretty good.

Cold Standard
Virginia Tech and the heartlessness of our media and therapy culture. 
Friday, April 20, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

https://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Heh, told ya I'd get set straight on the 2nd. Now I just need to hear from the left and the picture is complete. :idea:


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> ...the country was built on immigration.


Your argument is naive. Every country on earth was "built on immigration" if you go back far enough in time. The US is no exception. If you take the time to learn US history, you will see that mass immigration traditionally has been from assimilable European countries and has been followed by long "time out" periods. Given the increasing racial and cultural strife in the US, it's clearly time for another "time out."


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Brompton said:


> Your argument is naive. Every country on earth was "built on immigration" if you go back far enough in time. The US is no exception. If you take the time to learn US history, you will see that mass immigration traditionally has been from assimilable European countries and has been followed by long "time out" periods. Given the increasing racial and cultural strife in the US, it's clearly time for another "time out."


Last I checked Nigerian immigrants are doing far better than the Eastern European immigrants.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Old Brompton said:


> Your argument is naive....If you take the time to learn US history,


Ah yes, clearly that is the error of my ways. If I had just taken the time to learn!

Best regards,
Wayfarer the Unschooled


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Old Brompton said:


> Your argument is naive. Every country on earth was "built on immigration" if you go back far enough in time. The US is no exception. If you take the time to learn US history, you will see that mass immigration traditionally has been from assimilable European countries and has been followed by long "time out" periods. Given the increasing racial and cultural strife in the US, it's clearly time for another "time out."


I'm not sure whose argument if any is helped by this - Old Brompton or Wayfarer. However, both a substantial part of this country and a majority of "every country on earth ... if you go back far enough in time" was built on slavery. Many people argued that slavery was an economic reality and necessity. Clearly, while perhaps a larger moral difference exists, the economic difference between a free and an almost free inexhaustible supply of manual labor is but a quibble. Which will have contributed or resulted in the most violence won't be known for quite some time.


----------

