Harry Marks wrote: Correct me if I misunderstood, but isn't the whole point of the defense of the Second Amendment an argument that people with guns are dangerous? I mean, they want to be dangerous, right?

The point of the Second Amendment is to have a citizenry that's dangerous to tyrants. When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just defeated King George and didn't want him coming back. So citizens were reminded that they could own weapons. Guns in the hands of citizens stopped England once again in the War of 1812, so gun ownership works.

But back to using children in crusades. There are so many stories regarding this in the news lately. And it seems pointless to post links to the stories because people will grouse about Fox News or CNN or whatever. It's easy as pie to search and find your own "reliable" sources now, so look up "children Mexico caravan." Chances are that you'll pull up a bunch of sentimental pieces about a mom and a handful of kids being denied their dream after traveling from Central America.

But the caravan through Mexico was an assault on America. A corridor was carved out, and Mexico allowed passage along that corridor from its southern to its northern border. Now that the route has been worked out we can expect to see a flood of people coming into the country, à la the Middle Eastern and African invasion of Europe.

Erdogan of Turkey created corridors to channel military-aged men across his country, Hillary Clinton and Obama murdered Khadaffi in order to create corridors for Africans to use through Libya, and now a corridor has been created by George Soros and the Left through Mexico.

What's going on is a worldwide resettlement program. Stalin moved millions around, and the Inca would relocate whole tribes that they conquered, so the practice of moving people in order to destroy societies has been going on for a while. But not on this scale. The people who own and run the world want to destroy the west, so they carve corridors for invaders to move along. While we're told teary-eyed stories about dreaming children. The people who write those stories and shepherd them into print are the worst kind of predators. They use kids to advance an agenda that is anti-kid. When you move millions of bodies it will be the smallest that get crushed. I hate the Left's globalization plan with a passion. America hates it too, and that's why Trump was elected.

Trump's son-in-law recently said that Trump won't receive the Nobel Peace Prize because the global elite would never allow it. It was SO GOOD to hear that kind of honest speech coming from the White House for a change. And Americans seem to be developing a taste for honest speech lately. Trump's support among black males jumped from 11% to 22% the week after Kanye West spoke about supporting Trump. The Left is in a panic about this. They MUST have the bloc of black votes to win anything nationally, and blacks are fed up with the Left's plantation mentality:



Anyway, my mind fogs, myfingers fumble, and all I know is that we need to learn how to take care of ourselves before we can hope to take care of children. Any political story that leads with a mention of children is making a grab for your heart, and most of those stories should be discounted at the start.

KindaSkolarly wrote: The point of the Second Amendment is to have a citizenry that's dangerous to tyrants. When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just defeated King George and didn't want him coming back. So citizens were reminded that they could own weapons.

That makes sense to me. What makes me nervous is that you freely toss around labels like "Marxist" for people like me who are liberals and believe as deeply as one can believe in democratic means to go with our democratic ends. So if you are dangerous to tyrants, and in your eyes I am a Marxist, what am I left to conclude?

Harry Marks wrote:

KindaSkolarly wrote: The point of the Second Amendment is to have a citizenry that's dangerous to tyrants. When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just defeated King George and didn't want him coming back. So citizens were reminded that they could own weapons.

That makes sense to me. What makes me nervous is that you freely toss around labels like "Marxist" for people like me who are liberals and believe as deeply as one can believe in democratic means to go with our democratic ends. So if you are dangerous to tyrants, and in your eyes I am a Marxist, what am I left to conclude?

You should probably conclude that a bunch of people consider you a menace. Whether you know it or not (and I'm not attempting to talk down to you), but your "liberalism" is being fed to you by Marxists. Obama and Hillary Clinton are proteges of Saul Alinsky and the Frankfurt School. One of Obama's mentors, Bill Ayers, helped author a book called Prairie Fire when his Weather Underground group disbanded in the early 70's. All of those gurus preached Marxism, and their students are now running the Left in America. And under their guidance the Left is practicing the kind of rigid control-freakism that was a hallmark of Hitler's National Socialists. The Left is banning free speech right and left but saying we have to be tolerant of the Left's speech. I mean, your "liberal" leaders are behaving like Nazis.





http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/

What else? The term "liberal." Don't know if I've mentioned this here but Charlton Heston marched with the civil rights marchers in the 60's. His point back then was, like MLK's, that we should judge people on the content of their characters rather than the color of their skins. Judge individuals, not groups. Fast forward, decades later, and Heston was a Libertarian talking about taking his gun from his cold, dead hand. He was vilified for that, but his motivating mindset was still the same as it had been in the 60's--a reverence for individual liberty. Liberty, Liberal and Libertarian stem from the same root. So how did Liberal come to mean Collectivist? Or Democratic? Democracy is mob rule by 51%. Heston maintained a respect for individual liberty his whole life, yet at the end of his life the "tolerant liberals" in America attacked him for his beliefs.

At any rate, I know you analyze things deeply, and my superficial observations may not account for much, but maybe you can tell me how the Left became so hateful and divisive and intolerant of individual dissent. I think the answer is to be found in Alinsky's techniques (applied by Clinton and Obama), and in... Obama and The Children's Crusade. I just remembered something that's actually germane to this thread's topic.

Nikolas Cruz, the alleged shooter at the school in Parkland Florida, was born in Russia. In America he adopted the name of Cruz. So, under Obama's racist Promise Program, Cruz' disciplinary issues at school were under-reported because he was (on paper) Hispanic. Obama wanted minorities to be disciplined less, so he ordered that they be given a free pass when they acted up in school. So even though Cruz was Russian-born, probably suffers from fetal-alcohol syndrome, probably was medicated to the gills, made constant threats of violence, even though he had all of those issues going on, the school looked the other way because of his make-believe ethnicity. It could be argued that Obama's racist policies were responsible for the Parkland school shooting. I'll put some links to this topic below. I couldn't believe the media didn't scream about the Promise program when it was announced in 2011. Imagine if Trump ordered that white kids shouldn't be disciplined.

americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/how_fe ... earms.html

washingtonexaminer.com/schools-more-dan ... l-policies

There are lots of articles about the Promise program online, as well as articles about Obama's other education-wrecking policies.

KindaSkolarly wrote:

Harry Marks wrote: So if you are dangerous to tyrants, and in your eyes I am a Marxist, what am I left to conclude?

You should probably conclude that a bunch of people consider you a menace.

Refreshing to correspond with someone who can recognize the obvious, but then it should be clear why a teacher in Florida referred to Second Amendment advocates as dangerous.

KindaSkolarly wrote:Whether you know it or not (and I'm not attempting to talk down to you), but your "liberalism" is being fed to you by Marxists.

I'm not worried about being talked down to. Have at it. What worries me is the need to see invisible strings determining my views. I think things through for myself, and arrive at my own conclusions. I'm not going to argue that no one on the left takes their views from a herd mentality (or the right either) but it strikes me as spectacular when someone simply cannot fathom the idea that the other side is thinking.

KindaSkolarly wrote:Obama and Hillary Clinton are proteges of Saul Alinsky and the Frankfurt School.

Alinsky was a genius. I don't agree with all of his thinking, but he showed that major institutions care enough about their reputation to clean up their act. Unlike our current dear leader, they know enough to be ashamed of shameful behavior.

KindaSkolarly wrote:The Left is banning free speech right and left but saying we have to be tolerant of the Left's speech.

I have had a few arguments on line with people who want to ban hate speech. I read about the strange cases on campus that pop up now and then. It is approximately similar to the way "Christian" colleges exercise intolerance against people who disagree with them. None of it is pro-democratic, so all of it is foolish.

KindaSkolarly wrote:I mean, your "liberal" leaders are behaving like Nazis.

Not even close. Met any Nazis?

KindaSkolarly wrote:The term "liberal." Don't know if I've mentioned this here but Charlton Heston marched with the civil rights marchers in the 60's. His point back then was, like MLK's, that we should judge people on the content of their characters rather than the color of their skins. Judge individuals, not groups.

His courage should be saluted. Not everyone who marched in those marches survived. Their opponents freely labeled them "collectivist" and argued that violence against them was justified by the federal government "taking away freedom".

KindaSkolarly wrote:Fast forward, decades later, and Heston was a Libertarian talking about taking his gun from his cold, dead hand. He was vilified for that, but his motivating mindset was still the same as it had been in the 60's--a reverence for individual liberty. Liberty, Liberal and Libertarian stem from the same root. So how did Liberal come to mean Collectivist? Or Democratic? Democracy is mob rule by 51%.

I think most of us get that the constitution protects people's liberty from majoritarian oppression. That's what the civil rights movement was all about. It's an important reason to hold in contempt those who treat the constitution as a personal convenience to be taken advantage of.

KindaSkolarly wrote:Heston maintained a respect for individual liberty his whole life, yet at the end of his life the "tolerant liberals" in America attacked him for his beliefs.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. People criticizing other people for their beliefs is part of the process. Personally I only ever heard him criticized for being a dupe for the gun industry and the extremism of Wayne LaPierre.

KindaSkolarly wrote:maybe you can tell me how the Left became so hateful and divisive and intolerant of individual dissent.

I think a certain part of the left is naturally intolerant, as with many other views on the spectrum. There is an institutionalized intolerance in Marxism/Leninism (the real thing, not the imaginations of people about Obama or the Clintons) that was originally a reaction against the secret police of Europe in the 19th century. The aristocracy was trying to defend its position against Revolution, the overturning of aristocratic privilege that started with the French (or maybe with the British and Dutch even earlier). They oppressed freely, so the Leninists felt that only fools refuse to be ruthless.

If you are talking about intolerance of conservative opinions, my observation is that it isn't conservative opinions per se that generate intolerant reactions. (I googled "David Brooks shouted down" just to be sure I hadn't missed some incident.) But people who freely justify aggressive behavior against others, or freely justify spreading lies in the name of freedom, or freely justify trashing constitutional protection of individuals, tend to arouse the same kind of paranoia that you are exhibiting. So these leftists seem to conclude that hate speech, to pick an example, is too much of a threat to be tolerated. I can remember when lots of kinds of speech were considered too much of a threat to be tolerated. It seems to be a common conclusion that people come to. That's one of many reasons why rule of law is important.

KindaSkolarly wrote:So, under Obama's racist Promise Program, Cruz' disciplinary issues at school were under-reported because he was (on paper) Hispanic. Obama wanted minorities to be disciplined less, so he ordered that they be given a free pass when they acted up in school.

I haven't studied up on it enough to claim any expertise, but my understanding was that the Promise Program was an effort to be conscious and intentional about discipline, to offset the bias that causes minority kids to be treated worse for the same kind of behavior. I think the goal was a reasonable one, even though it is difficult to oppose these unconscious biases without infringing on liberties. In principle that's all Affirmative Action is, and so far the courts have been pretty scrupulous about keeping it that way.

KindaSkolarly wrote:So even though Cruz was Russian-born, probably suffers from fetal-alcohol syndrome, probably was medicated to the gills, made constant threats of violence, even though he had all of those issues going on, the school looked the other way because of his make-believe ethnicity.

My understanding is that this was one of several factors contributing to the warnings being insufficiently heeded. If it was the only incident of school shootings or mass shootings then the personal factors in that case should be the predominant ones to be considered. But nobody alleges racially biased coddling caused Las Vegas, or Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or any of the others in a long list. Fine, if the Promise Program is systematically causing problems, let's investigate it and fix it or scrap it, as appropriate. But I guarantee you that won't stop school shootings.

KindaSkolarly wrote: I couldn't believe the media didn't scream about the Promise program when it was announced in 2011. Imagine if Trump ordered that white kids shouldn't be disciplined.

There are lots of articles about the Promise program online, as well as articles about Obama's other education-wrecking policies.

I've read a few of these kinds of articles. It astonishes me that people take seriously this kind of ideological polemic. Sweeping generalizations ("ordered that minorities shouldn't be disciplined", "education-wrecking") are built on a few anecdotes and often a hefty dose of misinformation. This is Rush Limbaugh's stock in trade. Do you ever think about holding these people accountable? Checking on their record of accuracy, for example?

Harry Marks wrote:

KindaSkolarly wrote: The point of the Second Amendment is to have a citizenry that's dangerous to tyrants. When the Bill of Rights was written, the US had just defeated King George and didn't want him coming back. So citizens were reminded that they could own weapons.

That makes sense to me. What makes me nervous is that you freely toss around labels like "Marxist" for people like me who are liberals and believe as deeply as one can believe in democratic means to go with our democratic ends. So if you are dangerous to tyrants, and in your eyes I am a Marxist, what am I left to conclude?

It doesn't make sense to me. It is the Constitution itself that provides the means to prevent tyranny. The militias were for national defense. To think that so much about militias was tucked into the Constitution because the framers were concerned that their founding blueprint wouldn't work is frankly a bit ridiculous.

DWill wrote: It doesn't make sense to me. It is the Constitution itself that provides the means to prevent tyranny. The militias were for national defense. To think that so much about militias was tucked into the Constitution because the framers were concerned that their founding blueprint wouldn't work is frankly a bit ridiculous.

I'm not so sure. They had not yet gone through the degeneration of the French Republic back into tyranny, although maybe a semblance of it in the reign of terror. So they may have had a lot of faith in a Montesquieu-type process of checks and balances and division of powers. But as you know there was a variety of views within the founding group, and Jefferson, if I recall, would not agree to the Federation (rather than the Confederation) without a bill of rights. Doesn't that mean they thought press freedom, freedom of speech, etc. were part of guaranteeing responsible government? In the context of 18th century America I don't think it is far-fetched that armed civilians would be seen as helpful to liberty.

I am not about to accept the idea that we should now have civilian militias with artillery and jet fighters, which is what it would take to restrain the military if it ran amuck today. Let's be real about the times changing.

Harry Marks wrote:

DWill wrote: It doesn't make sense to me. It is the Constitution itself that provides the means to prevent tyranny. The militias were for national defense. To think that so much about militias was tucked into the Constitution because the framers were concerned that their founding blueprint wouldn't work is frankly a bit ridiculous.

I'm not so sure. They had not yet gone through the degeneration of the French Republic back into tyranny, although maybe a semblance of it in the reign of terror. So they may have had a lot of faith in a Montesquieu-type process of checks and balances and division of powers. But as you know there was a variety of views within the founding group, and Jefferson, if I recall, would not agree to the Federation (rather than the Confederation) without a bill of rights. Doesn't that mean they thought press freedom, freedom of speech, etc. were part of guaranteeing responsible government? In the context of 18th century America I don't think it is far-fetched that armed civilians would be seen as helpful to liberty.

I am not about to accept the idea that we should now have civilian militias with artillery and jet fighters, which is what it would take to restrain the military if it ran amuck today. Let's be real about the times changing.

Jefferson wanted some rights detailed explicitly, although since he wasn't part of the convention his view might not have been decisive. On the narrow matter of what the Second Amendment says and why it was put in, I think it's important not to concede to the NRA that the reason was to legitimize opposing the government that was defined in the Constitution. The internal evidence is against this view, since it is reasonable to assume that the right to bear arms wouldn't be mentioned if militias were not seen as being vital to national defense. I'm not saying that bearing arms wasn't considered to be a right, just that it was at the service of a larger need. The Constitution also defines one of the purposes of militias as being to put down rebellions (such as Shay's Rebellion), not to foment them. Because there was no standing army for quite a while in the U.S., weapons held by citizens would be an important resource.
Militias became irrelevant with the establishment of standing armies, although the extreme right thinks that patriots should continue to form them. Blame Jefferson for some of that, with his "tree of liberty watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants" metaphor. Timothy McVeigh, on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing, wore a t-shirt with Jefferson's declaration on the back.

DWill wrote:It doesn't make sense to me. It is the Constitution itself that provides the means to prevent tyranny. The militias were for national defense.

Harry Marks wrote: I'm not so sure. In the context of 18th century America I don't think it is far-fetched that armed civilians would be seen as helpful to liberty.

DWill wrote:On the narrow matter of what the Second Amendment says and why it was put in, I think it's important not to concede to the NRA that the reason was to legitimize opposing the government that was defined in the Constitution. The internal evidence is against this view, since it is reasonable to assume that the right to bear arms wouldn't be mentioned if militias were not seen as being vital to national defense. I'm not saying that bearing arms wasn't considered to be a right, just that it was at the service of a larger need. The Constitution also defines one of the purposes of militias as being to put down rebellions (such as Shay's Rebellion), not to foment them. Because there was no standing army for quite a while in the U.S., weapons held by citizens would be an important resource.

Well, I expect you are right about what the Constitution meant. I indicated that Kinda's view "makes sense to me" to mean that I could literally make sense of it, but I should perhaps have chosen wording that would not indicate agreement. I am willing to leave the matter open, even if that gives aid and comfort to the NRA, but as I indicated I don't think it is relevant to today's world anyway. You have given another reason, with the advent of standing armies.

Article 1, Section 8
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

DWill is correct on militias under the Constitution. The notion that militias were constituted to overthrow a tyrannical US Government is advocated by folks who have memorized the Second Amendment, including the placement of every comma, a pseudo-understanding of the diagramming of that sentence, and a with willful ignorance of most of the Constitution. When taken in context of the whole document, that concept evaporates.

Interesting comments. Yes Alinsky was a genius, but then so was Ted Bundy. Both were good at what they did, good to the point of genius. But Bundy killed fewer than Alinsky, and Alinsky's destruction will continue for who knows how much longer?

Below is an interesting video, less than a minute long. It shows an actual shooting, so be advised. The video's from a closed-circuit camera:

https://mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploa ... Robber.mp4

Note the woman, who fortunately was armed, put the bad guy down. Outlaw all guns today and punks like the one in the video will still be using them tomorrow. It's GOOD to have firearms in the hands of good people.

Leftists love to grouch about guns. And I don't know why, but they always want to disarm themselves. That's suicidal insanity, which is hard to argue with. Go ahead and disarm yourselves, Leftists. Turn in your guns. Move to Chicago, where guns are tightly controlled. Or to London. You'll be safe in those liberal havens, right?

And speaking of London, here's a disturbing article. British schools are removing analog clocks from classrooms:

Schools are removing analogue clocks from exam halls as teenagers 'cannot tell the time'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2 ... rs-unable/

It's shameful how kids are manipulated nowadays. George Soros and George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey sponsor marches not to make classrooms safe, but to outlaw guns, and the kids don't understand how they're being used. Hell, they don't even understand how to tell time. And meanwhile, Soros, Clooney and Winfrey go about their business with armed bodyguards protecting them. The hypocrisy of the Left reeks.