Quote of the Day: When the Mask Slips Edition

“If gun owners are the minority, that minority has turned into a majority and recalled two senators. Every time pro-gun control advocates reveal their stance, they end up paying for it at the polls. They are taking a beating on the gun issue in Colorado.” – Colorado State Shooting Association president Tony Fabian, Colorado sees record number of gun background checks in 2013 [at dailycamera.com]

comments

  1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Maybe the good Gov of Colorado should be next?

    1. avatar T says:

      No doubt they want the governor’s head on a stick!

    2. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

      From what I know so far on the topic (I’ve only been a Coloradan for about 6 months), the large metro areas like Boulder and Denver would put the kibosh on recalling Hickenlooper.

      It’s not just 2A issues that have several northern counties ready to secede – it’s how Denver has ignored or actively tried to legislatively hamstring some of the most productive agricultural and energy-rich land in the country. But it’s a case of the urban population being able to outvote the rural.

      I just don’t know if there’s the number of votes statewide to recall the governor…and I can’t help but wonder if we in Colorado wold be better served by investing our time and treasure in the ’14 elections. I think there’s enough momentum from 3 successful recalls to enable us to make some positive changes over the normal election cycle.

      1. avatar Bob Wall says:

        Certainly agree that the battle is in November of 2014. Anything else (gubernatorial recall) is just a wasted effort. The real battle should be invested by increased Republican and moderate Democrat wins in the State House and Senate to repeal the stupidity of the 2013 legislature.

        Yours truly, from Western Colorado.

        PS – Welcome Matt. Get rid of that hat with horns and blond braids, and get yourself a Bronco.

        1. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

          The Vikings? Who are the Vikings? 😉

          Trust me, I have no issue with being a Broncos fan after obseving the Minnesota Choke(tm) a few dozen too many times!

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      You mean Headinpooper?

    4. avatar anonymous says:

      > You mean Headinpooper?

      Bloomberglicker

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Bloombumlicker ?

  2. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    here’s part of the media problem:

    (from the article link)
    “”””Previously, private transfers took place at the discretion of the seller. If the seller had no reason to believe the buyer was not fit to own a firearm, they went through with the transaction, said Colorado Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Susan Medina.

    “If John Smith were to buy a gun from his neighbor, the neighbor would have to have a reasonable knowledge that John didn’t have any prohibitors from his past,” Medina said.””””””

    NO DISTINCTION in their reporting with long guns vs pistols………making the public believe that handguns are being transferred face to face, and that BG checks are ‘necessary’.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Reality…there should not be a difference. That darn 2A is pretty clear on the issue.

  3. The American people are, on the whole, a patient lot. And we have a pretty high tolerance for a lot of public nonsense, but … as we have seen recently, there is a point at which the “silent majority” will step up and say, “Enough!”

    This is one case, the recent Duck Dynasty flap was another.

    Oh, by the way, now we hear that during the Rose Bowl two homosexual men are getting “married” on one of the floats during the broadcast.

    Again, we say, “ENOUGH!”

    1. avatar Lolinski says:

      Look, I dont like homosexuals but what is the problem with equal rights? Let them feel the misery of married life.

      But seriously, the only problem I see is if gay people want to be married in a church/mosque/whatever that doesn’t support/allow that.

      1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

        Gays have always had equal rights to get married. Rock Hudson was married. The marriage equality movement has never been about equal rights, it has been about changing the definition of marriage. I don’t care if you’re for or against it, but let’s be honest about what the movement hopes to achieve.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          “Rock Hudson was married.”

          DAMN. I had no idea one could marry his own reflection.

        2. Humor at the time: “Rock Hudson may not have many friends, but he has Nabors up the wazoo.”

          I worked with him on his last film; by that time he was a bitter and cynical old man.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          When it all goes, gay doesn’t seem the best place to be, now does it? I actually hate saying that, but it’s been a repeated observation in my life.

          Rock had success, money – he had it all. But he died alone. Like all of us, we die alone. It’s the way we come into this world, also. Alone.

    2. avatar Wassim Absood says:

      What, worried that it spreads? That ‘the gay’ will rub off on you?

      For someone who ostensibly supports the right of Americans to make important decisions for themselves, you seem awfully incomfortable with Americans making important decisions for themselves.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        @ Wassim Absood et al:

        “…worried…”

        Yeah right, that must be it.
        /end sarc/

        I don’t think anyone here has any inclination to interfere with or subvert anyone else’s ‘right to privacy’ in the conduct of their relationships including gay marriage however off the mainstream that may be to the ‘majority’. I can see the pride of the win for legalizing gay marriage in CA and elsewhere, but championing and flaunting it as a celebration in the Rose Bowl Parade in Pasadena, CA sanctioned by the organizers is a bit over the top simply because it still remains so controversial.

        CA is a state where the constitutionally created and protected right to keep and bear arms is being continuously attacked and demonized by the lefty progressives and statists to the point of making those who exercise that constitutional – and natural – right feel the need to defend their choice to do so.

        So where is the float to celebrate the right to keep and bear arms? I submit the organizers would likely never permit such a float to appear on the Rose Parade.

        The double standards are so glaring when it comes to these special interest lefty minority groups who demand legitimization yet would deny the same to others who don’t fall in line and agree with their often extreme views it is amazing, and gives rise to the ‘enough is enough’ response. The ‘Duck Dynasty’ cluster-phuque is a great example of that sort of push-back from those who have had it with the politically correct extremist crap, and told A&E so; myself included. And I don’t even watch ‘Duck Dynasty’.

        1. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

          ^This. Right on!

        2. avatar Mike Crognale says:

          Will “Sister Mary Boom-Boom” officiate?

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Look, if they want to be Stupid in Public then that’s OK with me (it’s their business), but you can bet the farm that I’m not going to watch it. Let the libtards support that. Me, NO.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          I am old, by most measures, but I have yet to celebrate my heterosexuality, or march in any goddamn parade “celebrating” it. It’s just “hey! look at ME!” showing off. I despise show-offs, all the time.

          Keep your goddamn business to yourself, and shut the hell up. The only thing we have to celebrate LIFE itself. Call a parade about THAT, I’ll be the hell there. With beer and whiskey.

    3. avatar Swarf says:

      ENOUGH?

      Really? You are so offended by two people who love each other getting married in order to announce the stability of their relationship that you are ready to ALLCAPS it?

      What the fu*k does their marriage have to do with you or yours?

      1. avatar Model 31 says:

        It seems to me the people that came up with marriage are the people that get to define what it is. Marriage is fairly well defined in Deuteronomy 24:5 (NIV)
        “If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.”
        Deuteronomy, written in the 1400’s B.C, seems to predate the US Government. This indicates to me that marriage is an institution of religion.
        People can call anything marriage (ie…man+man, man+men, man+pet chicken, man+car, man+gun) but at the end of the day, these are not marriage as defined early on by religion. Folks can get all butthurt over it, and they are free to disagree with the Bible.
        Today’s liberals are using government to change the definition of marriage to include…well I don’t know where it will end, but for me it seems hypocritical for these liberals call a institution of religion “a right” and then in turn pi$$ and moan about “the separation of church and state” when it comes to school prayer or nativity scenes on the courthouse lawn.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Uh-oh, now those gay marriage advocates will be complaining that you are comparing them to pet chickens and inanimate objects.

        2. avatar Model 31 says:

          The point is perhaps government should not be in the business of issuing licenses to practice an institution of religion.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Contrary to both Progressives, Libertarians and bible based religious folk, the western concept of marriage is a civil, not a religious based institution. It come from the Greeks and the Romans. Both societies were ok with homosexuality but they reserved the concept of marriage for normal couples. Marriage forms one of the bedrocks of civil society. It might be the most fundamental stabilizing civil institution. I understand why Progressives are out to destroy civil society. It removes all the barriers between the ruling authorities and the atomized citizenry. Libertarians, at least those who claim to be these days, seem to not understand that successful operations of markets and republican government require a strong civil society to function. What they see is the institutions of civil society putting constraints on personal autonomy and absolute personal autonomy is the goal. They align themselves with Progressives to undermine civil society. I wonder who will come on top when they both succeed? /Rhetorical question

        4. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          Model 31 wrote: “Marriage is fairly well defined in Deuteronomy 24:5 (NIV)”

          Well, that’s fine if that’s your standard. Not everyone accepts that standard.

          Different people, different religious groups and different cultures have different beliefs. Some believe in same-sex marriage. Some do not. Some believe in plural marriage. Some do not. Using the government to enforce a “one size fits all” definition of marriage is neither sensible nor workable in a free society.

          Model 31 wrote: “The point is perhaps government should not be in the business of issuing licenses to practice an institution of religion.”

          Very true.

          tdiinva said: “Libertarians, at least those who claim to be these days, seem to not understand that successful operations of markets and republican government require a strong civil society to function.”

          What does your definition of a “strong civil society” entail? Please enlighten us.

          Libertarians recognize that people are different. They have different beliefs, different cultures, different backgrounds, different experiences, etc.

          When people with so many different religions and other beliefs live in close proximity, a society has two primary choices as to how it can function:

          (A) People learn to tolerate those that peacefully disagree with them. They try to use persuasion to change the minds of others. People avoid using threats and/or violence against each other to settle disagreements (either directly or via governmental law). Actions that violate this, and attempt to use force against others, are prohibited.

          This society is based on consent. Peaceful activities for which all parties consent are not prohibited. The interactions between people involve cooperation and/or peaceful competition. People are treated equally under the law.

          OR

          (B) People may attempt to use persuasion, but if that fails, they use threats and/or violence to force others to either agree with them or leave. They may use the government to enforce their position, or they may use violence directly against others.

          This society is based on coercion. People use physical force (or the threat of physical force) to get as much of “their way” as they can.

          Libertarians choose option “A.” Most of the world, IMO, chooses option “B” (either partially or completely embracing coercion).

        5. avatar CarlosT says:

          By the way, Deuteronomy has my favorite Bible passage (25:5-10):

          5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

          7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

        6. avatar William Burke says:

          In the Tibetan-speaking lands, the custom of polyandry is also similarly used to prevent family lands from being subdivided and lost via marrying of men from outside the family. When a woman marries, she also traditionally married to his brothers, also. Very clever.

      2. avatar Bob Wall says:

        Call it what you want, just don’t call it marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and since the left, who want “gay marriage,” are mostly a cluster of Godless Bastards, let them figure it out. It’s the Left who promote the separation of church and state, REMEMBER?

        I’m okay with “civil unions,” as that is what the state really has for everyone.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Really? Then why was it that that piece of paper issued to me by the State of California a couple of decades ago says right there up at the top, “Certificate of Marriage”? And why was it that I had to go down to City Hall with my intended and buy a “Marriage License”? I have little doubt that the same is true in at least most of the rest of the States (Louisiana may be different as it has a more pure civil law system based on the French system, and the French have “civil unions” as the only recognized form of marriage. A religious wedding ceremony in France is simply for religious purposes and has no legal effect; you must be “married” by the magistrate to have a binding and legally recognized relationship.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Marriage is a two-sided commitment, One is a strictly civil contract made in public. The other is a religious institution. That’s fundamentally why a divorce lawyer is required to dissolve the civil contract and distribute the assets, and cannon lawyers are required to determine if the facts warrant an annulment (for those who hold that belief in the requirement).

          Start crossing those lines and it gets messy fast.

          Live and let live, I say.

        3. avatar Drew says:

          If it is a religious institution why do I have to go to the court house and ask the government for permission to marry my wife? If it is a religious institution why are the churches who are willing to wed two men denied legitimacy by the government??

        4. avatar Bob Wall says:

          Mark N. – Exactly my point, and thank you for your response. There are two components (civil and ecclesiastical) to marriages in Europe. That’s what we need here, and I think there would have been less of an uproar had we the same system, and would have eliminated a lot of the problems getting to where we are now.

          I support the Gay/Lesbian unions in my family, just as I do the male-female couples.

          BTW – Got one of those same pieces of paper in Fresno County back in ’83. Apparently wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Crapped out right after the warranty expired.

      3. avatar ropingdown says:

        The entire gay marriage bit isn’t about “announcing the stability of their relationship.” It is about gaining the tax and social-security benefits provided to heterosexual couples back in the days when most of those couples had children, with the wife forgoing a career in order to raise the kids….and to cover the reality that husbands often died first, so that assets should be able to pass to the wife before going later to the children.

        It is already beyond absurd that childless ‘couples’ should be able to gain a stepped-up social security benefit merely by being married for 10 years to a person with a much higher earnings record. Indeed, under current law if you are married twice, each time for 10 years, you get to pick which former spouse’s record you wish to retire on The notion that that cost should be placed on tax-payers for a homosexual couple’s benefit is just one more level of absurd.

      4. avatar tdiinva says:

        Chip:

        Civil society is the network of private institutions that make self government possible. Without these institutions the government takes over the function. Progressives have been at war on marriage for 100+ years because the western concept of family is the how culture and values are transmitted. Eliminate the family and the government will control what culture is passed.

        We know what societies look like that either have no marriage or polygamy. These societies are violent and unstable whether it is the Yob culture of the UK, the gang culture of the ghetto or the fight for a genetic heritage that is played out on a daily basis in the Muslim world.

        “Libertarians recognize that people are different. They have different beliefs, different cultures, different backgrounds, different experiences, etc.”

        You have stated a Progressive not a Libertarian concept proving again that Libertarians are just another, more radical form, of leftism.

        Back in the days before Libertarianism was infiltrated by Friedman’s economic determinism and Rand’s sociopathology the Libertarian set social policy by asking the question would policy x weaken, strengthen or have no effect on civil society. If the policy was neutral or positive they would support it. Today’s faux Libertarians ask a different question. They ask will policy x weaken, strengthen or have no effect on personal autonomy. They only support polices that strengthen personal autonomy, civil society be damned.

    4. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

      To those who support unequal treatment of persons under the law, I say “ENOUGH!”

      Support of legal discrimination by the government is NOT in the interest of gun owners or in the interest of liberty.

      From a legal perspective, I don’t care if you dislike homosexuals, if you don’t want your business to do business with homosexuals, if you don’t want your church to marry homosexuals, etc. It’s your life / business / church, not mine. I don’t think anyone should impose their values upon you and force you to accept them.

      What I do care about is when you think it’s justified to have legal discrimination (special privileges for some but not for others) enforced by the government. That is what is unacceptable. “Legally granted privileges for me, but not for thee” is bullshit. It’s completely against the idea of liberty. It is “un-American.” It is not appropriate for what is supposed to be a free society.

      If you don’t like homosexuals getting married, then support the separation of marriage and state. Don’t support government-enforced gender discrimination.

      1. avatar gloomhound says:

        Unless you are a cake maker then you have no choice,

        1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          Apparently not. I disagree with the court’s decision in that case.

          A free society requires tolerating those that you disagree with. That means that if some person doesn’t want to do business with you, you shouldn’t be able to coerce them into doing so. If someone else has a belief that you vehemently disagree with, you live with it, as long as the are not using force against you.

          From my experience, many, many people simply don’t understand tolerance. They think that to be tolerant, you must accept someone else’s decision or viewpoint as valid. That’s not the case. Being tolerant is when you disagree with someone else’s decision or viewpoint, but do not force them to change (either directly – via one’s own coercion/violence … or indirectly – by getting politicians to pass a law for/against something).

          An example of tolerance would be atheists, Jews, Muslims and Christians living peacefully in the same society, despite fundamental disagreements between them. Perhaps they interact in personal and/or commercial ventures; perhaps they don’t. The key is that none of them try to force their beliefs upon another.

          Attempting to relate this conversation to firearms and the original post …

          Tolerance would involve those who are against guns to not use the law to restrict and/or prohibit them. The law would only be used to stop those with weapons from harming others (laws against robbery, rape, murder, etc.). Tolerance would also mean that gun owners would respect the rights of a business not to allow guns on their own property, if that is their choice (even though most of us would disagree with that choice).

          In some ways, I don’t care whether or not a majority or minority of people own and/or carry guns – as long as people are tolerant of others, despite possible disagreements. Live & let live.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          The cake maker was involved in “interstate commerce”, and therefore was prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation–under federal law. Just like any restaurant in the land. Hardly a surprising decision, as it is backed by fifty years of jurisprudence.

        3. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          Mark, I’m not surprised by the decision. I just disagree with the court decision, even though I also personally dislike the decision made by the cake maker.

          The “interstate commerce clause” has been used to justify anything and everything that the federal government wants to do (including anti-gun legislation). It’s been rendered meaningless by being stretched and distorted to mean virtually anything that those who want to use it decide.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        @Delmarva Chip: Well said. Whatever happened to “live and let live?”

        1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          @Ralph … I wish I knew … and could figure out how to bring it back.

    5. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      Can we delete all of this homosexual tangent? It was just a toss off example one person used as part of a relevant point about the public’s tolerance of government. Now it’s hijacking the whole thread and moving way off topic.

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        Screw that.

        I think this kind of discourse is important for people who think that all gun owners are racist homophobes to see.

        I own over a dozen guns, but I am also pro gay marriage, pro choice, pro drug legalization and against the US starting wars for no good goddamn reason.

        I think organized religion is the world’s oldest con, Democrats are well meaning buffoons and Republicans only care about your money and how much of it they can get.

        And I vote.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Wow, that is totally important dude. By the way, I have no problem with vegans, and I am not even lactose intolerant. Peace out.

        2. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          Well said, Swarf.

    6. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Crying “enough” while being oppressed by others for your beliefs, yet also crying “enough” during the oppression of others for their… I would say more, but I seem to be choking on the irony.

    7. avatar Gyufygy says:

      … That awkward moment when the most powerful weapon in the universe takes the shape of an old flame now locked in a parallel dimension and proceeds to mock you.

      “No. More. No more. no more. NO MORE. No more no more no more.”

    8. avatar Mina says:

      The dumbest thing about the whole “gay marriage” thing is this: Why is Government involved in marriage in the first place?

      The only reason we care what the Government thinks about our marriage is because there are cash and prizes for “lawful” marriages. Marriage should be between two people and their selected religious community. Period.

      If you took Government out of the process no one would give two sh1ts in hell who marries who and no one would 1. pay attention to it or 2. notice.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        No, not just “cash and prizes”. People trivialize the issue this way, but there are serious issues at stake.

        One of the most serious is spousal privilege. Communication between spouses is considered privileged and a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other.

        To know if spousal privilege exists in a given circumstance, it’s necessary to have a standard for what is a marriage, so it can be determined whether the people in question were in one during the time in question.

        If you’re okay with the idea of the government being able to treat communications between you and your spouse like those between just any two people, and you’re fine with them having the ability to make your spouse testify against you, then by all means, get government out of the marriage business.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Could this problem not be solved by extending spousal confidentiality protections to civil unions?

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          That kind of solution creates its own problems. What happens if there is a court ruling handed down in a case involving spousal privilege between a married couple? Does it also automatically apply to civilly united couples? What about vice versa?

          This would be a possibility with every material change in the status of either marriage or civil unions. Suppose that somehow a case was decided that granted civil unions greater legal protection than marriage currently enjoys. Would that greater protection remain solely for civil unions or would marriages receive the expanded protection as well?

          These are open questions under the “separate but equal” approach. If it’s all just marriage, then they never even come up.

        3. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          My personal solution is to have the state recognize only a “Civil Union,” of which marriage would be a subset. Although I think there should be societal pressure to raise a family. Have a same sex partner in your civil union? Great! adopt a kid and raise him/her. You’ll grow as a person for doing so and the kid will be better off than if left to the state.

      2. avatar Mina says:

        I think at some point we have to start deciding that trading off freedom and Government involvement in our personal business isn’t really worth whatever intangible “benefits” you might get in return.

        At this point I’d prefer total anarchy. Since we aren’t going to be getting that soon I’ll settle for creating my own benefits and f*ck the Government.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          If I had any liquor in da house, I’d toss down a double and sputter, “YEAAH! ANARCHY!!!”

  4. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    From the article:

    “‘Dozens of criminals would be walking around with a gun right now if not for the new law,’ said Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, in a news release.”

    I’m sure that every single one of those dozens of criminals simply stopped and said “oh crap, I couldn’t get a gun through legal means, there’s no way I can possibly get a gun or another weapon now.”

    Right?

    [/sarc]

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      > From the article:
      > “‘Dozens of criminals would be walking around
      > with a gun right now if not for the new law,’ said
      > Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, in a news release.”

      (1) Why are those criminals “walking around”, instead of incarcerated?

      (2) Were the metal detectors and security checkpoints at the public entrance of the Colorado capitol building removed on July 1st, 2013? If not, then Rhonda Fields and her ilk obviously don’t feel that their new gun-owner control laws have made them any safer from the peasants they claim to represent.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        (2) Set. Match.

        1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          But, but, but … “the law didn’t go far enough!” [/sarc] (And then they’ll propose more infringements.)

  5. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    Well boo freaking hoo. How dare those constituents hold their elected representatives accountable?

    Look, in a representative democracy, you have two basic schools if thought: 1.) Officials are elected to vote the will of the people. That is, find out what the majority wants and go vote that way, regardless how prudent that vote might be. 2.) Officials are elected to use their own best judgment in representing the people. That is, they’re more informed of the issues than the general public, so use their own judgment to vote how the people would vote if they had time, talent and resources to assess every issue in depth for themselves. Well.

    That’s where it gets tricky. You need a balance of both approaches, which is already sufficiently difficult, even before trying to keep one’s personal bias from influencing your votes on behalf of the people. It’s very easy to slip into arrogant, elitist mode and do whatever you want, but justify it in the name of being “for the people’s own good.” Likewise, it’s seductive to say or do anything, or conceal and connive to do something, to avoid seeming at odds with the will of the people.

    I sure as hell don’t have all of the answers. Best I can come up with is to default to voting the expressed will of the people, except when a major error is about to be made. If you must vote contrary, then do so openly, loudly and proudly; taking every opportunity to argue your case and persuade the disagreeing public. If you really believe you’re right, then you shouldn’t have to hide. You should be willing to make your case, cast your vote, lose your seat and be vindicated by history in the end. If not, then you’re probably in the wrong, either screwing the people over or succumbing to popular hysteria.

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      I think elected representatives should vote/act as the majority of their constituents want, as long as what they want is legal within the confines of the United States Constitution (followed by state constitutions, local regulations, etc. in order of decreasing importance). If what the majority wants is outside those bounds, the elected representative has the duty to tell his constituents to piss off.

    2. avatar Paul G says:

      The United states is NOT a “representative democracy”. Go back to civics class. Double extra credit if you can find the word “democracy” in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the constitutions of any of the states. Look hard. That our republic shares some traits with a democracy does not make it one. If that were true, the neighbor kid’s Big Wheel might as well be called a Harley. It is the differences which are important, not the similarities. Men and women, for that matter, have way more similarities in our structure than differences, and yet I think my wife would be quite offended if I called her a man. We both even have longer hair styles, but the differences are the key to understanding.

      1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

        That’s just asinine, Paul. Representative democracy is defined as a system of government whereby the people are represented by elected representatives. Pretty simple and uncontroversial. It can be found on the poltical spectrum somewhere between autocracy and direct democracy, which you’re referring to. What EXACTLY is incorrect about that term, as applied to the U.S.? And who says, other than you, the self-styled political science expert, that a term must be in any of those documents to be accurate? That’s just you misdirecting and establishing your own expedient standard, likely just for the sake of disagreeing. I said representative democracy, but you’re arguing democracy. That you don’t know the difference reveals a gap in your education, not a flaw in my reasoning.

        Civics class? Dude, these rudimentary concepts are defined on about page one of any high school civics book. Seriously, if you’re going to make a counterpoint (and you haven’t yet, rather just an opportunistic smart mouthed remark), then you probably shouldn’t start off by pompously declaring that water is not wet. Such certainty in lunacy is apt to land you on a prohibited possessor list.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Like I said, go back to civics class. The DIFFERENCES are the key. So how many times did you find the word democracy in all those documents? The word is absent for a reason. Get it now?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygEEL57AcZs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q2U15HqRL4

        2. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

          Ahhh….here comes the hands over your ears and incessant “la la la la la la” chant. Ok, well, I guess we’re done then. Feel free to have the last word, but know this: your prior words are there for all to read…..forever. Do you really want to double down on the beat down you’ve already received?

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Your words are there forever as well, and your being wrong is not my problem.
          Not my words, but they make their point….
          “A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.”
          I would opine that other differences are extant, however this has stressed the key difference. I think that makes it game, set, and match. You can have a democracy, I prefer my rights as an individual. Perhaps you are not so smug as to be unable of being taught something.
          Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word “people” may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
          Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
          http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

        4. avatar Paul G says:

          Beat down? Just one more misuse of terms by you. Get some real education. Self-styled intellectual you think you are, and cannot even fathom that terms are different for a reason.

      2. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

        What civics class? I graduated highs chool in 1998 and I’ve learned more about the (intedned) structure of our government from my own reading and research than was even available to me in a California public school.

  6. avatar William Burke says:

    Paul G: Wrong, in a pure democracy, 50% plus one vote beats 50% without that one vote!

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      I didn’t write the definition, I merely posted it here, however you are correct. The simplest majority will do in a pure democracy,

  7. avatar Dustin Eward says:

    I find it most interesting the Democrats use the “They’re a minority” argument to marginalize… Aren’t the the supposed Champions of Civil Rights? Oh, wait, that’s right, it was IN SPITE of Democrats that the Civil Rights Movement happened… It was the Democrats who owned most of the slaves… It was the Democrats who had all the pointy hats and burning crosses and loopy ropes…

    Careful there Democrats, your true colors are showing again…

    The 3rd Senator to be recalled, in a desperate move to undermine the recall efforts, circumvented the process by resigning. If there were any doubt left that Democrats are the most corrupt, dirty, evil people who ever lived, this ended that doubt.

    I find myself slipping down the very same slippery slope… I’m perfectly fine with tide of rounding them up and killing them all, as they have so long dreamed of doing to anyone who disagrees with them…

    But the difference is, I catch myself before it comes to that. I know genocide is wrong, Period. But Democrats think it is their highest calling and won’t stop until all who don’t share their ideals are dead.

    Lets stop kidding ourselves. They aren’t Liberals. They aren’t Democrats. They aren’t Progressives. We’ve seen this all before in the rise of the USSR. Ask the CZs, A few of them still remember how to read a history book. The so-called Democrats are really Neo-Soviets. They have no problem with dragging you out of your home and shooting you in the gutter just to re-distribute what you earned to those who do nothing. It’s been done before, and they’re fighting like mad to be the ones who bring socialist-justified mass-murder back into the mainstream.

    Fight with dragons long enough, and eventually you become one… I’m trying very hard NOT to see piles of Democrat bodies as a good thing, but it’s very, very hard.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email