Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.
 
Signal vs. Noise

Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)

Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive updates on 37signals' latest projects, research, announcements, and more (about one email per month).

37signals Services
Syndicate
XML version (full posts)
Get Firefox!

Falwell on Meet The Press

29 Nov 2004 by Matthew Linderman

Jerry Falwell quotes from Sunday’s Meet The Press:

“Well, the fact that he’s a gay Republican means he should join the Democratic Party.” [when asked about the creator of “Desperate Housewives,” a self-described conservative, gay Republican]

“I wouldn’t vote for my mother if she were pro-choice.”

“I’m just trying — I’m trying to do what Martin Luther King did.” [responding to a claim that the right wing wants to “privatize public policy and make public private lives”]

“Give the little babies the right to vote.” [on abortion]

“If you had been the president in World War II, we’d all be speaking German now.” [responding to a fellow panelist’s assertion that “Jesus isn’t pro-rich, pro-war and only pro-American”]

And there was also this quote from his co-panelist, Dr. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention: “We’re not against women working outside the home unless the husband believes that it’s not the right choice.”

64 comments so far (Post a Comment)

29 Nov 2004 | Jeff Croft said...

It's truly amazing that people like this actually exist outside of sitcoms.

29 Nov 2004 | DaleV said...

What's amazing is that so many people look to politics for moral guidance and reassurance. Four more long years . . .

29 Nov 2004 | Greg M. Johnson said...

Well, there *was* the Treaty of Versailles... Getting tough with your enemy in an unscrupulous and uncompassionate way (WWI) creates bigger enemies you gotta fight again later (WWII).

29 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Why is someone like this nut even invited to be on Meet the Press?

29 Nov 2004 | cjs. said...

My brother attended the university Falwell runs. He was promptly kicked out. ;)

29 Nov 2004 | Benjy said...

So what will happen first, we end extremist theocracies in the Middle East or become one here?

30 Nov 2004 | Seamus said...

More amazing to me was how none of the panelists seemed interested in engaging Jim Wallis (editor of Sojourners), who kept rebutting the crazy talk with arguments that sounded palatable to a far wider audience than the extremists. He made the point that the best way of reducing abortions is to reduce poverty and support parents. I wish the media could at least make an effort to put more people like him in the debate.

Tim Russert didn't even seem intererested in following up on his efforts to find middle ground in the religious debates. Extremists like Falwell and that Baptist guy get to spew their venom because these mainstream debate shows thrive on stoking the fires instead of actually supporting real discussion.

30 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

It's Meet the Press with Tim Russert... why would anyone be surprised by the crap on it?

30 Nov 2004 | tiffany said...

It always strikes me as odd how right-wingers co-opt and distort Martin Luther King. Example: using Dr. King's "by the content of their character" to justify eliminating affirmative action in university admissions. (King was just a little more radical than that, and would surely support a race-concious solution to a race-concious problem, but I digress.)

That said, Conservatives are masters of Orwellian double-speak and concealing their underlying motives. With any luck the masses will start to catch on.

30 Nov 2004 | Gene said...

They havn't caught on yet... ditto "4 more very long years" *sigh

30 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

That said, Conservatives are masters of Orwellian double-speak and concealing their underlying motives. With any luck the masses will start to catch on.

And liberals aren't? Surely you're not that naiive! If so, I give you the words of America's past liberal king:

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

That's not the only one, it's just my favorite.

Again...I've 'said' this here many time...if you're going to make political generalizations about entire categories of people by using the caricatures that get trotted across the freak shows that pass for political television these days, you're just pounding sand down a rat hole.

30 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Did the obviously obese Falwell happen to mention that gluttony is mentioned more often than homosexuality in the Bible?

No? Hmmmm ... why am I *not* surprised?

Awesome, if you ask me. Let him and his kind continue to marginalize themselves.

(To which my alter ego replies:) But, Don ... the problem is, too many people *agree* with him.

*sigh* I REALLY gotta win that Powerball so I can move to the Cayman Islands. SURF'S UP!

30 Nov 2004 | Jonathan Lipps said...

I'm fine with the media inviting types like Falwell to uncharitably and undiplomatically start meaningless fires with horrible and shallow reasoning. If Falwell makes himself look bad on TV, so much the better!

My wonderment, already expressed here, has more to do with the fact that, despite the obvious inadequacy of Falwell's (and others') position(s), there does seem to be evidence of many people giving him solid backing. Where are their heads? Where are their hearts?

It's a shame no one (with the exception of Sharpton) wanted to move beyond the politico-religious nursery and talk grown-up with Wallis.

30 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

----
Chris S said:
Surely you're not that naiive! If so, I give you the words of America's past liberal king:
"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
----

In what may be haste I think you missed the boat (by my reckoning anyway).

Examples of Orwellian double talk might be:
A ministry with a mandate to restrict distribution of produced goods named Ministry of Plenty
A ministry with a mandate to eradicate any evidence contrary to state doctrine named Ministry of Truth

What youris is does not belong here (maybe if the category was simply double talk, and there probably is a better category still).

I would be interested to hear some real world examples of Orwellian language from either side (or invented ones might be even more fun)

30 Nov 2004 | ML said...

I would be interested to hear some real world examples of Orwellian language from either side

How about the "Clear Skies Act" which would actually allow more pollution for longer periods of time than the current law.

30 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

Chris S said:
Surely you're not that naiive! If so, I give you the words of America's past liberal king...

Clinton was a centrist. Center-left, maybe, but certainly not a "liberal king."

30 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

Anyone whose fundamental political viewpoint is that those that have more should pay for those that have less (not to mention paying for too much government as well) is politcally liberal in 21st Cent. America.

So, for example, someone who is not a political liberal would be opposed to VA hospitals, or veteran's benefits of any type, since that involves paying for those who have less.

30 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Veterans are compensated in exchange for service, not because they
"have less". While I don't necessarily agree with how that has been and is currently being implemented, that's much different from people being compensated because they refuse to be responsible and sink or swim on their own. Much different than corporate welfare and farm subsidies too.


30 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"I would be interested to hear some real world examples of Orwellian language from either side "

"Freedom-loving people"? "No Child Left Behind?"

30 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

So, Chris, I assume that you've never received any help whatsoever, directly or indirectly, financial or otherwise, from any government body. Congratulations! I salute you!

30 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Chris...what's your view on paying for wars? farm subsidies? sports stadiums? drug enforcement? schools? corporate welfare?

Why do people like you dwell on social welfare?

30 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

*Sigh*... "people like me, eh"? I guess next you'll be saying we should all have our own schools...

I think I mentioned that I didn't agree with corporate welfare or farm subsidies either. If you notice, both statements pretty much carry the same rhetorical weight. In fact, one could say that my statement about farm subsidies and corporate welfare received a tad more emphasis since it was the concluding sentence, which carries the most rhetorical weight in a well-structured paragraph.

Why do people like you always generalize about the generalization "people like me" supposedly make.

As a libertarian I'm not in favor of any of those other things you mentioned aside from "paying for wars" which is actually a Constitutionally-legitimate and specified government outlay. Those other things are not. However, if we were financing the government solely off of excise taxes, as we are supposed to be, then we'd have to be a lot choosier about when it was necessary to go to war, wouldn't we?

Andy, the only remuneration I've ever received from the government has been a partial refund of what they forcibly took from me to begin with.


30 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Chris S is a DENTITE!

:-)

I caught that reference, oh yeah I did.

30 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

That's right, Don...and Darrell is a rrrabbiidd Anti-Dentite!

30 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Same thing.

Chris, you seem to be claiming that any lie is an example of Orwellian double talk. I cant agree, but I suspect youre more concerned with some other point. Exploring how Orwellian language is used to make policy popular is interesting to me. Justifying the practice by citing sex scandals is not (actually it is, but I like to put on airs that Im above the fray).

30 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

No, Arne, what I'm saying is that all doublespeak is a lie. Call it what you want.

While 1984 is everyone's favorite Orwellian reference point for language, what he really thought about it all is more clearly spelled out in his essay 'Politics and the English Language' where his thesis is that the degradation of language has its roots in politics, and vice-versa.

My point is that we can go through every mandate and policy initiative made by liberals, conservatives, and anti-dentites and find plenty of examples everywhere, but to say that its only "conservatives" who have been guilty of that is nonsense.

The implication in the original mention of that was that if only the "ignorant masses" could be released from the clutches of conservative Orwellian mind control, they'd be free to see by the light of the liberals' pure reason.

And if you believe that, I have a definition of "is" I'd like to sell you.


30 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

and a little apropos Dickens to add some pre-season cheer (courtesy of www.literature.org)
----
At the ominous word ``liberality'', Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?''
"They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, " I wish I could say they were not.''
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir.''
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it.''
----

30 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

why even bring it up?

this is just stirring the pot for no reason. no reason at all.

i agree with seamus though. the media seems to exist only to stoke the fires these days, and create the news themselves.

espn is a prime example these days.

30 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

this is just stirring the pot for no reason

No, this is good stuff. I'm like a cream based soup. If I dont get my pot stirred once in a while I get all scorched and bitter at the bottom.

30 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Again with the caricatures...is that the best liberals can do?

Could it be because their experience with the reality of things is actually quite limited?

That's okay...I used to think the same way when I was younger...til I actually met some rich conservatives and saw how much they gave back despite being robbed by the government first.

30 Nov 2004 | said...

As a libertarian

Oh. Gotcha. Nevermind. ;o)

That's okay...I used to think the same way when I was younger...til I actually met some rich conservatives and saw how much they gave back despite being robbed by the government first.

That statement is overgeneralizing spin as much as anythingthing in this thread.

30 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

As a libertarian

Oh. Gotcha. Nevermind. ;o)

(I also missed your comment on the farm and corporate welfare...apologies for that)

That's okay...I used to think the same way when I was younger...til I actually met some rich conservatives and saw how much they gave back despite being robbed by the government first.

That statement is overgeneralized spin as much as anything in this thread.

30 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

How is that "overgeneralized spin"?

Did you read the sentence closely before responding?

If you did, you'd see I was referring specifically to people I know, not all conservatives in general. Second, compared with the liberals I know, they DO do more. I've seen it with my own eyes.

So, if I refer specifically to people I know whose behavior directly contradicts the generalization made by others who either state or imply that all conservatives are "scrooges," how exactly is that "spin"?

If we can more or less agree that "spin" is either an outright distortion, or at least a proprietary interpretation, then how can what I wrote be spun as spin?

30 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

"Again with the caricatures...is that the best liberals can do?"

Who said I was a Liberal? (or were you talking about Dickens?) You seem a little bitter perhaps you need your pot stirred.

30 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Arne

You're right. I've just never met anyone more conservative than I am, so I assume everyone is more left than me :-)

30 Nov 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"While 1984 is everyone's favorite Orwellian reference point for language, what he really thought about it all is more clearly spelled out in his essay 'Politics and the English Language' where his thesis is that the degradation of language has its roots in politics, and vice-versa."

I think Orwell's view on things is pretty easy to grasp: like Swift, he deplored the use of language to tell lies. And both sides in the 'liberal' vs. 'conservative' debate are equally guilty of that.

The conservatives, of course, just happen to more equally guilty.

On the language/lies point, I urge anyone who hasn't already done so to read the final chapter of Gulliver's Travels.

30 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I'm completely missing your point, Chris...unless it's that you think all government is evil.

30 Nov 2004 | ML said...

Chris, I'm confused.

You claim to be a libertarian. That means you're in favor of protecting civil liberties and personal freedom, you cherish the first amendment and support the ACLU, you oppose censorship, and you're in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution.

These are all pretty liberal viewpoints. So how can you have "never met anyone more conservative" than yourself?

30 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

"I've just never met anyone more conservative than I am"

Thats surprising Chris -- I dont know you other than from a few comments, but I'm guessing on the scale of things youre pretty moderate (just a guess). I, on the other hand, am a radical something (but after four decades, Im still trying to settle on what that something is people are constantly offering me suggestions all unrepeatable in polite company).

01 Dec 2004 | One of several Steves said...

So, Chris, you've never driven on a public road, attended a public school, taken drugs that were first screened by the FDA for safety, eaten USDA-graded meat? Because "renumeration" and government "handouts" don't come strictly by handing someone a check.

As to the original point about Falwell, Russert not paying attention to the moderating viewpoints on the panel, etc.: This has been the American's press' tendency for years, especially on TV, and especially on chat shows. The idea is that by finding people from two extremes, you've somehow provided balance. Which is bullshit. Few things important enough for public discussion are so simple that they have only two viewpoints. It's the easy and lazy approach, and that probably explains why it's the approach that gets used 95 percent of the time.

01 Dec 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Anyone else remember H. R. Pufnstuf? Now THAT was a good show.

01 Dec 2004 | Randal Rust said...

I also remember the Electric Company. Good times. Simpler days. No one used the word 'spin' unless it was followed by 'cycle' or preceeded by 'sit and.'

01 Dec 2004 | Chris S said...

All government IS evil, guys. The first president once pointed that out:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master."

This country was essentially founded on that premise...but that it is a somewhat necessary evil, so we need a little for general organizational purposes, but the massive centralized bureaucracy that is currently raping its citizens financially and dictating policy in education, law enforcement, business, etc. by fiat from Washington is exactly the kind of thing we were trying to avoid.

You claim to be a libertarian. That means you're in favor of protecting civil liberties and personal freedom, you cherish the first amendment and support the ACLU, you oppose censorship, and you're in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution.

I cherish the first amendment as well as the second (do you?), as well as all the rest of them. I don't support the ACLU because of their stand on abortion. Yes I'm in favor of protecting everyone's civil liberties. Yes I oppose censorship...especially when the government tries to dictate where and when we can exercise our freedom of religious speech as well. I don't know that I'm in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution so much as de-criminalizing them. I don't thing behaviors like that need to have special laws written specifically to protect them, anymore than we have laws written to protect beer drinking. I do not think they should be illegal, however.

1/x Steves:

Of course I have...but am I not benefitting from what I already pay for many times over? I never said I was against those things, nor am I against taxes in general. I AM against the current way that taxes are levied. If we ran our governments off of excise taxes, they would be forced to balance their budgets the way we all have to.

Most of what I'm railing against here is the federal government. They should not be in the education, healthcare, or welfare business.

Besides, I never said I was completely against government in general... only that it is more of a problem than a solution, and to minimize problems, you have to minimize government, particularly the farther it resides from your front door. That is what the constitution is based on, the idea that people have all the power, but government should only have the limited powers specifically granted to it by the people.

The Constitution grants nothing to the people, no rights at all. It guarantees rights that were seen as natural or God-given (pretty much meant the same thing in their eyes), and pledged to protect them.


01 Dec 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Without the Second Amendment, the First Amendment quickly becomes meaningless, eh?

Then again ... let the NRA have all the black powder rifles they want!

Sit 'n' Spin -- my children loved that thing. I can't remember how many times I got sick on that thing!

01 Dec 2004 | Chris S said...

Without the second amendment, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless.

I loved HR Pufnstuf...I also liked the painter dude from the Electric Company.

It's worth noting that most people murdered in the world have been murdered by a government, usuallly their own. Always happens somewhere the people aren't armed.

To quote those late 20th century philosophers Megadeath...Peace Sells but Who's Buying?

House has just replaced Seinfeld as my favorite television experience.

How's that for working the second amendment, HR Pufnstuf, the Electric Company, current cutting edge televised entertainment, and Megadeath into one short post??

01 Dec 2004 | Darrel said...

All government IS evil, guys.

Governments do bad things. They do good things. Alas, we live on a planet where they are necessary. Some countries have huge government and they do a lot of good for the population. Some countries have small government yet do a lot of damage. In otherwords, there's not a direct correlation to size of government and if they're good or bad.

If you're a die-hard libertarian, that's fine (hey, we need you guys too). But I doubt we're going to change each other's mind much.

01 Dec 2004 | Chris S said...

Since when is the purpose of government to "do good"?

As Washington said, government is simply brute force...and excercising that brute force on a free citizen (by taking money he earned, for example, without his consent) for the purpose of doing what someone somewhere decides is "good," is tyranny in its essence. It's rape. That's why they were in favor of such a limited

In the American sense, the purpose of government should mainly be to facilitate organization and communication among the states to provide for the common defense, etc., and to provide as a check and balance against state and local government...but not to dispense kickbacks to the states in exchange for adopting their ridiculous polcies, as they do now.

The purpose of government is to stay out of the way so individuals or groups of individuals can choose to do good, or not, as they, well, choose.

It seems that expecting the government to define what is "good" and do it by mandate is undoubtedly going to piss off the moral relativists lurking about.

As has been echoed here many times, "your good is not necessarily my good."

Particularly in a country this large and diverse, both geographically, ideologically, and in terms of population, the only reasonable way to keep more people happy more of the time, since we can't all agree on everything, is to keep the federal government out of local education, healthcare, etc.

The federal government ruins just about everything it touches.


01 Dec 2004 | Chris S said...

Errata

That's why they were in favor of such a limited government to begin with.

Sorry bout that. Guess my wife is right...I'm not perfect after all.

Damn.

01 Dec 2004 | Darrel said...

Like I said, Chris, we're not going to change each other's minds on this topic. ;o)

01 Dec 2004 | Dr. God said...

The best (read: worst) line from Falwell was a clip they aired on the Daily Show. He was talking about terrorists and said we need to "blow them all away in the name of the Lord."

I think that pretty much sums Falwell up.

01 Dec 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Look, I admire George Washington. I admire a lot of folks from that era. I do not think, however, that they were gods who could see into the future and know how the world would evolve. Therefore, I don't feel obligated to do anything with anything he or his contemporaries said other than consider it as a good viewpoint to add into the mix.

In other words, Washington spoke from a period where there was no historical or contemporary precedent for a government that worked on behalf of its people, instead of to feed itself. Yes, governments left on their own will probably do the latter in almost every case (as will any individual human being or groups thereof), but with appropriate checks and balances, government can and does do good.

In other words, I find your fundamental premise, that government is ipso facto evil, to be fundamentally flawed.

On to another point:

Without the second amendment, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless.

...

It's worth noting that most people murdered in the world have been murdered by a government, usuallly their own. Always happens somewhere the people aren't armed.

First of all, while I support the Second Amendment (but also believe that it leaves plenty of leeway for regulation, especially since the damn word's right in the amendment), I can't help but collapse into fits of hysterical laughter when I hear someone suggest that a bunch of people with their hunting rifles and 9 mm pistols are somehow going to hold off the government should it ever come to that. It's amazingly naive.

It's also highly ignorant of history, as is the statement that governements murdering their own people "always happens somewhere the people aren't armed." Iraq is and always has been heavily armed, and that didn't seem to stop Saddam from killing off a good chunk of the populace. Ditto Syria. Ditto Afghansitan under the Taliban. Ditto pretty much the entire Middle East and much of Central Asia.

Not to mention, the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hugary, Romania and the USSR all managed to overthrow their governments without any of them being able to own firearms.

Individual ownerhsip of firearms is no guarantor against government repression. Lack of said ownership is no preventative of overthrowing a repressive government. Bestowing the Second Amendment with the magical powers that too many gun advocates do only serves to make the debate look like a contest between kooks on both sides.

01 Dec 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Is duck hunting mentioned in the 2nd Amendment? Should it be?

"Well-regulated" meant it would be kept available as a right, not kept in check.

HOWEVER, having said that, we ALL agree to some level of gun control. I meet very few people -- many of them NRA members -- who want to allow Alice to carry a bazooka or RPG.

Which brings up another point: If the people of Iraq hated Saddam so stinkin' much, why didn't THEY overthrow him? It seems they have enough weapons over there, including RPGs. Sheesh.

01 Dec 2004 | One of several Steves said...

"Well-regulated" meant it would be kept available as a right, not kept in check.

What do you base that on, Don? The word "regulation" usually means putting parameters around something. (Of course, the regulation phrase modifies the militia part of the amendment, so who knows what the hell is going on there. The Second Amendment is pretty much the most poorly written thing in the entire Constitution. It's barely even a sentence.)

As you point out, no rights are unlimited. The right to free speech is not limitless (the old argument of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre), and nor is the right to keep and bear arms. The question we can't get anywhere on is where are the limits (and the fact that there isn't any case law on this for a good 100-some years certainly doesn't help). Unfortunately, the extremists on both sides control the debate, so it's nearly impossible to find the reasonable center.

01 Dec 2004 | Don Schenck said...

One Of ... I got that "regulation" idea from my readings. Can't pinpoint it right now.

But, here is a very scholarly article that supports the idea of only an "organized militia" having the *right* to keep and bear arms (as opposed to a "unorganized militia", see this article at FindLaw.com for more info).

Again, let the NRA have all the black powder rifles they want ... that is, if they insist on the Constitution being "interpreted as meant by the original framers" versus "a living, breathing document".

More fodder. Now, go chew.

02 Dec 2004 | Chris S said...

Do the research, folks.

The both the historical and literary context of "regulated" as well as the definition from that time according to the Oxford English Dictionary means "well-practiced" or trained. They saw no need to regulate arms ...indeed, the British attempt at gun control was met with fierce resistance on the road from Lexington to Concord where the redcoats were marching to seize powder and ammo.

There's also a difference between "arms" and "ordnance"...the former referring primarily to personal weapons that people can "keep" (own and maintain easily) and "bear" (carry by themselves or on their person).

The one thing they did not have in mind was ordnance that could be carried, since all of their ordnance consisted of cannons, mines, etc.

The main clause of the second amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "people" always refers to individuals in the context of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was motivated by the Anti-Federalists who were concerned that the much broader powers granted the federal government (compared to what they were allowed in the Articles of Confederation, which was really a better document and only needed some minor improvements) would be used to more tightly restrict the people. Having just accomplished what they had, there was no way they were going to let that happen, and the purpose was clearly to insure that the people had free and unfettered access to the standard personal military arm of the time.

There's no more clear evidence of "the people" referring to free individuals than the 10th Amendment itself, where it distinguishes "the people" from the States and the United States"

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 people clearly means individuals unorganized by a government body.

Also look up "infringed"...it doesn't simply mean to "take away"...but to approach, encroach upon, etc. The point was that the government was not to be allowed to even take one step toward hindering an individual's right to own and carry firearms to protect himself against any threat, be it from other individuals or the state.

If you want to take the government's line you could also make the argument that the first amendment only applies to state-run presses that might criticize the central government. Or that you could only own a press (or blog) if licensed by the federal government to do so, and remain subject to whatever rules they felt like imposing.

There's simply no legitimate, historical evidence to support either claim.

The fact that people are so uncomfortable with the second amendment just shows how far we've fallen as a nation.

People, particularly liberals I've talked to, tend to believe we shouldn't have weapons because it's the government's job to protect them (although courts have always ruled that it's neither the local, state, or federal government's responsibility).

Then when the government tries to protect them (Patriot Act), they get really mad. I say tough...you want a centralized government that will make you safe, but the only way they can do that is infringe upon your liberty. Stupidity in action.

Too many people don't seem to want the responsibilty of protecting themselves so they delude themselves into thinking someone else out there will do it if their taxes are high enough. Then they're shocked when the entity they need protection from is the government itself. You can't have it both ways, folks. Remember, government is like fire...let it get a little out of hand and it spreads on its own, and in places you don't want it. No such thing as having the "right" people in charge.

Liberals I know have been quoting Frankling more..."They who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." They use that to bash the Patriot Act (most of which I also disagree with).

What they don't understand is that when they vote for gun control, higher taxes, etc., they're just building the beast that will come back and bite them sooner or later.

02 Dec 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Well said, Chris S.

02 Dec 2004 | Darrel said...

"What they don't understand is that when they vote for gun control, higher taxes"

But those aren't black and white issues.

I mean, we don't allow folks to keep nuclear warheads in their house, but we allow farmers to keep dynamite. Regulation isn't evil. It's a necessity when you live in a society. Too much regulation can be as bad as too little.

Just as too little/too much liberalism, libertarianism or conservatism can be bad. ;o)

And no one votes to 'raise taxes'. People vote for government to do things or not do things. That in turn, can sometimes raise and or lower taxes.

07 Dec 2004 | Phil said...

Chris S, it's "Megadeth" not "Megadeath". How much of a fan can you be?

Can you think of any other bad things Clinton did besides the lie about the bj?

08 Dec 2004 | Chris S said...

Phil, my friend, thanks for the correction, but when did I ever claim to be a fan of Megad(ea|e)th, and how is my status as a Megadeth fan club imposter relevant here?

All you have to do is run a list of everything Clinton supported, pushed for, or said officially while in office, highlight 95% of it, and it was all "bad" in one way or another. That goes for most presidents, and most politicians.

But I can give you one real specific example:

Clinton and his administration drew momentum from Bush the Elder's atrocities committed against the 2nd Amendment and together with Reno's justice department advanced the anti-self-defense, pro-criminal gun control policies already in existence.

In Clinton's administration, they were so hellbent for leather on taking America further to the left in general, and persecuting white male gun owners and gun dealers specifically (as one example) that they seriously de-emphasized investigating and defending against potential foreign threats. Threats that did materialize were too often handled with limp-wristed-but-tough-talking posturing (let's fire off a couple missiles in that direction cause, hey, what can we really do).

It was that pre-occupation with diddling White House honeys and being a sort of aw-shucks-good-ol-boy poster child for a more serious liberal agenda that kept us more woefully unprepared for the kind of thing that happened on 9/11.

Hell, he was more interested in supporting the sending of tanks and HRT snipers after Americans (who are entitled to due process in America) in Waco and Ruby Ridge than he was securing our country.

His and Reno's record against foreign threats to domestic soil is pretty pathetic, but his record against children, religious nuts, and unarmed women holding infants is pretty damn good.

11 Dec 2004 | duga said...

Martin Luther King? ... he wants to be shot? How soon is this happening?

13 Dec 2004 | Phil said...

Chris S., I'm still waiting for you to list something bad that Clinton did.

Owning a gun and self defense hove nothing to do with each other as evidenced by the fact that you are more likely to get shot with your own gun than use it to defend yourself.

Clinton did everything right in the war on terror. He left W with everything he needed to continue the excellent intelligence on al Qaeda. W ignored it and got caught sleeping. Bush and his cronies were so obsessed with doing the opposite of Clinton that they ignored information handed to them that could've prevented 9/11, like the Predident's Daily Brief "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US"

13 Dec 2004 | Chris S said...

Well, you're going to be waiting a long time then, since you and I clearly have different ideas about what is "bad."

Owning a gun and self defense hove nothing to do with each other as evidenced by the fact that you are more likely to get shot with your own gun than use it to defend yourself

Maybe if you're a criminal, or a teenager in a gang. Otherwise, not true. You've swallowed some pretty thick propoganda there.

Actually, the opposite is true. Statistically and proportionately, non-criminal use of firearms return some of the lowest injury rates per capita...lower than driving, lower than athletics, lower than visiting your doctor. You're more likely to die from negligent medical care than you are from a non-criminal use of a firearm. Look up the National Safety Council's Injury Facts statistics. They used to be free, but now I think you have to pay for them.


Even among regular firearms users, death or injury rates by firearm are very low. More hunters die or injure themselves by falls than firearms.

14 Dec 2004 | Phil said...

I'm not talking about non-criminal gun use. I'm talking about defending yourself with a gun, which has nothing to do with target practice or hunting. You decried Clinton's "anti-self defense" policies, and I'm saying owning a gun makes you less safe when it comes to defending yourself. If some random gang-banger comes into my house looking to steal stuff to feed his crack habit the last thing in the world I'd do is whip out a gun. I can get another stereo, I can't put my brains back in my head.

15 Dec 2004 | Chris S said...

It sounds to me like you have absolutely no experience with firearms, no experience with people who use them regularly for recreation OR defense...

Go do some research on how many of those situations you're talking about go south and result in rape, injury, or death of the victim.

Depending on whose stats you use, there are anywhere from 500,000 to 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms yearly.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^