General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe have a "right" to own guns, but not a right to health care, food, shelter, clothing, employment
Seems to me there's something seriously wrong with this picture.
And there's definitely something fundamentally wrong when you have a large portion of the country that would threaten a civil war over their "right" to own semi-automatic assault weapons, but gets equally pissed off at the mere thought of guaranteeing everyone health coverage.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)those who disagree with you, not only in regards to gun-ownership but anything else that one deems their right.
2naSalit
(86,612 posts)And that would be correct! (apologies to whomever it is who uses the "ding ding ding" thing... I just love it and thought it worked here).
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)people did not rely on the government for healthcare, food, shelter, clothing or employment. They were industrious and self reliant. The RKBA was codified in the BOR to prevent the citizen from losing what they had worked for to a foreign power, an internal threat or their fellow man seeking to take what was not theirs. The reason people are so adamant about their gun rights is that this idea is still in their DNA. If they lose their arms then what they have and what they have worked for all their lives can be easily taken away.
Whovian
(2,866 posts)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)the founding of our republic?
Even as recently as pre-FDR, people were entirely on their own. This may not be the type of society that you prefer, but the post seems entirely accurate to me.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson are just two of our Founding Fathers who were very active in promoting civic organizations to provide for mutual benefit in times of need. Madison even disapproved allowing a church to fund a project because he said that was a "public and civil duty."
Jefferson on education:
As part of his work in revising the laws of Virginia during the late 1770s and early 1780s, Thomas Jefferson put forth a bill that has become one of his most enduring works on the subject of education: Bill 79, "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge." Its oft-quoted preamble reads as follows:
Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those person, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:...[1]
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/bill-more-general-diffusion-knowledge
If you are among those surptided by Jefferson's commitment to public education, you may be even more surprised at his thoughts about the unequal distribution of wealth in France in pre-revolutionary France. Here is what he wrote to James Madison after befriending a peasant woman, asking her about her income and position in life and giving her some money.
"This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
\\\http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
Note: That was Thomas Jefferson, not Marx, not Lenin, not Thomas Paine.
In the early history of our country, we permitted slavery and indentured servitude. Lincoln ended those "institutions" but not without destroying the "property rights" of some very wealthy and powerful people.
Republicans seem to have forgotten that slaves were viewed as property, and that when Lincoln, their hero and first president freed the slaves, in the view of the conservatives of the time, he confiscated and redistributed more property than any other American before or since.
It is ironic that the conservatives who claim to be heirs of Abraham Lincoln reject the idea of the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, from employers to employees, from those with property to those without.
I hope that no one will think that I agree with what was the Southern view of slavery -- that slaves were property. But if you read the Dred Scott decision of the US Supreme Court, which was one of the big issues prior to Lincoln's presidency, you will understand that slaves, repugnant as it is to us today to admit it, were viewed as property. And Lincoln's great achievement was to redistribute that property, the great wealth of Southern masters to the very poorest, the slaves themselves.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)guaranteed by the government.
Post #3 (JohnnyBoots) states in response that in the early days of the republic, people were more self-reliant and less dependent on government largesse than they are today, for which post he was soundly flamed.
I responded in post 99 that post #3 was more or less accurate.
Your response, which I appreciate for its detail and accuracy, shows that the founders, and in particular Jefferson, supports wide public education of the population and redistribution and equal sharing of natural resources, a position with which I do not quibble.
Which still leaves me with the dilemna posed in the OP - where in the Constitution or in the musings of the founders does the notion of public good or general welfare extend to providing food, housing and health care to the populace?
And if such largesse were guaranteed by the Constitution, a) who would pay for such universal cradle-to-grave care and b) what would differentiate us from house cats? Our ability to compose poetry?
No, I believe the Founders wanted to guarantee that everyone (except slaves) would have the opportunity to succeed in the new Republic, and that such success would bring with it the wealth needed to provide for life's necessities. I don't believe they even addressed the needs of the physically and mentally impaired, the sentiment at the time being that the common decency and charitable instincts of the community would fill that need. (Of course this would not work today, given the sheer size of our population and the near complete loss of sense of community).
As an aside, I do support a universal, single-payer health plan, but solely - and I emphasize solely - because it would be much cheaper and more efficient than the mess we have today. I have yet to be convinced that even the most liberal interpretation of our Constitution guarantees such a thing. And as for food and shelter and clothing and such, well, I think nothing could have been further from the framers' minds.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)given to needy people. Jefferson envisioned a country of farmers.
Unfortunately, our population has grown too large for that and our farming has become too corporate and industrial.
What is the modern equivalent of making sure that people can have land, that farmland is affordable enough that just about anyone can buy enough to live on?
In my view, it is making sure that everyone can find work that suits their talents and pays enough so that they can have what they need. We should help those who cannot work. We should insure that they have the food and shelter they need.
This is not impossible, not even that difficult.
I walk the streets of my city and see trash everywhere. What if we paid people living wages to clean up things, to make our cities and towns beautiful.
Personally, I think that would lower the crime statistics considerably.
We have plenty of wealth in this country. And if we worked together more constructively we could have not only even more wealth but more harmony, more fun and more beauty around us.
The modern equivalent of parceling out land for those who are not doing well is handing out food stamps and housing vouchers, and we should continue to do those things.
What we need to stop is war.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)To me the most profound thing about the framers is that they were wealthy and comfortable, yet signed on to this revolution which had little chance of success. Most significantly, they knew full well that if they failed, they would lose all their wealth and property, and most certainly be tortured and hung by the British.
The whole 2A thing leaves me puzzled though. Sometimes I think they deliberately left the amendment poorly worded with its incomplete clauses just to hand future generations a puzzle to grapple with. After all, no government that had come before had trusted the common man with arms. So we continue to debate its meaning 235 years later, the pro-RKBA crowd ignoring the first clause, and the anti-RKBA people ignoring the last. How clever.
To your point about work, I agree that there's so much that needs to be done, but no will to tackle the job. Work gives meaning, purpose and dignity to life, and I can't imagine anything worse than just existing on government largesse.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and I can't imagine anything worse than just existing on government largesse.
So true.
When I first retired, a friend asked me if I was interested in doing volunteer work. I said no. She said, oh, just wait two years and you will find something.
She was right. I do a couple of volunteer jobs in my community. Most of my retired friends either do that or take care of their grandchildren. (I grab every chance I can to take care of my grandchild.) We who are on Social Security and Medicare do not sit idly. We volunteer. We could not do that if it were not for those programs.
I notice that even though I am pretty healthy for my age, I tire more quickly. In addition, my reaction time is not quite as fast as it was, and my memory is not as sharp as it was. That is my recall takes longer than it did a few years ago although I do remember it all.
That is why I do think that a person should consider very carefully the extent of the stress a president must bear and the demands on reaction time, concentration and memory, especially for specific details like names and titles of people before running for the presidency. That office demands precisely the kind of mental and physical capacity that seniors begin to lose. Each person is different in this respect of course.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)each day.
I took a slightly different approach than you - I got a puppy, a beautiful chocolate lab who is my full-time project. We're inseparable, and I have to exercise her at least 2X per day to keep her insanity level at a minimum. Since I can't walk very far, I throw a ball with her for a half-hour in the morning and another half-hour in the afternoon. I do this until she is good and worn out. Then we do a short training session after each workout. Dogs seem to learn better after they've been exercised.
I also have a network of friends that I correspond with, which is becoming a lost art with Facebook and instant messaging. I really enjoy crafting a detailed letter to a dear friend.
Since my wife still works, I am now the chief cook, butler, chauffeur and housekeeper. I go collect fresh ingredients each day and make a healthy dinner for the family. We've all lost a few extra pounds and feel great after cutting back on processed food, sodium and saturated fats.
Last but not least, I tutor a few local kids in math and physics for just an hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It's a good way to pick up a few extra bucks and the kids seem to respond well to my personality and methods. I worked as a mechanical engineer for 35 years and have a lot of good experiences to share. It also gives me an opportunity to act as a role model for them.
Like yourself, I do tire out and have to rest my back a few times during the day. A half hour on an ice pack usually does the trick.
In the evening I swim at the local community center, which is the only exercise left that I can manage with my back. By the time I get back 9:00 or so, I'm ready to settle in with my wife and cuddle up for an hour of TV. I don't sleep very well with the back pain, so I'm up and down all night, which is when I get in my correspondence.
I do enjoy reading your posts, and you've become a valuable resource for me on DU. Your postings are always well thought-out, well-researched, non-crazy, and always civil. You seem like a lovely person.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Full of disease and death from a cut finger and childbirth.
OMG. What bull.
markpkessinger
(8,396 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)from communicable diseases because when hundreds of thousands of people get really sick you cannot contain it!
barbtries
(28,794 posts)but that's a load of crap. guns have not saved the millions who lost everything in the economic crash. they did not do squat for those whose homes were lost to foreclosure. people who got sick and had to go bankrupt due to medical bills - show me one who was saved by their "arms."
it's a different world. you can lose your "arms" and have every other thing you ever worked for. you can keep your "arms" and lose it all. this is 2013, the 21st century.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)we here on DU, including me, would think necessary on compassionate and human rights grounds.
Nonetheless, we have a Constitution, which may be amended and stretched, that is the basic law of the land.
As a legal matter, and I'm a lawyer unfortunately, we can't just dump it when it's inconvenient. If we did that, we would not have a firm foundation in law.
Most people on DU see the US not as a particular people but as a legal entity. Take away the basic law and you don't have much left to hold us together over the years.
So long as the 2d Amendment remains in its current form, the courts and the government must respect it.
I would applaud efforts to amend the Amendment, which isn't an easy process by design, but until then laws and regulations can only do so much.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)or bankers that have committed fraud also being above the law?
When did it become legal for bankers to launder money for drug cartels and even TERRORISTS?
Why is it legal to commit torture as long as it happened in the past?
Or for that matter the treason involved in lying in order to go to war for profit?
Why does it appear that the law only applies to the non-elite, while the elite appear to be completely above ALL laws as long as they are financially big or right wing politicians?
your explanation leaves out much, but I imagine you can explain these things to us.
GirlinContempt
(16,987 posts)Recent when you look at the history of the second amendment, that it's been interpreted the way it's viewed now. Up until maybe 40 years ago? the second amendment was treated very differently, especially when you go even further back.
The constitution was created to be altered to change with the changing times. And interpretations will change, that's a given. But to try and use it as a shield against even discussing dealing with modern problems like this, as some do, is crazy to me. The Towns of the wild west had stronger gun control! People who actually literally needed their guns! And yet today, discussion of the issue brings out not only this immediate shut down of "rights, no, constitution, no way, no never no changes" but the very idea of the amendment itself isn't even being discussed, or looked at as it already is and was brief for most of its existence.
Cherchez la Femme
(2,488 posts)We couldn't get even ONE of those rights in the Constitution;
isn't it?
And still the la Belle Phrase du Jour is constantly vote Democratic, because they'll do SO much for the people!
I'm NOT saying not to vote Democratic, what I am saying that is this Party needs a tremendous wake-up call, in whatever way possible.
Oh, and fuck Third Way: Fuck them straight to hell and then burn them with everlasting fire.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Is this what's currently being taught in GED courses?
Bless your heart for trying to get that diploma...
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Sorry, but y'all poor folk are on yer own. Quit asking the gubmint fer yer handouts.
spanone
(135,832 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)"the haves" to get off of our backs; stop controlling everything with money; let people decide for themselves what they want their taxes to pay for, instead of un-ending war and for-profit "health" "care".
Yeah, there are thieves out there, but the gun response is disproportionate to the possibilities of being robbed, especially when those who protect gun-ownership also hate police, so law-enforcement funding is under attack politically. And someone tell us why fears that your house is going to be robbed, despite high-tech very sophisticated alarm systems that are easily available, is justification for CONCEALED CARRY IN PUBLIC.
And for whatever danger of being robbed in public, why wouldn't OPEN CARRY help prevent that?
And, if like other gun advocates, you tell me that open carry in public will invite being shot by other gun owners, you're basically proving my point: what the fuck is the purpose of all of this? And even if I cannot disabuse you of mistakes you are making about all of that, WHY MUST I BE INVOLVED, AGAINST MY WILL, IN THE RISKS THAT YOU CHOOSE?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts) RC
(25,592 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)treats and law enforcement to protect us from each other. So there is no earthly need for individuals to be armed to the teeth.
We have laws and courts (though teabaggers want an end to them, too) to keep people from taking your stuff from you. I don't suppose it has ever occurred to gun nutters to exercise their legal rights via our justice system. They seem to want to solve ALL of life's little problems by waving and firing their guns and killing anyone who frightens them.
What a bunch of sissy two-year-olds.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)were by far the majority of Americans and were born and nourished in ownership of the land. The community church was the weekly local social gathering...potlucks to provide the meal for the long trip and socialization. The local law enforcement mostly dealing with drunks or petty crimes, for the most part. (See movies on the Wild West...pretty accurate)
They had more children per family as children were assets in helping to maintain the family well-being and heritage rooted in the land and its preservation. Children married those within their social circle and tended to stay with the land and raise their families. Every one believed in the same God, the same moral fiber, the same work ethic and the same family structure. Transportation restrictions, by horse, kept this smaller circle intact. The social life was complete and making connections even with other rural towns, was typically not necessary, let alone other cultures, races or languages.
The cities, on the other hand, were places where the land owners had smaller tracts and needed a different kind of income...profit. For that they needed factories and workers regardless of their color, language, country of origin and family structure. Initially primarily immigrants and their children fulfilled that need. This was the Industrial Revolution which changed society...urban and rural... forever. Urban land owners became wealthy building factories for the new consumer items, other than food, shelter, clothing and transportation, while creating jobs for wages. Some say the public school system was formed to homogenize the work ethic for translation into factory life. In any case, the need was created for Mother Jones and subsequent labor laws.
Then began the migration from rural America to urban America. Rural kids went to the cities to be independent, work at jobs for monetary wages as farms were broken up and sold off bit by bit...from lack of family members to manage and work them. Later, they left the family farms for educational reasons....a higher education. Guns were crucial in this era...for hunting and protection. We take care of our own was a badge of honor, not a fomenting at the government...which was rarely needed and thus barely touched these folk's lives.
There is a reason why Red States are still primarily rural in thought patterns and conservative, by nature. Their ancestors lived to conserve their land and their way of life. It's in the DNA of survival as deeply as European immigrants DNA was in escaping the totalitarian and suffocating nature of their feudalistic lives. Yet, as in the Industrial Revolution, there is a new sociological pattern being created as the prominent force .... in urban areas with cheap labor/immigrants, globalism, social media and the Internet Revolution.
And for better or for worse, the shift of responsibility is now to the Blue States who must somehow provide for the rest of what are now referred to as the cultural demographics, native, immigrant, gender or racial. Food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and employment are now largely controlled by folks in the Blue States (corporations?), for the most part, and with that power, the stock grazing land or arable crop production.
The 21st Century will be interesting, at best.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)GirlinContempt
(16,987 posts)And nonsense. poppycock.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)"Government is EVIL and the CAUSE of all of the problems".
What started as a talking point decades ago has become believed by those raised on that crap.
Now we have idiots who run on their HATRED of the government.
Well, guess what? They may win in a district full of rednecks but the country as a whole expects government to actually SOLVE things.
To top it off, the People see other countries doing things for their citizens and wonder why "the richest country in the world" can't do it and what it boils down to is part of the debate involves trying to meet halfway a bunch of idiots claiming the government is coming to get you and to grab a gun. And keep yer gubmunt hands off my Medicare!!!
Delmette
(522 posts)A "doctor" would accept a chicken for payment of services and believed in bleeding as a cure for most ailments.
primavera
(5,191 posts)... Mad Dog Scalia decided that the whole "well regulated militia" bit was just some bullshit the framers threw in for laughs while they were smoking crack.
War Horse
(931 posts)This is 2012 - err... 2013. Health care, food, shelter, clothing and employment can easily be taken away from you, but not at gunpoint.
rbixby
(1,140 posts) 
d_r
(6,907 posts)there is an amendment to the US constitution specifying the first, but not one specifying the rest.
I'm not saying that's a good thing or a morally correct thing, I'm just saying.
SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)Just sayin'.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness
SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)But since you seem particularly interested in how I interpret it, I suppose "promote the general welfare" would be anything that promotes the happiness of the American people.
That does seem in keeping with Supreme Court precedent, such as it is.
In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." The Court then obliquely confided,"[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark." In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court questioned "whether 'general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."
Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Today firearms ownership IS a right. We might not believe that it should be, and we might further believe that these other things should be rights, but there it is.
It would be nice to see the level of passion currently directed towards banning guns (or screaming at gun owners) also directed towards these other issues, but apparently those inspire less interest.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)You do not have an absolute right to own arms. If that were the case, then anybody could own a fully automatic machine gun, RPG, Stinger missile, etc - as those are all arms. Fact of the matter is that we HAVE restricted the types of arms that one can own.
There are also many (like myself) who believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to an organized militia. Today we have the National Guard which fulfills that role.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)I see plenty of passion displayed on these boards, for all kinds of issues, on all sides. Please offer some specifics.
Since you haven't been here that long, I urge you to review DU archives.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)barbtries
(28,794 posts)as a nation we are not well. we are sick.
jody
(26,624 posts)natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, . . . That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state". PA (1776) Constitution
montanto
(2,966 posts)None of us is prohibited from purchasing those things.
Wednesdays
(17,374 posts)
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)Flatulo
(5,005 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Isn't the same thing as having a right to it.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)but not the latter.
My understanding of the Constitution is that it is more a statement of things the government may NOT do than a list of things they will provide, other than a common defense.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
patrice
(47,992 posts)development of the Military Industrial complex and the Nuclear Age.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)...fatal right turn of the Democratic Party. I think, anyway...
patrice
(47,992 posts)It also contributed to what happened to Labor and how it then was doubled-crossed by Republicans, like Nixon and how the Southern Strategy became so powerful.
ReRe
(10,597 posts) Ha! (as Tweety says it.) Wouldn't it just be peachy if we could get FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights passed? Let's see, who could bring it to the floor? Elizabeth & the Democratic women in the Senate? Nancy and the Democratic women in the House? Actually, this would be in the form of a Constitutional Amendment, where each of the States' would have to ratify it, each with a 2/3 vote? Maybe we could attach a banning of the Citizen's United? Let's put a bug in someone's ear, what say? 
patrice
(47,992 posts)different issues compete against one another for persons, resources, and time.
I also like it, because it can be illustrated through specific aspects of American History that SHOW what happened to us and relates that history in a comprehensive way to ALL of our issues. Very unifying, this!
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The Constitution was written only to provide a framework for how the government is to operate. The framers didn't really get into discussions of societal issues because they believed such things change with the times anyway, and normal legislation can be passed to accomplish those things. If they hard-wired that other kind of stuff you mentioned into the constitution, they thought it would end up putting restrictions on future generations. They believed Congress can solve those issues.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)IMHO this is one of the primary shortcomings of our Constitution.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The practice of medicine back then was still a bit primitive. It wasn't a big issue back then.
They didnt have high costs of insurance and expensive doctors and drugs. There is no way they could have foresaw that kind of stuff.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)forseen the dramatic increase in human lifespan or the eradication of so many causes of early demise.
I'm pretty sure it would have been a significantly different document it were created in modern times.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" responsibility to take care of its own citizens is not..."
Kind of tough for me to rationalize the nobility of the constitution when it reads that black people are to be considered 3/5 of a person. Taking that into consideration, the lofty ideals and the glowing rhetoric seems empty at best, designed merely to allow rich, white, land-owning citizens a better way to avoid paying taxes to the crown.
So it's not so much enshrined in my heart as a sacred cow, as it is just another in a long line of imaginary forms of government to help a few at the expense of the many.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)
former9thward
(32,006 posts)This was a compromise. The northern states did not want slaves to be counted at all and the southern states wanted them counted as a full person. So they settled on 3/5s.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Thank you for teaching me something new today.
SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)The Supremes' reading of the 2nd Amendment is dead wrong. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it until we get a progressive majority on the Court.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The 2nd amendment is vastly misread by both the right and the left because none of us are considering the context of the time in which it was written.
It's not SCOTUS's fault. The problem is the amendment needs to be updated to today's world. This amendment was written in a time when guys like Thomas Jefferson believed military training should be a normal part of education for every male in case they are called upon by the government to respond to war or crisis. These people represent a militia and have the right to bear arms.
A gun and military defense system similar to what the Swiss have today is probably what the founding fathers were really aiming for.
SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)They, until relatively recently, did not read the 2nd Am as enshrining gun rights. They read it as the anachronistic, irrelevant provision that it is. It is no coincidence that the same Court majority that declared corporations people declared guns a fundamental right.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It would be a hard fight but it could be done.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)it is not going to give them to you.
Which is as it should be, excepting those cases where folk are unable to provide for their own well-being.
If food, shelter and medical care were provided to everyone, who would work to create the wealth needed to provide these things?
This is not a welcoming place for the risk-averse. I have always been in awe of immigrants who choose to come here knowing that they could fail miserably, but I think this has been one of our strengths. Risk-takers came here and spawned more risk-takers.
patrice
(47,992 posts)ation and the vote, which has been more or less addressed off and on ever since with the amendment process, but even if one gives that those amendments were in fact perfectly valid and salutary to the problems that they were supposed to address, we STILL have to recognize the toxic effect of all the PRECEDED them, the inertia that was already introduced into the system by those injustices and which even warped out attempts to fix things.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you are right that health care, food, shelter, clothing, employment are not considered rights.
raccoon
(31,111 posts)blazeKing
(329 posts)Citizens give up their guns, they give their power away to the government and the elite few. And let's say that government becomes a Republican tyranny. You're disarmed, you have nothing to fight back against it. You die like the 80 million that Mao took out because you aren't Republican. See the problem? Gandhi's peaceful revolution doesn't work against those that will send tanks and mow you down to stop you like Tienanmen square.
I agree health coverage should be guaranteed for all, I agree that semi-automatic weapons should not be allowed. But you and many others here are dangerously wrong about wanting to disarm Americans. Sorry, we have a very violent society and without guns you have no way of protecting yourself or your family. Your right to life is gone when you can't protect it because politicians decided to disarm you.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Nice right-wing fantasy you got there.
You really think that a couple of yahoos with assault rifles would be able to take on the entire US military if push came to shove?
And you really think that an AR-15 is necessary for home defense?
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Note that I don't think the US government could ever be overthrown by force, and the vast, vast majority of even die-hard gun owners would ultimately comply with any confiscation laws, but never underestimate the ability of a few determined people to make your life miserable.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)So they're not using fully automatic machine guns, IED's, surface-to-air missiles, mortars, etc?
They may not be using tanks, aircraft, heavy artillery, drones, etc - but they're also not limited to small arms.
There are also plenty of other problems with this comparison. We were the invaders, on THEIR home turf, thousands of miles from home. If you're talking about domestic fighting, then many of those advantages begin to dissipate. A militia group taking on a National Guard unit wouldn't have nearly the "home field" advantage that local fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq have.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)foot soldier; I.e., AK47s, RPGS, sniper rifles, grenades etc. Improvised explosives could be made from fertilizer/fuel bombs, cell phones, etc but I'm sure we've learned an awful lot about how to defeat these devices.
Its worth repeating that I absolutely do not believe that most fat-assed, pre-diabetic Americans would be willing to die for their right to own a 30 round clip.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)It's possible to own a fully-automatic weapon - but those are very tightly regulated. Everything else I mentioned can be carried by a normal foot soldier, but they are also illegal here.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Look at our overwhelming victories in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The US military crushed them no sweat.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Enjoy that predator drone strike, I hope it looks cool from where you'd be standing.
patrice
(47,992 posts)the purpose of gun-ownership is NOT as it is represented to the public.
There is some other purpose about which gun-owners are not being up front and honest. Perhaps if we could begin with what that REALLY is, we could come to somekind of understanding.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)be told what to do, by anyone.
For proof of this I would point to the spike in firearm sales whenever the mere mention of additional gun controls comes up.
I also think that the notion of defense of self and home is certainly valid, as well as morally justifiable. The cops are never there when you're getting your ass kicked, nor do they have any obligation to be there. They almost always come in after the fact.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Of the 2 different cohorts, which might have more connection to the problems: one with guns in cabinets in their houses or hidden on their persons, or the other with informative signs and loud voices in the streets.
I am very familiar with defiance, have been much of my life as somewhat of a social outsider backed by a large close family. Defiance motivates me on phone-banks, petition drives, and door-to-door canvasses, on street-corners, in D.C., and on the poor side of this town. It's me saying, "Fuck You!" to everything that tries to tell us that we don't count, I'm saying TTE, "I know intimately about all of the stuff that tells me 'it's pointless, futile, doesn't matter. stay home. clean a closet,'" but fuck all of that anyway. Something is always more than nothing. I may not know just exactly how much more, nor why, but at least that something is going to get a chance to be more than nothing, because I'm going to see to it that whatever it is it get's done, because I'M going to do it, even when I am just one of the very few who show up to do the work of change.
If people were REALLY defiant, they wouldn't be hiding behind guns until it's too late to change whatever's coming at them.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)ignorance. Only when something directly affects them do they rise up and protest.
I remember when Mssachusetts passed their seat-belt law, many people who had already been wearing them stopped, because they didn't like being told what to do. While I don't approve of this kind of protest, I sort of get the mindset behind it.
Personally, I've come to the conclusion post Sandy Hook that an assault weapons ban (not just a prohibition on the manufacture or import of new guns, but a ban on possession) is not only appropriate but inevitable. I hope, with a touch of schadenfreude, that the people who've been shelling out $5k on ARs have to eat it.
patrice
(47,992 posts)weapons issues and everything else unfolded out of that.
Except for a couple of fine husbands, both of whom passed on, my life has gone okay, though son is living with me again because IT is such a mess now for lower echelon staff. I taught high school and have an enormous family, so I've seen a lot of stuff. Activism and protest help me with my anger.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)on my toes.
Also, I hear you about the adult son living at home. Mine has a PolySci BA, but he can't even find work in retail. Now he's working towards a paralegal certificate, so hopefully that will lead to a job.
librabear
(85 posts)You have a right to own guns. You have a right to all those other things too. You just have to pay for those things. But you have to pay for guns too, so I fail to see the point you are making.
patrice
(47,992 posts)the financial power of the gun-lobby in a system corrupted by what has become corporate personhood. That financial power has historically affected major decisions about things like war and "defense" spending, which have in turn have affected the availability and affordability of things like health care and education.
Just saying that someone has a "right" to something that they can't afford, doesn't make it a right.
Being able to afford something and having a right to it are two different things. Let's say I can't afford to own a gun. Does that mean I still don't have a right to?
patrice
(47,992 posts)would not have that right and your position in this thread would be more consistent with OP.
The same constitution guarantees all of us a lot of rights, like sitting on the internet complaining about the rights we don't have. It and the government have made the poorest americans able to afford a Television, car, cable TV, and air conditioning. Probably a good 75% of the world's population don't have all those things.
I would hardly call it faulty.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)cars because of the government, how so?
librabear
(85 posts)What I am saying is that it is the responsibility of the government to create the conditions necessary for a citizen to succeed. We all agree on what those conditions are to varying degrees, but that is what the government was created to do. By most measures, it has been wildly successful. In a short period of time we have gone from one of the poorest to one of the wealthiest nations on earth. The fact that we are even allowed to have this conversation is a HUGE thing that we should never take for granted.
The constitution is imperfect but hardly faulty.
patrice
(47,992 posts)the amendments. They didn't even think to include the BOR until they took the "finished" product back to their districts and the people said something like, "Where are our rights?" Obviously, their main concern was to establish a legal power grab for the propertied class, without giving too much power to those whom they did not trust. Do you think the effects of those "mistakes" have all been erased? Wealth was transferred from African slave families for a few hundred years from the time of their arrival on this continent, even through the writing of the Constitution, before LEGISLATION finally got around to "ending" that. Women, much the same story. And you think those advantages, that head-start for some, but not others, has just gone away.
And you're claiming the Constitution is absolutely perfect?
wow.
patrice
(47,992 posts)librabear
(85 posts)I'm just surprised to hear a liberal be critical of the federal reserve. You see, I have conservative friends that watch Fox News that say the same thing.
I remain undecided. If you'll remember our history our currency has failed a few times. We're not even a hundred years from the last time.
patrice
(47,992 posts)The Constitution, are not the same thing as that to which they ONLY refer.
Labels are terrible. For example, the terms "liberal" and "conservative." They don't mean anything anymore.
patrice
(47,992 posts)need is better contacts with one another, not just labels, which, just right off the top of my head I would say, would begin with putting things like religion, which (above all other labels) claims that responsibility for personal contact for itself, aside and would support each person in claiming those responsibilities for themselves. That doesn't mean that most people MUST give up their identifiers/labels, only that they consider changing the relationships between those identifiers and OTHERS, as empirically necessary, to consider thinking more in terms of dynamic human relational patterns discovered in actual lives and not just their own. Somehow we need to change whatever it is that people find threatening about that and help them to see it as a possible source of authentic strength and security.
One thing that might help would be for people to know that moral relativism is not evil. Moral relativism does not mean that there is no right, nor wrong. It means that people are responsible for right-and-or-wrong themselves. Moral or ethical relativism means that that which makes some-/anything right and-or wrong inheres in the factors and elements of a situation itself, not in the labels that "we" stick on things. Moral relativism is an essentially rational process. It doesn't mean that there are no principles; principles can be/are extracted logically from human experience by each mind-heart, they can be relatively stable and useful, shared and also relatively unique. Let's just consider whether there should be different relationships between principle and experience. Principle, especially more abstracted, or more extremely extrapolated, principle, should not always come first, more or less excluding experience, and experience should be held at least at parity with principle in order for mind-heart connections to emerge and be orienting points to individuals and their cohorts.
Labels can be helpful in all of that the same way that street signs are, but when you get to wherever it is that you are going, that last street sign is not the cause/reason/motive/purpose of your going there.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)"I have conservative friends that watch Fox News"
Uh-huh.
librabear
(85 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Sorry, but you just gave yourself away.
librabear
(85 posts)I know absolutely nobody without those things. I'll add that I have no television, but I can afford one so I don't count.
All I am saying is that while this country has it's faults, we are one of the newest forms of government on this planet and also one of the wealthiest, but didn't start that way. I'm not about to go sticking a fork in the light socket of democracy.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Mail Message
At Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:08 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Faulty?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2169888
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Brand new poster - signed up today - and already pushing well-known right wing talking points. 'Poor people are able to afford TV, cars, cable TV, etc' - common right-wing meme.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:14 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Mmmmeh. Common right-wing meme, but not disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate enough to hide. If he's who you think he'll out himself in spectacular fashion sooner or later.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I am not a troll hunter, and I dont let post-count act as a criteria. If he is a real troll, MIRT will get him by post #200. Until then, maybe he will learn something by reading how educated people discuss adult matters.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)People who subsist on unhealthy foods by choice increase our health care costs when they develop diabetes or cancer.
People who drink and drive menace us with their vehicles.
People who smoke can often pollute the air of nonsmokers.
People who drive gas-guzzlers hasten climate change.
And on and on.
It's unfair, and we sometimes punish these people when their decisions produce bad outcomes for others. All of these behaviors adversely affect others, yet we tolerate them to one degree or another (notwithstanding constitutional considerations) in the name of freedom of choice.
I'm not sure I want to live in the kind of society that bans 16 oz sodas just because I would never choose one, or bans hot dogs because they're disgusting tubes of pure fat.
Maybe we need to put a monetary value on all bad behaviors and charge people in some way for engaging in them.
samsingh
(17,598 posts)2naSalit
(86,612 posts)All these folks would do well to remind themselves that as a member of this org., we have agreed to this treaty and in particular Articles 25, 27-30. Of course, there are those who hate this org because it affords universal rights of humanity to everyone which makes the haters not so special after all...
I think a large portion of our legislators need to be reminded as well.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... too bad FDR couldn't get his 2nd Bill of Rights passed. I need to go look that up and see what happened to it. Maybe it was on his to-do list on his desk when he died? If so, then Truman threw it in the trash, and created the National Security State. Thanks for your post Hugaberar.
Because of you, I'm going to go look this up... 
crazyjoe
(1,191 posts)your comparing someones right to purchase something, to someones right to get something for free that others pay lots of money for. Try harder.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Why should I have to pay so that someone else can get health care! Let them pay their own damned way! Fuck them if they can't afford coverage, "LET THEM DIE" (actual quote from a teabagger at a town hall meeting).
patrice
(47,992 posts)they want recognition of the principles of economic justice that identify HOW the rat race got so damned expensive AND lots of people can't even get a lousy INSUFFICIENT $10.00 @ hour for their time.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The 2nd exists because the hostilities between the Colonists and the British broke out over seizure of weapons and powder. Lexington and Concord were fought over weapons caches, particularly powder stores - The British sought to seize them and the Colonists wanted to protect them. So the Bill of Rights limited the Government from being able to do that, not unlike the 3rd limited the Government from housing soldiers in our homes.
You can't have arms taken from you, but the Government isn't required to provide them either. If you can't afford to buy a gun, you don't have one.
Now, I think we should make equal access to Government funded Healthcare a right. I want single payer! In single payer you pay for the insurance through taxes and every citizen is covered.
As for food, shelter, clothing and employment, Natural Rights has never claimed that these are owed to you just for existing. You should have equal access to them, but they are bought or rented rather than provided. And a lot of that is based on our market system and choice. You choose the food to eat and the clothes you want to wear.
Now, based on the General Welfare clause, we as a society have decided to create social safety nets that provide a minimum to ensure that a family doesn't starve. This was a great Liberal advance, now somewhat stalling under recent reactionary attack, that improved the lives of millions. But we as a culture and society has never believed that you are "owed" these things. We on the left just work our asses off to provide equal opportunity, ensuring fair pay for work and living wages.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)You can own any of those things, though "employment" is not something you can buy so that is another false equivalency.
I agree with your last sentence, but the subject line is wrong.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)You also have a right to have the other things you list if you can get them.
So there's no difference.
I think the government should provide more things, but a right doesn't mean the government has to provide it, it mean the government can't take it away after you have it.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)I'm for the right to health care not just an obligation to the insurance cartel.
I believe a woman's medical decisions are between her and her doctor (same foes for everyone).
I believe we all own our bodies and what we put into them.
I oppose warrantless wiretaps, "Terry Stops", "stop and frisk".
I see no conflict.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Carefully cultivated by the 1%. In which cooperation (outside of warfare) is weakness and blind belligerence is strength.
Thus, contributing to a pool to ensure everyone has healthcare is tyranny, while, say, shooting someone for stealing the neighbor's television represents freedom and the strength of the individual.
It couldn't be more specifically tuned to prevent all of us from paying attention to what the Romney / AIG / Exxon class is extracting from us.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
To me that includes social security and healthcare among others.
Enshrining the right to bear arms was a mistake.
Creideiki
(2,567 posts)Anyone should be allowed to join the National Guard.
SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)Cherchez la Femme
(2,488 posts)Tell me where these single gun-nuts, or even a group of a couple dozen war-players even comes a smidgen close to our Constitutional language?
NightOwwl
(5,453 posts)banning assault weapons will put a band aid on the wound, but it won't stop the gushing caused by a society that values violence over intelligence; who see people in need as moochers; who cheer at the thought of letting an uninsured person die.
There is something fundamentally wrong with our society that's for damn sure. The underlying causes - fear, loneliness, death (this is a biggie - I think many of our problems are due to our unwillingness to come to terms with our mortality), will never be addressed because most people aren't willing to look for answers within themselves.
Personally, I think it's time for a do-over of the human race. Start from scratch and hope we do better next time.
indepat
(20,899 posts)to strap a weapon of mass carnage on their hips. 
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)Cherchez la Femme
(2,488 posts)but pete the pup was a master.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)
Initech
(100,076 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)You don't have any more of right to own guns than you do to health care, food, shelter, clothing and employment. Less, in fact.
Absolutely no one is going to buy a gun for you if you claim poverty, but we do have programs to fund health care, food, and shelter for the poor. We also have a lot of charities that even try to raise funds for clothing, as well as some basic welfare programs that do provide some living money that can be used to buy necessities such as clothing (although darned little).
Unless you are a felon or fall into a few other categories, you have the right to buy most types of guns. You also have the right to buy food, rent a place, buy clothing, and find a job if you can get one.
We have laws on the books preventing people from discriminating against a lot of people for renting and employment, because of past sad history. So one could argue that you have more of a legal right to shelter and employment than you do to own a gun. You really do have more of a right to all of the things you say we don't have a right to than you do to own a gun. A felon cannot be prohibited from buying food or clothing, for example.
Most of the "rights" in our Constitution are either due-process based or negative rights - i.e. the government can't prevent you from this or that, but that doesn't mean the government is obligated to fund the thing or activity to which you have a right.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
ecstatic
(32,704 posts)
It would take all night to talk about their inconsistencies and hypocrisy! TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I bet you will be quoted on TV or radio very soon!
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)The rights we have do not require any action by any other person. You may think what you like, say what you like, believe in any god you like, defend yourself from whatever demons haunt you, be free from double jeopardy in court and so forth. But the provision of health care, food, or shelter demands that someone else do something for you. And that is the difference. In effect all rights are personal and no right can demand action from a second person, because that would broach their own right to self determination.
That does not, not for a second, mean that we as a people can not demand these things. In fact we can. But if we do we have to be willing to pay the price that goes with one person providing a service to another. Its no big deal to do that, we do it every day, but we do it by the popular demand and enact it by law, not the natural right of the individual, which we protect with, in our case, the bill of rights.
Rex
(65,616 posts)you have the right to purchase a gun and healthcare and food and shelter, clothing etc..
mopinko
(70,103 posts)a ex-urban town outside of chicago voted the other day not to allow people to own chickens. i am sure that there are more guns there right now than there are eggs.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)But your point is well taken. It reminds me of the posting from the other day where a young couple was precluded from growing a small garden in front of their home. You can't have a garden but if you could have had one you'd have been perfectly within your rights to guard it with weapons that would have startled a World War II Infantryman.
Flatpicker
(894 posts)The Constitution hasn't kept up with the times.
I wonder if we had good organized healthcare back then, if it would have been considered a right?
Or would that fall under the general "no shit, common sense" and that's why it was forgotten?
randome
(34,845 posts)And if we pared back the military and closed a few thousand loopholes, we'd have money enough to guarantee these things to everyone. (Well, maybe encourage less population, too.)
In a perfect world, every household would have the following (provided they were wanted):
A computer.
A cell phone.
A car.
Air conditioning.
A television.
A refrigerator.
A stove.
An iPod or other music device.
Seriously, that's the minimum I would provide everyone with if I was in charge of the country.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)and see what the wingnuts have to say about it.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
madville
(7,410 posts)Just because something is a "right" doesn't mean it is free. We have the right to own some firearms and ammunition, but us actually acquiring and possessing these items is up to the individual to pay for.
We have the "right" to health care all day long, show up with a credit card or cash and you'll get health care, food, clothing or shelter all day long, same as a gun store.
