by Jack
We at Post Scripts have learned that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, subject to modification with the changing times. This was exemplified by our liberal representatives latest attempts to exclude a number of guns from private ownership. Clearly, this was a much needed reinterpretation of our 2nd Amendment right, so we learned by their fine example. We now feel it is only fair that we restrict your right to say, “I support a minimum wage hike” … because we don’t like it; your opinion is a threat to us. It is an opinion that could kill jobs, lots of jobs!
Not to worry, this is only a slight encroachment on your free speech, and it’s so minor it shouldn’t bother you, after-all it’s for the public good.
As of now, opposing views on the minimum wage debate closed. We deemed them to be too dangerous to be tolerated in your possession. (We know whats best for you) Your dangerous opinions are now banned. If this necessary action only saves one entry level job, then you should be happy to surrender your opinions. There may be other topics we wish to ban, so stay tuned. We’re just getting warmed up!
Oh, and by the way, there will be a buy back of your dangerous opinions next Friday. You may surrender your deadly opinion to us (no questions asked) in exchange for 2 cents or a food credit, your choice.
And one other thing: All persons holding a controversial opinion should register them with us, so that they may be tracked. Tracked for what reason, you might ask? Hey, it should be good enough for you to know we just want to track your opinions! Trust us. But, if you really must know, maybe some day you might do something prohibited with your opinion and then we can use this information against you, or in times of crisis we’ll know who to watch! Now …feel better?
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
:O But but đ gasp, wait instead of food stamps, which cost all Tax payers, lets REQUIRE the use of ‘common sense’ which will benefit everyone!and only cause inconvienance to some. Also never give them a option on either or the other, especially when there’s free money involved.
There are, of course, already restrictions on the first amendment. You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. You can’t directly threaten a person or incite violence.
The second amendment also comes with certain restrictions. Some of these you favor, like preventing people with criminal records or the mentally ill from owning guns. Others you oppose, such as universal background checks and banning assault rifles. But you don’t really believe there should be no restrictions. You agree with most Americans that sometimes the dangers outweigh the benefits. You just disagree with most Americans on what specific measures should be taken.
Of course, the second amendment comes with more regulations than the first, because guns are more dangerous than words.
Editor’s note: Yes, Chris there are some reasonable restrictions on the free speech, but we want to keeping improving on that! There’s so much speech that needs banning and for our own good! And actually words are more dangerous than guns, you had it backwards.
Harold Ey, I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying that only people who lack common sense are on food stamps?
Notice how those with opposing opinions resort to the “most Americans” argument…whether or not most Americans agree with them?
The suggestion that NRA types, for instance, are totally against common sense measures to keep the criminal and crazies from possessing guns is absurd.
Law abiding gun owners are just saying enough! There are already a sufficient number of gun laws on the books. The government is simply now attempting to solve criminal/mental behavior by punishing the law abiding citizen, treating a criminal toothache by extracting the teeth of his neighbors. The dirty secret is that the extremists of the Democrat Party want all guns banned…that is the ultimate goal of the crisis generated incremental push for more restrictions.
How about we start having an honest conversation about the real causes behind violence in our society, like eliminating notions of right and wrong and aggressive activism to remove religious influence in society. How about we address that.
Jack you shine at this form of expression…good on ya!
First amendment modification suggestions:
Tape must be applied over the mouths of those who assert that opposing views are in the minority, out of touch, unsupported by the experts (or MOST experts) or are offended by opposing views or ideals.
Requiring that anyone who opposes the views of PS must wear boxing gloves when submitting comments.
I didnât know the NRAâs founders were Civil War Union officers and its mission was training and education. Nor did I know they fought for Blacks and other minoritiesâ right to bear arms for self protection.
The gun control fight today is a repeat of the past. Itâs not about guns, it is about control. Control by those in âpowerâ over our rights to defend ourselves and our possessions.
A Brief History of the NRA:
âDismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” according to a magazine editorial written by Church.â
ââŚthe NRA continued its commitment to training, education and marksmanship. During World War II, the association offered its ranges to the government, developed training materials, encouraged members to serve as plant and home guard members and developed training materials for industrial security. NRA members even reloaded ammunition for those guarding war plants. Incidentally, the NRA’s call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain’s defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).
After the war, the NRA concentrated its efforts on another much-needed arena for education and training: the hunting community. In 1949, the NRA, in conjunction with the state of New York, established the first hunter education program. Hunter Education courses are now taught by state fish and game departments across the country and Canada and have helped make hunting one of the safest sports in existence. Due to increasing interest in hunting, NRA launched a new magazine in 1973, The American Hunter, dedicated solely to hunting issues year round. NRA continues its leadership role in hunting today with the Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), a program that allows youngsters to build on the skills they learned in basic hunter education courses. YHECs are now held in 43 states and three Canadian provinces, involving an estimated 40,000 young hunters.
Law enforcement training was next on the priority list for program development. Although a special police school had been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors.â
âIn civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading.â
http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp
The Racist History of Handgun Bans in America:
âIn the United States, the first efforts to prevent the ownership of firearms, in particular, handguns, were aimed at Blacks. The French Black Code (1751) required Louisiana colonists to stop and, “if necessary,” beat “any black carrying any potential weapon. . . .” After Nat Turner’s rebellion in 1831, the Virginia legislature made it illegal for free blacks “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead.” In 1834, Tennessee revised Article XI, Section 26 of its Constitution to read “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense,” inserting the words “free white men” to replace “freemen,” whose rights were protected when the Constitution was ratified in 1796. (Clayton E. Cramer, “The Racist Roots of Gun Control,” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, Winter 1995.)â
20th Century Anti-Handgun Efforts in the U.S.:
âIn 1911, New York passed the Sullivan Law, which to this day requires a person to obtain a license, issued at the discretion of police officials, to possess a handgun. The law was aimed at preventing handgun ownership by Italians and Irish immigrants of the period, then considered untrustworthy by New York legislators and police chiefs with different bloodlines. The National Firearms Act (1934), as originally proposed, would have required registration of handguns.
In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act, ostensibly in reaction to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. But even supporters of “gun control” have recognized another purpose to the law. Robert Sherrill wrote, “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks…. Inasmuch as the legislation finally passed in 1968 had nothing to do with the guns used in the assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, it seems reasonable to assume that the law was directed at that other threat of the 1960s, more omnipresent than the political assassin — namely, the black rioter….With the horrendous rioting of 1967 and 1968, Congress again was panicked toward passing some law that would shut off weapons access to blacks.” (The Saturday Night Special, 1973.) B. Bruce-Briggs similarly noted, “It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the ‘Saturday night special’ is emphasized because it is cheap and is being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence — the reference is to ‘n—–town Saturday Night.'” (“The Great American Gun War,” The Public Interest, Fall 1976.)
More recently, anti-handgun efforts have included laws or legislative proposals for registration, licensing, limits on the frequency of purchases, limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines, bans on both small handguns (“Saturday Night Specials”) and large handguns (“assault pistols”), and requirements that handguns (except those of the police) either be externally locked (rendering them useless for protection) or manufactured with non-existent internal devices to prevent the handgun from being used by anyone other than its rightful owner.
Conspicuously, the race-oriented history of “gun control” laws has escaped the attention of many in the civil rights community. Legal scholars Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond have written, “The history of blacks, firearms regulations, and the right to bear arms should cause us to ask new questions regarding the Second Amendment. . . . Perhaps a re-examination of this history can lead us to a modern realization of what the framers of the Second Amendment understood: that it is unwise to place the means of protection totally in the hands of the state, and that self-defense is also a civil right. (“The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,” Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment, ed., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Law, 1994.)â
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=137
Jack —
I posit that most reasonably intelligent Americans know the “most Americans” argument is a fallacious canard used only by facile, limited intellects with a weak to non-existent argument.
Chris mocks with,”Of course, the second amendment comes with more regulations than the first, because guns are more dangerous than words.”
Guns More Dangerous Chris? not so, not even close when compared to the spurious use words, but they can be a tool used for a swifter conclusion to the argument!
Additionally Chris as to your attempt to SPIN my comment on the use use of which incentives to use, come on Chris use some common sense!
TAG YOUR IT! đ
Well said Pie, brief and to the point.
The 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from people like Obenfurher Obama and Field Marshal Fienstien!
Peggy good info! Once again we find that more than politics it was the efforts of ordinary Americans, like Nat Turner and Civil War veterans, that moved the goal post of freedom forward through individual actions.
Tina, I find it interesting what one can learn outside of the biased teaching of the classroom with minimal use of the internet. Here are just two from a very long list of article sites connecting the KKK to the Democrats.
It is easy to understand why the libs had to gain control of the classroom. If the truth was actually taught it would be political suicide and the end of the Democrat party.
The great thing about the internet is itâs so easy to share the information to help undo the lies and omissions of the past.
KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice
âHistory shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klanâs âThe Kourier Magazineâ: âI have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father ⌠never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was âŚthe head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction daysâŚ. My great-grandfather was a life-long DemocratâŚ. My great-great-grandfather wasâŚone of the founders of the Democratic party.â
Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.
On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: âFounded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a âreign of terrorâ against Republican leaders black and white.â Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: âIn effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican partyâs infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.â
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty&page_id=93&tp_preview=true
Sorry Libs⌠The NRA Was There to Help Blacks Defend Themselves From KKK Democrats, Not the Other Way Around:
On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a âNegro hunt,â killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan) Which brings us to todayâŚ
Asshat Jason Whitlock, the Kansas City columnist whose article on Jovan Belcherâs murder-suicide inspired an anti-gun rant by NBCâs Bob Costas, now says that the pro-Second Amendment National Rifle Association is âthe new KKK,â Newsbustersâ Tim Graham reported Monday. Obviously, Whitlock is as ignorant as he is offensive.
The NRA actually helped blacks defend themselves from violent KKK Democrats in the south, not the other way around.
Ann Coulter wrote about the history of blacks and the NRA back in April.
This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.â
Oops, forgot the link to the second article.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/sorry-libs-nra-was-there-to-help-blacks-defend-themselves-from-kkk-democrats-not-the-other-way-around/
Hey, this is fun. There is just a wealth of information out there.
This one is from, âThe Black Sphereâ blog.
âLiberals often insist that somehow, magically, between the 50s and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the racist Dems and the reforming freedom-loving Republicans ‘switched places’ and Republicans were now the evil racists. This video addresses that goofy notion.â
Be sure to check out the blog at http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=z5YfMzQtb1Y
Tina: “Notice how those with opposing opinions resort to the âmost Americansâ argumentâŚwhether or not most Americans agree with them?”
Tina, did you looked at any polls before making that comment, or did you not think that was necessary? Not only do most Americans agree with enacting some new gun control measures…most NRA members agree as well:
“A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal in the aftermath the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.”
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control
“The suggestion that NRA types, for instance, are totally against common sense measures to keep the criminal and crazies from possessing guns is absurd.”
Tina, all of the examples of common sense gun control measures you cited are dated no later than the 1960s. It is not a revelation that the NRA used to favor stronger gun control laws than they do today. Even Wayne LaPierre has had a turn-around on several issues. As recently as 1999, LaPierre said, “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes, anywhere, for anyone.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI6FnSytSYg
This is what Lapierre has to say about universal background checks today:
“It’s an unworkable universal federal nightmare bureaucracy being imposed under the federal government,” he told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I just don’t think that law-abiding people want every gun sale in the country to be under the thumb of the federal government.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/30/170679024/lapierre-fights-to-stop-the-nightmare-of-background-checks
Tina, the Columbine shooters obtained their weapons from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, who was not required by law to institute a criminal background check.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18sun4.html
Tell me, what is it about universal background checks that you see as such a gross imposition of freedom, that it’s worth the risk of another Columbine shooting?
Peggy, there is no evidence that the NRA ever fought against the KKK. The first tip-off should be that the NRA makes no reference to doing so on its website. If the NRA had a history of fighting the KKK, you’d think they would be proud of that fact and mention it in their description of the group’s history.
Upon further research, it’s become clear that this is yet another myth invented by David Barton, who has become the go-to conservative historian despite (or perhaps because of) having no formal credentials in history.
http://wthrockmorton.com/2013/01/was-the-national-rifle-association-started-to-drive-out-the-kkk/
In fact, the NRA actually supported gun control measures during the Civil Rights movement. Much of the gun control legislation in that period was driven by conservative backlash to the open carry habits of the Black Panthers.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
Harold: “Additionally Chris as to your attempt to SPIN my comment on the use use of which incentives to use, come on Chris use some common sense!”
Harold, I had no intention of spinning your comment. I literally do not know what it meant, so I asked you, and you chose not to answer. Instead you responded with another incoherent comment. Proofreading before you hit “submit” might help you avoid posting ungrammatical gibberish.
Chris what most Americans want is not easily measured. If we ask if gun control is important we will get affirmative replies; if we ask if government should restrict private gun ownership we will get a negative response. It all depends on how the questions are asked and what the people have heard. Where do “most people” get their ideas?
I found the following, written in February, from Forbes interesting:
I would agree that low information voters, under the influence of anti-gun activists, will often nod their heads in agreement. But do they do so without understanding the issue or the Constitutional right that is at stake? Has anyone bothered to poll about that?
So the phrase “most Americans” is meaningless, IMHO.
I am interested in addressing the root causes that drive people, so often young people, to take up arms to slaughter people as in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Arizona and others. I’m interested in discovering and addressing the real reasons that kids form gangs and terrorize their neighborhoods.
Guns and gun laws have near ZERO influence in this sad and ugly condition of our society. My personal opinion is that the divisive nature of racial preference thinking, the elimination of strong moral values, and the break up of the family have more to do with it.
“Tell me, what is it about universal background checks that you see as such a gross imposition of freedom, that itâs worth the risk of another Columbine shooting?”
Why not forbid the use of automobiles instead, Chris? By your logic that would make more sense since a lot more deaths occur each year due to automobile use.
I object because it doesn’t address the problem. I object because I think the political use of these deaths by the left is ugly and unseemly. I object because the extreme left makes fun of efforts to influence society based on religion or moral principles…in fact in my opinion the extreme left peddles a counterfeit morality with special rights activism and the assault on traditional values. In the process they are destroying the fundamental rights of all Americans and the original underlying truth that we are all created equal.
I would ask what does the left have against teaching right and wrong and the value of personal responsibility?
Chris, you either didnât read my comment or you misread it. The information I provided was NOT from David Barton, who has acquired one of the largest collection of Americaâs historical documents, as in the ORIGINALS of our founders and others from our very beginning. As he often says if you want to know the meaning and the intent of an author go to the original not someone else interpretation.
My comment included information from a LIBERAL professor. âDr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.â
Sorry to see you still have your head stuck in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the truth when itâs even present by one of your own liberals and from a man with Dr. Fonerâs outstanding credentials.
Compared to your view of your own self-worth and Dr. Fonerâs, Iâll go with the good doctor.
Chris comment in post 14 is referring to my comment in posts 1 and 7: “Harold: âAdditionally Chris as to your attempt to SPIN my comment on the USE USE of which incentives to use, come on Chris use some common sense!â
Chris , I was laughing so hard at your weak attempt to appear superior to others that I just typed and really didn’t see the need to construct a reply to your attempt to make something out of nothing. so this time I will for your benefit suggest you read Jack original post and apply my comment to that, Chris it is not always about you! even when you try to make it so, and I will mention you make typos as well. So when your perfect talk to me until then lets just post our opinions, until then USE (only once is that better?)COMMON SENSE. đ
Tina: “Chris what most Americans want is not easily measured. If we ask if gun control is important we will get affirmative replies; if we ask if government should restrict private gun ownership we will get a negative response. It all depends on how the questions are asked and what the people have heard.”
Yes, which is why it is best to ask precisely worded questions about specific policies, not questions as vague as “is gun control important” and “should government restrict private gun ownership.” The poll I cited specifically asked about a certain policy–universal background checks–which is so popular and non-controversial that as recently as 14 years ago, it was endorsed by the head of the NRA.
“I would agree that low information voters, under the influence of anti-gun activists, will often nod their heads in agreement. But do they do so without understanding the issue or the Constitutional right that is at stake? Has anyone bothered to poll about that?”
Tina, this only makes sense if you believe that 75% of NRA members don’t understand the Second Amendment.
Furthermore, I’m getting really tired of seeing you and others here throwing around the phrase “low-information voters” to describe people who disagree with you, especially since multiple studies have shown that FOX News viewers are the most misinformed group of voters:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/12/22/university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html
“So the phrase âmost Americansâ is meaningless, IMHO.”
It’s not meaningless. You have often claimed that our government should respect the rule of the people, even when it comes to issues of civil rights, such as marriage. Yet you only say this when you believe that the majority agrees with you on a certain issue. For instance, in the debate over healthcare, you frequently brought up polls showing that a majority of Americans disapproved of Obamacare, and argued that the Democrats were violating the will of the people. Yet when it’s pointed out that the majority disagrees with you on a given issue, then suddenly the will of the people is “meaningless” to you.
I agree that not all issues should be decided by public opinion. Sometimes, the majority gets it wrong. I didn’t mean to imply that the popularity of universal background checks proves that it’s the right thing to do. I was simply stating a fact for your consideration.
“I am interested in addressing the root causes that drive people, so often young people, to take up arms to slaughter people as in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Arizona and others. Iâm interested in discovering and addressing the real reasons that kids form gangs and terrorize their neighborhoods.
Guns and gun laws have near ZERO influence in this sad and ugly condition of our society. My personal opinion is that the divisive nature of racial preference thinking, the elimination of strong moral values, and the break up of the family have more to do with it.”
I can see how you could make a case for family disintegration and declining morality, but how do you figure “racial preference thinking” was responsible for the mass shootings in Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Arizona–all of which were committed by white men?
Furthermore, if that is one of the factors behind mass shootings, shouldn’t we have seen more mass shootings prior to the repeal of Jim Crow laws, when “racial preference thinking” was undeniably stronger than it is today, and codified into law?
“Why not forbid the use of automobiles instead, Chris? By your logic that would make more sense since a lot more deaths occur each year due to automobile use.”
Tina, this is a terrible comparison, because I am not arguing that we forbid the use of firearms. A good comparison to background checks is not cars, but driver’s licenses. We don’t let just anyone drive a car; by the same token, we shouldn’t let just anyone buy a gun.
“I object because it doesnât address the problem.”
I just showed you that it does. The Columbine shooters obtained their weapons through the gun show loophole. Furthermore, the ATF has found that gun shows are the second most common way for criminals to obtain guns.
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loophole-arms-criminals/
Of course, this won’t stop all criminals from obtaining guns. But it will certainly stop many of them, without violating the rights of any law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm. It is absurd to say that closing a loophole which has been shown to be the second leading source of illegally trafficked guns “doesn’t address the problem.” The evidence flies completely in the face of that claim. If they don’t address the problem, why not get rid of background checks entirely?
Peggy, I agree with you that Eric Foner is a great historian, and he is widely regarded as the leading authority on the Reconstruction Era. I did not contradict any of the information you cited from Dr. Foner. He did not claim, as other sources you cited did, that the NRA has a history of fighting the KKK.
Since you agree with me that Eric Foner is a very reliable historian, you might be interested in his opinion on the recent changes in Texas history education–changes which were advocated, quite strongly, by David Barton:
http://www.thenation.com/article/twisting-history-texas
You should also know that the Christian conservative company which originally published Barton’s book “The Jefferson Lies” withdrew the book from publication due to the many factual errors. Christian conservatives are David Barton’s target audience, but these Christian conservatives could not in good conscience continue publishing a book that they viewed as deceitful.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/christian-right-historian-david-barton-in-freefall-over-jefferson-lies.html
Barton does not have access to any primary source documents that no one else has access to, and he consistently reaches interpretations which run counter to most historians, even conservative historians. For instance, he has argued that the First Amendment was only intended to apply to Christians, and that the founders never intended for Jews or any other non-Christians to hold public office, even though the Constitution explicitly forbids any “religious test” to be imposed on political candidates. He literally, by his own admission, does not believe in equal religious rights for non-Christians in this country. He interprets everything through the lense of his Christian supremacist worldview.
Chris: “The poll I cited specifically asked about a certain policyâuniversal background checksâwhich is so popular and non-controversial…”
If the question was asked of uninformed people/voters, who lack knowledge of the current plan to expand background checks even to individuals selling guns to family or friends, they would answer yes…they would hear “background check” and think they were being asked if they agreed with current law.
“Iâm getting really tired of seeing you and others here throwing around the phrase âlow-information votersâ to describe people who disagree with you…”
Low information voters are people that are not tuned in to politics and are not informed about current events and issues…but they do go into the voting booth and they do answer the phone when a polling firm calls.
“…especially since multiple studies have shown that FOX News viewers are the most misinformed group of voters”.
And what was the intention of the left wing academics that made those studies? Progressives never change. The scheme is to create opinion. So let’s play. Here’s a poll and a study that arrives at a competing opinion:
People who tune in to talk radio also watch FOX because the alternatives are in the tank for the left. So…how informed are talk radio fans:
Politics Daily reported on a Pew Poll taken a few years ago:
Polls can suggest, studies can be interesting but they rarely win an argument, at least in my opinion. I prefer arguments that contain information, common sense, and reason.
I don’t know when this was done:
I can attest to the fact that many are as poor as church miceâŚthey call the showâŚand they are well informed!
Polling is fine, studies are fine but as arguments they are really fairly meaningless.
“…but how do you figure âracial preference thinkingâ was responsible for the mass shootings in Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Arizonaâall of which were committed by white men?”
I didn’t mean to imply it was responsible for those murders. The divisive nature of race thinking and the resentment it generates could be a factor in what is going on in Chicago and LA. The daily slaughters in Chicago don’t get the same attention in the press (why not) but they are no less important in terms of the condition that creates a propensity to violence.
“Furthermore, if that is one of the factors behind mass shootings, shouldnât we have seen more mass shootings prior to the repeal of Jim Crow laws, when âracial preference thinkingâ was undeniably stronger than it is today, and codified into law? ”
You’re kidding right? That period in our history was a lot different. The powerful hold of the Democrats in the South, acceptance of segregation laws, close knit families, adherence to religion and civility, and just plain fear contributed to a more self-regulating and disciplined society than we have now. In most cases children and young people were not left on their own…they were raised and instructed by their parents and in church. I doubt if King could hold his peaceful marches today.
“…this is a terrible comparison, because I am not arguing that we forbid the use of firearms.”
At least as far as you know. My experience of progressivism is that it uses gradual, incremental changes in the law to achieve an ultimate goal. The ultimate goal of the anti-gun extremists is getting guns out of the hands of citizens. That is why they argue that the Second Amendment only refers to a state run militia and not individual citizens.
“A good comparison to background checks is not cars, but driverâs licenses. We donât let just anyone drive a car; by the same token, we shouldnât let just anyone buy a gun.”
This is actually a terrible comparison and off point.
You suggested that “risk” of another “columbine” was sufficient reason to give up more freedom and right with respect to guns. Potential death was the point of my argument. A car and a gun are both inanimate objects. Both are tools people use. More deaths occur due to the use of automobiles. We do not require background checks on the person who buys a car. We do not require a background check when a person sells his car to his neighbor.
“We donât let just anyone drive a car; by the same token, we shouldnât let just anyone buy a gun.”
The absolute truth is we cannot prevent that from happening in all circumstances no matter how many laws you pass. We have plenty of laws on the books regarding guns.
Policymic:
“It is absurd to say that closing a loophole which has been shown to be the second leading source of illegally trafficked guns ‘doesnât address the problem.’â
I wrote that it doesn’t address the underlying or core problem. And it doesn’t!
The problem will continue until those issues are addressed!
But those issues are not politically convenient for the left so don’t expect calls for “studies” into why so many young people today are willing to commit violence against others (including mass shootings). Don’t expect calls for meaningful legislation that would put an end to PC rules on campus that divide kids and pit them against each other. Don’t expect energized movements to bring traditional values back to our schools, or give school districts the ability to fire ineffective teachers, or offer parents school vouchers. The left is invested in the things, at the core, that cause these mass shootings and violence on our streets every day.
“If they donât address the problem, why not get rid of background checks entirely?”
Oh, good one. Why not all laws against murder…that would fix it.
How about we argue from another point of view. The law we have in place is sufficient and effective and like all laws cannot stop a person who is driven to commit a violent act…he will find a way to get weapons if he has to fashion them himself.
Given that fact, it is incumbent upon the people to stand ready to defend themselves; it is particularly necessary when the values and morals that help to maintain a civil society have been ridiculed, dismissed and thrown in the trash as the left has done for the past forty-fifty years.
It is incredible that the left thinks excessive paperwork will solve a problem that they admit will not stop the nutbags from doing their evil business!
Chris: âPeggy, there is no evidence that the NRA ever fought against the KKKâ
Chris, Did you wake up on another planet or even an alternate universe. I made no mention of the NRA fighting against the KKK.
I did post the history of the NRA being founded by retired Civil War Colonels to train people and the article went on from there. I also provided information that connected the KKK with the Democrat party from the very beginning, but again made no mention of the NRA fighting the KKK. So, I can only assume you made the connection on your own.
If there could be a connection it could only exist through the training program the NRA provided to everyone, including the freed Blacks and Irish who were able to afford a gun.
Now, on to David Barton, founder of WallBuilders. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to altering the facts. Again, you are the one that brought him into the discussion, I didnât.
I am an avid admirer and follower of Mr. Barton works and he is not and never has been a âpusherâ of the Christian faith. His argument is that our country was founded to guarantee we all have the freedom to worship or not worship the faith of our choice, and to guarantee the government did not establish a church of the State like England did. Below is a video where you can hear Mr. Barton using his own words very clearly stating his beliefs and his basis for those beliefs on Jon Stewartâs, The Daily Show. He presents a valid point and his question of why is religious speech treated differently then free speech needs to be addressed. It is a worthy fight Mr. Barton is bravely willing to take on. In my opinion there is no difference, speech is speech whether is contains someoneâs religious beliefs or not. Why were two men arrested for handing out Gideon bibles on a street corner, while our Congress begins every session with an opening prayer and has done so since day one?
There are three videos. In the first one note what he says at 6:45. In the second one at :55 he states his involvement in a Supreme Court case for a Rabi and goes on to the end clarifying his support for ALL religions or no religion. Note what he says at 3:40 about govât involvement in religion. At 4:00 he talks about the Muslim faith. The rest of the tape is great as is all of third tape, about clarifying his point on our freedom of speech and religion per the Constitution.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/02/david-barton-is-todays-1-google-trend-after-talking-about-religious-freedom-on-the-daily-show/
Chris: âYou should also know that the Christian conservative company which originally published Bartonâs book âThe Jefferson Liesâ withdrew the book from publication due to the many factual errors.â
Not having read âThe Jefferson Liesâ I wonât address the content, but based on what Iâve been able to look up it appears the discussion is about Mr. Jefferson being a religious man or a non believer. Mr. Bartonâs book was written to undo the myth that he was not a religious man and had approximately 1,900 Jefferson letters and other documents to prove his position.
My very first internet search was for the âUS Capital religious servicesâ and guess whoâs name jumped right off of the page. Yup, good old Thomas Jeffersonâs and from Wikipedia to boot. â”It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801â1809) and of James Madison (1809â1817) the state became a church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, âŚ.Worship services in the Houseâa practice that continued until after the Civil Warâwere acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.)”[
From Wikipedia:
âEarly religious usage
In its early days, the Capitol building was not only used for governmental functions. On Sundays, church services were regularly held there – a practice that continued until after the Civil War. According to the US Library of Congress exhibit “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic” “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801â1809) and of James Madison (1809â1817) the state became a church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the Houseâa practice that continued until after the Civil Warâwere acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.)”[29]â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Building
I rest my argument with just this one example and the below article. I see no reason to search thru the thousands of documents as Mr. Barton did to prove Mr. Jefferson was a religious man, at least at the time he was president. Individuals have rewritten history to say otherwise and Mr. Barton is attempting to present the facts as they are and for doing so he is and will continue to be attacked and his reputation tarnished for his honorable efforts. Shame on those who contribute to the attack.
Exclusive: Historian David Barton Responds to Critics Amid âJefferson Liesâ Book Controversy:
âWhile he stands by his central arguments about Jefferson, Barton isnât pretending to be immune from error. The historian said that the book has already gone through three or four printings and that there have been word and text changes based on spelling or grammar errors along the way. Also, he addressed a willingness to amend historical items, should they be pointed out and proven wrong by other academics.
âOur policy from day one on every book weâve done [is] that if someone shows us valid things to change, weâll change them,â Barton said.
He went on to explain that if only one percent of the 5,000 facts that were included in his book are incorrect, that would mean that 50 facts could be viably challenged. But he maintained that he and his research staff work hard to verify and back up each and every tidbit he writes and speaks.
While Barton is perfectly willing to fix errors, he believes that many of the items being raised by Throckmorton, among others, are simply overblown and â also â wrongheaded. He says that the next edition of âThe Jefferson Liesâ will have changes and additions: many of them will include more sourcing to corroborate his claims in the book (and disprove some of Throckmortonâs views).
âThrockmorton created an atmosphere for people to chime in,â Barton explained, when discussing who complained about the book and petitioned Thomas Nelson to pull it (Throckmorton has denied doing so). âAll he did was assemble the wood, throw gas on it and give someone else the match.â (Note: Mr. Throckmorton also wrote a book about Jefferson.)
THROCKMORTON VS. BARTON: JEFFERSONâS FAITH:
âSo, what are these supposed claims?
As the media continue to cover the debate surrounding âThe Jefferson Lies,â few journalists, if any, have reached out and interviewed Barton about his responses to the specific charges waged by his critics. On Sunday, TheBlaze had extensive conversations with both Throckmorton and Barton, giving both parties adequate ability to explain and refute allegations.
To begin, itâs important to distinguish between the divergent views that Barton and Throckmorton have on Jeffersonâs theological views. As reported, Barton has a very nuanced explanation of the former presidentâs life and a candid response to characterizations that he was an atheist and/or non-believer.
âThe easiest way to explain this â what if I only chose quotes from Ronald Reagan from the time he was a Democrat? Would that be an accurate depiction or not?â Barton asked. âJefferson had several religious phases. During the last 15 years of his life he started to critique his former beliefs.â
In an earlier interview with TheBlaze, he went on to say that itâs unfair to examine the last 15 years of Jeffersonâs life and to frame him based upon his behavior during that time, when he lived the first 70 years as a more traditionally-religious man. Ignoring the bulk of Jeffersonâs life, Barton believes, isnât an appropriate way to tackle the history.
Jefferson lived his life as a Christian, Barton said. As far as whether the former president and Founding Father died with the faith he purportedly espoused, Barton is divided. He called such a discussion âa complicated situation.â
Jefferson lived his life as a Christian, Barton said. As far as whether the former president and Founding Father died with the faith he purportedly espoused, Barton is divided. He called such a discussion âa complicated situation.â
âIf you believe as many denominations do, âonce saved always saved,â you would believe he stayed saved. If you believe that you can lose salvation, you can argue that he could lose it,â he said. âIf I could use an Obama phrase, âthatâs above my pay grade.â âHe didnât renounce the faith â he still was a great lover of Jesus. He just wasnât sure Jesus was the divine son of God.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/13/exclusive-historian-david-barton-responds-to-critics-amid-jefferson-lies-book-controversy/
The Bartonâs book is available on Amazon again.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Jefferson-Lies-Exposing-Believed/dp/1595554599