Young Attitudes on First Amendment Dip
Only about half of America's high school students think newspapers should be allowed to publish freely...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4488491
Why do you republicans think this is good?
a conservative linking an article about teen pregnancy or abortion and then asking "why do you democrats think this is a good thing?" Perhaps, today's youth had been so indocrinated into thinking the government should play a role in thier lives that they would assume that this would only be prudent??
But are you saying all these students are liberals? I would stronly disagree with that. It could also be that they have become so used to embedded reporters and the right being so over the top with their charges of the media being liberal that they believe it and think the gov't (which happens to be Republican) should do something about it. Either way, you have to admit, it is a scary thing.
republicans think this is good. I admit that the Right exhibits far more tendencies to censor pornography than the Left, but just the OPPOSITE is true for political speech. Just look a the recent and abhorrent treament many conservative speakers have received at universities, ranging from Ann Coulter to various conservative Supreme Court Justices. They've been shouted down and uninvited. Hell, just look at the recent Ann Coulter thread right here on this board. Did anyone from the left actually address her ideology? No, they just smeared vile, personal attacks across these pages. Did that promote or detract from free speech?
Yea, it is sorta funny that conservative pundits are seen as mean spirited ogres while their counterparts on the liberal side are treated like selfless crusaders.
They aren't.
Both sides use straw man arguments in order to win debates and arguments.
When someone makes an absolute statment such as you just did, it becomes clear the partisan has taken over.
me too, that whole ilk gives me headaches....
And so is your post. Is that really so hard to understand?
You want the Gov't to sensor our "vile personal attacks", is that what you are saying?
I never did.
Address my comments if you care to. Do not respond to things that you wish I had said.
I never called for the denial of your right to vile speech. I merely asked if it promoted or detracted from the discussion.
Amd still, no one has countered my main point that it is the mainly the Left that trys to inhibit political discourse.
BTW, name calling is just another method to acomplish said accusation.
Just because WE are agianst YOU does not mean we are against free speech. I can't believe I have to explain that to you.
If she weren't such a public figure, these posts might well be libelous.
If she was not such a public figure we would not be discussing her. Get real.
has controlled government education for forty or fifty years, have ensconsed teachers' unions into the schoool, and have written the curriculum, but blame Conservatives for the woeful ignorance of our children?
Amazing.
No, we on the right don't think that it's good that children are ignorant about the First Amendment. Certainly not in the way that you on the Left think that it's good that children are ignorant about the Second Amendment. Or the due process clause. Or the Tenth Amendment. Or the limitations upon the authority of the Federal government. Or federalism. Or separation of powers. Or ... well, you get the point.
... and they didn't do such a good job either. Young people don't have a sense of history as to why these things are important and they aren't taught the issues well.
Which is about as Conservative an institution of higher learning as exists on the planet.
how one's personal anecdotal history can set the stage for their point of view, and amazing how for some, their entire frame of reference for historical significance begins on the day they were born.
in general, or any particular college. Certainly not Chicago, or Grove City, or any of a number of institutions on the National Review college list.
And, of course, it's obvious to anyone who reads your posts that the ideological view of the institution didn't take.
Which is another reason that I so vehemently oppose George W. Bush. It is utterly laughable that you and others continue to defend him on the basis of being an economic conservative. Bush has brought about the largest deficits in U.S. history due to irresponsible fiscal policy. Even an extreme liberal like John Kerry has demonstrated a better track record of fiscal prudence than Bush has, both in the White House, and as a private citizen (for example, when running the Texas Rangers and Arbusto). Kerry, unlike Bush, was actually responsible for leading Democrats to compromise with Republicans to reach agreements on several fiscally sound budgets in prior years. Bush has YET to propose a fiscally sound budget to the Nation.
That's because conservatives are afraid of modernity and liberals aren't.
Teacher love to educate children... a very liberal trait.
Conservatives love to keep children in the dark.
Conservatives think ANY learning is liberal. Thus they think all teachers are liberals.
-- Modified on 2/8/2005 12:31:18 PM
since most teachers are represented by the National Education Association, perhaps the most liberal of the labor unions.
And once again, someone on the far Left must slander conservatives and deny the truth rather than concede the obvious point.
And BTW, it isn't "liberal." It's far Left.
Seesm to me that it's the right that is ignorant about the Second Amendment. They seem to think the amendment only says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" while conveniently forgetting about the qualifying phrase that comes before it.
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
[Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of
Congress at 750, 17 August 1789]
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
[George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426]
"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
[James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789]
-------
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
[Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters
from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169]
-------
".... if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?
[Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention
rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail]
-------
"..but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formitible to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."
[Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Paper 29]
-------
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
[James Madison in Federalist Paper 46]
-------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
[Trench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788]
-------
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these states... Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America."
[Gazette of the United States, 14 October 1789]
-------
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived the use of them..."
[Thomas Paine]
-------
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
[Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646]
-------
"A free people ought... to be armed..."
[George Washington, speech of 7 January 1790]
-------
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone
who is able may have a gun."
[Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on
the ratification of the Constitution]
-------
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we
cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
[Patrick Henry]
-------
"The best we can hope for concerning the people
at large is that they be properly armed."
[Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188]
-------
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
[Samuel Adams]
-------
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
[Thomas Jefferson, proposal Virginia Constitution, June 1776,
1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334]
-------
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual
discretion... in private self-defense..."
[John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Governments of
the UAS, 471 (1788)]
-------
".... the ultimate authority... resides in the people alone."
[James Madison, in Federalist Papers No. 46]
-------
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
[Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, 7 October 1789]
-------
".... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
[Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)]
-------
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
[Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982)]
-------
"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
[Sen. Howard Metzenbaum]
-------
"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"
[Adolf Hitler]
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
[George Washington]
-- Modified on 2/8/2005 8:19:30 AM
since it is doubtful that you even understand the real purpose of the Second Amendment. Indeed, even the NRA is usually afraid to say it.
The Second Amendment's primary purpose is to protect the people's right of revolution against oppressive government.
It's therefore little surprise that socialist Democrats and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) are such ardent advocates for gun control.
First of all, it isn't "oppressive" governments the 2nd Amendment, and in FACT, ALL the Bill of Rights were designed to protect us from, but rather "tyrannical" governments. Why? Because King George III was considered a tyrant.
Today, in the US, the Constitution was designed to prevent a tyrant or tyrannical government from getting into power. The checks and balances of the main part of the Constitution, plus the Bill of Rights were designed for such a purpose.
At this time, the conservatives and it's Bush collaborators seem hell bent on destroying the freedoms and liberties, the checks and balances carefully crafted by the founders, and instead support the tyranny of the Bush Regime and it's lies for war, The Patriot Act, and other sundry acts of suppression and oppression.
When hoisted on there own petard, the conseratives then start blaming anyone else for their blunders. For instance an earlier thread claimed liberals were in charge of public schooling but were also whining about how bad schooling was in the US. When in fact it is the conservatives whining about how bad education is.
BTW I agree that the purpose of the 2nd is to protect from tryanny. But unless you are willing to include ALL kinds of military weapons such as machine guns, Stingers, and yes, even low yieled tactical fission nukes, in the defintion of "arms", the the 2nd becomes moot when it comes to preventing tyranny.
and hope to encounter a rational response? You seem to have difficulties staying on topic.
You take two disconnected thoughts and try to argue one against the other.
"Tyrannical vs. Oppresive"? Who cares?
Assume for the moment that I agree with your assertions that it is the conservatives hell bent on destroying the freedoms and liberties, how does that affect the validity of the 2nd amendment?
How is Bush destroying the checks and balances of the Constitution? How is he destroying the Courts? How is he destroying the Legislature?
"When hoisted on there own petard, the conseratives then start blaming anyone else for their blunders. For instance an earlier thread claimed liberals were in charge of public schooling but were also whining about how bad schooling was in the US. When in fact it is the conservatives whining about how bad education is."
I have no idea what you are talking about here. What was the blunder? So the critcism of public education comes from conservatives, how does that make a counter point to the charge of the liberal leanings of the educators?
Barking moonbat
Barking moonbat - noun. Someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be.
(coined by Perry de Havilland)
Usage:"Definition of a 'barking moonbat': someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency"
-Adriana Cronin
... I guess that explains why Canada is so peaceful -- gun ownership is higher than in the US.
It probably explains the long lasting peace you see in Pakastan & Iraq. All families own weapons -- often SERIOUS weapons.
Why doesn't your beloved NRA offer some good shooting classes to people in the inner city so the kids would shoot who they were aiming at? Additionally, they can get behind their right to bear arms. Maybe you could get all the gunshops in Virginia to offer certificates for free training when they sell 30-40 handguns to somebody in the DC area. They could setup a little shooting range downtown and teach the bloods to do it right. Since shooting is a good clean American sport, nobody will mind if the 13 - 15 year old boys who just bought their first piece learn the right way to "protect themselves".
-- Modified on 2/8/2005 4:27:31 PM
And I think it was a good reason, and that we should not assume that it is a quaint reason that could never again be relevant.
However, some types of guns facilitate mass murder so readily that in my view, some level of gun control does make sense.
-- Modified on 2/8/2005 8:22:47 PM
but there is a conceptual problem with the notion of gun control of those "types of guns facilitate mass murder."
First, there's the slippery slope problem. Then the question becomes definitional, and not having an assault weapon (so-called) didn't seem to hinder John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, or most (if not all) mass murderers.
Second, with that purpose in mind, there is a problem with leaving "types of guns [that] facilitate mass murder" in the hands of government alone. You know, like the government of Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Sudan, Janet Reno, et al. Imagine, if you will, how far these individuals would have gotten in their schemes of mass murder had they not had a monopoly of force.
What hinders both tyranny and the use of such weapons is a social compact. A government that fears its people and their exercise of the right of revolution does not become tyrannical. And the most effective method of thwarting the criminal use of such weapons, as we have proven in Virginia and nationwide with mandatory sentencing and the abolition of parole, is the removal of criminals from society.
I, for one, am willing to tolerate a certain level of relatively petty crime that results from an armed society. For such a society is a lesser evil than the alternative which results from rendering into the hands of government a monopoly of force.
I'm with Jefferson on this one. I want a government that fears the people, rather than the converse.
Many mass murderers do not use assault weapons, some do. I was referring to those that do. These are often mentally unbalanced people, rather than career criminals, and they are able to kill more victims through the use of assault weapons. It is sensible to limit access to these weapons.
But of course, the larger question is armed revolution. I have no problem with the idea of an armed revolution against a totalitarian government. However, I suspect that you and I have different views of what does or does not constitute a totalitarian government in the US.
The firepower available to the US military makes assault weapons look like toy guns. Giving citizens easy access to assault weapons will not make them the equal of the US military in firepower. If a popular revolution against a totalitarian government ever happens in the US, the deciding moment will be when masses of unarmed citizens go out into the streets, and the people in the military refuse to fire on them.
Well put James, a pleasure to read...
"What hinders both tyranny and the use of such weapons is a social compact. A government that fears its people and their exercise of the right of revolution does not become tyrannical. "
I worry about the above statement, with the secret police and patriot act laws. If American Citizens wanted to revolt, how could they? I could be wrong but, doesn't the patriot act or part 2 prohibit group gathering? If a group got together and discussed topics that they felt didn't represent their views, then took it a step further by discussing ways to resolve the problem, either by economic boycott or possibly the use of force, (exercising the right of revolution as you put it) couldn't they then be detained without representation under the assumption that they could possibly be domestic terrorists?
I feel mr chertoff and his office are there to 'pre-empt'a possible revolution by sneak and peek laws and wire taps...You find out who is disenchanted with a policy, spy on them, if they prove to be able to mobilize part of the population, or have enough money or power make change, grab him/her and send them to cuba...
For example, illegal immigration; say 80% of the population is against the unchecked entry into the country. They have voted to deny aid to illegals. Some far left court rules the vote or measure as unconstitutional, citizens mobilize under the assumption that the government isn't representing their wishes and demand change. At this time, they become a threat to the establishment even if they fail to commit an illegal act. The 'threat' of the populace going against the controlling governments ideals, could be enough to spy on the group and then detain American Citizens without due process if the secret police feel said group could become popular enough to make change.
This wasn't meant as an attack on the president, as i believe if mr Kerry had won the election, these laws would still be present. If your not to busy, could you perhaps clarify anything i may be wrong about, pertaining to our right of revolution...For the record, i am for democratic change via the voting process, and not for rushing out into the public guns a blazin...But i am curious how one might exercise our right to revolt..
... if the US government ever became oppressive, we could get arms, legal or otherwise, into the US easy as pie. Hell, we can't stop smuggling of anything else.
No population in the world is stopped from rebellion by lack of GUNS. They are cheap, easy to make, and available anywhere. The claim that they make the government fear the people sounds great, but it is silly in the modern world. It sounds profound until you think about it for five minutes.
Hell, the only people that fear your GUNS are your wife, your neighbours, and the guy you had the fender bender with where you got into an argument. The cops fear your guns because lots of them get killed when you pull them in a domestic dispute or when you try to kill yourself and make a scene of it.
The whole goddamn gun industry in the US loves the law because the weapons are cheap, easy to make, and fairly profitable. Further, there is big business around shooting and sport.
PS: I could care less about repealing anybody's right to buy guns. I just get tired of listening to sancitimonous arguments about why people have a "right" to do it and how it helps america.