Bernie Sanders Takes Lead in Iowa, Joe Biden Drops to Fourth

Like saying do I want to lose my arm or my leg. Facile. Specious, even.

Under certain circumstances, governments can be more hazardous to people’s health than anarchies. Those circumstances have always required that subjects be separated from their guns before it gets really bad for them.

Sure, governments can prevent masses of civilians from dying, that may be the point you’re making, but they can’t prevent all civilians from dying. They sure are not preventing inner city deaths. As they are almost always minutes away when seconds count. At which point, government is useless to that individual or that mass of individuals like in that church in TX, they’re only good for writing the reports and hauling the body away. With a gun, the resident might still die, but at least he has a chance. Better than you would want him to have.

That somebody was armed in that church in TX makes your skin crawl. Ok but consider what could easily have happened if that shooter had no armed resistance and cops were five to ten minutes away. You don’t want to go there, you keep trash talking those armed parishioners.

2 Likes

I’m not the one who wants to limit guns to government. I don’t trust government without limits. I don’t trust civilians with the rule of law.

Your premise is that only government has guns. Talk about blind faith.

Again, a non-issue. No one is talking about weakening the legitimate power of government.

The tens of millions of civilians were killed, by and large, by established governments, not during revolutions. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and other socialist tyrannies.

More of this straw man.
The success of the republic has been limited government and individual rights. No one is calling for the elimination of the legitimate power granted government
Between anarchy and strong central government is a constitutional representative republic where government power is borrow, specific, and subject to checks and balances and federalism, and as a last resort, an armed citizenry.

1 Like

JonNC . . . .

. . . without the Obama efforts, Gaddafi stays in power, at least for a time.
AFAIK, Gaddafi was not planning any “imminent” attacks.

.

Good point JonNC.

.

“It was . . . our pilots who took out their air defense systems, set up a no-fly zone. It was our folks in NATO who were helping to coordinate the NATO operation there.” – Obama

Without this kind of support, proxies would not have been able to kill Gaddafi.

Obama made a mess in Libya. “Without the Obama efforts, Gaddafi”, who was killed in 2011, “stays in power”.

Then afterwards there was no significant plan to deal with the mess.

(My opinion) That mess is probably part of the reason why Obama had false security about his Libyan mercenaries (who the Obama administration including Hillary was running arms to) “protecting” our embassy people in Benghazi in 2012, having US Forces, “stand down”.
(“Stand down. Our “buddies” that we have been giving arms to [while taking them away from Americans] will protect our embassy people in Benghazi! Whoops. They didn’t!! They MAY have even been RESPONSIBLE for perpetrating the murders against us! Bring on the Arab Video and the propaganda machine. Get me Susan Rice asap!”)

US forces should have been sent in immediately to PROTECT our people in Benghazi when they asked for it (or get them out). Instead our Americans were blown-off by Obama, Hillary, etc. And our people left to be murdered probably by the same people Hillary was cutting deals with while Obama was ordering our guys to “Stand down!” as our own embassy people were being tortured then finally murdered.

Then after the henchmen the Obama administration was collaborating with, either let us down or were responsible for attacking us, Obama sent out minions to render fake blame on an Arab video and deflect from his own incompetence.

You and @Ridgerunner are right-on. The “fake” story is that Obama had no major part of this “mess”.

This from back in 2015 (on the wanton failures of the Obama Administration Foreign Policy).

. . . “Leading from behind.” A White House official coined that phrase in 2011 to describe President Obama’s Libyan policy. His political opponents quickly seized on that characterization as an apt metaphor for how the president conducts foreign policy. . . .

. . . Libya today is a hell hole. No serious observer of foreign policy regards that operation as a success. Indeed, the world today is littered with spectacular U.S. foreign policy failures.

Remember the Russian “reset”? Dialog and a nuclear arms treaty that let Moscow stand pat while we reduced our arsenal were going to lead to a new era of understanding. Instead, Crimea’s been annexed; Ukraine is under attack, and relations between Washington and the Kremlin are worse than any time since the Cold War.

Pulling out of Iraq according to a timetable rather than the situation on the ground? That opened the door for ISIS to get a strong foothold. Today, it controls a third of Iraq and much of Syria. . . .

2 Likes

Which is matched by the fake story that, because of the Iran Nuclear Deal and Obama, Iran was now a more moderate state in the region.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

3 Likes

One more thing about Obama and Hillary’s Libya fiascos: they set in motion certain events and mindsets that can’t be called back.

First, consider the concept of countries like Iran and North Korea de-nuclearizing. They both watched what happened to Libya. They both saw Gaddafi renounce nukes in 2006. They both saw Obama and Hillary aid and abet the rebellion that took Gaddafi out just five years later. So it’s understandable why Kim attacked Bolton last year as he walked away from that round of talks for thinking him stupid enough to take the same deal Gaddafi did. Was Bolton really that obtuse? Tone deaf? Can anyone blame either regime for not trusting the US with their well-being should they de-nuke like Gaddafi did? Says here Kim will never give up his nukes; neither will Khamanei. That’s the blowback from Gaddafi’s fall and there is not a whole lot Trump can do to undo the damage Obama and Hillary did beyond not escalating the conflict with either country.

Second, as imperfect as Gaddafi was, one of the most useful functions he served was to hold back the African refugees from getting to north shore Libya and crossing the Mediterranean. When Gaddafi’s government fell, that restraint largely went away and we saw the effect in 2015 when Merkel unilaterally decided to let the refugees into Europe.

Third, north shore Africa once paid tribute to the Ottoman Empire. Looks like Turkey is attempting to step into the current power vacuum to reassert its ancient authority over some of that territory. Not sure that was a desirable outcome.

2 Likes

Zzyzx_Road . . .

Says here Kim will never give up his nukes;

I think you are correct.
(Nukes by the way that Bill Clinton help facilitate.)

Also Zzyzx_Road . . .

Second, as imperfect as Gaddafi was, one of the most useful functions he served was to hold back the African refugees from getting to north shore Libya and crossing the Mediterranean. When Gaddafi’s government fell, that restraint largely went away and we saw the effect in 2015 when Merkel unilaterally decided to let the refugees into Europe.

My own thought (my opinion) on this is I wonder if that wasn’t at least tangentially, part of
the REASON to knowingly de-stabilize the region. To feed us (in Europe) with some people we desperately need.

At least that is what the actions suggest to me. (Not primary motivation. Hopefully anyway. But an added dimension.)

"Gaddafi’s a bad guy. Maybe if we take him out we will be doing the world a favor. And yeah we can get some more refugees out of the deal too!"

From Deutsche Welle several years ago . . .

27.03.2015

Germany needs more immigrants, study says

A study has shown that Germany needs more immigrants to compensate for the gap left by retiring baby boomers. Non-EU countries could become an important source of qualified labor as the EU population shrinks… .

More fallout from the abortion culture (the labor vacuum.)

1 Like

The part I bolded above is significant. One cannot know in advance when those circumstances are. Therefore if we make anarchy more likely, we don’t know if that anarchy will supplant a good government or one that had evolved into those circumstances you mentioned. Applying this to gun rights, it would be nice if we could somehow make armed rebellion impossible when the government is good and very possible when the government is bad. So far no mechanism has been proposed that can do that.

Rather than making provisions for an armed rebellion that would just as easily be against a good government, a better course of action is to do what we can to make sure our government is a good one. I think the US system of division of power and checks and balances and democratic accountability comes the closest of any government on the planet. So while I might not trust the Italian government or the Chinese government or the Saudi government or the Turkish government to avoid tyranny, I think the US government is the least likely to become tyrannical. It has legal remedies to avoid tyranny. Making provisions for armed rebellion therefore poses a bigger risk of supplanting the best government the world has ever seen with a force of totally unknown quality. I may not trust my government completely, but I do trust my government more than I trust some future armed rebellion that I know nothing about.

But they are preventing more from dying than would have died under anarchy or under an armed rebellion.

It is not blind. I know something about my government. That is why I am comfortable with their being the only ones with guns (although I have not called for that either.) But you are putting your faith in some future armed rebellion that you know nothing about. That is blind faith.

I see you threw in the word “legitimate”, probably so you could claim that having the power to resist an armed rebellion is not one of their legitimate powers. I think it is. And it is a power you wish to weaken.

Mao came to power by an armed rebellion. Stalin came to power because of the Russian Revolution of 1917 - another armed rebellion. So 2 out of 3 of the tyrannies you mention were the result of armed rebellion that were evil from the start. You are not making your case that armed rebellions are good to have.

The power to defend against an armed rebellion is a legitimate power of the government. You want to limit that power by making sure there are enough armed citizen to have a successful armed rebellion.

In none of those cases was the general populace armed. In Mao’s case, his cadres were furnished arms by Russia and by capturing Japanese arms. Many of his most effective soldiers were formerly employed by warlords. In the Bolsheviks’ case, they would never have gained power had it not been for Latvian riflemen; former Tsarist soldiers and the shelling by the sailors of the cruiser Aurora. The general populace had no arms. In Hitler’s case, he did have the foresight to require surrender of civilian guns before he assumed total dictatorial powers.

On the other hand, the American revolutionaries were exceptionally well-armed; not infrequently better than their British opponents.

3 Likes

I do, too. I love my constitutional representative republic. I’m not the one here advocating the dismantling of the basic rights upon which is was founded.

By the very consideration that owning firearms is not a right, one on par with all others, that is calling for only government having guns.
When it is not a right, it is only a privilege at the benevolence of government.

I’m putting my faith in the very idea that a government that knows its citizens can defend their rights is a government that will think twice about abusing its power.
It is called deterrence.

Of course it is. And it is not a power I wish to weaken. I see no need to strengthen it then weaken the rights of the law abiding.
Again, I’m not a progressive, seeking to create a large powerful central government at the expense of the individual.
To find out the legitimate power of the government, read the constitution.

Our government came to power through armed rebellion. The difference between ours and the socialist tyrants mentioned is the determination that individual rights take primacy, that government power exists only because it is granted by the people. Mao and Stalin disarmed the populace.

2 Likes

You have much more faith in the ability of our government to remain that way than I do. Given that we have slid considerably in our cohesion, that faith is misplaced. I’m not talking about armed citizens, I’m talking about our government not acting in their subjects’ best interests. On the financial, domestic and foreign policy fronts, we already have a considerable history of government placing its own and/or its corporate cronies’ interests above ours. Not that big a leap to the expansion of the surveillance society that is in store for us. Or the tyranny that inevitably accompanies that.

In a culture that already celebrates deplatforming from social and financial institutions for wrongthink; a culture that thinks nothing of removing a wrongthinker from the ability to make a living; a culture that forces most wrongthinkers to shut up for fear of losing their living; a culture that prioritizes disarming the law abiders over going after inner city crime; a government that already thinks there is nothing wrong with cops confiscating cash from people for unjustified reasons, and so on. For some of us, Leaf, tyranny is already here and it will only get worse. In that context, it shouldn’t be as difficult as it is to understand the law abiders’ desire to remain armed.

3 Likes

The news was that he was visiting Iraq on a diplomatic mission to respond to a de-escalation proposal from the Saudis that was being brokered in Iraq at the behest of the US.

But the actual difference is that we killed him. We did not kill Qaddafi.

But “armed citizens” is what I and JonNC were talking about, regarding gun control. The only remarks I have made about trusting government have been in comparison to trusting an armed citizenry bent on rising up against that government. I made no statements about absolute trust in government. In fact I am quite distrustful. But the remedy, as I see it, is to utilize the legal mechanisms we have in place for controlling government - a free press, elections, etc. I do not consider the 2nd amendment to be a a rational remedy for our government going tyrannical. At this point in time, knowing what I know, I would much rather the government retain the superiority in arms necessary to safeguard itself from an armed rebellion. Now if our government were quite a bit different from what it is, I might prefer an armed rebellion. But that is not the case now.

I am certainly not in that group. And if I knew of a planned attack against this government by those who think tyranny is already here, I would do all I could to alert the authorities and thwart that attack.

It sounds like you love the 2nd amendment more than the whole constitutional representative republic, so that if that republic were to repeal the 2nd amendment, your love for what was left might very well evaporate. Is that true? Or would you still love what is left?

Not true. Just because I don’t consider it a right to own a gun does not mean that I think no one should be allowed to own a gun. I mean that reasonable restrictions that you might interpret as “infringing on that right” are allowed.

That is exactly how I see it. And our society (as represented by our government) I think has been and will continue to be reasonably benevolent in that regard.

Unfortunately, the very measure that you want to bring about that deterrence (a highly armed populace) is also the measure that enables all sorts of possible future rebellions, both good and bad. So by putting your faith in the 2nd amendment as a remedy for the US going tyrannical you are necessarily also putting your faith in these future potential rebellions of unknown intent.

Do you wish to strengthen the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and roll back certain gun control measures currently in place? Or are you happy with the status quo regarding gun control? If it is the former, then you do wish to weaken government’s power to resist armed rebellion.

When you make one type of armed rebellion easier you make all types of armed rebellion easier. You are just as likely to get a Stalin as a George Washington.

Did you find that source where Pope Benedict said Catholics cannot vote for Bernie Sanders yet?

I recognize that the second defends the others, but again, I’m not a progressive, trying to undermine due process, religious free exercise and free speech. The only ”right” the progressive movement seems to care about is the “right” to abortion.

As soon as it isn’t a right, it is a privilege that can/ will be taken away.
There are lots of reasonable restrictions already there. I have said many times here that I am open to laws that would reduce gun violence as long as they are not targeted at the law abiding, and as long as they do not undermine the protected right.

Which other rights are you willing to classify as such, depending on the benevolence of other human beings (who have such a great track record in that regard)? Speech? Due process?
Search and seizure protection? Cruel and unusual punishment? Religious free exercise?
Free press? If you trust the benevolence of your fellow human beings (against the evidence of all human history), no protected rights are necessary.

So, now you don’t trust the benevolence of our society.
So, now private ownership of firearms isn’t a mere inconvenience to government.

I think the current status quo is effective in protecting the enumerated right. Additional laws that are effective against criminals without impacting the rights of the law abiding are worth considering.
Limiting the power of the general government to the constitution is important, as well.
The risks of armed rebellion are limited to tiny fringe groups like some white supremacists and the far left. Even the threats of violence from a few “Bernie Bro’s” isn’t worthy of much thought. IOW, the threat of government tyranny, as small as it currently is, is greater than the threat of armed rebellion.

And I’m sure the de-escalation included burning the embassy.

For the former, a good thing, for the latter, we made it possible.

1 Like

In reality, I don’t think that you are.

The question is whether or not we did ti in conformance with US and international law.

These people have shown no signs of de-escalation in 40 years. They’ve shown no signs of accepting the right of Israel to exist.
So you’re right; I don’t think they included burning the embassy as part of de-escalation. I don’t think they are considering de-escalation at all.

I don’t think there is any doubt that we were in compliance with the law. He was in Iraq, meeting with the head of his proxy terrorist group, immediately following their attempt to burn our embassy.

1 Like

Perhaps. I wonder if those talks remain active?

There is doubt, and it is elevated by the fumbling by the administration over the rationale for the act.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.