Senator Mike Lee: It's about the Right

[PearlWatson]

I was going to ask what the hell he was talking about then realized I didn't care to know the answer.

 

[babe]

I was going to ask what the hell he was talking about then realized I didn't care to know the answer.

I understand the feeling. But Henry B. Eyring has a new book out entitled "Choose to Stand on Higher Ground" or something like that. I saw it at Smith's Marketplace on a Deseret Book bin conference sale. Might not have the title exact, but I got the idea pretty quick.

It deeply burns some of our more "progressive" friends to see someone like Mike Lee in public office. They can't, just simply can't deal with the ideas. I think I have a similar problem with some democrat elected officials, like Joe Biden, but I would phrase it more like "There's no idea here folks, move along, just move along."

 

[InGameStrategy]

Except the "fact" (Senator Lee's statement) that you cite is an opinion, not a fact.

A law graduate such as Mike Lee to spew such distortionist drivel is truly dangerous.

And except that the discussion over gun control stemmed from real, factual people having died when existing laws didn't protect them--and could have if properly legislated or enforced.

This is not about gun control, it's about people control, and the essential rights of the people to control their government:

 

[InGameStrategy]

Fortunately for you, TBS, background checks do not disarm Americans, and the slippery-slope argument is weak. There are tens of millions of guns ALREADY in the U.S., and nobody--from Obama on down--has seriously talked about taking guns away. And I'll back you up on any intent on taking guns from law-abiding citizens. It's not even on the radar of remote possibility. It's not like cars are regularly taken away from law-abiding citizens, even though they are registered and regulated, too.

This proposed legislation is about limiting those who have possible criminal intent and those who are not mentally capable to possess guns to not get their hands on them. Changing a gun magazine was how the shooter in Tucson was caught, and a few people escaped when the Newtown shooter changed magazines. Reasonably smaller-sized magazines (e.g., 10) would've saved innocent lives without significantly limiting people's ability to defend themselves.

Background checks are supported by a majority of Americans (including gun owners and Republicans). A majority of Americans surveyed (albeit not Repubs alone) also support stricter gun laws.
https://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

So let's take this out of the purely ideological frame of reference, and maybe even leave the whole debate about god out too.

The fact is, there is an oligarchy in this country. The Bush Dynasty, and Bill Clinton as well as Hillary Clinton are some of the lower lights. . . . there are oligarchs who without office have more power than any officeholder because their money can walk and talk and wiggle good enough to run the country.

We won the first skirmish of the American Revolution, but the fact is, we have lost quite a bit of ground since then. Our media and our vote-counting machines can be questioned as to their efficacy, even in the service of the folks who own the media and make the voting machines and count the votes. So just to be sure the people cannot question the Establishment, the guns the people have are a huge concern to the Oligarchs, who do in fact have further plans for us all. If this is not true, show me one billionaire who is out there standing for the 2nd Amendment. hmmm, there might be one or two, but pretty much 95% are in the tank for the stated UN objective of total disarmament of all private weapons.

That is the most relevant fact "we must adjust our views to reflect".

We can work through electing representatives who will respect human rights as long as we can get our votes counted honestly. We would be satisfied with things if peoples' rights are generally recognized, and if our elected representatives are respecting our interests and serving us.

But when it comes right down to it, it is only a government that has a compelling reason to serve the people that will. The power in the hands of the people, enough power to control their government, is essential to preserving government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

If the government is in fact "the peoples' government" enough that it is not being questioned by the people, the arms the people hold are never going to be turned upon their representatives or government officials. It is only when there is an intent to impose an absolute totalitarian authority on the people, sufficient to arouse dissatisfaction among the general citizenry, that the government need have any concern about civilian arms.

Let's say, for example, that a little rebel army, funded from an outside government, or an ideological set of folks, goes marching on Washington to take control of the government in these United States. We would not need even a military response because forty million armed citizens would take them on directly.

But let's say that somehow our own military was ordered to impose a new government on us, say replacing our Constitution with a band of imperial professional managers with the intent to end the whole election ritual. Let's say this was done under some national emergency, say. . . . and it went on in such a manner people realized their government had just been hijacked. What would stand between the people and their liberty if forty million armed citizens insisted on restoring their elections and their liberty??? Three million soldiers of doubtful conviction about the justice of their shooting their own people???

However, if the citizens were disarmed, the issue would fall entirely upon the reliablity of the army under command of the Imperial Manager. The titular representative of the Oligarchal interests to the exclusion f the people's interest.

So, in fact, this is still the American Revolution. This is still the just cause of human beings who must have human rights, and the right to govern themselves.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Shall we do a poll? How many people know what Thriller is talking about here? How many agree? Disagree?

and how come when a democrat can't make a mortgage payment it's the evil bank that's the ogre?

Name me the last democrat senator from Utah who had an entire platform of "getting back to accountability" and "fiscal responsibility" who failed to make his mortgage payments and ill truly bash him too. It's something. Called walking the walk. It would seem to me if Lee really wanted to accomplish those tasks he should maybe start from within his own home. Otherwise, he comes off pretty hypocritical, wouldn't you say? Would anyone here not laugh if boozer or big al did an interview calling out his teammates for the lack of defense?

 

[Deleted member 365]

By the way, I love the complete skipping over of the rest of my post. Lee and his NRA backed ilk is out for the exact same thing, power.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Shall we do a poll? How many people know what Thriller is talking about here? How many agree? Disagree?

and how come when a democrat can't make a mortgage payment it's the evil bank that's the ogre?

So if polls suddenly carry weight for you why do you ignore the polls which support tighter in restrictions. After all, the majority if polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans support tighter restrictions. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Siro]

I don't call you naive, but your dismissal of the political realities of money in politics which diverts government from serving the people to serving the financial interests who pay for politicians' election campaigns.

I know you're sorta smart, let's say brainy enough, I'd say you're possibly trolling here, or a compromised hack on your own right, or someone whose financial interests seem to be on the side of the elitists in some way, but in whatever event the case may be, I'm sure my "emotional rant" whatever it was. . . . . could you maybe quote something so I'd know what you're talking about? . . . . .probably isn't as loose as your little bit here. But maybe you just think the way you right. OK, let's deal with that. OK, maybe you're young and trying to push the rhetoric a bit with stuff about "Satan's forces" or "**** religious people" or "some future civil war" or "magically solve", all of which terms are just huge exaggerations, on the level of sheer mockery. . .. and you expect me to respect your opinion????

I don't neg much. Maybe once in a while, probably not in a year. If I did it was likely a typo or error on my part. I came here looking for a decent reply from you with the full intent to give you a pos rep, but I just believe you can do better than this.

Most Americans still believe their government does serve them, but many recognize the inside track that big money interests have as well. In broad terms, our politicians have succeeded in placating the populace while doing a lot of things the people don't understand . . . . such a this push for one more step towards outright disarmament of the people.

So how about lets get back to the specifics of Sen. Mike Lee's article published in the Deseret News???

Mike Lee says the Second Amendment is not about the arms, but about the Right of people to have control of their government. I'm filling in a part of that reasoning by saying that where the People do control their government and are happy with it, there is no amount of private weapons that would constitute a threat to their representative government. The People would massively support and protect their government voluntarily with their private weapons.

First, my flippant response was a knee-jerk reaction to yours. I don't see how you can consider my tone offensive, but yours perfectly okay? Or is my smug fantasies of being rational clouding my judgement again? I think you're a very respectable person, and you don't deserve to be disrespected. But that's contingent on your reciprocation.

What is important here is the paradox you refuse to answer. You keep bringing up "money in government". And it's a legitimate complaint. But, we're in this situation because of several decades of economic conservatives fighting tooth and nail to create this situation as some kind of "constitutional right of free speech" for corporate interest, including the latest efforts to redefine them as people. And after that was accomplished, you point out to the problem of money in government? And you propose the solution is putting further limits on governmental power in favor of business entities? Do you not see the contradiction?

As for the comment on controlling the government. I'm not really sure what you mean. Can you give me an example of where the government is not threatened by the people because they control it? Can you give me an example of the opposite?

The problem I have with your perspective is that I don't see it as a sincere attempt to reach a conclusion we can agree upon. You have your views of how things are, and those views seem deeply ideological. Do you care at all about the effects of gun control? Do you care about gun violence? Or do you only care about your opinion on the natural rights of men? I honestly don't see the point of ANY argument that isn't based on verifiable facts. And if you're not approaching the subject as a problem in need of a solution, then why even debate? The whole point of discourse is to allow different perspectives and interpretations of facts to compete. Otherwise, we're just shouting proclamations past one another. Who wants that?

 

[Sandy Braille]

Fortunately for you, TBS, background checks do not disarm Americans, and the slippery-slope argument is weak. There are tens of millions of guns ALREADY in the U.S., and nobody--from Obama on down--has seriously talked about taking guns away. And I'll back you up on any intent on taking guns from law-abiding citizens. It's not even on the radar of remote possibility. It's not like cars are regularly taken away from law-abiding citizens, even though they are registered and regulated, too.

This proposed legislation is about limiting those who have possible criminal intent and those who are not mentally capable to possess guns to not get their hands on them. Changing a gun magazine was how the shooter in Tucson was caught, and a few people escaped when the Newtown shooter changed magazines. Reasonably smaller-sized magazines (e.g., 10) would've saved innocent lives without significantly limiting people's ability to defend themselves.

Background checks are supported by a majority of Americans (including gun owners and Republicans). A majority of Americans surveyed (albeit not Repubs alone) also support stricter gun laws.
https://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Not this mother****er.

 

[Stoked]

Fortunately for you, TBS, background checks do not disarm Americans, and the slippery-slope argument is weak. There are tens of millions of guns ALREADY in the U.S., and nobody--from Obama on down--has seriously talked about taking guns away. And I'll back you up on any intent on taking guns from law-abiding citizens. It's not even on the radar of remote possibility. It's not like cars are regularly taken away from law-abiding citizens, even though they are registered and regulated, too.

This proposed legislation is about limiting those who have possible criminal intent and those who are not mentally capable to possess guns to not get their hands on them. Changing a gun magazine was how the shooter in Tucson was caught, and a few people escaped when the Newtown shooter changed magazines. Reasonably smaller-sized magazines (e.g., 10) would've saved innocent lives without significantly limiting people's ability to defend themselves.

Background checks are supported by a majority of Americans (including gun owners and Republicans). A majority of Americans surveyed (albeit not Repubs alone) also support stricter gun laws.
https://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Are you discounting the tesitmony of active gun users as to the speed and easiness with with a magazine can be changed?

Your opinion is that it would save lives. Perhaps it would, but I see it as limiting the 2nd amendment. Taking rights (or even privilages) away from people becasue of a few bad apples is bad policy. I am a responsible gun owner and so I should be able to buy a 30 round magazine if I want.

 

[babe]

Name me the last democrat senator from Utah who had an entire platform of "getting back to accountability" and "fiscal responsibility" who failed to make his mortgage payments and ill truly bash him too. It's something. Called walking the walk. It would seem to me if Lee really wanted to accomplish those tasks he should maybe start from within his own home. Otherwise, he comes off pretty hypocritical, wouldn't you say? Would anyone here not laugh if boozer or big al did an interview calling out his teammates for the lack of defense?

Thanks for bringing this discussion back to something we can all relate to.

I'm uninformed on Mike Lee's personal finances and/or troubles. Maybe I should have run for Senate. Clean slate on making the mortgage payments.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Thanks for bringing this discussion back to something we can all relate to.

I'm uninformed on Mike Lee's personal finances and/or troubles. Maybe I should have run for Senate. Clean slate on making the mortgage payments.

https://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/54135277-219/lee-worth-mike-utah.html.csp

Enjoy. It happened less than a year ago. This guy somehow knows what to do about our nation's finances yet couldn't even manage his own... Lol. Mike Lee is a complete joke