Senator Mike Lee: It's about the Right

[babe]

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

Second Amendment: History's lesson and warning
By Sen. Mike Lee For the Deseret News
Published: Tuesday, April 2 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
The first is history's lesson that government can't be everywhere, all the time. So free citizens must fill in the inevitable gaps to look out for ourselves and for each other. (J. Scott Applewhite, AP)




As Congress begins to consider new gun legislation this spring, it's important
for citizens and lawmakers to keep two basic facts in mind.

Gun control isn't about guns — it's about control.
And the right to bear arms isn't about the arms — it's about the right.

These facts may be ignored in Washington, D.C., where there is no hunting
to speak of, and every government building is protected by armed guards.
They are not lost on the American people, however.

They understand that the Second Amendment is of a piece with the rest of
the Constitution — written to protect the rights Americans require to live in
the kind of nation we have chosen to be.

The protection of individual liberty is absolutely the job of government, but
it is not exclusively the job of government. It is first and foremost the job of
"we the people" — individually, as local communities and collectively as a
nation. Well-enforced laws can deter crime, but even the best police and
prosecutors in the world can not eliminate crime.

Therefore, the first defense against criminal threats to our persons and
property is ourselves. That's why we have a right — a right granted by God
and protected by the Constitution — to arm and protect ourselves.

We have the Second Amendment, ultimately, for two reasons.

The first is history's lesson that government can't be everywhere, all the time.
So free citizens must fill in the inevitable gaps to look out for ourselves and
for each other.

The second reason is history's warning that we would not like to live under
any government that tried to be everywhere, all the time.

Reason number one is why we should oppose attempts by the state to restrict
law-abiding citizens' right to bear arms.

Reason number two is why we should oppose the less-obviously offensive
measure being promoted in Washington: the so-called "universal background
check."

A law requiring background checks for all gun sales seems more politically
palatable than traditional gun control. After all, it doesn't take away anyone's
guns or restrict the sale or possession of firearms. It doesn't directly violate the Second Amendment at all. What's wrong with a universal background check?

In a word: everything.

First, it won't work. The federal government has trouble delivering the mail.
It literally can't keep its trains (Amtrak) running on time. It wastes hundreds
of billions of dollars every year.

There is no reason to believe a government $17 trillion in debt has the
competence to cast a net of paperwork that will catch every single gun sale
in a country of 300 million people and 300 million firearms. And even that
ignores the fact — always inconvenient when designing gun laws — that
armed criminals don't obey laws in the first place.

The only way to make a universal background-check system come close to
working is to create a national database capturing ownership information
of every single gun in the country.

To track all the gun sales, you first have to track all the guns. Otherwise it
won't work.

And this is the crux of the problem.

The federal government has no right to surveil innocent citizens exercising
their constitutional rights.

The federal government has no business — none — monitoring where and
how often you go to church, what books and newspapers you read, who you
vote for, your health conditions and the details of your private life.

These limitations may make it harder for government to do its job at times.
But the Constitution was not written to maximize the convenience of the
government. It was written to protect the liberty of the people.

That's why we have due process. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. And
that's why we don't have federal databases tracking how law-abiding citizens
choose to exercise (or not exercise) their God-given rights.

What exactly would politicians and bureaucrats do with a database listing
the home addresses and personal habits of everyone in the country who, say,
had a particular disease or was an atheist or whose home wasn't protected
by a gun?

Even if they could guarantee the system would work, even if they could
guarantee the information would never get hacked (which they can't), it
would still be wrong.

I will oppose any attempt by Congress to restrict Americans' constitutional
rights. And I will equally oppose any attempt to allow government surveillance
of law-abiding citizens exercising those rights.

I will remind people in Washington that the Constitution protects everyone
equally, not just the people we happen to agree with, and the rights we
happen to like.

Sen. Mike Lee is a U.S. Senator from Utah and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

[Siro]

I'm not so sure about the wisdom of basing our worldview on some kind of post-apocalyptic evil government versus people longing for freedom fantasy scenario. That seems incredibly limited in real-life utility. I suggest we establish a set of more rational guiding principles.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Pretends to be anti government anti oppression.

Openly supports forcibly disarming civilian people.

Edit: couldn't attach the picture so I just typed it :/

 

[Scat]

I'm not so sure about the wisdom of basing our worldview on some kind of post-apocalyptic evil government versus people longing for freedom fantasy scenario. That seems incredibly limited in real-life utility. I suggest we establish a set of more rational guiding principles.

I didn't see anything in there about "post-apocalyptic evil governments".

 

[Siro]

I didn't see anything in there about "post-apocalyptic evil governments".

I wasn't responding to anything in the article, but to Babe's comment about the need for armed citizenry to keep governments in check. That's a very common sentiment among the pro-guns crowd.

I typically don't participate in ideological debates about how something is a god-given right or what have you. And I don't know enough about the data to have an opinion on gun control. However, the impulse to cast the issue in the way I mentioned does not seem to be based in reality, and it also sounds kind of archaic. This isn't the American Revolution. The United States has had a functional government (despite all its flaws) for a couple hundred years now. We must adjust our views to reflect that fact.

 

[babe]

I'm not so sure about the wisdom of basing our worldview on some kind of post-apocalyptic evil government versus people longing for freedom fantasy scenario. That seems incredibly limited in real-life utility. I suggest we establish a set of more rational guiding principles.

I know you're usually pretty bright, but naive about government. In Christian belief, the theory is that governments are better than no governments perhaps, but there is a prophesied postulate that there will be an evil government one day, just before the apocalypse. The "post-apocalytic government" will not be evil, because it will not be oligarchs of the mortal, evil kind, but Christ reigning over the earth. The evil men will be gone then. But all that is just theoretical human construct. Nothing to do with the issue here and now about humans actually having some "right" to self-defense.

I realize that to anyone who is just conceited in their smug self-satisfied notions of being rational, and having guiding principles that are beneficial and practical, such as would qualify as having "real-life utility", it is an idyllic world view fantasy that some wise men can and will take care of everybody benevolently. I just don't buy that hogwash either.

I would suggest that it is the fascist megalomaniacal world-planners who are smoking something, not people who actually want to solve their own problems and defend their own families, property, and lives from any and all threats.

Nothing has as much crediblity in terms of "real-life utility" to a robber as that gun someone can shoot him with if he doesn't change his plan real quick.

And nothing has a much credibility in terms of "real-life utility" or "political reality" to a politician, as citizens who do have arms and will use them if they make the jump to take away their liberty.

 

[babe]

I wasn't responding to anything in the article, but to Babe's comment about the need for armed citizenry to keep governments in check. That's a very common sentiment among the pro-guns crowd.

I typically don't participate in ideological debates about how something is a god-given right or what have you. And I don't know enough about the data to have an opinion on gun control. However, the impulse to cast the issue in the way I mentioned does not seem to be based in reality, and it also sounds kind of archaic. This isn't the American Revolution. The United States has had a functional government (despite all its flaws) for a couple hundred years now. We must adjust our views to reflect that fact.

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.

 

[babe]

Pretends to be anti government anti oppression.

Openly supports forcibly disarming civilian people.

Edit: couldn't attach the picture so I just typed it :/

Just to be absolutely clear here. . . . I couldn't access the "attached images". And yes, Sen. Mike Lee might be saying one thing and doing another. I am not familiar with any facts about Sen. Mike Lee "Openly supports forcibly disarming civilian people", but yes, he's a politician and I bet somewhere along the line he could just think that is right. . . . maybe in Afghanistan or Syria for example. And I can see the need for skepticism about someone who claims to be against both government and oppression, since in the history of man, government has usually been an organized form of oppression, always acting in the interests of some few, or maybe once in a while a majority, against the rights and lives of others.

 

[Siro]

@babe, your first response is an emotional rant, so I'm going to respond to your second one.

Yes, the problems you bring up are very real and very troubling. However, they are what Reagan and other people with your mentality gave us. You bought the lie that the government is inherently the enemy, instead of the simple idea of a union enacted by the people to advocate public interest over the interests of the few. And through the elimination of government (CITIZEN) oversight, the special interests took over. And they did it with the blessings and support of conservatives. And to this day, the same group of people work tirelessly to undermine every attempt at fixing the problems with the government. And they work just as tirelessly to ensure those who took over remain in power. So lets not pretend the current situation just emerged overnight because of Satan's forces or whatever the **** religious people want to believe. You can't have it both ways. You either have a government for the people and by the people, or you have "self-governing" where the only organized government is the one working against us.

Additionally, these problems were created DESPITE the many millions of guns in the hands of the American people. So reality itself shows you have no basis for your ideology. And your solution? Let's keep doing the same thing, and perhaps some future civil war will magically solve everything. And you call ME naive??

 

[babe]

@babe, your first response is an emotional rant, so I'm going to respond to your second one.

Yes, the problems you bring up are very real and very troubling. However, they are what Reagan and other people with your mentality gave us. You bought the lie that the government is inherently the enemy, instead of the simple idea of a union enacted by the people to advocate public interest over the interests of the few. And through the elimination of government (CITIZEN) oversight, the special interests took over. And they did it with the blessings and support of conservatives. And to this day, the same group of people work tirelessly to undermine every attempt at fixing the problems with the government. And they work just as tirelessly to ensure those who took over remain in power. So lets not pretend the current situation just emerged overnight because of Satan's forces or whatever the **** religious people want to believe. You can't have it both ways. You either have a government for the people and by the people, or you have "self-governing" where the only organized government is the one working against us.

Additionally, these problems were created DESPITE the many millions of guns in the hands of the American people. So reality itself shows you have no basis for your ideology. And your solution? Let's keep doing the same thing, and perhaps some future civil war will magically solve everything. And you call ME naive??

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.

 

[The Thriller]

Mike lee should be one to talk. On one hand he constantly berates the Feds and claims that they must live within their means. On the other hand, he couldn't even make his mortgage payments. Hypocrisy at its finest. He acts like this whole control thing is up for grabs. And that if the evil control hungry Feds are defeated in their endless search for control that the "control" will the control will slide into some sort of vacuum. Never mind the fact that he and his ilk aren't after freedom or for the "greater good" but are after the very same thing he accuses the gun control advocates are after, CONTROL.

 

[babe]

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?

 

[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.

 

[The Thriller]

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?

 

[The Thriller]

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.

 

[The Thriller]

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?