Originally Posted by B Butler

You don't need to convince me that gun policy and race policy are deeply intertwined. The collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the notion that individuals don't have a right to own and carry weapons, was a child of Jim Crow. While the efforts of Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King and others of their kind have made large dents in inequality, you are quite correct that there is more to be done.

There was never a collective rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment given by the Supreme Court. Southern white slave owners didn't want blacks having guns; that predates Jim Crow. But gun control as a modern movement is non-racist; it was a response to the increasing gun violence of our society in the sixties. Meanwhile the Black Panthers asserted the right to bear arms applied to blacks, and they were dealt with harshly for their calls to "pick up the gun" for their "revolution."

Your graph does not prove any connection between conceal and carry laws and reductions in crime. The notion that none of us have a right to guns, regardless of race, is the positive direction we should go. Disarmed police is also an ideal for the future. It will take decades before our gun-obsessed society can reach a consensus on all that, and get on board with progress and join the rest of the world toward limited gun rights, if any. So compromise with the Second Amendment is our only path at the moment. That this is the only amendment with a preamble stating the purpose of "gun rights," to me indicates the fact that gun rights are not like the others. I know you disagree that the preamble is unique because of some statements by Jefferson et al and previous state constitution preambles. But even our conservative Court recognizes now that the people still have a right to gun control, applied to both individual and state ownership and behavior. It must be well-regulated.

Not all of it is directly race related. Before Waco and Ruby Ridge, if one defied government authority one was apt to be met by government force, be ye white, black or purple with green polka dots. No matter how big one's arsenal was, the government's was bigger. I was watching the rural militia movement as an escalating spiral of violence at that time. Clinton 42 pulled the plug on it. The FBI and BATF were given new rules of engagement that took the steam out of that particular spiral. I don't see race as having anything to do with that federal change in the rules of engagement.

Did every inner city local police department get the memo? Obviously not.

It is amazing how police these days seem to think they have a right to shoot unarmed people, mostly black. How that spiral of violence on one side, and the white land "squatters/former owners" militias on the other, may lead to bigger and more unfortunate episodes, is yet to be seen. Who ends up allied with whom, if anyone, may be interesting. The notion that people have a right to stockpile weapons and form militias, may not be allowed. But rules of engagement with these illegal militias are a good thing.

Originally Posted by Odin

In my personal experience a lot of the support for Hillary comes from more "apolitical" people who don't talk about politics much, this creates an illusion of extreme unpopularity because the people who are most likely to talk about politics also tend to be the people, on both sides, who hate her.

In a nutshell, Hillary represents the status quo, for the most part. Arguably "not that bad" per se (people are muddling along fine for the most part, there's no particular catastrophe), but definitely "meh" at best in most people's minds these days, and increasingly a place more and more people want to move out of (either in a leftward, or a rightward, direction). We're in a sort of restless stagnation, at least psychologically (economically a lot of people are in a sort of functional stagnation as well).

What isn't too apparent, is what direction, if any, Hillary wants to move in. What intriguing, exciting new policy does she bring to the table? That is what more and more people are looking for--change away from the "meh" status quo. I don't see her selling herself in that framework, which is where the political marketplace has been moving now for some time, for better or worse (some options better, some worse, in my mind anyway). At best, to me (and I think a lot of people), she's the neutral, "safe" option--nothing to get excited over, really. Not sure how well that can sell in the restless political climate of 2016.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

In a nutshell, Hillary represents the status quo, for the most part. Arguably "not that bad" per se (people are muddling along fine for the most part, there's no particular catastrophe), but definitely "meh" at best in most people's minds these days, and increasingly a place more and more people want to move out of (either in a leftward, or a rightward, direction). We're in a sort of restless stagnation, at least psychologically (economically a lot of people are in a sort of functional stagnation as well).

What isn't too apparent, is what direction, if any, Hillary wants to move in. What intriguing, exciting new policy does she bring to the table? That is what more and more people are looking for--change away from the "meh" status quo. I don't see her selling herself in that framework, which is where the political marketplace has been moving now for some time, for better or worse.

I think she claims to be moving in that direction, and offers some policies that she claims are "tougher than Bernie Sanders."

What Americans need to realize, and I don't know when and if they will (my guess is after mid-2020), is that staffing the White House with one party in presidential elections, and staffing Congress with the other party at midterms, creates this stagnation. The economy would have revived much quicker under Obama, for example, if the tea party had not taken over congress in Nov. 2010 and blocked any further stimulus and further health care reform, and fired government workers at the state level. This stagnation was reaffirmed in Nov. 2014. If the people want change instead of stagnation, then they need to change that approach. The two parties today can't work together.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There was never a collective rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment given by the Supreme Court.

False. Just Google "collective rights second amendment". Just because you say something does not make it so. You may be able to lock facts out of your own mind, but repeating Big Lies is not a valid form of argument.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your graph does not prove any connection between conceal and carry laws and reductions in crime.

The graph does not prove many things, but it does show that the founding era notion that an armed populace could provide security to a free state was quite viable in that time. It is still quite viable in many parts of the country, as folks who live there will tell you. Have told you. Have you listened?

How to protect one's self from violence and crime is going to be a deep held values issue. If something has worked, is still working in places where the old values linger, and is hammered down in law at the constitutional level, are you surprised it is a "I'm not going to budge" thing when the modern alternative is quite obviously not working nearly as well as the traditional approach did?

It isn't the rural folk holding the traditional values that are insane and nuts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is amazing how police these days seem to think they have a right to shoot unarmed people, mostly black. How that spiral of violence on one side, and the white land "squatters/former owners" militias on the other, may lead to bigger and more unfortunate episodes, is yet to be seen. Who ends up allied with whom, if anyone, may be interesting. The notion that people have a right to stockpile weapons and form militias, may not be allowed. But rules of engagement with these illegal militias are a good thing.

The rules of engagement issue against black people is now on the front burner. In America, correcting cultural injustice can be delayed for a long time, but once the spotlight gets shined on something that is clearly wrong, the spotlight often stays on until a fix occurs. Not always. Not immediately. I'm guessing given the new video technology that the cops are eventually going to get it. Still, the culture of excessive force is set deep in many police forces, or at least held by many individuals within said forces. We're not going to have a poof gone instant fix comparable to gay marriage.

The media has a chunk of bloody meat in their collective teeth. Any video showing excessive force is getting national exposure. The cops will eventually figure this out. It used to be that the Blue Wall of Silence essentially put cops above the law. These days, a cop who uses excessive force is apt to lose his badge well before the prosecutor announces he is pressing charges. Big change. Not done yet. The pressure has to be kept up. Still, I'm vaguely optimistic.

I certainly don't see Black Lives Matter and the Bundy folk as natural allies. Thus far neither of these confrontations are escalating violently. BLM is staying non-violent, prudently so. The government seems to have a firm policy to minimize confrontation with 'militia' groups that dates from Waco getting out of hand. It takes two to spiral. Not happening yet. Are there other issues where the rhetoric is spilling over to violence? We have had echoes of Middle East troubles and spree shooters that for the most part aren't political. A good while back the occasional abortion doctor was murdered, but this seems to have faded. After both OKC and September 11th, there were big bilateral propaganda pushes saying that violence is not how America pushes domestic change. The People bought into it. I haven't seen many signs that this rejection of domestic political violence is changing. Talk to Kinser. He might tell you otherwise.

In a legal sense, I'm not sure it is correct to speak of multiple militias. There is one militia, essentially all males of military age. This is a technical legal thing. Any group of adult guys can get together and call themselves a militia. They'd all be members of The Militia, so one can't grumble too loudly. The name isn't totally wrong.

States have the power to appoint officers over the militia, assuming the state is old enough that the usual parts of the state constitutions regulating the militia are included. I think it would be entirely legit for the governor to say that every state police officer holds his police rank as a militia rank as well, and gets to give orders to militia men. I occasionally daydream about an officially appointed militia officer crashing one of these rural 'militia' meetings, and starting to issue orders and provide training to the 'militia'. Any time someone calls a meeting of the militia, they are practically inviting the state government to step in and assume authority.

The Federals can't assume authority of the militia this way, not without an Act of Congress, and only to enforce laws, suppress insurrections or repel invasions.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If Hillary needs proxies to fight her battles, she'll lose for sure. I hope that isn't the plan for success. And counting on sanity isn't reliable either.

Who said she needs them? That doesn't mean the Dems are not very happy if the GOP is discounting the campaigning power of these two - icing on the cake.

Your link is a good one. If one thinks about it, the hidden message in it is the extent gerrymandering and the Senate 2fer/state (note - with voter suppression being the third element of the desperate cornered animal) is just prolonging the inevitable end of the GOP as a national political power. The 2016 Presidential result is going to confirm that. The only hope for the GOP is to run Trump or Cruz to finally show their baggers why they had to run W Bush and Romney and need to run another Jeb or Rubio in 2020 - in hopes that their baggers will return to being their sheeple. Relying on baggers to "get it" is pretty low odds but when you're desperate...

By 2020, the 2008/12 Dem coalition will be over EIGHT percentage points bigger.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doesn't matter what anyone can prove or disprove. Hillary has been under the gun directly or on behalf of Bill since their early days in Arkansas. Whitewater was too complicated for the average person, and it smelled bad. Hillary being the good wife when Bill got fingered for <insert Bill's sex scandal of your choice>. That smelled bad too. The entire Bengazi and email scandals only had traction because there was history.

When Bill triangulated, it was considered to be smart sausage making. It wasn't ideal, but it worked. Now, the sides are hardly toking to each other. I doubt Hillary will get the same deference.

Looking at historical polls whenever Bill's scandals were, so to speak, hot and heavy, but particularly when Hillary was dragged through the mud with him, all I can say as a strong partisan is

BRING IT ON, BABY! BRING IT ON, WITH SUGAR ON TOP, BABY! PLEASE, PLEASE, BRING IT ON!!!

Originally Posted by Odin

In my personal experience a lot of the support for Hillary comes from more "apolitical" people who don't talk about politics much, this creates an illusion of extreme unpopularity because the people who are most likely to talk about politics also tend to be the people, on both sides, who hate her.

This is possible, but it seems likely that support of that kind is thin. Thin support can erode pretty fast, if things get ugly. Of course, she may benefit from sympatric responses to excessive piling-on.

We're just not there yet.

The results of Republican policies:



We all know WHO was elected in 1980. If we are going to change this, we need to ditch the Republicans. Not just from the White House, but from Congress too. Will Millennials learn to vote in midterm elections, so this can happen?

Originally Posted by B Butler

...At least when I'm not sharing Kinser's notion that we need more right wing fringe folk to escalate a cultural conflict that results in a regeneracy. If I put on that hat, sure, time to advocate misunderstanding, extreme rhetoric and random gunfire. Not wearing this hat today. I don't think Bundy is this generation's John Brown. Not really sure I want a John Brown.

I say let them stew there for the Winter as social media eviscerates them as the clown act they are.

See #YallQaeda #VanillaISIS and #YeeHawd with my favorite -

"Because every successful revolution starts with takeover of a closed visitor center with a gift shop."

Mocking clowns took the KKK's mojo, this should go a little faster.

Best would be a big snow storm with these clowns asking for rescue and the Feds sending them the bill.

Originally Posted by B Butler

False. Just Google "collective rights second amendment". Just because you say something does not make it so. You may be able to lock facts out of your own mind, but repeating Big Lies is not a valid form of argument.

I already posted a couple of links and read several articles, including by those who favor individual gun rights, showing this to be the case. Continuing to deny that I posted this is not a valid argument either.

The graph does not prove many things, but it does show that the founding era notion that an armed populace could provide security to a free state was quite viable in that time. It is still quite viable in many parts of the country, as folks who live there will tell you. Have told you. Have you listened?

I know well the claims by you and others like classic Xer that rural folks can't rely on police because they are too far away. They want to keep their guns, so I understand the need for compromise today for different laws in rural and urban areas. That doesn't mean NO gun control in rural areas, but less.

How to protect one's self from violence and crime is going to be a deep held values issue. If something has worked, is still working in places where the old values linger, and is hammered down in law at the constitutional level, are you surprised it is a "I'm not going to budge" thing when the modern alternative is quite obviously not working nearly as well as the traditional approach did?

It isn't the rural folk holding the traditional values that are insane and nuts.

I don't buy your claim that a "how" is a value; it is a method. To deny that there are gun fanatics in this country, and that they control the NRA, is not realistic or factual. To oppose all gun control no matter what, as they do, is insane. That doesn't mean that I hold that all rural folks who own guns are insane, even if I disagree with them.

The rules of engagement issue against black people is now on the front burner. In America, correcting cultural injustice can be delayed for a long time, but once the spotlight gets shined on something that is clearly wrong, the spotlight often stays on until a fix occurs. Not always. Not immediately. I'm guessing given the new video technology that the cops are eventually going to get it. Still, the culture of excessive force is set deep in many police forces, or at least held by many individuals within said forces. We're not going to have a poof gone instant fix comparable to gay marriage.

The media has a chunk of bloody meat in their collective teeth. Any video showing excessive force is getting national exposure. The cops will eventually figure this out. It used to be that the Blue Wall of Silence essentially put cops above the law. These days, a cop who uses excessive force is apt to lose his badge well before the prosecutor announces he is pressing charges. Big change. Not done yet. The pressure has to be kept up. Still, I'm vaguely optimistic.

No disagreement there. I am as upset by cops shooting unarmed black folks, as I am by madmen shooting people randomly in theaters and shopping centers.

I certainly don't see Black Lives Matter and the Bundy folk as natural allies. Thus far neither of these confrontations are escalating violently. BLM is staying non-violent, prudently so. The government seems to have a firm policy to minimize confrontation with 'militia' groups that dates from Waco getting out of hand. It takes two to spiral. Not happening yet. Are there other issues where the rhetoric is spilling over to violence? We have had echoes of Middle East troubles and spree shooters that for the most part aren't political. A good while back the occasional abortion doctor was murdered, but this seems to have faded. After both OKC and September 11th, there were big bilateral propaganda pushes saying that violence is not how America pushes domestic change. The People bought into it. I haven't seen many signs that this rejection of domestic political violence is changing. Talk to Kinser. He might tell you otherwise.

No thanks. No dialogue is possible between us for the foreseeable future.

In a legal sense, I'm not sure it is correct to speak of multiple militias. There is one militia, essentially all males of military age. This is a technical legal thing. Any group of adult guys can get together and call themselves a militia. They'd all be members of The Militia, so one can't grumble too loudly. The name isn't totally wrong.

States have the power to appoint officers over the militia, assuming the state is old enough that the usual parts of the state constitutions regulating the militia are included. I think it would be entirely legit for the governor to say that every state police officer holds his police rank as a militia rank as well, and gets to give orders to militia men. I occasionally daydream about an officially appointed militia officer crashing one of these rural 'militia' meetings, and starting to issue orders and provide training to the 'militia'. Any time someone calls a meeting of the militia, they are practically inviting the state government to step in and assume authority.

The Federals can't assume authority of the militia this way, not without an Act of Congress, and only to enforce laws, suppress insurrections or repel invasions.

I don't remember the details on that federal vs. state question. But I think the notion of the militia is not used today; we have armies, national guard, police. I suppose government officers could assert their right to regulate private militias; who knows, that may be a solution. But I doubt the sort of private militias we've seen in recent years would submit to that regulation.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... By 2020, the 2008/12 Dem coalition will be over EIGHT percentage points bigger.

Let's hope that your optimism squares with reality. I've lost a lot of faith in the American people over the last decade or so. It may be a case of wiring. Given our hectic pace of life, reasoned thinking just takes too long. Instead, we go for the gut, and the gut lies as often as not. So the solution, once we finally get to it, will have to hit us in the midsection hard enough to force us in the right direction. Until then, we've got The Donald.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I say let them stew there for the Winter as social media eviscerates them as the clown act they are.

Finally something that you and I can agree on. VanillaISIS, hehe ... you'd have to be over a certain age to fully understand that one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think she claims to be moving in that direction, and offers some policies that she claims are "tougher than Bernie Sanders."

What Americans need to realize, and I don't know when and if they will (my guess is after mid-2020), is that staffing the White House with one party in presidential elections, and staffing Congress with the other party at midterms, creates this stagnation. The economy would have revived much quicker under Obama, for example, if the tea party had not taken over congress in Nov. 2010 and blocked any further stimulus and further health care reform, and fired government workers at the state level. This stagnation was reaffirmed in Nov. 2014. If the people want change instead of stagnation, then they need to change that approach. The two parties today can't work together.

Well, one thing I like about Sanders is that he is emphasizing this--that his "revolution" entails active engagement at all levels of government, including midterms, including states. Hillary doesn't seem to be emphasizing this any more than Obama did. Maybe she will if she gets elected, but I can easily see her falling into the "triangulation" pattern that she and her husband are most familiar with, rather than using the bully pulpit to put particular pressure on Congress and encourage her voters to put that pressure on as well.

Bernie can say, "you want a $15 minimum wage? These Congressmen don't, so tell them what you want, and make it known you'll vote them out otherwise." Or "you want single payer? These Congressmen don't, so...." And so on. Bold policies, exciting policies, policies that, if Sanders wins, it will be obvious a lot of people want. And excitement can motivate more people to actually fight for them, beyond what usual motions they go through as voters.

So again, what policies will Hillary promote that will be bold and exciting enough to motivate such extra action by her voters? At best, maybe the Bernie constituency will still be pushing at Congress, in spite of Hillary, and will push Hillary too, should she get the nom and also win the election. But the success of these efforts seems more likely to happen if Bernie himself gets to go all the way. If it's Hillary, there's still a danger that the people will go back into lethargy and just a steadily increasing grumble of discontent.

Maybe you (and I) think that the people shouldn't need a motivating leadership to remind them how important the midterms are, but they do. And the Presidency does provide a bully pulpit to those who will use it, and does provide a big platform for big ideas if one will use it (FDR, JFK, and Reagan certainly knew how to). I don't see Hillary using such optimally. I had some hopes Obama would, but he really hasn't either. And it is what more people are looking for, I really think.

Originally Posted by B Butler

You don't need to convince me that gun policy and race policy are deeply intertwined. ..

How they intertwined is that they don't.

For those who may be a little less aged, you may not recall 1960s California as more than just bikinis and Beach Boys but a bastion of Right wing nuttery in the form of the John Birch Society, Orange County and gun rights advocates (I even got caught up in anti-helmet law protest while doing a stink at Berkeley) . That began to change when these guys showed up on the steps of the State Capitol -



and a CA Lefty governor named Ron Ray-gun signed the Mulford Act - infamous amongst gun right nuts.

And now today, we have Blacks once again supporting open carry, this time in Tex-ass -



But maybe even old White t-baggers are now willing to accept Blacks with guns.

However, let's see how this plays out as these guys start showing up at grocery stores, school pick-ups and voting polling stations with not just shotguns but fully-loaded ARs -



- Si, si, senor, it's gonna get real interesting, ya'all

p.s. check the a-hole with the finger on the shotgun trigger - I guess he missed the NRA's gun safety class.

Originally Posted by radind

I do object to your assertion that "much of the contempt for Barack Obama is because he is black." My issues with Obama are due to his polices( eg, the killing of unborn babies) and has nothing to due with his race.

How are Obama's policies resulting in the killing of human fetuses? Or are you referring to the fact that abortion is still occurring. If the latter, then did you have a problem with President Bush? Abortions were higher and fell as a slow rate during his administration.

Year	Total Abortions	Rate of Change/yr
2000	1,306,680
2008	1,205,510	1.00%
2011	1,058,490	4.24%

Data from Guttmacher Center

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There was never a collective rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment given by the Supreme Court. Southern white slave owners didn't want blacks having guns; that predates Jim Crow. But gun control as a modern movement is non-racist; it was a response to the increasing gun violence of our society in the sixties. Meanwhile the Black Panthers asserted the right to bear arms applied to blacks, and they were dealt with harshly for their calls to "pick up the gun" for their "revolution."

Your graph does not prove any connection between conceal and carry laws and reductions in crime. The notion that none of us have a right to guns, regardless of race, is the positive direction we should go. Disarmed police is also an ideal for the future. It will take decades before our gun-obsessed society can reach a consensus on all that, and get on board with progress and join the rest of the world toward limited gun rights, if any. So compromise with the Second Amendment is our only path at the moment. That this is the only amendment with a preamble stating the purpose of "gun rights," to me indicates the fact that gun rights are not like the others. I know you disagree that the preamble is unique because of some statements by Jefferson et al and previous state constitution preambles. But even our conservative Court recognizes now that the people still have a right to gun control, applied to both individual and state ownership and behavior. It must be well-regulated.



It is amazing how police these days seem to think they have a right to shoot unarmed people, mostly black. How that spiral of violence on one side, and the white land "squatters/former owners" militias on the other, may lead to bigger and more unfortunate episodes, is yet to be seen. Who ends up allied with whom, if anyone, may be interesting. The notion that people have a right to stockpile weapons and form militias, may not be allowed. But rules of engagement with these illegal militias are a good thing.

What people forget about "a well ordered militia" (and which I didn't know until I read a book about the year 1860--there have been a number of good new histories about the outbreak of the Civil War published in the last few years) was that the US HAD well ordered militias for it's first 80 years. Male Americans (white Americans at least) in the North and the South not only owned rifles, they drilled with them in militias every week (in the tactics of the War of 1812). The idea was that the country needed to be able to create an army quickly but could not afford a standing army. The states controlled those militias. And the existence of those militias no doubt deterred European nations, particularly the UK from trying to retake the American colonies. And made it easy for the US to mobilise for the Mexican War. And in the South, state militias evolved into regular "slave patrols" to control movement of African Americans--often quite brutally.
The final result of all these militias (which legally COULD be federalised) was a quick mobilisation into civil war in 1860. Thanks to all that military training (the modern equivalent is Israel) both northern and southern states could quickly mobilise to fight each other. And did. And this led to a wider Civil War as North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Arkansas (and partially, Missouri and Kentucky) mobilised for the Confederacy only after President Lincoln attempted to mobilise those states to fight against the Confederacy.
Which is why the right to bear arms got detached from militia duty after the Civil War. Nobody wanted a nation that was not only armed but trained to mobilise en masse after the result was secession that almost succeeded. Particularly after workers began to demand the right to bargain collectively after 1877.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Finally something that you and I can agree on. VanillaISIS, hehe ... you'd have to be over a certain age to fully understand that one.

At the risk of upsetting Eric -



Justin Bieber, meet your daddy!

Oh, yea, just about exactly the same

Oregon Militia Man: We Face ‘Backlash’ But Black Lives Matter Doesn’t

The small group of armed militiamen occupying a wildlife refuge in rural Oregon believe they've faced more “backlash” than Black Lives Matter.

As a man who identified only as “Fluffy Unicorn” told the Huffington Post on Monday: “The Black Lives Matter movement, they can go and protest, close freeways down and all that stuff, and they don’t get any backlash, not on the level that we’re getting.”

Militia members this week have repeatedly drawn comparisons between themselves and Black Lives Matter. Leader Ammon Bundy, whose father is infamous Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, told CNN on Monday that there are “some similarities” between the groups. He framed both groups’ primary opponent as a federal government that overreaches in its efforts to enforce order.

“The government should not be doing anything but encouraging the people to claim their rights, encouraging them to use their rights, and then protecting and defending the people as they live freely,” he told CNN.

Black Lives Matter is a national, diverse movement that uses classic organizing techniques, such as blocking access to roadways and holding citywide marches, to raise awareness about people of color who have been killed by police. By contrast, the Oregon militia, which is composed of a group of some two-dozen mostly white, armed men, has occupied the Melheur Wildlife Refuge to protest the re-sentencing of two local ranchers convicted of arson for setting fire to federal lands.

In an interview with Jacobin, a socialist magazine, Bundy said that he didn’t “know a lot about the Black Lives Matter movement.”

“I know their initial protest involved lots of looting and violence towards businesses and innocent citizens which I do not agree with,” he said. “I do agree with them standing up for what they believe in. I just think during their protest they were unorganized and not well-planned.”

That negative perception of the group is widespread in certain political circles and conservative media. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and Elizabeth Hasselback labeled Black Lives Matter a “hate group” for vocally criticizing police officers. GOP presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) have also accused the group of promoting the murder of cops and fomenting “lawlessness.”

As the Huffington Post’s Lydia O’Connor points out, Black Lives Matter protests have also been met with a forceful response from law enforcement. Marches against the police killings of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, and Freddie Gray, in Baltimore, Maryland—some of which were rocked by bursts of rioting—were broken up by members of the National Guard and police officers in riot gear.

Meanwhile, federal officials are monitoring the armed occupation of the wildlife refuge near Burns, Oregon, but have not yet actively intervened.

In a statement sent to TPM on Tuesday, Senate candidate Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) argued that the treatment of the two groups differed starkly because of race.

“One could not imagine a group of armed black men taking over an unoccupied federal building in one of our nation’s cities as they have in Oregon,” Edwards said. “It is time to tell that tough truth.”

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I already posted a couple of links and read several articles, including by those who favor individual gun rights, showing this to be the case. Continuing to deny that I posted this is not a valid argument either.


I know well the claims by you and others like classic Xer that rural folks can't rely on police because they are too far away. They want to keep their guns, so I understand the need for compromise today for different laws in rural and urban areas. That doesn't mean NO gun control in rural areas, but less.


I don't buy your claim that a "how" is a value; it is a method. To deny that there are gun fanatics in this country, and that they control the NRA, is not realistic or factual. To oppose all gun control no matter what, as they do, is insane. That doesn't mean that I hold that all rural folks who own guns are insane, even if I disagree with them.


No disagreement there. I am as upset by cops shooting unarmed black folks, as I am by madmen shooting people randomly in theaters and shopping centers.


No thanks. No dialogue is possible between us for the foreseeable future.

I don't remember the details on that federal vs. state question. But I think the notion of the militia is not used today; we have armies, national guard, police. I suppose government officers could assert their right to regulate private militias; who knows, that may be a solution. But I doubt the sort of private militias we've seen in recent years would submit to that regulation.

That's where the Oathkeepers come in. Police and military who are pledged and organised to disobey orders that violate the Constitution they are pledged to uphold. Things like suppressing free and peaceful assembly assembly and firing on crowds. They mostly see all this in very right-wing terms but if civil rights and labour activists did some groundwork and dialog with them, some of them might refuse to act like brainwashed robots against the Left too. The point is that many within the National Guards and police SEE THEMSELVES as militia and under the right circumstances, are susceptible to mutiny.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Well, one thing I like about Sanders is that he is emphasizing this--that his "revolution" entails active engagement at all levels of government, including midterms, including states. Hillary doesn't seem to be emphasizing this any more than Obama did. Maybe she will if she gets elected, but I can easily see her falling into the "triangulation" pattern that she and her husband are most familiar with, rather than using the bully pulpit to put particular pressure on Congress and encourage her voters to put that pressure on as well.

Bernie can say, "you want a $15 minimum wage? These Congressmen don't, so tell them what you want, and make it known you'll vote them out otherwise." Or "you want single payer? These Congressmen don't, so...." And so on. Bold policies, exciting policies, policies that, if Sanders wins, it will be obvious a lot of people want. And excitement can motivate more people to actually fight for them, beyond what usual motions they go through as voters.

So again, what policies will Hillary promote that will be bold and exciting enough to motivate such extra action by her voters? At best, maybe the Bernie constituency will still be pushing at Congress, in spite of Hillary, and will push Hillary too, should she get the nom and also win the election. But the success of these efforts seems more likely to happen if Bernie himself gets to go all the way. If it's Hillary, there's still a danger that the people will go back into lethargy and just a steadily increasing grumble of discontent.

I don't know what you and (Marx and Lennon, I think) mean by "triangulation." Noone ever defines that term here, and what they mean by it.

But yes I like that about Sanders too. On balance I agree Sanders is better than Hillary, and according to my particular esoteric method, actually has a good chance of winning. I don't know if Hillary gets it how important other elections are besides her own, just as Obama didn't much.

Maybe you (and I) think that the people shouldn't need a motivating leadership to remind them how important the midterms are, but they do. And the Presidency does provide a bully pulpit to those who will use it, and does provide a big platform for big ideas if one will use it (FDR, JFK, and Reagan certainly knew how to). I don't see Hillary using such optimally. I had some hopes Obama would, but he really hasn't either. And it is what more people are looking for, I really think.

Hillary has more leadership abilities than people give her credit for. Sanders would arouse the people to action better, for sure. But, we'll see. At this point Hillary's nomination is far further from a sealed deal than most pundits and observers think. It will depend on Iowa, I think. If Sanders wins it, look out Hillary! National polls will swing, and Sanders will sweep most of the blue state primaries. CA would still be tough for him though; the Clintons have always done well here.

I have a sentimental, generational attachment to Hillary Clinton, and I hope she gets her chance. Her horoscope resembles my own a lot too, so that would be interesting to see how that plays out. But I have my doubts about her too, as you guys do, although perhaps not as many as I had about her husband back in the New Democrat days, when I deserted the Democrats in 1996 to vote and campaign for Nader. Hillary is not as good a politician as her husband, but she's always been somewhat more progressive or liberal. And Bill too has updated his views.

By the way Nader had a fine horoscope score too, 10-2; Obama was 8-2, Sanders' is 10-0. Who knows what might have happened if Nader had run as a Democrat? Of course, VP Al Gore had a pretty good score too, 13-6, and a stronger background. He lost to Dubya who had an almost invincible 15-3. Bill Clinton's score was 13-2. As everyone says, Bill Clinton is an amazing politician. But Hillary? 9-8, with an advantage of innovative, charismatic Uranus rising perhaps adding a few points to her positive score. She's vulnerable. Bill had jolly, generous Jupiter plus 3 other planets rising; considering his positive score too, that's really off the charts powerful.

Originally Posted by B Butler

False. Just Google "collective rights second amendment". Just because you say something does not make it so. You may be able to lock facts out of your own mind, but repeating Big Lies is not a valid form of argument.



The graph does not prove many things, but it does show that the founding era notion that an armed populace could provide security to a free state was quite viable in that time. It is still quite viable in many parts of the country, as folks who live there will tell you. Have told you. Have you listened?

How to protect one's self from violence and crime is going to be a deep held values issue. If something has worked, is still working in places where the old values linger, and is hammered down in law at the constitutional level, are you surprised it is a "I'm not going to budge" thing when the modern alternative is quite obviously not working nearly as well as the traditional approach did?

It isn't the rural folk holding the traditional values that are insane and nuts.



The rules of engagement issue against black people is now on the front burner. In America, correcting cultural injustice can be delayed for a long time, but once the spotlight gets shined on something that is clearly wrong, the spotlight often stays on until a fix occurs. Not always. Not immediately. I'm guessing given the new video technology that the cops are eventually going to get it. Still, the culture of excessive force is set deep in many police forces, or at least held by many individuals within said forces. We're not going to have a poof gone instant fix comparable to gay marriage.

The media has a chunk of bloody meat in their collective teeth. Any video showing excessive force is getting national exposure. The cops will eventually figure this out. It used to be that the Blue Wall of Silence essentially put cops above the law. These days, a cop who uses excessive force is apt to lose his badge well before the prosecutor announces he is pressing charges. Big change. Not done yet. The pressure has to be kept up. Still, I'm vaguely optimistic.

I certainly don't see Black Lives Matter and the Bundy folk as natural allies. Thus far neither of these confrontations are escalating violently. BLM is staying non-violent, prudently so. The government seems to have a firm policy to minimize confrontation with 'militia' groups that dates from Waco getting out of hand. It takes two to spiral. Not happening yet. Are there other issues where the rhetoric is spilling over to violence? We have had echoes of Middle East troubles and spree shooters that for the most part aren't political. A good while back the occasional abortion doctor was murdered, but this seems to have faded. After both OKC and September 11th, there were big bilateral propaganda pushes saying that violence is not how America pushes domestic change. The People bought into it. I haven't seen many signs that this rejection of domestic political violence is changing. Talk to Kinser. He might tell you otherwise.

In a legal sense, I'm not sure it is correct to speak of multiple militias. There is one militia, essentially all males of military age. This is a technical legal thing. Any group of adult guys can get together and call themselves a militia. They'd all be members of The Militia, so one can't grumble too loudly. The name isn't totally wrong.

States have the power to appoint officers over the militia, assuming the state is old enough that the usual parts of the state constitutions regulating the militia are included. I think it would be entirely legit for the governor to say that every state police officer holds his police rank as a militia rank as well, and gets to give orders to militia men. I occasionally daydream about an officially appointed militia officer crashing one of these rural 'militia' meetings, and starting to issue orders and provide training to the 'militia'. Any time someone calls a meeting of the militia, they are practically inviting the state government to step in and assume authority.

The Federals can't assume authority of the militia this way, not without an Act of Congress, and only to enforce laws, suppress insurrections or repel invasions.

Black Lives Matter is not a case of the media finding raw meat but volunteers and amateurs--people like us, using their cellphones to make an end run around the media. Police have been stopping and frisking and killing African-Americans for years and the corporate media treated it as "non-news" and tried to ignore it. It was the cellphone videos going viral that made police shootings impossible to ignore, from the transit policeman's murder of an African-American at Fruitvale Station in Oakland on. And the stories were treated incident by incident, one in Ferguson MO, one in New York and so on, until the trend line was established, lines drawn between incidents and the situation became impossible for the corporate suits who control the media corporations to ignore. Short of the kind of efficient control of social media and imprisonment of people for "making trouble" that we see in China and Iran, there is no way to put this genii back in the bottle.
And it's the kind of issue that plays against the Clinton's narrative because the Clintons are a throwback to the 1990s when they actively embraced the kind of aggressive wars on "crime" and drugs that gave the US the world's largest prison population. Given a choice, the Clintons break authoritarian, not libertarian. Black Lives Matter makes the Clintons look like what they are: Southern governors who rely on machine politics to get elected. The situation may alienate a lot of African Americans from voting for Hillary in the numbers they voted for Obama, even with Obama attempting to sell them on Hillary. (Though the Clintons get a break because Bernie Sanders seems to have a tin ear when it comes to African-Americans and, having been a Senator in a lily-white rural state, has little recognition in the African-American community).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

A web search will reveal evidence of all sort of minor political movements on the left, some of which, having been around a while, can be judged on their track record. They have all been completely ineffective.

On the other hand, politicians holding views consistent with those of 1940's New Dealers, enacted Medicare and Medicaid in my own lifetime--programs that are still around and have beneficially impacted people in my family. In my own lifetime they were a real force, which leftists never were. And even today they is a modern politician (Sanders) espousing New Deal themes running for president. He has zero chance of winning largely because the minorities Kinser claims are repelled by Clinton have given him little support.

I think you are majorly discounting the reality that both Parties take ideas from their smaller left and right outliers. My point was, since you apparently missed it (values lock perhaps?) is that the New Deal set the stage for this 4T something like the New Deal won't cure it.

So many of Sanders supporters are white (like me). Democrats cannot win by appealing to non-liberal white people, anymore than Republicans can win by appealing to minorities. Republicans know this, and the successful ones are campaigning on white identity politics, mostly using dog whistles (except Trump who comes right out and says it).

Sounds like a good reason for Hillary to not be the nominee. She has severe problems on her left.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That's where the Oathkeepers come in. Police and military who are pledged and organised to disobey orders that violate the Constitution they are pledged to uphold. Things like suppressing free and peaceful assembly and firing on crowds. They mostly see all this in very right-wing terms but if civil rights and labour activists did some groundwork and dialog with them, some of them might refuse to act like brainwashed robots against the Left too. The point is that many within the National Guards and police SEE THEMSELVES as militia and under the right circumstances, are susceptible to mutiny.

This is an organization that many (including me) have not heard of. Probably this "militia group" would fight for the wrong things, since they believe in right-wing conspiracy theories and are against the federal government protecting the environment. But they did claim to be on the side of protesters at Ferguson. You have a point they might not attack leftist activists. I don't know if a left-right alliance is possible in an upcoming rebellion. Dboy has suggested it here.

I suspect the gun issue is a wedge issue that will flare up and can't be bridged between the right and left sides. But obviously, for some people it can be bridged. It is doubtful that the Left would enforce a broad gun ban; but if not, then to avoid trouble on this, it's up to the right wing and other gun supporters not to interpret any gun control as a ban, and not to rebel over it.

What is the limit to gun laws beyond which the right wing militants like the Oathkeepers will rebel? How far is too far, according to them? It's not clear, but it sounds a bit ominous:

"Who here will comply? If ordered to register your guns, will you? How about if you’re ordered to turn them in? What level of courage, sacrifice and love are you willing to rise to?

That’s the key weakness of delusional sheep who do not even approach, let alone share that level of commitment.

The other significant point was what Obama said right afterward:

That’s what we’re doing today, and tomorrow we should do more, and we should do more the day after that…

The collectivists will never stop. They will never be satisfied. After they have the guns, they’ll want something else. They mean to rule. Cede a small point they have no rightful claim to in the name of “compromise” and they’ll gladly snap it up and then demand more. And accuse you of being an extremist, a racist and worse if you balk."

https://www.oathkeepers.org/obama-gu...-key-weakness/

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Black Lives Matter is not a case of the media finding raw meat but volunteers and amateurs--people like us, using their cellphones to make an end run around the media. Police have been stopping and frisking and killing African-Americans for years and the corporate media treated it as "non-news" and tried to ignore it. It was the cellphone videos going viral that made police shootings impossible to ignore, from the transit policeman's murder of an African-American at Fruitvale Station in Oakland on. And the stories were treated incident by incident, one in Ferguson MO, one in New York and so on, until the trend line was established, lines drawn between incidents and the situation became impossible for the corporate suits who control the media corporations to ignore. Short of the kind of efficient control of social media and imprisonment of people for "making trouble" that we see in China and Iran, there is no way to put this genii back in the bottle.

So it appears. A long-standing problem is getting more attention now, due to social media and activism.

And it's the kind of issue that plays against the Clinton's narrative because the Clintons are a throwback to the 1990s when they actively embraced the kind of aggressive wars on "crime" and drugs that gave the US the world's largest prison population. Given a choice, the Clintons break authoritarian, not libertarian. Black Lives Matter makes the Clintons look like what they are: Southern governors who rely on machine politics to get elected. The situation may alienate a lot of African Americans from voting for Hillary in the numbers they voted for Obama, even with Obama attempting to sell them on Hillary. (Though the Clintons get a break because Bernie Sanders seems to have a tin ear when it comes to African-Americans and, having been a Senator in a lily-white rural state, has little recognition in the African-American community).

Which would be their own fault. I think many of them will get wise and support Sanders, especially if he's the nominee. It seems too harsh a judgement on the Clintons. They can bend to the needs of the time. BLM does not make the Clintons look like Southern governors; I don't see that connection. But Hillary Clinton might not appoint two black attorney generals. Blacks feel they have some pull on the Obama administration that they might not have on Hillary.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There's nothing here but conjecture and anecdotes; your views are not supported within the 2008/2012 Coalition.

You're caught up in the Trump circus show brought to you by the 'entertaining news' (the Donald finally issued his first poli-ad saying he felt guilty not having to do so since he's been getting enormous free coverage by the entertaining news). It's pretty obvious this is a form of selection bias - you don't like Clinton and only hold that 'information' that supports her un-electability in your mind.

I went through this with another poster, JustPassingThrough ("the polls are skewed! the polls are skewed!), in 2012 and it was pretty amusing - at least up until a few days after that election; the stakes were high for him and I thought we might have to call a suicide watch. I don't think you have much actual interest in this election so I'm hoping my derived amusement will be fairly unlimited up to and hopefully at least a few weeks past November 8.

We're definitely marking your words.

2012 was what one would expect of an election against an incumbent President. The incumbent usually wins unless he or she is completely out of touch with the country or the national mood has shifted completely ala Carter or a 12 year run of one party has exhausted whatever push created that run in the first place ala George HW Bush. The Republican Establishment did an excellent job of stage managing the 2012 election and colaescing behind the candidate they originally wanted, namely Mitt Romney. The problem with Romney was that Romney, the corporate raider, the job killer, the vulture capitalist was everything that less affluent voters saw as wrong with the economy and the Republican Party. And Romney still came within 2 percentage points of defeating Obama on the popular vote (though Obama still might have won on electoral votes). Frankly, the Romney debacle (and the poor performance of the economy and worsening conditions for poor white males) has paved the way for Trump.
I don't know how well Trump will actually do on delegates. Translating opinion polls into winning primaries and caucuses requires a ground game, something Trump is playing catch-up on. But this is turning out to be a terrible election for the Democrats to be reverting to machine politics and in effect, pre-selecting their candidate for President. Hillary Clinton's "it's my turn" candidacy seems to have been based on a complementary Jeb Bush "it's my turn" candidacy that would turn voters off, not on. Democratic machine politics might be able to win a low turnout election (2012 was lower turnout than 2008). But so far, this election is not going according to script.