I'm an avid gun/gun education advocate. As such, I end up in a lot of the gun control vs firearm education debates, many of which end up with something about the Second Amendment rights. Now, before you think this is just another gun debate, think about this: in the past five, ten, twenty, a hundred years, have we really had the freedoms that the writers of the Constitution intended?
Think about it, we have the right to peaceful assembly and the right to overthrow our government, but if we tried, even peacefully, we'd be thrown in jail for treason and terrorism thanks to things like the Patriot Act.
Sadly enough, overthrowing the government is exactly what this country needs.
"We the people..."
We the people...now, that sounds like...us! The lowly citizens who can barely make ends meet while we watch the bureaucrats sit up in Washington and send our brothers, sons, sisters, friends to a war that no one will win.
So why don't we do anything about it? In the words of my husband, and many others, people are sheep. It's a proven fact that people who truly think the opposite of the majority often don't voice their opinion when they see others agree to each other. They're afraid of being wrong, or being looked down upon. They're afraid of looking foolish.
Who Really Controls This Country?
Many people agree that
Bush is a terrible leader. I personally think he's a warmonger. I think
everyone agree, if nothing else, that he's a really bad speaker. It's
not just Bush, though, or any President, for that matter, that really
control our country. It's not even Congress, the Supreme Court, or any combination of the three. It's the money, and the ones who control a lot of it.
In this case, that's not even people like Bill Gates and Donald Trump. In this case, it's groups like the Tobacco and oil industries, the ones that really fund the Government.
Did you know that average fuel efficiency has increased by only about 3 MPG since the 70s (from 18.5 to 21.5? It's not because of technological barriers, either. Tony Fini, of western New York, has several vehicles that can get upward of 100 MPG, and he was able to achieve that from tinkering with the engines in his garage, on a retired teacher's income. He's applied for grants and funding to get them off the ground, but can't get a thing. (altweeklies.com)
Did you ever notice, too, that gas prices creep up, then suddenly drop for a while when serious talk of alternative fuels and higher efficiency vehicles goes around?
Why is it that these hybrid cars that are supposed to be so good only get about 10MPG more than a Honda Civic? Why is it modified engines that run on plain gasoline but can reach 70, 80, 100MPG aren't even considered?
Did you know cartels are illegal in the United States? Princeton defines a cartel as "a consortium of independent organizations formed to
limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a
product or service." The goal of a cartel is to create a monopoly.
Did you know OPEC is a cartel? Because it's a global cartel, though, and not based in the United States, we can't shut it down. But why do we still endorse and support them?
Did you know that we're not even on good terms with several of the countries on whom we depend for oil?
What's wrong with this picture?
The Corruption and Fall of the American Government
Okay, so I think I've established that our government is really controlled by money. Let's face it, money talks. What's the twist on the Golden Rule? Oh yes, whoever has the gold makes the rules.
While money may not necessarily be the "root of all evil," it certainly contributes to a lot of the evil in the world. Money = power, especially in a Capitalistic society, and power, as well as money, corrupts a person quite easily, particularly when combined.
So, when did people stop leading us and money started? Most likely, it was a slow process of acts and laws and amendments. It started with a few puppets to big industries, who typically didn't last more than one term, then slowly, thanks to a number of small depressions, the people with money were able to get their puppets into office and keep them there.
After the Great Depression, it was added in the Constitution that the President could only serve two terms, a tradition that was already in place (with the exception of FDR, who was also the reason for this change). Why did that get put in place? The idea was to prevent what's known in politics as a "lame duck" situation. You don't want caught in a rut, basically.
It's all well and good, and actually works quite well for the Presidency, but there's no such limit for members of Congress, and in the Supreme Court, once you're there, you're there until you die or resign. This easily and has repeatedly created "lame duck" situations because most of the Congresspeople don't get voted out unless they monumentally screw up.
So, what do you get when you combine a flock of sheep with a gaggle of lame ducks? A bunch of overpaid bureaucrats who work about a third as much as most American Citizens, yet control what goes on with the entire country.
Now, I'm not saying the individual people are corrupt or useless or evil. Many of them are probably very nice people. When you get them all together, though, is when things fall apart because, like I said before, people are sheep. You get two people that think a certain way and soon enough, the whole room can voice agreement, even if most of them don't really agree.
Now, if you're reading this and you're a steadfast Republican or Democrat, you'll probably say something along the line of "well, only {insert opposite wing here} do that!"
Please, that's a load of crap and you know it. Both the Republicans and the Democrats stand for whatever it is that will get the votes.
Everyone blamed Hoover for the Great Depression, which is why he only served one term. Chances are, the Democrats were using the Great Depression to get a Democrat into office. They were probably saying, "look what the Republicans did!" If it was, in fact the fault of the Republicans, why didn't it happen when Coolidge (also a Republican) was in office before Hoover? It had nothing to do with him being Republican, and it never has. In fact, the views of the Reps. versus the Dems, switch every couple decades or so and the definition of each party changes over time. Hell, Presidents Thomas Jefferson through John Adams were Democratic-Republicans. (Internet Public Library)
What the Constitution Says vs. How It's Interpreted
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment
Wow, the current government has fun curtailing this one, don't it? The issue with Roberta and Patrick Stewart come to mind for this one. Although he's not explicitly prohibiting the practice of the Wiccan religion, Bush has certainly made it clear that he doesn't view Wiccans on the same level as members of other faiths. Religious discrimination, anyone?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
Again, we have a case of multiple interpretations. To me, this means the exact same now as it did when this was written - a citizen army to ensure the safety of the country against herself. The NRA, while not being shut down, is being watched like a hawk, though, because the government considers it a militia, and, in my opinion, somewhat of a "threat." The increasingly strict gun laws are evidence of this.
What Would Your Father Say If He Saw This?
I think George Washington and the other writers of the constitution would be having a fit if they were alive today. Things like the Patriot Act that "protect our freedom at the cost of our freedom" would probably make them ask "what went wrong?" before forming a Militia and doing what they did 230 years ago.
So, What Do We Do About It?
I suppose that as long as it's considered high treason to do exactly what our Constitution allows us to do if we the people deem the Government too corrupt or otherwise out of hand and no longer fit to be our Government, there's not a whole lot we can do until enough people are willing to risk being accused of such a "crime" that we the people can successfully establish a new Government.
I also suppose that as long as the general public feels that since they're just middle-class, blue-collar sheep that they can't do anything, they won't do anything. The problem then, lies the fact that we the people have more power than we give ourselves credit for. The President serves us, not the other way around. Anyone who works for a company that realizes its line level employees do, in fact, make or break the company knows about this concept. The Government, especially in its current state, is nothing more than a glorified business.
It wouldn't surprise me, unfortunately, if a President pushes the wrong button with the people and awakens the real sleeping giant. I don't know about any of you who read this, but I know a few dozen people in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains who, individually, have enough firearms to outfit a small battalion and have the skills to take one out.
As George Orwell put it in 1984 - "If there was hope, it must lie in the proles..."
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
That was one of the most well written, articulated, accurate blog I have read in a long time. I rated a 5, and that's big considering I don't rate 99/100 times.
The NRA, while not being shut down, is being watched like a hawk, though, because the government considers it a militia, and, in my opinion, somewhat of a "threat."
That really brings the Waco Incident to mind. The Branch-Davidians, while in my opinion crazy, were well within their Constitutional Rights by stock-piliing the weapons they were killed for having. It's ridiculous that the ATF and other such organizations are formed to prevent and restrict our rights.
And you know, I have to say that I agree with a lot of your points. On the other hand, I can't say that this nation would be able to survive a revolt. We as a people are too divided; to remove the stability of a shitty government would collapse our economy and send the US into another depression.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
"We as a people are too divided; to remove the stability of a shitty government would collapse our economy and send the US into another depression."
Would that necessarily be a bad thing, though? The American people, time and again, have united in the face of hardship to accomplish something. I think that once the majority see that they can actually do something, they would step up and do it. It's just getting to that point that's the hard part.
I think it would just be too much to handle all at one time, you know? It'd be about the same as putting a group of five year olds in a room with all the cookies they could eat and telling them that if they ate too many, they'd get sick. We people would eat our cookies and enjoy the anarchy, but would quickly come to find that our bellies ached.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Ive wondered myself why the American people havnt stepped up and fought against what is going on with our current government. Yet Im not doing anything to help. Maybe the problem is a combination of fear AND comfort? We are so comfortable with our false sense of security and our scramble for luxury and more money, combined with the fear of losing those things, that we turn our backs on the escalating problems. Lets face it, a revolution is never easy, and never won without major losses. Not to mention that, even if fighting for a better Government, we are still 'sheep' as you put it (although not necessarily unintelligent), and we need a leader. No such person has stepped forward, as far as I can tell.
Are you against capitalism? just curious
Great post.
Actually, no, capitalism in the state that it's supposed to be in (even if it isn't really possible, thanks to the human factor, though some situations come quite close to the ideal), is actually very good.
Capitalism, real capitalism, promotes competition among vendors and producers. It promotes efficiency and quality in creating items to sell. However, when you combine the fact that people are cheap and don't care anymore if something is of such poor quality that it'll need to be replaced within a year with the fact that several industries are no longer in competition, but rather have monopolies in their field (Time Warner Cable, for example, has a choke hold on the area I live in, and as such charges $45/mo for just cable Internet that isn't the greatest compared to some of the other companies in other areas) and cause prices to go up and quality to go down.
Awesome, someone who understands Capitalism.
One of not many i've met.
"...have we really had the freedoms that the writers of the Constitution intended?"
"Sadly enough, overthrowing the government is exactly what this country needs."
While I agree with most of what you've said, I have to disagree with overthrowing the government. You said it yourself that the general population are primarily followers. To overthrow the government would only allow power hungry, greedy, vindictive people to attempt leadership. People would take the laws into their own hands more than they already do.
As far as what the writers of the Constitution intended, I think we've branched out from that, and the idea of a "Living Constitution" sounds pretty good to me.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I want people to have all the freedom originally intended. Slavery would come back with a new face, everyone and their children would abuse the use of guns, and chaos would replace conversations on blogs and in coffee shops.
"...chaos would replace conversations on blogs and in coffee shops."
There are no laws governing what we can and can't say on the Internet, yet here we are, having a civil conversation.
"Slavery would come back with a new face..."
Actually, slavery is considered illegal in the Constitution. The idea is to retain the Constitution while getting rid of the people that have been corrupted. I don't argue that the Constitution itself is good. It's fantastic. Those in power, however, have corrupted its meaning and twisted it to benefit them.
"To overthrow the government would only allow power hungry, greedy, vindictive people to attempt leadership."
We already have that, in my opinion. Also, are you saying that Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers were power hungry, greedy, and vindictive people? I find it hard to believe that the person or people that could actually lead a new revolution would be how you describe them, since if they were, they wouldn't need spend the time or effort to overthrow the government. They'd simply run for office.
I think everyone asks these questions in some way, but no one wants to face the answers. Or rather, what the answers would require of us. No one is going to be able to step up and start a revolution. Something is going to have to happen - something big. I am afraid for that day. I do not know how we as humans will handle it.
Very well written, very interesting blog. While I don't agree on all points, I can safely say that they are all good points to be made and you do a good job of making them.
Ultimately, I do completely agree that our government is far too disfunction to be fixed. It's better off replaced, or at least entirely cleaned out and fitted with all new parts. The people in office as of now have gotten themselves in way over their heads with their greed and everyone else is left wondering how we're supposed to get outrselves out of this hole we're in while our government officials and the big companies backing them are busy counting their money. And I do firmly beleive that both the Democrat and Republican party are both equally as corrupt as the other - it's what power does. That's why I really wish that there weren't just two powerful parties from which to choose but that all the existing parties would get a fair and equal opprotunity along side the reps. and dems. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Washington himself against forming any kind of political parties?
Anyway...before I go off on a tangent - kudos. Well done.
Peace
Tahni
-------
"Tell me - if no one ever hears what you say, then why don't you shout it?" -- Floater
First off I would like to comend you on this post.
Now the fall of America as it stands is inevitable. Now this is not to say that America will disappear totally but eventually there will be monumental changes. I personally hope that it does. However for the neccessary amount of people to step up the government/rich folks greatest weapon must be combated. This weapon is called the media. The fact that the media is controlled by an oligopoly will keep people from rising up against the status quo. They will spin the situation in so that the revolutionarys will be deemed a terrorist threat to American freedom rather than the patriotic duty of Americans to keep the government in check. Its going to be difficult but it will happen. Such is the natural progression of life. What is on top will eventually fall.
...I will sign it.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
Overthrowing the government, short of being overkill, won't really do much. Will there ever be an efficient, well-run government? I don't think so. Too many varying opinions on what a "well-run" government is. But I do agree with a lot of the things you said. And the Patriot Act...I can't being something with so many holes made it through our system...
Very eloquently written. But what I simply don't understand is why do we need to have the right to bear arms? This isn't the eighteenth century when Papa had to go out into the woods to shoot supper and bring it home. This is the twenty-first century where you go to the neighborhood McDonald's and bring home fake meat. I am NOT for outlawing people to have guns, but the Constitutional right pro-gun people keep eschewing was back in the day when you needed a gun to survive.
Believe it or not, there are still people who have to go out and hunt in order to put meat on the table. My step-father is one of those people, thanks to low-paying jobs in the area and the fact that he's legally disabled, so his income is nothing more than Social Security. That meant that wild game and fish were the primary meat in our diet.
There are still many, many places where a McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Kroeger, or Giant Eagle are 30 or more miles away.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Guns are not just to hunt or to survive as you seem to imply, but it has the same principle as militias do. In my perspective guns are needed to "ensure the safety of the country against herself" as well, what good is militia without weapons?
Except for the comment above, where another commenter mentioned the use of guns for hunting and survival, where did I imply that they're only for such a case? Or were you going by that comment? I actually mentioned in my original post that the NRA is considered a modern day militia.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Dragonwolf,
Your argument is profound and exactly what the people of this great nation (and ultimately - WORLD) need to read, understand, and profess. I fear that too many are still unable to appreciate how important each opinion (whether for or against) is to the overall growth of our "civilization". WE THE PEOPLE may have all been created "equal", but we sure as hell don't think the same; nor do we live equally.
We the People, For the People, and By the People are the underlying tenets that established this Nation; and those tenets are what will empower the courage to change. A government that cannot grow to accommodate its constituents is destined for failure, and was specifically addressed by the Founders of this Nation:
Whether or not people agree with the content, this was a very well written post. You presented the content in a great fashion, and I wish more people made posts like this. You deserve all the points you get for this blog.
"Don't let anyone ever make you feel like you don't deserve what you want." - 10 things I hate about you
Why haven't we changed things? Because it may be shitty, but it's comfortable,and, as my history teacher has said many times before, "Most human institutions, once established, become self-perpetuated." We're the USA because that's what we were yesterday, last year, last decade, etc, etc. Why is Bush still in power? Because, to paraphrase an old saying, the idiot we know is preferable to the idiot we don't know. Besides, the fear of the instability caused by a shift in power during wartime probably scares most people.
... I wish I had something more intelligent to say...
Actually things have changed, we no longer follow the system of government we were founded on, we no longer care about checks and balances. The public schools do not teach the history of the US the way they should, they teach a liberalized view of it because if the citizens of the US really truely understood the power they have, then they would no longer fear the government, which is the way it is supposed to be. Governments are supposed to fear its citizens, not the other way around.
We won't change back because most americans are lazy and stupid and give less than a fuck about our history and what we were founded on and for.
*cough*points at my last blog*cough*
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I need to comment on that blog, lol. Don't you think we need a day equivelent to Guy Fawkes Day, here in America?
We have one: The fouth of July. I might do a blog comparing the two holidays later.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
oh yeah, good point, lol.
"Why is it modified engines that run on plain gasoline but can reach 70, 80, 100MPG aren't even considered? "
I read the article you posted about the 70 to 100mpg engines. Those are not vehicles with ordinary engines that have been particularly tinkered with. They are just vehicles, probably extremely light and dangerous, with lawnmower engines in them. I have a lawn tractor with a 16 HP Kohler engine in it a lot like the one he describes in his "sports car". I don't doubt that with the right gearing it can get an extremely lightweight chassis to 57 mph but it cannot be anything but a ridiculously underpowered dog. These vehicles are hardly feats of engineering. A Honda may only get half the milage but you get 10 times the horesepower which gives you decent acceleration to a much more tolerable cruising speed and you get to do it in a chassis with enough weight and safety featureswhere you have a chance of surviving if somebody runs into you. I'd rather pay twice as much for gasoline and have my family safe.
The main reason that average milage has only increased by three miles per gallon is that consumers, when offered a broad range of vehicles to choose from, including many that are very light and which get much higher than average mpg, chose the heavy, powerful and safer SUV vehicles that get lower milage. There was no conspiracy. It was free enterprise at work. A vehicle built around a 16HP engines would have died in the marketplace. Very few people want mopeds either and they get 200 mpg. There are other considerations.
Oh and by the way, could you cite the section of the Constitution where people are granted the freedom to overthrow the government? I apparently missed that in my Civics class.
Dear Jack-
Reread the Declaration of Independence. The "Overthrow" Clause is in there.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
But you don't really need 140 horses, nor do you need your car to top out at 200MPH. Also, the curb weight of a Honda Civic is nearly 3,000lbs. Is a ton and a half of steel really required?
You need more safety features because people want bigger, faster, more powerful vehicles and no longer care about economy, despite the fact that gas prices are about 3 times what they were at the turn of the century and were are getting to the point where we seriously need new sources.
Want safety? Get a four-door. I kid you not, they have (or at least used to have) a steel beam between the front and back doors. It saved my mom's life when she had a trophy, 200+ lb buck wrap around her car.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?