Government of—not by—the people

Given the turnout for recent elections, it may be presumed that Americans don't care much about their freedom either. A great majority choose to leave governing to others and do not vote, leaving one to assume they don't care how they are governed as long as someone else does it.

The majority of the ones that do vote, complain that their views are not adequately represented yet consistently vote for the same representatives that they complain about. Generally because it is just too much trouble to do anything other than vote for the candidates that are presented to them. Again leaving one to assume that they don't care who governs them as long as someone else does it.

The Democrat and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. Both seek power to govern the many for the benefit of the few. Neither wishes to represent the interests of the voters, instead, they wish the voters to embrace the interests of the party. And then go away while the government pursues policies that benefit the supporters of the party in power.

By supporters, I mean financial supporters. There are two kinds of votes in this country, everybody has one that they cast on election day. But those are not the "voters" that are represented. It is the "vote" of the monetary contributor that speaks the loudest and those "voters" are the ones whose interests are represented.

The monetary vote can be trumped by real voters refusing to vote for the candidates that are presented. But refusing to cast a vote for the major parties is not enough. The vote still has to be case for someone to have any weight. Vote for who you know, even if it is your neighbor or best friend. Write in their name. Write in votes are still legal and must be counted.

One way or another, we are responsible for the government we have. If it is going to change, we have to change it ourselves with our votes, not hope someone else will and wait for it to happen.

The American Way

In an Op-Ed column titled "The American Way" in today's New York Times", Bob Herbert says,

"Murderous gunfire claims many more victims than those who are actually felled by the bullets. But all the expressions of horror at the violence and pity for the dead and those who loved them ring hollow in a society that is neither mature nor civilized enough to do anything about it."

What rings hollow is Herbert's reference to a mature and civilized society. The beginning of maturity is the recognition and acknowledgement of reality. What Herbert doesn't understand is that we don't live in a mature and civilized society. We never have. The most consistent thing in human history is mans' inhumanity to man. This is why those of us who are mature enough to recognize the reality of the shortcomings of our so-called civilized society choose to arm ourselves in self-defense. Fortunately, the right to do so is the American way.

Restored rights for felons?

In a post over on Alphecca, among the comments is one by AndyA. suggesting that felons who commited non-violent felonies such as political corruption or financial mismanagement should have their rights restored (so they can vote and own guns among other things). A simple reason comes to mind: The loss of rights is one of the consequences of committing a felony. It is one of the things that sets felonies apart from misdemeanors. In this era of plea bargaining, probation and parole, it is often the only thing.

Limits to freedom

Back in 2003, there were a number of folks upset with how the Secret Service was dealing with protesters at Pres. Bush's public appearances, Blogcritics.org among them. You can read the whole thing here, but this passage jumped out at me:

In the letter to Ashcroft recently released, the members of Congress called the prosecution of Bursey for carrying his sign outside the designated free speech zone "a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending."

"As we read the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a 'free speech zone.' In the United States, free speech is the rule, not the exception, and citizens' rights to express it do not depend on their doing it in a way the President finds politically amenable ... We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in 'zoning' Constitutional freedoms...

No interest in zoning Constitutional freedoms? Since when? It looks to me as if someone decided to interpret the Constitution with some consistancy for a change and read the First Amendment the same way the Second Amendment has been read for many years.

But they are actually right. There are no zones of Constitutional freedoms. Per the First Amendment, the entire United States is a free speech zone. And per the Second, it is a free to bear arms zone as well.

As we read the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a 'free to bear arms zone.' In the United States, the individual right to keep and bear arms is the rule, not the exception, and citizens' rights to bear arms do not depend on their doing it in a way that Sarah Brady or anyone else finds politically acceptable.