Let me give a benefit of the doubt here. I went to university with Senator Dianne Feinstein. I don't think she is a 'bad' person. I'm sure that Sen. Feinstein feels it is simply silly to think that if in the U.S. guns were strictly banned, except for the 'peacekeepers,' the citizenry should have no fear of their government turning on them, as has happened many times in history. After all, in America the government is The People; right?
Er; which people?? And that, of course, is the rub.
I'm sure that Sen. Feinstein - and being a member of the Democrat(ic) Party and all1 - is thinking: the majority. Of which Democratic Party candidates are, generally speaking - with control of both the Senate and the Executive branch of government - currently the uppermost representation of The People. So, she's safe. For now. And in the foreseeable future. And especially if millions - millions - of illegal aliens are to be given an inside track to citizenship.2 Over all those prospective good citizens who are waiting their turn at the borders, so to speak. To become a part of 'the land of opportunity' - legally.
I am pointing out the prevailing political mentality today: of lawbreaking. Including playing fast and loose with the Constitution.3 And if the Democratic Party majority promised not to ride roughshod over the minority - to say the middle class and up - would their promises amount to a hill of beans?
I think not.
And especially when the Democratic Party seems not that fussed over their Dear Leader taking it upon himself to run a kill list of 'enemies of the state'.4
Whose enemies?
Which state?? The U.S. as it has been???
I think not.
No, we're not talking about the U.S. as it has been. We're talking about the U.S. as it could be. If this Marxist/statist Dear Leader - who, to give him his due, announced early on his intentions, when he talked (before adoring crowds) about our being on the verge of "major transformation" in and of the country - has his way.5
So, no. We don't need fewer guns in the hands of The People. We need more. Until The People - to say: The People of the 'We the People' of the Constitution of the United States of America - can defend themselves adequately, from other individuals, and especially from the state. The latter of which often grows inimical to the rights of its citizenry; just loves power. To judge by history.
As it has been.
Although not as it will be.
When The People, having had enough of (the need for) guns, and of living by their own temporal vision of what life is all about, decide to look Up.
For a Change.
A Change they can truly believe in.
Rather than the same old, same old.
Not the kind championing the tossing aside of the Constitution, that old "piece of paper" written by quaint old bewigged fuddy-duddies for quaint old times, with their notions of 'inalienable rights' and such. When everybody in this day and age knows that the only rights that 'the people' have are those vouchsafed them by the state. With free speech, for example, allowed within limits, as set by the state; and so forth, and so on, and on: life itself as determined by the state.
I am sure that there are many who feel that the U.S. 'as it has been' needs to change anyway. And in point of fact, I am one of them. But to a higher state of being. Not a lower one, of the shadows and the likes of the former USSR, with Stalin also picking and choosing names from a list, of 'enemies of the state,' for extermination. And we all know of the likes (and dislikes) of Chairman Mao. Don't we? And Pol Pot??...They were thinking of 'the good of the people' too.
Just not in terms of individual rights.
Don't go there - to the likes of thinking to supersede the Constitution - with the consciousness that you are embedded in, and demonstrating, at this time.
To do that sort of thing, requires a more rarified mentality than is being expressed at this time, by the majority of people.
Of The People.
So:
First things first, Sen. Feinstein.
You have a part of the picture.
Just not the whole one.
That is waiting in the wings.
For us to earn ours.
---
footnotes:
1 And what is this business of referring to the Democrat Party in its extended version?? I have even heard it said that 'you' are a nasty bigoted Neanderthalic rightwinger if you refer it as the Democrat Party - that that is an insult. I don't get it. But in the interests of fairness, I'll use that term throughout this little commentary on 'that' political party. And its tendencies.
What in the UK is called the Militant Tendency, of the Left.
(Not to be confused with the militant tendency of the Right. Power being what it is.)
2 Not that non-citizenship has stopped many of them - and others - from voting, with many of the States's lax registration standards; which has made a farce of the whole voting thing. But that's another, albeit related, subject.
And as for the attempt by the Left to call them, rather, 'undocumented workers': I call'em as I see'em. They are in the country illegally. They are lawbreakers. Lawbreakers do not, by their nature, make good citizens.
Now, in a despotic regime - or one that has turned that way - that's a different matter. So, for example, if the majority started riding roughshod over the individual in America, and decided to do away with the Constitution, by hook or by crook......
3 Liberals have made no bones over the years about their dislike of the Constitution, with its enthroning of the individual under a clear rule of law stopping them from introducing the sort of nation that they prefer: a 'proper' democracy, to be run by their demagogues (aka 'democratic centralism').
Forgetting, apparently, that 'the other side' has demagogues, too. And a lot of potential political clout, financially speaking.
Look how close George W. came to such a fascistic takeover of the country. Liberals: Stop. Think. Do you really want the Constitution to be the same thing as your most extreme opponents wish it to be?? Nothing more than "just a damn piece of paper"???...
Get real, boys and girls. You are up against pros.
Who are already using you to gain their ends.
4 And if you think that it's all only about 'senior members of the al-Qaeda organization,' boy, do I have a deal for you on a used bridge.
5 And in the context of that "major transformation," has talked about the country needing a civilian 'security' force "as strong as the military". Shades of Hitler's SS.
And Joe and Jill Public - where were you when he made these announcements?? Watching the other entertainment shows on the boob tube, heedless of the ramifications of these comments???
And where are you now, with the country further down that path announced, in so many words, by the erstwhile Leader of the anthill????...
A hill of beans...an anthill......am I over the hill, in my concerns for America? One of those old fuddy duddies who are keeping the country from moving on, to its better days??
An old fuddy duddy, yes; I'll answer to that charge.
But keeping the country from moving on to its better days???
I think not.
I think I'm trying to help it get there.
In fact: I know I am.
Any takers????
Oh - and I am not talking about the state/U.S. government 'as it has been' in the hands of a fascistic nexus between the corporate world and the government, whereby, e.g., providers of 'health foods' and products are run out of business for being a thorn in the side of the medical-pharmaceutical complex; who make their money on sick people. Not on a healthy populace. And so, e.g., walnuts, or cherries, or pomegranates, cannot be advertised as having certain proven healthy properties, because such advertising makes them a drug.
Got that??
I didn't either.
And refuse to.
A challenge to the healthy profits of the drug industry or no.
No comments:
Post a Comment