10 Things Every Black American Should Know About Dr. Ben Carson Before Forming Any Opinion of Him
But it’s the story of where Carson came from and how he ended up where he is that is so captivating to many. Because his story is so transcending and uplifting, here are ten reasons why black Americans should give the presumed GOP presidential candidate a fair chance before judging him along partisan lines:
#1. Ben Carson came from nothing.
He grew up poor in Detroit and was raised by an uneducated
single mother who pushed him to read by taking him to the library,
learning the value of education early on. From the Blaze:
“One of the things that I used to do is, I used to love to memorize things. I memorized poems, memorized Bible verses,” he said. “And other people didn’t know those things, and it began to make me feel that there was something special about me, and that I could learn things.”
#2. Carson believes he has affirmative action to thank for being accepted into Yale.
He once stated:
“In my mind, I was pretty hot stuff. Only after I got to Yale and became cognizant of my classmates’ many accomplishments did I realize that the admissions committee had taken a substantial risk on me and that I had been extended special consideration.”
#3. Carson took advantage of the opportunity and was accepted into medical school.
From Townhall:
“I was able to adjust to the academic rigors necessary to qualify for medical school admission at the University of Michigan. Medical school was transformative, and I was subsequently accepted into the selective neurosurgical residency at Johns Hopkins. By that time, no special considerations were expected or needed.”
#4. Carson played a role in the first successful operation of the removal of Siamese twins joined at the back of the head at birth in 1987.
From the NY Times:
“Dr. Carson said it was too early to predict how close to normal the boys would be when their recovery is complete, adding that a prognosis is complicated by their age. Many neurological tests require patients who are able to understand verbal instructions, he said.
*But he said brain scans have indicated there was no major visible damage to the frontal lobes of their brains, which are primarily responsible for mental functions.”
#5. Carson, along with his spouse Candy, started the Carson Scholars Fund (CSF).
In 1994, the CSF was created to award those in grades 4-11 who exemplified academic excellence and displayed humanitarian efforts in their communities. Because education is so important, the CSF serves as a conduit to those who are vying for the American dream to become a reality.
#6. There is a movie about Ben Carson.
How many of us can say there’s a movie depicting our lives? That’s pretty fascinating in itself.
#7. Carson is a cancer survivor.
In the midst of performing his surgical duties, Carson was informed that he had prostate cancer.
From ABC News:
“I have the ability to put things out of my mind, so I just put it out of my mind and finished the operation,” said Carson, 51. “But certainly, you know, that evening it did weigh heavily upon me as I began to realize that wow, I have cancer. The thing that bothered me was the fact that I would be leaving so many people behind.”
#8. Carson received the 2006 NAACP Spingarn Medal.
The NAACP awarded Carson its highest honor for his contributions to society and his involvement in academia and education.
#9. Carson was named “Living Legend” by the Library of Congress.
In 2001, the Library of Congress recognized Dr. Carson for his contributions to life. He joins Harry Belafonte, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods and many others in this elite group.
#10. Carson was a recipient of the 2008 Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian honor given on behalf of the President of the United States.
From President George W. Bush:
“The story of our first recipient begins in a poor neighborhood in the heart of Detroit. This was an environment where many young people lost themselves to poverty and crime and violence. For a time, young Ben Carson was headed down that same path. Yet through his reliance on faith and family, he turned his life into a sharply different direction.”As compelling as his journey has been, the bigger question looming is: Would it resonate among the African-American community? As a presidential candidate Carson would have to reach into uncharted territory. He would have to appeal to a culture that has voted primarily Democratic in elections.
As someone who grew up as part of the black community, it is apparent to me that many of its member suffer mightily from a lack of a father figure and the breakdown of the traditional family unit – and many people are looking for substance over rhetoric.
While Carson obviously would need to have his message transcend the color of his skin, he would also need to connect with blacks who are reluctant to identify themselves with the Republican base.
Could this happen? It’s possible. But it wouldn’t come easy. If he runs for president, Carson, who has never held political office before, would have to convince Americans of all races that his message is not only timely, but that he would surround himself with a core of people who are smart and equipped to tackle today’s most pressing issues.
He ranks second in the Iowa polls, behind Romney, who isn't running.
ReplyDeleteThe other 11 clowns running in the primaries will destroy him before there is a chance to take a good look. By some of what he says it's not going to be hard to bounce him from the competition. You guys are good at it.
ReplyDeleteMorning All
ReplyDeleteIn almost all of my posts here, I look for instruction or enlightenment. History I can get from my many books but history is only now being written by current events. Last week I was grievously hurt when TS accused me of racial comments. This week I find myself wishing to comment on a subject with connotations of race but I am hesitant in case someone mis reads that which I have to say.
“---the bigger question looming is: Would it resonate among the African-American community? As a presidential candidate Carson would have to reach into uncharted territory. He would have to appeal to a culture that has voted primarily Democratic in elections.”
Is this of major consideration for the Republicans? They are fighting the follower of the first colored President and are fighting against perhaps the purist of the pure in a Democratic Female candidate! Does anyone believe that apart from the ultra strong Republican supporters, the voting public will hold Benghazi against HRC? As far as I can see, there are no other rabbits hidden under the hat which would curtail her support and I have detected something of a groundswell of sympathy over what is seen as the clutching of straws by the Repubs as they pursue their endless enquiries into a case with less life left in it than a stone.
So where is this leading us?, certainly not into a racist argument but a comparison between what could be seen as a serious candidate from the right against what appears to be an unassailable one from the left.
I watched Carson’s speech in full and recorded it when our national broadcaster ran the speech. I was so impressed that I re-ran it on several occasions and I am still as impressed as on the first time. A man of vision and charisma with a message resonating as honest and sincere to all but the bigots and the one eyed rusted on supporters of the Dems. It is the undecided independents Carson has to impress and he also needs to raise his political profile and his financial base before he becomes a force in two years time.
HRC, unless your President makes a monumental stuff up seems to have it made. Her reputation will grow if and when she nominates. Her gender will carry weight as voters will want to say they put the first female president into the White House and I rather think there is still a great deal of sympathy among female voters at the way she carried herself over the Lewinsky affair.
So there you are a hesitant attempt to put the toe in the water and if anyone wants to call me a racist then your problem is greater than mine
Cheers from Aussie
King HRC would win with the women's vote. The republican party are still after a woman's right to choose, they are going to turn down equal pay legislation before the end of the year and they have defunded planned parenthood and all the good things that they did. These are all issues that weigh heavy on women's minds.
DeleteBen Carson brings us memories of Herman Cain. Herman a highly successful businessman who sprang to the top of the heap with his 9-9-9 tax plan only to be slaughtered by the heap itself. We'll see where Carson goes but thus far it's been hard for newcomers to break into the republican fold since the big rush back in 2010 to win the house and fill it with wing nuts.
From what I've observed, Black voters are more likely to vote for Dr. Carson than Republicans are.
DeleteCome on King, don’t play the martyr... it doesn’t suit you. I questioned the comment you made. You told me that it wasn’t intended the way I had understood it and I believe you. That was the end of that misunderstanding as far as I am concerned. I however questioned the sentence structure that lead me to interpret incorrectly and you basically told me it was my problem and not yours... enough said. You have every right to your writing style and if it gets misread from time to time.. no sweat. I am sorry I caused you grievous hurt and will in future make every effort to forestall any future mental anguish to you.
DeleteCheers from a Septic
Didn't you mean skeptic? I think septic means loaded with germs.
DeleteMick
DeleteI think you must be a young man!!
TS was correct as a Septic was the derogatory term used to describe Americans during world war two. The term derived from rhyming slang and referred to Septic Tanks--- from Yanks, which in turn is a derivative of the word Yankee which I believe stretches way back to the civil war. Of further note is the definition also used in Australia during the war. The Australian forces were all fighting overseas and Australia was a staging post for thousands of American forces.; The descriptive term for Yanks here was as follows “Over paid, over sexed and over here” Yanks were not overly popular even when I arrived here in 1952. Things are now much improved and Americans are now accepted as part of the furniture! You do however have some peculiar habits; glass of water at meal time when perfectly good beer or wine is available. You use of a fork with which to convert food into manageable portions for mastication, then using the same implement to convey the food to the cake hole. All the while the knife sits beside the plate lonely and ignored.!
There you go, cheers from Aussie and vive le difference
If he runs I'll give him very serious consideration. He first needs to clarify the various anti-gun statements he has made in the past so I can understand where he is coming from. On the upside, I'm sure this potential candidate can produce a real birth certificate proving he is an American not some Kenyan, muslim, communist.
ReplyDeleteGotta – Carson said that he had a change of heart on the subject. Whether it was a flip flop or a new reality is uncertain. Previously he had said that semi auto’s should not be in the city and seemed to cosy to the idea of registration but has since taken the stance (perhaps by revelations of the NSA, provisions of the NDAA or maybe some of Obama’s stunts) that registration and restriction is not on the table but said we need to find a way to address the mass and indiscriminate use of guns but said has always said he would never do anything to jeopardize or otherwise weaken the second amendment in any way describing it is “Vitally important”. I think that his comments of a couple of years ago had to do with how you deal with the mentally ill in an open society.
DeleteEveryone here is aware of my views concerning the second; I wonder however if there would be significant support for a candidate from either side who proposed significant changes to the second in an attempt to reduce the mayhem caused by firearms? Gotta appears to be a conditional supporter of Carson and TS obviously has an interest. I wonder if either of the above would consider voting for Carson if he came out and condemned the freedom provided under the current interpretation of the second. We hear almost nothing of the political debate here but we are constantly regaled by the horrific stories of gun related incidents. Sadly in recent times there have been one or two Australians who have become victims in your country. Is there a defined policy within the Democratic Party on changes to the second? I know there will be no progress in my lifetime and before the mindless massacre at Port Arthur, a few miles away from my home, I was a gun owner and had been a shooter for well over fifty years. Somehow I think there is a need for maturity to replace the dogma which was so important to Patrick Henry, Adams, Jefferson and others about two and a half centuries ago.
DeleteCheers from Aussie,where Septics have been unheard of since about 1946!
King, I do understand your reasoning behind not wanting a general public to have access to firearms because of a minority of people who misuse and abuse them. I really do. I consider the pain, anguish and disruption these incidents bring to family and society in general but the dichotomy is that even a one word change in the intent of the 2nd amendment renders it useless.
DeleteIt is a true quandary and one that gets worse as more and more people are packed ever more closely to one another and political correctness consumes some aspects of communication while totally excluding others. I see this as a social problem, a population problem and a moral problem where the gun, albeit convenient and powerful, is simply a tool... a problem addressed not with the teachings of good moral character and respect for life but one to be treated... treated with psychotherapy and psychotropic drugs. Neither of which seem to be helping the world cope very well with or without firearms. I believe that while it is a statistical quick fix, abolition of guns does nothing to solve the social disorder that leads to its use and therefore does nothing to make society itself better. Would I feel that way as a father of a dead child? Perhaps in my rage and grief, I would not but the underlying reason for its inclusion in the constitution remains as valid today as it did at any time in the past.
You seem to think that governments of modern societies no longer have the capacity to turn on its own citizens... To disregard, by means of coercive power, the law and established relationship between citizens and government; to become tyrannical. Call me a tin hat but I am under no such illusion. I have watched, primarily with the last 3 presidents, a shift in the relationship between government and its use of power against its citizenry and it is not in a positive direction. We are told time and again that it is ‘we the people’ who decide what government we have in Washington however any reasonably astute person has to realize that the decision as to who is presented for public vote is decided far away from the electorate and not necessarily for reasons of civic duty. Major decisions have been made against overwhelming public opposition and while I do understand that it is a ‘representative’ government I do not agree with Burk who told his constituents after he was elected, that while he had an ear in their direction, he owed no allegiance to them as he was no longer a representative of Bristol but a member of Parliament and had been elected to exert his own judgement and will regardless of the peoples approval or opposition.
Those who oppose the idea of a free people standing against the established power seem to believe that a citizen army, disorganized and untrained, is irrelevant in the face established military and superior equipment. There are plenty of civil wars that changed history including our own revolutionary war that prove that to be false. What is new and modern and advanced today was no less true then. So I hold to the position that a disarmed citizenry is very much at the will and mercy of its government... not at all how it should be. Not dogma as you say and I am not so sure that denying the possibility is really mature thinking.
Continued >>>>
You, on many times talk, with much endearment about America and its role in the world. A role that, at least up to the Korean war, was about example. Much of America’s makeup was centered around individual and individual responsibility not the government. That was broadcast to the world as a ‘people’s right to self determination’. Self determination is not a foregone conclusion and the advocacy and forceful eradication of firearms from the general population is a tried and true path to control of a population. I do understand that the indiscriminate deaths of so many people each year is distressing and something that begs much consideration but it pales next to the millions of deliberate deaths at the hands of a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao or a Pol Pot.... all within our present memory and all with the blessing of a significant portion of the population.
Delete“The general precursors for the development of Stockholm Syndrome, then, are reasonably well satisfied in the case of citizens of modern states. It is therefore not surprising to find that citizens tend to identify with their governments, adopt their governments’ perspectives, and develop emotional attachments (often considered ‘patriotism’) to their governments. Just as Stockholm victims tend to deny or minimize their captors’ acts of coercion, many citizens tend to deny or minimize their governments’ coercion…. Due to the Stockholm dynamic, power has a self-legitimizing tendency: once it becomes sufficiently entrenched, power is perceived as authority.”
Michael Huemer - The Problem of Political Authority (pages 128-129)
Again, people want to call that ‘tin hat’ thinking in our modern world but modern democracy is a statistical aberration in a very violent human history and ‘modern’ today is tomorrows erstwhile. The easy ‘fix’ appears to be firearms. The real problem, the one that will find a way to manifest itself in some other destructive way, is never addressed. Discussion about the primary cause for violence and suicide would be a welcome change from focusing on the event rather than the cause but then again, this seems to be the way of progressive politics in general.
Interesting about the use of septic to describe Americans... I heard it, right along with the use of Pommies, albeit in humor, several times during my visits to both Sydney and Melbourne.
Thank you for the post, of course I disagree with your sentiments but there may be a little common ground; there will certainly be better understanding!
DeleteI am not totally against firearm prohibition for the general public. I see the needs of the hunters and the target shooters and I agree that such folk should be allowed to own and use firearms in conditions which are regulated and safe. Certain occupations require the use of firearms and these occupations too deserve consideration. What does not deserve consideration is the situation a few weeks ago when a girl under eight years of age was shot in the head in a certified shooting range. I fail also to comprehend how a licensed shooter was permitted to use a concealed weapon to shoot a US Congresswoman (Gabby Hays) from memory. I fail to understand how these nutters and so many others can legally buy, posess and use firearms.
Some remedial action could be taken by more strict state and Federal control, I believe Federal law is broken if a firearm is carried over state borders in some cases. A licensing system so that every firearm is registered under the same conditions as are motor vehicles. The implementation of the suggestions above would not solve the problem. It would perhaps help and attention to the influence of the NRA would also be required.
Of course none of the above are of themselves a solution. However, your assertion that the cause is man made and the result of societal changes is interesting. I tend to agree and having studied your history over the past 200 years I to can see the changes, particularly over the past fifty years. Now, as we agree that society has changed, why I wonder can we not agree that parts of the constitution also need changing to reflect the moral aspect of the present? In 1791 the emphasis was on distrust of a government, the result of living under a colonising power, I too would have been reluctant to lose a potential force to act against a perceived enemy from abroad or a tyrant from your own land...
You now have a stable government of some 200 years standing, your political identity is as strong and well established as any and whether you like it or not so much of your laws, statutes and procedure are taken from the Westminster model which you fought so hard to be rid of!. Even the second has its origins in the British Bill of rights of 1689!
I can understand. but not agree with some of your other assertions, the Stockholm syndrome for instance is a complete red herring, perhaps Patti Hurst would not have been able to access a military rifle if action had been taken before she was captured by a minor terrorist group. As I have a minor interest in philosophy, I have read Huemer,It never ceases to amaze me that as soon a someone puts pen to paper he is considered worthy of citation and the ever-increasing snowball starts to roll.In my view the man is a mouth and nothing more
In conclusion, remember why the first 12 amendments were drafted and 10 ultimately passed; it was nor for the people, it was to placate those States which refused to ratify the constitution which the authors had neglected to complete!
Cheers from Aussie
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
DeleteThose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson
Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison
"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker
"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton
Has the government thus far been stable because of checks and balances the inclusion of the bill of rights of which the 2nd is the teeth or has the bill of rights survived because of a stable government? Assault on the constitution is a constant battle. Not just for the last 50 years but for the entire length of the existence of the country. Of late usurpation of both checks and rights are causing a serious change in our country... one that has polarized opinion... congress is not in deadlock any more than the people it represents.
DeleteOh ye of too much faith. Again why is the country stable... is it because of a strong set of laws that prevent certain actions or is it because America is just exceptional? The laws from which US law is based is has a long and stable history as do the lands from whence they came but just in the short time I have resided here in Britain the government and a compliant citizenry has dismantled two important pillars upon which the long history of their justice system stands. Both for ostensibly good reasons... both never to be returned and both guaranteed to be abused. One... the right of a trial by jury. While the US dismantled this right for ‘national security’ reasons, Britain took a different tact. It was decided that some cases were so complicated that a ‘common’ jury would be unable to phantom the detail and therefore incapable of rendering a sound verdict. Of course it is not you or I who decide our ability to reason and the definitions of ‘national security, like terrorist and the competency of the ‘common man’ are arbitrary and capricious choices left to those you put so much faith in.
The second is double jeopardy. Removed from the rights of citizens and given to a power structure to use at it’s digression. Again, new evidence in an old trial finds overwhelmingly that someone is guilty drives the reasoning behind the striking of this law. The only thing standing between the state and this person is a law that says you can’t try a person more than once for the same crime. Of course no state, even democratic ones have fabricated evidence for a conviction. No prosecutor has manipulated evidence to insure their conviction record. Now Britain has the official right to try someone from birth to death.
After 9/11 and strengthened after 7/7 Britain instituted a set of counter terrorism laws designed to track and compile information on people suspected of teaching or planning terrorist acts. Within 3 years of the issuance of that power, local councils were found to be using its provisions to compile dossiers on people who... had children that were less than consistent in going to school... people who we less than punctual at paying bills to local business.. people who looked or acted different than others in the community. When this was found out, local councils were admonished but nothing about the law changed.
Well, if you believe in the design of distributed government on which rests the premise of a republic then ultimately the amendments were to placate the anti federalist who at the end of the day, were free thinking people. People which grave concerns about an overly powerful national government to the exclusion of both state interests, which to its residents is of importance and to the people themselves. I am not so sure I understand how, for instance, a due process law is of more interest to an individual state than it is to the individual.
We of course will agree to disagree, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not in the best interest of a real democracy and democracy without the diligence of its citizens and their power to invoke correction cannot stand in the face of those who seek out power and wealth.
As a matter of interest in this exchange, could you tell me what and why, in your opinion, has changed in the US over the past 50 years and what provisions of the constitution you feel no longer serve the citizens in a way that preserves the ideals of a truly free people?
TS.
DeleteThanks for the post, no thanks however for the questions at the end! As I am a foreigner, have never been to your country and am but an amateur historian I feel totally unqualified to address the questions you ask. Having said that, perhaps a fresh look at the situation in general terms may bring forth something previously not considered by Americans or will clarify in my own mind something I have seen as but a dim shadow hitherto.
So to the past fifty years or so, the period you ask about. A period full of changes and events, financial, military and political as a beginning but moral and ethical considerations also .These changes have altered the nature of America, the government and the people are not as they were at the end of WW2 and the wealth of the nation has changed. The rich have become richer and the working class have not reaped the same reward from the apparent prosperity of the first half of the period under discussion.
Economically America has suffered from trying to do too much for too many. At the end of WW2 your treasury was able to spend unlimited amounts of money with no effort. The wonderful efforts of the Marshall Plan and the unlimited river of gold poured into the cold war efforts saved the world from probable Soviet domination. The Justification for the Korean War was the blanket fear of the spread of communism and the cost both in men and materials was huge. The Vietnam affair, justified perhaps at the beginning, became something of a farce and was a disaster in the end.
The various spot fires in South America and other places to the south of your country were viewed by many as interference for the sake of economic or political gains. The Cuban situation was, I think a bluff by Russia and the American reaction was too harsh. Cuba may well have become a country with which you could do business rather than make them a constant burr under the saddle blanket. The middle east, at first an interest more in oil than idealism was I believe justified but only if honesty had been the watchword for justification.
Iraq 2 was a spin off from 9/11 and although questionable in its justification was understandable. The events did after all follow the first direct attack on mainland USA since the Brits Burned down the White House in 1814.
In banking and finance we had the results of Bretton Woods. In 1944, America had the most to gain and also took on the largest burden by pegging gold and also agreeing to honour in gold the US dollar at $35 pere ounce. The free world finances were stabilised and the International Monetary fund established to facilitate redevelopment post WW2.
Domestically, America enjoyed a massively robust economy with inflation at acceptable levels, a life style the envy of the world mad a Political System as difficult to understand then as it is now. The citizen’s distrust and distain of his government and the reliance on his rights but not his responsibilities all hark back to his first and last line of defence. The very nature of US living is based on a litigious mentality. I am sure you have more lawyers than any other professional category and all seem to an outsider to be fully employed in prosecuting the citizens, each other or the government for ‘their rights”. These rights are ,as the citizen sees the situation, all in the Constitution and in particular in the first 10 Amendments
PART 2
DeleteWhat concerns outsiders is the insistence on the citizens so called rights but absolutely nothing is said about his responsibilities. I have not read the constitution for some years but I cannot remember one instance when a citizen is reminded of the responsibility he has to his country. Citizenship of the Negro population was not granted until the 14th amendment and in this regard I cannot regard the constitution with as much reverence as so many Americans do.
Now I cannot go on forever but I hope I have in some small way clarified my regard for your nation and its people. I have demonstrated just one fault in the Constitution and the other 17 amendments provide others which have been attended to by law makers of a vintage much younger than the founders. It is this disparity between what was, what is and what is needed which finds so much opposition from people such as yourself and William.
In conclusion, I must finish with the second.As noted above, the responsibilities are not emphasised as much as the rights. To demand your right to unrestricted firearms is to deprive of his “Rights” the poor innocent bastard you shoot and kill, either through criminal intent, carelessness, accident or pure stupidly, I fear that the unyielding adherence to your ":rights” is a fair demonstration of the last reason I have given in the list above.
Cheers
From Aussie (Note. I suffer severely from glaucoma and am partially blind. I cannot further correct this and further use of the computer will be off limits for at least 12 hours. I have written this without notes or references so please excuse any errors of fact..
King, I do very much appreciate the effort put into your comments and the sentiments attached to them. Whether in agreement or not, your making me evaluate my belief system is a good thing. Thank you. I am sorry for your sight conditions. As someone who obviously enjoys the printed word it must be a source of great frustration. I am also sorry for my manifest deficiency in brevity. That too must be a frustration... if not, on occasion, a bore.
DeleteWhat I learned from you this time is that you and I probably don’t disagree with each other very much. Responsibility... moral compass and the kind of internalized compassion that builds communities is sorely missing in the America of today. Exactly how or when that changed, I am not to clear. Sometimes I think it was my ‘boom’ generation and while I give my folks and their generation much credit, perhaps the relaxation and relative ease of life after the war changed them and the way they raised their families. They certainly ushered in a relaxed view of divorce which eroded into ‘no fault’ family failure.
Be that as it may, while I agree that a parent has the right to restrict access to a child’s toys as a method of behavioural correction, I do not consider the government a parent or any provision of the Bill of Rights a toy. As I have said before, rarely does a government give things back once it has managed to wrest it from the hands of the citizenry.
Of course you are more than just a little correct with respect to responsibility. Such, unfortunately, is the nature of a collectivist mindset which demands that the government remove the burden of poor decision making and more often than not, transfer that burden elsewhere. This is why, regardless of how hateful words can get sometimes, political correctness is the absolute bane of anything remotely calling itself a free society.
It is too bad that you recuse yourself from options about our constitution, rights and societal ills on some levels but have strong opinion on others. I think that it is important for Americans to understand how they are seen and perceived. As an American I have spent, off and on, perhaps one third of my life outside US borders. I have lived in the UK, Germany, Japan and Mexico for a combined 24 odd years and spent more than a month(some several) in each of at least a dozen others. The perspective is one that, on many occasions, has put me at odds with my fellow non travelled citizens. I certainly viewed my countries inability to look at solutions outside the country as one of a petulant teenager that knows better than anyone else... but I still believe that if adhered to, the US constitution affords people (individuals) the best shot at the ‘pursuit of happiness’ of any other on the planet.
So don’t be shy... you will of course be accused of not understanding and to butt out... I believe I am guilty of that to some degree, but the perspective in a forum like this, is invaluable. I would rather debate an idea that is abstract or even distasteful to most then to let certain nuances of the idea go unspoken.
Regards
TS I think we have done this subject to death. I find myself just a little disappointed that you have failed to correct a major factual error which I deliberately included in my post. Perhaps if I was to be magnanimous would consider you have been deliberately generous.
DeleteI have previously referred to the causative factor in the second Iraq war as the result of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Of course this is incorrect but so many appear to allow this to be accepted as fact.
9/11 I believe brought forward (but was not the only cause) the Afghan war. I wonder is there a general belief that these skirmishes were occasioned by other causes. Does anyone quarrel with the proposition that Kuwait and its oil fields were the trigger for the Gulf War (the first Iraq invasion) and that the fiasco of WMD was the causative source for the second? I do find that there is reluctance within your country to accept these explanations.
Humm.... An interesting response; more reminiscent of Max I’d say. If you are tired of the subject or conversation with me, that is fine, but I am still scratching my head to understand how the second amendment and an individual citizen keeping a firearm has a whole lot to do with US foreign policy. Yes American attitudes have changed but I am not so sure that engaging other foreign powers is within the decision making powers of the common citizen and US adventurism has been a long steady process of chasing the boogieman if that was the reason at all.
DeleteAs far as not objecting to your comment about the causation of the second Iraq war.... two points. One... Whatever really causes the US government to go to war is no less mysterious to the common man than the underlying details of the Kennedy assassination. Whether for oil, or US military presence, or setting up a pincer movement on Iran, or Hussein’s treatment of his people, or his uncomfortable knowledge of US intelligence affairs, or WMD or Al Qaeda and 9/11 or just one more step in setting up a US headed new world order. Anything you or I would say is subjective at best. To attempt to argue every nuance of someone’s comments is futile in the first place... and in the second and number Two... You admonished me at the end of your comments to not pay attention to any potential errors of fact; A ploy for a diabolically set up miss direction?
TS.This is to be my final comment in our discussion concerning the second and its attendant horrors being thrust upon the people of America. In the past few hours we have learnt of the occurrence of the fifty first school shooting in the US this calander year. Two fatalities, the perpetrator being but 14 years of age. Two or three more children fighting for their lives in hospital. What will the father of the shooter say to the fathers of those he killed?
DeleteFor fifty times this year you have read about these events and today yet again kids are dying because so call responsible adults care more about some 200 year old Ideal than the lives of their kids. Consider if you will how many other developed countries in the world permit the laxity in gun ownership evident in America? Is your nation peopled entirely by humans who act as imitators of Pavlov’s dogs? Quite frankly your stance on this subject disgusts me
There are about eleven thousand homicides by firearm per year in the USA down 49% from a peak in 1993.
DeleteLast year there were one point two million babies aborted here. Many anti second amendment zealots like yourself King are remain silent concerning the this statistic.
Disgust? How about you examine your priorities as pertaining to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" king.
William. Thanks but I have nothing further to say concerning the fire arms question. As to the abortion debate in your country, it is none of my business having nothing to do with the second. However, termination is a most unfortunate event and requires tremendous courage from the mother who, since Rowe V Wade has the right to a termination in the first trimester. It is my opinion, which I have no intention of shoving down your neck that the decision should rest with the woman. Becoming pregnant can be a disaster or a joy, depending on the circumstances. It is not for the rest of us to dictate the outcome of the pregnancy. The responsibility and the right of the woman are paramount in my view. Whether life begins at conception or at birth is a question not for you and me but for God and his followers. I have no religious convictions and therefore no opinion. The second and guns however is not an abstract question, it boils down at present to a political power struggle and one that I fear the Party I would support, has got terribly wrong.
DeleteCheers from
"Since its creation in August 2013, the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee has raised $10.6 million, slightly more than the $10.2 million taken in since January 2013 by the better-known Ready for Hillary, the group urging the former Secretary of State to seek the Democratic presidential nomination. It's also outraised Ready for Hillary in the two most recent quarters."
ReplyDelete"Small donations dominate the pro-Carson group's reports. About $9.5 million of the $10.6 million raised, or 90 percent, came from people whose donations aggregate to less than $200, according to Federal Election Commission filings."
DeleteWhat Republican voters need to know about Carson.......he's black. In the event he does actually gain ground, this will only embolden other blacks to try and be successful. In the event they do become more successful, they will take jobs away from white men. This, in essence, sums up the far right view.
ReplyDeleteWhilst many liberals will never vote for a candidate who is not pro-choice, we have their mirror image in the gun toting crowd who will forever fear that the gubmint is a comin for their guns. Someday, perhaps we will have a large enough group of people who will demand something more than we are being given to choose from right now.
Huh?
DeleteDon't worry about it gotta.... its called 'Race Baiting'... its something that liberals do, but one day the people progressives use to gain and retain power will see the twisted intent behind the propaganda ... and they will realize that you don't elect a president based on sex or skin color because that will get you a 'leader' like our current President... an empty shirt, devoid of experience, honesty or love for the country the office is suppose to preserve.
DeleteYeah, I got that part. As far a government coming for our guns, the Germans had to register theirs during the Weimar Republic then Hitler came to power (after he was elected btw) and used the registration records to seize all firearms. Think it could never happen here? Think again.
DeleteI own a 12 ga. shotgun. a 22 cal. rifle and a 32 cal.pistol. I do not suffer from the delusion that they would protect me from an army which has tanks, chemical weapons, airplanes, nuclear submarines, helicopters, nuclear weapons, etc. Anyone who thinks that small weapons will protect them from a modern army is delusional at best, perhaps insane.
DeleteMick
DeleteThere you have it, a concise destruction of the often stated aims of gun ownership in an unregulated form. We need a Militia is the cry and we demand the freedom given us by the second.
Mick thank you for pointing out to your countrymen that a standing army was banned in the constitution and the militia was encouraged by the private ownership of firearms. William above spouts a heap of quotes to support the flintlock agenda of the founding fathers, the quotes make a mockery of the greatness of those men and the selected quotes give rise to questions from the thinking man.
Of course the founders were vocal in their utterances; they were either leading up to, engaged in a fight for the very survival of the colonies or, most important of all, the struggle to bring forth a new nation. Only the accident of time and place could have given your people the greatness of those men. Four of the first five Presidents from Virginia with others such as Wythe adding their greatness to a select group. They formed the constitution according to the times and their vision for the future of a Nation then not grown to power and greatness. It is surely unreasonable to continue to laud the thinking of those great leaders in areas where history has moved on and made organizations such as Militias not only unnecessary but dangerous. I believe there are armed mobs on the southern border calling themselves Militias in an attempt to protect the border.
Cheers from Aussie
Mick, I too am under no illusion that those weapons could defeat a well equipped military destine to defeat an enemy at all costs. And make no mistake, when you talk about tanks, chemical weapons, airplanes, nuclear submarines, helicopters and nuclear weapons, you are talking about 'at all costs'.
DeleteBritain had a superior army that when applied to its fullest would have decimated every city, town and village that existed at the time. Of course that military had two problems... one was that not all serving were dedicated to the principles of colonial power and some were indeed sympathetic to the cause of the 'revolutionaries' and second, and what makes your argument wrong, is that regardless of anything, they did not want to decimate the land and people they were occupying.
Killing everyone is easy.. we saw that with the irradiation of Indian tribes by the dozens. Having a standing viable society when the smoke clears requires a little more restraint and 300 million guns is a lot of deterrent against an army and police force that number less than two million.
This is precisely why the US has not won a military action against another population since WWII. Only the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima ended those wars... the desire not to decimate everyone that stands is part of our peoples DNA. The logic that you use in dismissing the power of the second amendment is not unlike blacks who burn their own towns to protest the action of others... then they have to live with what is left.
It is obvious king that you and Mick are smarter than our founders. We will rue the day that we created a professional standing army.
ReplyDeleteWhat prevents Obama today from reading one of my blog posts, sending his minions to my home, declaring me insane for declaring my faith in our founders, arresting me, and putting me on a shelf somewhere? Or a future tyrant in doing the same thing to any other American poster on this board?
Obama already kills Americans overseas with drones without so much as a side glance from our learned elite.
I stand with the time honored truths. Be slaves if you must.
1773-2009