tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post3755833330633147133..comments2023-12-07T00:37:30.109-08:00Comments on Historical Threads: More important than the 2nd AmendmentJames V. Hillegashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-81385747903664709482010-08-02T10:20:59.903-07:002010-08-02T10:20:59.903-07:00Great Philosophy Talk show on this topic: "Th...Great <a href="http://philosophytalk.org/" rel="nofollow">Philosophy Talk</a> show on this topic: "<a href="http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/CorpPerson.html" rel="nofollow">The Corporation as a Person</a>," June 20, 2010. <br /><br />Related PT blog comments <a href="http://theblog.philosophytalk.org/2010/06/corporations-as-person.html#comments" rel="nofollow">here</a>.James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-8342431546719675272010-01-25T13:53:41.930-08:002010-01-25T13:53:41.930-08:00I look forward to engaging more people on the issu...I look forward to engaging more people on the issue of the Second Amendment; I purposely formulated this post title to be contentious (*wink wink!*).<br /><br />Regarding the efficacy of sharing my thoughts through this blog, <a href="http://www.despair.com/blogging.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> website has an interesting commentary on blogging: "Never before have so many people with so little to say said so much to so few."James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-35439686472270664842010-01-24T17:55:58.076-08:002010-01-24T17:55:58.076-08:00James:
Well, at least I gave you an opening to mo...James:<br /><br />Well, at least I gave you an opening to more clearly define what you were NOT saying about guns and gun ownership. :-) <br /><br />Following the Sept.11, 2001 attack on the US, I published an online editorial about what I expected would happen to our "rights" as US citizens. It's lengthy so I won't copy it all, but it is on my website. Sadly, I report that what I suspected...and worse...is coming true. <br /><br />"....We have important questions to ask ourselves. These questions must be asked, and answered, not only for the preservation of our own rights and jobs, but for the generations to come. There are different kinds of freedom. Right now we are terrified of what happened, and what could still happen. But the loss of life, no matter how devastating and horrific, will pale in comparison if we let this become a runaway train loaded with the precious freedoms for which our ancestors gave their lives. How will we answer our great-grandchildren when they ask, 'Where were you when America lost her freedom?'" (Sept. 2001)<br /><br />http://www.cluesonline.com/editorialSept2001.htm<br /><br />Keep sharing your thoughts, James. We have to find a way to get people to pay attention.Gracehttp://www.cluesonline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-48206817392118152232010-01-24T14:47:32.240-08:002010-01-24T14:47:32.240-08:00Ruth Marcus, "Campaign financing: The high co...<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/post_42.html" rel="nofollow">Ruth Marcus, "Campaign financing: The high court's intellectual dishonesty," <i>Oregonian</i> Jan. 23, 2010.</a><br /><br />"In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty."James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-44592172360845751102010-01-24T14:34:58.630-08:002010-01-24T14:34:58.630-08:00Michael Waldman, "Supreme Court's radical...<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/supreme_courts_radical_ruling.html" rel="nofollow">Michael Waldman, "Supreme Court's radical ruling may be start of epic power struggle," <i>Oregonian</i>, Jan. 24, 2010, p. D5.</a><br /><br />"For starters, the court boldly reached to consider a major constitutional case when it didn't have to. The case itself addressed an arcane issue . . . The justices easily could have ruled on narrow statutory grounds."<br /><br />". . . it shows an unsettling eagerness to overturn precedent in line with ideological predilection."James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-12605828981521297652010-01-22T22:04:26.760-08:002010-01-22T22:04:26.760-08:00This is pretty deep. You need to read it:
Dahlia ...This is pretty deep. You need to read it:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2242208/" rel="nofollow">Dahlia Lithwick, "The Pinocchio ProjectWatching as the Supreme Court turns a corporation into a real live boy," Slate.com Jan. 22, 2010.</a>James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-78242376338845669052010-01-22T11:48:18.654-08:002010-01-22T11:48:18.654-08:00Elizabeth Pratt and Carol Cushman, "Campaign ...<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/campaign_finance_reform_good_f.html" rel="nofollow">Elizabeth Pratt and Carol Cushman, "Campaign finance reform: good for Portland, good for the nation," <i>Oregonian</i> Jan. 22, 2010, p. B7.</a><br /><br />The link above provides some interesting insight into this issue, to wit:<br /><br />"Portland, however, is a national leader in that reform after adopting public campaign financing in 2005, a reform strategy that's gaining momentum at the federal level. Called Voter-Owned Elections in Portland and the Fair Elections Now Act in Washington, D.C., the basic concept is the same. <i>The reform system emphasizes small-donor fundraising and provides limited public support to put typical folks on equal footing with corporate interests in funding candidate campaigns</i>." [Italics mine]James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-65198993359114631472010-01-21T16:45:44.724-08:002010-01-21T16:45:44.724-08:00Newt Gingrich is absolutely wrong: Today's SCO...Newt Gingrich is <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122823118" rel="nofollow">absolutely wrong</a>: Today's SCOTUS decision to gut campaign finance laws will <i>not</i> benefit "the middle class"; Gingrich is just using this argument as a simplistic ideological appeal.James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-63705875882437534562010-01-21T12:44:37.567-08:002010-01-21T12:44:37.567-08:00Grace, my point is that gun rights are window dres...Grace, my point is that gun rights are window dressing when people don't live in a functioning, open, democracy, and unregulated corporate access to elections is a symptom of a dysfunctional electoral process that erodes democracy. The corporate state doesn't need to confront gun owners in some epic, direct, conflict when it controls the electoral process and the airwaves; citizens who do or do not own guns will be equally disenfranchised <i>de facto</i> if not <i>de jure</i> when they're being manipulated by large corporate financial reserves.<br /><br />Another point I was trying to make -- and this will be a separate post one of these days -- is that protection of freedoms to access and disseminate information is more fundamental to a functioning democracy than protection of access to firearms. Two broad cases that support this point: 1) the Civil Rights movement relied predominantly on non-violent, direct action and dissemination of information, news accounts, etc., to achieve its successes; 2) all the guns and bombs that saturate Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia provide those countries with very little in the way of stability, civil rights, security, etc.<br /><br />All this being said, I'm <i>not</i> advocating that law-abiding American citizens <i>not</i> be allowed to possess firearms. So, if anyone else comments on this thread, s/he can't assert otherwise.James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-3112832305247645922010-01-21T12:29:14.648-08:002010-01-21T12:29:14.648-08:00Further commentary:
Richard L. Hasen, "Mone...Further commentary: <br /><br />Richard L. Hasen, "<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2242209/" rel="nofollow">Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform</a>," <i>Slate.com</i> Jan. 21, 2010.<br /><br />NPR Talk of the Nation program, Jan. 21, 2010, "<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122818461" rel="nofollow">Supreme Court Lifts Campaign Spending Limits</a>."James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-11119063090374092142010-01-21T11:30:15.662-08:002010-01-21T11:30:15.662-08:00Those "concerned only with protecting their s...Those "concerned only with protecting their selves and small fiefdoms.." are, for the most part, the ones who will be protecting the people who are now making such accusations should our country come to the state that it seems to be rapidly approaching. Those with guns, of course, include most of the people who love you! <br /> :-) I do agree with your points about this atrocious Supreme Court decision. So long as we pay so little attention to the people we allow into power to appoint these "Justices" we will continue to see our constitutional rights diminished.Aunti Gracehttp://fortheloveoffamilyhistory.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com