Eric Holder (1995): "We must brainwash people against guns..."

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Dude, this discussion is about the meaning of the highly ambiguous language in the Second Amendment.

How on earth is it ambiguous?

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Dude, this discussion is about the meaning of the highly ambiguous language in the Second Amendment.

Even if it is "ambiguous," as you say, you still have every State in the Union guaranteeing the right to firearms. Not one State bans firearms.

There really is no wiggle room to outright ban people from owning a firearm.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Dude, this discussion is about the meaning of the highly ambiguous language in the Second Amendment.

So then riddle me this. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution delegates the power to Congress to regulate the militia. So, why would they duplicate the Constitution.

They were also smart people. If the secondment amendment is about some sort of collective right hogwash, or about a power of Congress (that's already in the Constitution--read the section about powers of Congress) why would the people who wrote the Constitution put something about the powers of Congress in a section of the Constitution which is about protecting individual rights?

Thirdly, the second amendment also uses the phrase "the right of the people." So do the first and fourth amendments. In those cases, does that text refer to a collective right or does it refer to an individual right.

Fourth, suppose that the second amendment does not protect an individual right, but instead protects a collective right. Read Amendment IX.

 

[Schneiderman]

Your appeal to the writtings of the founders proves that it's ambiguous.

x1

Your appeal to the writtings of the founders proves that it's ambiguous.

x2

Why did you appeal to the writtings of the founders to find the meaning of language you claim is unambiguous?

x3

Three times you demonstrate a lack of integrity.

What I said: "And if that wasn't enough, ..."

I appealed to the text of the amendment myself. Since you had already rejected the text itself as sufficient evidence of its meaning (indicating that you are a dishonest person with no intention of a genuine discussion in the first place), I added testimony that supports the text of the amendment itself.

I have no problem with the meaning the Supreme Court put on the amendment.

That's because you don't like what the 2nd amendment says, and support the gutting of it by dishonest judges who suffer from the corruption of power.

The Supreme Court is staffed by human beings who are subject to human failings. Given that they are selected from the same ranks of the elite as the politicians who put them in power, it is no surprise that they fail to uphold their oath and the proper standards of their office.

What rules of construction did you follow to arrive at an interpretation that just so happens to conform perfectly with your personal views?

I read the words. My personal view is dependent upon what the text says. The text is very clear.

What rules of construction did you follow?

I read the words. The text is very clear.

I thought you said you were familiar with the writtings of the founders.

In other words, you can not provide an example of any founding father denouncing the 2nd amendment as being intended to deceive.

PS: Which co-author of the Bill of Rights said they were good for nothing?

Now who is appealing to the writings of the founding fathers? The Constitution is a document of law that was ratified by the states and enforced by the government that it established. No matter which founders or how many may have denounced it in print, it is still a document of law. Rejecting the power of the constitution because any number of founders criticized it is the same as rejecting the power of the PPACA because a number of politicians have criticized it. No matter how much we may dislike it, PPACA is, as a matter of fact, law. Of course, PPACA is indeed very ambiguous and confusing, whereas the 2nd amendment is incredibly clear.

Why do you ignore the language which states that the object of the amendment is a well regulated militia?

There is no such language. You are being dishonest. The object of the amendment is The People and to state otherwise is an obvious lie. Stop being dishonest.

If the object of the amendment was the militia, then it would guarantee the right of the milita to keep and bear arms. That is not the case. Stop being dishonest.

Even if- and we are speaking hypothetically here, so don't take this out of context as you did with the founding fathers comment- IF the object of the amendment was in fact the milita, it wouldn't make that much difference. Most able bodied men are, by federal law, members of the militia.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is calculated to amuse, or rather to decieve.

Are you speaking of the opinion of Thomas Jefferson? You know, that guy who wasn't even there?

I have no problem with the meaning the courts put on the Amendment.

Because the courts have lied and you, being dishonest, support their lie.

 

[Fred In Dallas]

How on earth is it ambiguous?

Well, let's see here. First, there is the introductory clause which seems indicate that the object is a well regulated militia.

 

[Fred In Dallas]

So then riddle me this. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution delegates the power to Congress to regulate the militia. So, why would they duplicate the Constitution.

I seem to recall that during the Virginia Ratification Convention there was concern that Congress could disarm the State militias by simply not exercising it's power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia."

There was no objection, in any State Convention, to the fact that there was no right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Constitution.

 

[Fred In Dallas]

I read the words.

I see. Is that the only rule of construction you follow? Do you apply that rule to all of the Constitution?

 

[Fred In Dallas]

The text is very clear.

Does the Second Amendment protect the right of a defendant in a criminal proceeding from having a Thompson Sub Machine Gun at the defense table?

 

[Fred In Dallas]

In other words, you can not provide an example of any founding father denouncing the 2nd amendment as being intended to deceive.

Which founding father said that working on the amendments made him want to vomit?

 

[Phred]

Funny... the same people who claim that condoms promote sex don't see how guns promote killing.

I mean, if having something makes you feel safe and the outcome is that then you're more likely to use it...

 

[Blackguard_]

I seem to recall that during the Virginia Ratification Convention there was concern that Congress could disarm the State militias by simply not exercising it's power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia."

Yep, protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms ensures the militias can't be disarmed.

The amendment is about the militia, but it is not the "only National Guard members can own guns" sort of nonsense the anti-gunners push either, that seems to be the sort of situation the amendment was meant to guard against.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I don't like claims of brainwashing, regardless of who is making them. The notion of brainwashing implies that a person has not only been brainwashed, but that they are unaware of it. It is an underhanded way of saying that they haven't thought about the beliefs they hold in any critical capacity.

Anyone can be brainwashed, just like anyone can fall prey to a cult - be it religious, secular, business, political, sports, social, whatever. It doesn't matter whether one is dumb or intelligent, crude or sophisticated, naive or worldly, uneducated or highly educated, young or old... anyone can fall prey to even the simplest of mind control techniques - and not have a clue until someone else is able to point it out, usually following some sort of reverse process that undoes the process of mis-information they'd been led down.

Moreover, I'll clue you into some of those most susceptible to it - you identified them - those who haven't plied any critical thought to the beliefs they've been fed - largely because they were disposed to espouse those beliefs in the first place - and THAT largely because they were fed the information at a time, and in circumstances where they had no reason to question them. Predisposition.

Something else you should know - because I gather from your comment (correct me if I'm wrong), that you have a conception of brainwashing or mind-control (however one describes it) that imagines people wandering around (and understand, I'm exaggerating a bit here, and that for effect) in some sort of glassy-eyed daze or trance, only to wake at the snap of the controller's fingers to do their bidding. That is the Hollywood perception of mind-control. Mind control techniques vary immensely - from the very physical (violence, threats of violence, abuse, torture, etc.) to the very subtle forms of manipulation by one human on another.

All forms target something the victim deeply desires, which is why they are in fact so successful. Security (emotional, physical, psychological, religious, economical, etc.), companionship, a sense of belonging, purpose in life, meaning in life, release from any of a number of forms of 'captivity' - and so on. It doesn't matter how critical a thinker someone is in one or more aspects of their life, there's usually other aspects in which they're vulnerable, where even the best critical thinkers fail to ply that discipline.

Poor choice of words from Holder. From what I gather, he wants to counteract what he sees as "brainwashing" with some brainwashing of his own. As I said, that is just an underhanded way of telling people that they aren't critical thinkers. It's an insult of sorts.

Actually, what Holder is espousing in that video is one of the highest forms of insult - he actually believes it will work - and frankly, he's largely right - which is what makes it so insidious. He knows that with a steady, repetitious diet of "his" information pummeling people from every direction and every source of "credibility" that he can sway his target audience to his way of thinking, to basically do his bidding - his bidding in this case being to vote, to voice "their" opinion, to organize, to protest, to write their editors, congressmen, to report others, etc. and thus eventually effect his goal of getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens. That's not hyperbole or exaggeration - that is his goal; and as you rightfully point out, it's arrogance of the worst kind - plied in a seemingly innocuous context - or more aptly, pretext of 'protecting' youths on the streets of DC (never mind the information campaign is going to everyone...).

It's difficult to tell whether Holder thinks that only the "brainwashed" who love guns are in need of re-brainwashing or whether he thinks that everyone ought to be brainwashed because no one is sufficiently capable of critically reflecting on their own views vis-à-vis guns. Whatever the case may be it is supremely condescending to hear politicians call whole groups of people "brainwashed" just because they happen to adhere to different political views.

Well, I have to agree. It is condescending, and arrogant, and frankly not a tad tyrannical. But as I said above, what makes the methods he outlines above work, is in fact a target audience largely pre-disposed to accept the message uncritically - whether their motive is fealty for the party, a desire to see an end to violence, or feeding a belief already inculcated - the arrogance of the methodology is that, while being utterly manipulative, it is a fundamentally dishonest methodology as well - dishonest in its approach, dishonest in its presentation, and dishonest in its ultimate purpose.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Funny... the same people who claim that condoms promote sex don't see how guns promote killing.

...or how ropes promote strangling, how water promotes drowning, how baseball bats promote bludgeoning, how tall buildings promote rapid deceleration trauma, or - my favorite - how spoons promote obesity.

I can't speak for everyone, but my objection to "condoms" has nothing to do with their promotion of sex but everything to do with the State bypassing the parental relationship and mandating their distribution (or availability, whatever phraseology one prefers...), bypassing the rights and responsibilities of the parents over that aspect of their children's lives. In other words, it's absolutely none of the State's business to be involving itself in citizen's lives like that.

I mean, if having something makes you feel safe and the outcome is that then you're more likely to use it...

Well that makes no sense whatsoever - the premise being that if someone feels "safe" in owning a gun that that "sense of safety" will result in their actually using it.

It begs the question - "how? or, "on whom?"

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Moreover, I'll clue you into some of those most susceptible to it - you identified them - those who haven't plied any critical thought to the beliefs they've been fed - largely because they were disposed to espouse those beliefs in the first place - and THAT largely because they were fed the information at a time, and in circumstances where they had no reason to question them. Predisposition.

So, when are we going to fear religion? They are the one group that meets this statement of yours perfectly.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Anyone can be brainwashed, just like anyone can fall prey to a cult - be it religious, secular, business, political, sports, social, whatever. It doesn't matter whether one is dumb or intelligent, crude or sophisticated, naive or worldly, uneducated or highly educated, young or old... anyone can fall prey to even the simplest of mind control techniques - and not have a clue until someone else is able to point it out, usually following some sort of reverse process that undoes the process of mis-information they'd been led down.

Moreover, I'll clue you into some of those most susceptible to it - you identified them - those who haven't plied any critical thought to the beliefs they've been fed - largely because they were disposed to espouse those beliefs in the first place - and THAT largely because they were fed the information at a time, and in circumstances where they had no reason to question them. Predisposition.

Something else you should know - because I gather from your comment (correct me if I'm wrong), that you have a conception of brainwashing or mind-control (however one describes it) that imagines people wandering around (and understand, I'm exaggerating a bit here, and that for effect) in some sort of glassy-eyed daze or trance, only to wake at the snap of the controller's fingers to do their bidding. That is the Hollywood perception of mind-control. Mind control techniques vary immensely - from the very physical (violence, threats of violence, abuse, torture, etc.) to the very subtle forms of manipulation by one human on another.

All forms target something the victim deeply desires, which is why they are in fact so successful. Security (emotional, physical, psychological, religious, economical, etc.), companionship, a sense of belonging, purpose in life, meaning in life, release from any of a number of forms of 'captivity' - and so on. It doesn't matter how critical a thinker someone is in one or more aspects of their life, there's usually other aspects in which they're vulnerable, where even the best critical thinkers fail to ply that discipline.

Actually, what Holder is espousing in that video is one of the highest forms of insult - he actually believes it will work - and frankly, he's largely right - which is what makes it so insidious. He knows that with a steady, repetitious diet of "his" information pummeling people from every direction and every source of "credibility" that he can sway his target audience to his way of thinking, to basically do his bidding - his bidding in this case being to vote, to voice "their" opinion, to organize, to protest, to write their editors, congressmen, to report others, etc. and thus eventually effect his goal of getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens. That's not hyperbole or exaggeration - that is his goal; and as you rightfully point out, it's arrogance of the worst kind - plied in a seemingly innocuous context - or more aptly, pretext of 'protecting' youths on the streets of DC (never mind the information campaign is going to everyone...).

Well, I have to agree. It is condescending, and arrogant, and frankly not a tad tyrannical. But as I said above, what makes the methods he outlines above work, is in fact a target audience largely pre-disposed to accept the message uncritically - whether their motive is fealty for the party, a desire to see an end to violence, or feeding a belief already inculcated - the arrogance of the methodology is that, while being utterly manipulative, it is a fundamentally dishonest methodology as well - dishonest in its approach, dishonest in its presentation, and dishonest in its ultimate purpose.

And I would add that responsible leaders who truly respect those who put them into a position of trust will, out of that very sense of respect, not employ such tactics and resist every urge and temptation that might come their way to employ them.

 

[EdwinWillers]

So, when are we going to fear religion? They are the one group that meets this statement of yours perfectly.

Some religious groups do do that. And I can say that, and much of what I wrote above is due to personal experience in that regard.

But it's not proper to lump the whole of religion into such a broad generalization - any more than it's proper to lump the whole of politics, or business, or anything else so generally - and that for the simple reason that it doesn't apply to the whole of anything.

One needn't "fear" those who employ such tactics either. As Archaeopteryx aptly noted, the solution to other's mind control is - well one's control of their own mind - to be one who disciplines their mind to critically thinking through everything they are told, weighing assertions, checking facts, asking questions, probing, not accepting mere pabulum because it's easy and feels good or because it "tickles the ears" to hear it.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Some religious groups do do that. And I can say that, and much of what I wrote above is due to personal experience in that regard.

So...which ones don't? 'Cause last I checked, pretty much all of them raise their children in their religion and discourage any kind of doubt or questioning.

One needn't "fear" those who employ such tactics either. As Archaeopteryx aptly noted, the solution to other's mind control is - well one's control of their own mind - to be one who disciplines their mind to critically thinking through everything they are told, weighing assertions, checking facts, asking questions, probing, not accepting mere pabulum because it's easy and feels good or because it "tickles the ears" to hear it.

That sounds nice, and I agree with you, but the problem is it is not as easy to do as it is to say. Trust me, I've been there, and it made me promise myself and made my fiancee promise that we would never try to indoctrinate our children into either of our religions/political philosophies, and would instead give them the choice I never had - to learn about every religion and political ideal and choose for themselves the one they believe is right.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Anyone can be brainwashed, just like anyone can fall prey to a cult - be it religious, secular, business, political, sports, social, whatever. It doesn't matter whether one is dumb or intelligent, crude or sophisticated, naive or worldly, uneducated or highly educated, young or old... anyone can fall prey to even the simplest of mind control techniques - and not have a clue until someone else is able to point it out, usually following some sort of reverse process that undoes the process of mis-information they'd been led down.

Moreover, I'll clue you into some of those most susceptible to it - you identified them - those who haven't plied any critical thought to the beliefs they've been fed - largely because they were disposed to espouse those beliefs in the first place - and THAT largely because they were fed the information at a time, and in circumstances where they had no reason to question them. Predisposition.

Something else you should know - because I gather from your comment (correct me if I'm wrong), that you have a conception of brainwashing or mind-control (however one describes it) that imagines people wandering around (and understand, I'm exaggerating a bit here, and that for effect) in some sort of glassy-eyed daze or trance, only to wake at the snap of the controller's fingers to do their bidding. That is the Hollywood perception of mind-control. Mind control techniques vary immensely - from the very physical (violence, threats of violence, abuse, torture, etc.) to the very subtle forms of manipulation by one human on another.

All forms target something the victim deeply desires, which is why they are in fact so successful. Security (emotional, physical, psychological, religious, economical, etc.), companionship, a sense of belonging, purpose in life, meaning in life, release from any of a number of forms of 'captivity' - and so on. It doesn't matter how critical a thinker someone is in one or more aspects of their life, there's usually other aspects in which they're vulnerable, where even the best critical thinkers fail to ply that discipline.

Yes, even critical thinkers are not immune to psychological manipulation (although they may perhaps be more wary of it). Not all forms of psychological manipulation match what we typically think of as "brainwashing" though. Experiments in cognitive neuroscience regularly use manipulations so as to gauge meaningful changes in the constructs being investigated, but we don't usually think of these manipulations as brainwashing.

Actually, what Holder is espousing in that video is one of the highest forms of insult - he actually believes it will work - and frankly, he's largely right - which is what makes it so insidious. He knows that with a steady, repetitious diet of "his" information pummeling people from every direction and every source of "credibility" that he can sway his target audience to his way of thinking, to basically do his bidding - his bidding in this case being to vote, to voice "their" opinion, to organize, to protest, to write their editors, congressmen, to report others, etc. and thus eventually effect his goal of getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens. That's not hyperbole or exaggeration - that is his goal; and as you rightfully point out, it's arrogance of the worst kind - plied in a seemingly innocuous context - or more aptly, pretext of 'protecting' youths on the streets of DC (never mind the information campaign is going to everyone...).

Well, I have to agree. It is condescending, and arrogant, and frankly not a tad tyrannical. But as I said above, what makes the methods he outlines above work, is in fact a target audience largely pre-disposed to accept the message uncritically - whether their motive is fealty for the party, a desire to see an end to violence, or feeding a belief already inculcated - the arrogance of the methodology is that, while being utterly manipulative, it is a fundamentally dishonest methodology as well - dishonest in its approach, dishonest in its presentation, and dishonest in its ultimate purpose.

I don't think the method is any more dishonest than regular advertising (which essentially does the same thing -- repeats the message, gets authority figures to repeat the message, uses multiple sources, encourages others to spread the message, and so on...) Calling it "brainwashing", as Holder did, is condescending because it implies that the target audience aren't critical thinkers or that they can be persuaded to adopt his own position without thinking about it. His brainwashing comment shows disrespect for the audience he is trying to persuade.

 

[Fred In Dallas]

Yep, protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms ensures the militias can't be disarmed.

The amendment is about the militia, but it is not the "only National Guard members can own guns" sort of nonsense the anti-gunners push either, that seems to be the sort of situation the amendment was meant to guard against.

That is a reasonable interpretation, given that we're dealing with ambiguous language. The Second Amendment could mean many things.

 

[Fred In Dallas]

protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms ensures the militias can't be disarmed.

That's debatable.