To anglocize would be to biologically breed a mixture of Angle, Saxon, Celtic, Roman, Norse, Norman, Pict, Caldonian .... and to convert them to the Anglican church? Why I wonder would we ever revolt against our very own anglican nation to begin with? Taxes? Economics? So, we use the government (who, BTW, are owned by the multi-nationals) to seize private property and nationalize it. Boy that sounds a lot like communism to me.

@ A in E This is the system: centralized wealth/power, in both states and in businesses and financial institutions, allow a small group of people, who under the facade of being a good steward, utilize this power to their own benefit. Profits are privatized for this controlling minority while losses are spread out or decentralized. Decentralization would spell the death knell of those very same people who now control the power and wealth. I would expect that decentralization would be vehemently resisted by the standing order. Imagine those in Washington suggesting that their powers be given back to the States.

@ Robert In the beginning of civilization were city states. Strongmen conglomerated many city-states to make more powerful yet artificial nations. 150 years ago in America there were two areas of common identity: industrial north and agrarian south. Nationalism thought it best there be only one. 250 ya there were 13 identities. They thought it best to make a loose alliance, yet maintaining the 13 independent and sovereign states. The myths of nationalism is for the common man so that he will work hard, pay his taxes and fight in wars. The elite politicians and businessmen believe no such myths. There is no patriotism in the boardroom. And the elite politician does not share any common identity with those he governs.

The question he poses is properly stated: What will our government fall back on?.

The anti-federalists balked at giving the federal government even as much power as the Constitution did, never mind the massive usurpation that has happened since then. And these usurpations have always come with nationalistic sentiments such as manifest destiny, saving the union and national economic strength. These mythic narratives do nothing but empower our government - so they can usurp more powers for the good of the nation.

Pat observes that the legitimacy of government stems from romantic sentiments of nationalism. He then laments the lack of such romantic sentiments in America today. He pines for the days of the Founding Fathers would load their muskets with patriotic fervor. All of this is couched in the premise that nationalism is a good and necessary thing. This needs to be examined anew. half of our Founding Fathers were dead-set against nationalism and instead preferred to consider themselves citizens of their respective states. The federalists ratified the Constitution by very narrow margins. cont.

I find this a despicable tactic, censoring opposing opinions because a certain tragedy is to be exploited only towards certain ends and not others. Never is there "a time like this" that excludes certain ideas.

Must there be a reason? Must we take some action against the cause of any negative effect, even if we are merely guessing at the cause? If you think that a gun was the true raison d'etre for cute little white children dying, and you act against this faux cause, then your actions will be the raison d'etre for another very negative effect.

The heart of the issue is whether or not government will be the solely sanctioned body to bear arms capable of taking life. The government seeks a monopoly on violent power. Will we grant it?

That this author, and hundreds of comments can discuss the topic of "Tragedy and Exploitation" without extending the thought to 9/11 and our long history back to the Boston Massacre of exploiting tradgedy, shows myopia and a shallowness of thought.

"The sole purpose of guns is the taking of life" This is a simple logical fact. Don't balk at it, it only makes you look irrational. Would not Adam Lanza have been killed by an armed citizenry? At the heart of the issue is whether government has sole authority to take life with a gun.