Nowhere does the constitution say, "your right to do whatever you please may not be infringed upon." We are indeed guaranteed certain specific rights; outside of thouse, however,...
Close, but a bit off...
The Ninth Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So, we are not guaranteed certain specific rights. The most important ones are enumerated and an undetermined number more exist. The Bill of Rights itself only took shape after a rough debate. There were those who did not want the Bill of Rights ever written, so that government could not claim to erase such a right by removing the amendment. Also, to nit pick, they are not guaranteed in any fashion if the people are not willing to stand behind them and tell the government "don't touch". Just having it on paper does nothing, which is why the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms is so important. We must have a voice, and the power to back it up should mere words not be enough.
The Bill of Rights was written in order of importance, after all.
The Tenth Amendment goes on the state: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nore prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In short, if the Constitution provides a power and the states do not object, then the United States government has a power. Otherwise, they don't. It would then be reserved to the judgement of the community (the States) or the people, which would be hashed out in court upon disagreement.
So, yes, communities can set standards, but if a court finds that these standards violate the rights of an individual (which as the Constitution states is far greater in scope than the first eight amendments,) than the law is unjust and removed.
Common Law would also make a case that unless you are violating the rights of another, your actions are your own business.
Aw shucks, I jes' dunno... must be all that them there snow and ice or somethin'.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who had recently travelled to England. He had been amazed on how a 40 mile trip was considered "exhausting" to his English friends.
He and I consider 650-700 miles per day pretty much a normal long distance run - on motorcycles no less, the riding of which cause a bit more fatigue than driving a car. We find it tiring, but not exhausting.
I think this is one of the areas that Europeans have trouble relating to. The distances travelled across the US and Canada to get cargo shuffled to its final destination are gigantic compared to Europe. Take a look on a map sometime and just try to imagine the time and energy it takes to get an imported item from either coast of the US to central Montana. It will most likely travel by train from the coast as close as it can get, crossing mountains at times, but if the destination is a small town away from a train depot, you might be looking at 100 miles of highway travel on top of this.
What I don't get, is why we don't work on converting diesel engines to burn hydrogen. Its a much cleaner fuel than even hemp oil and is the most common element in the universe. Storage seems to be the most difficult part of the problem, but surely we can find a solution for that.
ObGlobalWarming: We've found T. Albertasaur remains in the arctic circle, with temperatures equaling what is now a temperate climate. Obviously, life deals with it as it has dealt with everything else.
Let me start by saying, I agree with your basic stance on Evolution and disagree with Biblical "truth" in any case.
But I thought I'd bring up the point that the sun could "stop" from our point of view, if the Earth's rotation halted for some reason. The moon would even appear to have stopped to those not paying close attention to it's position in the sky, as long as the event only lasted a day or two at the most (the moon has an orbital period of about 28 days, or very roughly 13 degrees per day.) There would be no catastrophic effect from any of this unless the rotation of the Earth stopped very suddenly. (Ouch!)
Anyway, you should revise the second part of your argument a bit.
And you mean "tides" as opposed to "tidal wasves(sp?)", correct? Tidal forces on a moon of a gas giant would be very impressive, to say the least.
That would depend on the orbit of the moon. A couple of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons are over 1 AU out from the planet, if I'm remembering the reference chart from "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" correctly. (Someone slap me if I'm remembering this wrong;)
The tidal force at such a distance would be less than what the sun does for Earth (varied also by the radius of the moon in question,) because the mass of the planet is likely to be a lot less than a star (or else it most likely would have collapsed into a star.)
Still, if there were many moons around a planet this size, like Jupiter or Saturn, as well as the effects of the star in the system, this would all combine to create some interesting tidal charts.
I'm not sure I'd like to sail a ship with a deep draft on a world like this.
Bush: If you take a look at the efforts made in the War on
Drugs today, you'll find a very positive pattern. Not since the
days of prohibition has the US government made so much money,
while at the same time allowing us to crack down further and
further on individual rights - especially minorities. Not only
that, but the Republican plan for drug control enforcement has
not only brought wealth to the federal government, but at the
local level as well. Not only can we confiscate a drug user's
or dealer's property at will, but we don't even need to charge
them with a crime to do so! While my father was President, he
instigated the RICO enforcement methods allowing both federal
and local governments to confiscate property, but also allowing
both to keep some of the proceeds, providing a unique incentive
to keep law enforcement officers active in the Drug War.
Gore: The Drug War supports the underprivileged. Local
communities benefit from the ever increasing job opportunities
created by an expanding prison system. Why, back in 1980,
before the War on Drugs really started moving, we only had 136
prisoners per 100,000. That was a little under 360,000
prisoners in state and federal prisons. By 1990, just ten years
later, we had 426 prisoners per 100,000, which was a little bit
over 1,100,000 prisoners in state and federal prison. This
number has been rising ever since at an astounding rate. In the
meantime, or drug intra-diction efforts have risen dramatically,
yet the drugs are flowing into the country at a higher rate than
ever before! The jobs available through all of these efforts is
perhaps one of the most important reasons that the economy is
doing as well as it is today. Mark my words, if we end the War
on Drugs, the welfare of both the federal government and the
American people, will fall to a deplorable level.
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
Your answer:
Gore: I feel it is important to protect the rights of each and
every American citizen - and that includes religious freedom.
Of course, the more popular the religion, the more I feel they
should have a right to exercise their influence on the
government. Swaying people of a religious faith, any religious
faith, is a powerful way to garner votes, which are necessary to
manipulate the final results in an election. My own religious
convictions are no stronger than when November comes along.
Bush: The American people want to be secure in knowing that the
American way of life is being preserved. Part of our heritage
is a firm belief in a Christian God and Christian moral values.
Besides, there are more Christians than pagans in this country,
which is important around election time, to help sway the votes
toward the Republican party, as they have always favored us.
Why think, if it were not for the efforts of the Christian
influence into government, we never would have added in the
phrase "under God" to the national anthem after WWII!
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
Your answer:
Bush: Giving a tax cut to the American people has been long
overdue. Government spending aside, if we don't throw a bone
out to the less fortunate once in a while, making them think
that we actual work for them, they just might revolt. By the
time you add up all the taxes the average American pays, you're
looking at over 50% of their earnings. Not making an effort to
make the middle class feel like they're just as important to us
as the wealthy, is simply political suicide. Besides, we can
make up for the loss of money by tightening up the War on Drugs
even further.
Gore: I am not one to want to give a tax cut to the American
people without carefully weighing what effects it will have on
our ability to raise taxes later in my term. President Clinton,
who I have been honored to serve with, not only made the largest
tax increase in history, but he made it retroactively! Whether
a tax cut is given or not, I ultimately feel that following in
this great man's footsteps is the way to go. Part of being able
to accomplish this goal is the disarming of the American
citizen. By clouding over the issue of "Enumerated Rights" and
the "right to self-protection" with calls for protecting the
children, we can woo over those who are either fence walking the
issue or too unfamiliar with the effective use of firearms for
protecting themselves and their country - especially from us.
Fortunately, the Republican party is in full agreement on this
issue, so we can make real progress. After all, in the last
fifteen years or so, every gun control bill which the
Republicans down played by mouth, was passed with, and only
with, their help. I'm thankful for that. The last thing we
need is a citizenry which can stand up with something more than
words!
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Your answer:
Gore: I would be very interested in seeing how modern
technology, such as the Internet, could be used to improve the
voting system. Of course, unless it provided such a method for
the poor to use, which favors their capability to vote, (such as
putting a voting tax on people with a middle class income,
without taxing the poor,) then I could not support it. Buying
the vote of the lower class through welfare has been a key to
keeping the Democratic party in office for years.
Bush: I would favor such a system, simply because it would be
easier to manipulate votes through electronic means than by an
electoral college. By manipulating the vote behind the scenes,
the American people would have no easy method of determining
that something is wrong. If the electoral vote goes against the
popular vote, there is a quick and simple to understand
discrepancy which would have people quite upset rapidly. As for
the lower class and minority vote, which has always favored the
Democrats, I'm not concerned. Increased efforts in the War on
Drugs will make more and more of these undesirable people
felons, who then lose the right to vote. It's simple attrition.
5) How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
Your answer:
Bush: I simply do not see any part of intellectual property
which cannot be governed by our centuries old method. In the
end, as long the federal government is the one with control, the
system itself does not matter.
Gore: We need to develop new methods of dealing with these new
technologies and the very nature of intellectual property. Our
current laws are simply incapable of creating the strangle-hold
controls which are needed by the federal government. If we
don't come up with new approaches, the American people just
might come to understand that we want to control every aspect of
their creativity and productivity.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Your answer:
Gore: I think that it's obvious by my previous efforts to
invent the Clipper Chip, that encryption is an important
protection to American freedoms. However, without federal key
escrow into encryption systems, we cannot determine whether or
not someone is committing an illegal act. Besides, if you
haven't done anything wrong, why are you hiding things?
Bush: The problem that I see with encryption, is that it is
used by criminals to further their activities. How can we
manage to maintain our lead in money making in the War on Drugs,
if we can't keep an eye on what the cartels and drug syndicate
are doing? Besides, if you haven't done anything wrong, why are
you hiding things?
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
Your answer:
Bush: We live in a world community. It is important that we
realize that multi-nationals are becoming the true world
government, and as such they are pulling the purse strings of
major campaign donations. By maintaining an appearance that
these companies act within the law, we can ensure that not only
the American resources, but the world resources can be exploited
to the fullest. If needed, we can even stage events which allow
us to garner our military to be used to enforce corporate
interests. After all, the Gulf War was about crude oil, but we
have been able to convince the American people that it's all
about maintaining a free world. My father, and President Reagan
before him, were able to use such scare tactics of military
force, to force the second most powerful nation in the world to
crumble. Now it is the United States which is set to become the
key factor in creating and controlling the world economy - all
through the guise of protecting the free world! Such genius,
should not be overlooked come election time.
Gore: We live in a world community. To not consider the major
impact that the United States has on this global community would
be a dire mistake. We cannot do without foreign products. If
we were to make any effort to decrease the effectiveness of
multi-national corporations, the American economy would suffer
as jobs flee to other countries. We must also consider the
effectiveness of global ecological policy in a world with
bickering factions. The sooner we can make a one world
government, the sooner we can ban the internal combustion
engine.
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Your answer:
Gore: I feel it is important to continue the space program, if
for no other reason than to have one more shiny item to place in
front of the American public on TV, to give them feelings of
national pride and accomplishment. That's why we pushed so hard
to reach the moon. This in turn helps to rid their mind of
thoughts about how much we're taxing them and how many freedoms
we've stripped away.
Bush: Absolutely. By creating an atmosphere of fear in the
American people, we can continue an otherwise unfashionable
space program which has created so many wonderful technologies
for military use. Space based weapons can be put into place,
all under the aegis of "saving the planet", but in turn allow us
to have powerful military control over other countries, without
having to worry about the number of military personal or
military equipment. We simply can't afford to keep a military
running terrestrially, when so many armed forces personnel need
to be used for the War on Drugs.
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
Your answer:
Bush: A mission is not needed at the moment. Since the average
American has become cynical to the effectiveness of the
government to work, let alone accomplish goals, they have in
turn lost their "American ideals". This is easily replaced by
fear, however. By maintaining pressure on the War on Drugs, we
can create an atmosphere of tension which will allows us not
only to continue to make money with Drug War policy, but remove
other rights from the American people by convincing them that
they will be safer. Hitler was able to use this exact technique
to round up the Jews, why not use it for our ends.
Gore: We need to move beyond an "American" vision, and move
towards a world view. By doing so, we can create an atmosphere
of fear needed to control the general populace. Global warming,
deforestation, animal extinction; can all be used through the
press to invoke a feeling of helplessness which will allow us to
further erode individual rights, "for the sake of the planet".
Assuming Linux is allowed. Depending on the level of draconian
legislation this type of bullshit will produce, you might find that
GPL'd or BSD licensed software is suddenly illegal, because it allows
"hackers" to understand and exploit the code from the inside out.
Efforts to tighten security from anyone outside the "core" of each
developed platform could also be construed as illegal hacking
activity.
In order to limit certain "blessed" individuals to "security
techniques", they'll have to develop a licensing scheme. This will be
done under the guise of "We can't easily keep track of the people who
are supposed to have this type of power over computers. The only way to
keep track of them is to license them through the Federal government, so
that we can keep an accurate record of who should be allowed this type
of control over computer systems."
In the end, Linus would have to be licensed to continue to work on the
Linux kernel.
On a side note, gun control is a perfect analogy. None of this is about
preventing or reducing crime: it's only about control - who has such.
I'm not aware of an astrological system developed in the southern
hemisphere of Earth and even if there is one, did they talk to the
northerners? Even if you took astrology as "gospel", this means that
astrology (either European or Chinese) has to be a little less than half
wrong automatically, since from the northern hemisphere they could see
and map only slightly more than half the visible universe. (Yes,
slightly more, the planet is tilted on it's axis in respect to its orbit
around the sun - giving us seasons and a changing horizon.)
I could be misunderstanding the importance of planets in astrological
reading, in which case my point might be moot, since the constellations
which would align with planets would be seen from both hemispheres. But
it seems to me that if you're going to use the sky as "signs from the
gods", you damn well better look at the whole thing.
Oh please, please tell me that you mean ~150 ug NOT mg... Otherwise,
I'll go call the local/loony/bin for you, and they can give you a nice
padded room and straight jacket, and lots of risperdal, zyprexa,
etc.
That is certainly debatable. Odds are, after having one intense
trip, he might be fine - especially if he did it every day. Not
everyone who experiences excessive doses of LSD have psychotic effects
after, its actually pretty rare. After the first trip, if he kept it up
everyday, he'd keep his tolerance up to the point that every attempt
after would have no affect at all.
LSD-25 is one of those weird substances which act as a catalyst, and not
the true source, of its effects. Its water soluble and disappears
almost completely from the brain after about 2 hours. The effects last
anywhere from 10-20 hours (by personal witness) however, so it appears
that it is triggering a natural part of the brain into action by fooling
the chemical receptors.
The body builds up a tolerance to LSD rapidly, within 3 days typically
and it is not unusual for it to appear more quickly. Its quite common
for a person who has dosed on day one, to have little or no effect at
all on a dose on day two. LSD is also cross-tolerant with other indole
hallucinogens, such as psilocybin and DMT. Meaning, if you eat 'shrooms
one day and took LSD the next, the acid may very well not have any
affect at all - and the same the other way around. This tolerance drops
at about the same rate as it develops. Most people I've known who have
used LSD or psilocybin on any sort of regular basis make it a point to
keep their trips at least a week apart, as not to waste their money and
time. I'll be honest in that I don't know if other tryptamines are also
cross tolerant. I would imagine some are.
Lethal doses of LSD are estimated to be several tens of thousands of
times as much as a single doze needed for effect. (E. Rothlin,
_Ann._N.Y._Acad._Sci.) By comparison, take just 10,000 aspirin and see
what happens.
Albert Hofmann, the chemist who isolated and stabilized lysergic acid
from the ergot fungus, took the first chapter of one of his books, "LSD
Experience and Reality", and had it published after a conference in San
Francisco in 1978. It was published in the Journal of Psychedetic
Drugs, Vol. 11 (1-2), 1979, titled: "LSD - My Problem Child". Its quite
a story to say the least and its a fun read to learn how the various
scientists at the Sandoz Company in Basel, Switzerland, reacted to his
findings. Hint: Most of them dosed themselves in a controlled fashion
to see if they could reproduce the effects Hofmann described after his
accidental exposure. (He had a drop of solution soak into his skin.)
So, aside from the very first extreme dose (which could at least be psychologically dangerous,) don't worry about daily LSD
use. He's not going to trip out of his skull. He'll just be bored.
My cats dose themselves on the catnip plant in the back yard all the time. You can't honestly watch a cat after rolling in nip and eating the leaves and state, "He's not stoned."
>This is not a revolution, it's just an evolution of currently available technology.
Exactly. My dog has had an embedded microchip for years.
This simple fact only scares me further. Technology is not the issue, human use of technology is. Like any other tool, this type of device can be used for good or evil, depending on who's claiming to be in charge at the time.
Your reference to your dog's chip reminded me of an incident a couple of months ago when my wife and I went out to adopt a cat. We stopped in at one shelter (private) which not only mandated that each animal have one of these chips implanted, but had a whole set of rules that went along with it.
Because of the dangers to the animal outdoors in a modern town, such as getting run over by a car, et cetera, one of their stipulations was that you were not allowed to let your own pet outdoors. If the animal was found outdoors, the chip would be used to identify him, and possible legal action - up to and including charges of animal abuse - would be levied.
I asked this woman how she could assume that a cat found outdoors was signs of abuse. She argued that it violated their policy and offered no other argument.
"But, what if the cat gets out on his own? Have you ever seen how fast one of these little furballs can run when they want to get through a doorway? I could be coming in with grocheries and not have a chance to block the animal's path. All of the sudden, the cat is outdoors and you're filing charges against me. What kind of system do you have to make sure there are no mistakes?"
"If the cat's outdoors, you've violated the policy. If the chip traces it to you, that's all the evidence we need."
We got our cat at the public shelter instead.
With this kind of draconian thinking being applied to house pets, I can only dread what this same type of "well intentioned" people will come up with "for the sake of the children."
With respect to that 225-year old 2nd Amendment argument: out of your list (Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, Kent State, the Lamplughs, the Lehkins in Brunswick) - which of these actually *did* have firearms? And which of those actually used those firearms and won, protecting themselves forever against the entire resources of the US government? I'm genuinely interested.
None. That wasn't my point at all. I was trying to show that Nazi like tactics are already being used, nothing more.
As for your question, I can only think of one time that this occurred in US history: when the Mormons in Salt Lake drove off the US Army. Things were settled after that, and their descendents are alive and well out in Utah.
As for that 225-year old 2nd Amendment: All of the BOR is that old. What does age have to do with it?
I have very severe difficulty imagining that a gun battle with Police SWAT teams, the FBI, the National Guard
I won't waste anyone's time (especially my own) with What-If's, but I will say this much in defense of the opposite: Take a look at what happened in the Warsaw ghetto when a handful of Jews with just a dozen or so mixed up rifles and handguns, held off the SS for something like two weeks. Yes, they lost, but only because they were so overwhelmingly outnumbered and the SS finally burned the ghetto to the ground and pumped poison gas into the sewers. Not a bad fight, though, especially considering that they had stolen all of their weapons. They were already prisoners before trying to fight back. Then again, Afganistan, with their crappy bolt action rifles and some home made explosives, held off the Soviet Union and won. There are too many scenerios to spout absolutism in one way or the other of outcomes in armed conflict. That doesn't mean I'm just going to buckle under and hand over firearms because of the assumption that there is no way to fight off tyranny should it come. That's really playing a sheep, wouldn't you say?
And that is exactly my point. It's often fruitless for people to try and defend themselves with guns against a gun-toting opponent. You're effectively forcing them to try to kill you before you can hurt them. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
Because it is only your opinion, not a fact. The outcome of any scenerio like this is going to depend on the situation - too many variables to say that it will go one way or another. I also refuse to be a slave and to disarm myself is allowing exactly that to occur. Whether it is government tyranny, or the tyranny of a criminal assault, you have enslaved yourself to their will. If you wish to bow to such, please feel free. I will not.
Despite the fact that it was returned loaded, when the RCMP found out I had a spare engine, they came twenty knots out to sea to sieze the spare kicker, and took the rifle back because they deemed me to be dangerous. Hmmmm....
WTF?!? Why is a spare kicker something to be confiscated, even if someone's been deemed "dangerous"? Did they take your spare life vests as well? Your spare anchors and rodes because you might club someone with it? This might be one of the dumbest reactions to any perceived threat that I've ever heard!
When the enforcement of the law is accomplished on the street by enforcers, and not in a courtroom, this is the defining characteristic of a nazi regime. When you have voluntarily subjugated yourself to this nazi regime by disarming, then you must be content to live with a boot on your neck.
This statement is right on the money! Liberty is not something which can be granted by a government, for if so, then it is not liberty, but a privilege granted by the state. Unfortunately, most people are basically gutless and do not want to take on any of the responsibility that walks hand in hand with true liberty. They are more than willing to accept encrochments on their liberty as long as they perceive themselves to be safe and comfortable. These same people will be the first ones screaming for more government infringment of liberty the moment they found out that criminals don't obey the imaginary lines and established rules. As if passing another law will somehow, magically prevent the crime. If passing a law is all that's needed to prevent crime, then why don't we make murder illegal? We wouldn't even have to have gun control then, because no one would be killed by criminals.
This is the lesson that so many seem to be unable to understand: you cannot prevent crime by passing laws. Laws only create more criminals by outlawing certain behavior which was not outlawed before. It doesn't prevent a damn thing. You would have thought that prohibition would have taught the U.S. that lesson, but it went right over our heads. Instead, we're trying to prohibit more things than we ever have before: guns, some drugs, "harressing" behavior... The U.S. has roughly 5% of the world population, and 25% of the world's imprisoned population. Why? The War on Drugs. Has it prevented anything? No.
One of the best examples of this kind of stupidity was recently banted around here in Utah, where I live. The "Safe to Learn - Safe to Worship" coalition was pushing Utah law makers to make the carrying of a concealed firearm in schools and churches a crime. The argument was that people did not feel safe when law abiding, lawfully carrying citizens - who had gone through both local and federal background checks, taken a safety course and had letters of good standing written about them by two others in order to get the carry licence - were in a school or church. Some parents argued that the idea of a teacher in their child's school with a concealed weapon was endangering their child. Whereas, the idea of a completely unarmed school, being attacked by a criminal outsider was not even brought up. What better way to insure that a criminal has easy access to their dire intentions than to stand up in a load voice and shout "We're unarmed!" If I was worried about teachers having access to harming my children in school, then why stop with guns? Why not cut their hands off so that they can't strangle my son? In fact, why not hack off all four limbs and prop them up in front of the class, so that not only can they not hurt my children, but they certainly couldn't do anything to defend them either. I just don't understand this kind of thinking. Who should I be more worried about, a law abiding citizen who's gone through all the checks and balances, or a criminal who's intentions are nefareous to begin with?
I have two sons, 15 and 12. I worry like any other parent for their safety. I would much rather have a trusted citizen with a carry licence, carrying a firearm with them to school, than an unarmed school. I am, after all, already trusting them with my children's minds, which has a potential for abuse just as grave as corporeal issues.
One could argue that removing all guns from society would lower the crime rate. To many it is self evident: but I don't think there has been any type of study done to support this thinking. There are notable exceptions, like Switzerland and Isreal which seem to point to cultural differences having a more dramatic effect. In any case, even if the crime rate were to drop, you've still set yourself to be defenseless in the one way that was the prime reason the 2nd Amendment was written: defense from tyranny by our own government. For those who would argue that it can't happen here, I can only guess that you've been asleep for a while. Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, Kent State, the Lamplughs, the Lehkins in Brunswick, OH... The list goes on.
Look at Harry and Theresa Lamplugh for a moment. Harry Lamplugh's organization, Borderline Gun Collectors Association, just happens to be the largest gun show promoter in the northeast. Harry has no criminal record. Yet, for reasons unknown, federal agents, specifically the BATF and IRS agents, burst through their front door on the morning of May 25th, 1994, waving machine guns in their faces and trashing the house. Furniture was overturned, papers and other valuables were scattered about. The agents killed all three of their cats, two being poisoned by spilled cancer medication Harry Lamplugh was taking. One female BATF agent, Donna Slusser, deliberately stomped a kitten to death with her boots and then kicked the body under a tree. For six hours the Lamplughs were at the mercy of these agents. "When I asked if they had a search warrant, their first reply was 'shut the fuck up mother fucker; do you want more trouble than you already have?', with the machine gun stuck in my face." Harry said. "They then proceeded to tear my house apart." The warrent didn't even specify a single specific item and no reason was given for the raid. The affidavits were sealed by a local federal judge. 61 legally owned firearms and ammo was taken. Gun show exhibitor lists and show contracts were taken. A stack of mail was torn open, read and then confiscated. Their children's birth certificates and school report cards were taken. At one point a couple of the agents went out for pizza. As they trashed the home looking for the unspecified objects of the warrent, they tossed half empty pop cans and pizza boxes around the rooms. $15,000 worth of material was taken, including jewelry. No charges were ever filed, no property has been given back.
It can't happen here, my arse. Replace "BATF" and "IRS" in the above with "Gestapo" and "SS" and see if it sounds familiar.
This is why, I for one, will never submit to confiscation of arms, no matter what the argument about "crime control" may be. Liberty requires constant defense and vigilance. Sometimes, it also requires the blood of those who would stand to defend it. I'm not worried about that price. What I am worried about, and most of the posts on this thread and others I have seen like it tend to support: is that there are too few like me in this country, who accept the price of liberty. It makes me deeply worried for my children's future. I would like them to know liberty, but I'm frightened that the weak will of others and the gutless knee-jerking to the "official policy" will place that boot on their necks.
We see, in the case of pornography (please note the correct spelling), that many of the rapists and major serial killers were mired in porn. There's nothing saying that everyone who looks at porn will end up killing everyone on their block, but, apparently, the chances are greater. (I know. There are many other factors that go into becoming a serial killer, but this one seemed important enough for psychologists to point out).
These wouldn't be the same psychologists who went from having about 2,000 catagorized mental illnesses in the '60's and '70's, to the 50,000+ they have now?
I could do a study as well which shows that all major serial killers used the toilet. This doesn't mean that porcelain creates serial killers.
Too many studies confusing causality with corellations.
As far as history goes, taxation was the major issue at hand before the American Revolution, but the cause was an attempt of British soldiers to confiscate arms. The "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was the result of this attempt.
I consider myself to be libertarian, with a small "L", (not a Libertarian party member.)
lib.er.tar.i.an \.lib-*r-'ter-e--*n\ \-e--*-.niz-*m\ n 1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will 2: one who upholds the principles of liberty esp. of thought and action - libertarian aj
Buffers Files Tools Edit Search Help As a republic (a democratic republic, at that) we elect our representatives to make our decisions for us; our representatives (in an ideal world) are tasked with upholding the nation's morals and standard of living.
Close, but very, very wrong...
The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. It is a system using democratic elections to choose representatives of the people, who are supposed to vote according to the will of their constituency - all within the confines of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America.
They are not supposed to make decisions "for us." That many in this country think that it is so, is producing the largest untapped energy resource in this nation - the Framers of the Constitution, spinning in their graves!
The US government was set up as a system of checks and balances. The Legislative branch was established to make new law, if needed. The Executive branch was established to protect the Constitution from congress (a job that Presidents have not done in quite some time.) And the Judiciary branch was established to judge the law passed by congress and the President, via the will of the People.
Any law, even by majority vote, which violates the Constitution, is null and void - no matter what "morals" or "standard of living" it represents. Ergo, if congress were to pass a law which made free speech illegal, (such as the current HR 2987, which would make it illegal to publish, advertise or even make a URL link to certain kinds of factual information about drugs or drug paraphernalia,) it would be a null and void law, because it violates the First Amendment. "Upholding the nation's morals and standard of living" must fall within the confines of the Constitution - period.
The Bill of Rights itself, does not grant any of our rights, it merely enumerates them. A prime example is that even if you were to repeal the Second Amendment, this would no more make the bearing of arms illegal than repealing the Fourth would suddenly allow government to imprison and kill people at will.
Democracy is dangerous. It is three wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. The Founding Fathers of this nation knew that, which is why they made the Constitution the last word on any law.
do me a favor, will ya? explain to me how "practical" your hunting rifles and shotguns and handguns will be when pitted against the artillery and armor and aircraft of a modern army, which is who you would be facing in any "war of independence."
It took only a handful of men and a few miscellaneous handguns and rifles (about a dozen total) to hold of the S.S. in the Warsaw ghettos during WWII - for over two weeks.
Ever heard of Afghanistan? Seems that the mighty Soviet army had a hell of time there, fighting against an unskilled population with bolt action rifles. As I recall, the Soviets did not win, and they had tanks, helicopter gunships and jets.
It seems unlikely by your comments, that you have ever read anything related to military combat procedures, nor do you have any personal experience with such. The infantry soldier is the primary weapon of the military: period. Aircraft are easy targets. Tanks don't last long without infantry support. Artillery won't function when the men around it are dead.
And every bit of equipment disabled or abandoned, for any reason, is open to capture by your opponent.
Assume for the moment that you are the President of the United States. The government you sit upon has collapsed under your tyranny and licks your boots. But, you are facing an armed population, half of the United States to be precise: which outnumbers your standing military 200 to 1. Assuming only 10 percent of this actually fights, you're still outnumbered 20 to 1. Are you going to shell your own cities to get this guerrilla force? Nuke New York? If you do so, do you think that the people who were standing on the fence are going to suddenly side with you - a government murdering its own people?
Weapons of mass destruction are simply out of the question. You can't just shell Chicago to get the "rebels" because a goodly portion of the population is either neutral or on your side. You are fighting a guerilla war, where the enemy might be one of your own cabinet members, or the chef down in the White House kitchen, or the talking head on CNN describing the last failed attempt at quelling the descention.
c'mon, gun nuts - i'm serious. who out there really thinks that they and their hunting buddies could hold out against the U.S. Army for more than, say, 24 hours?
Some of us "gun nuts" are ex-military. Some of us are active military, for that matter, who will not side with a despotic government. Could we hold out against the US Army for more than 24 hours? In a properly run guerrilla war, we could hold out for far longer than 24 years. Remember Viet Nam? We don't need tanks and planes, we have the most powerful weapon available, the foot soldier and his rifle.
For the most part, you're right, this type of service is commonly used by idiots to host some of the dumbest material I've seen.
The problem comes in the precident set. We live it a world rapidly trying to become a one-world government. Precidents set by European countries affect a large portion of the first world nations, more than might be noticed at first. A prime example is the UN's push for the complete abolition of small arms in private hands, spurring on the cause of gun control in the US government.
When it comes to anonymous speech, we shouldn't overlook individuals who are living in oppressed nations who are trying to tell the outside world what's really going on. Say, for example, someone makes it out of a country with a nastily represive government, like Iraq. They want to put up web material to help the world understand what is really going on behind what the popular press says, but if they offer their real identity they face the very nasty threat of assassination.
Obviously, you could think up a dozen scenerios like this.
Freedom of speech is a vital key to US freedoms, so it should be no surprise that it is a vital key to freedom everywhere. For every nation which follows France's lead in censoring the voice of the common man, we take one more step toward totalitarianism.
Slashdot Mirror
Close, but a bit off...
The Ninth Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So, we are not guaranteed certain specific rights. The most important ones are enumerated and an undetermined number more exist. The Bill of Rights itself only took shape after a rough debate. There were those who did not want the Bill of Rights ever written, so that government could not claim to erase such a right by removing the amendment. Also, to nit pick, they are not guaranteed in any fashion if the people are not willing to stand behind them and tell the government "don't touch". Just having it on paper does nothing, which is why the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms is so important. We must have a voice, and the power to back it up should mere words not be enough.
The Bill of Rights was written in order of importance, after all.
The Tenth Amendment goes on the state: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nore prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In short, if the Constitution provides a power and the states do not object, then the United States government has a power. Otherwise, they don't. It would then be reserved to the judgement of the community (the States) or the people, which would be hashed out in court upon disagreement.
So, yes, communities can set standards, but if a court finds that these standards violate the rights of an individual (which as the Constitution states is far greater in scope than the first eight amendments,) than the law is unjust and removed.
Common Law would also make a case that unless you are violating the rights of another, your actions are your own business.
-Xiombarg
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who had recently travelled to England. He had been amazed on how a 40 mile trip was considered "exhausting" to his English friends.
He and I consider 650-700 miles per day pretty much a normal long distance run - on motorcycles no less, the riding of which cause a bit more fatigue than driving a car. We find it tiring, but not exhausting.
I think this is one of the areas that Europeans have trouble relating to. The distances travelled across the US and Canada to get cargo shuffled to its final destination are gigantic compared to Europe. Take a look on a map sometime and just try to imagine the time and energy it takes to get an imported item from either coast of the US to central Montana. It will most likely travel by train from the coast as close as it can get, crossing mountains at times, but if the destination is a small town away from a train depot, you might be looking at 100 miles of highway travel on top of this.
What I don't get, is why we don't work on converting diesel engines to burn hydrogen. Its a much cleaner fuel than even hemp oil and is the most common element in the universe. Storage seems to be the most difficult part of the problem, but surely we can find a solution for that.
ObGlobalWarming: We've found T. Albertasaur remains in the arctic circle, with temperatures equaling what is now a temperate climate. Obviously, life deals with it as it has dealt with everything else.
I'm far more concerned about breathing clean air.
- Xiombarg
But I thought I'd bring up the point that the sun could "stop" from our point of view, if the Earth's rotation halted for some reason. The moon would even appear to have stopped to those not paying close attention to it's position in the sky, as long as the event only lasted a day or two at the most (the moon has an orbital period of about 28 days, or very roughly 13 degrees per day.) There would be no catastrophic effect from any of this unless the rotation of the Earth stopped very suddenly. (Ouch!)
Anyway, you should revise the second part of your argument a bit.
- Xiombarg
That would depend on the orbit of the moon. A couple of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons are over 1 AU out from the planet, if I'm remembering the reference chart from "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" correctly. (Someone slap me if I'm remembering this wrong ;)
The tidal force at such a distance would be less than what the sun does for Earth (varied also by the radius of the moon in question,) because the mass of the planet is likely to be a lot less than a star (or else it most likely would have collapsed into a star.)
Still, if there were many moons around a planet this size, like Jupiter or Saturn, as well as the effects of the star in the system, this would all combine to create some interesting tidal charts.
I'm not sure I'd like to sail a ship with a deep draft on a world like this.
-Xiombarg
by Tim Doran
Your answer:
Bush: If you take a look at the efforts made in the War on Drugs today, you'll find a very positive pattern. Not since the days of prohibition has the US government made so much money, while at the same time allowing us to crack down further and further on individual rights - especially minorities. Not only that, but the Republican plan for drug control enforcement has not only brought wealth to the federal government, but at the local level as well. Not only can we confiscate a drug user's or dealer's property at will, but we don't even need to charge them with a crime to do so! While my father was President, he instigated the RICO enforcement methods allowing both federal and local governments to confiscate property, but also allowing both to keep some of the proceeds, providing a unique incentive to keep law enforcement officers active in the Drug War.
Gore: The Drug War supports the underprivileged. Local communities benefit from the ever increasing job opportunities created by an expanding prison system. Why, back in 1980, before the War on Drugs really started moving, we only had 136 prisoners per 100,000. That was a little under 360,000 prisoners in state and federal prisons. By 1990, just ten years later, we had 426 prisoners per 100,000, which was a little bit over 1,100,000 prisoners in state and federal prison. This number has been rising ever since at an astounding rate. In the meantime, or drug intra-diction efforts have risen dramatically, yet the drugs are flowing into the country at a higher rate than ever before! The jobs available through all of these efforts is perhaps one of the most important reasons that the economy is doing as well as it is today. Mark my words, if we end the War on Drugs, the welfare of both the federal government and the American people, will fall to a deplorable level.
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
Your answer:
Gore: I feel it is important to protect the rights of each and every American citizen - and that includes religious freedom. Of course, the more popular the religion, the more I feel they should have a right to exercise their influence on the government. Swaying people of a religious faith, any religious faith, is a powerful way to garner votes, which are necessary to manipulate the final results in an election. My own religious convictions are no stronger than when November comes along.
Bush: The American people want to be secure in knowing that the American way of life is being preserved. Part of our heritage is a firm belief in a Christian God and Christian moral values. Besides, there are more Christians than pagans in this country, which is important around election time, to help sway the votes toward the Republican party, as they have always favored us. Why think, if it were not for the efforts of the Christian influence into government, we never would have added in the phrase "under God" to the national anthem after WWII!
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
Your answer:
Bush: Giving a tax cut to the American people has been long overdue. Government spending aside, if we don't throw a bone out to the less fortunate once in a while, making them think that we actual work for them, they just might revolt. By the time you add up all the taxes the average American pays, you're looking at over 50% of their earnings. Not making an effort to make the middle class feel like they're just as important to us as the wealthy, is simply political suicide. Besides, we can make up for the loss of money by tightening up the War on Drugs even further.
Gore: I am not one to want to give a tax cut to the American people without carefully weighing what effects it will have on our ability to raise taxes later in my term. President Clinton, who I have been honored to serve with, not only made the largest tax increase in history, but he made it retroactively! Whether a tax cut is given or not, I ultimately feel that following in this great man's footsteps is the way to go. Part of being able to accomplish this goal is the disarming of the American citizen. By clouding over the issue of "Enumerated Rights" and the "right to self-protection" with calls for protecting the children, we can woo over those who are either fence walking the issue or too unfamiliar with the effective use of firearms for protecting themselves and their country - especially from us. Fortunately, the Republican party is in full agreement on this issue, so we can make real progress. After all, in the last fifteen years or so, every gun control bill which the Republicans down played by mouth, was passed with, and only with, their help. I'm thankful for that. The last thing we need is a citizenry which can stand up with something more than words!
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Your answer:
Gore: I would be very interested in seeing how modern technology, such as the Internet, could be used to improve the voting system. Of course, unless it provided such a method for the poor to use, which favors their capability to vote, (such as putting a voting tax on people with a middle class income, without taxing the poor,) then I could not support it. Buying the vote of the lower class through welfare has been a key to keeping the Democratic party in office for years.
Bush: I would favor such a system, simply because it would be easier to manipulate votes through electronic means than by an electoral college. By manipulating the vote behind the scenes, the American people would have no easy method of determining that something is wrong. If the electoral vote goes against the popular vote, there is a quick and simple to understand discrepancy which would have people quite upset rapidly. As for the lower class and minority vote, which has always favored the Democrats, I'm not concerned. Increased efforts in the War on Drugs will make more and more of these undesirable people felons, who then lose the right to vote. It's simple attrition.
5) How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
Your answer:
Bush: I simply do not see any part of intellectual property which cannot be governed by our centuries old method. In the end, as long the federal government is the one with control, the system itself does not matter.
Gore: We need to develop new methods of dealing with these new technologies and the very nature of intellectual property. Our current laws are simply incapable of creating the strangle-hold controls which are needed by the federal government. If we don't come up with new approaches, the American people just might come to understand that we want to control every aspect of their creativity and productivity.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Your answer:
Gore: I think that it's obvious by my previous efforts to invent the Clipper Chip, that encryption is an important protection to American freedoms. However, without federal key escrow into encryption systems, we cannot determine whether or not someone is committing an illegal act. Besides, if you haven't done anything wrong, why are you hiding things?
Bush: The problem that I see with encryption, is that it is used by criminals to further their activities. How can we manage to maintain our lead in money making in the War on Drugs, if we can't keep an eye on what the cartels and drug syndicate are doing? Besides, if you haven't done anything wrong, why are you hiding things?
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
Your answer:
Bush: We live in a world community. It is important that we realize that multi-nationals are becoming the true world government, and as such they are pulling the purse strings of major campaign donations. By maintaining an appearance that these companies act within the law, we can ensure that not only the American resources, but the world resources can be exploited to the fullest. If needed, we can even stage events which allow us to garner our military to be used to enforce corporate interests. After all, the Gulf War was about crude oil, but we have been able to convince the American people that it's all about maintaining a free world. My father, and President Reagan before him, were able to use such scare tactics of military force, to force the second most powerful nation in the world to crumble. Now it is the United States which is set to become the key factor in creating and controlling the world economy - all through the guise of protecting the free world! Such genius, should not be overlooked come election time.
Gore: We live in a world community. To not consider the major impact that the United States has on this global community would be a dire mistake. We cannot do without foreign products. If we were to make any effort to decrease the effectiveness of multi-national corporations, the American economy would suffer as jobs flee to other countries. We must also consider the effectiveness of global ecological policy in a world with bickering factions. The sooner we can make a one world government, the sooner we can ban the internal combustion engine.
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Your answer:
Gore: I feel it is important to continue the space program, if for no other reason than to have one more shiny item to place in front of the American public on TV, to give them feelings of national pride and accomplishment. That's why we pushed so hard to reach the moon. This in turn helps to rid their mind of thoughts about how much we're taxing them and how many freedoms we've stripped away.
Bush: Absolutely. By creating an atmosphere of fear in the American people, we can continue an otherwise unfashionable space program which has created so many wonderful technologies for military use. Space based weapons can be put into place, all under the aegis of "saving the planet", but in turn allow us to have powerful military control over other countries, without having to worry about the number of military personal or military equipment. We simply can't afford to keep a military running terrestrially, when so many armed forces personnel need to be used for the War on Drugs.
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
Your answer:
Bush: A mission is not needed at the moment. Since the average American has become cynical to the effectiveness of the government to work, let alone accomplish goals, they have in turn lost their "American ideals". This is easily replaced by fear, however. By maintaining pressure on the War on Drugs, we can create an atmosphere of tension which will allows us not only to continue to make money with Drug War policy, but remove other rights from the American people by convincing them that they will be safer. Hitler was able to use this exact technique to round up the Jews, why not use it for our ends.
Gore: We need to move beyond an "American" vision, and move towards a world view. By doing so, we can create an atmosphere of fear needed to control the general populace. Global warming, deforestation, animal extinction; can all be used through the press to invoke a feeling of helplessness which will allow us to further erode individual rights, "for the sake of the planet".
-Xiombarg
Assuming Linux is allowed. Depending on the level of draconian legislation this type of bullshit will produce, you might find that GPL'd or BSD licensed software is suddenly illegal, because it allows "hackers" to understand and exploit the code from the inside out. Efforts to tighten security from anyone outside the "core" of each developed platform could also be construed as illegal hacking activity.
In order to limit certain "blessed" individuals to "security techniques", they'll have to develop a licensing scheme. This will be done under the guise of "We can't easily keep track of the people who are supposed to have this type of power over computers. The only way to keep track of them is to license them through the Federal government, so that we can keep an accurate record of who should be allowed this type of control over computer systems."
In the end, Linus would have to be licensed to continue to work on the Linux kernel.
On a side note, gun control is a perfect analogy. None of this is about preventing or reducing crime: it's only about control - who has such.
- Xiombarg
-Xiombarg
I could be misunderstanding the importance of planets in astrological reading, in which case my point might be moot, since the constellations which would align with planets would be seen from both hemispheres. But it seems to me that if you're going to use the sky as "signs from the gods", you damn well better look at the whole thing.
-Xiombarg
That is certainly debatable. Odds are, after having one intense trip, he might be fine - especially if he did it every day. Not everyone who experiences excessive doses of LSD have psychotic effects after, its actually pretty rare. After the first trip, if he kept it up everyday, he'd keep his tolerance up to the point that every attempt after would have no affect at all.
LSD-25 is one of those weird substances which act as a catalyst, and not the true source, of its effects. Its water soluble and disappears almost completely from the brain after about 2 hours. The effects last anywhere from 10-20 hours (by personal witness) however, so it appears that it is triggering a natural part of the brain into action by fooling the chemical receptors.
The body builds up a tolerance to LSD rapidly, within 3 days typically and it is not unusual for it to appear more quickly. Its quite common for a person who has dosed on day one, to have little or no effect at all on a dose on day two. LSD is also cross-tolerant with other indole hallucinogens, such as psilocybin and DMT. Meaning, if you eat 'shrooms one day and took LSD the next, the acid may very well not have any affect at all - and the same the other way around. This tolerance drops at about the same rate as it develops. Most people I've known who have used LSD or psilocybin on any sort of regular basis make it a point to keep their trips at least a week apart, as not to waste their money and time. I'll be honest in that I don't know if other tryptamines are also cross tolerant. I would imagine some are.
Lethal doses of LSD are estimated to be several tens of thousands of times as much as a single doze needed for effect. (E. Rothlin, _Ann._N.Y._Acad._Sci.) By comparison, take just 10,000 aspirin and see what happens.
Albert Hofmann, the chemist who isolated and stabilized lysergic acid from the ergot fungus, took the first chapter of one of his books, "LSD Experience and Reality", and had it published after a conference in San Francisco in 1978. It was published in the Journal of Psychedetic Drugs, Vol. 11 (1-2), 1979, titled: "LSD - My Problem Child". Its quite a story to say the least and its a fun read to learn how the various scientists at the Sandoz Company in Basel, Switzerland, reacted to his findings. Hint: Most of them dosed themselves in a controlled fashion to see if they could reproduce the effects Hofmann described after his accidental exposure. (He had a drop of solution soak into his skin.)
So, aside from the very first extreme dose (which could at least be psychologically dangerous,) don't worry about daily LSD use. He's not going to trip out of his skull. He'll just be bored.
- Xiombarg
My cats dose themselves on the catnip plant in the back yard all the time. You can't honestly watch a cat after rolling in nip and eating the leaves and state, "He's not stoned."
- Xiombarg
Exactly. My dog has had an embedded microchip for years.
This simple fact only scares me further. Technology is not the issue, human use of technology is. Like any other tool, this type of device can be used for good or evil, depending on who's claiming to be in charge at the time.
Your reference to your dog's chip reminded me of an incident a couple of months ago when my wife and I went out to adopt a cat. We stopped in at one shelter (private) which not only mandated that each animal have one of these chips implanted, but had a whole set of rules that went along with it.
Because of the dangers to the animal outdoors in a modern town, such as getting run over by a car, et cetera, one of their stipulations was that you were not allowed to let your own pet outdoors. If the animal was found outdoors, the chip would be used to identify him, and possible legal action - up to and including charges of animal abuse - would be levied.
I asked this woman how she could assume that a cat found outdoors was signs of abuse. She argued that it violated their policy and offered no other argument.
"But, what if the cat gets out on his own? Have you ever seen how fast one of these little furballs can run when they want to get through a doorway? I could be coming in with grocheries and not have a chance to block the animal's path. All of the sudden, the cat is outdoors and you're filing charges against me. What kind of system do you have to make sure there are no mistakes?"
"If the cat's outdoors, you've violated the policy. If the chip traces it to you, that's all the evidence we need."
We got our cat at the public shelter instead.
With this kind of draconian thinking being applied to house pets, I can only dread what this same type of "well intentioned" people will come up with "for the sake of the children."
- Xiombarg
None. That wasn't my point at all. I was trying to show that Nazi like tactics are already being used, nothing more.
As for your question, I can only think of one time that this occurred in US history: when the Mormons in Salt Lake drove off the US Army. Things were settled after that, and their descendents are alive and well out in Utah.
As for that 225-year old 2nd Amendment: All of the BOR is that old. What does age have to do with it?
I have very severe difficulty imagining that a gun battle with Police SWAT teams, the FBI, the National Guard
I won't waste anyone's time (especially my own) with What-If's, but I will say this much in defense of the opposite: Take a look at what happened in the Warsaw ghetto when a handful of Jews with just a dozen or so mixed up rifles and handguns, held off the SS for something like two weeks. Yes, they lost, but only because they were so overwhelmingly outnumbered and the SS finally burned the ghetto to the ground and pumped poison gas into the sewers. Not a bad fight, though, especially considering that they had stolen all of their weapons. They were already prisoners before trying to fight back. Then again, Afganistan, with their crappy bolt action rifles and some home made explosives, held off the Soviet Union and won. There are too many scenerios to spout absolutism in one way or the other of outcomes in armed conflict. That doesn't mean I'm just going to buckle under and hand over firearms because of the assumption that there is no way to fight off tyranny should it come. That's really playing a sheep, wouldn't you say?
And that is exactly my point. It's often fruitless for people to try and defend themselves with guns against a gun-toting opponent. You're effectively forcing them to try to kill you before you can hurt them. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
Because it is only your opinion, not a fact. The outcome of any scenerio like this is going to depend on the situation - too many variables to say that it will go one way or another. I also refuse to be a slave and to disarm myself is allowing exactly that to occur. Whether it is government tyranny, or the tyranny of a criminal assault, you have enslaved yourself to their will. If you wish to bow to such, please feel free. I will not.
-Xiombarg
WTF?!? Why is a spare kicker something to be confiscated, even if someone's been deemed "dangerous"? Did they take your spare life vests as well? Your spare anchors and rodes because you might club someone with it? This might be one of the dumbest reactions to any perceived threat that I've ever heard!
When the enforcement of the law is accomplished on the street by enforcers, and not in a courtroom, this is the defining characteristic of a nazi regime. When you have voluntarily subjugated yourself to this nazi regime by disarming, then you must be content to live with a boot on your neck.
This statement is right on the money! Liberty is not something which can be granted by a government, for if so, then it is not liberty, but a privilege granted by the state. Unfortunately, most people are basically gutless and do not want to take on any of the responsibility that walks hand in hand with true liberty. They are more than willing to accept encrochments on their liberty as long as they perceive themselves to be safe and comfortable. These same people will be the first ones screaming for more government infringment of liberty the moment they found out that criminals don't obey the imaginary lines and established rules. As if passing another law will somehow, magically prevent the crime. If passing a law is all that's needed to prevent crime, then why don't we make murder illegal? We wouldn't even have to have gun control then, because no one would be killed by criminals.
This is the lesson that so many seem to be unable to understand: you cannot prevent crime by passing laws. Laws only create more criminals by outlawing certain behavior which was not outlawed before. It doesn't prevent a damn thing. You would have thought that prohibition would have taught the U.S. that lesson, but it went right over our heads. Instead, we're trying to prohibit more things than we ever have before: guns, some drugs, "harressing" behavior... The U.S. has roughly 5% of the world population, and 25% of the world's imprisoned population. Why? The War on Drugs. Has it prevented anything? No.
One of the best examples of this kind of stupidity was recently banted around here in Utah, where I live. The "Safe to Learn - Safe to Worship" coalition was pushing Utah law makers to make the carrying of a concealed firearm in schools and churches a crime. The argument was that people did not feel safe when law abiding, lawfully carrying citizens - who had gone through both local and federal background checks, taken a safety course and had letters of good standing written about them by two others in order to get the carry licence - were in a school or church. Some parents argued that the idea of a teacher in their child's school with a concealed weapon was endangering their child. Whereas, the idea of a completely unarmed school, being attacked by a criminal outsider was not even brought up. What better way to insure that a criminal has easy access to their dire intentions than to stand up in a load voice and shout "We're unarmed!" If I was worried about teachers having access to harming my children in school, then why stop with guns? Why not cut their hands off so that they can't strangle my son? In fact, why not hack off all four limbs and prop them up in front of the class, so that not only can they not hurt my children, but they certainly couldn't do anything to defend them either. I just don't understand this kind of thinking. Who should I be more worried about, a law abiding citizen who's gone through all the checks and balances, or a criminal who's intentions are nefareous to begin with?
I have two sons, 15 and 12. I worry like any other parent for their safety. I would much rather have a trusted citizen with a carry licence, carrying a firearm with them to school, than an unarmed school. I am, after all, already trusting them with my children's minds, which has a potential for abuse just as grave as corporeal issues.
One could argue that removing all guns from society would lower the crime rate. To many it is self evident: but I don't think there has been any type of study done to support this thinking. There are notable exceptions, like Switzerland and Isreal which seem to point to cultural differences having a more dramatic effect. In any case, even if the crime rate were to drop, you've still set yourself to be defenseless in the one way that was the prime reason the 2nd Amendment was written: defense from tyranny by our own government. For those who would argue that it can't happen here, I can only guess that you've been asleep for a while. Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE, Kent State, the Lamplughs, the Lehkins in Brunswick, OH... The list goes on.
Look at Harry and Theresa Lamplugh for a moment. Harry Lamplugh's organization, Borderline Gun Collectors Association, just happens to be the largest gun show promoter in the northeast. Harry has no criminal record. Yet, for reasons unknown, federal agents, specifically the BATF and IRS agents, burst through their front door on the morning of May 25th, 1994, waving machine guns in their faces and trashing the house. Furniture was overturned, papers and other valuables were scattered about. The agents killed all three of their cats, two being poisoned by spilled cancer medication Harry Lamplugh was taking. One female BATF agent, Donna Slusser, deliberately stomped a kitten to death with her boots and then kicked the body under a tree. For six hours the Lamplughs were at the mercy of these agents. "When I asked if they had a search warrant, their first reply was 'shut the fuck up mother fucker; do you want more trouble than you already have?', with the machine gun stuck in my face." Harry said. "They then proceeded to tear my house apart." The warrent didn't even specify a single specific item and no reason was given for the raid. The affidavits were sealed by a local federal judge. 61 legally owned firearms and ammo was taken. Gun show exhibitor lists and show contracts were taken. A stack of mail was torn open, read and then confiscated. Their children's birth certificates and school report cards were taken. At one point a couple of the agents went out for pizza. As they trashed the home looking for the unspecified objects of the warrent, they tossed half empty pop cans and pizza boxes around the rooms. $15,000 worth of material was taken, including jewelry. No charges were ever filed, no property has been given back.
It can't happen here, my arse. Replace "BATF" and "IRS" in the above with "Gestapo" and "SS" and see if it sounds familiar.
This is why, I for one, will never submit to confiscation of arms, no matter what the argument about "crime control" may be. Liberty requires constant defense and vigilance. Sometimes, it also requires the blood of those who would stand to defend it. I'm not worried about that price. What I am worried about, and most of the posts on this thread and others I have seen like it tend to support: is that there are too few like me in this country, who accept the price of liberty. It makes me deeply worried for my children's future. I would like them to know liberty, but I'm frightened that the weak will of others and the gutless knee-jerking to the "official policy" will place that boot on their necks.
- Xiombarg
These wouldn't be the same psychologists who went from having about 2,000 catagorized mental illnesses in the '60's and '70's, to the 50,000+ they have now?
I could do a study as well which shows that all major serial killers used the toilet. This doesn't mean that porcelain creates serial killers.
Too many studies confusing causality with corellations.
As far as history goes, taxation was the major issue at hand before the American Revolution, but the cause was an attempt of British soldiers to confiscate arms. The "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was the result of this attempt.
- Xiombarg
- Xiombarg
lib.er.tar.i.an \.lib-*r-'ter-e--*n\ \-e--*-.niz-*m\ n 1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will 2: one who upholds the principles of liberty esp. of thought and action - libertarian aj
- Xiombarg
Close, but very, very wrong...
The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. It is a system using democratic elections to choose representatives of the people, who are supposed to vote according to the will of their constituency - all within the confines of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America.
They are not supposed to make decisions "for us." That many in this country think that it is so, is producing the largest untapped energy resource in this nation - the Framers of the Constitution, spinning in their graves!
The US government was set up as a system of checks and balances. The Legislative branch was established to make new law, if needed. The Executive branch was established to protect the Constitution from congress (a job that Presidents have not done in quite some time.) And the Judiciary branch was established to judge the law passed by congress and the President, via the will of the People.
Any law, even by majority vote, which violates the Constitution, is null and void - no matter what "morals" or "standard of living" it represents. Ergo, if congress were to pass a law which made free speech illegal, (such as the current HR 2987, which would make it illegal to publish, advertise or even make a URL link to certain kinds of factual information about drugs or drug paraphernalia,) it would be a null and void law, because it violates the First Amendment. "Upholding the nation's morals and standard of living" must fall within the confines of the Constitution - period.
The Bill of Rights itself, does not grant any of our rights, it merely enumerates them. A prime example is that even if you were to repeal the Second Amendment, this would no more make the bearing of arms illegal than repealing the Fourth would suddenly allow government to imprison and kill people at will.
Democracy is dangerous. It is three wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. The Founding Fathers of this nation knew that, which is why they made the Constitution the last word on any law.
- Xiombarg
It took only a handful of men and a few miscellaneous handguns and rifles (about a dozen total) to hold of the S.S. in the Warsaw ghettos during WWII - for over two weeks.
Ever heard of Afghanistan? Seems that the mighty Soviet army had a hell of time there, fighting against an unskilled population with bolt action rifles. As I recall, the Soviets did not win, and they had tanks, helicopter gunships and jets.
It seems unlikely by your comments, that you have ever read anything related to military combat procedures, nor do you have any personal experience with such. The infantry soldier is the primary weapon of the military: period. Aircraft are easy targets. Tanks don't last long without infantry support. Artillery won't function when the men around it are dead.
And every bit of equipment disabled or abandoned, for any reason, is open to capture by your opponent.
Assume for the moment that you are the President of the United States. The government you sit upon has collapsed under your tyranny and licks your boots. But, you are facing an armed population, half of the United States to be precise: which outnumbers your standing military 200 to 1. Assuming only 10 percent of this actually fights, you're still outnumbered 20 to 1. Are you going to shell your own cities to get this guerrilla force? Nuke New York? If you do so, do you think that the people who were standing on the fence are going to suddenly side with you - a government murdering its own people?
Weapons of mass destruction are simply out of the question. You can't just shell Chicago to get the "rebels" because a goodly portion of the population is either neutral or on your side. You are fighting a guerilla war, where the enemy might be one of your own cabinet members, or the chef down in the White House kitchen, or the talking head on CNN describing the last failed attempt at quelling the descention.
c'mon, gun nuts - i'm serious. who out there really thinks that they and their hunting buddies could hold out against the U.S. Army for more than, say, 24 hours?
Some of us "gun nuts" are ex-military. Some of us are active military, for that matter, who will not side with a despotic government. Could we hold out against the US Army for more than 24 hours? In a properly run guerrilla war, we could hold out for far longer than 24 years. Remember Viet Nam? We don't need tanks and planes, we have the most powerful weapon available, the foot soldier and his rifle.
- Xiombarg
For the most part, you're right, this type of service is commonly used by idiots to host some of the dumbest material I've seen.
The problem comes in the precident set. We live it a world rapidly trying to become a one-world government. Precidents set by European countries affect a large portion of the first world nations, more than might be noticed at first. A prime example is the UN's push for the complete abolition of small arms in private hands, spurring on the cause of gun control in the US government.
When it comes to anonymous speech, we shouldn't overlook individuals who are living in oppressed nations who are trying to tell the outside world what's really going on. Say, for example, someone makes it out of a country with a nastily represive government, like Iraq. They want to put up web material to help the world understand what is really going on behind what the popular press says, but if they offer their real identity they face the very nasty threat of assassination.
Obviously, you could think up a dozen scenerios like this.
Freedom of speech is a vital key to US freedoms, so it should be no surprise that it is a vital key to freedom everywhere. For every nation which follows France's lead in censoring the voice of the common man, we take one more step toward totalitarianism.
- Xiombarg