The Anti-State
Wouldn't it be great if we could just clear-out some land and let the Antis have their way. Then everyone would be happy.
They would have their paradise, there would be no:
Guns, alcohol, tobacco, work on Sunday, red dye # whatthafuckever, saturated fat, cars over three feet long and all of them would run on wheat grass drippings, fried food, schools would have no grades to hurt anyones feelings, cable TV, nudity, freedom of speech, there would be no bad language allowed at all (the stormtroopers would see to that), and anyone different would be taken out and "detained for their own good".
The rest of us could get on with our Constitutional lives free of harming them while they lived in happiness and bliss, huh?
Wouldn't it be great if we could just clear-out some land and let the Antis have their way. Then everyone would be happy.
They would have their paradise, there would be no:
Guns, alcohol, tobacco, work on Sunday, red dye # whatthafuckever, saturated fat, cars over three feet long and all of them would run on wheat grass drippings, fried food, schools would have no grades to hurt anyones feelings, cable TV, nudity, freedom of speech, there would be no bad language allowed at all (the stormtroopers would see to that), and anyone different would be taken out and "detained for their own good".
The rest of us could get on with our Constitutional lives free of harming them while they lived in happiness and bliss, huh?
rk, I think you're mixed up.
Red states (conservative repubicans) want to eliminate alcohol, work on Sundays, cable tv, nudity, freedom of speech, bad language, and detention. You might add political dissention, the choice to have an abortion, the choice to marry anybody you want, freedom of religion, science, and sex other than for reproduction. They would have the stormtroopers.
Blue states want to eliminate [hand]guns, tobacco, red dye # whatthafuckever, saturated fat, cars over three feet long and all of them would run on wheat grass drippings, fried food, schools would have no grades to hurt anyones feelings.
Maybe you can add your ideas to the viable third party thread.
I think his point is let the anti-ANYTHING people have their own little domain.
OH MY FUCKING GOD I FUCKING LOVE YOU HEADSPLICE
RANDY MILHOLLAND IS GOD, S*P > ANY OTHER COMIC. EVER. except maybe
QC.
I miss Davan's old haircut.
OH MY FUCKING GOD I FUCKING LOVE YOU HEADSPLICE
<mr. burns>excellent</mr. burns>
I think his point is let the anti-ANYTHING people have their own little domain.
Exactly, they are all the same.
Rockwell has a different opinion on Somalias "anarchy".
Fifteen glorious years without a central government in Somalia! It was typically described as a "power vacuum," as if the absence of a taxing, regulating, coercing junta is an unnatural state of affairs, one that cannot and should not last.
Well, now this "vacuum" is being filled, with an Islamic militia claiming to be in control of the capital, Mogadishu.
But US officials may rue the day they hoped for a new government in this country. The dictator Mohammed Siad Barre fell in 1991. US troops went in with the idea that they would restore order, but thank goodness they did not. Bill Clinton's idea fell into shambles after 18 soldiers were killed by warlords. That seems like a low number in light of the Iraq disaster, but to Clinton's credit, he pulled out.
Since that time, Somalia has done quite well for itself, thank you (BBC: "Telecoms Thriving in Lawless Somalia"). But there was one major problem. The CIA couldn't come to terms with it. The US government likes to deal with other governments, whether it is paying them or bombing them or whatever. What makes no sense to central planners in DC is a country without a state.
So the US continued to talk about a "power vacuum" and secretly funneled money to its favorite warlords – a fact which the US officially denies but which has nonetheless been widely reported. Officials who have criticized the policy have been shut up and reassigned.
Of course this has little to do with r's point. We should probably start a gridlock party. Assess the situation each election cycle and support whichever option keeps the President, Congress, and Supreme Court at each others throats. Wait a minute! Rk, aren't you anti-gun-control? :p
He's also anti-free market in energy, but nobody is perfect. ;)
Anti-gun control is not anti. It is for freedom. You can't be anti-anti.
And I have no issue with background checks, no felons, and simple firearm registration... but it stops there. No limitations on types of weapons, how many owned, or interpersonal sales, carry laws, etc.
Anti-free market?... you have me confused with someone else.
I believe in limited environmental regulation, not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
No limitations on types of weapons, how many owned, or interpersonal sales, carry laws, etc.
So you are OK if I have a bio warfare lab in my basement producing anthrax powder? Or if I have a nuclear warhead? Or a rocket launcher? Or a m-60? All those things are weapons. Are they all fine for me and everyone else to have?
Oooh! Ooohhh!!! I want to be able to carry a pocket nuke for personal protection! Cool!
We are talking about guns. You took "weapon" out of context and you know it. There is no need to twist what I say.
I know someone with an M-60... there would be no way to rob a bank with it, trust me on that.
You can buy large weapons on the black market, I know. Tell me why they are not used in crimes, if this is your fear.
I know someone with an M-60... there would be no way to rob a bank with it, trust me on that.
You can buy large weapons on the black market, I know. Tell me why they are not used in crimes, if this is your fear.
You could mount it on a Hummer and smash into the lobby with it.
I imagine the lack of concealability is why you don't see a lot of LAWS rockets being used in gas station robberies. Well, that, and they're incredibly expensive. Your average crimes are committed by people who want a relatively small and accessible amount of cash, so it isn't really cost effective to use tactical weapons in your average crime.
And you would destroy what you are trying to steal... think a little.
Oooh! Ooohhh!!! I want to be able to carry a pocket nuke for personal protection! Cool!
Maybe in a motorcycle side car.We are talking about guns. You took "weapon" out of context and you know it.
Do "arms" in the First Amendment only refer to personal firearms?
I'd think there was personal ownership of larger weapons, like cannon, at the time, but what would the early US government's views be on personal ownership of, say, a fully armed warship?
I think it refers to personal arms. Not just personal firearms, but not large military grade weapons like bio, nukes, dirty weapons, armored mobile cannons/tanks, personnel carriers, etc.
So, if you want to own an 50cal, which some of my friends and family do, no sweat, anyone who is not a violent felon who wants to conceal carry a firearm from state to state, no sweat. I have no problem with a cannon. They are very impractical for anything but a compound, something I think someone has the right to have. Our family will have one soon... well, this branch.
Also, it is no one's damn business how many fucking rounds I own or if I self pack or not.
Anthrax powder is different from guns. It's not able to be controlled, only contained. A gun, whether .17 caliber or 6-inch, is a mechanism that must be operated.
The government has the right to ban anthrax powder because it's not a basic human right to spread disease.
I think it refers to personal arms. ...
I think it refers to rolls of toilet paper!:p
I think it refers to personal arms. Not just personal firearms, but not large military grade weapons like ...
But how do you make the distinction? Anything you can carry? Anything that can be operated by one or two people? Why not a personnel carrier? It's just a truck with armor and a couple of 50cals, right? (I didn't look that up, but substitute actual armament)
I think it refers to personal arms. ..
Actually, I'll drop all my gun issues if you agree that the only guns to be possessed by citizens will be of the technology available in 1789.
I think it'd be terrible if the citizens of the US didn't have the right to bear arms. Imagine all the handicapped parking spaces you'd need.
He's also anti-free market in energy, but nobody is perfect. ;)
Nothing wrong with that. For examples on good reasons on governmental control of energy distribution please see: rolling blackouts in So.Cal., regional blackout in the NE, and corroded pipeline in Alaska.
Actually, I'll drop all my gun issues if you agree that the only guns to be possessed by citizens will be of the technology available in 1789.
As long as that is what all cops and military get too, fine.
And criminals, especially the criminals.:cool:
Nawwww... antis don't really care about what they have... hell they can have rockets for all they care. Just as long as law abiding citizens don't have them.
I'm all for your constitutional right to bear arms. I note, however, that it falls short of giving you the right to use those arms...
You don't think you have a right to protect your life?
Do you have the right make the CHAK-CHAK pump action sound?
I just did a Google Image Search for "SNIKT" and apparently Wolverine is Edward Scissor-Hands now ???
You don't think you have a right to protect your life?
Equating saving one's life with unlimited use of firearms is a touch dishonest. Personally, I think we should carry swords. That way, when someone tries a drive-by decapitation, they'll probably only get the person they were trying for.
I have never understood the "back to the past" mentality of those who don't like guns.
They are here, that is just not going away.
As long as it is the most efficient and effective defense weapon to use and what the other person is most likely going to be carrying, it is what I am going to use.
I have never understood the "back to the past" mentality of those who don't like guns....
They use it as a response to the "it's protected by the constitution" arguement by gun advocates. The constitution has changed in many ways to reflect advancements in technology and wisdom. Women are allowed to vote, slavery has been abolished. The constitution was ammended to outlaw alcohol and then changed back to allow alcohol. It can be changed to outlaw handguns. The arguement that it is a right protected by the constitution is only as valid as the arguement for slavery and against a woman's right to vote and our right to drink alcohol was prior to the ammendments that effected those issues.
Listen, I do not support legislation restricting firearms. I would like there to be fewer hand guns. I believe that the world would be a better place without any hand guns. Do you agree?
I wouldn't have as much problem with hand guns if they were the same hand guns that were in existence when the founders wrote the constitution. They made the constitution based on the knoweldge they had
at that time. Had they known the advancements that have been made, they may have framed the right to bear arms somewhat differently.
I think that there are three classes of weapon:
1) Weapons that should be available to the average person.
2) Weapons that should be available only to the military.
3) Weapons that should not be available.
Almost all gun debates are over where to draw the lines, not whether there should be lines, even though a strict reading of the Second Amendment would support the idea of no lines.
There should be no lines for private ownership. The fear is that someone will get a howitzer or something and use it to wreak havok in the community, but that possibility is too remote to be included in the argument. The cost is prohibitive, there's little to no availability, and there are a number of legal obstacles besides the right to ownership that must be overcome.
For example, to privately own fully automatic weapons (yes, it's legal), you must pass an extensive background check similar to that given to applicants to the CIA or who work in nuclear facilities, buy a federal tax stamp (I think that's what it's called) for each item, and you essentially waive your right against "unreasonable search and seizure". Every component is catalogued, and must remain with the weapon it's catalogued to. The feds can check on the location of the weapon at any time day or night, and you must comply. You can't leave it out of your possession unless it's secured in a particular way, and if you transport it, you have to notify the authorities. I'm pulling these from memory, so I might have missed some or misrepresented some details, but that's essentially the way it works.
It's much easier to get one illegally.
The fact is that humans always lived in king / peon type of society, it's just now that we're in a modern society, it's harder to see, but it's still the same. Corrupt interests are at the head of this jungle law that we see every day happening, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer every day.
...the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...
But the videos just can't get any better, because at
bestvideos.org, we've got
the best!For example, to privately own fully automatic weapons (yes, it's legal), you must pass an extensive background check similar to that given to applicants to the CIA or who work in nuclear facilities, buy a federal tax stamp (I think that's what it's called) for each item, and you essentially waive your right against "unreasonable search and seizure". The feds can check on the location of the weapon at any time day or night, and you must comply. You can't leave it out of your possession unless it's secured in a particular way, and if you transport it, you have to notify the authorities. I'm pulling these from memory, so I might have missed some or misrepresented some details, but that's essentially the way it works.
It's much easier to get one illegally.
And yet you don't hear about bad guys using fully automatic weapons to commit crimes. Well, there was that one bank robber a while back, but that's all I can remember.
I guess regulating weapons actually does have an impact on their use in crime.
That's because they're not usually interested in firepower. A bank robber wants somethnig to wave around so people will do what he says. A rapist wants his victim to not get away. A murderer just wants someone dead. They all want something portable, and an M60 isn't functional in that respect.
If anything, most of em would pick based on looks rather than function. It's not like they know anything about guns, other than they make them feel lpowerful.
There should be no lines for private ownership.
No lines at all? Anything the military has should be available to the public? Tanks? Fighter Jets? Gunships? Warships? Nukes? Chem? Bio? Any weapon invented in the future?
The fear is that someone will get a howitzer or something and use it to wreak havok in the community, but that possibility is too remote to be included in the argument. The cost is prohibitive, there's little to no availability, and there are a number of legal obstacles besides the right to ownership that must be overcome.
So registration and regulation are effective?
Originally Posted by Flint
But the videos just can't get any better, because at bestvideos.org, we've got the best!
I don't know...I think [COLOR="Indigo"]
justadequatevideos.org[/COLOR] has some good ones.
That's because they're not usually interested in firepower. A bank robber wants somethnig to wave around so people will do what he says. A rapist wants his victim to not get away. A murderer just wants someone dead. They all want something portable, and an M60 isn't functional in that respect.
If anything, most of em would pick based on looks rather than function. It's not like they know anything about guns, other than they make them feel lpowerful.
I think I agree with most of what you just said. But I also think the main reason fully automatic weapons aren't used by criminals is that they are harder to get.
That is innacurate... the black market is flooded with AKs from China. Criminals don't use them because they are large, bulky and very easy to identify.
That is innacurate...
Just to be clear, are you saying it's easier to buy fully automatic machine guns on the black market than to buy any other kind of guns legally?
I find that hard to believe.
No background check, no waiting period. For a felon, it is the only way.
It is also the only way to purchase a non-traceable weapon. They are also far less expensive than new, registered weapons, unless you want a specialty weapon.
That is innacurate... the black market is flooded with AKs from China. Criminals don't use them because they are large, bulky and very easy to identify.
Also your common criminal that holds up a convenience store is a moron and probably couldn't get himself an AK if he tried.
Perhaps not... depending on what city he lives in. But, I bet he knows someone who can get him an illegal gun.
Anyone who knows their home town well knows that.
Perhaps not... depending on what city he lives in. But, I bet he knows someone who can get him an illegal gun.
Anyone who knows their home town well knows that.
I do, and I don't. Then again, I have never asked, nor do I associate with anyone who would know.
You live in a dream city then.
I knew in HS.
I think that there are three classes of weapon:
1) Weapons that should be available to the average person.
2) Weapons that should be available only to the military.
3) Weapons that should not be available.
Almost all gun debates are over where to draw the lines, not whether there should be lines, even though a strict reading of the Second Amendment would support the idea of no lines.
As long as the National Guard can
NEVER use their military grade weapons on US soil,
EVER, under
ANY circumstances, against citizens.
Sure.:rolleyes:
& as long as cops get the same weapons that the rest of us get... but it is moot.
The plans are out there and anyone with a lathe and packing material will make a pistol as soon as their weapon is confiscated. I will be first in line for one. Only and idiot would not have the best weapon possible to protect themselves.
It is just an impossible scenario. You cannot go back in time.
As long as the National Guard can NEVER use their military grade weapons on US soil, EVER, under ANY circumstances, against citizens. Sure.:rolleyes:
Even to fight the Bad Guys?
& as long as cops get the same weapons that the rest of us get... but it is moot.
The plans are out there and anyone with a lathe and packing material will make a pistol as soon as their weapon is confiscated. I will be first in line for one.
You admit that only bad guys will then have guns. How can Cops fight them without having guns, themselves? Now, if only bad guys and Cops had guns, it would be easy for the Cops to identify the bad guys and take care of them.
Only and idiot would not have the best weapon possible to protect themselves.
It is just an impossible scenario. You cannot go back in time.
Ok, UG. Impossible = pessimism.
US citizens are never the "Bad Guys". Especially to have military forces used against them.
Bad guys are cops that subjugate the population and remove freedom through superior firepower. Those are the Bad Guys.
I did not say the cops could not have guns. You misqoted me.
US citizens are never the "Bad Guys".
After a disaster, when *citizens* are looting, maybe even taking *your* stuff, they are not "bad guys" and not citizens?
Especially to have military forces used against them.
Bad guys are cops that subjugate the population and remove freedom through superior firepower. Those are the Bad Guys.
But can't they, in fact, be *citizens*?
I did not say the cops could not have guns. You misqoted me.
You are correct, my mistake, please accept my apology.
Sure, they are citizens, and we should all be equally armed.
There is no such thing as a bad person.
After a disaster, if someone tries looting my food or survival gear... they are not a person for long.
There is no such thing as a bad person.
:eyebrow: You think you can back that up? Anyway the cops need to have superior firepower because otherwise they can't do their job if things get nasty, which is
controlling the unruly elements of society. You say the cops should have the power to enforce the laws in a crisis situation, yet you make veiled threats about killing anyone who robs you, you have your issues crossed.
You cannot prove a made-up concept. I do not believe in evil or "bad people".
Of course there can be no proof and you know it. It is my only faith, the basic good at the heart of all things with a soul. I don't care if you share the same belief.
Those who do not just want to feel better than others.
We are all capable of the same things, there is a Gandhi and a Stalin in all of us.
Ok, then you're splitting hairs between 'bad people' and 'people who do bad things'. You are what you do. you can't judge people based on assumptions, I agree, but everyone is judged on their actions. If you do bad things then you are a bad person, do good things and you are a good person. It really doesn't matter how you define good and bad either.
So... you have NEVER lied or EVER taken ANYTHING that was not yours? Whew!
At least there is one good person out there who has only done good things and not one bad thing to make them a bad person, because that is what makes them a bad person... the rest of us are scum.
You cannot prove a made-up concept. I do not believe in evil or "bad people".
Neil Gaiman's character Death had a good quote along those lines - "Nobody's creepy from the inside. Some of them are sad, and some of them hurt, and some of them think they're the only real thing in the whole world. But they're not creepy."
Relative moral categories cannot be said to exist in the same way as that which can be concretely and universally defined.
I never said you had to have never done anything wrong to be considered a 'good person', I mearly said that a person is defined by their actions. We do seem to be obsessed over the concept of being a good person though. Why are we so afraid of being honestly judged by what we do?
I have no problem with assigning my ethical stature with my actions... but no human is capable of looking at a whole human, all that they have done or not done and making such a simplistic claim as bad or good.
When you make a judgement about someone you always have to decide what parts are relevent to your decision. A man can be both a loving father and a theif, to his children he may be a good person, to those he robs a bad one. Both are correct but neither of the two cases overlap. His good conduct to his children has nothing to do with his victims and so they are right to press charges against him as a criminal. Likewise his children can be understood for caring deeply about him.
What I'm trying to say is that you don't have to take the entire person into account, it's impossible. You can only judge based on what you know of them and what parts of them are relevant to you.
When you make a judgement about someone you always have to decide what parts are relevent to your decision. A man can be both a loving father and a theif, to his children he may be a good person, to those he robs a bad one. Both are correct but neither of the two cases overlap. His good conduct to his children has nothing to do with his victims and so they are right to press charges against him as a criminal. Likewise his children can be understood for caring deeply about him.
What I'm trying to say is that you don't have to take the entire person into account, it's impossible.
I do.
You can only judge based on what you know of them and what parts of them are relevant to you.
I do not judge and don't think one can.
My belief system, as I have said, is based on compassion and that we are all, at heart, good.
That is the only faith I have and all that is required in Buddhism.
Those who do harm are doing so because they are in pain and sharing it because they know no other way to express that pain.
Though sometimes they must be dealt with harshly, it must always be done with love and compassion...
In other words as "I would have them treat me".
And I'm saying that I don't give a damn about what they are at heart, nor do I have any way of determining just what the heck 'good at heart' actually quantifies. It's all well and good to pine about how everyone is really good, and how people who do bad things are just twisted by society into doing things, while you're sitting around a campfire toking. I don't feel I have that luxury nor the will to ignore what I planly see in favor of something I can never really know exists and doesn't have real-world application anyway.
I never said shit about society, you assume much. I never suggested ignoring anything, you are putting words into my mouth.
It is a matter of how and why the actions that are taken are taken, as well as what actions.
Funny, you have a VERY different view of me than those in the "gun threads".
