The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus19mar19,0,2685078.story?page=1
I'm happy that they will be ruling in favor of individual rights over government powers for a change
(as they are supposed to do), though I take umbrage at the claim that the government has the authority to place "reasonable restrictions" on those rights. No governmental restriction of our rights is reasonable. The only valid limitation on our rights is the equal rights of others.
The people have an unlimited right to have any weapon they can honestly acquire, in any number, with any type of ammunition.
Merely owning a gun or a million guns does nothing to endanger others. Owning a fully automatic machine gun does nothing to endanger others. Owning a nuke might, but if one can prove that they can store it safely and securely without any nuclear energy leaks, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to build one or have one.
Individual people have a right to own any weapon the government has, if not more.
The rights of others, yes. Vide Ringer's Paradox: A right restricted is a right preserved. It does not greatly matter who does the restricting, as long as the restriction is kept to the minimum necessary to preserve.
Merely owning a gun or a million guns does nothing to endanger others. Owning a fully automatic machine gun does nothing to endanger others. Owning a nuke might, but if one can prove that they can store it safely and securely without any nuclear energy leaks, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to build one or have one.
That sounds like a reasonable restriction to me.
Yay for pocket nukes!!
Damm, where does it say that? I want one.
The darn things will tear your pocket right off, though -- setting a new, and lower, sartorial standard. Heavy futhermuckers, particularly the uranium-cased ones.
It is both easy and well understood how to use a gun as designed and intended to be used in a moral fashion. But using a nuke for its designed and intended purpose in a moral fashion is ever so much harder.
Aerial bombs, high explosive shells, and armed guided missiles, ground- or air-launched, fall at various places in the middle of this spectrum.
Cogitate and discuss.
I'm struggling with the concept that the main danger of a nuclear weapon is that it might be contained under unsafe conditions. More troublesome, to me, would be the consequences if the device were used for it's only intended purpose.* I think it is a reasonable function of the government to regulate the possession of anything that could wipe out millions of people with the push of a button.
* Although I suppose one could use the argument that a possessing a nuclear weapon is a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the intended use could be construed as "to prevent my neighbor from using his against me" ...but somehow that doesn't sound like a safe situuation to me.
Well MAD has seemed to work to this point. I suspect we are going to see a renewed sense of uneasiness as Iran gets the bomb given that their govenment has gone on record as threatening Israel with destruction.
Heavy futhermuckers, particularly the uranium-cased ones.
Maybe that's why those gangbangers have their pants hanging off their butts?
I always thought it might make them easier to take down in a foot pursuit and arrest. So far though that's not as well documented as the guy with the flashing sneakers that tried to run away from the cops across a darkened field. His feet would have had to flash a lot faster than they did.
I hold the same misgivings Flint does, and agree with Merc too. It has worked, with nations anyway. You have to rejigger MAD to work on terrorist groups that don't have a nation to lose and are banking on massive revanchism if a terror-enabling nation gets nuked in retaliation. It would require destroying the terrorists before they can implement a nuke plot. Call it Unilateral Assured Destruction.
I always thought it might make them easier to take down in a foot pursuit and arrest. So far though that's not as well documented as the guy with the flashing sneakers that tried to run away from the cops across a darkened field. His feet would have had to flash a lot faster than they did.
I hold the same misgivings Flint does, and agree with Merc too. It has worked, with nations anyway. You have to rejigger MAD to work on terrorist groups that don't have a nation to lose and are banking on massive revanchism if a terror-enabling nation gets nuked in retaliation. It would require destroying the terrorists before they can implement a nuke plot. Call it Unilateral Assured Destruction.
I have always said that until you treat them with the same ruthlessness that they have shown you be unable to change their behavior. Anywhere, anytime.
I have always said that until you treat them with the same ruthlessness that they have shown you be unable to change their behavior. Anywhere, anytime.
Blatant Devil's Advocate here, but, can you teach your kids not to hit people by spanking them?
Yes, of course: they get a chance to see how they like it.
Blatant Devil's Advocate here, but, can you teach your kids not to hit people by spanking them?
That is a very poor comparison. First we love our children. Second I can reason with them. Third they are not trying to kill me, yet. :D
Comparing how you modify the behavior of your children with how to respond to violent acts of a terrorist is just a bit crazy.:headshake
Guerrilla, what if they expect to be spanked, or killed, and so resort to doing the spanking or killing themselves first, before they get themselves spanked or killed? Getting their licks first, so to speak. I said hooray for pocket nukes, because the pro-gunners can't even imagine the consequences of a no gun law society.
We lived in a no gun law society and it worked out pretty well. Only after the unconstitutional gun laws were created did criminals find it easier to victimize people they knew couldn't have one.
Also, it's not "pro-gunner", it's pro-freedom. Nobody is saying everyone must own a gun, just that you can't infringe on our right to own one of them or a million of them. Your desires are less important than our rights.
Db, actually, we can and we do, all the time. Ringer's Paradox, "A freedom restricted is a freedom preserved," gives us to expect there will be some circumscribing somewhere.
The varied iterations of liberalized private concealed carry, ranging from Vermont's no-permit-required to concealed carry license documents along with full faith and credit provisions, have all produced precipitous, permanent decline in violent crime. There seem to be many ways to make this work.
In the end the "pro-gunners" you speak of are the effectual, the genuine anti-crime and anti-genocide social force. In the former, the frankly stupid criminal is suppressed; in the latter, criminal action by the state becomes impractical -- they run out of Einsatzkommandos right quick. I like being against these evils and I like being in a position to do something about them!
A freedom restricted is a freedom violated. Restricting freedoms doesn't preserve them. It infringes upon them. The only legitimate restriction on our freedoms or rights are the equal rights of others.
No restriction on gun ownership is a reasonable one, and no restriction on gun ownership preserves it.
The only legitimate restriction on our freedoms or rights are the equal rights of others.
Radar, that, in just about so many words, was Ringer's entire point. Read
Restoring the American Dream.I've read it many times over the years and given copies out to friends. I may even have a signed copy. I reject the notion that a right restricted by government is a right preserved.
Funny that you've never grasped Ringer's point there in all those rereadings. I certainly did, in one.
Equal rights include the right to live, not merely surviving gun battle after gun battle as people of my city now have to do every day, thanks to the unchecked-by-feds transportation of guns from other states.
I'm afraid the Supreme Court decision will bring the US back to the early 90's, in terms of crime, gangs, and, you know, domestic terrorism.
You say unchecked by feds, I'll add unchecked by states. Why is that, when there are hundreds of laws on the books to stop illegal transportation and sales of guns?
Is it because they are afraid if they enforce those laws, the masses will realize the push to eliminate guns entirely, is nothing but a power grab by the government?
I say totally unchecked and unregulated gun ownership without any oversight or information shared with any level of government is the way to go.
Heck, if I could I'd make sure there were no serial numbers on any guns.
I want you to tell that to the mothers of the 15 children who died this year so far by gun violence in Brooklyn. In their neighborhoods, in front of their faces. I'm sure you are secure up in the mountain, or the so-called ivory tower where you live. The folks here in the cities frankly had had it with the pro-gun arguments and are about to all but dump all of the out-of-state gun collectors into the river, if they could.
You can't blame all actions by criminals with guns on all gun owners. Pro-gun establishment is tired of a liberal left wing argument that they are responsible for the actions of the 15 dead children. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I'd have no problem telling that right to the faces of their mothers during the funeral. In fact, not one person in the history of the planet earth has ever been killed by a gun. They were killed by the motherfucker holding it.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
no - people with guns kill people
Some people need killin' [shrug] especially if they're shooting at kids.
no - people with guns kill people
That is what I said.
no - people with guns kill people
People with cars, motorcycles, bombs and drugs kill people.
no - people with guns kill people
People kill. The weapon they happen to be using is irrelevant.
Not really. Takes way more effort and skill to kill with a blade than with a gun. Much easier to kill accidentally with a gun as well.
People with cars, motorcycles, bombs and drugs kill people.
yes but all of those things (except Bombs????) were are created for a beneficial purpose - Guns are designed to kill. That is their purpose.
I am not trying to get into this again - I own several guns - all used for trap/skeet shooting & on rare occasions hunting . They are safely kept where there will be no accidents. My children do not have access to them.
I've heard all the arguments, but still have a difficult time with the "need" to make assault weapons, and to some extent hand guns, available to the general public.
I've heard all the arguments, but still have a difficult time with the "need" to make assault weapons, and to some extent hand guns, available to the general public.
For me it just comes down to free choice. I have a number of "ugly guns", few people actually own true assault weapons. I collect military style arms from all eras because they are fun to shoot and collect. My main hunting rifle is a .303 Enfield. The only thing that is different is what they look like, not the round fired. To have a class 3 license, full auto rifle which technically is an assualt weapon, it is few and far between. We need to face the reality that guns are not going to go away and we need to find ways to enforce existing laws. I don't really want to restart this whole pissing contest again either. So I will just leave it at that.
yes but all of those things (except Bombs????) were are created for a beneficial purpose - Guns are designed to kill. That is their purpose.
I am not trying to get into this again - I own several guns - all used for trap/skeet shooting & on rare occasions hunting . They are safely kept where there will be no accidents. My children do not have access to them.
I've heard all the arguments, but still have a difficult time with the "need" to make assault weapons, and to some extent hand guns, available to the general public.
Guns were not designed to kill. They were designed to defend and hopefully eliminate the need to kill. But even if they were designed to kill, they were designed to kill for food first and why they were designed is irrelevant. Knives were designed to cut food, but how many people have been killed by them. Should we outlaw knives? More kids are killed playing high school football than die from accidental gun shootings
(There really is no such thing as an accidental gun shooting. There is only the irresponsibility of not acting safely), so should we outlaw high school football? or swimming pools? or automobiles? All of these things kill more than guns.
The fact remains that gun ownership is an individual right and no level of government has any authority whatsoever to regulate their ownership anymore than government has the authority to tell you how you must cut your hair.
So we let guys like Seung-Hui Cho have weapons, right Radar? All the guns from others in school wouldn't help, as he killed his 32 commando style.
And you must have been friends with guys like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. You'd think they did a great job cleaning their guns before they did what they did.
Radar - Guns are designed for one purpose only - to kill. There is no discussion nor debate on that, so please don't even try.
Also, I never said that I didn't respect the right to own guns. I even said that
I own SEVERAL myself.
I say let people own as many guns as they want. They can even carry them around out in the open as far as I'm concerned.
However, I think the bullits should be outlawed.
Guns don't kill people; bullits do.
I say let people own as many guns as they want. They can even carry them around out in the open as far as I'm concerned.
However, I think the bullits should be outlawed.
Guns don't kill people; bullits do.
Gun grabbers have already tried that. It didn't work.
And too, if you harbor antigun opinions, you harbor pro-genocide opinions.
As you know, I don't. I think you shouldn't either.
*blinks* in what way do anti-gun opinions equate to pro-genocide opinions?
*blinks* in what way do anti-gun opinions equate to pro-genocide opinions?
Yea, I'm thinking that is a bit of a reach. But I know where you are going with it.
Yea, I'm thinking that is a bit of a reach. But I know where you are going with it.
If you're unwilling to defend yourself, that means you're willing to let other people wipe out entire populations?
Shenannigans!
I don't need a gun to defend myself....I pay taxes to ensure a police force and an army for that. Not wanting everybody to have the right to walk about armed to the teeth with lethal weaponry is not the same as not being willing to mount a defence when needed. I am pro gun control, but I am not a pacifist.
If you're unwilling to defend yourself, that means you're willing to let other people wipe out entire populations?
Shenannigans!
You can address that to UG, not to me.
You can address that to UG, not to me.
You're right, I should have been more specifc. :redcard: on me.
I say let people own as many guns as they want. They can even carry them around out in the open as far as I'm concerned.
However, I think the bullits should be outlawed.
Guns don't kill people; bullits do.
Uh, no...bullets should cost 5000 dollars. Don't make me post the Chris Rock thing again. :D
*blinks* in what way do anti-gun opinions equate to pro-genocide opinions?
Easy: the three reliably seen preconditions for a genocide are 1) hatred, however based; 2) the power of the State, either to give muscle to the haters or shield and sanction their activities; 3) gun-control laws, as these are the most efficient mechanism for disarming a population.
If you haven't disarmed a population, you can't practicably wipe them out, particularly in an internal pogrom. They'll shoot back, and you run out of Einsatzkommandos in short order. Maybe they run you out of the national capitol next.
Antigun opinions favor and encourage gun control laws. No gun control, no tyranny. No tyranny, genocide at worst drops to "mighty darn seldom." Nobody's going to call minimizing genocide a bad thing, least of all me.
Gun control laws are all about the disarming -- "you can't have this." Forbid or delegitimize armed self-defense and you eliminate any ability to rescue yourself from crimes by the State, genocides being perhaps the chiefest of criminal acts on a national scale. The record shows such laws are highly efficient at disarming people, and such laws are found in the legal corpuses of Nazi Germany, Ottoman Turkey, Communist China, Guatemala, Cambodia, and others. Damning, really.
Of the deadly three preconditions, hatred is... mighty hard to rid ourselves of. For better or for worse, the State isn't likely to wither away either -- and even worse from an antigenocide point of view, you can't look to another State to rescue you from the lethal intentions of your own. Not, at any rate, in time. It's happened, but how long did it take, and was there any coherent campaign to rescue or was it just incidental to conquering territory? You know the answer to that one. The state isn't a bulwark against genocides, particularly not when it is a necessary part of what makes one go.
What's needed instead is a vaccine against genocide. Gun bans are highly efficient at rendering people helpless before weaponry -- but laws banning guns are also the most vulnerable of the preconditions: they are subject to being wiped out at the stroke of the repealing legislative pen.
Consider too that genocides happen in secret, and that their victims do not see them coming -- they are ambushed. If they saw them coming, they'd take off, wouldn't they?
So it's really not that tough a logical leap to see "antigun opinion --> antigun legislation --> helplessness before violence --> crime by persons, without trouble, and crime by states, also without trouble: genocide."
Genocide being a nasty thing, you want to give it as much trouble as you possibly can, and only one way has been found that always works. The people must have fangs, claws, and the will to use them. Anything less -- well, it
might work. Maybe. For a time.
But remember hatred doesn't go away -- it isn't momentary irritation. Remember how much hatred is completely irrational: are its possessors really anything other than like rabid dogs? Irrational haters are singularly unresponsive to the force of a good example, and notably rendered untroublesome after responding to the force of a well directed bullet. Given a choice between submitting to murder and using a good bullet, well, being of sound mind, I'll use the bullet and Godspeed to it.
Gun control laws can lie in wait for decades before a genocide occurs, as was the case for Cambodia. Theoretically, they could do their dirty work generations after being passed.
Thus saith the
JPFO. The case they make for their argument is strong enough I don't think anyone's mileage varies.
The genocide in Rwanda was mainly through machetes rather than guns.
England has strict gun controls. Does that mean England is pro-genocide?
It means England is more vulnerable now to a genocide than ever before in her history. It's already meant violent crime has taken off into a growth spurt. To stop this, you're going to have to push Queen and Parliament into liberalizing concealed carriage of weapons and into active encouragement of private arms -- quite in accord with the long English tradition of limited government. It is, I think, essentially how limited government was kept a limited government.
Now if the victims had had guns, how long would the machete-wielders have survived? The victim populations were not armed, and that is why they died. If you want private arms to inoculate against genocide, the arms must be efficient. In point of fact, for several reasons including ergonomics of shooting and availability of ammunition, the arms should be assault rifles. The defense against genocide is more central to the matter than the means of the genocide.
The mass murder/suicides that make headlines over here, and are not unknown over there, have a feature in common that the public handwringers never mention: the shooter could be confident no one could shoot back at him. Because no one else could shoot back, the perp could rack up a sizable total before finishing himself off. Suicide is so often paired with this kind of multiple murder as to indicate a furious anger at the self as well as others.
I don't need a gun to defend myself....I pay taxes to ensure a police force and an army for that. Not wanting everybody to have the right to walk about armed to the teeth with lethal weaponry is not the same as not being willing to mount a defence when needed. I am pro gun control, but I am not a pacifist.
Who is going to protect you from the police or the government when they choose to attack you rather than defend?
Everyone has the right to walk down the street armed as much as they want to be and neither you, nor the combined remaining population of the planet earth combined has any legitimate authority or right to prevent them from doing so.
A person with a gun is a citizen. A person without a gun is a subject.
We raise this kind of point from time to time, for we are citizens of a republic -- not a monarchy, however constitutional. Republics properly constituted are all about the broad distribution of political power.
The smartest thing Mao ever said was his remark about what political power grows out of. A Commie rat, yes, and a pathological narcissistic personality also, but that didn't make him a dullard.
It's already meant violent crime has taken off into a growth spurt. To stop this, you're going to have to push Queen and Parliament into liberalizing concealed carriage of weapons and into active encouragement of private arms -- quite in accord with the long English tradition of limited government.
Violent crime primarily does not involve guns. There has been a spate of gun crime, which is due to a growth in American style gang-culture (by which I mean they take as their model the media depicted American gangs). Guns are not a part of English culture as a means of personal defence. Guns have always been for sport or for the armed forces and specialised police units.
Most of our violent crime involves knives. In the ward I represent, the crime levels are high and there is a gang culture amongst the youth. Despite this there are very few guns around. A lot of kids carry blades. Very few criminals carry guns. If guns were more easily available to the general public, every hard case on the estates would have one. Every time the police bust a drug dealer in the Close it would turn into a siege.
The answer to rising violent crime is not to increase the number of available weapons. All that would result in would be a tacit arms race between the police and the criminals. The more ordinary, law-abiding citizens that take up arms, the more accidental gunshot victims there would be.
We raise this kind of point from time to time, for we are citizens of a republic -- not a monarchy, however constitutional. Republics properly constituted are all about the broad distribution of political power.
However broad the distribution of political power in theory is in your country, in fact it not that broad. Large swathes of your population have abdicated themselves from political power (as have large swathes of ours) believing that they are already tacitly denied a part in it, or that any part they play is pointless. The laws on gun ownership are not because you are a repulic and we are a monarchy. Political power does not reside in guns. It resides in the ballot.
Netherlands and Poland have similarly tough restrictions on firearms. France has high gun ownership but in order to get a licence citizens must prove their mental state and concealed weapons are illegal. The American system of easily acquired guns and legal concealment is not a feature of republicanism it is a feature of American republicanism.
However broad the distribution of political power in theory is in your country, in fact it not that broad. Large swathes of your population have abdicated themselves from political power (as have large swathes of ours) believing that they are already tacitly denied a part in it, or that any part they play is pointless.
I agree with you, especially on a national level. Too many people feel they are part of the system just because they vote once every four years... and pay taxes.
It's a shame, but I suppose it does limit personal disappointments... and gunfights. ;)
Okay you pro-gunners, can you explain what the hell is happening in Iraq? There every citizen got a gun, but even then they are helpless vs the insurgents. They can't even defend themselves, which is vexing even the Bush Administration.
Apples and oranges. There is no comparison. The majority of gun owners and supporters in this country have a sense of the rule of law.
So much for the theory that people without guns can't kill a lot of people.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/08/japan.attack.ap/index.htmlI don't think anybody has suggested that people without guns can't kill a lot of people. As already mentioned, Rwanda's genocide was mainly machetes, clubs, assorted blades and fire.
This guy killed a lot of people with a knife. I wonder how many more would have died had he been armed with kalashnikov.
Maybe none. Maybe more. Who is to say?
Look, getting murdered isn't exactly part of the English culture either. Nor is being obliged to submit to murder. Guns readily trump knives.
Some have raised the notion of an "arms race," implying destruction and impoverishment. However, this quite misunderstands the actual components of a bigtime arms race: these happen in national and military contexts, not in the civil and criminal. Sufficient firepower available to the good guys amounts to a violence suppressant. The bad guys, simply enough, can't rely on surviving any violence if the good guys are sufficiently equipped. Put another way, you can end a knife fight if you bring a gun.
And if everybody has a gun?
If everybody has a gun, people are very polite. In fact everyone doesn't need to have a gun. Just make it easy for regular people to conceal weapons. If criminals don't know who is or isn't armed they are less likely to attack. In 100% of the states where concealed carry permits were made legal, crime dropped dramatically (more than 10%). In the states with the strictest gun control laws, we see the most crime and the most gun violence. This is because the government has made people easier victims for those who would prey on us.
Criminals love gun control laws. Al Capone did, and so did Hitler.
Facts aren't bullshit just because you don't like 'em.
Facts aren't facts just because you spout them.
I'm not saying these are facts because I spouted them. I "spouted" them because they are facts.
make it easy for regular people to conceal weapons. If criminals don't know who is or isn't armed they are less likely to attack.
As can be evidenced by their reluctance to shoot fellow, armed criminals ?
As can be evidenced by the sharp reduction in crimes in the states that have adopted concealed carry permits, especially when compared to states that have strict gun control laws like California, New York, or territories like Washington D.C.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba246.html
The number of RTC (Right to Carry aka concealed permits) states is at an all-time high, up from 15 in 1991 to 40 today.9 In 2006, states with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, had lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime lower by 26%, murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007
This information is verified on the American government's BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms website.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htmhttp://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18
The FBI reports that the nation’s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991-2004, to a 30-year low in 2004, and that it has risen slightly in the last two years. By comparison, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victim survey found that “at the national level crime rates remain stabilized at the lowest level experienced since 1973,” when the first such survey was conducted.
The FBI’s data show that since 1991, when the violent crime rate hit an all-time high, and 2006, total violent crime has decreased 38%, murder 42%, rape 27%, robbery 45%, and aggravated assault 34%. During 2004-2006, total violent crime was lower than anytime since 1974. For the last eight years, the murder rate (fluctuating between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100,000 annually) has been lower than anytime since 1965. Studies by and/or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797 And if everybody has a gun?
As anyone with one hour's time on a shooting range knows, that's the very definition of a polite society. It's because normal persons, engaged in disposing lethal force -- let's face it, guns, swords, and stone axes do that -- desire not to alarm or upset anyone while they're doing it. If you want to see good manners universally on display, hang out on a firing line for a while and people-watch.
Oh, bullshit.
Shawnee, your opinion is disproven by the universal experience of each and every state in the Union that has liberalized concealed carry of weapons, from 1987 to today. With the exceptions of the large urban areas, particularly NYC, DC, Detroit, and L.A., the U.S. murder rate per 100,000 persons compares with England's. (The big urbs do skew things.) We guns-and-freedom people know this; you do not. Even worse, what you are doing is harboring progenocide views. Don't do that; it's not just immoral, it's fucking gross, see?
Time for you to do some homework and become enlightened. You know -- kind of like me. I mean, I get it -- and where were you?
As can be evidenced by their reluctance to shoot fellow, armed criminals ?
Uh... dead criminals are:
A. a Good Thing
B. a Bad Thing
Check one. No trying to fudge about wild shots and innocent bystanders hit; that really amounts to incontrovertible evidence of the badness of criminals overall, does it not?
Really, DanaC. That you posted such a posting indicates you do not really know. Now do you have the
remotest clue why I think the Left is the habitation of the stupid?
As anyone with one hour's time on a shooting range knows, that's the very definition of a polite society. It's because normal persons, engaged in disposing lethal force -- let's face it, guns, swords, and stone axes do that -- desire not to alarm or upset anyone while they're doing it. If you want to see good manners universally on display, hang out on a firing line for a while and people-watch.
Shawnee, your opinion is disproven by the universal experience of each and every state in the Union that has liberalized concealed carry of weapons, from 1987 to today. With the exceptions of the large urban areas, particularly NYC, DC, Detroit, and L.A., the U.S. murder rate per 100,000 persons compares with England's. (The big urbs do skew things.) We guns-and-freedom people know this; you do not. Even worse, what you are doing is harboring progenocide views. Don't do that; it's not just immoral, it's fucking gross, see?
Time for you to do some homework and become enlightened. You know -- kind of like me. I mean, I get it -- and where were you?
I'm so mad I could shoot you in the face. But, but, but...luckily my reasoning takes over and I realize you might shoot me in the face back.
Puh, just penis substitutes for you big mocko men. You bore me silly. You and your "statistics."
Speaking of gross, looked in your mirror lately?
:lol2:
Oh, now there's a telling rebuttal.
You've proven yourself immature, ignorant, pro-crime, pissy, and still pro-genocide even after confronting an example of how to be better than that, and firmly in the camp of the stupid. All these sins are aggravated by antigun opinions, which you'd rather hold than be right.
Get ahold of yourself.
You told me! I'm so ashamed, now that I see the errors in my ways. If I had known, all those years ago, that there existed enlightened people such as you I never would have honed my opinion through my experience. I would have waited for you to provide this desperately needed illumination. I'm sure there is a special hell for non-violent trouble-making pacifists such as me. Lucky for the surely right masses, is it not?
Nanny nanny boo boo.
:)
When they can't deal in facts, reason, or logic, they use insults. How typical and childish.
Oh, now there's a telling rebuttal.
You've proven yourself immature, ignorant, pro-crime, pissy, and still pro-genocide even after confronting an example of how to be better than that, and firmly in the camp of the stupid. All these sins are aggravated by antigun opinions, which you'd rather hold than be right.
Get ahold of yourself.
When they can't deal in facts, reason, or logic, they use insults. How typical and childish.
"They" do, don't they? Shameful!
Well, to begin the enlightenment process with, pacifism isn't a philosophy that will sustain you in all circumstances, whereas my nonpacifism is. I'm using "my" only for convenience; I don't presume to own it, just to profess it.
My philosophy of Life And How To Do It doesn't make me die if I am lethally attacked. If a pacifist is lethally attacked, either the pacifist or the pacifism must die on the spot. It is not so with my nonpacifist, albeit plenty peaceable, martial-arts-influenced sort of lifeway. Remember what happened to Spexxvet when he tangled with Radar and me and Bruce over guns -- his pacifism disintegrated and he got stared down by about everyone in the Cellar. He's been quite silent on anti-rights anti-gun attitudes ever since. I guess a mind blown really is a mind shown. I do hope he's taking karate classes or something. They helped me be a good man, so surely they might do something for him.
You did right to be ashamed of that which is shameful. [Yes, your sarcasm is lost on me, for I pursue worthier things, and I think you should too. ;) ] Now do better.
First on the guns-and-freedom reading list, oh, let's take for convenience
this genocides chart from the JPFO and the page around it; and
this article is really key to a full understanding of why some people are so very unenlightened about, well, people who don't want to get murdered and believe the best way is to rely upon one's own powers. The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are a fascinating bunch; I've been very impressed with them.
I know, I know; some people would think that's a sign they wouldn't ever read any of their writings ever -- but they do themselves a horrible Oedipus-style blinding if they take that attitude. How well do you see the light if you're blind?
Well, to begin the enlightenment process with, pacifism isn't a philosophy that will sustain you in all circumstances, whereas my nonpacifism is.
It will sustain you in the circumstances that matter to you. My pacifism will sustain me in circumstances which are important to me.
I'm using "my" only for convenience; I don't presume to own it, just to profess it.
My philosophy of Life And How To Do It doesn't make me die if I am lethally attacked. If a pacifist is lethally attacked, either the pacifist or the pacifism must die on the spot. It is not so with my nonpacifist, albeit plenty peaceable, martial-arts-influenced sort of lifeway. Remember what happened to Spexxvet when he tangled with Radar and me and Bruce over guns -- his pacifism disintegrated and he got stared down by about everyone in the Cellar. He's been quite silent on anti-rights anti-gun attitudes ever since. I guess a mind blown really is a mind shown. I do hope he's taking karate classes or something. They helped me be a good man, so surely they might do something for him.
You did right to be ashamed of that which is shameful. [Yes, your sarcasm is lost on me, for I pursue worthier things, and I think you should too. ;) ] Now do better.
First on the guns-and-freedom reading list, oh, let's take for convenience this genocides chart from the JPFO and the page around it; and this article is really key to a full understanding of why some people are so very unenlightened about, well, people who don't want to get murdered and believe the best way is to rely upon one's own powers. The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are a fascinating bunch; I've been very impressed with them.
I know, I know; some people would think that's a sign they wouldn't ever read any of their writings ever -- but they do themselves a horrible Oedipus-style blinding if they take that attitude. How well do you see the light if you're blind?
I thank you for your well thought post, seriously. I guess I get upset because of the basic argument that "we" are wrong and hopelessly doomed, whereas I might think you are wrong but I don't see you burning in the eternal hell of misunderstanding of all that is right and true, either. I also believe in your right to carry your damn guns, whether I like it or not. Conversely, I can believe that there is something inherently wrong with guns, and be disheartened that most others don't see it that way.
I won't wow you guys with article after article protesting too mucheth; I don't have the brains ;) or the patience to do so. Yes, I respond emotionally; that is who I am. It is neither right nor wrong. My opinions come from somewhere, where is not important nor relevant...but I'm not exactly an uneducated "all butterflies and lollipops" thinking individual. I feel that having my opinions, such as they are, should not automatically lump me into you and Radar's "Camp For the Criminally Stupid." And my apprehensions about guns in our society hardly make me a criminal who hopes everyone dies at the hands of evil.
So, we'll just agree to disagree, no? :)
Uh... dead criminals are:
A. a Good Thing
B. a Bad Thing
Or C. irrelevant to the point I was making.
My point is, that the criminals with guns do not seem to be put off from shooting other criminals because the other criminals have guns, so why would law-abiding people carrying weapons put them off?
As for the rest of the post which you directed my way: you, sir, are arrogant and pompous.
Or C. irrelevant to the point I was making.
Not irrelevant. It's a choice between being an easy victim or being able to defend yourself.
My point is, that the criminals with guns do not seem to be put off from shooting other criminals because the other criminals have guns, so why would law-abiding people carrying weapons put them off?
Criminals do seem put off from shooting other criminals unless they have a way to outnumber them or otherwise have an unfair advantage. This is why they are criminals. Criminals don't want a fair fight. They know they can't outnumber regular citizens and they can't plan properly how to victimize someone if they don't know whether or not they have a gun.
When a criminal steals a car, he doesn't try to think of how he can get past the best security system, he looks for the car that doesn't have one. He looks for the houses that are easiest to break into. He looks for the person who looks like an easy target. This is why in states that have carry permits, crime
(especially murder) has dropped dramatically.
As for the rest of the post which you directed my way: you, sir, are arrogant and pompous.
I'm sure you feel that way about a lot of people who happen to be correct when you are not. To be fair, it's easy to feel confident when you know you're right and the other person is wrong; especially when dealing with someone who is as consistently wrong as you. I'm not defending UG though. UG is wrong far more than me, and maybe as much as you on political matters, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
I'm sure you feel that way about a lot of people who happen to be correct when you are not.
Not in the least. My assertion that UG is arrogant and pompous has nothing to do with whether he is correct or not. Nor has it anything to do with the fact that he disagrees with me. There are plenty of people in this forum with whom I disagree vehemently, and regardless which of us is 'right' or 'wrong' I would not accuse them of arrogance or pomposity. It is UG's manner which is arrogant and pompous.
To be fair, it's easy to feel confident when you know you're right and the other person is wrong; especially when dealing with someone who is as consistently wrong as you.
I see. Well that's that then. I have been deemed consistently wrong by the arbiter of all that's right.
I'm just saying, in most discussions we've had you seem to side with those who want to blow up Jews because they live on land that wasn't stolen, but which their ancestors happened to live on. You seem to be anti-gun. And if I remember correctly, weren't you supporting socialism?
In my personal opinion, you're on the wrong side of all these issues. I'm sure there is something we must agree on. I just don't know if we've broached that subject yet.
The fact that you believe me to be on the wrong side of those issues does not make me stupid or beneath contempt; this is the subtext (if indeed something can be so explicitly stated and still remain a subtext...) of Urbane Guerilla's post.
That you 'know' you are right and hold that notion with such vehement conviction is a little worrying. Yes, you are right, I am a socialist. I hold my political convictions close to my heart. I am not lacking in intellect and that intellect has led me to the stance I take. In my more selfish, and arrogant moments I fancy that I know I am right. I recognise, however, that mine is but one opinion amongst many.
You are right and all who take a contrary view are wrong, possibly stupid, and certainly misguided. My friend, grow a little humility.
I'm so mad I could shoot you in the face. But, but, but...luckily my reasoning takes over and I realize you might shoot me in the face back.
Puh, just penis substitutes for you big mocko men. You bore me silly. You and your "statistics."
Speaking of gross, looked in your mirror lately?
:lol2:
Things are not that simple. Come on. Give us a break. You are making a bunch of assumptions about gun owners.
Well, DanaC, you're reduced to complaining at my tone. That tells me you are completely out of persuasive arguments for your point of view contrasted with mine. Capitalism wins out over socialism again, Right trumps Left. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn summed it up: "Right is right." He left his reader to draw the conclusion about the Left.
This is usually the outcome when someone tangles with me on this field. I am not lacking in intellect myself -- and like you, my intellect leads me to the stances I take, and shows me what's wrong with the others. I'm able to articulate what's wrong, too. Frankly, very few of my opponents get that far. You can read what they wrote, and they just can't do it. As the observation has it, recorded in various forms from the late nineteenth century through Clemenceau and Churchill: "If you aren't a socialist [earlier: liberal] at twenty you have no heart; if you're still a socialist [earlier: aren't a conservative] at forty you have no brain." By this standard, I've always been blessed with a brain. This is why my opposition ends up in a corner.
Ok Ug. You win. You are without doubt the most impressive intellectual and I cannot even begin to touch your arguments. Capitalism wins over socialism again and I am in awe. I will of course be sure not to tangle with you on this field again.
Incidentally, it is less your tone I was complaining about than your manner....or should that be manners? I was raised to believe that civility costs nothing.
[eta] btw, at what point did this become a debate between capitalism and socialism? we were I believe talking about guns?
Things are not that simple. Come on. Give us a break. You are making a bunch of assumptions about gun owners.
Oh lord, there's that poor "us" (a refreshing pause from "we" and "they").
Did you read my last post in this thread? Yeah? Then shut up. Cock. :p
Oh lord, there's that poor "us" (a refreshing pause from "we" and "they").
Did you read my last post in this thread? Yeah? Then shut up. Cock. :p
Not before I posted this reply. So you shut up. Pussy.:)
Wow! Cock and pussy all in one thread - this may have to get a NSFW designation.
lol
Fine, dinglebutt. :blush:
Well, DanaC, you're reduced to complaining at my tone. That tells me you are completely out of persuasive arguments for your point of view contrasted with mine. Capitalism wins out over socialism again, Right trumps Left. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn summed it up: "Right is right." He left his reader to draw the conclusion about the Left.
This is usually the outcome when someone tangles with me on this field. I am not lacking in intellect myself -- and like you, my intellect leads me to the stances I take, and shows me what's wrong with the others. I'm able to articulate what's wrong, too. Frankly, very few of my opponents get that far. You can read what they wrote, and they just can't do it. As the observation has it, recorded in various forms from the late nineteenth century through Clemenceau and Churchill: "If you aren't a socialist [earlier: liberal] at twenty you have no heart; if you're still a socialist [earlier: aren't a conservative] at forty you have no brain." By this standard, I've always been blessed with a brain. This is why my opposition ends up in a corner.
I disagree. I've found you lacking in the intellect department on a few occasions, and I have yet to see your intellect or debating skills back anyone into a corner. While we can agree that socialism is always a failure and pure capitalism is always a success, this to me is merely stating the obvious.
As far as "right is right" goes, I also disagree with that. I don't think any polarized position is tenable. This is why libertarians are accused of being leftist by those on the right and of being right-wingers by those on the left. I support freedom in all cases. I support the non-initiation of force in all cases, which isn't to say I am against the use of force...just not initiating it. It's ok to use force against those who are using force to infringe upon your property, person, or rights.
This is why your foreign policy views are so backwards. You support the initiation of force to enforce your own personal view of what freedom means. You support misusing our military for actions that are not in our own defense. You support going around the world bullying people into submission and making enemies, and keeping us in a perpetual state of unnecessary war.
But but...I thought you guys liked each other in this thread. :confused:
I don't think we like each other in any thread, though we occasionally agree on an issue or two. I'm sure even you and I agree on a few. I tend to have points of disagreement or agreement with people at different times, though it seems more of the prior than the latter.
I do think there was one thing I agreed with you about; can't for the life of me think of what it was. :)
While we can agree that socialism is always a failure and pure capitalism is always a success, this to me is merely stating the obvious.
Albania
Albania
You border on the Adriatic
Your land is mostly mountainous
And your chief export is chrome.
Albania: the place that sucks so hard
even Capitalism didn't work. What you say, I thought Capitalism was perfect. We have to revise that: *nearly* perfect.
Results of Albania's efforts were initially encouraging. Led by the agricultural sector, real GDP grew by an estimated 11% in 1993, 8% in 1994, and more than 8% in 1995, with most of this growth in the private sector. Annual inflation dropped from 25% in 1991 to single-digit numbers. The Albanian currency, the lek, stabilized. Albania became less dependent on food aid. The speed and vigor of private entrepreneurial response to Albania's opening and liberalizing was better than expected.
Beginning in 1995, however, progress stalled, with negligible GDP growth in 1996 and a 9% contraction in 1997. A weakening of government resolve to maintain stabilization policies in the election year of 1996 contributed to renewal of inflationary pressures, spurred by the budget deficit which exceeded 12%. Inflation approached 20% in 1996 and 50% in 1997. The collapse of financial pyramid schemes in early 1997 - which had attracted deposits from a substantial portion of Albania's population - triggered severe social unrest which led to more than 1,500 deaths, widespread destruction of property, and an 8% drop in GDP. The lek initially lost up to half of its value during the 1997 crisis, before rebounding to its January 1998 level of 143 to the dollar. The new government, installed in July 1997, has taken strong measures to restore public order and to revive economic activity and trade.
50% inflation. Pyramid schemes. 1500 deaths. Bouncing currency values. Widespread destruction of property. These are not the signals of success you were expecting. These are extreme market failures. Capitalism almost always works... although sometimes it doesn't. But that's the human condition in a nutshell.
[youtube]-F_tT-q8EF0[/youtube]
Albania
Albania
You border on the Adriatic
Your land is mostly mountainous
And your chief export is chrome.
Albania: the place that sucks so hard even Capitalism didn't work. What you say, I thought Capitalism was perfect. We have to revise that: *nearly* perfect.
50% inflation. Pyramid schemes. 1500 deaths. Bouncing currency values. Widespread destruction of property. These are not the signals of success you were expecting. These are extreme market failures. Capitalism almost always works... although sometimes it doesn't. But that's the human condition in a nutshell.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Albania a former Eastern block nation? My guess is any kind of attempt they made at capitalism, wasn't really capitalism. They probably didn't even understand what capitalism really means. Pyramid schemes aren't capitalism and nor is any system that requires government force to exist. My guess is they had some form of highly regulated system with capitalist leanings that didn't work because it was stifled.
Capitalism is the free and voluntary exchange of goods or services on a value for value basis. Any third party involvement on the part of the government in these exchanges disqualifies this from being capitalism.
Here's a real-life question: since America has, for the past decade or so, meandered down a path of deregulation, and since Radar argues that deregulation is inherently good (I could be wrong, please feel free to correct me), why is that the United States is economically falling behind those countries who have more socialist-type governments, specifically the European Union?
Regardless of which side of that argument you want to be on ten years is far too short to measure the true economic effect of policies. There is a considerable lag between cause and effect.
Regardless of which side of that argument you want to be on ten years is far too short to measure the true economic effect of policies. There is a considerable lag between cause and effect.
I would agree with that. Historically speaking the time lapse between changes in real wages and corresponding societal changes (such as the effect on age at first marriage etc) is about 30 years.
That may be true, but I would expect that the lag between deregulation and the resumption of activities that instigated regulation in the first place is not very long at all.
America has not been deregulating. It has been re-regulating. De-regulation means not regulated by the government. Some people stupidly claim that we had rolling blackouts in California or suggest the Enron scandal happened due to deregulation in the power industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If we had truly de-regulated the power industry consumers could choose who they bought their power from in the same way they choose who they buy their long distance from. I'll admit the phone companies are still regulated, but not to the degree they were before Bell split up.
If consumers could pick who they purchased power from, we'd never have a single blackout, and our service would greatly improve. When you compare laser eye surgery to the rest of medicine in America you see a stark contrast. Due to a high amount of regulation in the insurance and medical industries, the prices are higher and the quality of service sucks.
Compare that to laser eye surgery which is voluntary so it has almost no government regulations associated with it. Over the years laser eye surgery has gotten better and better and cheaper and cheaper.
The same is true of the computer business. It's largely unregulated.
True de-regulation is great. It means better products and services, and better prices, with more features, more competition in the marketplace, and more innovation. It's the reason a long distance phone call has greater quality with lower prices than we had 30 years ago. The same is true of computers. The same is true of laser eye surgery.
If power companies were truly de-regulated, ANYONE could get into the power business, and consumers could choose who they bought their service from. Also, it would mean hemp was legal because it's the only currently available source of power that could make us 100% self-sufficient without the need of a single drop of foreign oil.
I think what he's saying is competition without government intervention is a good thing. Can't say I disagree.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Albania a former Eastern block nation? My guess is any kind of attempt they made at capitalism, wasn't really capitalism. They probably didn't even understand what capitalism really means.
I'm saving this quote. For when Dana next explains that Communism as practised in the 20th century is not soemthing she would advocate. It's usually decreied as a twisty excuse, so I'm pleased to see there are examples at the other end of the spectrum.
BTW I still remember that Cheers episode.
I bet this weekend if I start singing "Albania, Albania" my brother will join in...
I honestly thought that was just a family thing!
"My mental model of X is that it's perfect! Therefore, if it's not working, the only possible conclusion is that it is NOT X."
This appears to be a basic logic error that appears in all humans.
I'm saving this quote. For when Dana next explains that Communism as practised in the 20th century is not soemthing she would advocate. It's usually decreied as a twisty excuse, so I'm pleased to see there are examples at the other end of the spectrum.
By all means save it, but it does nothing to bolster that argument. Communism started off with all of the altruistic intents of Marx but eventually it led to totalitarianism because it must. It always does because it violates human nature.
All I'm saying is merely calling something "capitalism" doesn't make it so. Capitalism didn't fail in Albania. Albania failed to implement real capitalism.
This has nothing to do with my "mental model" of capitalism. It has to do with the reality that capitalism doesn't require force to exist and everything else does and because capitalism is purely voluntary. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect....just closer to perfection than any other economic system ever devised.
"My mental model of X is that it's perfect! Therefore, if it's not working, the only possible conclusion is that it is NOT X."
This appears to be a basic logic error that appears in all humans.
Radar says, "You must adhere to my doctrine! You must see things my way! I am correct! You are wrong! Hear me now!" :rolleyes:
Which doesn't stop him from being right about capitalism. It's based on mutually beneficial transaction.
As in any system, somebody can try cheating -- fraudulent transactions. The cheater might even manage to get away with it for quite some time if he hides cleverly and well. The more rigid the system, the better gaming it seems to pay off, if Communist Party apparatchiks are any example.
If it's not perfect it must not be X.
50% inflation. Pyramid schemes. 1500 deaths. Bouncing currency values. Widespread destruction of property.
Mutually beneficial transaction. Very good, I read Friedman too. But in the case of a pyramid scheme, who mutually benefits?
Which is why a pyramid scheme is outside the pale of proper capitalistic practice, just like any swindle.
The very problem with a pyramid scheme: everybody in it believes it's chock-full of mutually beneficial transactions.
Enough people with a broken belief can break a market economy.
So one answer is that we outlaw pyramid schemes... but that fails Radar's test 4 posts up: "it has to do with the reality that capitalism doesn't require force to exist" -- well no, Capitalism requires a system of policing, and courts, and legislation, to determine what is swindle and protect against it.
To this formerly hard-ass libertarian, this realization was a sharp slap in the face.
It also requires good government for its framework of capitalist infrastructure: establishing currency, putting in place a system of deeds of ownership, etc.
A market economy requiring government. Whoda thunk it.
Yeah, some of us libertarians acknowledge a place for what I call society's coercive functions -- intended overall to keep a society in good order, and in considerable measure independent of a society's intensity, or amount, of governance.
The coercive functions may often be distinguished by this point: that nobody's found a way to make money or wealth from them, yet they are agreed upon as necessities in support of making money and wealth.
The very problem with a pyramid scheme: everybody in it believes it's chock-full of mutually beneficial transactions.
Enough people with a broken belief can break a market economy.
So one answer is that we outlaw pyramid schemes... but that fails Radar's test 4 posts up: "it has to do with the reality that capitalism doesn't require force to exist" -- well no, Capitalism requires a system of policing, and courts, and legislation, to determine what is swindle and protect against it.
To this formerly hard-ass libertarian, this realization was a sharp slap in the face.
It also requires good government for its framework of capitalist infrastructure: establishing currency, putting in place a system of deeds of ownership, etc.
A market economy requiring government. Whoda thunk it.
Well stated and well summerized.
Well, summarized anyway. The other way it's like heavier-grade oil in the crankcase and a new air filter...
Woo Hoo! They finally came out with the decision. The Supreme Court finally did something right!
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Guess he's finding out whether he was right or wrong.
Woo Hoo! They finally came out with the decision. The Supreme Court finally did something right!
Crazy that it was 5-4, but a good decision just the same.
:us:
Already Chuck Schumer et al are claiming that the decision does not preclude gun bans by type and the Brady Bill. Sigh. Listen to the mayor for tired, old rhetoric that we've all heard a hundred times before when such laws are repealed or when "shall-issue" permits are instituted.
Blood-baths, shootouts at high noon, the dead piling up in the streets etc. I am tired of it and don't really hear it anymore. Can't the gun grabbers ever think up something new?
I haven't read this thread at all, but I think that the right decision was made. People should be able to own handguns; states should have the right to impose some regulations on them.
I know the right thinks of him as a traitor, but I really like Justice Kennedy...he seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Guess he's finding out whether he was right or wrong.
I initially misunderstood this to mean you thought heaven had institutional religion and a State. :eek:
Nope, just a random comment about those who are extreme at both ends of the issue. I'm sure ol' George doesn't give a damn about the issue any more.
I'm sure he doesn't care about anything anymore.
OH you mean he's a politician, radar?
Well, BrianR, my impression is no, they can't. Neither their mentalities nor their morals are that good.
Just remember, if you've ever harbored an antigun thought, you've entertained a pro-genocide one. A pro-genocide view strikes me as an immoral one.
In the end, persons unduly afraid of what guns might do to, rather than for, the citizenry ought never to be allowed into office.
Just remember, if you've ever harbored an antigun thought, you've entertained a pro-genocide one.
Oh purleeease.
In the end, persons unduly afraid of what guns might do to, rather than for, the citizenry ought never to be allowed into office.
And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.
Oh Dana.
You've just proved your genocidal tendencies.
The streets of your ward would run with blood if you had your way. I suggest you resign immediately to spend more time with your family.
Oh purleeease.
And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.
Politicians don't have to fear guns because they have people around them with guns.
Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.
Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.
From
AR15.com
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Justice Scalia then turns to the prefatory clause – “A well regulated militia.”
First, the militia clauses do not give the power to create a militia, as DC argued. The militia clauses of the constitution give Congress the ability “to call forth the militia,” and not to create it. The militia pre-dates the Constitution, for it is merely all able-bodied men who are capable of bearing arms. Justice Scalia then does exactly what I was hoping he would do:
[quote]Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing
more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms”).
Ah yes, victory. “Well regulated” means disciplined and trained,
not federally regulated.
The dissenters both in this case and in the lower court believe that “the security of a free state” meant States in the sense of Florida, Alaksa, etc. Justice Scalia corrects them. “The security of a free state” means “the security of a free polity” – a free nation, etc. Not individual American states.
He also throws a bone to the keyboard revolutionaries amongst us.
Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are
better able to resist tyranny.
All this being said, Justice Scalia wraps up his analysis of the textual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
[/quote]
Politicians don't have to fear guns because they have people around them with guns.
Or you could be like Senator Feinstein, one of the biggest gun grabbers in the senate, and speak out of both sides of your mouth.
From http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradyquotes.html (emphasis at the end is mine)
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on terrorism and self-defense:
The following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:
"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."
"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.htmlThe SC is putting together a pretty decent pro-liberty run between the Gitmo slap and the 2nd Amendment defense.
The SC is putting together a pretty decent pro-liberty run between the Gitmo slap and the 2nd Amendment defense.
Except the same justices didn't vote with the majority.
Roberts and Alito sure weren't going to vote for the detainees. While tied to the administration, these guys were trying to define how long someone can be choked, not whether or not it's justice.
Kennedy seems to be the one most clearly looking at the issue outside of an ideological haze.
Maybe McCain the 'maverick' could find another Kennedy and keep it towards the center. However, he's making noises like he will cave and appoint another Thomas or Alito, ideological :censored:-kissers who love corporate freedom, but have difficulty with the messier questions raised by the Constitutional guarantees against government interference. Guns? Sure. How about porn, abortion, privacy, states rights to enact tougher laws than the Feds?
It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama does win and they have to be consistent and vote in favor of giving more power to a liberal adminstration instead of the current one. Will Alito and Roberts be willing to extend the same authority to Obama as they did to GWB?
It might be worth voting for him just to see what happens.
Except the same justices didn't vote with the majority.
That isn't necessary with one true pro-liberty guy as the swing. The conservatives can be wrong on their issues and the liberals can be wrong on theirs, but we can get good outcomes with one guy voting for freedom every time. It isn't likely to continue but it is possible.
Activist judges aren't just of the liberal variety.
There was absolutely NOTHING activist about this decision. The mention of a militia was to list one of the many reasons that the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.
The term "the people" in every other part of the Constitution refers to individuals. The activists were the ones who were trying to twist the 2nd amendment to change "the right of the people" into "the right of those belonging to militias".
A right is something we're born with. It is something we don't need permission to do. We have an individual RIGHT to keep and bear any weapons we can obtain honestly. We are born with that right. No other person, group of people, or government has any legitimate authority to place limits on that right, or to force us to jump through hoops in order to exercise it.
None of those who voted with the minority on this decision or with the majority on the Kelo decision belongs on the Supreme Court. They are a disgrace to the court, and to America. They should be shot as traitors.
It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama does win and they have to be consistent and vote in favor of giving more power to a liberal adminstration instead of the current one. Will Alito and Roberts be willing to extend the same authority to Obama as they did to GWB?
Specifically what power/authority did Alito and Roberts give to GWB?
The power for you to shut up.
The power for you to shut up.
It'll never happen in your lifetime. Get over yourself.
Oh purleeease.
After a moment's thought, I must reply
No. I have studied the matter, and I know more about it than you do. No shame in that, is there?
Do keep in mind, Dana, that your ignorance and your disbelief do absolutely nothing whatsoever to reduce my knowledge -- and have done even less to halt a genocide. I think all in all, you'd prefer genocides stop, do you not? Well, this is the only known way how -- armed people don't suffer genocides. Don't make illegitimate statements in the presence of the more knowledgeable, okay? They'll gnaw your legs off all over the Internet.
And if they are duly afraid ? Given how many of your citizens lose their lives to, or sustain injuries from, gunshots, I would say there is reason for concern, indeed, I'd say there is reason for fear. Whether the answer to that is to limit gun ownership or extend it is a whole other question, but to suggest that politicians should hold no fear of guns and there potential to cause harm is unreasonable.
In my experience of the issue, spanning a couple decades now, there is no such thing as "duly afraid." There are those who volubly pretend such exists, but their protestations don't stand examination. The very potential for arms to cause the harm is the very potential to prevent it. It's not merely a wash, but other effects of arms ownership on the body politic mean that an armed people is a civilized people. Especially so if you accept that the state crime of genocide (for it's very hard to get it done without the support of a state's power) is the very acme of uncivilized behavior.
but other effects of arms ownership on the body politic mean that an armed people is a civilized people.
Then my people must be a deeply uncivilised one.
I have studied the matter, and I know more about it than you do. No shame in that, is there? Do keep in mind, Dana, that your ignorance and your disbelief do absolutely nothing whatsoever to reduce my knowledge -- and have done even less to halt a genocide.
I see no shame in knowing less than another about a subject. I would, however, contend that you are pulling your knowledge out of your backside and as such I don't consider your opinion to be more valid or worthwhile than mine.
How, precisely, have you halted a genocide? Since your contention appears to be that my ignorance has prevented me doing the same.
Don't make illegitimate statements in the presence of the more knowledgeable, okay? They'll gnaw your legs off all over the Internet.
I know you are, but what am I?
Guns aren't a broad solution.
Guns simply give you two additional options.
When all of the non-violent options are used up what do you do?
The unarmed either become armed or they become statistics.
The armed have the additional choices of bargaining or fighting.
The unarmed have no say in the matter.
I think your question is fair Dana, but you should keep in mind it is impossible to prove that you helped avert something that never happened. One can not prove a negative.
It's like the morons who claim we've had major terrorist attack on U.S. soil due to the insane policies of George W. Bush. One can not prove such a statement and even making such a claim is logically retarded.
It is like me saying that the paint on my house repels Bigfoot and saying, "Well you don't see Bigfoot at my house do you?" as a means of proof.
UG obviously can't prove that he has helped avert genocide. He can only state that he has opposed gun control laws which have been used in the past to disarm people so they could carry out genocide. On the other hand, one could easily contend that UG and Merc have both supported a very real torture and genocide in Iraq at the hands of Americans. I'd say a million dead Iraqi people who never posed any harm to America and who died defending their own country from a hostile rogue nation who invaded (The USA), or who were imprisoned and tortured without charges or valid cause, or whose families were broken up when soldiers kicked down their door, and took their only means of defending themselves, and allowed a stream of murderers to come in to Iraq.
Each and every single death on both sides of the Iraq conflict are the fault of the Bush administration and none of them were the result of defending America.
So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq. He'll most likely use the language that all tyrants have used when carrying out such atrocities like "liberating the people" or "killing a horrible dictator". But those are just empty words.
The invasion of Iraq was not done to "liberate" the Iraqi people or to kill a dictator who murdered his own people and rule the others with an iron fist. Even if it was to do these things, it still would not further libertarianism or freedom. Invading Iraq is nothing other than murdering those who were already victims of Saddam.
Guns aren't a broad solution.
Guns simply give you two additional options.
When all of the non-violent options are used up what do you do?
The unarmed either become armed or they become statistics.
The armed have the additional choices of bargaining or fighting.
The unarmed have no say in the matter.
When all of the non-violent options to do what are used up? To control another nation? To stop another nation from building weapons even though they are sovereign and don't require our permission to do it?
Guns are merely a way of using force. No force is justified unless it is defensive force, meaning you only use force against those who have attacked you and never using it against anyone else.
I'd say a million dead Iraqi people
Speaking of knowledge pulled out of one's backside.
More reliable sources say 93,067
So to summarize, UG can't prove that he helped avert a genocide, but you and I can easily prove that he supported carrying out genocide in Iraq.
If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.
More reliable sources according to whom? To you?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23136825-401,00.html
THIS is the lancet study.
The Lancet study is the only existing study that uses the method accepted all over the world for estimating deaths due to large-scale violent conflict: a cluster survey.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
The numbers used to determine that more than a million Iraqi deaths can be attributed to the unconstitutional 2003 invasion takes the lancet study and extrapolates from there. There is no doubt that when you include the unconstitutional 1991 invasion of Iraq, the 12 subsequent years of bombing Iraq daily and keeping them from life saving medicines, the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq in 2003, and those murdered by the flood of terrorists America brought into Iraq, those who were imprisoned and tortured (sometimes to death), etc. that well over a million Iraqi people are dead due to America's actions. More than double that amount of become refugees from their own country.
If it was a genocide, it happened with an armed populace. The place is lousy with AK-47s.
You mean the AKs that were quickly taken when Americans kicked down Iraqi doors and ransacked their houses to take their only means of defending themselves from a hostile rogue nation invading their country (USA)? Those AKs?
For the record, the site you linked to only counts CIVILIAN deaths and then only the reported ones.
When all of the non-violent options to do what are used up? To control another nation? To stop another nation from building weapons even though they are sovereign and don't require our permission to do it?
Guns are merely a way of using force. No force is justified unless it is defensive force, meaning you only use force against those who have attacked you and never using it against anyone else.
Slow your roll girlfriend.
I was speaking specifically in reference to citizens being able to protect themselves whether it's from other citizens or a tyrannical government.
I'm marking today in my calendar. It took me nearly 40 years to be called "girlfriend". :)
I apologize if I seemed rude or like I was attacking. I'm always ready to jump on those who would use force against others for political gain or social engineering. :)
For the record, the Lancet study relied on reported deaths for its survey too, verifying deaths by death certificate.
What it didn't do, which would have been far easier, is just ask the people issuing death certificates.
If they did, they would have learned numbers similar to iraqbodycount.
Muslims are pretty anal about dead bodies and must handle them in proper ways. Remember that it took
mass graves for Saddam to bury 100,000 victims. Where are the mass graves from 5-10 times that number? Where are the bodies?
You mean the AKs that were quickly taken when Americans kicked down Iraqi doors and ransacked their houses to take their only means of defending themselves from a hostile rogue nation invading their country (USA)? Those AKs?
Do you believe that 130,000 troops could disarm an entire nation, along with everything else happening?
Do you believe that 130,000 troops could disarm an entire nation, along with everything else happening?
Insert easy shot at the
evil bastard Cheney here.
What do you mean mass graves, or bodies. They were all over the battle field. They were in the homes that were bombed. They were not all accounted for, and were not limited to those who have gotten death certificates. Some of the bodies were incinerated or destroyed entirely, or were blown into so many parts an identification would be impossible.
What do you mean mass graves, or bodies. They were all over the battle field. They were in the homes that were bombed. They were not all accounted for, and were not limited to those who have gotten death certificates. Some of the bodies were incinerated or destroyed entirely, or were blown into so many parts an identification would be impossible.
The battlefield? Less than a hundred thousand allied forces were killed at the Battle of the Bulge. (Most of them were buried.) To equal the number of deaths you're talking about would require 11 Battles of the Bulge.
Your last study says 48% killed by being shot, or about 500,000; 9% bombed with munitions; 20% car-bombed, about 200,000; yet there's no reporting from embeds, private citizens, Iraqi bloggers or anything from the military that indicates anything remotely resembling the sort of activity that could produce that level of carnage.
Both Lancet surveys were published during the national elections. The first one was released days before the 2004 election. Both were broadly and reasonably criticized. This last one is a fucking fantasy.
The Lancet Study's have been debunked as bull shit.
I apologize if I seemed rude or like I was attacking. I'm always ready to jump on those who would use force against others for political gain or social engineering. :)
Such apologies have a thin tone from someone unwilling to destroy antidemocracies, liberate the oppressed, or improve the worldwide liberty count -- which, radar, is an altogether immoral and unconscionable position that amputates you as a libertarian. You're just not a maker of freedom, and you're not temperamentally disposed to become one. You desire, at bottom, too much to be an absolutist ruler. This may be why you left the Libertarian Party last year. Thus, I am called, indeed inspired, to jump all over you.
If you want libertarianism to happen worldwide -- or indeed on any acreage you don't personally happen to own -- you've got to find political advantage. That this should sometimes take the form of countervailing aggression against fascists should not trouble you for a moment. Yet, it does. While this logically follows from your starting premises, your starting premises don't allow any libertarianism to ever happen, particularly not in the places that would benefit the most from it.
This is, in two words, grotesquely stupid. Your mentality is thereby made altogether inferior, and it makes your morals suck worse than an eighty-stellar-mass black hole. So, I jump on you, hard. Often. Permanently.
Why do you live in such a lousy way? Be more like me.
Democracy does not equal Freedom. Also, invading nations led by oppressors kills those who were already victims. I am more libertarian than 10 million UGs combined ever will be. You lie about being a libertarian and try to misuse libertarianism a thinly veiled excuse to murder people.
Libertarians do not initiate force against anyone....PERIOD. They don't use force against anyone who isn't using force against them....PERIOD.
If you want libertarianism to happen worldwide, the only way to make it happen is to stop making enemies around the world, stop starting unprovoked wars against those who pose no threat to us, and to once again become a beacon of hope, liberty, and freedom to all. The only way to spread libertarianism around the world is for America to start living in a libertarian way so others can see that it is successful...and contrary to the twisted and warped fantasies of the clinically insane like Merc or pathological liars like UG.
The only way for libertarianism to spread around the world is for America to once again realize that we are the well-wishers of freedom and liberty to all and the champions and vindicators only of our own.
Sticking our nose into every dispute of every other nation, taking sides in those disputes, arming both sides, and making enemies around the world while violating civil rights in our own country (the foreign and domestic policy of the Bush administration) won't work.
The truly stupid are those who think liberty can be won by using these techniques. Starting wars doesn't bring peace. Initiating aggression will never bring about libertarianism. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a worthless piece of shit.
Why do you live in such a lousy way? Be more like me.
Hahahahahah.....*pauses to reread that sentence* ....hahahahahah.
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a worthless piece of shit.
:vader1:
Hahahahahah.....*pauses to reread that sentence* ....hahahahahah.
I got a nice laugh out of that too.
The trouble with morons like Merc & UG
(other than being pathological liars and virtually retarded) is that they are too dim witted to realize how wrong they are.
If I say, "I'm a vegetarian". It means I don't eat meat. It doesn't mean I eat some meat and not others. It means I don't eat meat. If I say, "I'm a vegetarian that eats meat", I'm lying. It's not a matter of opinion. If I tell them that they are lying when they make such a claim, and say that by definition, everyone who says they are a vegetarian is saying they don't eat meat, I'm stating a fact. It's not me pushing people around. If I say that everyone claiming to be a vegetarian but who eats meat is a liar, I'm also stating a fact.
The libertarian philosophy prohibits any initiation of force, especially for political gain or social engineering...like say spreading democracy, or toppling the leadership of nations we don't like.
Any pre-emptive wars, especially those which are not in our own defense, are absolutely 100% in direct violation of libertarian principles and also in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Libertarians want governmental powers to be very limited in scope and demand that our government adhere to the limitations on its powers within the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution says that all of the legitimate actions of the federal government must be one of the enumerated powers and nothing that isn't listed is legal for the government to take part in. It also defines and limits the scope and role of the U.S. Military as being for the "common DEFENSE" of
AMERICA. It's not to be used for any other reason than defending our own country. It's not to be used for humanitarian aid missions or to spread democracy or to prop up the leadership of other nations or to topple dictators or overthrow totalitarian regimes or to spread libertarianism by killing all of the petty warlords around the world. The role and scope of the U.S. military doesn't include policing the world or enforcing UN sanctions or preventing nuclear proliferation.
Any use of the U.S. military to do these things not only violates the U.S. Constitution and common sense, it also is a direct violation of libertarian principles. Anyone who suggests that libertarianism can be spread through unprovoked wars like the war in Iraq is like someone saying that abstinence can best be spread through rape.
If you support the war in Iraq
(or any war like it), you aren't a libertarian any more than someone who eats beef is a vegetarian. Again, this isn't an opinion, it's a cold, hard, and indisputable fact. Nothing anyone says to the contrary will change this fact. Nothing anyone says about me or anyone else making this statement will change this fact. If someone contradicts this statement they are lying. They are liars, and if they have already been given the truth and persist on telling this lie, they are assholes too. The asshole part is my personal opinion. The lying part is not opinion. It's a fact.
And this has been another episode of "Libertarian Dick Waving." Have a nice night, and keep packin' that heat!
The trouble with morons like Merc
The trouble with you is that you support an invasion of the US and think you are always right while you want us to support your spawn. Leave me out of your little rants.
And this has been another episode of "Libertarian Dick Waving." Have a nice night, and keep packin' that heat!
I wasn't dick waving. I was setting the record straight. If I were dick waving, you'd be a lot more impressed. And don't worry about packing heat. I never leave home without it. :)
Actually, what you're doing is staying crooked and rigidly xenophobic also, owing to your exceeding narrowness of view.
I don't see where it's libertarian to concern oneself at all with the continued life of the determinedly antilibertarian, id est the communists, the fascists, and other totalitarians usually describable only in terms of personality cults. My point has always been that they can't get in libertarianism's way if they are dead.
And none of us but radar over there really want them in our way. Radar's entire philosophical construct is designed for complete failure. I will have nothing to do with it.
You finally said something right. You said that you will have nothing to do with my philosophical construct...namely libertarian philosophy. You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the rational mind.
It's libertarian to concern ones self with the rights of ALL people, even those who have different beliefs than we do. I even respect the rights of a morally and intellectually inferior dimwit without the slightest concept of what libertarianism actually means.
Those living under a fascist or communist regime have all of the same rights as those living under a capitalist democracy. No more, and no less.
If the people living in North Korea want freedom, all they have to do is overthrow the leadership of that country to win it. The same is true for everyone else on earth. We have enough trouble in America trying to stop our freedoms from violated here to never have to worry about the freedom of others.
But I respect UG's right to volunteer his weapons, his money, and his own body to help oppressed people around the world to win freedom. As long as he doesn't try to use the U.S. military to do it, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with him killing people who haven't attacked him, and if he did something like that, I'd hope he was caught and punished without any help from America.
Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.
This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.
I concern myself with the rights of the people who do not deprive others their due rights -- which leaves the fascistocommunists out of consideration, as these are quite beyond the libertarian pale. It is also obvious that fascistocommunists or totalitarians (same number of syllables, fewer letters, same idea) necessarily initiate aggressions on their own hook. At that point, countervailing violence is justifiable to everybody, including those who are willing to allow the antilibertarians the first punch.
Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.
So, because they're furriners, they never deserve help, do they? That, my friend, is xenophobia, pure and simple, and I've called you on it before. I am pleased to see you declaring it so explicitly. My mind has never been crippled by it. You could stand to become more like me. I consider that human liberty is of such importance that it is in no way less legitimatized by who may be involved in the liberation. You've never wrestled with this question either. Frankly, local populations trammeled by totalitarianism need external aid to overthrow the villains in charge, and this action is by no means immoral. If it's not immoral for the locals, it's no more immoral for outsiders either. Of course, I'm begging the question of whether it is as generally popular. Revolutions tend to divide the population in thirds anyway: a third loyalist, a third insurrectionist, and a third keeping their heads down waiting for the shooting to die out.
You could stand to become more like me.
Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.
Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.
This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.
Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzinggggggggggg...... :fumette:
Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.
:hedfone: Oooww, such language, from an intelligent, educated, worldly, genteel, Englishwomen. :lol2:
lol actually, I was just this minute thinking that the word fuck* has found its way into quite a few of my posts the last few days :P
UG is so used to lying, he doesn't even know when he's doing it, so once again, I'll shed light on his ridiculous lies and outrageously stupid claims.
Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.
Libertarianism isn't a hammer. Nor is it a gun, or any other weapon. Libertarianism is the recognition that everyone owns themselves, and they are responsible for themselves and for their own freedom. Libertarianism is about individuality. Libertarianism isn't about "spreading freedom", especially at the point of a gun. Those making claims that libertarian should be enforced through violence are violating libertarian philosophy.
This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian.
You don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian, but you do have to believe that it is NEVER alright to initiate violence, especially for political gain or social engineering, like "liberating oppressed people" or "spreading democracy".
I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.
You are a living example that one doesn't need much brain cell activity to be able to make posts online. You aren't an improvement over anything, especially me. My political, social, and philosophical stance dwarfs yours when it comes to intelligence and the ability to work in reality. My stance provides the most freedom at the least cost in human lives and in dollars.
I concern myself with the rights of the people who do not deprive others their due rights -- which leaves the fascistocommunists out of consideration, as these are quite beyond the libertarian pale. It is also obvious that fascistocommunists or totalitarians (same number of syllables, fewer letters, same idea) necessarily initiate aggressions on their own hook. At that point, countervailing violence is justifiable to everybody, including those who are willing to allow the antilibertarians the first punch.
I concern myself with the freedom of all people, and don't try to misuse the American military or violate the Constitution to start unprovoked military action which is a gross violation of all things libertarian. America is the well wisher of freedom and liberty to all and the champion only of our own. This isn't xenophobic and it certainly isn't isolationist. War mongers always love to use these labels on those who would rightly use our military only to defend our own nation.
Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.
Your libertarianism is on a par with that of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc. They all thought they were "liberating" people, and spreading freedom.
So, because they're furriners, they never deserve help, do they?
Nobody said that. I said you should be free to volunteer your help and I commend you for doing it. Just don't use the U.S. military or the U.S. government to help you do it.
That, my friend, is xenophobia, pure and simple, and I've called you on it before.
Don't call me your friend, and stop lying about xenophobia. You have lied about this and many other things before...like being a libertarian.
I am pleased to see you declaring it so explicitly. My mind has never been crippled by it.
No, your mind is crippled by stupidity, dishonesty, and war mongering attitudes.
You could stand to become more like me.
In order to do that, I'd have to hit myself in the head with a sledge hammer until I was brain dead.
I consider that human liberty is of such importance that it is in no way less legitimatized by who may be involved in the liberation.
Which is why you aren't a libertarian. I consider human liberty the most important thing on earth. But before I volunteer to help others get liberty, I will try to earn it for myself at home. America is far from a free country and it's getting less so all the time. How about following the teachings of the bible and take the plank out of our own eye before we start worrying about the speck in the eyes of our brother?
You've never wrestled with this question either. Frankly, local populations trammeled by totalitarianism need external aid to overthrow the villains in charge, and this action is by no means immoral.
It most certainly is if you use the U.S. military to carry it out, and if you invade a country that has posed no threat to ours. America has neither the moral, nor legal authority to police the world and enforce what war mongers have determined to be liberty. As I've said, democracy isn't freedom, and even if it were, America has overthrown democracies before and propped up dictators and armed them to the teeth.
If it's not immoral for the locals, it's no more immoral for outsiders either.
False. It is moral for all people to fight for their own freedom. It is immoral for outsiders to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.
Of course, I'm begging the question of whether it is as generally popular. Revolutions tend to divide the population in thirds anyway: a third loyalist, a third insurrectionist, and a third keeping their heads down waiting for the shooting to die out.
You are hardly a revolutionary. You are an anti-libertarian, war mongering, loudmouthed idiot who is dumb enough to think he's got the moral high ground when he advocates wholesale murder.
Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.
He could if he had an open mind, I must say that. Rusted shut is bad for anyone, regardless of IQ number actual or claimed, or of maturity stunted or in flower.
As for why you "fucking couldn't," I simply cannot find a reason -- nothing real, nothing substantial, nothing substantive, nothing anything. But what I emphatically NEVER try for is a mental clone. Uh uh. No way. Exact replication is by no means called for: I am not Radar, and not quite so impressed as he with my own individual genius..
I'm not left of center -- there's the aphorism that has quite a lengthy history, reaching back in one version or another to England in the early nineteenth century and evolving in France before coming back to England again: "If a man is not a ________ at twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a _________ at forty, no brains." The earliest English version had it Liberal and Conservative. It spent time in France being updated with every revision. DanaC and I are both over the age of, say, twenty-two. One of us is a Socialist. Is this, then, the why "I fucking couldn't?" Shrunken horizons, Dana, shrunken horizons. This American won't tolerate them.
Here's something impressive from LiveJournal for the Fourth of July that really neatly expresses the view of foreign policy that I hold and radar rejects -- at, I believe, his peril:
. . .so I will just leave you with something to ponder and I hope you do before dismissing it outright. The groundwork is actually IN the philosophy of our founding fathers to support our country's current foreign policy. We believe that ALL men are created equal...that's not just Americans. Kennedy said "We are the watchmen on the walls of world freedom". That is why we fight for other countries independence...because of what our country is founded on.
[emph mine]
And that bit of founding father philosophy will be something radar will predictably deny, reject, or prostitute his intellectual integrity to avoid seeing, because he doesn't think a free people should lift their littlest finger to free other peoples. Thank you, Xenophobia [and bad cess to you, stumblefuck].
The thread is
here on LJ.I have never denied that all men and women are created equally, and that freedom is for all people. Our founding fathers most certainly didn't want us to become involved in entangling alliances, or to use the U.S. military to win freedom for any nation but our own. This is not an isolationist or xenophobic policy. Claiming it to be is merely a crutch for those who can't defend their own position...most likely because there is no valid defense for war mongering.
I'd be willing to bet that I can provide far more examples of our founders being against the insane and idiotic foreign policy supported by non-libertarians like UG than he can find to the contrary. But since he wants to quote other presidents, I can include them too.
Let's see what people far more intelligent than UG have to say on the matter.
"Force always attracts men of low morality."
-Albert Einstein
"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."
-Ayn Rand
"War is never a solution; it is an aggravation."
-Benjamin Disraeli
"There never was a good war or a bad peace."
-Benjamin Franklin
"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world."
-Benjamin Harrison
"True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."
-Clarence Darrow
"Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."
-Congressman Ron Paul
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive."
-C. S. Lewis
"Today the real test of America's power and wisdom is not our capacity to make war but our capacity to prevent it."
-Dale Turner
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations."
-David Friedman
"War creates peace like hate creates love."
-David L. Wilson
"War settles nothing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits."
-Edward M. Kennedy
"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights."
-General Smedley Butler
"Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat."
-General Vo Nguyen Giap (Vietnam)
"Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"
-George Orwell
"The only defensible war is a war of defense."
-G. K. Chesterton
"Every politician in the world is all for revolution, reason, and disarmament--but only in enemy countries, not in his own."
-Hermann Hesse
"I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone."
-H. L. Mencken
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
-Issac Asimov
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other."
-James Madison
"Killing a man in defense of an idea is not defending an idea; it is killing a man."
-Jean-Luc Godard
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
-John Adams
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all."
-John Quincy Adams
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
-Justice Louis D. Brandeis
"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood."
-Mahatma Gandhi
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
-Mahatma Gandhi
"Nothing good ever comes of violence."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power."
-Michael Gillespie
"Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men."
-Pope John Paul II
"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."
-Congressman Ron Paul
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
-Thomas Jefferson
"An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot."
-Thomas Paine
"It would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force than the minds of a single village."
-Voltaire
It seems as though our founders all agree with me that using the U.S. military to start unprovoked wars to "liberate" others is insane...and so do the most influential people who ever lived, including the giants of libertarianism.
Here's an article written by Libertarian Author, two time presidential candidate, and giant among libertarians... Mr. Harry Browne. It's barely too big for one post, so I'll break it into two.
Mr. Browne does a good job of explaining why there is no libertarian justification to use the U.S. military to "liberate" those in other nations.
Like myself, Mr. Browne does a great job of shredding the pathetic and poor excuses for such foreign policy frequently put forth by those lying about being libertarians. One can not support the war in Iraq and also be a libertarian. Nor can one be a libertarian while supporting any other "pre-emptive" or unprovoked wars; especially those that do not have a Constitutionally required declaration of war.
========================================
May 6, 2003
[COLOR="Purple"][SIZE="5"]Libertarians and War[/SIZE][/COLOR]
[SIZE="4"]by Harry Browne[/SIZE]
[SIZE="5"]I[/SIZE]'ve been surprised by the number of libertarians who have supported the war against Iraq.
The two principal arguments I've heard from libertarian war-supporters are:
1. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. We must remove him from power before he attacks us or gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
2. We libertarians should be the first to support the liberation of the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator.
[SIZE="4"]The Threat[/SIZE]
[SIZE="5"]W[/SIZE]ith regard to the first argument, supporting a politician's pre-emptive attack violates virtually every principle underlying libertarian thought – the simple truths that are taught in Libertarianism 101.
For example . . .
1. Non-aggression: Most libertarians believe you shouldn't initiate force against someone who has never used force against you. Force is to be used only in self-defense – not used just because you don't happen to like someone, or because someone doesn't like you, or because he might become dangerous in the future, or because some third party has attacked you and you want to prove you're not a wimp. The same principles must apply to our nation – that it shouldn't use force against a nation that hasn't attacked us.
2. Credibility of Politicians: The idea that Hussein posed a substantial threat to America is based entirely on claims made by the Bush administration. When did libertarians start believing anything politicians say? Politicians routinely lie about fictitious budget surpluses, "budget cuts," drug matters, crime statistics, and almost anything else. Remember the old joke?:
"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
"His lips move."
The Bush administration has already been caught in numerous falsehoods concerning Iraq:
[LIST]
[*]claiming Iraq was consorting with Al-Qaeda (
refuted by the CIA),
[*]saying Iraq was acquiring aluminum tubes to make nuclear bombs (
refuted by scientists and UN inspectors)
[*]producing satellite photos of alleged chemical-weapons sites (
that on-the-spot investigations proved to have no chemical weapons)
[*]citing mobile chemical-weapons labs (
that turned out to have no chemical weapons)
[*]
giving worthless leads to UN weapons inspectors
[*]claiming that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium (
citing documents that turned out to be crude forgeries)
[*]referring to a British dossier as evidence (
a dossier that turned out to have been plagiarized from a 12-year-old thesis written by a college student)
[/LIST]
. . . and much more.
Even if none of these falsehoods had come to light, libertarians should always be skeptical of any claims made by politicians.
3. Government doesn't work: The federal government has devastated what was once the best health-care system in history, it is trashing our children's schools, its Drug War has pulverized the inner cities, it has left chaos in its wake in Afghanistan. In fact, you'd be hard put to think of a single government program that fulfilled the rosy promises made for it.
So why would you think the promises of Iraqi freedom and democracy will be fulfilled? This is the same government that's messed up everything else. Just because "national defense" is Constitutionally authorized doesn't mean the government will handle it effectively.
The Defense Department is nothing more than the Post Office in fatigues.
And beating up a third-world country after disarming it isn't something any self-respecting country should put on its résumé.
4. Power will be abused: The President has been given tens of billions of dollars to spend on Iraq as he chooses. Do you assume he'll use it wisely, without a hint of corruption?
The FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have been given enormous new powers to jail people without warrant and hold them without trial or legal counsel. Do you assume they will employ these powers only against America's enemies?
Do you really want to give government one more excuse to expand its size, its power, and its intrusions into your life?
5.Government programs never stand still: Every other government program has turned out to be far more expensive, far more intrusive, and extend into far more areas than proposed originally. Why should this war prove to be an exception?
Do you really think the regime-changers – after tasting the blood of innocents and the praise of the media and the citizenry – will go back to bickering about farm subsidies and school-lunch programs?
Or will they look for more "monsters to destroy" (as John Quincy Adams put it)?
6. Government is politics: Whenever you turn anything over to the government, it ceases to be a financial, medical, commercial, educational, or human-rights matter, and becomes a political issue – to be decided by whoever has the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.
Why should military matters be any different? Should we be surprised that companies like Bechtel and Haliburton have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to rebuild Iraq without competitive bidding?
Did you really think this war would be fought with no regard for political gain or abuse?
7. You don't control the government: You can look at the previous six items and say you would have handled some things differently. But who asked you?
No one.
And no one ever will. You don't make the decisions.
The politicians use your support as endorsements for them to fulfill their objectives, not yours – in their way, not yours.
That's true for health care, education, regulation – and it's true for military matters.
[SIZE="4"]In Sum . . .[/SIZE]
[SIZE="5"]G[/SIZE]overnment is force, and libertarians distrust force.
They know it will be abused, they know force won't produce the results promised for it, they know politicians will lie about the exercise of force, they know force will eventually be uncontrollable, they know that power is inevitably abused, and they know that no government program achieves its purpose and then goes quietly into the night.
On every count of libertarian principles, we should demand that the use of force against foreign countries be reserved for response to direct attacks – not to be used for "regime change," not for "democracy-building," not for pre-emptive attacks, not for demonstrations of strength.
[SIZE="4"]Freeing People[/SIZE]
[SIZE="5"]T[/SIZE]he second argument offered by libertarians is that we should do anything we can to free other people from a brutal dictator.
I won't even deal with the fact that most of our knowledge of Hussein's brutality emanates from the U.S. government – hardly the place a libertarian would look for unbiased, authoritative information about anything.
I'll also ignore the point that, while condemning Hussein's brutal dictatorship, the U.S. government is aiding dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, and many other countries. We shouldn't be surprised if we're told someday that we must go to war against those dictatorships, to free the people our tax dollars are helping to enslave today.
Let's deal instead only with the idea that we have a responsibility to free people in other countries.
Is it your responsibility to enter someone's home and beat up the man you believe is abusing his wife?
Is it your responsibility to go into a dangerous section of your city and protect people from drug gangs that engage in drive-by shootings?
You might say the Drug War breeds those gangs and shootings, and thus you're working instead to end the Drug War itself – rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms of it.
Why then wouldn't you be working to end the causes of the profound anti-American sentiment that has swept the globe and provoked terrorist acts – rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms by supporting the attacking of Iraq?
[SIZE="4"]Responsibility[/SIZE]
[SIZE="5"]T[/SIZE]he answer to the question "Is it your responsibility?" is simple: that's for you to decide.
Each of us must choose for himself what he feels responsible for. If you believe you have a duty to help those fighting for Iraqi freedom – perhaps even to go fight yourself – you should be free to make that choice, and no one should get in your way.
But what gives you the right to make that choice for others?
Why should you have the power or moral authority to decide which countries I must free, which countries warrant extracting money from me by force, which dictatorships warrant provoking terrorist attacks that put my life at risk?
And what libertarian would believe that George Bush should have that moral authority – plus the power to compel all of us to obey that authority?
You will face the consequences of your acts and I will face the consequences of mine. But George Bush won't face the consequences of his acts; you and I will. Is that the way it should be according to libertarian principles?
I think not.
And thus there is nothing George Bush can say that will make me believe I should put my faith in him to decide how many innocent Iraqis it's okay to kill, how many countries it's okay to attack and invade, how many Americans it's okay to put at risk, or how many libertarian principles it's okay to violate.
The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians. Freedom does not equal license.
Kennedy said "We are the watchmen on the walls of world freedom".
And that bit of founding father philosophy[U][B]...[/U][/B]
Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.
This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.
[youtube]muHg86Mys7I[/youtube]
The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians. Freedom does not equal license.
The founding fathers were indeed libertarians. In fact they were more libertarian than the people running the libertarian party.
Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.
This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.
[youtube]muHg86Mys7I[/youtube]
I used to have this animation as my signature in here. Ron Paul borrowed it from the ISIL
(International Society for Individual Liberty)
They offer it in several languages:
http://isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-index.htmlI especially like this part...
Have to disagree. The founding fathers instituted a Republican Democracy. We elect representatives to govern, thus giving them the power to rule. The animation you showed says we're not allowed to do that, or we're lazy intellectually. Wrong! We are abiding by the Constitution. We don't live in anarchy, Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky notwithstanding.
The founders, much like Ron Paul, myself, and other libertarians instituted a government that derives limited powers from the consent of the governed. Government may only have those powers that we have as individuals, to grant to it. Governmental power may not exceed the rights of even a single individual.
In other words, if I don't have a right to do something, I can't grant that power to government. The animation shown by the ISIL says that we can ask others to defend us and our rights. This is why we elect people. We give them a limited number of powers that are derived from our rights. We say that we will allow the government to create a military to defend all of us, we elect a mayor and entrust him with creating a police force, etc.
The Constitution is a libertarian document, and our government is most certainly not abiding by it. Government was always meant to be very small and to only do a few things for us. It was never meant to be all things to all people. It was never meant to handle things like retirement, healthcare, education, charity, etc.
Oh God, not another dissertation from our resident amateur know it all.
Washington, D.C. City Council Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling
-- Discharge petition filed on gun ban repeal
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Monday, July 28, 2008
In open defiance of the Supreme Court's decision striking down the Washington D.C. gun control law, the City Council passed an "emergency" law that keeps in place almost all of the law that was ruled unconstitutional.
For example, though the Court ruled specifically that the city's ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment, most handguns still cannot be registered because D.C. bureaucrats classify semi-automatic pistols as "machine guns."
Even Dick Heller, who brought the case against Washington's gun ban, was rejected when he tried to register his handgun because any "bottom loading" firearm is a "machine gun"
according to the D.C.
police.
Similarly, while the Court found that "the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a "trigger lock" is unconstitutional, the city kept in place the "lock up your safety" law unless the resident is in immediate danger.
The D.C. Council is thus rendering the Supreme Court victory for gun rights meaningless, while leaving residents defenseless.
Congress needs to repeal the District's gun control law to ensure that the Supreme Court decision is not a hollow victory.
According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority and responsibility to govern the District. It can simply repeal the District's onerous gun law.
Not surprisingly, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has no intention of allowing the D.C. gun ban repeal legislation to come to the floor, even though it is cosponsored by more than half of the members of Congress.
To free the bill from the Speaker's death grip, Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has filed a discharge petition to bring the bill directly to the floor. Rep. Souder needs 218 cosigners for the petition to be successful. There are currently 109 signers.
There are not many days left in this legislative session, so it is vital that the discharge petition moves quickly. Please contact your representative and urge him or her to support the repeal of the D.C. gun ban and to sign the Souder discharge petition. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Reps. the pre-written e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Representative,
The Washington, D.C. city council is making a mockery of the recent Supreme Court decision supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Though the Court ruled the city's handgun ban unconstitutional, DC is still making it illegal to own most handguns. The Court also ruled that the District's gun lock and gun storage law violates the Constitution, but under the city's new "emergency" gun law, firearms must be kept inoperable unless there is an immediate danger to residents.
Representative Mark Souder has filed a discharge petition to bring a bill to repeal the District's gun laws to the floor for a vote.
Please stand up for the Second Amendment and sign the Souder discharge petition.
Sincerely,
****************************
Washington, D.C. City Council Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling
Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]
The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?
Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]
The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?
I understand how you could try to make thier case for them but I doubt that anyone who has fought this action has any doubt about what they are trying to do. Do you really believe that any bottom loading magazine is a "machine gun" is a valid statement? Do you think that the intent of the DC council was to do anything other than to continue an outright ban and prevent people from having the means to protect themselves? please...:headshake
And people like to bitch and moan about how they have had rights taken away by the Bush admin. Talk about cherry picking.:cool:
The DC City Council has made no attempt to hide the fact that they want to ban guns. But they can't ban guns anymore. So instead they are trying to have the strictest regulations possible. The courts will rule and will decide if they are too strict. There's a lawsuit already.
Gee, that's not biased at all. [/sarcasm]
The Supreme Court ruled that handguns can't be banned. It specifically said they could be regulated but declined to say exactly how much they could be regulated. So the DC City Council, which would prefer to ban guns outright, is testing to see how far it can regulate them. It isn't ignoring anything. It's doing the exact opposite of ignoring. It's reacting to the Supreme Court's ruling. How can you be ignoring something when your actions are in direct response to that thing?
1. Our rights can't be regulated by government. Government has zero authority to define or limit our rights.
2. The Supreme court didn't say keeping bearing "handguns" was an individual right, it said "guns".
3. You are right. They aren't ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling, they are defying it.
4. All gun regulation whether it's simple registration or banning a particular type of gun is unconstitutional and a violation of our RIGHT to keep and bear any number, of any type of gun we choose.
5. A right is something you don't require permission to do. A privilege may be regulated and revoked at any time. A right can not.
Hey all you constitution scholars (hereafter known as CS): I have a question regarding what is being said here.
Radar, you say that a right cannot be regulated or revoked, while a privelege can be. However, what about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? What I mean is don't CS people say those are human rights? Now, when somone kills someone we put them in jail...we have revoked their liberty, have we not?
So (I'm really just trying to learn here) what exactly are rights as opposed to priveleges?
Senate Vote Is Good News For Gun Rights
-- GOA thanks activists for sending thousands of e-mails to the Senate prior to vote
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Gun owners won an important vote in the U.S. Senate this week, when more than three dozen senators stood with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma in his battle against Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Reid fell eight votes short on Monday of stopping Coburn, who has been using parliamentary maneuvers to keep anti-gun legislation (and pork) from coming to the Senate floor for votes.
Sen. Coburn has placed a "hold" on more than 80 bills since January of last year -- including the bill which recently extended the National Parks gun ban to the Washington-Rochambeau trail.
Under the rules, one senator may block the progress of an objectionable bill by issuing a "hold" -- a maneuver which prevents a bill from speedily moving through the legislative process.
The frustrated dictator of the Senate (a.k.a. Reid) combined 36 of the bills which have come under Coburn's ire into a big omnibus bill and added all kinds of pork to entice senators into supporting the measure. Nevertheless, Reid still fell eight votes short of what was needed to defeat Coburn's holds.
GOA wants to thank all of you who took the time during the last week to urge your senators to stand with Coburn!
VETERANS DISARMAMENT UPDATE
In other Senate news, Richard Burr's bill to repeal large parts of the Veterans Disarmament Act is gaining steam. The Republican senator from North Carolina introduced the Veterans Protection Act (S. 3167) after President Bush signed a gun ban into law this year -- a law which, among other things, disarms military veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD.
The Burr bill, which now has 18 cosponsors, would protect the rights of military veterans and make it more difficult for the Veterans Affairs to deny them their Second Amendment rights.
GOA members should have received their latest newsletter by now. This issue contains a key update on the Veterans Protection Act in the House (introduced by Rep. Virgil Goode) and answers frequently asked questions by gun owners such as: what should I do when I'm denied by the Brady Check and can I run a NICS check on myself?
If you're not receiving the GOA newsletter, please go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm to get your members-only subscription today!
ACTION:
1. Continue asking your two senators to stand with Sen. Coburn in defying the strong-arm tactics of Majority Leader Reid. Further to that, urge them to cosponsor Coburn's bill (S. 2807) repealing the gun ban in the National Parks. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
2. Make sure you check out the latest GOA newsletter and mail the enclosed postcards in support of the Veterans Protection Act if you have not already done so. Thank you!
Hey all you constitution scholars (hereafter known as CS): I have a question regarding what is being said here.
Radar, you say that a right cannot be regulated or revoked, while a privelege can be. However, what about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? What I mean is don't CS people say those are human rights? Now, when somone kills someone we put them in jail...we have revoked their liberty, have we not?
So (I'm really just trying to learn here) what exactly are rights as opposed to priveleges?
A right may not be regulated or revoked, but a privilege can be. When someone performs an act that violates the person, property, or rights of others it is a crime and not otherwise. If you violate someone's rights by killing them you have not taken away their right to live, you've merely violated that right. When you do this, you have FORFEITED your right to liberty until such time as you have been punished accordingly whether that punishment is house arrest, imprisonment, or death. By locking someone up for a genuine crime, you are not violating or infringing on their rights.
Here are a few videos explaining the difference between rights and privileges.
[youtube]Pq7rqmgUcDo[/youtube]
[youtube]i8ZVOq6L5ps[/youtube]
[youtube]JclYRlKBAbw[/youtube]
[youtube]U-yV-WDY0b4[/youtube]
[youtube]iGS4zQEKAgY[/youtube]
I watched bits of the video but just don't have that kind of time because my access is at work and I'm a popper. But I thank you for your response.
I think what you're saying, though, is that your rights cannot be taken away from you but you can forfeit them.
So, a person in prison has forfeited their right to liberty. They've done something that society has deemed worthy of the loss of that right.
But doesn't the same thing happen with privileges? Driving a car is a privilege...screw it up and you lose that privilege. So what is the difference between losing a right and losing a privilege?
I watched bits of the video but just don't have that kind of time because my access is at work and I'm a popper. But I thank you for your response.
I think what you're saying, though, is that your rights cannot be taken away from you but you can forfeit them.
So, a person in prison has forfeited their right to liberty. They've done something that society has deemed worthy of the loss of that right.
But doesn't the same thing happen with privileges? Driving a car is a privilege...screw it up and you lose that privilege. So what is the difference between losing a right and losing a privilege?
I would never claim to be an expert on the matter, but privileges are earned. You earn the privilege to drive a car by virtue of age, testing, and it is isssued at a state level. Hence, the state may remove it.
But they can remove rights, too, apparently.
Careful Shawnee you're sounding like a CS.
The part that Radar fails to acknowlege is that those rights which he, I, and the founders agree to be critical are seen by the courts and people of the US as negotiable if not immoral. Right now competing ideologies rule the field. I was talking to a teenager about video surveilance a while back. He found nothing worrisome in being on camera everywhere outside his front door (not that he respects property rights), of course his Dad is a public school social studies teacher... To be lead off-track by discussions of 18th century philosophy is to do the work of the Statists, writing off libertarians as the people who would put nukes in our basements and the poor in the streets. It is tempting to try to explain everything with one perfect system, but it isn't practical.
It is tempting to try to explain everything with one perfect system, but it isn't practical.
I can't agree more.
Careful Shawnee you're sounding like a CS.
~snip~
Hmmph. May large earthworms invade your land while you're not looking.
I like the points here...I guess what I'm getting at is that Radar believes there is an obvious distinction, and I'm trying to see that viewpoint from someone who sees it in black and white.
Hmmph. May large earthworms invade your land while you're not looking.
I forgot the ;) after my statement. Earthworms?
Good luck getting a straight answer.
Now you see! ;)
I don't know the earthworms thing. Was going for some really lame "may something do something to your something" and earthworms popped into my head. :shrug:
Privileges may be legally revoked. Rights may only be denied, illegally and immorally.
I watched bits of the video but just don't have that kind of time because my access is at work and I'm a popper. But I thank you for your response.
I think what you're saying, though, is that your rights cannot be taken away from you but you can forfeit them.
So, a person in prison has forfeited their right to liberty. They've done something that society has deemed worthy of the loss of that right.
But doesn't the same thing happen with privileges? Driving a car is a privilege...screw it up and you lose that privilege. So what is the difference between losing a right and losing a privilege?
Actually, driving is a right. The states lie and claim it to be a privilege, but this isn't the case. I bought the car. It's mine to do with as I please. I paid for the road. It too is my property. It's common property of mine, and every other person in the state. We can agree on rules for the road, but it's not a privilege that can be revoked.
If you want to walk across your yard, you don't require permission. You can do it all you want and no other person or group of people has any legitimate authority to stop you. If someone violates your rights, you still have those rights.
If you want to walk across MY yard, I may grant you that privilege. If you piss me off, I can revoke that privilege and I have not violated your rights. You would have no legitimate complaint if I revoked permission to allow you to walk across my yard.
What if I want to walk across my yard, which is right next to your yard, with a shotgun pointed at you - is that ok too?
You don't have the right to harm or endanger others unless it is in our own defense from them. Walking back and forth across my yard poses no threat to you, so pointing a gun at me is not a defensive action. It's an offensive one.
