Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on June 08, 2001, 09:39:00 AM
-
its the man (http://www2.mybc.com/news/fs.cfm?source_id=RTR&id=892550)
My personal belief is we would be better off with fewer guns. But as people have repeatedly pointed out. People will use what they can get. And it can be just as horrible
[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Pongo ]
-
I live up here in the boonies of Maine, just a few blocks away from horror writer Stephen King (great place to trick-or-treat!). Gun ownership here is high, since we are a fishing/hunting outdoorsy bunch up here. With all these guns, we have the lowest rates of crime with firearms. Its more a matter of people understanding how to use and live with them, in my opinion.
On the satellite a few weeks ago, there was this thing where a guy attacked a lady with a brick, nearly killing her. Should we ban bricks? What about cars? Lotsa people get hit by those. And the list goes on and on.
Dunno, lots of people dream of a wonderful world without guns and point countless reasons why we dont need them. And I point out that a Saturn will get them to work and back much cheaper than that big, polluting SUV they are driving :)
Live and let live, I say. Don't go fussing about what you neighbor has or what you feel they should or shouldnt have. Everyones morals are vastly different. We arent MAKING people buy, own or use guns, but they want to MAKE us give ours up. Just bad manners if ya asked me :D
-
I dissagree
:)
-
Well Pongo, if every 5 year old was armed with the M60 as i pointed out at the numberous occasions, we wouldn't have those problems, would we ?
Yes, i do remember the comments about the excessive weight of M60 being issued to children, and currently NRA is looking into possibility of replacing it with much more portable one shot LAW rocket, although, some expert shooting training will be required for all kids at age of 4.
:p
-
It all boils down to this. Do you want to punish (or mandate) to the majority to punish (or control) the minority? The majority of people who own guns have no intention of using them to murder. I work in a rural county for the most part, and the majority of the population here owns a fire arm. Intentional uses of the fire arms on people are extremely rare. Now according to some, reducing firearms and even outlawing them would reduce crime. Ok, let's say that's true. So to reduce crime you're going to punish everyone who responsibly uses firearms??? I strongly disagree with that action. The means do no justify the ends is a cliche we've all heard. In a similar vein, the means are not the cause, nor initiation of the end. What that means is it is not the weapon that kills (whether it be gun, knife, or brick) but the person. Punish the individual responsible, but even more important find the reasons of crime and work to prevent it from happening at the source. Attack the problem at both ends. Punish those who commit crimes, but at the same time work to improve society so that people won't feel crime is necessary. Don't punish those who are responsible for the actions of a few who aren't. People die from being hit by a drunk driver. Should you outlaw alcohol and cars for those who use both responsibly? We've had 4 people drown at the beach here this past week. Should we outlaw swimming year round because of it? No, we should inform people that dangerous conditions exist, and you shouldn't go swimming in the Gulf right now, especially in unguarded areas.
Anyways, off to lunch. Chat at ya'll later!
-
Teachers should be armed. They are entrusted with our children for a significant part of the day.
There is no way to ensure a maniac does not repeat something like that. In fact we can be sure it will happen sonner or later and not once.
Not posting a guard over children is just hoping that that maniac will kill somebody-else's child, not yours.
I am willing to take such risk with my car when I park it, not with a child.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d:
Teachers should be armed. They are entrusted with our children for a significant part of the day.
There is no way to ensure a maniac does not repeat something like that. In fact we can be sure it will happen sonner or later and not once.
Not posting a guard over children is just hoping that that maniac will kill somebody-else's child, not yours.
I am willing to take such risk with my car when I park it, not with a child.
miko
Home school your children in that case. :) Actually, our schools here have "resource officers" which are active duty police officres. It's not a recent development either, my high school had one when I was attending 10 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
My personal belief is we would be better off with fewer guns.
The constitutional rights are not a subject of opinion polls.
-
Banning guns is no more the answer than banning bricks. I'm a simplie-minded kind of guy. I take responsibility for my own life and I respect the right of other people to live in this world and pursue their happiness. I own guns and I use them responsibly. Would I want someone to take away my guns? Absolutely not. Do I want somebody trying to tell me how to live my life? Or think? Absolutely not.
It seems this world has turned into a contest to see who can blame the most other people for their own problems. Finger-pointing and name-calling and demonization are the norms, in this society. Making fun of someone who is different or making them into the "enemy" comes just as natural to most of us as falling off a log. But I think it is highly symptomatic of what is wrong with the world today. And it's something that I have committed my life to changing -- in myself, at least. (Of course I'm always going to cal a chute-shooter a bastard! ;) )
With that said, here's Buhdman's simple-minded way to make the world a better place:
- Take responsibility for your own life (i.e., Quit trying to blame others for problems you've created. You're the only one who can change things for yourself. If you wait for others to do it, you'll be very disappointed in the outcome).
- Respect other people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (sound familiar) (i.e., don't stick your nose in where it doesn't belong. Live and let live. You'll have enough problems just trying to run your own life, let alone taking on the responsibility for all those others!).
- Teach your children to do these things. This is where the real change will come. Teach them so they can teach their children. Do it for your progeny.
- Be an example.
Will it change the world immediately? No. We'll still have deal with idiots like the one who killed those children in Japan and many other's to follow. But it will make a difference eventually. Maybe you can't change the world, but you can change yourself. And if you want the world to be a better place in which to live, what better place to start!
Jeezus what a f**king optimist I am :rolleyes: !
Buhdman, out
-
It isn't the inanimate object. It's the animate person.
Would Japan be safe without 6" kitchen knives?
Would Abel have been safer without rocks?
A person that wants to do evil will.
-
Originally posted by mietla:
The constitutional rights are not a subject of opinion polls.
OK, granted, but that doesn't imply that people shouldn't give up that 'right' for a greater good and let society benefit from their action.
-
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
I agree with these guys.
:)
-
Originally posted by Thud:
OK, granted, but that doesn't imply that people shouldn't give up that 'right' for a greater good and let society benefit from their action.
Sure, you can choose to exercise your right or not, but so can I. This simply means that you do not have to own a gun.
But you can't decide for me.
-
Correct, of course nobody can decide for another to exercise their rights or not. What worries me though is that so much people choose to exercise that right their forefathers were given in entirely different circumstances.
I think that with the present situation regarding firearms (i.e. so much people having them without needing them) it might be necessary to reconsider that basic right now that's obvious that only few people are sensible enough to not own firearms. To be specific: I don't advocate changing the constitution (duh) but significantly raising the criteria for letting people exercise that right might be an answer. After all, nowadays people essentially don't need guns like they once did, right?
-
I posted this thread because I read the news story and it was almost word for word one of the arguments that people on this board have posted as an argument against gun control as a way to curb the massacures that have been happening regularly now at schools in the US.
"If you take away all the guns they will bring knives" or something to that effect.
My argument at the time was that it is hard to imagine some one commiting mass murder with a knife...
well some jap read that post and decided to prove me wrong I guess.
The event does not sway my opinion. Of which I would be constitutionialy entitled too even if I was an american citizen..But maybe it will sway someone. It is however a convienent example for the gun lobby.
-
Originally posted by Thud:
I think that with the present situation regarding firearms (i.e. so much people having them without needing them) it might be necessary to reconsider that basic right now that's obvious that only few people are sensible enough to not own firearms... After all, nowadays people essentially don't need guns like they once did, right?
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
-- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
What else are you prepared to let the government or some influential lobby group decide you "essentially don't need"?
This is EXACTLY what Brandeis was talking about.
I think we'd all be far better worrying about what changes we've allowed in society that have removed many individuals' sense of responsibility and accountability.
How did it come about that children think a proper solution after being disciplined is to stick a gun in the face of their teacher, kill him and then claim "I didn't mean to do it" and "I didn't know it was loaded"?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Thud:
What worries me though is that so much people choose to exercise that right their forefathers were given in entirely different circumstances.
Fundamental rights affirmed (not granted) by the Constitution are unalienable and eternal (or at least until the dump the Constitution). The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It does not limit nor restricts The People in any way. It affirms our rights and restricts the government.
The circumstances are not different. Just like king George was after The People, so is the current government. If you ask me, I think that the situation is much worse. They are taking half of our income and threaten to jail us if we protest. They decide how fast you can drive, what you smoke and which school your kid goes to. They are slowly eating us alive. All Amendments are under constant assault and the Tenth is utterly ignored.
The Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment for a specific reason. Not to target practice and not to hunt (as the libs would like to portrait it), but to overthrow the government when it gets injust.
I think that with the present situation regarding firearms (i.e. so much people having them without needing them) it might be necessary to reconsider that basic right now that's obvious that only few people are sensible enough to not own firearms.
To be specific: I don't advocate changing the constitution (duh) but significantly raising the criteria for letting people exercise that right might be an answer.
[/b]
Could not disagree with you more. If the government can arbitrarily decide who can "qualify" to exercise their fundamental right and who can't, the right has effectively been taken away.
BTW, do you really "need" to eat three times a day?
Do you really "need" running water in your house?
Do you really "need" all the money you make?
After all, nowadays people essentially don't need guns like they once did, right?[/b]
Absolutely wrong.
[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
Posted by Mietla:
"Fundamental rights affirmed (not granted) by the Constitution are unalienable and eternal (or at least until the dump the Constitution). The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It does not limit nor restricts The People in any way. It affirms our rights and restricts the government."
Exactly, that is why I stated that not the constitution itself should be changed but that the legal demands on citizen for getting guns should be more strict. It's not the constitutional right that would be violated, it would only be augmented by laws which would adapt it a little bit more to today's society.
"The circumstances are not different. Just like king George was after The People, so is the current government. If you ask me, I think that the situation is much worse. They are taking half of our income and threaten to jail us if we protest. They decide how fast you can drive, what you smoke and which school your kid goes to. They are slowly eating us alive. All Amendments are under constant assault and the Tenth is utterly ignored.
The Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment for a specific reason. Not to target practice and not to hunt (as the libs would like to portrait it), but to overthrow the government when it gets injust."
Again I want to say, times have changed.... In today's modern civilized states governments which are unjust are overthrown by electoral landslides rather than armed uprising.
In all civilized countries most citizens pay at least 50% taxes, but without those there would be no roads for example at which the by some so dreaded government has introduced speedlimits. My personal belief is that people who do not pay their taxes are egocentric and selfish, everybody has to contribute their bit to society from which they also profit.
BTW I'm not impressed by the current government either but I doubt our motivations for that are identical ;) I don't believe they are after The People but I do believe that they are hardly on a path that will lead to the most beneficial situation for all Americans.
"Could not disagree with you more. If the government can arbitrarily decide who can "qualify" to exercise their fundamental right and who can't, the right has effectively been taken away"
They are already doing that. People with criminal records for example are forbidden to posess firearms, right. Maybe it would be wise to prevent all from having them apart from those that indeed need them, i.e. professionally.
Of course you will point out that you indeed need them to protect yourself from the government if necessary but as many of you gun advocates have said:"banning is no good and will not help public safety because criminals can get guns anyway". Well if the so called need to 'overthrow the unjust government' arises in your opinion then how hard could it be to acquire the necessary weapons?
"BTW, do you really "need" to eat three times a day?
Do you really "need" running water in your house?
Do you really "need" all the money you make?"
To stay healthy and live a reasonably acceptable life you most definately need the first two, the latter is rather subjective and differs person from person, but on a more serious note: I don't think we'll ever agree on the other 'do you need ...?' question and probably many other subjects but tried to make my views clear, just as you did.
Thud.
-
Originally posted by Thud:
I don't think we'll ever agree on the other 'do you need ...?' question and probably many other subjects but tried to make my views clear, just as you did.
Thud.
I agree, have a (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/user_ratings_5.gif) :)
[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
"It's not the constitutional right that would be violated, it would only be augmented by laws which would adapt it a little bit more to today's society."
What part of this do you find confusing? ;)
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
I have a feeling that your idea of "infringed" and mine are not the same, eh?
I can't wait till we start working on restricting that pesky old First Amendment. Surely times have changed since they wrote that too, right? :D
-
ok, let's try a new, augmented Constitution. Here we go...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But... you have to pass a test of your oratory skills administered by Ted Kennedy and of course submit the content of your speach in writing for the approval.
Just to clarify. The "no law respecting an establishment of religion" means no prayer is allowed in schools (voluntary or not) and that no Ten Commandments display is allowed in public.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
.. Thud will supply the pre-conditions here :).
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
An application to become "the Owner" can be downloaded from http://www.whitehouse.com (http://www.whitehouse.com) (don't click on this link, it's a porn site)
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Of course we "the government" will decide what "the reasonable" is. We don't need no stinkin' judges to give us stinkin' warrants. Seize the asset, sell it, give the proceeds to the govs, and let the courts to sort it out later.
Did I mention that income is not a posession?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
don't bug me, man ... 3000 documents withheld... documents/shmocuments, fry'm. The FBI know what they are doing.
just for the record. I do support the death penalty, but I do insist on the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard. And yes, I do believe that Timmy is guilty, but still the situation bugs me.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
ditto
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I think we still got this one
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
and this one
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
we all know that there is no unconditional rights, and all the "unalienable right permits" are available 1600 Pensylvania Ave., now do we?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
the biggest joke of all. We just can't have that, can we? After all we are in Washington because we know the best. It's for the best for all of us. The roads... the hungry... the school lunches... the people offended daily by someone else's speach...THE ENVIRONMENT, MY GOD, THE ENVIRONMENT. THE BALD EAGLE... THE SPOTTED OWL!!!!
[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
Seriously, I think that the US Constitution is an almost perfect document. Think of it. The guys who are about to form a new GOVERNMENT thinking and working hard on limiting THEMSELVES in order to give their constituants the voice.
This is not the everyday stuff. Every single guy/guys who came into power has(ve) attempted to portrait himself/themselves as a saviour/god/protector/lord and thus make himself special, precious and above the law. Obviously it happend "for a good of the people" who just can't afford to lose Alexander, Ceasar, Napoleon, Stalin , Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao as a supreme leader.
The only counter-examplesI can think of was Cincinatus an Pilsudski.
Our Constitution protects us (The People) from the grandiose clowns who think that they can better our lives. They can't!
All they can do, is to divide us into groups and plant the resentment seeds to divide us. Once they've done that, they can take what's ours and give to to THEIR voters to perpetuate the system where THEY are in charge.
-
Seriously, I think that the US Constitution is an almost perfect document. Think of it. The guys who are about to form a new GOVERNMENT thinking and working hard on limiting THEMSELVES in order to give their constituants the voice.
This is not the everyday stuff. Every single guy/guys who came into power has(ve) attempted to portrait himself/themselves as a saviour/god/protector/lord and thus make himself special, precious and above the law. Obviously it happend "for a good of the people" who just can't afford to lose Alexander, Ceasar, Napoleon, Stalin , Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao as a supreme leader.
The only counter-examplesI can think of was Cincinatus an Pilsudski.
Our Constitution protects us (The People) from the grandiose clowns who think that they can better our lives. They can't!
All they can do, is to divide us into groups and plant the resentment seeds to divide us. Once they've done that, they can take what's ours and give to to THEIR voters to perpetuate the system where THEY are in charge.
-
""It's not the constitutional right that would be violated, it would only be augmented by laws which would adapt it a little bit more to today's society."
What part of this do you find confusing?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
"I have a feeling that your idea of "infringed" and mine are not the same, eh?
I can't wait till we start working on restricting that pesky old First Amendment. Surely times have changed since they wrote that too, right?"
Well, I believe the first amendment is also augmented by laws. For instance, the free speech section, it is forbidden to vent opinions that are racist, xenophobic, discriminating any individual or ethnic or social group or damage an individual in public, right. I think we all agree on those being crucial limitations on this consitutional right?
Well, for the second I have indeed submitted my pre-conditions :)
But as far as my limited knowledge goes: I don't think that in reality the right to have a militia is not being infringed upon or augmented by laws to create a more realistice frame, as I'd say. It is not allowed to have any sizable means of offence or defence right? I don't think that any militia would be allowed to acquire any hardware with real combat potency, either through legal or illegal channels without the government, both Federal and the state's itself, interfering. So in reality these militias are 'paper tigers' with their pick-up's with MG's etc who are not up the task they we're originally envisioned to be capable of performing of. Nobody and I assume you're included would like to see them operating gunships, or tanks or.... So they don't counterbalance the federal resources enough to secure the free state principle. Correct me if I'm wrong.
But my point is that to create an acceptable situation, both for the people and the government, some constitutional rights can not be exploited to the fullest possible extent, and the line between infringement and those not being infringed is hazy at some points, I think that you agree with me that in some cases that is inevitable, on others clearly you don't.
-
Thud:
"Well, I believe the first amendment is also augmented by laws. For instance, the free speech section, it is forbidden to vent opinions that are racist, xenophobic, discriminating any individual or ethnic or social group or damage an individual in public, right. I think we all agree on those being crucial limitations on this consitutional right?"
Actually, I do not agree with that last statement at all. I believe that's a corruption of the 1st Amendment.
I'll go with Voltaire on my view of the 1st:
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Voltaire
I personally believe that statement pretty much summarizes what the Bill of Rights actually said.
These latest limitations on the 1st are just "PC" additions for our sad times.
We give up our liberty bit by bit.
-
Toad is right. Rights have to be unconditional, or they seize to become rights.
You are wrong Thud, it is perfectly legal and constitutional to express offensive views.
Again, the Constitution restricts the gvernment not the people. The governemnt can't discriminate, but people can. As a matter of fact, punishing someone for being racist is un constitutional.
-
Originally posted by mietla:
Toad is right. Rights have to be unconditional, or they seize to become rights.
You are wrong Thud, it is perfectly legal and constitutional to express offensive views.
Again, the Constitution restricts the gvernment not the people. The governemnt can't discriminate, but people can. As a matter of fact, punishing someone for being racist is un constitutional.
Really? Well, I must admit that my knowledge of the american legal system in this case apparantly is not quite up to par. It is very sad though that statements in the categories I mentioned before (racist, discriminating, deregatory towards minorities etc.) are not forbidden by law and penalized as they should be. I think it's a grave shortcoming of a society if they don't adapt their laws to prevent these kinds of extremist views to be expressed.
BTW, there are different kinds of offensive views, if you would write a column anywhere attacking the current foreign policy for example many might find that offensive as well. The examples I mentioned are way beyond offensive, they're dangerous.
-
Little by little the rights of the people are being eroded by well meaning people for the good of us all.It is done to make a more perfect life for everyone.Some day,life will be so perfect,we will not have the right to do anything.
-
Originally posted by Thud:
It is very sad though that statements in the categories I mentioned before (racist, discriminating, deregatory towards minorities etc.) are not forbidden by law and penalized as they should be. I think it's a grave shortcoming of a society if they don't adapt their laws to prevent these kinds of extremist views to be expressed.
Thud, you ever hear the old children's rhyme "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me"?
The view you espouse above scares me FAR more than racist or derogatory blather.
I think perhaps you don't understand the 1st Amendment to our Constitution at all. I'd hope it would be the rare US Citizen that believes the Government should even try to control a person's thoughts or speech.
As Voltaire said, we don't have to agree with it but we must defend the right to say it.
There's some very good stuff on the 1st on the web. Freedom of speech isn't the very FIRST amendment for no reason. In other words, it's not an accident that it was the FIRST amendment.
-
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
You might just find yourself dead if you try to take either my liberty or my life :D
In Florida, you can get a concealed carry license with a minimum of hassle if you qualify (i.e. not a criminal or a nut ;) ). My weapon of choice is a custom combat carry M1911A1 0.45 cal pistol. If open carry was legal, I would keep my AR15 in the back of my car, instead it is locked up in a safe in hidden in my closet with my ammunition.
I believe the line "peace through superior firepower" is as true for individuals as it is for world powers. By definition, criminals do not respect or "fear" the law, but most respect the laws of physics and a 0.45 cal pistol pointing at them. If they don't, they might learn a fatal lesson, though I might die trying to teach it to them.
In all probability, I will never need to use my pistol, but I can say the same about other tools I have, like the fire extinguisher I keep in my car. I would rather be able to respond to whatever problems life throws at me than be a helpless victim.
Passing new laws has never stopped criminals from breaking them. No matter how many times you tell people they can't do something, if they want to do it, they will do it. Banning guns might limit the accessibility of guns to children, but it would definitely limit the accessability for law abiding citizens who have and will continue to use them correctly. I don't recall the numbers, but try looking up the stats for how many innocent lives have been saved by guns used in self-defense each year compared to those lost to kids blowing away school teachers and angry spouses blowing away each other. If the criminal dies in the process, it saves a lot of court costs :D
This country was founded by people who were willing to trade lives for liberty. I am willing to risk my life and the lives of those around me, for the right to have the means to protect myself and others around me from those who have no respect for others' rights, including the federal government :p
The right to bear arms exists not to prevent crime or allow hunting (those were givens at the time). Our government uniquely established a precedent that the people should be allowed to be armed to overthrow the government (again) if need be. That the average citizen is no longer allowed to have cannons and machine guns is actually a violation of the intent of this "right".
When this right is fully revoked (and I have not doubt that one day it will be as many of our allies have already done), I fear the other rights will be little more than vestiges compared to the original intent as well. Look where freedom of speech has already gone :( You can say anything you like, as long as the majority (or well-funded minority lobby) approve of what you are saying.
[ 06-10-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]
-
What can you say about a country that protects the rights of the very people who are trying to tear it down?
God bless America!
paraphrased from West Wing.
Two words that I have noticed being blurred in my lifetime are rights and privileges.
My Father taught me that rights were global to all persons, they could not be bartered with, amended, or revoked.
Privileges, on the other hand, were granted persons/groups, by other persons/groups for some return, or specific type of behavior.
If these statements are true (a matter of speculation to be sure) then the right to whatever should be inalienable, no matter how many years pass or how much money changes hands.
As to the gun control debate, there are HUNDREDS of laws on the books that regulate whom and what, but the liberal caucus will not allow them to be enforced. To do so would mean some PERSON would have to be accountable, and THAT is contrary to liberal belief.
Just my opinion ... I could be mistaken :rolleyes:
-
Something to think about if your an American...
Something to think about...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and lots of others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Known defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?
With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
Something to think about... Don't let the liberal media control your mind with their propaganda blitz. They want to blame crime on gun ownership to justify eventual gun confiscation, but their soft-on-crime law enforcement and pro-violence and immoral entertainment industry is the real cause. Most of the politicians in both parties are controlled by the liberal establishment. In effect, we have a one party system. They deserve academy awards.
"Confidence is contagious. So is lack of confidence," -- Vince Lombardi
-
heh now that the X-Files has ended, I am glad I can get my conspiracy theories from this bb s :D
-
[
[QB]Something to think about if your an American...
Something to think about...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and lots of others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Known defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?
With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
Something to think about... Don't let the liberal media control your mind with their propaganda blitz. They want to blame crime on gun ownership to justify eventual gun confiscation, but their soft-on-crime law enforcement and pro-violence and immoral entertainment industry is the real cause. Most of the politicians in both parties are controlled by the liberal establishment. In effect, we have a one party system. They deserve academy awards.
Lol ribs,
these arguments doesnt hit here.
Exampel: How could have, say 2 million german jews, armed to the teeth with Sturmgewehr 44 & Walther PPK stand against a welltrained german army with tanks, planes, machineguns & all?
In fact, it's much more easy to blame + witchhunt a minority if parts of it act as terrorists/freedom fighters.
Cheers ( no offence intended)
blitz
-
Hey Rip, here is something to think about...
bunch of whackos baricaded themselves with all sorts of guns and ammo in a building in texas not so long ago, and guess what ? Didn't help them at all, did it ?
Maybe if we allow everyone to have a howitzer, just maybe then you will be able to defend yourself from a government....
Don't kid yourself folks, if goverment wants your ass, they will have it and your M60 or Ar16 won't stop them.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
Ripsnort,
This is an interesting statement.
I have owned guns all my life and I have no desire to have anyone try an take them away, but I have never considered them essential to my being a "citizen" of this country. In fact, many of the "citizens" of this country that I know do NOT own guns. And none of us think of ourselves as "subjects" to anyone. I always thought that "citizenship" was something that was bestowed on us constitutionally, by right of birth, rather than by the size of our own personal arsenal.
So, I'm curious: How has having guns made YOU a "citizen" as opposed to a "subject"?
:rolleyes:
Buhdman, out
-
Originally posted by MrBill:
Two words that I have noticed being blurred in my lifetime are rights and privileges.
My Father taught me that rights were global to all persons, they could not be bartered with, amended, or revoked.
Privileges, on the other hand, were granted persons/groups, by other persons/groups for some return, or specific type of behavior.
How true. Especially that the lefties (while trying to take away our real rights), are trying to push the entire new list of concocted "rights" like a right to a shelter, food, job, minimum wage, healtcare etc., guarranteed and unconditionally provided by the government.
There is a simple test one can use to determine whether something is a right or a priviledge. Just ask yourself:
"Would I be able to exercise it while cast away on a deserted island?"
Free speach? - sure
Right to arm and defend yourself? - yup
Right to be safe in your posessions? yes
Right to a shelter?
Right to food?
Right to healtcare?
Right to minimum wage?
Now, of course we have a right to pursue, achieve and keep them all, but this is not what the lefties are proposing. They want all these thing to become an entitlement. They want to force other people to provide the loser with all these goodies without any strings attached. Not only do they take away (by force) a half of income from the achievers and give it, unconditionally to the non-achievers, but they also call you selfish if you object.
And yet, half or so of our society is bying it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Something to think about... Don't let the liberal media control your mind with their propaganda blitz. They want to blame crime on gun ownership to justify eventual gun confiscation, but their soft-on-crime law enforcement and pro-violence and immoral entertainment industry is the real cause. Most of the politicians in both parties are controlled by the liberal establishment. In effect, we have a one party system. They deserve academy awards.
hmm, I like to blame liberals too, but sheesh! ;) Both conservatives and liberals take HALF the approach to dealing with crime. Liberals believe if you deal with the sources (sorry, movies and TV are NOT the source. Generally, poor social conditions "force" people to crime. Perhaps they can't see a better way out, I don't know.) of the crime, crime will go away. Conservatives think that if you're harder on those who commit crime, it'll lower crime. Since we actually do have a two party system, what one side thinks the other usually refuses to support. Why on earth can you not take BOTH approaches simultaneously??? Be VERY frickin' hard on criminals. No slaps on the wrist, no first time offender off lightly crap either. At the SAME time however, find ways to make the social conditions better so people don't feel they have to turn to crime. Granted, this won't stop every crime, but perhaps it will stop theft. For example, a lot of "crime" is drug related. Make drugs legal, much like tobacco and, more relevant, alcohol is legal. Take the money spent on the "war against drugs" and spend it on educating children as to the dangers of drugs (among other things!)
Btw, I don't personally have any guns right now. I do techinically own a couple of shotguns that were willed to me when my grandfathers passed away, but they're with my father at the moment. I don't feel I "need" them to protect myself from the government. I also don't think the government should take them away from me. I will only use them responsibly, if ever.
heck, I forgot what my point was. Gotta killer headache and lost train of thought. :(
-
I have several guns but the only time I would use them is if someone tried to take them away from me.
-
The point is, per the original writers of our constitution: we all have the right to bear arms. The full meaning of the particular "militia" mentioned in the constitution is a legal definition for all free men not affiliated with the government's army and militias, it did not mean the National Guard or organized groups of paranoid wackos afraid of the feds.
As with any right, you can refuse to exercise it. But those who do not desire to speak freely or bear arms should not be able to interfere with others who choose to exercise their rights fully. Regardless of any dictionary or common sense definition of a "right", in this country we are bound by legal defintions that can only be disputed via the supreme court. The supreme court stands by the above interpretation (for the time being). Other lesser congressional laws do directly conflict with the rights to free speech and bearing arms, but no one has successfully challenged these conflicts in court to resolve them, so per our wonderful system, they stand.
On a side note, do a little research and look up the amendment that created the IRS (I forget the number): note that it was never ratified by congress. The IRS does not exist legally by our constitution. Yet, there are laws which will legally punish you for false income tax reports and once you are in the system there is no legal escape. But a handful of people have refused to enter the income tax system on the grounds it is not constitutional, and won quickly and quietly in court (not the kind of thing the government would like widely published).
[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]
-
Is Income Tax Legal? Evidence suggests 16th Amendment never ratified
Constitution News
Source: www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_franke/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.shtml (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_franke/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.shtml)
Published: 7-9-99 Author: David Franke
Posted on 07/09/1999 03:12:02 PDT by Born in a Rage
WASHINGTON-- Evidence strongly suggets that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.
"If this evidence is true, the income tax is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," says Robert L. Schulz.
Schulz is head of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., a New York state-based organization that hosted a symposium in Washington last week on the topic, "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?" The foundation twice sent registered letters to President Clinton, Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, asking them to send representatives to the symposium who could explain the government's case for the legality of the income tax. They received no response, much less a speaker, but part of the conference was covered by C-SPAN and that resulted in hundreds of friendly responses from viewers.
A key speaker at the symposium was William J. Benson, author of a two-volume investigative report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment entitled "The Law That Never Was."
Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get the case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount" he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.
What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax-- the granddaddy of the state income taxes-- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.
That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.
In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."
All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.
The ratification required by at least 36 states-- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence-- ha sto be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.
Of the 48 states, here's the story:
----Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
----Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
----Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded voice count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
----Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
----Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
----And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)
Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states-- far less than the required 36.
Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Supress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."
Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.
"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking out about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."
And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.
"I now have to use a cane and walker, and ofetn a whellchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."
An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeapordy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.
This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.
The latest chapter in Benson's saga is the counterattack.
"As soon as I get back to Illinois I'm suing them-- every one of them," Benson told WorldNetDaily-- and he started listing them: four U.S. attorneys, a first assistant U.S. attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. All except the judge, that is. "I could sue the judge-- no question -- but I'm not going to do that," Benson added.
"Fear is the worst thing you face," said Benson of his prison experiences. And now it's time for the prosecutors who were his persecutors to be afraid.
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
Hey Rip, here is something to think about...
bunch of whackos baricaded themselves with all sorts of guns and ammo in a building in texas not so long ago, and guess what ? Didn't help them at all, did it ?
Maybe if we allow everyone to have a howitzer, just maybe then you will be able to defend yourself from a government....
Don't kid yourself folks, if goverment wants your ass, they will have it and your M60 or Ar16 won't stop them.
There are exceptions to every rule, in every country, I can think of 10 off the top of my head.
If guns were illegal in the US, this 'cult' would have still had them regardless.
-
bunch of whackos baricaded themselves with all sorts of guns and ammo in a building in texas not so long ago, and guess what ? Didn't help them at all, did it ?
Let me ask you this... what would have happened if the entire town of Waco would have decided this action was unmerrited and decided to act against it?
Guns ownership (and the rights to it) isn't intended to help small groups overthrow the government. Its intended to help the majority of the people keep the government pointed in the right direction... and able to help themselves out if something goes wrong.
And... have you been by a National Guard armory before? Do you really believe none of that would be used by the people?
Bah... pointless argument anyways.
AKDejaVu
-
"Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges."
Now that is the federal government I came to know and love while serving 8 years on submarines. It regularly abuses its power by severely punishing those who don't cooperate with the corrupt powers that be (by trying to obey and enforce the very rules the government created). The government has a "waste, fraud, and abuse" anonymous whistle blower hotline. Whoever invented that was a genius. The government gets its enemies (honest people trying to do the right thing) to call them directly and tell them where they are at. I pitied everyone that ever called that number. Sooner or later it was always proved that the only "real" fraud was their phone call, so their plea was ignored by the higher echelons they had called, and they were punished by the local leadership for trying to squeal on them.
I have been out for 4 years now, and I am so glad I am no longer directly a part of their political power games. Timothy McVeigh and other people like him are certainly not heroes, but neither are the people he was trying to attack. I personally prefer Ghandi's approach. Passive resitance on a national level is awesome. Hell, even TV images of a few thousand Chinese college students being run over by tanks in the name of freedom leaves an impression that lasts a lifetime. Nobody can abuse power if the people beneath them refuse to do what they are told. You just have to be willing to risk your life for your principles. Plenty of people have already done so by serving in the military. If everyone throughout the world had that level of courage, there could be no tyrannical governments.
[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]
-
Heh well I've followed the benson case and it seems it comes down to the wording of one sentence.
if one stretches it a bit, one could get outta it what benson claims.
It's akin to a poorly phrased sentence like
"the humans and their dogs then talked"
Did the humans talk to the humans, or did the humans talk to the dogs? or did the humans talk to the humans and the dogs to the dogs? or did some dogs talk to humans?
Now, a computer would have trouble parsing that message. Benson tried to capitalize on it, and failed.
-
I do not believe guns make you anymore citizens, btw. Even here it is possible to get hold of guns - pistols, revolvers and semi/full automatics being difficult to get, but rifles of small and large calibres being very wide spread.
The US government has to its disposal everything from teargas to nuclear weapons. Why it'd terminate the thing that makes it exist (the people) is beyond me, so it's safe to say that this won't happen.
It might try to turn into a fascist state which murders its citizens. Owning a handgun might result in the death of one of the soldiers that come to arrest you and your family at 3am in the morning, but just as the regime is indifferent to your impending death, so it is indifferent to the deaths of a few of it's "secret police".
What I am saying is that using them in defense in this way is going to be very inefficient. And, the regime might go a bit further and decide to torture the relatives of whoever kills one of their secret police members, just that little bit extra.
The alternative is some form of guerilla warfare, either through the underground method seen by the resistance movements and various terrorist organisations in Europe, or by partisan methods where you disrupt and attack enemy lines of communication. The drawback to this is you need a relatively large force and if the regime gets attacked, they'll pour in resources to deal with the threat. Shelling a few towns wouldn't be outside the moral restrictions on this terrible terrible regime.
Whether you have a Colt 45 or a Remington .308 won't make much of a difference against artillery shells, APC's and tanks. If anything, the hunting rifle with its greater penetration, range and accuracy is a preferable weapon. And a shotgun does the job better at close range than a pistol.
What options does the American have that a European living in a country where hunting is widespread have? Your guns are registered (some or most of them), and so our ours (some or most of them).
You're restricted to the same style of resistance as the European person would be - and Europeans have been there, tried that. Lots of stuff was blown up even when one of the worst regimes of terror fell upon Europe. Members of my family were helping the resistance by stockpiling weapons and explosives that were illegaly obtained.
Explain to me, dear Americans, how you are more citizens than I am. i believe you live under the false assumption that the US is somehow more free than the rest of the western countries, something I personally feel is a bit insulting.
-
Apples and Oranges. We Americans have a somewhat different mentality... we get friggen pissed when some bozo starts stomping on us. You bring that same Nazi scum over here in the 30's and 40's and let them roll their tanks in and see what would of happened. You saw what happened after Peral Harbor... did we friggen fold? Did we say oh... you can have that? NO... and its still that way.
Oh.. so we cant defend ourselfs vrs MODERN miltaries...ROTFL. roadkill... I have ONE word... VIETCONG, tell them that. You can have the best damn equipment in the world but you have to be able to apply that force. The Vietcong understood this... hit and dispurse. Kill the men operating the equipment, drain them, wear them down. It worked...
Just because you guys mostly rolled over and played dead doesnt mean we would... so get over it. Oh... and I'm not including the Brits... they wouldnt give in if you stomped then to death.
xBAT
"Made in the USA"
-
"i believe you live under the false assumption that the US is somehow more free than the rest of the western countries"
Santa, repost that bit about how Denmark won't let you dive on a WW2 wreck. ;)
I haven't lived for long lengths of time in Europe but I've had many, many visits of up to a month. My impression is that you folks do in fact have many more laws and regulations covering what a person chooses to do than we have.
Just an impression.
-
Toad, just as you have regulations regarding how you can have sex :). I've seen some of those laws. Not to mention different policy on drugs to mention one other thing. Or the freedom to enjoy a beer in a public place such as on a bench next to a busy road.
Or prostitution. We could go in and compare all the nitty gritty small details, but that's not my point. With regards to the big things, such as freedom of speech and so forth, we have these rights in most european countries. Freedom is not an American owned concept, and it wasn't concieved by Americans. An "ugly American", a la batdog, will suggest it is, and this type of ignorance or selective understanding of the world is one of the reasons Europeans and Americans sometimes begin to argue.
With comments abut Vietnam etc, several things are quite different. A) there's not a helluva lot of jungle to hide in. B) There's not a major superpower providing weapons. C) the attacking force doesn't come from half a world away.
batdog, keep your crap to yourself until you learn how to learn.
batdog, you were in a nation that had an armed force equivalent to the Swedish one, maybe a little bigger at the start of WWII. if the US had been neighbor to germany, like Denmark is, you'd be whacked so hard in your head perhaps that pompous attitude of yours would have been dislodged from your anus when your feet were inserted into said anus.
Americans did great in WWII, not disputing that, but you need to realize and understand the relative military strenghts and the socio-economic situation of prewar Europe before posting such ignorant roadkill as you just have done. I cannot believe one has such a comprehensive lack of these concepts, so I'll take it you're a troll and be done with you now.
:)
-
StSanta
I agree with most of what you posted BUT ...
---------------------------------------------
With comments abut Vietnam etc., several things are quite different. A) there's not a helluva lot of jungle to hide in. B) There's not a major superpower providing weapons. C) the attacking force doesn't come from half a world away.
---------------------------------------------
Afghanistan: Not a lot of Jungles to hide in ... No major superpower providing weapons at least not to the extent of Vietnam ... the attacking force did not come from half a world away.
Throughout History small "armed countries" have successfully resisted invasions, not always, but enough to count. I can find no case of a disarmed country being successful in this endeavor. If a whole people wish to resist, by force of arms, they are usually successful if they have any sort of weaponry and usually fail if they do not.
As to WWII the Russians (all of Europe in fact) fared poorly in the beginning, even while having a larger army (in some cases). It is my opinion that this was largely due to having unarmed populations. Once the population began to become "armed" (mostly with "found" weaponry) the tide turned. I read somewhere that later in the war some 1/3 of the German army was on anti partisan duty. There is still (in some quarters) speculation on the results if the Germans had carried weapons to arm the Russians who greeted them as liberators, and treated them as allies.
But what ifs are fun to play with. ;)
-
Oh.. so we cant defend ourselfs vrs MODERN miltaries...ROTFL. roadkill... I have ONE word... VIETCONG, tell them that. You can have the best damn equipment in the world but you have to be able to apply that force. The Vietcong understood this... hit and dispurse. Kill the men operating the equipment, drain them, wear them down. It worked...
[/QB]
The strategy and to a lesser extent the tactics of the VC never worked from a military point of view, they only achieved their goal by political means. And if the modern military power you referred to didn't constrain itself so extremely as the US and allies did in VN than the VC and alikes would be annihilated very quickly. Even though it gives max results out of small forces with limited resources guerilla warfare is still no match for a dedicated military power.
-
Santa, what of this from Thud who's profile says he's from the Netherlands?
Originally posted by Thud:
It is very sad though that statements in the categories I mentioned before (racist, discriminating, deregatory towards minorities etc.) are not forbidden by law and penalized as they should be. I think it's a grave shortcoming of a society if they don't adapt their laws to prevent these kinds of extremist views to be expressed.
I assume, possibly in error, that some European countries have such laws about speech?
Here, otoh, we have this example:
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3accbec7.612,.html (http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/home.pat,local/3accbec7.612,.html)
"Missouri's decision to deny a vanity license plate bearing "ARYAN-1" violated the constitutional rights of a Jefferson City woman, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. ...Robert Herman, a St. Louis lawyer who pressed Lewis' claim for the American Civil Liberties Union, framed the dispute as a classic free-speech issue covered by the First Amendment.
"This is another example of the government trying to enforce the notion of political correctness," said Herman. "They shouldn't be allowed to do that."
Just one example.
As for the "armed citizen" thing, all of this is mere speculation. If it ever came to a showdown between a powerful but unpopular Federal Government it would be very interesting to see how it played out.
All our Armed Forces pledge to defend the Constitution, not any particular person or Office of Government or for that matter the Government itself.
The National Guard, which is currently assuming a greater role in the US military, is by nature a very "local" rather than "national" force.
I doubt it will ever come to that, but it makes interesting "what if" conversation.
One thing is NOT specualtion, however. If ever the "Government" came to herd me and mine down to the train station in order to send us off to a place where "Arbat Macht Frei" the stand would be made right there.
:D
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Okay... first off the US is FULL of areas that would be a gerrilla fighters dream. We have huge population centers, forest galore, swamps etc.
The concept of hit and run warefare is attrition. You never win any conculsive engagements. You never allow yourself to be drawn into a head to head engagement. You strike for max effect and min damage to yourself. The goal wouldnt be to DEFEAT a hostile government, it would be to wear out its will... Vietnam did this to us and we could do the same to a government gone bad here.
If the US had been hit by Germany in WW2 you'd of had farmboys,city pep's and hillbilly types blasting away with whatever was at hand... Vietnam 20yrs earlier. The damn Germans would of been in a meatgrinder. My grandfather was a moonshiner roughneck that hates Nazies with a passion... and there isnt any rollover in him. That entire generation was pretty fired up and I'd put MY money on them anyday.
As far as the personal attacks... baaa, I've heard alot worse, and far more original :) AND perhaps my tone was abit abrasive.
I think history has often showed that many non-americans simply dont understand us and make false assumptions based on experiences with others peoples, nations etc. We are a different breed... some good some bad but most certainly different.
xBAT
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: batdog ]
-
Originally posted by batdog:
If the US had been hit by Germany in WW2 you'd of had farmboys,city pep's and hillbilly types blasting away with whatever was at hand... Vietnam 20yrs earlier. The damn Germans would of been in a meatgrinder.
Too many Patrick Sweazy movies for you i guess...
-
When Fd-ski can't come back with a logical rebuttal, he turns to stero-typing, typical. :)
-
Toad said:
posted 06-13-2001 10:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa, what of this from Thud who's profile says he's from the Netherlands?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thud:
It is very sad though that statements in the categories I mentioned before (racist, discriminating, deregatory towards minorities etc.) are not forbidden by law and penalized as they should be. I think it's a grave shortcoming of a society if they don't adapt their laws to prevent these kinds of extremist views to be expressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I assume, possibly in error, that some European countries have such laws about speech?"
---------------------------------------------
The Europeen community has adopted a law against discrimination, racism and unequality very recently. It litterally says under definition of discrimination:"The creating of an environment insulting, hostile, derogatory, hurtful based on race or ethnicity is considered discrimination."
Under sanctions it says:"The memberstates are allowed to implemet their own sanctions, they have to be sufficient, corresponding with the fact committed and sufficiently deterring." All membercountries have signed this and in 2003 these all sanctions are to be reviewed and possibly changed to be more uniform overall.
"Santa, what of this from Thud who's profile says he's from the Netherlands?"
I might have these ideas but I can assure you that the majority of Dutch people does not fully agree with this. So you might want to review your prejudicial ideas on Europeans.
BTW as for that stupid squeak with the ARYAN-1 licenseplate: Just filing the request for the plates should have her put away in a sanatorium and a straight-jacket, on the other hand it would be fun if some really big truck didn't brake in time if she drove around with her new shiny plates.
If you think a constitution should entitle citizens to have such plates you're a moron.
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Thud ]
-
Give me a billet of steel and 1 week i will give u a gun. gun control is to keep the masses happy. pro firearms people are a loud minority. when they finaly get this regisration bit down i will turn in 1 homemade gun a week. first couple will probably be just pipe guns, then i will buy a milling machine metal lathe combo & make some fun ones :)
-
Thud,
I am/was not being "prejudicial" against anyone, not even Euros. ;)
I just didn't know if there actually were such laws as you mentioned. Apparently there are.
So, thanks for the information.
There you are Santa. Those laws are a BIG difference in personal freedoms.
So, along with that moron Voltaire and the American Civil Liberties Union morons and uncountable other "morons", :D I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
-
Originally poseted by Thud:
BTW as for that stupid squeak with the ARYAN-1 licenseplate: Just filing the request for the plates should have her put away in a sanatorium and a straight-jacket, on the other hand it would be fun if some really big truck didn't brake in time if she drove around with her new shiny plates.
Now you are getting out right scary. Why sanatorium? Why not the re-education camp? Or why not just nip it in a bud, and just whack "that stupid squeak".
You Sir, have no clue what the word right means.
But than again, you've already said:
OK, granted, but that doesn't imply that people shouldn't give up that 'right' for a greater good and let society benefit from their action.
And obviously you aspire to be a final abiter who should give up their rights, and what the "greater good" is.
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
-Thomas Jefferson (1791)
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.
-Thomas B. Reed (1886)
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt (1783)
The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients.
-Edmund Burke (1899)
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-Louis Brandeis (1928)
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
-Daniel Webster
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?
-Thomas Jefferson (1801)
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
-H.L. Mencken
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Thud,
I am/was not being "prejudicial" against anyone, not even Euros. ;)
"
Then I'm sorry, Toad. I apparently misunderstood your statement about my post giving away me being an european, my fault.
Posted by Mietla:
"Now you are getting out right scary. Why sanatorium? Why not the re-education camp? Or why not just nip it in a bud, and just whack "that stupid squeak"?"
I said nothing about a camp, but yes, sanatorium. Do you believe that this woman is actually mentally sane and accountable for her actions? I think if you're convinced of that you're out right scary rather than me. And I don't think that 'whacking "that stupid squeak"', as you have quoted correctly (I got a bit agitated when reading the story, should indeed have used "woman") is a solution either. Still think that she is mentally ill though, same as with guy from Florida? who caused quite a international stir with his 'ZYKLON-B' plates a few years ago.
Posted by Mietla:
"But than again, you've already said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, granted, but that doesn't imply that people shouldn't give up that 'right' for a greater good and let society benefit from their action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And obviously you aspire to be a final abiter who should give up their rights, and what the "greater good" is."
I think you know very well that 'the greater good' I was referring to in that post was public safety. Furthermore I think that you have concluded from my previous posts as well that I don't aspire to be a 'final arbiter' on anything, but that I rather let the popular vote decide in most instances whether anything is a 'greater good' indeed or not.
-
Toad, IIRC, there are anti racist laws in the US too, as well as other infringements on the right of free speech such as disallowing yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded cinema.
In Denmark, one is allowed to publicly display the nazi swastika; there's a huge one hanging on a house not 500 meters from where I live, and now and then European nazi's meet here.
And they're protected by our constitution through the right of free speech. I believe in some states in the US, this is not legal.
We could go on comparing minor details like this Toad, but both you and I know it's not the issue. While there are minor differences the freedoms we enjoy in both nations are overall equal. our nations have different ways of dealing with issues like crime, drugs and so forth, but it is a diverse world. What we share is freedom of press, freedom of speech and so forth.
And, I contend, we're just as much citizens as you are. We have a small state, very low corruption and due to the homogenity, we're able to keep our politicians somewhat honest, something that is definitely not true in the US, and something that you and others are quick to point out.
And we got enough weapons to defend ourselves against the state. Our military is pitifully small and couldn't handle a revolution very effectively.
We're citizens, and we're free citizens. This is not just an American phenomenon, and never has been.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
My argument at the time was that it is hard to imagine some one commiting mass murder with a knife...
well some jap read that post and decided to prove me wrong I guess.
Actually, with their long, respected and recent tradition of edged weapons (the Yakuza still prefer them to guns), it was far more likely to happen in Japan. One should not assume that this particular sicko used a knife because he couldn't get a gun.
There is every reason to believe the amount of gun crime in the US is in fact directly related to the availability of guns. Proper education and personal discipline would help, but mandating education and discipline would require a more repressive and intrusive Big Brother than anything gun control would ever bring.
And, just to stir the pot a little more, I should point out that the Second Amendment does NOT give all citizens an unconditional right to bear arms. Anyone who thinks that should go and READ the amendment.
Hey - SOMEONE had to say it :)
- Yoj
-
Originally posted by Thud:
I said nothing about a camp, but yes, sanatorium.
It is only a matter of degree. Would she be "medicated"? Shock theraphy perhaps?
You obviously allow (even demand) that people are punished for their views. I do not. Neither does our Constitution.
And again, you are completely misguided and uninformed. The Constitution is not a subject of the public opinion polls. It does not matter what the public wants, we still have those fundamental rights. At least until the Constitution is abolished or ammended.
Do you believe that this woman is actually mentally sane and accountable for her actions? I think if you're convinced of that you're out right scary rather than me.
I do not know her mental state, and neither do you. And yet, you feel entitled to define her mental capacity by the views she is displaying.
Would you support the following line of reasoning as well?
Only an insane person would support Communist views... therefore
... every person who supports Communism is insane.... therefore
... every Communist should be sent to a "sanatorium"
Originally posted by Thud:
... [ I ] Still think that she is mentally ill though, ...
On what are you are basing this statement? Please do tell.
Originally posted by Thud:
I think you know very well that 'the greater good' I was referring to in that post was public safety.
There is no "greater good". Hitler, Statin, Mao, Pol-Pot etc. did what they did for the "greater good". And yes, most of their people supported them in this "greater good".
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
-Daniel Webster
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt (1783)
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
Santa, check the thread. I am not the one that got into the "citzen/not citzen" debate. I've simply made a few observations from the sidelines.
I'm glad you're a happy Euro. I hope you're glad I'm a happy Yank. :D You don't have to worry about me moving over there for a second. I'll just visit now and again. ;)
I must admit, Thud's views are a bit too.. um... reminiscent of a time I would not want to relive...for me. I'm normally not a big fan of the ACLU, but they did the right thing in this case. :D
Yoj, there's one or two real good 2nd threads where all those horses you're alluding to have been severely thrashed and the remains fed to the coyotes. So, I won't comment here. ;)
I'm out of here to go re-read some Voltaire.
-
Originally posted by Mietla:
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thud:
I said nothing about a camp, but yes, sanatorium.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is only a matter of degree. Would she be "medicated"? Shock theraphy perhaps?
You obviously allow (even demand) that people are punished for their views. I do not. Neither does our Constitution."
FYI, I did not say that she should be sent to the sanatorium for having her (sick) view, I said that she should be sent to a sanatorium for requesting and using the licenseplates in question.
And again, you are completely misguided and uninformed. The Constitution is not a subject of the public opinion polls. It does not matter what the public wants, we still have those fundamental rights. At least until the Constitution is abolished or ammended."
And again you did not read properly what I stated: I was not referring to the constitution, constitutional rights or any of the alike. I wrote that I think that the popular vote should decide on anything being a 'greater good' or not, i.e. should a certain idea (in a political program of a certain party) be pursued/implemented, if the dems for example want to introduce a higher minimum wage for all, and they win the next election by a large margin, you can assume that many citizens find this indeed an idea worth pursuing. And for something like public safety, the only greater good I ever referred to, I am sure that everybody agrees with me that's indeed a 'greater good'. This all in response to you writing that I wanted to be the final arbiter to whether somehing being a greater good or not.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe that this woman is actually mentally sane and accountable for her actions? I think if you're convinced of that you're out right scary rather than me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know her mental state, and neither do you. And yet, you feel entitled to define her mental capacity by the views she is displaying.
Would you support the following line of reasoning as well?
Only an insane person would support Communist views... therefore
... every person who supports Communism is insane.... therefore
... every Communist should be sent to a "sanatorium"[/i]
Nice cliche, I don't think that communists should be sent to a sanatorium, though. The ones that believe that the capitalist society must me overthrown by revolution and all capitalists should be eliminated could use some counselling, yes. Same goes for those that have actually tried to achieve those ideals by violence, i.e. movements like RAF and Red Brigades. So if you have been paying attention I draw the line between someone having a opinion on politics, society etc. to which he/she is fully entitled of course, and qualifying for a sanatorium at the point where they begin to have violent ideas on other groups, either the non-like minded or just someone that happens to be the subject of their wonderful ideology.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thud:
... [ I ] Still think that she is mentally ill though, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On what are you are basing this statement? Please do tell.
You think that she is mentally sane? Anyone who can justify to theirselves to drive around with ARYAN or ZYKLON-B has a twisted mind, in fact you're saying that you're a strong proponent of the holocaust, that does almost qualify you as mentally ill already, the public display of it makes it worse. These expressions should be forbidden, just like using the swastika for other than educational reasons.
Originally posted by mietla:
"There is no "greater good". Hitler, Statin, Mao, Pol-Pot etc. did what they did for the "greater good". And yes, most of their people supported them in this "greater good"."
Because these criminals used to refer to their deranged ideals as 'the greater good' does not mean that real 'greater goods' like public safety, good healthcare, reasonable living conditions for all, a suppression free environment etc, etc. can be compared to their outrageous ideas. Not very well-mannered to associate these with the people above.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Yoj, there's one or two real good 2nd threads where all those horses you're alluding to have been severely thrashed and the remains fed to the coyotes. So, I won't comment here. ;)
Yeah - I'm too irregular a reader of these boards to catch all the goodies :) Ah well - another time.
- Yoj
-
The constitutional rights are not a subject of opinion polls.
Sorry but Pongo has no rights, he's Canadian.
-
just look at all the places that have strong gun controls ..the UK for instance they all have high % gun related crimes.. while places that have relaxed gun control laws have low % gun related crimes.... criminals dont care if guns are banned in fact they would like it because they know the ppl they are robbing etc dont have guns to protect themselves with. just like with drugs and before that if you can remember alcohol there will be more crime if you ban something with that much demand...
America already has "The war on Drugs" and "The war on terrorism"
do we really need "The war on guns?"
-
Originally posted by Thud
... So if you have been paying attention I draw the line between someone having a opinion on politics, society etc. to which he/she is fully entitled of course, and qualifying for a sanatorium at the point where they begin to have violent ideas on other groups, either the non-like minded or just someone that happens to be the subject of their wonderful ideology.
No, you draw line at expression of "forbidden" ideas, as you say yourself below.
...You think that she is mentally sane? Anyone who can justify to theirselves to drive around with ARYAN or ZYKLON-B has a twisted mind, in fact you're saying that you're a strong proponent of the holocaust, that does almost qualify you as mentally ill already, the public display of it makes it worse. These expressions should be forbidden, just like using the swastika for other than educational reasons.
Hey, now mietla is borderline insane. No violent expressions from him tho. And I guess I'm almost insane for agreeing with him. Best to bring us all in for examination I suppose. After all, its only for the greater good right?
Nice little society your'e advocating here. Everyone is free to think what they want, but only speach approved by the government(or whoever is holding the big "INSANE" stamp) is allowed.
You're not at all like Hitler, Stalin, etc.. You want to imprison those with incorrect ideas because you really care. Those other guys did it because they were big meanies.
-
Originally posted by BNM
Sorry but Pongo has no rights, he's Canadian.
Even in the US. you have the constitutional right to an opinion though I believe.
-
fd... why waco? why not the SLA? lot's of nut groups with clearly anti social agendas and human rights violations that are armed but.... even then... our government is very careful when confronting them... And... if they handle it badly... like waco... they get burned... I think that waco taught most people that it is a good idea to be armed not the oppossite.
As deja says... imagine if the government were say... wanting to ban religion and the whole town of waco stood up to em... imagine that while the government were trying to put out that fire 100 other armed "religious fanatics" groups all over the country all defended their rights with firearms.. Now imagine how hard it would be to conscript new army from an armed populace.
as for your 5 year olds with M60's... I don't belive children should have guns or chainsaws or even cars without adult supervision but... If it were known that even 10% of the teachers might be concealed carry permit holders and armed.... how many school shootings would we have? What is the solution most schools are finally using? stricter searches? no.... ARMED guards. They are putting guins in the guinh free zones.
The japs are pikers... any goo ol American psyco could come up with a better gun free way of mass murdering children. Crashing a plane or semi truck... explosives... poison... the list is endless...
lazs
-
The only way I could agree with a ban on firearms is if we retrain those people who would be most affected by such a ban- the career criminal. We need to retrain the robbers and gangbangers and guarantee them Government jobs for a firearms ban to ever be effective, otherwise they won't be willing to give their guns up.
-
is this thread too serious for this forum
-
Interestingly enough Air...thats been done in Canada. We now ensure that all career criminals are politicians.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Whether you have a Colt 45 or a Remington .308 won't make much of a difference against artillery shells, APC's and tanks.
I'll bet they'd make a difference against three Somalians at your door threatening you with a knife.