The American Freedom - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-26-2002, 04:40 AM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba

I have a great idea: if you like England so damn much, do what the multi-national corporations do: move to a country whose laws you like - and leave us gun-toters to our rights.
So any criticism of the US' lack of gun-control is unwelcome and means that the person offering the criticism should just leave the country? So much for the free speech you claim to value so highly.

Besides, we live in a world where MNCs might be free to move to whatever country they choose but ordinary people aren't afforded such freedoms - Western countries have strict controls on immigration - the UK stricter than many, in fact.
__________________

FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 06:52 AM   #82
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Does anyone know of any figures on shootings of people who break and enter, in either America or other place with similar gun laws? I'm with the opinion there is no place in the home for weapons, but I got to thinking and even though I still cant validate it with any reasons pro gun folks offer, perhaps statistics on how many intruders are shot during B&E's would be interesting.
Gun or no gun, I honestly still believe that self defense is not a valid argument for most people. I know personally, that if I encountered an intruder in my house especially one with a weapon, I would not argue over a $300 vcr. I could also not shoot someone over it. I have insurance, and while burglary is awful, I would get over that a lot quicker than I would shooting someone. If I had a gun, I doubt I could use it. I guess thats hard to say, I just hope I never have to find out.
But honestly, how will having a gun in your possession help in the average break in? Someone breaks in, they have a gun. Stats I read somewhere once said that it is not common for the average robber to use their firearms. Now facing this situation, you are not likely to care. Surely yours and your family's safety are paramount? You are not concerned about possessions. Only lives. Now what if you are also in possession of a gun? You produce your gun. Your intruder is now threatened. His advantage over you is not as powerful. Without you having a gun, he has no need to actually contemplate using it, its is enough of a threat by the sheer presence of it. A gun waved in a man's face will make him very pliant. You show yours, and it becomes a standoff. Produces anger. The intruder will not likely walk meekly out. Who shoots who first? Isn't that what this becomes? Shot or be shot? I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind over this, I cant. Guns dont help. They create more trouble. Get a dog. Get 2 dogs. Put deadlocks on every entry point to your home. An intruder only wants your tv and vcr. Not your life.
__________________

__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 12:37 PM   #83
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
So any criticism of the US' lack of gun-control is unwelcome and means that the person offering the criticism should just leave the country? So much for the free speech you claim to value so highly.
So much for the free speech? What about my free speech to suggest that Sting move to another country if the U.S. in its current state is so messed up?

Besides, I wasn't telling him to "shut up or leave," and HIS level of criticism isn't exactly just "any criticism." It strikes me as a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of how things work, including - but not limited to - the basic American tenet of individual liberty and the American mistrust of a powerful, centralized government.

It seems to me his ENTIRE argument has revolved around one basic point of view: that the individual is evil and untrustworthy; that the government is not; that the individual should forfeit his rights to the government in order to be made safe from other threats; and that the people have no right to abolish that government even if it goes too far.

That attitude is in DIRECT contradiction to the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

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.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

God knows that I would be burned at the stake for daring to call anyone or any opinion "un-American," but the fact remains: Sting's comments are very often in direct conflict with the documents on which this nation was founded - and their FIRST principles of individual liberty.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 05:33 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:57 PM
I said IN GENERAL(that does not mean every time) in World War II, it took a tank to kill another tank. What that means is that in most situations tanks were needed to stop other tanks. Small platoons with anti-tank weapons, were SOMETIMES able to defeat tanks by hitting them in the rear. But Anti-tank weapons were needed, small arms were useless. There is no contradiction. Sorry that I did not make that clear.

Again, take any number of people that you want, if none of them have a weapon that can defeat a tank, their going to lose. Which gets back to one of my main points that the right to have small arms does nothing in the 21st century to protect citizens from a tyranical government. Only if citizens were allowed to buy the full range of military hardware available to the military, plus somehow getting the extensive training to use it, would you even begin to start to have the ability to take on the federal government. One of those radical militia's in Idaho I think, suggested that they be allowed to buy tanks, fighters and other large modern weapons platforms.

I stated before that in 2002, Russia and China or any other country, do not have the power projection capabilities to either support or launch a large scale conventional military attack on the USA mainland. If you really want me to prove this to you I CAN! Those countries can of course launch large conventional attacks or threaten US interest overseas, but not the Continental USA. In fact China lacks the power projection capabilities to successfully take and hold Tawain currently! Just in short, any overseas power projection capability of a large conventional military force requires exstensive naval power and extensive sea lift capability. Both Russia and China lack both and no other single country has it either. Remember, simply the ability to launch a strike is not the ability land and supply a large conventional military force across thousands of miles of ocean. If you want me to provide you the military numbers and a report on three possible ways China could attempt to take Tawain, and why all would fail, plus an analyses of the current state of the Russian military, I would love to, but in a seperate post. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, while having the ability to take Western Europe, the Middle East, and northern China, did not have the ability to invade and take the continental USA. Sorry but the movie Red Dawn is more hollywood fantasy than reality.

Back to the main debate, while its true technically that 75% of the elected Federal government(not 51%) could do everything they want including amending the constitution, they would only be able to succeed with the full support of the USA military which they would never get. This is the ultimate check on federal government. As I have stated before, there are bad apples in every organization including the military. But your least likely to find them in the USA military. The training to include code's of conduct and ethics and the understanding of democracy and its relationship to the miltary prevent the USA military from being used in such a fasion against its own people. Such training is now being given to the military's of the former Warsaw Pact Countries that are now becoming members in NATO. Sorry but this type and level of training did not exist in the military's of the recent past. Plus while there are obvious ways of corrupting politicians, there is no obvious way of corrupting someone in the military who is prepared to die to defend his countries security, freedom, both economic and political.

I agree that we do have safeguards against tyranny of which the US military is the most powerful one. The government is powerless to be tyranical without the US military. Even if the US Military did support the tyranical government, small arms of civilians would not safeguard anything in that respect.

The NRA and labor unions DO NOT Represent me or many of my friends! Yes thats right, there are many people in the USA who feel the idea's of the NRA and labor unions threaten their security and economic prosperity. The NRA's opposition to gun control and the labor unions opposition to free trade.

While there is no perfect political process, the governments in Europe are not nearly tainted by the amount of money that is involved in the US process. I favor a process in which there a multiple parties, and the length of the entire process begining to end to elect a candidiate is less than 2 months. The fact is, in Europe, people run for political office at the fraction of the cost it takes here.

Its not fair if one candidate can buy more advertising time for his "free speech". The process then becomes not about democracy, but who has the most money to buy enough advertising time to trample their oponent. The guy with no money may have better idea's for solving problems, but since he has little or no money, he can't be heard. What happens is the political process resembles more of a business process. The Republicans vs. the Democrats looks more like COKE vs. PEPSI than democracy.

In the debates, equal time is given to both candidates. Why is the principle of equal time so anti-democratic? The only thing that gives someone more time to get their point across is their MONEY! Whats democratic about that? The fact is, for the process to become more democratic, the money factor has to be eliminated. No more campaign contributions from special interest. The guy working at the HOT DOG stand should have just as much influence on the political process as Bill Gates does. Most of the corruption that is in the government today is because of special interest like labor unions and the NRA. Yes, although they may be few, there are rich people and famous people to in the NRA. Hell, the NRA have Moses speaking for them. Bottom line, give the process back to individuals instead of corporations and special interest.

I have stated that things are radically different today in that power is vested in the private sector and not the government as has always been in the past. The government or the miltiary may have Idea's for weapons and other things, but its the private sector that builds them! McDonalds may not have ICBMs, or tanks, or any weapons at all, but their influence on society in peace time is far greater than the governments military. People are not overweight and obese, and as a result dying early because of the government. Nor is McDonalds really at fault either, of course its personal behavior. But McDonalds is definitely a greater contributer to the problem than government is. Without government intervention you would not know how many calories and saturated fat your consuming in the food McDonalds sales! The Government intervened because of its concern about the general health of the public! McDonalds only cares about its level of profit, which is obviously hurt by the fact that consuming large quantities of its food can cause various health problems and even death due to heart disease caused by obesity.

Yes I know Two Trillion dollars is a lot of money, but its not the same as a lump sum of money in the hands of a business man. No oversite or checks and balances there. While in the case of the government, its not their personal income and no individual in the government has the power to decide where to spend a single penny of it, unlike the private sector. I like that there is that freedom in the private sector, but it does mean there is more potential for corruption and abuse.

The only way the money can be spent is through a policical process and voting. One has to form a consenses among their representives and this often involves compromises of every individuals idea's in order to reach a consenses on where to spend the money. Far more democratic than the way the private sector works, but thats what this government is. This makes it for more inefficient and slower than any business, but makes it more fair and democratic than the way businesses operate.

Plus, even with Two Trillion dollars in tax revenue that the Government simply redistributes to the private sector, the private sector keeps 80% of the money! 4 times of what the government has! Did the people in Roman times have 4 times as much wealth as the government in ROME? Did the Roman government redistribute the money to a private sector back then? Again, the fundamental difference today than in the past is that power resides in the private sector with the people. Think about this, as well, the people in the private sector, which is most of the population have the power to throw out every single politician making the decisions on where 20% of their money is redistributed. How really powerful is a politician if they can be thrown out by their constituants in as little as two years and never get elected again, or be impeached before serving the full length of their term. The only corruption to this process is the corporations and special interest that can essentially bribe a politician by supporting his reelection campaign. Again this comes from the private sector and private institutions, not the government.

Well the end goal of any business is monopoly. Monopoly is Soviet Style Communism. Ownership of all the means of productions and property by a small group of people and NO COMPETITION. There is nothing else besides Government that prevents this process from happening. Who or what else besides government can break up a monopolistic business? Government insures that monopoly will not happen, and the highest level of competition will remain. If you disagree with that please explain.

The checks and balances that exist in government protect the citizen from abuses and corruption from it. Besides, we the people are the government since we elect people to positions who are at first private citizens and others that go to work in government are or were private citizens as well. Then of course there is the military, without which the government is unable to coerce or threaten its people. I've already explained why todays US military would not do that because of the teaching and training that is recieved, plus the fact that it is an all volunteer military, with people that are already motivated to serve and protect freedom and are the organization least likely to be effected by corruption or bad apples in our society. The few that are bad apples, are vastly outnumbered by the rest that are not. Even if the fantasy of a tyranical government fully supported by the military came true, citizens small arms would be useless to stop it.

I said people in general tend to be more noble when they serve in government because they give up the greater profits in the private sector and subject themselves to a greater level of scrutiny. But I said in general which does not mean everyone again! The only thing wrong with what Clinton did is that he lied about it, and yes that is an impeachable offense and I supported the impeachment process. Also conducting sexual activity while working on serious problems is also wrong. By the way it was 24 year old intern. His behavior in this arena though is rated G compared to what the business leaders often engage in. Again although it happens, its far easier to engage in this activity in the private sector than it is in public office. My main point here is that I never said there were not any bad apples in government, just less than there are in the private sector.

My point about the murders being committed by more people in the private sector than in government is a simple fact that demonstrates the greater degree of good will by people in government than in the private sector. How is that obscene? Its a fact.

As far as Rush, NRA, and other conservitive or liberal instutition that often get their idea's views implemented by giving money to political campaigns of politicians that support their views, thats not democratic at all. It is a suppression of my personal influence in government for the simple reason that I do not have the level of money that they do. How is that democratic?

By the way, the only right I have really questioned is the right to bear arms. That is light years away from this suggestion of yours that I want to take away all the rights of all citizens. I fully support are democratic government and believe in Capitalism and fear monopoly and Communism as I have stated before. I believe in law and order and the freedom that comes from having that which I feel is infringed by the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens.

You know there was this guy named Timothy Mcvey(spelling) who believed that the government had become tyranical. He would of course would say that God and the Declaration of Independence gave him the right to pursue a course of action to fight the "tyranical government" by blowing up one of the "Tyranical governments" buildings in Oklahoma City killing hundreds of "Tyranical federal workers" and their childern in a daycare center on site. Do you think the Declaration Of Independence gave him the right to do this?

I actually might move to Europe for a while or more because of certain types of work, and a huge interest in the region and people, but not because I don't like the USA. I love the USA, but feel that we can do better as a society by adopting certain measures like the UKs gun control policy that have been proven to work, where as are's is a failure. I'm for the greater security and freedom that this gun control would bring to the USA!

Globalization is happening at a very rapid pace. As I write this my sister is working for a British company in Dublin Ireland. An American, working for the British, providing services to Irish Busineses in Dublin. Thats the 21st century.

You might be interested in taking a vacation to Somalia. There is no government at all, and people can arm themselves with what ever weapons they can get their hands on. I'm sure because of this that their very rich, have unparalled freedom, and personal safety and security is not an issue. Of course I'm joking, but I think you get my point.
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 07:34 PM   #85
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I said IN GENERAL(that does not mean every time) in World War II, it took a tank to kill another tank. What that means is that in most situations tanks were needed to stop other tanks. Small platoons with anti-tank weapons, were SOMETIMES able to defeat tanks by hitting them in the rear. But Anti-tank weapons were needed, small arms were useless. There is no contradiction. Sorry that I did not make that clear.
Funny, I recall in Saving Private Ryan that a group of infantry took on a tank with little more than improvised explosives. Silly me. But I agree: back to the main debate.

Quote:
Back to the main debate, while its true technically that 75% of the elected Federal government(not 51%) could do everything they want including amending the constitution, they would only be able to succeed with the full support of the USA military which they would never get.
Where in the depths of your ignorance do you get this information?

75 percent? When is a supermajority of THAT size needed to pass a law? Specifically, each house of Congress passes a law with a SIMPLE majority - 50% + 1 - and overrides a Presidential veto with a two-thirds majority (67%).

Even Constitutional amendments can be proposed with only a two-thirds majority. The other way that an amendment can be proposed is through the work of two-thirds of the states' legislatures. From there, a Convention is called, and an Amendment is only RATIFIED when three-fourths of the states' legislatures (or conventions, as determined by the national convention) approve the amendment.

(See Article V of the U.S. Constitution.)

I have no idea why you believe it takes 75% of the government to do anything. Nor do I know why you think the national government changes the Constitution when the STATES ratify new amendments. Your complete ignorance of how our political system works is galling.

And while I admit that officially change the Consitution is (and should be) a difficult process, IGNORING it has appeared to be relatively easy. Again, McCain-Feingold is, I believe, CLEARLY unconstitutional; it's so bad that some CONGRESSMEN admit that that fact, and hope the Supreme Court cuts out the unconsitutional parts. But the Court DOESN'T have to. Congress passed it - when only a simple majority was needed to do so - and the President signed it. If the Supreme Court upholds it, an unconstitutional bill has just been passed into law.

Again, nine men and women in black robes stand between an unconstitutional bill and us. And it takes only FIVE of them to let it through.

Quote:
This is the ultimate check on federal government. As I have stated before, there are bad apples in every organization including the military. But your least likely to find them in the USA military. The training to include code's of conduct and ethics and the understanding of democracy and its relationship to the miltary prevent the USA military from being used in such a fasion against its own people. Such training is now being given to the military's of the former Warsaw Pact Countries that are now becoming members in NATO. Sorry but this type and level of training did not exist in the military's of the recent past. Plus while there are obvious ways of corrupting politicians, there is no obvious way of corrupting someone in the military who is prepared to die to defend his countries security, freedom, both economic and political.

I agree that we do have safeguards against tyranny of which the US military is the most powerful one. The government is powerless to be tyranical without the US military. Even if the US Military did support the tyranical government, small arms of civilians would not safeguard anything in that respect.
Again, let's return to McCain-Feingold. Let's assume the Supreme Court lets the UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill through; given its recent tendency to follow its own whims rather than interpret the Constitution, that does seem to be a very real possibility.

How does the U.S. military save us from that?

Just curious.

And while I'm here, let me say this: while the trials following WWII made it particularly clear that soldiers were bound to disobey immoral commands, it's not clear that teaching that fact has become the main goal of Western military training. It seems to me that the militaries of the West are still being trained to follow orders first - and that those who are the BEST at following orders are the ones with the most military power. IF, God forbid, some tyrant tried to ascend to Hitler-esque powers in the United States, it's not AT ALL clear that:

A) the military would notice.
B) the military would decide that it's a bad thing.
C) the military rebel against its leaders to protect the American people.

Admittedly, it's also not clear whether the PEOPLE themselves would notice and rebel, but I would much rather NOT have just the military as a single, last-ditch defense.

Quote:
The NRA and labor unions DO NOT Represent me or many of my friends! Yes thats right, there are many people in the USA who feel the idea's of the NRA and labor unions threaten their security and economic prosperity. The NRA's opposition to gun control and the labor unions opposition to free trade.
(To make it clear: I agree with the NRA and will probably join the organization before I turn 30. I also strongly disagree with the actions of most labor unions, and have declined joining one at a summer job at a supermarket.)

There are organizations specifically designed to COUNTER the efforts of the NRA and trade unions. The First Amendment allows you to join THOSE organizations. And when you limit the access ALL these organizations have, you limit the political power of the individual members. Divde and conquer.

Quote:
While there is no perfect political process, the governments in Europe are not nearly tainted by the amount of money that is involved in the US process. I favor a process in which there a multiple parties, and the length of the entire process begining to end to elect a candidiate is less than 2 months. The fact is, in Europe, people run for political office at the fraction of the cost it takes here.
It also seems to me that these untainted governments are more thoroughly influenced by academic elites than by the interests of the common man. But what does THAT matter when the cost for running for office is so low?

Quote:
Its not fair if one candidate can buy more advertising time for his "free speech". The process then becomes not about democracy, but who has the most money to buy enough advertising time to trample their oponent. The guy with no money may have better idea's for solving problems, but since he has little or no money, he can't be heard. What happens is the political process resembles more of a business process. The Republicans vs. the Democrats looks more like COKE vs. PEPSI than democracy.
Your solution is that every nutcase who wants to run for President be given equal time with party candidates. Even if that's more "fair," it's also absurd: it will cloud the debate with meaningless discussion about Area 51.

I don't see why it's not fair: those who raise more funds are the ones who appeal to a larger number of people.

And I don't think you understand what "free speech" means. It means you have the right to say what you want. It does NOT mean that you have the right to be heard, to be broadcast. You get that opportunity if what you say appeals to the mainstream press - OR appeals to special interests groups and their members, those who give you money to pay for advertising.

Eliminate the second process, and you turn over political power to the mainstream press - and you make the process that much LESS unrelated to the individual and the groups to which he belongs.

Quote:
In the debates, equal time is given to both candidates. Why is the principle of equal time so anti-democratic? The only thing that gives someone more time to get their point across is their MONEY! Whats democratic about that? The fact is, for the process to become more democratic, the money factor has to be eliminated. No more campaign contributions from special interest. The guy working at the HOT DOG stand should have just as much influence on the political process as Bill Gates does. Most of the corruption that is in the government today is because of special interest like labor unions and the NRA. Yes, although they may be few, there are rich people and famous people to in the NRA. Hell, the NRA have Moses speaking for them. Bottom line, give the process back to individuals instead of corporations and special interest.
Equal time for "both" candidates isn't undemocratic, but there are DOZENS of presidential candidates - independents like Perot and Nader, those who get just enough forms signed to get on the ballots, and those begging for write-in votes. By eliminating the possibility of campaign ads, you eliminate their chance to be heard.

Many people - myself included - believe that campaign contributions qualify as free speech itself, as a way for people to demonstrate their support in a way that gets their candidate heard - analogous to passing out fliers and putting up signs.

Eliminate money altogether, and it IS true that Gates and the hot dog vendor have an equal say about what their government does: but a very SMALL say, reduced to one vote and the opportunity to write letters.

The decision about whom will be heard is placed in the hands of the mainstream press.

And I wonder, what the HELL does it matter if Heston is the NRA president? Does his career choice - acting - render his voice deaf?

Quote:
I have stated that things are radically different today in that power is vested in the private sector and not the government as has always been in the past. The government or the miltiary may have Idea's for weapons and other things, but its the private sector that builds them!
Would it make you feel better if the government owned the means of production?

("Government owns the means of production." That phrase sounds so familiar...)

Quote:
McDonalds may not have ICBMs, or tanks, or any weapons at all, but their influence on society in peace time is far greater than the governments military. People are not overweight and obese, and as a result dying early because of the government. Nor is McDonalds really at fault either, of course its personal behavior. But McDonalds is definitely a greater contributer to the problem than government is. Without government intervention you would not know how many calories and saturated fat your consuming in the food McDonalds sales! The Government intervened because of its concern about the general health of the public! McDonalds only cares about its level of profit, which is obviously hurt by the fact that consuming large quantities of its food can cause various health problems and even death due to heart disease caused by obesity.
You know, you could save time by just repeating, "Private sector bad, government good."

Quote:
Yes I know Two Trillion dollars is a lot of money, but its not the same as a lump sum of money in the hands of a business man. No oversite or checks and balances there. While in the case of the government, its not their personal income and no individual in the government has the power to decide where to spend a single penny of it, unlike the private sector. I like that there is that freedom in the private sector, but it does mean there is more potential for corruption and abuse.
"Private sector bad, government good."

Also, recall that the government not only spends one-fifth of the US GDP, but also passes laws that control EVERY aspect of the economy. What corporation has that kind of power?

Quote:
Plus, even with Two Trillion dollars in tax revenue that the Government simply redistributes to the private sector, the private sector keeps 80% of the money!
A simple redistribution is STILL a redistribution - taking from one group and giving to another - and that is a VERY powerful act indeed.

And I'm not going to thank the federal government for only stealing 20% of what we earn - on TOP of what the state and local governments take. GOD HIMSELF only asks for 10%.

Quote:
Think about this, as well, the people in the private sector, which is most of the population have the power to throw out every single politician making the decisions on where 20% of their money is redistributed. How really powerful is a politician if they can be thrown out by their constituants in as little as two years and never get elected again, or be impeached before serving the full length of their term.
You ever heard of the Supreme Court? Did you know that they aren't elected and that they serve life terms?

Again: the EPA and the IRS, those guilty of perhaps the worst violations of the Constitution aren't elected either.

Moving on...

Quote:
The only corruption to this process is the corporations and special interest that can essentially bribe a politician by supporting his reelection campaign. Again this comes from the private sector and private institutions, not the government.
So if we eliminate the corruption from outside, the government itself will become pure and interested only in what's in our best interests? Hardly: I honestly think politicians CRAVE POWER.

(Or does the dictum that "power corrupts" no longer apply in the magical 21st Century?)

Given that, they will STILL make an effort to TAX US MORE, SPEND MORE, and REGULATE MORE - private interests, generally, only influence how government expands its power, not whether it expands.

Quote:
Well the end goal of any business is monopoly. Monopoly is Soviet Style Communism. Ownership of all the means of productions and property by a small group of people and NO COMPETITION. There is nothing else besides Government that prevents this process from happening. Who or what else besides government can break up a monopolistic business? Government insures that monopoly will not happen, and the highest level of competition will remain. If you disagree with that please explain.
First, I agree that the government SHOULD ensure competition among businesses - though I would submit it already goes to far in trying to regulate prices, among other things.

I disagree with the statement that "Monopoly is Soviet Style Communism. Ownership of all the means of productions and property by a small group of people and NO COMPETITION." Soviet Communism (all Communism, actually) is where the GOVERNMENT owns the means of production.

To suggest that the government protects us from private-sector Communism is absurd.

Quote:
The checks and balances that exist in government protect the citizen from abuses and corruption from it. Besides, we the people are the government since we elect people to positions who are at first private citizens and others that go to work in government are or were private citizens as well. Then of course there is the military, without which the government is unable to coerce or threaten its people. I've already explained why todays US military would not do that because of the teaching and training that is recieved, plus the fact that it is an all volunteer military, with people that are already motivated to serve and protect freedom and are the organization least likely to be effected by corruption or bad apples in our society. The few that are bad apples, are vastly outnumbered by the rest that are not. Even if the fantasy of a tyranical government fully supported by the military came true, citizens small arms would be useless to stop it.
Again, how is the military stopping the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill?

AND again, even if private arms can't stop tyranny, that doesn't justify giving up our rights to that same potential tyrant - and your case that tyranny is impossible... well, it's crap.

Quote:
My point about the murders being committed by more people in the private sector than in government is a simple fact that demonstrates the greater degree of good will by people in government than in the private sector. How is that obscene? Its a fact.
"Private sector bad, government good."

Quote:
As far as Rush, NRA, and other conservitive or liberal instutition that often get their idea's views implemented by giving money to political campaigns of politicians that support their views, thats not democratic at all. It is a suppression of my personal influence in government for the simple reason that I do not have the level of money that they do. How is that democratic?


As I explained above, individuals exert real influence by joining groups of like-minded people.

And continuing to bring up Rush in this example, is absurd. He's a member of the free press, not a political organization. He's an "O'Reilly" or "Maher," not an NRA or NEA.

Quote:
By the way, the only right I have really questioned is the right to bear arms. That is light years away from this suggestion of yours that I want to take away all the rights of all citizens. I fully support are democratic government and believe in Capitalism and fear monopoly and Communism as I have stated before. I believe in law and order and the freedom that comes from having that which I feel is infringed by the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens.


Actually, I believe that taking personal and organizational campaign contributions is a violation of the First Amendment.

And again, monopoly does not equate to Communism.

Quote:
You know there was this guy named Timothy Mcvey(spelling) who believed that the government had become tyranical. He would of course would say that God and the Declaration of Independence gave him the right to pursue a course of action to fight the "tyranical government" by blowing up one of the "Tyranical governments" buildings in Oklahoma City killing hundreds of "Tyranical federal workers" and their childern in a daycare center on site. Do you think the Declaration Of Independence gave him the right to do this?
No, but there were these other guys, named Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Henry, and a few others whose views represented what many believe to be 40-60% of the colonies they lived in. They believed that England was oppressing them through unjust taxation. After years of petitioning the government, those militiamen declared the colonies independent and fought battles using both conventional and guerilla-style tactics. They wrote the Declaration of Independence asserting their God-given rights to do this.

Do you think they were wrong?

Quote:
I actually might move to Europe for a while or more because of certain types of work, and a huge interest in the region and people, but not because I don't like the USA. I love the USA, but feel that we can do better as a society by adopting certain measures like the UKs gun control policy that have been proven to work, where as are's is a failure. I'm for the greater security and freedom that this gun control would bring to the USA!
(Pssst. Generally speaking, freedom and security are two different things. The right to make as much money as you want usually means you give up the security of a welfare state.)

Quote:
You might be interested in taking a vacation to Somalia. There is no government at all, and people can arm themselves with what ever weapons they can get their hands on. I'm sure because of this that their very rich, have unparalled freedom, and personal safety and security is not an issue. Of course I'm joking, but I think you get my point.
No, I don't.

Unlike some people in this thread, I defend the basic documents of this nation, and I UNDERSTAND those documents.

Perhaps my comment was a bit of line, but - frankly - many of your opinions are infuriating.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 07:40 PM   #86
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:57 AM
It's clear this discussion is getting nowhere.

If you want to agree to disagree, fine.

Bubba
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 07:43 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba
It's clear this discussion is getting nowhere.

If you want to agree to disagree, fine.

Bubba
Does that mean we won't be seeing any more of your 1000+ word polemics?

I don't know how either of your have the patience to have carried on the discussion this far, to be honest. (and that isn't said as a criticism, simply an observation)
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 07:54 PM   #88
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


Does that mean we won't be seeing any more of your 1000+ word polemics?

I don't know how either of your have the patience to have carried on the discussion this far, to be honest. (and that isn't said as a criticism, simply an observation)
Yup. I believe I'm done, at least in this thread.

Clearly, I concede nothing; I'm just admitting that the current discussion is futile.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 10:22 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:57 AM

AMAZING. I disagree with TWO Republicans at the same time (Achtung Bubba and Sting2).

Let me start with this:

Quote:
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.
Achtung Bubba:

You seem to miss the "well regulated" concept here in Ol' Number 2. You seem to be of the opinion that Joe Citizen should be AS armed or BETTER armed than his local law enforcement agencies AND the military, so that, in the event the government does something he thinks is unconstitutional and he can't rally up enough like-minded civilians to agree with him and vote the government OUT, he can just go and start knocking them off.

As civilians, we do not need machine guns, tanks, surface-to-air missile launchers, etc. I do think it is our right to keep and bear arms, within the confines of "well regulated," but I do not think that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to set up an "opposition" military to strike whenever you disagree with the government.

And why are people (and the NRA) so opposed to background checks and strengthening the process for gun show purchases? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?????

Granted: abuses by the Federal government DO occur (Waco and Ruby Ridge were NOT abuses, but the pictute below WAS an abuse, and hopefully it will be the worst we ever see).



But can you imagine the bloodshed that would have occurred if Elian's relatives were also armed and decided to resist in the above pictured situation?

Sting2:

You miss out on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" portion.

Please do not take this offensively, but you are a bit naive to think that common criminals will not take advantage of the fact that they retain guns (illegally) while everyone else has turned theirs in. Within the past century, there have been far more firearms in the United States than in Britain, both legally amd illegally. Are you proposing to take away, by force, handguns that are (currently) legally owned by famale rape victims? The reasons and situations for the intent of the 2nd Amendment may have changed, but nonetheless, I think a significant need exists. Granted, we should ban private ownership of machine guns, assault rifles, and other rapid-fire weaponry. They are no good for hunting or self defense. At the same time, we should STRICTLY enforce existing gun laws and add some more.

~U2Alabama
U2Bama is offline  
Old 06-26-2002, 10:52 PM   #90
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 09:57 AM
I just want to say that my idiotic soon-to-be-ex neighbors that I so fondly refer to as the "gun club"are proof that we need stricter gun laws. After firing off an entire clip from his .45 pistol at 3 am one fine saturday morning not 20 feet outside my bedroom window, the drunken gun-club neighbor hid in his house while the block was surrounded for 2 hours by the police.

I didn't answer the door, but the cops did pull out this guy's neighbor on the other side and had him on the ground with a shotgun in his face while demanding to know who had the guns.
I have warned these fools that next time I see or even smell their guns I will turn them in for this and all of the other crap I am aware of that goes on around these mansions we live in.

As a person who has fired a couple of pistols, rifles, machine guns, I like and respect guns. However, SOME of the idiots who use them make me believe we need way tougher laws on them and I tend to agree with Bama here.
z edge is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 01:49 AM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:57 PM
Achtung Buba,

I never said that it requires 75% of congress to do ANYTHING. I was refering to the amendment of the Constitution and was under the mistaken impression that it required 75% rather than the normal 2/3s which I am well aware of for other laws. Thats why I stated that with 75% of the congress you had the full range of powers to pass laws(only requiring 2/3s of course) and then the big one, amending the Constitution. I was wrong because it is of course only 2/3s majority in House and Senate, but also the 75% approval at the State level. I new amending the Constitution was a special case and some how in the back of my mind 75% approval from the States, turned into 75% approval from congress, after all ammending the Constitution is a special case. My mistake though.

One more thing, I would like to say being in the military is much more than just following orders. People in the military are not unthinking robots! My father achieved the rank of full Colonel in the Army not just because he simply followed orders, but because he was HONEST and cared for his soldiers and their performance. He was also NOT afraid to go in front of his superior officer to that officers superior officer to point out something that was incorrect, inconsistent, dishonest, unfactual or simply wrong that his superior officer had done or reported. Of course the person two commands up would investigate himself, up on my Father bringing it up, but he would always be vindicated in his actions once it was proved my father was correct. Yes, the military does want its people to follow orders, but more importantly they want people who can THINK, are ETHICAL and are HONEST! They want people who are Leaders and have all the qualities defined in great leadership of which there are many! Those are the people that get promoted! Not unthinking robots following orders. There is a higher degree of honesty and integrity in the Military than in any other group or institution in society! So no, the Military would not support a tyranical government, and if I were to ask my father, I'm sure he would agree with me, and would probably have a lot more to add!

U2 BAMA,

Any Gun Control measure similar to that of the UK implemented in the USA would of course take time and there are a variety of ways it could be done too despite the prevalence of guns in our society and those that have them illegally. The idea that criminals would always be able to get guns(in numbers that would unduly threaten society) just is not so as proved by Ireland and the UK. Guns in circulation now will not last forever. I seriously doubt criminals illegal weapons are from 1906. It would take a long time to fully implement a system similar to the UK, but if properly managed it can be done. Despite what others think here, I actually think that is the future. Not near future of course. Eventually it will happen here in the USA I think. But still a long long way off though. As MELON said, you are still allowed in the UK to own hunting rifles, so it is not a complete ban on everything.

The gun control policies of the UK and Ireland have had outstanding results, with less than 2,000 deaths since 1980. Our system of gun control is a total failure. 667,000 dead since 1980 from guns(accidents and murder). Thats more people than the USA lost in World War I, World War II, The Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined. I understand some here feel this is an acceptable number for a 20 year period, but I certainly do not. I believe we can do better than this and reduce this terrible number, UK plan or not! But its undeniable that the gun control policies of the UK work!
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-27-2002, 01:51 AM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:57 PM
Achtung Buba,

I forgot to add that I thought it was a great debate and that one of my best friends has views nearly identical to yours.
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-30-2002, 07:42 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
adamswildhoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere in NorCal
Posts: 10,333
Local Time: 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Holy John
Is American Freedom have everything to do with economics and dollards instead of human rights ????
I think that it does. Its kind of like the more money u have the more freedom u have.
__________________

adamswildhoney is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×