Why do you think the government is your hired thug?

[Vic]

There would be nothing unconstitutional about UHC. The issue is if it would be the right thing to do. Some see only the benefits, and so automatically convince themselves that it would be, while forgetting that nothing is quite that simple and that there are always negatives. Particularly the problem would be that large monolithic institutions (which is what UHC would be) invariably tend to be slow, abusive and unfeeling to individual needs, invasive of privacy, and resistant to change. Hell, that's government in general. And UHC is not going to "care" if it wrongly denies care to a single person anymore than our legal system "cares" if it wrongly executes an innocent or our military "cares" about "collateral damage."
So it's really not very intelligent to see only "free healthcare for everyone!" while refusing to recognize that nothing is that simple. Likewise the whole "if we outlawed guns there'd be no crime!" bullshit. One would think we could learn from our lessons of the past, like how we outlawed drugs and the drug problem only got worse (resulting in more people in prisons than in any country in all of human history), but oh no! jerk, knees, jerk! and make the same mistakes all over and over again...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

The 2nd amendment was never designed to protect us individually, or in small groups, but the sovereign power of the people in its entirety.
Case in point: look at the public outcry caused by Waco, now imagine if the government tried thousands of Wacos all at the same time.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor
First of all, I'd like to preface this post by saying that it is in regards to America, and intended to be responded to by Americans. It has nothing to do with America forcing it's collective beliefs on other nations or peoples.

Let me give a few examples, and I'll start with one near and dear to my own heart: Gun control. As an avid gun collector and self-defense advocate, I have never, not once in my life, advocated that anyone be forced to own or carry a gun. I think that is entirely a personal choice. And yet, proponents of gun control would presume to tell me how to live my life, and what property I can own. Note that I have no interest in restricting their freedom, or choices, yet they seek to restrict mine.

Are you opposed to all laws against drugs? Against restricting marriage from gays? Against vehicle codes? Against product safety violations?

Let's take heroin. There are people who can use it rarely without an issue; people who are functional addicts; people who have problems. Some use guns, some abuse them.

Why wouldn't your 'personal choice' argument applied to something which some can use without issue and others abuse apply to heroin as well as guns?

Next up: Universal Health Care. I don't need it. I don't want it. At this point in time, I can choose whether or not I want to spend my money and purchase any grade of health care I want. And those who want cheap, low quality health care can, at this time, choose to band together and create a low cost option for the poor. But that's not what they want. They want to use the government as their thug to take money from me, someone who doesn't want universal health care, and won't benefit from it at all. And that is part of the plan, just like any other insurance company works: You need a large amount of "customers" who don't make claims or cost you money in order to support all those others. So really, what you want to do is take my money (by force and threat of prison) in order to pay for your health care.

Next up: public education for children. Interstate Highways. Public libraries. The CIA. Missile Defense and other 'new advances' in weapons. Animal Shelters. Lighting city streets.

Why should a childless guy who lives out on a farm and doesn't want any of those things have to pay for any of them, just because a majority of the citizens see them as useful?

If 80% of the public wants UHC and you don't, then why shouldn't all programs that 20% don't want allow that 20%, or 40%, or 1%, not to pay for them?

Why don't we make taxes voluntary - surely, everyone would pay them as good citizens, just as the Article of Confederation worked out so well for the US's first government?

Now obviously there is such a thing as the social contract, but the concept is EXTREMELY simple. We give up the right to kill, maim and steal from one another in exchange for living in a society of law and order. The very basic principal of the social contract, and America, has always been "Your rights end where another's begin." Meaning simply that you can do whatever you want, as long as you're not violating anyone elses rights in doing so.

Alright authoritarian types, you're probably foaming at the mouth by now, so flame on.

You don't have a clue what authoritarianism is, as you whine that taxing you at the lowest rates in the industrialized world to pay for the cost of the society you live in is the same as authoritarianism, a word that would describe Stalin's, pre-WWII Japan's, Saddam's governments.

That's why people who like you who can't tell the difference between a liberal democracy like ours and its taxes, and authoritarianism, are radicals - and dangerous in large number.

Your misguided, ignorant, simplistic ideology would lead to the huge breakdown of our society, but you don't understand that. It really does raise questions of our democracy's functioning, when it rests on an informed, educated, rational citizenry and so many are so far from meeting that standard.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

So you're just a defeatist then, eh? It's your authoritarian worshipping attitude that will lead to the downfall of this country.

I suggest you take a look at the story of Ed Brown, a man beset by the government because he failed to pay his taxes. He held the government of the United States at bay for 8 months, without resorting to violence. He was eventually arrested by undercover agents after he invited them in for drinks, believing them to be supporters. But still, he defied the government and won for 8 months, without even firing a shot.

The Branch Dividians were highly restrained in their actions. Every exchange of gunfire was initiated by the Feds, and the majority of the federal agents killed were killed from gunshots to the back, due to friendly fire (that's what happens when you open fire on a building that your agents are currently scaling.) Though they did have a .50 BMG rifle, it wasn't used during the standoff, because the Branch Dividians weren't trying to kill federal agents. They were just trying to be left alone.

A .50 BMG isn't "military grade weaponry." A stinger missile, a javelin anti-tank missile, a Mark 19 full auto grenade launcher, those are military grade weaponry. With a Mark 19, I could damn sure keep the government from taking my property.

As it is, if the IRS comes for taxes, or the Sheriff's dept comes to evict me for "eminent domain" I promise I'll take enough of them with me to make them wish they hadn't come.

If you lay down and take the abuses of the government, that's just what you'll get: more abuse.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

The 2nd amendment was never designed to protect us individually, or in small groups, but the sovereign power of the people in its entirety.
Case in point: look at the public outcry caused by Waco, now imagine if the government tried thousands of Wacos all at the same time.

76 people were killed at Waco. The response in Oklahoma City killed 168 federal agents, federal workers and their children, and wounded 800 more. The government doesn't win these kinds of fights, they're too exposed.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

I don't see it as one -or a group- against the government. I always thought in terms of total national takeover/revolt where "the people" would rise against the government. That's when being well armed would come in handy.

It would also help if ever there was a catastrophic global or national disaster/crisis where people would have to fend (defend) for themselves for a good while.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Are you opposed to all laws against drugs? Yes Against restricting marriage from gays?Yes Against vehicle codes? Seems this would be covered by interstate commerce powers, and really doesn't infringe on anyone? Against product safety violations?Seems this would be covered by interstate commerce powers, and also doesn't infringe on anyone.

Let's take heroin. There are people who can use it rarely without an issue; people who are functional addicts; people who have problems. Some use guns, some abuse them.

Why wouldn't your 'personal choice' argument applied to something which some can use without issue and others abuse apply to heroin as well as guns?It would be, let people shoot themselves up if they want to, with guns or heroin.

Next up: Universal Health Care. I don't need it. I don't want it. At this point in time, I can choose whether or not I want to spend my money and purchase any grade of health care I want. And those who want cheap, low quality health care can, at this time, choose to band together and create a low cost option for the poor. But that's not what they want. They want to use the government as their thug to take money from me, someone who doesn't want universal health care, and won't benefit from it at all. And that is part of the plan, just like any other insurance company works: You need a large amount of "customers" who don't make claims or cost you money in order to support all those others. So really, what you want to do is take my money (by force and threat of prison) in order to pay for your health care.

Next up: public education for children. I don't know about other states, but in Texas if you homeschool or private school your kids, you can get vouchers and even tax refunds if they make passing scores, thus allowing people to "opt out." Interstate Highways. Make them all tolls Public libraries. Charge money. The CIA. National defense, which American does this infringe on? Missile Defense and other 'new advances' in weapons. National defense, everyone benefits from it, no one is infringed on. Animal Shelters. SHould be self sufficient by reselling animals and charging highers fees for giving back lost animals Lighting city streets. Only those in the city should pay for this?

Why should a childless guy who lives out on a farm and doesn't want any of those things have to pay for any of them, just because a majority of the citizens see them as useful?
He shouldn't have to.
If 80% of the public wants UHC and you don't, then why shouldn't all programs that 20% don't want allow that 20%, or 40%, or 1%, not to pay for them?They shouldn't have to. There's enough people supporting UHC that they can make it work without forcing it on the rest of us.

Why don't we make taxes voluntary - surely, everyone would pay them as good citizens, just as the Article of Confederation worked out so well for the US's first government? Taxes are voluntary. I've never paid one that I didn't want to. I won't pay for UHC. You should try not paying if you don't want to, otherwise they'll never get the message.

Now obviously there is such a thing as the social contract, but the concept is EXTREMELY simple. We give up the right to kill, maim and steal from one another in exchange for living in a society of law and order. The very basic principal of the social contract, and America, has always been "Your rights end where another's begin." Meaning simply that you can do whatever you want, as long as you're not violating anyone elses rights in doing so.

Alright authoritarian types, you're probably foaming at the mouth by now, so flame on.

You don't have a clue what authoritarianism is, as you whine that taxing you at the lowest rates in the industrialized world to pay for the cost of the society you live in is the same as authoritarianism, a word that would describe Stalin's, pre-WWII Japan's, Saddam's governments.

That's why people who like you who can't tell the difference between a liberal democracy like ours and its taxes, and authoritarianism, are radicals - and dangerous in large number.

Your misguided, ignorant, simplistic ideology would lead to the huge breakdown of our society, but you don't understand that. It really does raise questions of our democracy's functioning, when it rests on an informed, educated, rational citizenry and so many are so far from meeting that standard.

Answered throughout the post, except for the judgey mean part towards the end, I don't respond to that kinda stuff.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

I don't see it as one -or a group- against the government. I always thought in terms of total national takeover/revolt where "the people" would rise against the government. That's when being well armed would come in handy.

It would also help if ever there was a catastrophic global or national disaster/crisis where people would have to fend (defend) for themselves for a good while.

Like the LA Riots where police withdrew and told citizens that they'd have to take care of themselves for a while. :thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
The scientific formula for tyranny:
1. Disarm the populace.
2. Extract the people's tribute and redistribute it in popular forms.
3. Control and use military and law enforcement for protection and order.
4. Use religion and/or patriotism to justify and maintain the position of the Elite and their government within society.

There is no reason to disarm the populace when the armed populace has as its religion and patriotism the maintenance of the position of the Elite.

:roll:

That's much to complex an argument for me.

Well... I interpreted your comment as either:
1. Two wrongs make a right, a fallacious argument which I cannot accept, because in this case it would equate 2 opposites as having the same result, or
2. Disarming the populace is okay because it is your political enemies who are more likely to be armed than your political allies, which IMO would be a morally bankrupt agenda.


edited for typo

Well this isn't much of a help because these ideas are quite hard for me to follow too, but I think I understand enough to know I was saying neither. I was simply saying that what I said is what I actually see, that that's the situation in which we actually are. I was not speaking for or against it, just that it's what is.

 

[piasabird]

AK-47 is actually a defensive weapon.

If you ban semi-auto weapons, then you have to ban 45's and 22's also.

Banning handguns is stupid because that does not take guns away from criminals. It only makes ordinary citizens defenseless.

I might be for a ban on handguns of certain types like the smaller handguns that are easy to hide like a snub nosed 38 or other guns that are basically designed to fit into the pocket of a criminal.

If the government is going to ban handguns then there needs to be a grace period to turn them all in. Not only that, but I would not support a ban on handguns unless you made the possession of a handgun the same as 1st degree premiditated murder with a mandatory death penalty for criminals who use a handgun in a crime. Just banning handguns for honest taxpayers is not gong to cut it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Nebor
First of all, I'd like to preface this post by saying that it is in regards to America, and intended to be responded to by Americans. It has nothing to do with America forcing it's collective beliefs on other nations or peoples.

Let me give a few examples, and I'll start with one near and dear to my own heart: Gun control. As an avid gun collector and self-defense advocate, I have never, not once in my life, advocated that anyone be forced to own or carry a gun. I think that is entirely a personal choice. And yet, proponents of gun control would presume to tell me how to live my life, and what property I can own. Note that I have no interest in restricting their freedom, or choices, yet they seek to restrict mine.

Next up: Universal Health Care. I don't need it. I don't want it. At this point in time, I can choose whether or not I want to spend my money and purchase any grade of health care I want. And those who want cheap, low quality health care can, at this time, choose to band together and create a low cost option for the poor. But that's not what they want. They want to use the government as their thug to take money from me, someone who doesn't want universal health care, and won't benefit from it at all. And that is part of the plan, just like any other insurance company works: You need a large amount of "customers" who don't make claims or cost you money in order to support all those others. So really, what you want to do is take my money (by force and threat of prison) in order to pay for your health care.

Now obviously there is such a thing as the social contract, but the concept is EXTREMELY simple. We give up the right to kill, maim and steal from one another in exchange for living in a society of law and order. The very basic principal of the social contract, and America, has always been "Your rights end where another's begin." Meaning simply that you can do whatever you want, as long as you're not violating anyone elses rights in doing so.

Alright authoritarian types, you're probably foaming at the mouth by now, so flame on.

So, if you choose to NOT health-insure yourself, and then you show up at the door of the emergency room suffering from a heart attack, are you saying you should be left to die on the sidewalk (and what should happen if you're unconscious, and the hospital has no way of determining if you're insured)? And if the hospital does provide some level of treatment, who pays?

Tell me why this situation is any different from requiring drivers to be insured?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Nebor
First of all, I'd like to preface this post by saying that it is in regards to America, and intended to be responded to by Americans. It has nothing to do with America forcing it's collective beliefs on other nations or peoples.

Let me give a few examples, and I'll start with one near and dear to my own heart: Gun control. As an avid gun collector and self-defense advocate, I have never, not once in my life, advocated that anyone be forced to own or carry a gun. I think that is entirely a personal choice. And yet, proponents of gun control would presume to tell me how to live my life, and what property I can own. Note that I have no interest in restricting their freedom, or choices, yet they seek to restrict mine.

Next up: Universal Health Care. I don't need it. I don't want it. At this point in time, I can choose whether or not I want to spend my money and purchase any grade of health care I want. And those who want cheap, low quality health care can, at this time, choose to band together and create a low cost option for the poor. But that's not what they want. They want to use the government as their thug to take money from me, someone who doesn't want universal health care, and won't benefit from it at all. And that is part of the plan, just like any other insurance company works: You need a large amount of "customers" who don't make claims or cost you money in order to support all those others. So really, what you want to do is take my money (by force and threat of prison) in order to pay for your health care.

Now obviously there is such a thing as the social contract, but the concept is EXTREMELY simple. We give up the right to kill, maim and steal from one another in exchange for living in a society of law and order. The very basic principal of the social contract, and America, has always been "Your rights end where another's begin." Meaning simply that you can do whatever you want, as long as you're not violating anyone elses rights in doing so.

Alright authoritarian types, you're probably foaming at the mouth by now, so flame on.

So, if you choose to NOT health-insure yourself, and then you show up at the door of the emergency room suffering from a heart attack, are you saying you should be left to die on the sidewalk (and what should happen if you're unconscious, and the hospital has no way of determining if you're insured)? And if the hospital does provide some level of treatment, who pays?

Tell me why this situation is any different from requiring drivers to be insured?

And where do I sign up for my .gov car insurance? Just because people should have something doesn't mean the government should provide it. People should have food, and a new pair of shoes from time to time, etc. There are a lot of things that people should have. And by all means, if you see someone without one of those things, and you can afford to, give it to them. But don't try to make other people give when they don't want to.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234
Are you opposed to all laws against... vehicle codes? Seems this would be covered by interstate commerce powers, and really doesn't infringe on anyone? Against product safety violations?Seems this would be covered by interstate commerce powers, and also doesn't infringe on anyone.

It infringes on MY right to own any vehicle, in any condition, I want to. It infringed on MY right to own any product I want regardless of what YOU think is safe and unsafe.

If I don't believe the government stories about the dangers of lead, why should you be able to deny my right to let my children play with toys made of lead?

Next up: Universal Health Care. I don't need it. I don't want it. At this point in time, I can choose whether or not I want to spend my money and purchase any grade of health care I want. And those who want cheap, low quality health care can, at this time, choose to band together and create a low cost option for the poor. But that's not what they want. They want to use the government as their thug to take money from me, someone who doesn't want universal health care, and won't benefit from it at all. And that is part of the plan, just like any other insurance company works: You need a large amount of "customers" who don't make claims or cost you money in order to support all those others. So really, what you want to do is take my money (by force and threat of prison) in order to pay for your health care.

Next up: public education for children. I don't know about other states, but in Texas if you homeschool or private school your kids, you can get vouchers and even tax refunds if they make passing scores, thus allowing people to "opt out."

I'm talking about people who don't have children who don't want to pay for the education of other people's children - not an alternative 'voucher for parents'.

Interstate Highways. Make them all tolls

Who decides who gets to own the highways the tolls are charged on? Who decides where they're built? Are you in favor of ending any speed limits?

Public libraries. Charge money. The CIA. National defense, which American does this infringe on?

Me - why should I have to pay for some government program, the CIA, who I see as incompetent, as doing things we shouldn't be doing, as over organizing coups and insurrection and undermining democracy in other nations when it suits someone's purpose here, who create Blowback threats to our nation (the term Blowback was coined for the backlash to the US from the CIA's first major undercover operation, the overthrow of democracy in Iran, for which we're still seeing the effects) - why should I be forced at gunpoint to give my money to that government agency that I don't want to pay for? Why is that any different than any other government program you don't want to pay for? Is ANY program no matter how wasteful, how harmful, that's called 'national defense' exempt from your doctrine of not taking people's money at gunpoint?

Missile Defense and other 'new advances' in weapons. National defense, everyone benefits from it, no one is infringed on.

Same as above - why should *I* have my money taken at gunpoint for some unnecessary program to benefit the big business political donors who are behind it, to make some destabilizing offensive weapon system that will only increase the power of big government, that I don't want to pay for? It infringes on my right not to pay, my right to be free of my money being taken at gunpoint for it, and when that system is used for the government to further gain power and enslave people, and possibly turned on our own citizens in the future, why should I have to pay for that to happen? Why is there an exemption to your principle for every program with the phrase 'defense' stuck on it no matter how bad?

Animal Shelters. SHould be self sufficient by reselling animals and charging highers fees for giving back lost animals

Market forces do not allow for them to be self-sufficient, so your only choices are for them to shut down, or government funding, for the sake of argument.

Lighting city streets. Only those in the city should pay for this?

Why should *I* have to pay for it when I get no benefit, living out on a farm?

Why should a childless guy who lives out on a farm and doesn't want any of those things have to pay for any of them, just because a majority of the citizens see them as useful?
He shouldn't have to.

You just said I have to pay for the CIA, for new 'advanced' weapons programs I don't want ot pay for, for other people's childrens' education, for city-dwellers' street lights.

If 80% of the public wants UHC and you don't, then why shouldn't all programs that 20% don't want allow that 20%, or 40%, or 1%, not to pay for them?They shouldn't have to. There's enough people supporting UHC that they can make it work without forcing it on the rest of us.

Right, because voluntary taxation works so well. Tell you what, there are enough of you who support the military, that you can pay for it and don't need to force me to pay.

There are enough of you who support the FBI, enough who support food safety, you can pay for those programs and not force it on others who would rather not pay for them.

Why don't we make taxes voluntary - surely, everyone would pay them as good citizens, just as the Article of Confederation worked out so well for the US's first government? Taxes are voluntary. I've never paid one that I didn't want to. I won't pay for UHC. You should try not paying if you don't want to, otherwise they'll never get the message.

Your hero went to a long prison term after 8 months, didn't he? You are contradicting yourself here - one minute it's 'forced at gunpoint and prison', the next they're 'voluntary'.

I'm sure you have not paid your taxes you didn't want to - and are typing this from the computer in prison, right?

Now obviously there is such a thing as the social contract, but the concept is EXTREMELY simple. We give up the right to kill, maim and steal from one another in exchange for living in a society of law and order. The very basic principal of the social contract, and America, has always been "Your rights end where another's begin." Meaning simply that you can do whatever you want, as long as you're not violating anyone elses rights in doing so.

Alright authoritarian types, you're probably foaming at the mouth by now, so flame on.

You don't have a clue what authoritarianism is, as you whine that taxing you at the lowest rates in the industrialized world to pay for the cost of the society you live in is the same as authoritarianism, a word that would describe Stalin's, pre-WWII Japan's, Saddam's governments.

That's why people who like you who can't tell the difference between a liberal democracy like ours and its taxes, and authoritarianism, are radicals - and dangerous in large number.

Your misguided, ignorant, simplistic ideology would lead to the huge breakdown of our society, but you don't understand that. It really does raise questions of our democracy's functioning, when it rests on an informed, educated, rational citizenry and so many are so far from meeting that standard.

Answered throughout the post, except for the judgey mean part towards the end, I don't respond to that kinda stuff.

[/quote]

See bolded.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't want to force you to give if you don't want. I just want you to go live all by yourself in the jungle. I don't want my Mother to live in the jungle and I don't want yours to either. So even though I don't like to give, probably any more than you, I see it as a moral duty just like it's a moral duty not to kill. So if you don't want to voluntarily do your moral duty or can't see the wisdom of it then you should be punished for your anti social behavior just as if you killed, no. Giving is not an option, it's a moral imperative that separates humans from non social forms of life. We don't survive well alone so we have obligations and you don't get a free ride. You aren't a free rolling wheel, you are a spoke.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

So you're just a defeatist then, eh? It's your authoritarian worshipping attitude that will lead to the downfall of this country.

I suggest you take a look at the story of Ed Brown, a man beset by the government because he failed to pay his taxes. He held the government of the United States at bay for 8 months, without resorting to violence. He was eventually arrested by undercover agents after he invited them in for drinks, believing them to be supporters. But still, he defied the government and won for 8 months, without even firing a shot.

The Branch Dividians were highly restrained in their actions. Every exchange of gunfire was initiated by the Feds, and the majority of the federal agents killed were killed from gunshots to the back, due to friendly fire (that's what happens when you open fire on a building that your agents are currently scaling.) Though they did have a .50 BMG rifle, it wasn't used during the standoff, because the Branch Dividians weren't trying to kill federal agents. They were just trying to be left alone.

A .50 BMG isn't "military grade weaponry." A stinger missile, a javelin anti-tank missile, a Mark 19 full auto grenade launcher, those are military grade weaponry. With a Mark 19, I could damn sure keep the government from taking my property.

As it is, if the IRS comes for taxes, or the Sheriff's dept comes to evict me for "eminent domain" I promise I'll take enough of them with me to make them wish they hadn't come.

If you lay down and take the abuses of the government, that's just what you'll get: more abuse.

I'm not a defeatist, you are delusional if you think you are protected from tyranny by owning such weapons. I fully support the right to own a gun or guns to protect your home or hunt. I do not see any legitimate purpose for owning a SAW for example, you can't hunt or protect your home with it(at least in a responsible manner). However, it is still possible to own these weapons if you jump through the appropriate hoops. If such hoops were removed, then it would be much easier for criminals to obtain them and the frequency of their use in crimes would increase, that is a fact.

I was only using the .50cal as an example, I could go out and buy one right now. But there is no legitimate purpose for having such a weapon and certainly no purpose protected by the 2nd amendment.

As far as Ed Brown goes, his story received a lot of publicity AND he wasn't being accused of anything other than income tax evasion which isn't something they had to urgently act upon. Waco was totally different and the gov. believed that serious crimes were ongoing and couldn't wait 8 months, totally diff situation. In the end, he still went down and so will you if faced with that situation. Unless you live in a compound prepared for helter skelter or whatever nonsense, you aren't holding out for 8 months either.

The government is abusing us everyday and the problem has grown exponentially worse since 1970, strangely these abuses are supported by the majority of the population and neither you, your guns, or I can change that. Until popular opinion returns to it's Consitutional roots we are stuck with warrantless wiretapping, the war on drugs, eminent domain, and all sorts of other utter bullshit.

It's because most people have been driven to fear about Mexicans using pot to seduce white girls followed by homicidal rampages, or Steve talking to his cousin in Syria.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

Exactly. I give to the United Way, and volunteer with AIN (AIDS Interfaith Network) and work with the local chapter of my college fraternity to run a holiday dinner for the homeless. So I care about the poor and the sick. I just cannot bring myself to force other people to care about them, and take money out of their pockets to do so.

I definitely agree with you Vic. :thumbsup:

That's very good. And if and only if you create sufficient social services out of goodness of your heart, then we can cut government social programs to offset your contribution.

No, those "services" aren't guaranteed, by me, or by the government, or anyone else. It's charity for a reason: it's not compulsory. You're trying to FORCE others to do what you want done. I'm not. I'm simply doing what I want done myself.

Agreed - and this is why I find many leftist so amusing in an ironic way. They have absolutely no qualms about forcing others (via taxes) to be charitable against their wishes, but fail to see the hypocracy when they complain about the Religious Right allegedly "forcing" their morality on others.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

I don't see it as one -or a group- against the government. I always thought in terms of total national takeover/revolt where "the people" would rise against the government. That's when being well armed would come in handy.

It would also help if ever there was a catastrophic global or national disaster/crisis where people would have to fend (defend) for themselves for a good while.

Like the LA Riots where police withdrew and told citizens that they'd have to take care of themselves for a while. :thumbsup:

Yes, now THAT was a happy, libertarian utopia as criminal mobs ruled the streets and innocents were killed for fun and profit.

Libertarians really fail to realize that's how it works with anarchy - it's not a Western movie of happy citizens peacefully co-existing, it's increasingly organized crime, going from the neighborhood, up to the city level, which increasingly wraps itself in the flag of legitimate government, as with the banana republics, just as Stalin and Saddam were 'elected'.

Libertarians cannot have the fantasy utopia they want; their only choices are our liberal democracy, or to destroy it and replace it with non-democratic oppression.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

Then you fail as a citizen - the difference is huge. One uses persuasion, and one uses coercion. The difference definitely matters.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want to force you to give if you don't want. I just want you to go live all by yourself in the jungle. I don't want my Mother to live in the jungle and I don't want yours to either. So even though I don't like to give, probably any more than you, I see it as a moral duty just like it's a moral duty not to kill. So if you don't want to voluntarily do your moral duty or can't see the wisdom of it then you should be punished for your anti social behavior just as if you killed, no. Giving is not an option, it's a moral imperative that separates humans from non social forms of life. We don't survive well alone so we have obligations and you don't get a free ride. You aren't a free rolling wheel, you are a spoke.

hm. a coherent moonbeam post that I totally agree with.

is today opposite day or something?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

Then you fail as a citizen - the difference is huge. One uses persuasion, and one uses coercion. The difference definitely matters.

Yup, the one that uses persuasion can cover a fraction of the need and the one that uses coercion can cover far far more of it.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

I don't see it as one -or a group- against the government. I always thought in terms of total national takeover/revolt where "the people" would rise against the government. That's when being well armed would come in handy.

It would also help if ever there was a catastrophic global or national disaster/crisis where people would have to fend (defend) for themselves for a good while.

Yeah I understand that's the theory behind it, but we aren't the largely homogenous society we once were way back in the day. You can't even get 50% of the population to vote, what makes you think "the people" could ever agree enough on anything? No way "the people" are going to rise up about anything, you can't even protest or freely ask questions without the threat of being tasered for being "disruptive" or what have you.

The only thing that interests "the people" nowadays is whether Britney Spears is pregnant again.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Nebor


And where do I sign up for my .gov car insurance? Just because people should have something doesn't mean the government should provide it. People should have food, and a new pair of shoes from time to time, etc. There are a lot of things that people should have. And by all means, if you see someone without one of those things, and you can afford to, give it to them. But don't try to make other people give when they don't want to.

So if private company provides universal health care, you have no problem signing up? what's the difference anyway, do you just hate the government or something?

If your belief don't interfere with the majority, you can live anyway you want. But having no control on guns, especially high powered ones interfere with the majority. Easy access to gun contributed to the high school shootings, and help criminal commit crimes with guns. Having people left out of the UNC increases the cost for everyone when we have the moral responsibility to care for those who doesn't wanna pay.

Hey, I don't wanna pay tax too with a big portion of that going to Iraq war and government waste. But that's the price to pay for living in a civilized society and I realize if it's something I don't want, I need to go through democratic process to get rid of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want to force you to give if you don't want. I just want you to go live all by yourself in the jungle. I don't want my Mother to live in the jungle and I don't want yours to either. So even though I don't like to give, probably any more than you, I see it as a moral duty just like it's a moral duty not to kill. So if you don't want to voluntarily do your moral duty or can't see the wisdom of it then you should be punished for your anti social behavior just as if you killed, no. Giving is not an option, it's a moral imperative that separates humans from non social forms of life. We don't survive well alone so we have obligations and you don't get a free ride. You aren't a free rolling wheel, you are a spoke.

hm. a coherent moonbeam post that I totally agree with.

is today opposite day or something?

You're probably just wrong about this one.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want to force you to give if you don't want. I just want you to go live all by yourself in the jungle. I don't want my Mother to live in the jungle and I don't want yours to either. So even though I don't like to give, probably any more than you, I see it as a moral duty just like it's a moral duty not to kill. So if you don't want to voluntarily do your moral duty or can't see the wisdom of it then you should be punished for your anti social behavior just as if you killed, no. Giving is not an option, it's a moral imperative that separates humans from non social forms of life. We don't survive well alone so we have obligations and you don't get a free ride. You aren't a free rolling wheel, you are a spoke.

I've done the "live in the jungle by myself" thing. When I turned 13, my dad drove me out to some land he owned in East Texas, left me with a sleeping bag, my pocket knife, some matches, and a 25-06 rifle. He said, "You're a man now, so you need to know how to survive. I'll be back in a week." It didn't rain, so overall it really wasn't that tough. Turns out he was watching me with binoculars from a seperate camp about a mile away.

All men should be charitable. But I simply don't think it's right to punish those who don't wish to be.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want to force you to give if you don't want. I just want you to go live all by yourself in the jungle. I don't want my Mother to live in the jungle and I don't want yours to either. So even though I don't like to give, probably any more than you, I see it as a moral duty just like it's a moral duty not to kill. So if you don't want to voluntarily do your moral duty or can't see the wisdom of it then you should be punished for your anti social behavior just as if you killed, no. Giving is not an option, it's a moral imperative that separates humans from non social forms of life. We don't survive well alone so we have obligations and you don't get a free ride. You aren't a free rolling wheel, you are a spoke.

The problem is, one man's moral duty is another man's religious dogma. Why should your dogma be forced on anyone? The only 'obligation' is to not be a burden on others.