The American Civil war...Version 2 !

[D-Mack]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

Sorry, that just doesn't come close to proving that the USG was complicit in the bombing. Flights of logic here.

And when McVeigh tells Nichols that he was taking orders from the FBI, you find that persuasive?

I'm amazed that a law professor at the New School for Social Research buys into that. Makes me wonder about the standards over there.

I can't be on this thread anymore. No time for tin foil hats.

It reminds me of Dan Rather telling us about the 1993 WTC bombing and the FBI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXBmmf9F4rw


Sometimes there is a pattern, maybe Taleb would say there is none.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

I agree with you there: freedom requires constant vigilance. And I think this country is more vigilant on that point than nearly all others. Here is an example: people gear up in liberty-or-death tirades over phantom threats to freedom, like those black U.N. helicopters that never existed, or the latest plot to confiscate our guns.

Um, I don't know about "U.N. black helicopters" but I have actually seen a "black helicopter" so I wouldn't go dismissing those things outright.

I was on a leisurely road trip in the west, driving through a remote part of Wyoming where there was nothing but oil derricks and scrubby rolling hills. The narrow 2-lane highway I was on went up and down over these low rolling hills in a straight line for many miles.

It was late in the afternoon and I was driving along on this road when all of a sudden, off in the distance about a quarter mile, a jet-black helicopter rose up from behind one of the hills and hovered. It turned towards me, hovered there for a moment, and then went back down behind the hill. Very freaky. There was nothing out there, no reason I could see for a military helicopter to be coming up from behind a hill, hovering to look in my direction, then going back out of sight. There were no military bases on the map anywhere around there.

I imagine it was some kind of exercise but it proved to me first hand that there ARE government/military people in black helicopters going around doing stuff that doesn't seem to make much sense. Black helicopters are not imaginary.


I don't know why you would be the least skeptical about plots to confiscate our guns. Hasn't every other Western democracy done that at this point? In fact is there an advanced nation other than the U.S. where it's still legal for a private citizen to arm himself? The trend is overwhelmingly in favor of government disarming us, and clearly Obama & Co want to turn us into another "democratic socialist" state. To think otherwise is just willful blindness in my opinion.

[radon]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

That is not a plot to attack those amendments. Just saying that it is doesn't make it so.

None of the Amendments has ever been absolute. They've always been balanced by the needs of society at large. The First Amendment does not, for example, give one the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The 4th Amendment includes the Plain View Exception. The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to own a nuclear warhead. And so on.

The Patriot Act strikes a new balance, and it does so in ways that I find unacceptable. But to argue that it was a plot hatched in 20 days to attack six of the amendments of the Bill of Rights is just ludicrous.

You have this backward. The constitution doesn't give you rights. You acquired rights by being born into the world. The are innumerable cannot be granted or taken away. Its not even possible to define them explicitly in any meaningful way.

Instead the constitution seeks to explicitly define what powers can be assumed by the government.

I would ask where in the constitution is the government given the regulatory authority over arms. I would suggest that it does not. In fact, seeing that original authors felt strongly enough to list it in the bill of rights ie the list of specific things the government is prohibited from doing, the view that that firearms can somehow be regulated by the government without violating the constitution makes little sense.

I'm sure we could bring in the much abused interstate commerce clause at this point but it current use is far beyond the scope of the constitution already.

[Prazak]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

You have this backward. The constitution doesn't give you rights. You acquired rights by being born into the world. The are innumerable cannot be granted or taken away. Its not even possible to define them explicitly in any meaningful way.

Instead the constitution seeks to explicitly define what powers can be assumed by the government.

I would ask where in the constitution is the government given the regulatory authority over arms. I would suggest that it does not. In fact, seeing that original authors felt strongly enough to list it in the bill of rights ie the list of specific things the government is prohibited from doing, the view that that firearms can somehow be regulated by the government without violating the constitution makes little sense.

I'm sure we could bring in the much abused interstate commerce clause at this point but it current use is far beyond the scope of the constitution already.

No, the Constitution does give you rights, and none of those rights is absolute. Speech is regulated, association is regulated, and gun ownership is regulated -- and they have been so from the very beginning, including by the men who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights. That's just a fact.

[radon]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

No, the Constitution does give you rights, and none of those rights is absolute. Speech is regulated, association is regulated, and gun ownership is regulated -- and they have been so from the very beginning, including by the men who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights. That's just a fact.

Maybe you read a different document than I did. The federal government regulated gun ownership form the very beginning? I don't pretend to be an expert on American history, but that's the first time I've hear that one. In what manner did they regulate them? Tariffs on imports? Your view that rights are bestowed by a piece of paper would be completely out of context for the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers. It doesn't even make sense in the constitution itself. The very wording of the amendment in question is directed at the government in an effort to draw a boundary around its power.

I find this idea that you are granted rights at the whim of the government to be pervasive and damaging. The interesting thing is that there were arguments against having a bill of rights. There was concern that many people would misinterpretation it. Look at Hamilton's argument against having a bill of rights for instance. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fe..._Papers/No._84 Even with the 9th and 10th amendments spelled out explicitly it is interesting to me that his fears appeared to have been justified.

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson

The context for the above quote is in opposition to a central bank, but it can apply to any regulatory action the government might want to pursue.

Don't get me wrong, the government is thrilled with your view. Its much easier to expand government at the expense of others when you have them convinced that there is no limit on federal power and the only rights they have can be specifically enumerated on the back of a playing card.

[Prazak]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

Maybe you read a different document than I did. The federal government regulated gun ownership form the very beginning? I don't pretend to be an expert on American history, but that's the first time I've hear that one. In what manner did they regulate them? Tariffs on imports? Your view that rights are bestowed by a piece of paper would be completely out of context for the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers. It doesn't even make sense in the constitution itself. The very wording of the amendment in question is directed at the government in an effort to draw a boundary around its power.

I find this idea that you are granted rights at the whim of the government to be pervasive and damaging. The interesting thing is that there were arguments against having a bill of rights. There was concern that many people would misinterpretation it. Look at Hamilton's argument against having a bill of rights for instance. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fe..._Papers/No._84 Even with the 9th and 10th amendments spelled out explicitly it is interesting to me that his fears appeared to have been justified.

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson

The context for the above quote is in opposition to a central bank, but it can apply to any regulatory action the government might want to pursue.

Don't get me wrong, the government is thrilled with your view. Its much easier to expand government at the expense of others when you have them convinced that there is no limit on federal power and the only rights they have can be specifically enumerated on the back of a playing card.

I had in mind the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, not specifically gun regulations. But I also remember from Con Law days that there were many examples of states passing all sorts of laws that were prohibited to the federal government by the Bill of Rights.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a libertarian by nature and a privacy addict. I'm not saying that there is no limit on federal power. The Bill of Rights were, and are, precisely that. But neither are rights absolute, they are subject to reasonable regulation, and always have been.

How about a couple of extreme examples: Do you want your neighbor to own a bazooka? Do you want your neighbor giving a political speech over a loudspeaker outside your home at 2:00 a.m.? Aren't regulations preventing such things a reasonable restriction on our Second and First Amendment rights, respectively?

[Sharky]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

You have this backward. The constitution doesn't give you rights. You acquired rights by being born into the world. The are innumerable cannot be granted or taken away.

Absolutely correct. You have rights by virtue of being human. Nothing can change that. However, the rights are not innumerable.

Its not even possible to define them explicitly in any meaningful way.

Incorrect. There is only one core right, from which several other rights can be derived, and from which many principles fall.

That core right is the right to your own life. The process of living requires people to take specific actions; it doesn't happen automatically. We therefore have the right to take the actions required for the support, advancement, fulfillment and enjoyment of our own lives. That's what the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" really means.

The concept of a "right" pertains only to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference.

The primary implementation of the right to life is property rights. Since survival requires effort, if you can't keep the product of your effort, you have no means to survive.

When a government sets aside or forgets that basic right is when it turns against the very people who it was originally intended to protect.

[cbr]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

let's get real, our own George W. is quoted as screaming

"dont give me that constitution crap, its just a goddamn piece of paper!"

I guarantee obama has LESS respect for the document.

The only purpose for the federal government was to protect the states from foriegn powers, and to ensure that citizens of the US were protected from abuses of personal freedom by the state governments.

That's it.

Prime among all the powers to be protected were freedom of speech and association, and the personal protection of firearm possession.

Seems as though we changed course somewhere doesnt it?

Orwellian Oligarchy is now nearly complete: the only protection left is the remaining fact that congress, the exec, state leaders, the 2 parties, the financial community leaders, and the military do not have complete unity of interest.

What IS certain is that there is absolutely ZERO voice left for the citizens, even (especially) the upper middle class educated taxpayers in the private sector of business -- the very foundation of competence of our society.

The only people in the country competent to lead, or propose or generate the best solutions, cannot possibly get elected or have their agenda heard.

You dont have to look any further than Reagan, Clinton, W, or Obama to know that our political system is toast. None of them is even REMOTELY qualified to be president.

[kelton56]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

March 11, 2009: U.S. Army Soldiers from Fort Rucker Patrol Downtown Area of Samson, Alabama After Shooting Spree





Submitted without additional comment...

[flintlock]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

March 11, 2009: U.S. Army Soldiers from Fort Rucker Patrol Downtown Area of Samson, Alabama After Shooting Spree





Submitted without additional comment...

You have got to freaking be kidding me! A kook runs amok and they call in the guard? Why? All the cops being busy means looting at the Walmart or something?

[FRED]

Re: The American Civil war...Version 2 !

Moved to Rant and Rave due to one star rating.