lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: 25+ U.S. States Declaring Sovereignty
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-13-2009, 07:24 AM   #81
Tommycat
>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
GTA:
USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" and it does not break the first ammendment. Actually, it attacks the 4th ammendment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4th ammendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And in all honesty, when people hear you supported it at all, that's all they hear. I said one time, "I supported the USA PATRIOT Act, until I read it," on another forum. From that point I was labeled as a supporter of the "Patriot Act."

Seems to me that more than anything the states want to ensure that the federal government does not further step on the Bill of Rights. And they are using the 10th ammendment to assure that. Granted, if the federal government pushes further, it could lead to a dissolution of the USA. though that is very unlikely. More likely is something like "The State of Texas vs USA" in the supreme court allowing them to get around being forced to take Federal funds and give up control.

@ True_Avery:
I never thought I would see the federal government so blatantly attack the 4th. Now I have a hard time not believing they are willing to attack the 2nd. Especially with the AG stating so blatantly that he disaggrees with the supreme court's decision regarding the 2nd. Kinda how the Pro-Choice side were worried about an overturning of Roe v. Wade.

As for arguing guns pro/con, I've done it enough to know it's a dead horse with enough whip marks and boot prints to remake "A Clockwork Orange" and I think it has a few additional bullet wounds.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2009, 03:17 AM   #82
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
I never thought I would see the federal government so blatantly attack the 4th. Now I have a hard time not believing they are willing to attack the 2nd. Especially with the AG stating so blatantly that he disaggrees with the supreme court's decision regarding the 2nd. Kinda how the Pro-Choice side were worried about an overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Very true.

However, I think the general public has let the government get away with it thus far because it has not had much of an immediate, visible effect shocking enough to get people to rise against it. Sure, they can looked into whatever they want about you but other than those being arrested without trial, I assume that much of the public could give less of a damn.

Banning guns, however, would have an immediate after effect visible by the majority and would, I assume, would cause more of an uproar. It doesn't seem feasible to do it immediately, but possible over a relative period of time.

But, as I mentioned, when that times has come don't we deserve to have that right taken from us? If we have let the federal government create and inforce the Patriot Act, don't we in turn deserve such in some way for not making a more active attempt at stopping it?

That is awfully cynical of me to say, but I feel the blame can be placed on both parties in this case.

This is all speculation on my part of course, so feel free to ignore me if you so choose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
As for arguing guns pro/con, I've done it enough to know it's a dead horse with enough whip marks and boot prints to remake "A Clockwork Orange" and I think it has a few additional bullet wounds.
Yeah, pretty much.

But, again, doesn't it worry you more that you find arguing about it pointless instead of feeling empowered to do so?

That isn't a jab at you personally at all. Just curious. The whole "power to the people" thing seems to be falling out of style as of late, and it may be our own inaction that leads to future problems.

But, as for the gun control debate, I agree that it does seem to be a pretty dead horse. Could make a thread, but it would probably fall into a flame war anyway.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2009, 08:30 AM   #83
Tommycat
>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Very true.

However, I think the general public has let the government get away with it thus far because it has not had much of an immediate, visible effect shocking enough to get people to rise against it. Sure, they can looked into whatever they want about you but other than those being arrested without trial, I assume that much of the public could give less of a damn.

Banning guns, however, would have an immediate after effect visible by the majority and would, I assume, would cause more of an uproar. It doesn't seem feasible to do it immediately, but possible over a relative period of time.
This is where I'll have to disagree. Fewer and fewer people own guns now. Gun owners are increasingly being portrayed as nutty extremists, and gang members. So in the same fashion that the USAPATRIOT Act did not affect a majority, I can see them making the same type of thing occur. The assault weapons bans are one aspect. You start with banning full auto weapons. next ban assault weapons(with a very vague wording). Then move on to large caliber weapons. Repeat until people are so restricted that very few people own guns(legally). Then ban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
But, as I mentioned, when that times has come don't we deserve to have that right taken from us? If we have let the federal government create and inforce the Patriot Act, don't we in turn deserve such in some way for not making a more active attempt at stopping it?

That is awfully cynical of me to say, but I feel the blame can be placed on both parties in this case.

This is all speculation on my part of course, so feel free to ignore me if you so choose.
Meh I won't ignore your speculation if you don't ignore mine haha. But really, this is what scares me more and more. We may get to the point where it becomes easier and easier to give up more rights. That disturbs me. It also happens to be why I am so in favor of protecting our rights. And you are not wrong to place the blame on both major parties. And actually you may want to include some of the minor parties as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Yeah, pretty much.

But, again, doesn't it worry you more that you find arguing about it pointless instead of feeling empowered to do so?

That isn't a jab at you personally at all. Just curious. The whole "power to the people" thing seems to be falling out of style as of late, and it may be our own inaction that leads to future problems.

But, as for the gun control debate, I agree that it does seem to be a pretty dead horse. Could make a thread, but it would probably fall into a flame war anyway.
That's the reason I get tired of starting those threads. I prefer to educate people in person. It makes sure that we'll be more cordial to eachother.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-14-2009, 02:40 PM   #84
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
And actually you may want to include some of the minor parties as well.
Those darn libertarians, taking away your rights

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-16-2009, 03:36 PM   #85
Tommycat
>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Those darn libertarians, taking away your rights

_EW_
Only in that they end up voting for one of the main parties rather than sticking to their party leaders. We all share the blame. Well all US voters. So to give them a pass for voting for one of the two primary parties is unfair.

edited to add. And please not I did say "some"


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-17-2009, 04:06 AM   #86
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,255
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post

Its been worrying me since the day I got into politics.
You're a politician? RUN!!!!!!
Quote:
Wont happen. Only the extremists want to get rid of guns for good.
Oh, you mean Ender?
Quote:
And, if I recall, you still have the right to own a firearm, talk freely, etc so I'm not sure I understand where you are going with that. Frankly, if a right gets taken away it is your fault, as well as everyone Else's for allowing that to happen.
Did anyone ever tell you how hard it is to keep track of you, presonally? I think it's time we had another chat. You are a nuanced person indeed...

In general yes we still have the rights for now. Pray it stays that way. That it stays a slippery slope. Because if it solidifies and "proof" is present it is usually too late by then, I think.

Quote:
But, again, so far you can go down to the mart and pick up an ak-47
Uhh, no you can't! Least not out here in the golden state of CA, missie.
Quote:
In the end, it would take a massive shift for us to give up our guns. And yes, I did say "us". As long as we are in our mind set, guns will stay in people's hands. But all it takes is a savvy leader to come around and convince us to let them go.
Like a savvy leader who can turn any opposition talk or nay-say sentiment into hate speech? Sure, that was Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini.

Massive shift? Make people stop seeing the big picture where the massive shift could be viewed from--eliminate the necessity for it. It isn't massive if it isn't seen.

Time and patience; Whittling away piece by piece, Law by law, vote by vote. Hyper focus on _every_little_thing. Maybe internationalize things so there is influence from outside to tell you guns are not needed.

That's how it would happen. A little here, a little there. By attrition and blindness. When government finally has tweaked every aspect and every component, *then* it would move in on a more massive scale. Except by then it would be much less massive than you'd think. It would be a fell-swoop executed in a "positive light" that the majority has been conditioned to "see". It would be done over time as people got more and more complacent, lazy, and apathetic towards the concept of guns and probably self defense as a whole. Kind of like we are becoming, now. So I am increasingly skeptical.

Why won't I just give it up? Because there must always be someone on the other side. For your own good. I believe in self-sufficiency: Utopia is a lie.

Quote:
Guns will not be taken out of our cold dead hands. We will hand them over with our warm hands, or simply never give them up in the first place.
The latter I hope is going to be the case. How fundamental...
Was it not a eugenicist by the name of Oswald giving a conference speech in 1962 about how people can be made to love their servitude? How if you could not persuade by force, then persuade by consent?

Quote:
That is unless someone can somehow forceable take guns from the majority, in which case they would have one hell of a fight on their hands.
At the wrong time, yes.

W.R.T. what Tommy said about gun owners being portrayed as nutjobs...this would be critical. I.E. a traditional gun owner like a veteran assassinating a beloved public figure. Then that would ensure guns and their supporters would be seen as public enemy with all the tweaks and turns as I plotted above. (Order 66 comes to mind, grimly.) At a point like what I am speaking of, the climate will be such that most things regarding guns would be seen as a no-no and large majority opinion on it changed by then. Even if we were just in a war. The population would be ready if they 'just had an excuse' to ban guns forever.
Quote:
A gun is a gun. It has no emotions. No feelings. It just is. It takes a person to pick that up and shoot someone, and I would much rather prefer the money going into banning guns to be instead placed into programs that try to find the origins of gun violence.
Quote:
So, again, we shouldn't be investing in getting rid of guns as much as we should be investigating on why our murder rate is so high. Is it because of poverty? Is it because of stress? Daily demands? A society bred on violence? Masculine attitudes imprinted on children? Or even the availability of said weapons?
Hyper focusing is okay to solve problems so long as it comes full circle in the big picture. Justice is blind so we must be its eyes.

Surprisingly, masculine attitudes regarding discipline and resolve have disappeared. So I very much disagree with you on that last part. Violence bred society? More like pseudo-violence because were we bred on real violence we'd basically be akin to the dark ages where "lottery" was a town stoning. I'd say most people are docile compared to, say, 100 years ago. Especially in the instantaneous age of the microwave and hand-held devices, of wireless internet. Why should anyone have to work for anything? Many believe they don't have to.

Quote:
Regardless, I'm going to have to follow GTA's statement in saying that it is, in the end, a slippery slope fallacy. Sure, it could slide and tumble down to the point of all guns being banned. But, regardless, it is human nature that is deciding this battle and with or without our precious guns... people are going to kill each other. Of course, I know you realize that but I felt it needed to be pointed out in the context of the argument.
True. Fine.

I'm not unreasonable, but I say there is nothing wrong with people today that couldn't be cured with some smacking sense back into their heads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
GTA:
USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" and it does not break the first ammendment. Actually, it attacks the 4th ammendment:
My bad. And yes, people only hear what they want to. Which is part of why I mistrust people.
Quote:
More likely is something like "The State of Texas vs USA" in the supreme court allowing them to get around being forced to take Federal funds and give up control.
Ah, you mean like Wells Fargo was forced into taking funds though it was doing just fine? Sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
However, I think the general public has let the government get away with it thus far because it has not had much of an immediate, visible effect shocking enough to get people to rise against it. Sure, they can looked into whatever they want about you but other than those being arrested without trial, I assume that much of the public could give less of a damn.
People are beginning to wake up to it.
Quote:
Banning guns, however, would have an immediate after effect visible by the majority and would, I assume, would cause more of an uproar. It doesn't seem feasible to do it immediately, but possible over a relative period of time.
Which I covered above.
Quote:
But, as I mentioned, when that times has come don't we deserve to have that right taken from us? If we have let the federal government create and inforce the Patriot Act, don't we in turn deserve such in some way for not making a more active attempt at stopping it?
...Maybe, Maybe not... I'll at least have done my part to try preventing it.
Quote:
But, again, doesn't it worry you more that you find arguing about it pointless instead of feeling empowered to do so?

That isn't a jab at you personally at all. Just curious. The whole "power to the people" thing seems to be falling out of style as of late, and it may be our own inaction that leads to future problems.
Good point.

I can't speak for Tommy, but I am empowered to speak it whenever one wants to know. Suspicious also, though.

Falling out of style? Such vanity, that attitude is. If power to the people and self-sufficiency are "falling out of style", I should like to counter that the grim reality and the bitter truth are not subject to "falling out of style".
You will lose your power if you do not hold onto it, yes...but that does not necessarily mean we 'deserve' to have it taken away.

@ Tommy: Hey, pal, it's only slippery slope until it's too late. Though I have high appreciation for research, one thing it does have a problem with is ivory tower syndrome. Historically speaking, isn't government reluctant to let go rights it takes away? Hence why we prefer IT serve US, not the other way around. Which I would think would happen with fewer strings and hence smaller size...
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > 25+ U.S. States Declaring Sovereignty

Thread Tools
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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.