Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:25:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1628 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > > Why do I think this likely? Because I just don't see enough people who are
> > > willing to stand up and defend their rights and the rights of others.
> >
> > Maybe that's because most of us don't see those rights as being
> > under assault? This, even though we do understand those rights
> > just as fully and completely as you do?
>
> Yes, ignorance is bliss.
So let's see, people who don't come to the same conclusion as you
do, given the same evidence, are ignorant? No--rather, I'd argue
that you've determined the "truth"--or the end conclusion--before
you went out looking for evidence. I'm still waiting to see any
evidence of a concerted government campaign to cow us.
> > > Not too long ago I saw a video about several *conspiracies*. Mentioned was
> > > the seizure of properties (as highlighted in drug enforcement laws). Here
> > > are a few cases that were noted...
> >
> > I'd like a citation. Name of the video, company that distributed,
> > et cetera. Just because it's on film doesn't mean it's true. Video
> > is an amazingly effective propaganda tool, because it doesn't have
> > room for full citations or retracing of research, and hey, I SAW IT,
> > AND VIDEO DOESN'T LIE.
>
> Do a bit of searchin for search and siezure, confiscation, drug enforcement
> law... the video had many conspiracy ideas, most of which were certainly
> arguable. I only sited the drug enforcement because I had not known before
> how long these laws have been in effect. I have done some research on the
> matter but not enough to confidently send other people through the same
> trail that I have gone. The laws are real, the examples on the video were
> certainly dramatized, but the facts are there none the less. Do some
> searching yourself.
The examples on the video were dramatized, but the FACTS ARE THERE?
Really? It should be a small matter to find them out, then. Do you
have the name of the video in question, and if possible who it was
made by? I'd like to see this. Where are the facts? What are the
facts? Dramatization doesn't change the way those facts are read?
Right. And how old is this video? (2000 saw a major reform in civil
forfeiture law, as I've outlined below.)
And if you're not confident to send other people to retrace the steps
you found so compelling, then how can you be so sure of what you're
peddling here?
> > And isn't it also possible that these people aren't telling the whole
> > truth about what they were doing and the grounds of the forfeiture?
> > People often go looking for principles that will defend them and ways
> > to bend the truth when they want to secure a favorable outcome--even
> > if that means testifying to said same on film (though not under oath).
>
> It doesn't take a lot of effort to find other examples. The laws are on the
> books. They are enforced with a vengence because the authorities want to
> get paid. I didn't need the video to tell me this. I already knew about
> these laws. Didn't you?
I know about forfeiture and search-and-seizure laws, and in fairness
I have a lot of trouble with them because they operate before conviction
instead of afterwards. But "They are enforced with a vengence [sic]
because the authorities want to get paid"? Who are these "authorities?"
The DEA? (Forfeitures provide an amazingly small percentage of government
income overall--more of the enforcement arms' themselves, naturally--but
less than half a billion dollars most years, which isn't that much money.)
And if forfeiture is so incredibly important, why does the Government
deal with undoing some of the identified problems:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/106-1/hr1658-h.html
or the reform as passed:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:h1658enr.text.pdf
I'd argue that forfeiture law is aimed *against* the forfeiters rather
than *towards* enriching the Treasury. (Now, you can argue that the
latter is coming to depend upon the income, but that's another problem
and far from "intent.") Again, why would this even be a matter for
debate, if it were so vital to the secret plan?
The proceeds of forfeiture:
http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/02fundreport/FY2000AFPLinks.htm (which
will take you to the figures and data; the 2001 report is not yet
complete, AFAIK.)
If you'll note, the expenditure of said funds is limited to certain
categories of use. That's no proof against juggling, but it shows
that there's oversight going on.
> > One of my biggest problems with lots of Americans these days is an
> > inability to think critically, which I think is a very serious problem.
>
> Thinking isn't enough. Do some active research yourself. Any sites I may
> be able to give you will only be suspect because we already don't agree.
I've done plenty of research, and I can agree on a lot of the tidbits
of information you've cited--BUT where I disagree strongly is in seeing
a pattern and a necessary conclusion that some "they" in (or behind?)
Government have been plotting "our" undoing. I've got to wonder, seeing
this and the other branch where you invoke the Rothschilds as being
behind the inception of the evil Federal Reserve, if you're going to
start talking about ZOG and the _Protocols of the Elders_. It's all
eerily familiar.
And as for thinking critically--I've been at it for a long, long time.
I'm not automatically suspicious of any site you would give; but if
you won't give any on that ground, I'm *immediately* suspicious. I'm
not the one making claims that some unified connection exists, so the
burden of proof isn't exactly on me. But don't expect me not to pick
apart the sites--and cites--you give. I'm a professional researcher.
That's my job.
> > What laws? Which ones? The ones that the video claims exist?
> > Law can always be bent badly by bad enforcers of that law.
>
> The search and seizure law as applied to drug enforcement is not being bent.
In two of the three "examples" you give from the video, I'd argue
that it very much *is* being bent. Unless you can show me text to
the contrary, of course.
> It
> > happened to minorities for *centuries*.
>
> It has never been legal in this free society until recently.
It = bending of the law to gain a certain selfish end. And in
that sense, yes, it's been practiced quite commonly--blue laws,
voting tests, even vagrancy and loitering laws that are used to
harass minorities in "white" areas. But I presume your "it"
is "civil forfeiture"--and again, that's wrong. Civil forfeiture
is an extension of English common law, and it's been legal as
long as the US has been around. The drug forfeiture corollaries,
however, are indeed new, but they're under debate, and may yet
(we can hope) be completely reformulated.
> Misuse of the law by
> > self-interested agencies or individuals is as old as time itself.
>
> This law is not being misused. Just the people's trust.
Have you read the text of the laws in question? (As a constructive
aside, if you feel this strongly about these matters, you may wish
to think about going to law school to change them.) If I can locate
a web-accessible copy of the forfeiture statutes themselves, I'll
post them; otherwise, it'll have to wait until I have the time to
go visit the depository.
> > The thing that makes the conspiracists so wacky is that they
> > detect some kind of goal or pattern behind it that's somehow
> > newer or more sinister.
>
> The laws are not made up from some whack job of a conspiracist. The goal or
> pattern is the need for more money, which allows for the means of greater
> control. Control is power.
Nebulous "control" and "power"! By whom? Over what? For what
end? "They" want our guns away, our money, our property! Where I
differ is that I don't see any "they," just a lot of little "I"s.
It's typical of conspiracists to attribute some incredible competence
and intent to the government as an overarching "them" that's not made
up of individual Americans, but rather is some evil force (usually
controlled by something sinister). However, if you understood the
world around you (which is full of governments far more extensive
and/or corrupt than the US government, yet which do not impinge upon
citizens' rights to do most anything) and the historical view (where
what's going on today isn't nearly so anomalous, but is the result
of hard lessons learned in the past), you might see that it's not
nearly so sinister, or even *coordinated.* What do you think the
goal is? What's the purpose? Who are "they"? The laws themselves
don't mean anything more than what the laws state. It's up to *you*
to impart meaning to them, and I feel you're imparting too much.
In short, as long as dissenting voices are speaking, there's very little
peril. It's when voices are being actively and deliberately silenced
that one has to take notice--for example, Bush's closing of Presidential
papers in perpetuity--that misdeeds may be going on. I'd argue that
our rights, and our country, are pretty healthy overall. There's no
need for scaremongering.
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) What's the difference if the gun is at home or at a person's side, they are still armed to protect themselves. As the law stands people still have the right to arm themselves, which is what the gun debate is all about to begin with. I simply (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
