Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 04:20:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1427 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > With every gun debate I see/read, it seems to me more people would rather
> > live unarmed. I seems likely to me that, within my lifetime, guns will be
> > outlawed from private citizens.
> >
> > 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.
>
> This could be the case, but it could also be the case that people think the
> need for such a right has passed.
Be sure to thank the media for setting the people straight on the matter.
> I would think it would take either a consititutional amendment (no easy
> thing) or a series of presidents that had a litmus test on the subject for
> Supreme Court appointees (given such sorry appointments as Thomas and
> Scalia, I recognize this could happen in the other direction). I think the
> current nickel-and-dime routine can only go so far, but I understand that
> you may feel otherwise.
President Wilson managed to sign into law the Federal Reserve as well as the
16th Amendment.
> >
> > 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...
> >
> > 1.) A woman owns property where she grows some vegetables. Somewhere on
> > the land, her son was growing pot. The authorities somehow found the crop
> > and seized it...as well as the entire field. The woman claimed to know
> > nothing about the pot, but was held liable regardless.
>
> I don't see how this is a conspiracy.
The individual cases are not conspiracies unto themselves. The drug
enforcement laws are. They only help the athorities finance themselves.
Authorities seize property then put it up for auction. The money from the
auctions are pure profit.
It's taking virtually criminal
> advantage of a ill-conceived law (nor is it the only case), but that has
> existed as long as governments have existed. It's not something new. As
> these kind of things come to light, pressure will mount to change or repeal
> the law that allowed this kind of nonsense (and it should be noted that
> these kind of things often make a big splash in the press, but are quietly
> dropped later on).
This has been going on for over ten years (I can't remember the date the
laws went into practice). I fully believe that if anything was going to be
done about it, the time has come and gone.
> >
> > 2.) A man bought a plane ticket with cash. It was one of many frequent
> > trips to some shrubbery plantation where they only accept cash. The man had
> > a few thousand dollars in cash on him. Buying the plane ticket with cash
> > alerted the airport authorities, they seized him, searched him, and finding
> > no cause for arrest, confiscated his cash.
>
> Again, over-zealous authorities that will probably get people fired and
> waste tax-payer's money when the government is successfully sued. I don't
> see the conspiracy.
Again, the individual cases are not the conspiracy. It is the purpose
behind the law.
> >
> > 3.) A truck driver was returning from a drop-off. He had delivered some
> > heavy machinery. He had parked the truck for a moment when a patrol car
> > pulled up behind him. They asked him to open the trailer but found nothing
> > suspicious. They searched through his paper work and found ten-thousand
> > dollars in cash. Claiming that the possesion of the cash was grounds for
> > suspicious behavior, the officers seized the truck and the money. Two years
> > later, the shriff office gave the driver back the truck and half the money.
>
> And the results of the ensuing legal action?
What's not to understand? "Two years later, the shariff office gave the
driver back the truck and half the money." This *was* the "ensuing legal
action".
> >
> > Apparently all three cases are perfectly legal. More frightening still is
> > the lack of public scrutiny. Worse, if Joe Patriot speaks up, he may be
> > branded a conspiracy nut-crack. And while Joe Patriot may have some vocal
> > support, he will likely stand alone as no one else seems to think there is a
> > problem worth getting worked up over.
>
> Many people have objected to these kind of things - you don't have to be
> "Joe Patriot" on a mission to save society from itself. As to being branded
> a conspiracy nut-crack: these seem like three rather unrelated instances of
> governmental excesses that need to be corrected. Where's the conspiracy?
> What is the conspiracy trying to achieve?
You're hung up on the word "conspiracy". These cases were simply used in
the video to illustrate conspiratorial laws that only serve to place money
into the hands of the athorities so that can finance themselves.
> Of course, I'm not going to argue about a governmental conspiracy being in
> bed with Enron...
> :-)
>
> >
> > The fact that these search and seizure laws are even in existence simply
> > shows the apathy of American citizens.
>
> No, it shows the value of a free press.
I have stated in another post that the media is owned and operated by
members of the CFR... that is *every* mainstream media source (i.e., radio,
network news, periodicals, newspapers, television entertainment...)
That these cases exist is not due
> to the apathy of American citizens. If they *continue" unabated, THEN that
> shows the apathy of American citizens.
As I said above, this has been going on for over ten years.
> >
> > Therefore I don't think it will be too long before guns are illegal.
>
> Again, you may be confusing apathy with agreement.
I don't think so.
> >
> > What then. What if we lose the guns? Will anyone care? Besides the
> > incarcerated or committed.
> >
> > Isn't entertainment all that we really need? A bunch of happy slaves who
> > work upwards of sixty hours a week, participate in daily entertainment
> > rituals, and pop a few emotion-enhancing vitamins.
> >
> > Live happy and die ignorant.
>
> It's possible to not be apathetic and hold a strong opinion, but still be
> ignorant. This is only terrible if it is coupled with an unwillingness to
> listen and learn (no insinuation of present company intended).
Or is the average citizen has been conditioned to believe that other things
are more important, such as health care, seatbelt safety, or governmental
protection from terrorists. President Bush has often urged America to go
about its daily business as though nothing has happend. It seems more
appropriate to say; America, get busy being busy so you don't see what's
comming next.
> Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) I'm not sure what your point is or how you can draw that conclusion (I already addressed your "liberal media" comment - did I miss the reply?). (...) Well, you lost me again. What does that have to do with gun control? And passing a (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) This could be the case, but it could also be the case that people think the need for such a right has passed. I would think it would take either a consititutional amendment (no easy thing) or a series of presidents that had a litmus test on (...) (22 years ago, 23-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
