Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:17:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> Be sure to thank the media for setting the people straight on the matter.
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?).
>
> > 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.
Well, you lost me again. What does that have to do with gun control? And
passing a constitutional amendment is the work of more than one man.
>
> 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.
The law was, in my opinion, ill-concieved in the first place and ripe for
abuse, but that doesn't mean it was some vast conspiracy to finance the
government (it was intended as a weapon against criminals).
>
> 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.
A Bush law, then. I doubt junior is going to do anything about it. Vote
against him and the Republicans next time, then (no, you don't have to vote
Democrat - I rather imagine the Greens and Libertarians would love to get
rid of that stuff). If the government needs money, all they need to do is
legalize the drugs and tax 'em.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
What law? What purpose?
>
> > >
> > > 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".
You are saying that after taking legal action, two years later they were
forced by the courts to return the money, but only half? Why half (What
law? Jury trial? No appeal? Is this an isolated case? Etc.)? You are
leaving so much of the story out that I can't even begin to understand it -
you may be absolutely right, but you have not given enough information for
me to make a judgment.
> 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.
After saying that I am hung up on the word "conspiracy", you make conspiracy
charges (by such name) in the very next sentence. I would suggest that
conspiracies are your hang-up not mine, and I'm just trying to get some
clarification on your claims.
As to government financing itself, they have something called "taxes" (for
better or worse). These other things are chump change to government, in any
case.
> 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...)
I have no idea what you are refering to, but you seem to be implying that
the likes of the Orange County Register, the Los Angeles Times, Road &
Track, Forbes magazine, Good Housekeeping, and Rush Limbaugh are in league
together for some neferious purpose. You are going to need some VERY
compelling evidence to establish that.
>
> 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.
And it came to the attention of the American people ten years ago? All
three cases? On unstated laws in two of your three examples. All ten years
ago? And in those 10 years, only three examples (though I'm sure I could
add some on the drug-related property seizure, which is a misuse of a law,
rather than its original intent).
>
> > >
> > > 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.
You may be correct, but you don't seem to be making any kind of compelling
case for your theory.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
Are you trying to say that with two Texans (from Gun Heaven on Earth) in the
White House, a government conspiracy is trying to condition America into
giving up gun ownership? Or do you mean the "liberal media" conspiracy (of
which Rush and the Orange County Register are in seeming lockstep with as
members of the CFR)?
> 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.
Bush MAY be hoping that people don't notice his and Cheney's connection with
Enron, but somehow, I just don't see him as trying to pull the wool over our
eyes so he can pry our guns from our fingers before they are cold and stiff.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) Bruce, I agree with your take on why the laws were placed. However, I do think that a conspiracy evolved. Law enforcement's most important lobby is the continuation of the War On Drugs. Not because it's the right thing but because if we quit (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) Be sure to thank the media for setting the people straight on the matter. (...) President Wilson managed to sign into law the Federal Reserve as well as the 16th Amendment. (...) The individual cases are not conspiracies unto themselves. The (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
