Subject:
|
??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:23:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1472 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> 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?
LFB,
Kirby is a little too conspiracy prone for my taste also (really, it's his
one obvious debate flaw), but that doesn't mean that he is wrong -- the fact
is, Kirby is right in most of the broader strokes of his statements, even if
he screws up the details. I hope Kirby will forgive me if I state that he
is a person dangerously equipped with a *little* of the correct information,
and enough of the incorrect information that he seems a fool and easily
dismissed. But he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, his fears -- to my
mind at least -- are more than justified.
Let's skip the arms part of the argument for right now. I came to some sort
of private agreement with Dave! last night sufficient to leave it alone for
a while. Dave! -- so annoying and fierce in debate, is quite the gentleman
privately.
Some of what has gotten under Kirby's skin is all about federal and state
asset forfeiture laws. These are very real laws, that are not only ripe for
abuse, but have been abused repeatedly. Coverage of these laws has actually
been ALL Over the media for years -- I think I have seen both "60 Minutes"
and "20/20" coverage of these laws, their inherent flaws, their ripeness for
abuse, and their actual abuse. Defending against them is VERY difficult.
People often lose everything they own. It gets legally complicated very
quickly to pursue these matters. It is difficult to find attys. that will
take your case against the govt. For many people, these factors added up
together mean that they are simply screwed. Full stop.
Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a country where the innocent are
NEVER supposed to be harmed -- indeed, even some of the guilty theoretically
go free to protect the rights of the innocent. Right? Due Process and all...
> Because there may, in fact, be no real problem--only an anomaly.
> Sure, it's a problem for the principals (not "principles") involved,
> but again it is not a symptom of a systemic failure. Human beings
> are human beings, and some are bad or corrupt.
I have to disagree. I have shown in other posts that the system has at
least several significant flaws, and the minor cracks are legion. I suppose
this gets to be a matter of opinion, and perhaps even comparisons to other
systems elsewhere -- but for me it is enough to know that things are going
to hell more quickly than we can repair the damage. At some point we will
past the point of return -- some think we are past that point already. The
simple reason is that most people don't have the education or training to
understand even the nature of the problems I am talking about. The U.S. has
become a house built upon quicksand. The study of history is close enough
to the study of the law that I would think you would know and agree with
this at least in part.
> What laws? Which ones? The ones that the video claims exist?
> Law can always be bent badly by bad enforcers of that law. It
> happened to minorities for *centuries*. Misuse of the law by
> self-interested agencies or individuals is as old as time itself.
> 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.
Without offense, LFB -- my question is: how much **** can you swallow? Is
it a little or a lot? As an american in the modern U.S. I have learned that
the answer for me is at least a little ****. To admit otherwise is also to
admit that I am as ignorant of the problems as most americans -- and I kinda
hate to do that. Maybe it's too romantic a picture, but I like to think of
myself out there in the dark with Hamlet comtemplating the truth about
political and personal evil (not a word I use a lot). I'd rather be faced
with the many grim truths about the U.S. today than comfort myself with what
I know to be lies. As I have said before, I am sick of modern hypocrisy.
Recognizing a problem is at least a start in fixing it; ignoring it won't
get you very far at all.
This is the United States, for crying out loud -- these kinds of laws have
no place here. The fact that they can be passed into law is shameful. The
fact that there wasn't any significant outcry from anyone except the victims
of the laws, is shameful. I'm outraged that such laws even existed in this
century, in this country. It is all too easy to ignore the difficulties of
others and keep sleeping in that comfortable bed, eating that comfortable
diet, and so on. Others are bleeding on our streets because of the truths
most of us refuse to acknowledge.
Anyway, before you cut loose on Kirby you might have checked your facts a
little (and I see you have in a more recent post
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=15596). I am pretty sure he is
talking about laws like: 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 & 982; 18 U.S.C. § 1341; 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956; 18 U.S.C. § 1961; 21 U.S.C. § 881; etc. What's scary is that the
expansion of this stuff is being carried on under the new USA Act/Patriot
Act and the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. But, y'all knew that and
didn't care about it either -- right?! I know you think the problem has
been fixed LFB, but I doubt it -- I really doubt it. You seem more
comfortable with govt. corruption than am I. Indeed, you seem to think its
par for the course.
You are also ignoring the many state versions of these same laws. Have fun
shepardizing the issue.
I quote the following from a website discussing the forfeiture of assets (it
jives with everything I know about the subject, learned years ago when I was
more interested in it):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To date, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been
victimized by Asset Forfeiture. Under this law, everything you own can be
taken away from you - Legally. There is nothing you can do about it either.
You can have your accounts frozen and taken, your home can be taken and
sold, if you have children, any accounts they have can also be taken from
them/you. This law charges the property with an offense, not an individual
-Therfore it is a civil case, not a criminal one. This means that, under
law, you do not have the right to an attorney, due process of law or even
the right to a trial.
To get a trial, you have to post a non-refundable bond of 10% of your
property seized. You have to pay for attorneys yourself, and this money can
also be seized if it is considered "tainted". It can take years to fight,
meanwhile you have no access to any of your money, a home or car.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kirby's conspiracy thing is actually small potatoes when you realize that it
doesn't take a conspiracy to ruin things. Still, I might call it a
conspiracy of ignorance, apathy, and comfortable living. And I have to
admit --it's contagious. I know I caught the bug some time ago. But, at
least I know I have become apathetic. Why I even respond to these debate
posts is a matter for speculation...
When I saw what Kirby was trying to get at I thought of Thomas Jefferson's
words from The Declaration of Independence, where it says: "He has erected a
multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our
people, and eat out their substance." Now those words STILL resonate, at
least they do with me.
I have to tell y'all -- It's hard to care about the stuff I know when few
others do. It's hard to keep caring when others don't even have the basis
for understanding the problem. We have a literacy problem in this country,
I don't even worry about the legal stuff anymore...I quit law school when I
saw that almost every other student I knew was a system kiss-ass. Sad but
true. Not much is likely to happen to save matters in the U.S. because the
momentum of the downhill slide has reached juggernaut force.
Blackstone and Kent weren't significant parts of the curriculum.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: ???
|
| (...) I hope that my rail against the intentionalist part of his statements doesn't come across as a "hunky-dory" sense of complacency. If you look at the end of my other message, you'll see the point--there are problems, and they DO need to be (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: ??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?))
|
| (...) Well I am certainly glad you did. You explained much that I know to be true, (and a good bit that I did not) but could not convey as effectively as you. Writing is just not my strong subject. (barring fiction of course :-) ) (...) Amen. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) What does it mean to "live unarmed?" I'd wager that living armed can vary--if you have a handgun locked away somewhere in the home, that's very different from "packing" 24/7/365. I'd bet that the vast majority--more than 95%--of gun owners fit (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
