The Anti-State
 

Wouldn't it be great if we could just clear-out some land and let the Antis have their way. Then everyone would be happy.
They would have their paradise, there would be no:
Guns, alcohol, tobacco, work on Sunday, red dye # whatthafuckever, saturated fat, cars over three feet long and all of them would run on wheat grass drippings, fried food, schools would have no grades to hurt anyones feelings, cable TV, nudity, freedom of speech, there would be no bad language allowed at all (the stormtroopers would see to that), and anyone different would be taken out and "detained for their own good".
The rest of us could get on with our Constitutional lives free of harming them while they lived in happiness and bliss, huh?

TfD>You.

TPFD = life

no, > life.

rk, I think you're mixed up.

Red states (conservative repubicans) want to eliminate alcohol, work on Sundays, cable tv, nudity, freedom of speech, bad language, and detention. You might add political dissention, the choice to have an abortion, the choice to marry anybody you want, freedom of religion, science, and sex other than for reproduction. They would have the stormtroopers.

Blue states want to eliminate [hand]guns, tobacco, red dye # whatthafuckever, saturated fat, cars over three feet long and all of them would run on wheat grass drippings, fried food, schools would have no grades to hurt anyones feelings.

Maybe you can add your ideas to the viable third party thread.

I think his point is let the anti-ANYTHING people have their own little domain.

Anarchy is:

OH MY FUCKING GOD I FUCKING LOVE YOU HEADSPLICE

RANDY MILHOLLAND IS GOD, S*P > ANY OTHER COMIC. EVER. except maybe QC.


I miss Davan's old haircut.

<mr. burns>excellent</mr. burns>

Exactly, they are all the same.

Rockwell has a different opinion on Somalias "anarchy".Fifteen glorious years without a central government in Somalia! It was typically described as a "power vacuum," as if the absence of a taxing, regulating, coercing junta is an unnatural state of affairs, one that cannot and should not last.

Well, now this "vacuum" is being filled, with an Islamic militia claiming to be in control of the capital, Mogadishu.

But US officials may rue the day they hoped for a new government in this country. The dictator Mohammed Siad Barre fell in 1991. US troops went in with the idea that they would restore order, but thank goodness they did not. Bill Clinton's idea fell into shambles after 18 soldiers were killed by warlords. That seems like a low number in light of the Iraq disaster, but to Clinton's credit, he pulled out.

Since that time, Somalia has done quite well for itself, thank you (BBC: "Telecoms Thriving in Lawless Somalia"). But there was one major problem. The CIA couldn't come to terms with it. The US government likes to deal with other governments, whether it is paying them or bombing them or whatever. What makes no sense to central planners in DC is a country without a state.

So the US continued to talk about a "power vacuum" and secretly funneled money to its favorite warlords – a fact which the US officially denies but which has nonetheless been widely reported. Officials who have criticized the policy have been shut up and reassigned.

Of course this has little to do with r's point. We should probably start a gridlock party. Assess the situation each election cycle and support whichever option keeps the President, Congress, and Supreme Court at each others throats.

Wait a minute! Rk, aren't you anti-gun-control? :p

He's also anti-free market in energy, but nobody is perfect. ;)

Anti-gun control is not anti. It is for freedom. You can't be anti-anti.
And I have no issue with background checks, no felons, and simple firearm registration... but it stops there. No limitations on types of weapons, how many owned, or interpersonal sales, carry laws, etc.

Anti-free market?... you have me confused with someone else.

I believe in limited environmental regulation, not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

So you are OK if I have a bio warfare lab in my basement producing anthrax powder? Or if I have a nuclear warhead? Or a rocket launcher? Or a m-60? All those things are weapons. Are they all fine for me and everyone else to have?

Oooh! Ooohhh!!! I want to be able to carry a pocket nuke for personal protection! Cool!

We are talking about guns. You took "weapon" out of context and you know it. There is no need to twist what I say.
I know someone with an M-60... there would be no way to rob a bank with it, trust me on that.

You can buy large weapons on the black market, I know. Tell me why they are not used in crimes, if this is your fear.

You could mount it on a Hummer and smash into the lobby with it.

I imagine the lack of concealability is why you don't see a lot of LAWS rockets being used in gas station robberies. Well, that, and they're incredibly expensive. Your average crimes are committed by people who want a relatively small and accessible amount of cash, so it isn't really cost effective to use tactical weapons in your average crime.

And you would destroy what you are trying to steal... think a little.

Do "arms" in the First Amendment only refer to personal firearms?

I'd think there was personal ownership of larger weapons, like cannon, at the time, but what would the early US government's views be on personal ownership of, say, a fully armed warship?

I think it refers to personal arms. Not just personal firearms, but not large military grade weapons like bio, nukes, dirty weapons, armored mobile cannons/tanks, personnel carriers, etc.
So, if you want to own an 50cal, which some of my friends and family do, no sweat, anyone who is not a violent felon who wants to conceal carry a firearm from state to state, no sweat. I have no problem with a cannon. They are very impractical for anything but a compound, something I think someone has the right to have. Our family will have one soon... well, this branch.
Also, it is no one's damn business how many fucking rounds I own or if I self pack or not.

Anthrax powder is different from guns. It's not able to be controlled, only contained. A gun, whether .17 caliber or 6-inch, is a mechanism that must be operated.

The government has the right to ban anthrax powder because it's not a basic human right to spread disease.

I think it refers to rolls of toilet paper!:p

But how do you make the distinction? Anything you can carry? Anything that can be operated by one or two people? Why not a personnel carrier? It's just a truck with armor and a couple of 50cals, right? (I didn't look that up, but substitute actual armament)

Actually, I'll drop all my gun issues if you agree that the only guns to be possessed by citizens will be of the technology available in 1789.

I think it'd be terrible if the citizens of the US didn't have the right to bear arms. Imagine all the handicapped parking spaces you'd need.

Nothing wrong with that. For examples on good reasons on governmental control of energy distribution please see: rolling blackouts in So.Cal., regional blackout in the NE, and corroded pipeline in Alaska.

As long as that is what all cops and military get too, fine.

And criminals, especially the criminals.:cool:

Nawwww... antis don't really care about what they have... hell they can have rockets for all they care. Just as long as law abiding citizens don't have them.

I'm all for your constitutional right to bear arms. I note, however, that it falls short of giving you the right to use those arms...

You don't think you have a right to protect your life?

Do you have the right make the CHAK-CHAK pump action sound?

It is required.

I just did a Google Image Search for "SNIKT" and apparently Wolverine is Edward Scissor-Hands now ???

LOL!

Equating saving one's life with unlimited use of firearms is a touch dishonest. Personally, I think we should carry swords. That way, when someone tries a drive-by decapitation, they'll probably only get the person they were trying for.

I have never understood the "back to the past" mentality of those who don't like guns.
They are here, that is just not going away.
As long as it is the most efficient and effective defense weapon to use and what the other person is most likely going to be carrying, it is what I am going to use.

They use it as a response to the "it's protected by the constitution" arguement by gun advocates. The constitution has changed in many ways to reflect advancements in technology and wisdom. Women are allowed to vote, slavery has been abolished. The constitution was ammended to outlaw alcohol and then changed back to allow alcohol. It can be changed to outlaw handguns. The arguement that it is a right protected by the constitution is only as valid as the arguement for slavery and against a woman's right to vote and our right to drink alcohol was prior to the ammendments that effected those issues.

Listen, I do not support legislation restricting firearms. I would like there to be fewer hand guns. I believe that the world would be a better place without any hand guns. Do you agree?

I wouldn't have as much problem with hand guns if they were the same hand guns that were in existence when the founders wrote the constitution. They made the constitution based on the knoweldge they had at that time. Had they known the advancements that have been made, they may have framed the right to bear arms somewhat differently.

I think that there are three classes of weapon:

1) Weapons that should be available to the average person.
2) Weapons that should be available only to the military.
3) Weapons that should not be available.

Almost all gun debates are over where to draw the lines, not whether there should be lines, even though a strict reading of the Second Amendment would support the idea of no lines.

There should be no lines for private ownership. The fear is that someone will get a howitzer or something and use it to wreak havok in the community, but that possibility is too remote to be included in the argument. The cost is prohibitive, there's little to no availability, and there are a number of legal obstacles besides the right to ownership that must be overcome.

For example, to privately own fully automatic weapons (yes, it's legal), you must pass an extensive background check similar to that given to applicants to the CIA or who work in nuclear facilities, buy a federal tax stamp (I think that's what it's called) for each item, and you essentially waive your right against "unreasonable search and seizure". Every component is catalogued, and must remain with the weapon it's catalogued to. The feds can check on the location of the weapon at any time day or night, and you must comply. You can't leave it out of your possession unless it's secured in a particular way, and if you transport it, you have to notify the authorities. I'm pulling these from memory, so I might have missed some or misrepresented some details, but that's essentially the way it works.

It's much easier to get one illegally.

The fact is that humans always lived in king / peon type of society, it's just now that we're in a modern society, it's harder to see, but it's still the same. Corrupt interests are at the head of this jungle law that we see every day happening, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer every day.

But the videos just can't get any better, because at bestvideos.org, we've got the best!

And yet you don't hear about bad guys using fully automatic weapons to commit crimes. Well, there was that one bank robber a while back, but that's all I can remember.

I guess regulating weapons actually does have an impact on their use in crime.

That's because they're not usually interested in firepower. A bank robber wants somethnig to wave around so people will do what he says. A rapist wants his victim to not get away. A murderer just wants someone dead. They all want something portable, and an M60 isn't functional in that respect.

If anything, most of em would pick based on looks rather than function. It's not like they know anything about guns, other than they make them feel lpowerful.

No lines at all? Anything the military has should be available to the public? Tanks? Fighter Jets? Gunships? Warships? Nukes? Chem? Bio? Any weapon invented in the future?So registration and regulation are effective?

I don't know...I think justadequatevideos.org has some good ones.

I think I agree with most of what you just said. But I also think the main reason fully automatic weapons aren't used by criminals is that they are harder to get.

That is innacurate... the black market is flooded with AKs from China. Criminals don't use them because they are large, bulky and very easy to identify.

Just to be clear, are you saying it's easier to buy fully automatic machine guns on the black market than to buy any other kind of guns legally?

I find that hard to believe.

No background check, no waiting period. For a felon, it is the only way.
It is also the only way to purchase a non-traceable weapon. They are also far less expensive than new, registered weapons, unless you want a specialty weapon.

Also your common criminal that holds up a convenience store is a moron and probably couldn't get himself an AK if he tried.

Perhaps not... depending on what city he lives in. But, I bet he knows someone who can get him an illegal gun.
Anyone who knows their home town well knows that.

I do, and I don't. Then again, I have never asked, nor do I associate with anyone who would know.

You live in a dream city then.
I knew in HS.

As long as the National Guard can NEVER use their military grade weapons on US soil, EVER, under ANY circumstances, against citizens. Sure.:rolleyes:
& as long as cops get the same weapons that the rest of us get... but it is moot.
The plans are out there and anyone with a lathe and packing material will make a pistol as soon as their weapon is confiscated. I will be first in line for one. Only and idiot would not have the best weapon possible to protect themselves.
It is just an impossible scenario. You cannot go back in time.

Even to fight the Bad Guys?

You admit that only bad guys will then have guns. How can Cops fight them without having guns, themselves? Now, if only bad guys and Cops had guns, it would be easy for the Cops to identify the bad guys and take care of them.

Ok, UG. Impossible = pessimism.

US citizens are never the "Bad Guys". Especially to have military forces used against them.
Bad guys are cops that subjugate the population and remove freedom through superior firepower. Those are the Bad Guys.
I did not say the cops could not have guns. You misqoted me.