For tax purposes, it's better to get murdered by a terrorist than a street thug

[Nothing But Net]

While doing my tax return tonight I stumbled across this at the IRS website: Tax relief for victims of terrorist attacks

So, for my heirs, it would be far more profitable if I died because some asshole bombed or flew a plane into my workplace, instead of some shithead blowing me away with a 9mm for no reason while robbing me at my minimum-wage convenience store job.

I'm not Ted Rall, but somehow this seems just unfair, and wrong.

Can anyone explain this to me?

[jaguar]

yes, stuffed.
same applies with them being *brave*
I mean the cops and firepeople etc sure, they did a fantastc job, which required balls but some stockbroker on the 101 floor when the plane hit was not brave, just unlucky. Same applies with terrorists being cowardly, how is sacrificing your lfie and hijacking a plane cowardly?

[Griff]

Thats right children, we now have a tax break for terrorism. Repeat after me, "If you want more of something subsidize it."

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
While doing my tax return tonight I stumbled across this at the IRS website: Tax relief for victims of terrorist attacks

So, for my heirs, it would be far more profitable if I died because some asshole bombed or flew a plane into my workplace, instead of some shithead blowing me away with a 9mm for no reason while robbing me at my minimum-wage convenience store job.

I'm not Ted Rall, but somehow this seems just unfair, and wrong.

Can anyone explain this to me?

Wow, I had no idea. So, does that mean if I get murdered by a Klan member, that my relatives will get a tax break?

After all, the Klan ARE terrorists by definition (using terror to coerce, intimidate, and futher political agenda). But, seems as though the US can't (or won't) acknowledge that. Won't see *them* on Bush's "axis of evil" list.

</mini rant>

[MaggieL]

Well, folks, like most other pork from the same barrel, this stuff is only available to a very narrowly defined set of people. As the PDF says, it's only for people who were killed in the OkeCity attack, the 9/11 attacks, or the anthrax attack. Getting killed as a rescuer counts, too. Any other attacks don't count, no matter how much you may think they are terrorism.

I certainly wouldn't count on the Feds or your local cops for either effective protection before, nor tax forgivness after an attack by the Klansmen, queerbashers, or othee Fine Upstanding Citizens. Among other reasons, law enforcment agencies are protected by numerous court decisions establishing that they have no actual duty to any citizen to protect them from attack.

... the following is from http://www.blackmanwithagun.net...and is void where prohibited by law.

-------------------------------------------
The year was 1957. Monroe, North Carolina, was a rigidly segregated town where all levels of white society and government were dedicated to preserving the racial status quo. Blacks who dared to speak out were subject to brutal, sadistic violence.

It was common practice for convoys of Ku Klux Klan members to drive through black neighborhoods shooting in all directions. A black physician who owned a nice brick house on a main road was a frequent target of racist anger. In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams.

Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen with no casualties reported on either side.

Williams, a former Marine who volunteered to lead the Monroe chapter of the NAACP and founded a 60-member, NRA-chartered rifle club, described the battle in his 1962 book, "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in 1998 by Wayne State University Press.

According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases, police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases, fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their intended victims were armed.

Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men who were willing to use them prevented greater violence.

It is important to note that the guns were not used offensively. They were part of an overall strategy that relied primarily on peaceful protest like picketing or entering whites-only establishments. Williams demonstrated that the dignified and responsible use of firearms for self-defense was an important method to achieve justice for those denied fair treatment by all institutions of government.

The civil rights movement was deeply divided between those who espoused a pacifist, non-violent approach and those who believed that human beings had a right and a duty to use force in self-defense. Williams was the most influential leader of the self-defense wing of the movement.

His effort to provide guns and training to African-American civil rights supporters was alarming to white politicians. Most state gun control laws, not just in the South, were blatantly designed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and other minorities. Those with racist beliefs were not pleased when blacks claimed the right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed to all Americans.

The connection with the NRA might surprise some people who portray the organization as a haven for racist rednecks. Former NRA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa spoke with Williams before his death. She recalls, "He was very proud of being an NRA member and that the NRA sanctioned his club without question."

The civil rights organizations of today bear little resemblance to the deadly serious armed activists of Monroe. African-American leaders generally support the liberal white line that guns are evil and have no place in modern society. On the other hand, small numbers of responsible black gun owners continue to honor their heritage by practicing their marksmanship and joining gun rights organizations. The tradition of the black gun club still lives on in the Tenth Cavalry Gun club, led by Ken Blanchard in Prince Georges County, Maryland.

While researching this column, I contacted Don Kates, a civil rights attorney who went to North Carolina in 1963 to participate in the movement. I asked if he ever carried a gun during those days and he responded with a list of a half-dozen that were always within reach. Kates also suggested that I read a letter written by an old friend of his from those days, John R. Salter, Jr., who is now Professor Emeritus at the University of North Dakota. Here are two brief
quotes:

"In the early 1960's, I taught at Tougaloo College, a black school in Jackson, Mississippi. I was a member of the statewide board of the NAACP and was Chairman of the Jackson Movement. No one knows what kind of massive racist retaliation would have been directed at grass-roots black people had the black community not had a healthy measure of firearms within it."

"During most of the 1960's I did civil rights work in various parts of the South and almost always had with me a .38 special Smith and Wesson 2-inch-barrel revolver - what you would now erroneously call a "Saturday Night Special."

In 1962 the Monroe freedom fighters were overwhelmed by a huge mob that converged on the town. The Justice Department and the state police ignored calls for help. The rabid racists were aided by law enforcement who branded Williams a communist and a dangerous schizophrenic.

Rob Williams eluded an FBI manhunt and fled to Cuba, which he erroneously believed to be totally free of racism. Within five years he realized that Cuba was not as he had imagined and moved on to China. There he was treated as a celebrity and returned to the United States in 1969 with the quiet blessing of Richard Nixon.

Williams worked as a China scholar at the University of Michigan and reportedly advised Henry Kissinger on Chinese affairs. He died in 1996.


--Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of Doctors for Sensible Gun
Laws, www.dsgl.org. He may be reached at rkba2000@yahoo.com

References:
http://www.lexis-nexis.com/academic/...as/bpower2.htm
http://www.natcom.org/roc/one-one/hope.htm
http://www.blackmanwithagun.net/intro.htm (Ken Blanchard)
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/GunsVersusKKK.htm (John R. Salter, Jr.)
---------------------

And while you're at it, http://www.pinkpistols.org

Interestingly enough, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was specifcally supported by US firearms manufacturers because it targeted "surplus military rifles" of the sort used by the people in Monroe to defend themselves.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by MaggieL
I certainly wouldn't count on the Feds or your local cops for either effective protection before, nor tax forgivness after an attack by the Klansmen, queerbashers, or othee Fine Upstanding Citizens. Among other reasons, law enforcment agencies are protected by numerous court decisions establishing that they have no actual duty to any citizen to protect them from attack.

It figures. :-(

*checks out websites*

Interesting sites.

Interesting that one particular culture that own guns are just expressing their Second Amendment rights, but other cultures that own guns are considered criminal, deviant and God knows what else if THEY are armed.

*shakes head*

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by ladysycamore

Interesting that one particular culture that own guns are just expressing their Second Amendment rights, but other cultures that own guns are considered criminal, deviant and God knows what else if THEY are armed.

Actually, armed cultures don't worry me much. Cultures don't shoot, people do.

The people that get all cranked up about "armed cultures" are the ones that are keen to disarm other people, having already been disarmed themsleves. People who think only cops should have guns, and then are outraged when some cops abuse their power.

People of good will who *are* armed tend not to worry about it as much. Even the "stupid white guy" contingent of the right-to-keep-and bear-arms crowd gives me less grief about being queer than the queer folk give me about being an armed citizen.

And then there's the Libertarians, who are very well-represented in RKBA circles.

Ferinstance:
---------------
How Much Do You Want To Keep Your Guns? by L. Neil Smith

Would you agree to permit adults to buy, sell, read, write, make, listen to, or watch whatever books, magazines, records, tapes, or movies they want, no matter how pornographic -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?
Would you agree to tolerate Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, atheists -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?
Would you agree to let women control their own reproductive process, have abortions (at their own expense) -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?
Would you agree to allow people their own sexual preference, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?
Would you agree to halt the "War on Drugs", to leave others alone, even to ruin their lives with alcohol, nicotine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, or any other substance -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?
Would you agree to respect the rights of anyone, no matter their race or national origin -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?...

(read the rest at: http://www.lneilsmith.com/howmuchg.html
and while you're at it: http://www.lneilsmith.com/whyguns.html )

And also read "Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun" http://tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

Originally posted by MaggieL
Would you agree to tolerate Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, atheists -- if they agreed to let you keep your guns?

I would just like to point out that the author of that text is extremely deluded. Scientology is not a religion. It is a business. And its business is ruining the lives of thousands of people. http://www.xenu.net

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by dhamsaic

I would just like to point out that the author of that text is extremely deluded. Scientology is not a religion.

Um...where did he say that Scientology was a religion? Of course the *Scientologists* make that claim--when it's convenient for them. But Smith didn't say that.

Did you follow the link and read the next sentence?

("No sane human being would sacrifice the rights he personally considers precious just for the sake of imposing his own tastes or opinions on others. Yet often it seems each of us disapproves of, and wants to outlaw, some one little thing that somebody else cares about or wants.")

And its business is ruining the lives of thousands of people.

As distinct from all the *real* religions that never ruined anybody's life. :-)
Look, I've got nothing good to say about Scientology, personally. But that's kind of the point, you know?

Oh yes. You're right. Grouping Scientology with a bunch of religions/schools of religious belief is in no way implying that it's a religion.

Come on Maggie.

"Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Oranges, Satanists, atheists... they all deserve the tolerance of the masses."

Does that look correct. No!

Why not? Because an orange isn't a school of religious thought. It's a fruit!

And yes, religions have ruined more lives than anything else on this planet. It just so happens that you don't have to give over $360,000 to L. Ron Hubbard's wife to belief in Christ.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by dhamsaic

"Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists, Oranges, Satanists, atheists... they all deserve the tolerance of the masses."

Does that look correct. No!
.

It *looks* malconstructed because it *is*, and deliberately so. Replace "oranges" with "people who like oranges" or "people who worship oranges" and you'll be more on-target, but less convincing.

The argument that *any* belief system "isn't a real religion" is a very common tactic of attack.

Scientology *claims* to be a religion. Most people who consider themseleves Scientologists (which isn't quite the same thing as professing publically to be one) belive it is a religion. And whether Scientology (or Islam, or Roman Catholicisim) actually *is* a "real religion", or merely an elaborate way to separate people from money and power is completely beside the point being made in the essay. The motivations or sincerity of Hubbard, or any of current advocates of Scientology have no bearing on whether it's a "school of relgious thought".

The fact that *you* think Scientology is a cult and/or a scam (a point I probably agree with you on) doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Smith's enumeration; far from it. I'm sure Smith was seeking to create a list that would push as many buttons on that topic for as many readers as possible That's why it's there. He was trying to elicit a response that probed the limits of your belief in personal freedom.

The question Smith is asking is "Are you willing to respect *all* of everyone else's freedoms in an agreement that guarantees your own? Or only the ones *you* like personally? Do you see how your willingness to limit other people's freedom limits your own?".

The piece is in fact a pitch for the LP, of course.

I think the most "on target" I could be with it is to replace "oranges" with "those running Enron". Those at the lower levels probably don't know they're getting ripped off. John Travolta, on the other hand, knows exactly what's going on. He is scamming people out of their money and their lives.

I'm all about religious tolerance. Scientology simply isn't a religion. Smith is likely ignorant of the true nature of Scientology, seeing as it almost certainly wouldn't be included in said list if he were not. That is all I'm saying - Scientology is a poor example of a religion.

[Undertoad]

Let it go.

[MaggieL]

I don't think I've ever seen a point so completely missed and so thoroughly demonstrated at the same time.