You are in charge

[daleduke17]

daleduke17: Yeah thats a good idea. I forget how many redundant or similar agencies there are in ohio but probably about the same as illinois. Most governments do have a tendency to bloat over time as everybody wants to get their piece of the pie.

http://www.ohio.gov/agencies/

There's a list. Sounds about like Illinois.

[Slytovhand]

Originally Posted by rahmota
Illegal Immigration
1: It ends. Border patrol is authorized to use lethal force to repel invaders. Which is what people crossing the border illegally are. You either come in through the front door or you dont get in. End of story.

Difdi:
Agreed. The border gets secured with a microwave fence, incursions are met by Army Rangers with live ammo, backed up with Apache helicopters.

I presume, therefore, that anyone who isn't full-blood Native American should either find a new place to live, or face a firing squad?

[AFPheonix]

I presume, therefore, that anyone who isn't full-blood Native American should either find a new place to live, or face a firing squad?

And they get to pay a helluva lot more for produce as there isn't really anyone else around willing to pick the fruit off the trees.
Hood River encountered that issue when INS started cracking down. Those farmers had fruit literally rotting on the branch for lack of workers.

[Difdi]

Tell me, what laws have been attempted to be passed that are unconstitutional? Or that up front are known to be vetoed? I am aware of one bill attempted by Ron Paul to bypass the judiciary and prevent them from declaring any law unconstitutional. Who will determine that bill to be unconstitutional? So far, nothing can be declared to be so unless done by the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court have to go over any bill that needs to be submitted for vote?

The Telecommunications Decency Act is a good example. There have been a number of cases in past years of city councils legislating against religious groups.

How will you prove at the trial for treason that the person submitting the bill was "knowingly and wilfully subverting the Constitution"? This is a criminal trial; you need more than "preponderance of evidence"; you're required to have "beyond all reasonable doubt" and have to convince a grand jury to indict and a regular jury to convict.
How would this make it hazardous for a lawyer to seek public office? In order for a lawyer to subvert the Constitution, he must be specifically trained on Constitutional Law. Most aren't.

It's not hard to read the constitution. to use the decency act I mentioned above, passing a law that criminalizes internet speech that is protected speech in any other medium, to look good to constituents ("I voted to PROTECT our CHILDREN!") would be a pretty obvious example. If you don't know the constitution, swearing an oath to defend it is violated the instant the oath is made. How do you defend what you have no knowledge of?

How would this make it impossible to prohibit the arrying of guns on private property or by one's employees? Laws that do this have already been determined by the USC to be constitutional and non-infringing; would this somehow retroact the court's decisions? After all, it is the USC that determines if a law is constitutional or not.

The US supreme court is wrong. Go find a legal dictionary from the 1780s, and look up what the phrase "well-regulated" means, as well as the definition of militia, both in the dictionary and the constitution. The second amendment doesn't specify a branch of government, it simply states the right shall not be infringed. If the right shall not be infringed, then it shall not be infringed. By anyone. If private policies trump the highest of laws, then what happens if you are on private property and see a sign that states "anyone on this land consents to being buggered, and agrees that no legal recourse is allowed"?

How do you recommend software companies protect themselves legally? Should we also institute regulations making it illegal to sell or otherwise acquire software or other shrinkwrap EULA items unless the contract is personally signed by the recipient?

If I buy a product, and there is no contract on the label, and I did not agree to a contract prior to paying money, I should not be bound by the contract that is printed on the inside of the box. That product is mine, from the moment I paid for it. I don't have rights to copy it, beyond the provisions given in copyright law. But I do own the copy I bought. A EULA inside the box that declares that I am only licensing it, not buying it, is modifying the terms of the deal after the fact. Getting a refund on opened software can be rather difficult, to say nothing of the companies that will sue you for breaching an after-the-fact contract you never agreed to.

Try this: By reading this post, you agree to send the author $0.02 in cash, postage payable by the reader. In return, the reader is licensed to make copies of this post, so long as no monetary or other material gains are acquired by doing so. Failure to send the author $0.02 within 10 business days will result forfeiture of ownership any pastries currently owned by the reader, to the author. The reader waives any rights to take the author to court over this, and must instead submit to binding arbitration, by the arbitrator of the author's choice. Note that this agreement does not limit the author to the remedy of binding arbitration, and the author may revoke copying rights from the reader at any time, for any reason.

It's just as legitimate as any other sneakwrap EULA, and I have just as much right to do so as a software company does. Courts have actually upheld the binding arbitration clause in EULAs in some recent cases. I wrote that up with silliness in mind, but if a software company can force you to agree to a EULA after the sale is final, then my little EULA above is just as binding.

You want to make a secretary of an executive responsible for an environmental violation that crossed her desk?
No, I DAMN well don't think so. You'd never get to hold that up in court.

No, I want to make a secretary responsible for anything she believes to be illegal, but does not report to the authorities, that crosses her desk. The law to do so is already on the books. Go look up RICO, it holds up quite well in court.

You have immediately removed all possible use for plea bargains, resulting in a lower rate of conviction.
Secondarily, you have immediately paralyzed all public officials. For example, as that principal, I WOULD NOT prevent the KKK from burning a cross on the school property, as calling the police or attempting to prevent that would be a violation of their civil rights.

Incorrect. The KKK is damaging the lawn, which is not their property.

Well, that's crippling the CIA even more than it is already crippled. Law prevents any domestic agency from performing espionage within the United States. Law also prevents the CIA from operating within the United States. What you have just done is say to the CIA, commit no espionage functions either within or outside the United States - it is illegal for a US national to do so. Which means the CIA is either made up of people that do not have US citizenship and are thus not subject to those laws, or the CIA doesn't exist, since it can't do work either inside or outside the USA.
Congrats.

Incorrect. It limits the CIA to behaving as a law enforcement entity, rather than a band of thugs and killers. The FBI is not significantly hampered by wiretap laws. The police do just fine with search warrants. There is even a special court for agencies to go to with covert requests for search and tap warrants. There's no reason the CIA can't do the same. If you're dealing with terrorists, for example, the emphasis would be on capture, rather than assassination. The CIA would be required to justify itself when holding a suspected terrorist, and would prevent the practice of extraordinary rendition. To say nothing of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods.

Secondly, your extension of extraterritoriality will be protested by every country in the UN. That's not going to work very well.

You appear to have misread my post. There are already US laws on the books that do what I suggested, I simply want to extend them to apply to official business. And I never implied, let alone stated that US citizens would be exempt from foreign laws when in foreign countries; Simply that if a US citizen goes to, for example, Thailand, to have sex with 10 year old girls, he'll be in quite a bit of trouble when he comes back home. This is already illegal under US law, and to my knowledge, nobody, UN or otherwise, has complained yet.

Much as I like the idea, current unfeasible. See your local Macroeconomics class on why. Simply put, there is NO material, including energy, that is able to serve as hard currency and not cause a total depression ala the 30s in today's society.

No, it wouldn't cause a depression. If anything, it would do the opposite. Why? For one thing, it would eliminate the national debt. For another, it would eliminate any need for income tax. Period. Go look up the federal reserve bank, and what it does.

Ah, the Starship Troopers solution. I might have agreed with national service for one year, but not this. If you want a draftee army, fine. However, I'll note that conscript militaries do quite badly on the scene of warfare. Secondly, you're asking fo a revolution with this type of deal.

I seem to have been unclear, as you're the second person to miss my point. I didn't specifically limit it to military service. The national guard acts as a disaster relief force, as well as a military force, and combined with the military changes I'd make, were I in charge, most of those serving would never touch a weapon, outside of basic training. But my original point stands: if you don't care enough to serve your country, you don't care enough to lead it, or vote for those who do.

Your views on the military are a bit idealistic. First, nuclear weapons is contravened both by US and international law except in such cases as we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction; nuclear is only a response to nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry. Utilization of nuclear weapons in such a...cavalier manner will result in embargoes, removal from the UN Security Council, and probably outright war with nukes being thrown our way. We do not practice Soviet-style brinkmanship as a war policy.

Again, I seem to have been unclear somehow, though I'm not sure how so many people are missing two thirds of what I said, and seizing on this one example. I specified nuclear as a ultimate response. Not a first response, not a response to every problem...a final response. You can get most of the same results with a large thermobaric bomb, without the radiation and pollution. Two thirds of my post on the matter was conventional, not nuclear...so why has no one commented on that?

Speedy execution? You mean deportation. Executing foreign nationals is a good way to have war declared...unless we simply don't care about the rights of foreign nationals anymore.
Also, I think the ambassadors and diplomatic corps of nations like Mexico, Canada, and the UK are going to be a bit pissed. "Mr. Ambassador? We're tagging you like a dog. Look, you German fuck, put up or shut up. This is the USA!" That's not very, uh, diplomatic.

Wow. So if someone who is a real life Hannibal Lecter illegally enters the US for his idea of a vacation, all we can do to him is deport him with a stern talking to, or his home country will declare war on us? Wow.

There was an incident a while back, of a neonazi in the USA who repeatedly emailed neonazi propaganda to someone in Bavaria. What he did was protected speech where he did it...the worst he was guilty of, under US law, was harassment. That didn't stop Germany from extraditing him, or stop the US from allowing it. As far as I know, he's currently still in prison, for a non-crime. I certainly don't agree with his politics, but he didn't commit a crime in Germany either. I'm dreading the next slip down the slope on this sort of thing; Perhaps someone in Germany will surf into a skinhead website in the USA, be offended by it, and the webmaster will end up in a German prison too.

I'll reiterate: If you enter the country illegally, and commit a felony, you don't get deported to try entering illegally again. You get a fair trial, and if convicted, you get executed. If found innocent of the felony, but guilty of illegal immigration, you get deported. If you're not an illegal immigrant, then other rules apply. If you're a foreign diplomat, then of course you're not going to be executed...of course, since it's impossible to simultaneously be an illegal immigrant and have diplomatic immunity, I don't see how you can envision the situation ever occurring.

Thereby ensuring that I can walk into the court downtown, pull out my Glock, and open fire on some judges, yo. Or that I can put on a fake military uniform, waltz into the Pentagon looking spiffy, make my way into a records room with my forged id, and pull some files. No metal detectors, magnetic card locks like you have in corporate buildings, or stuff like that. Fantastic.
Why yes...that guy should have been allowed to carry it into an actual courtroom and open fire. No searching, no guards, no metal detectors, no nothing. Yup.

Though the origins of the quote are somewhat in dispute, it's still a valid point: "Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both"

Yes, allowing unlimited carry by non-felons would make it possible to have a shootout in the courthouse (or the mall). But how does such a possibility justify the reality of infringing on the rights of the law-abiding citizens who would not do such a thing? If someone smuggles a gun in illegally, and his first shot kills the bailiff (or mall security), then anyone who obeys a law banning weapons is screwed. They have a legal right to self-defense, but if you remove any means they have of defending themselves, the end result is the same as if you banned self-defense.

I don't understand. WHAT standard security procedures? Standard security procedures are limited access, physical patdowns, and electronic scanning. What OTHER security procedures would take the place?

The fact that the soldiers have guns is a wonderful deterrent to random shooting sprees. Armed citizens likewise deters the same sort of random shooting sprees in public areas...except for those areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to defend themselves.

I presume, therefore, that anyone who isn't full-blood Native American should either find a new place to live, or face a firing squad?

I have some native american ancestry. Not alot, but some (french trapper that married into a tribe). But I don't understand what your point is here. It's illegal to enter the country illegally, punishing crimes is a legitimate act of government. Securing the border with the most advanced and cost effective methods is also a legitimate act. Those who enter illegally deserve to be met at the border in the same manner as any foreign invader is met: With a well-regulated militia, and turned back the way they came...or if they resist, turned back vigorously.


P.S., the author hereby voids the EULA above, no need to give me your two cents...

[crazylegs]

But my original point stands: if you don't care enough to serve your country, you don't care enough to lead it, or vote for those who do.

You can serve your country without having to join a body that has the primary aim of killing people in the most efficient way possible, you could become a paramedic, or a firefighter, you could work to maintain the highways or other infrastructure, it is not just the armed forces that serve the nation.

[Boozy]

You can serve your country without having to join a body that has the primary aim of killing people in the most efficient way possible, you could become a paramedic, or a firefighter, you could work to maintain the highways or other infrastructure, it is not just the armed forces that serve the nation.

I agree.

Everyone who works, learns, teaches, buys, sells, builds, invents, and lives in the country is serving the nation. We don't live in a vacuum. Everyone has the potential to contribute to the growth and well-being of their country.

[Slytovhand]

2 quick thoughts for Difdi.

Firstly... my comment on full-blood Native Americans was a shot at European invasion of the land about 300 years ago - the murders, enslavement etc of those orginally living there... and then relating it to the term 'illegal immigrant', since you were so willing to have them all shot on sight.... given that it could be argued that the 'government' is actually 'llegal'...especially when you look at all the 'agreements' that were brokered and broken.

Secondly... one word... Amsterdam (in relation to doing things that are illegal in the US, but may not be elsewhere).

Slyt

I think I like some of the ideas you are having, but not the way you are going about it. And that seems to be some of the arguments arising here...

[BlackIronCrown]

The Telecommunications Decency Act is a good example. There have been a number of cases in past years of city councils legislating against religious groups.

It's not hard to read the constitution. to use the decency act I mentioned above, passing a law that criminalizes internet speech that is protected speech in any other medium, to look good to constituents ("I voted to PROTECT our CHILDREN!") would be a pretty obvious example. If you don't know the constitution, swearing an oath to defend it is violated the instant the oath is made. How do you defend what you have no knowledge of?


Ok, since there is no listed Telecommunications Decency Act, I'm going to assume you are talking about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Title V is known under the more popular name of the Communications Decency Act.

It may surprise you to know that the CDA was NOT overturned and the majority of it is still in effect. The main problems were with the anti-obscenity and anti-indecency portions of the CDA. It was felt that the indecency portions were too broadly worded. Reno v. ACLU struck down the indecency portions because of that reason, not because it was unconstitutional. The anti-obscenity portion still remains in effect - it was correctly worded.

The refined variant of the indecency portions were passed as the Children's Internet Protection Act in 2000. It was challenged and the USC found it to be constitutional in 2004. It's simply a tighter rewrite of the part of the CDA that was struck down.

In no way does this mean that Congress or then-President Clinton (who passed the CDA) were deliberately trying to be unconstitutional. Something being too broadly worded is not an offense and thus serves as a bad example.

The US supreme court is wrong. Go find a legal dictionary from the 1780s, and look up what the phrase "well-regulated" means, as well as the definition of militia, both in the dictionary and the constitution. The second amendment doesn't specify a branch of government, it simply states the right shall not be infringed. If the right shall not be infringed, then it shall not be infringed. By anyone. If private policies trump the highest of laws, then what happens if you are on private property and see a sign that states "anyone on this land consents to being buggered, and agrees that no legal recourse is allowed"?

And here's where the reasoning fails. You are interpreting the Constitution in accordance with "strict constructionist" theory, which is a legal theory on the Constitution that was abandoned after the Civil War. You are attempting to use the original meaning of the words at the time the document was written, thus turning the US Constitution into a "dead document" that cannot be applied to modern legal situations as it does not address modern legal issues adequately. If you truly believe in strict constructionism, then you also a) do not believe in judicial review and thus the USC cannot declare what is and is not constitutional (which automatically retroacts every decision since Marbury v. Madison in 1803) and b) that the states had a right to secede in the Civil War, as explicitly stated by the Constitution, and that the Federals had no right to perserve the Union. Sorry, it's all part and parcel of that viewpoint.

However and thankfully, that is not how Legal America, including the state and federal governments, view the Constitution. The Constitution is a "living document" which must be interpreted in modern times in light of the spirit of the time it was written, not the literal word-for-word-without-deviation of the 1780s.

More info on the Constitution and its interpretation:
Strict Constructionism & Originalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
The Living Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

It's just as legitimate as any other sneakwrap EULA, and I have just as much right to do so as a software company does. Courts have actually upheld the binding arbitration clause in EULAs in some recent cases. I wrote that up with silliness in mind, but if a software company can force you to agree to a EULA after the sale is final, then my little EULA above is just as binding.

And rightfully so. Feel free to enforce your EULA by any legal means necessary.

(Although, I must warn you, you will have to prove that this is a private, not public forum, and thus you are in re sovereign when it comes to posting.)

No, I want to make a secretary responsible for anything she believes to be illegal, but does not report to the authorities, that crosses her desk. The law to do so is already on the books. Go look up RICO, it holds up quite well in court.

Ok, you're going to get 'em on the RICO statute. So, I'm some Enron exec and I pass a detailed report on how I and the board of executives are going to defraud all and sundry on to my fellow execs. It goes across my secretary's desk and she gets to make the copies for everybody. Now, exactly how is my secretary going to know this report is for something illegal when I'm using terms like "re-balancing input and output of income into negotiable protocols" and "determining cost/benefit analysis on subsidience into diversified subsidiaries in order to not negatively impact main fiduciary stability"? I'm using quotes from Enron's own documents on the shenanigans they were doing, ones that DIDN'T get shredded. Are you actually telling me that those phrases are going to trip a secretary's Illegal Sensor? How could you possibly prove that in court?

I don't think you have an understanding of the sophistication of white-collar crime. There's a reason why EVERYONE gets suckered by these guys; they're saying things that seem legit until you do the utmost careful investigation or the bottom falls out of the con.

Incorrect. The KKK is damaging the lawn, which is not their property.

No, but it is public property (unless a private school). A case can easily be made that any government property is public property and therefore is not subject to censure if the KKK is wiling to pay for any and all property damage that THEY incur.

Incorrect. It limits the CIA to behaving as a law enforcement entity, rather than a band of thugs and killers.

Except that the CIA is not a law enforcement agency and never has been. It is an intelligence and espionage agency.

The special court you mention for wiretaps and such exists only for domestic surveillance. Are you saying that we need a similar court for extraterritorial espionage, ie, permission from Congress to spy on foreign nationals or take action against foreign threats? Or are we going to be asking permission of a court in China to come spy against them?

Also, if the focus on terrorists is capture and not assassination, what are you wanting to do with them? A public trial? Let's say we capture a Pakistani terrorist - do you realize that unless classified as an enemy combatant we are required, BY TREATY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, to turn that person over to the Pakistani government to be dealt with? Are you suggesting that try foreign citizens on American soil under American laws when we have no jurisdiction to do so?

You appear to have misread my post. There are already US laws on the books that do what I suggested, I simply want to extend them to apply to official business. And I never implied, let alone stated that US citizens would be exempt from foreign laws when in foreign countries; Simply that if a US citizen goes to, for example, Thailand, to have sex with 10 year old girls, he'll be in quite a bit of trouble when he comes back home. This is already illegal under US law, and to my knowledge, nobody, UN or otherwise, has complained yet.

The reason why no one has complained is because it's already a violation of Thai law too. Trufax: must be 15-16 or older to have sex in Thailand. The 10 year old business is underground and illegal already. It's kind of like buying heroin there and porting it back to the USA - illegal in both places.

So, let's do it this way. Smoking pot in Amsterdam is perfectly legal, so long as done in a hash bar. So, American goes over there to smoke some pot legally in that country and when they come back here we arrest them?

How about old-fashioned prostitution? It's legal in many other countries. Gambling too. Should a native of my state, Georgia, be arrested because they gambled in another country and violated local law?

You probably don't mean to apply it to those items. However, that's the issue you run into with law - if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

No, it wouldn't cause a depression. If anything, it would do the opposite. Why? For one thing, it would eliminate the national debt. For another, it would eliminate any need for income tax. Period. Go look up the federal reserve bank, and what it does.

I understand exactly what the federal reserve bank does. There is no such thing as hard currency for ANY currency in the world today; none of it is backed by specie. Wishing otherwise does not change the fact that there is NO substance currently existing that would not cause a fiduciary mplosion if used as hard currency. Eliminate national debt? Absolutely. Cause runaway deflation, which would invoke a depression, same as runaway inflation does? Also, absolutely. That's macroeconomics for you.

Again, I seem to have been unclear somehow, though I'm not sure how so many people are missing two thirds of what I said, and seizing on this one example. I specified nuclear as a ultimate response. Not a first response, not a response to every problem...a final response. You can get most of the same results with a large thermobaric bomb, without the radiation and pollution. Two thirds of my post on the matter was conventional, not nuclear...so why has no one commented on that?

Because a) thermobaric bombs are also considered to be 'borderline' weapons of mass destruction and frowned on for use at all and b) the policy you're describing is called brinkmanship. We do not practice brinkmanship, period.

Wow. So if someone who is a real life Hannibal Lecter illegally enters the US for his idea of a vacation, all we can do to him is deport him with a stern talking to, or his home country will declare war on us? Wow.

Current legal state of affairs:
- If he commits a crime on US soil, we may try, convict, and punish him for it so long as his country says we can.
- If his country says no, we have to deport.
- If he has diplomatic immunity, we have to deport regardless. This is to prevent a cessation of diplomatic relations and possible reprisals against US diplomatic personnel in that country, if any.

Naturally, how our relations with that country are currently has a lot to do with it. Canada? Could care less if we try one of their people. China? Will make a stink.

There was an incident a while back, of a neonazi in the USA who repeatedly emailed neonazi propaganda to someone in Bavaria. What he did was protected speech where he did it...the worst he was guilty of, under US law, was harassment. That didn't stop Germany from extraditing him, or stop the US from allowing it. As far as I know, he's currently still in prison, for a non-crime. I certainly don't agree with his politics, but he didn't commit a crime in Germany either.

Actually, he commited a VERY big crime in Germany. Importation of neo-nazi material, especially if it references a swastika or other elements of the Nazi Party is forbidden by law and punishable by up to a decade in prison. If he was sending neonazi propaganda to a German citizen over the internet, that's a big crime in Germany.

Mostly you see that with games. For instance, Wolfenstein 3D and Return to Wolfenstein are still banned in Germany, as they reference Nazis. City of Heroes had a villain group called the Fifth Column who were neonazis; the images of that group had to be completely changed and all neonazi references removed before it could be marketed in Germany. The official term for all this is "denazification" and was started by the Allies after WW2.

If he was extradited, I assume it was due to a treaty. We had to agree to extradite before sending him over; we can refuse to do so. He did commit a crime on a German citizen, so *shrug*

cont. due to post length

[BlackIronCrown]

Though the origins of the quote are somewhat in dispute, it's still a valid point: "Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both"

As a side note, usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the most bloodthirsty bastards in all of American history, to the point of being really, really unsettling.

Yes, allowing unlimited carry by non-felons would make it possible to have a shootout in the courthouse (or the mall). But how does such a possibility justify the reality of infringing on the rights of the law-abiding citizens who would not do such a thing? If someone smuggles a gun in illegally, and his first shot kills the bailiff (or mall security), then anyone who obeys a law banning weapons is screwed. They have a legal right to self-defense, but if you remove any means they have of defending themselves, the end result is the same as if you banned self-defense.

1) The chance of someone smuggling in a firearm with current security procedures and detectors is nil if done correctly. You can't even detect a Glock going through. I should know, I've seen it attempted. You do it right, the only people with firearms are law enforcement personnel.

2) So, non-felons are allowed to carry on government property. So all these unarmed judges, secretaries, and other normal government employees who are not packing - what the HELL are they supposed to do when McCustomerSucks who feels his divorce terms were unfair unstraps the Uzi and lets go on full-auto? Or hell, just a pump shotgun with a mixture of shrapnel and shell, modified to accept a clip and with the slide jiggered so tht it can be racked by arm movement alone? No bulletproof glass, no body armor, no detectors - exactly what are these people supposed do? DIE? "Oh too bad, let's elect/appoint another judge?"

DON'T suggest that the federal/government employees should all go about armed and ready to pop off someone's head. Just because they're armed or even trained doesn't mean they're going to be able to quick-draw the guy. Secondly, it has been law (judged Constitutional too) that government employees are NOT to be armed unless they are law enforcement personnel...and even then, there are restrictions. Check on why the FBI was not allowed to carry firearms for the first 10 years of their existence.

The fact that the soldiers have guns is a wonderful deterrent to random shooting sprees. Armed citizens likewise deters the same sort of random shooting sprees in public areas...except for those areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to defend themselves.

Now, here's where we get to the crux of the matter.
WHY would I consider another armed citizen to be a deterrent if I'm armed myself?
Also, why am I relying on the "good nature" of others to keep it holstered when such doesn't exist? Why am I relying on everyone to "remain cool" when people can't keep a handle on their temper most of the time?

The reason -I- don't own a gun is because I know better. I would already be in jail for assassinating several people in incidents of road rage. Or arguing on the internet. Why? When I get mad, I simply (like most people) don't give a damn until it's all over.

Oh, and that's another good question. With your "Guns are allowed in government buildings." policy, what preventions do you take to prevent assassinations of government officials? Do we simply go back to a Kennedy-era situation where protection for government officials is, well, damn scanty?

That last one about the Native Americans was from Slytovhand, so I can't rebut that one.

[rahmota]

There is no such thing as hard currency for ANY currency in the world today; none of it is backed by specie.

I know and that is a very bad thing. Basically all money is any more is nothing but an IOU backed by the good faith and value of the government. Which with some governments doesnt really amount to much.

So, non-felons are allowed to carry on government property. So all these unarmed judges, secretaries, and other normal government employees who are not packing - what the HELL are they supposed to do when McCustomerSucks who feels his divorce terms were unfair unstraps the Uzi and lets go on full-auto? Or hell, just a pump shotgun with a mixture of shrapnel and shell, modified to accept a clip and with the slide jiggered so tht it can be racked by arm movement alone? No bulletproof glass, no body armor, no detectors - exactly what are these people supposed do? DIE? "Oh too bad, let's elect/appoint another judge?"

Well theres a bit of hyperbole and exageration now. The odds of that sort of behavior happening if the rest of the social order changes would be quite reduced. We are not talking about ckeeping our soceity in the exact same fucked up rich and elite have the power/ poor and commoners have the shaft social order we have now that generates the violence but a better more enlightened society where the citizen is respected, resources are fairly and equitably shared so that all people have the same ability to live a decent life. Do that and I guarentee violence would go down.

[DesignFox]

I live in the angry state....around the angry city parts. I'm pretty happy that most people around here aren't packing.

I can see why guns would be a necessity for self defense in rural areas, where the nearest police force is over 20 mins away. But not here. We're too damn crowded...I think that their should be limits, and it's no bad thing that criminals aren't allowed to bring their weapons to the court house with them...I think it's good that the teachers and students aren't carrying weapons on school property...etc. People who work in those situations do have a right to some security- not everyone chooses to carry a gun- nor should they have to feel the need to carry one in order to defend themselves.

People are fracking nuts. While I don't think we need guns to be outlawed, I see no issue with having some restrictions, especially in densely populated areas. Honestly, if someone popped one off around my neighborhood, there would almost certainly be property damage, if not major/minor injuries.

[Slytovhand]

... The odds of that sort of behavior happening if the rest of the social order changes would be quite reduced. We are not talking about ckeeping our soceity in the exact same fucked up rich and elite have the power/ poor and commoners have the shaft social order we have now that generates the violence but a better more enlightened society where the citizen is respected, resources are fairly and equitably shared so that all people have the same ability to live a decent life. Do that and I guarentee violence would go down.

Rahmota... love your thinking...

but please get back to me when society evolves to that level...


BIC... as for your long post, but my bit at the bottom... yeah - I already did respond

[BlackIronCrown]

Well theres a bit of hyperbole and exageration now. The odds of that sort of behavior happening if the rest of the social order changes would be quite reduced. We are not talking about ckeeping our soceity in the exact same fucked up rich and elite have the power/ poor and commoners have the shaft social order we have now that generates the violence but a better more enlightened society where the citizen is respected, resources are fairly and equitably shared so that all people have the same ability to live a decent life. Do that and I guarentee violence would go down.

Ahhh. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that premise. No matter how long one was in charge, be it 10 or 1000 years, I do not believe that the basic nature of humanity can be changed.

[Difdi]

WHY would I consider another armed citizen to be a deterrent if I'm armed myself?

For the same reason most violent crime declines in areas where concealed carry is very common. Attacking someone who is armed is a good way to get hurt; The average criminal is in it for the profit...gangbanger types aside, most would rather pick on the unarmed than the armed. How much of a deterrent to violence is it, after all, to know that everybody around you is helpless?

Also, why am I relying on the "good nature" of others to keep it holstered when such doesn't exist? Why am I relying on everyone to "remain cool" when people can't keep a handle on their temper most of the time?

The reason -I- don't own a gun is because I know better. I would already be in jail for assassinating several people in incidents of road rage. Or arguing on the internet. Why? When I get mad, I simply (like most people) don't give a damn until it's all over.

Self-interest works better than good nature, most times. And just because you might have self control issues, doesn't mean others would. Projection of your motives onto others is a logical fallacy, after all.

Oh, and that's another good question. With your "Guns are allowed in government buildings." policy, what preventions do you take to prevent assassinations of government officials? Do we simply go back to a Kennedy-era situation where protection for government officials is, well, damn scanty?

Heh, the protection Kennedy got was scanty, not because that was standard policy, but because, depending on who you ask, he either had a conspiracy among his bodyguards to kill him, or had an amazing number of screwups happen by dumb luck all at the same time. Open limos were forbidden by secret service regulations but one was used anyway instead of the armored limo he was supposed to have, his route was changed from the secured route to an unsecured one at the last minute, half his protection detail wasn't present when he was shot, and so forth.

I can see why guns would be a necessity for self defense in rural areas, where the nearest police force is over 20 mins away.

Unpleasant truth: In the US, the police have a duty to keep the peace. They have a duty to investigate crimes. They have a duty to arrest criminals. They explicitly do not have a duty to protect the citizens. There have been a number of instances where people trusted the police to protect them from criminals, called 9-1-1, and were injured/robbed/killed before the police arrived. Without exception, every lawsuit they (or their family) filed that claimed the police were at fault for not protecting them was decided in favor of the police. Because the police have no duty to protect citizens, it is the citizens own duty to protect themselves.

[BlackIronCrown]

For the same reason most violent crime declines in areas where concealed carry is very common. Attacking someone who is armed is a good way to get hurt; The average criminal is in it for the profit...gangbanger types aside, most would rather pick on the unarmed than the armed. How much of a deterrent to violence is it, after all, to know that everybody around you is helpless?

How is attacking someone who is armed a good way to get hurt? You simply wait for them to pass and then attack from behind. Being armed is no good in that situation; you're dead, no matter what.

But my other argument gets folded into this next one...

Self-interest works better than good nature, most times. And just because you might have self control issues, doesn't mean others would. Projection of your motives onto others is a logical fallacy, after all.

It is not projection of personal motives. I may not think I am a criminal, but I am. We all are. Free of fear of the law, we would all be looting and pillaging without a care in the world - because humanity is by default evil, selfish, and cruel. Oh, we may have personal relationships to others, like our loved ones and families...but that just makes us gangs. Or warlord clans. Altriusm is a lie of self-delusion; we are all damned from birth.

The only thing that keeps criminals/the populace in check is fear of the law. The fear that something that is higher than us, that operates outside of Rule of Man. Whether it be Fear of the Law of the Autocrat or the Fear of the Law of the Republic, it is fear that keeps the citizens in line.

Granted, there are those criminals who do not fear the law. These are the mental aberrations, the cancers of the human body of society. They must be rooted out, exterminated, cut out on the operating table of the world in accordance with the Law.

Heh, the protection Kennedy got was scanty, not because that was standard policy,

Now that's just plain not true. It WAS standard policy. See the reports of the French Security Service on the comparison of security measures taken between JFK and DeGaulle in 1961. It's appalling, really. JFK and previous presidents to him have been wide-open for simple lack of security. The OAS would have had a field day in comparison with the trouble they had with DeGaulle.

Unpleasant truth: In the US, the police have a duty to keep the peace. They have a duty to investigate crimes. They have a duty to arrest criminals. They explicitly do not have a duty to protect the citizens. There have been a number of instances where people trusted the police to protect them from criminals, called 9-1-1, and were injured/robbed/killed before the police arrived. Without exception, every lawsuit they (or their family) filed that claimed the police were at fault for not protecting them was decided in favor of the police. Because the police have no duty to protect citizens, it is the citizens own duty to protect themselves.

I disagree with this on two points:

1) The preamble for the Constitution directs the Republic to provide justice and for the common defence. That "common defence", per legal opinion, extends to protecting the citizenry from crime. So if cops are protecting citizens, they are NOT following the law.

Probably corrupt. A few public hangings or beheading will scare the rest into obedience.

2) If it is our duty to protect ourselves, what do we need the police and judicial system for? Protecting ourselves is the Rule of Man, warlordism. It's certainly not Rule of Law.