Soback

Oh, and just to continue the debate. France is STILL BURNING. On Wednesday (two days ago), 163 cars were torched, as reported, it was the lowest number since the whole riots started. ROFL, they were reporting it in a positive note "Only 163 cars burned, the lowest number of since....blah blah". Yeah, Nomad is right, the measures of lowering tolerance towards rioters must be working. Only 163 burned during ONE NIGHT, and that's over a week after "lowered tolerance".

ROFL, That is THE MOST ludicrous and funnies thing I have ever heard. That's it, I know where we can deport all US criminals to for re-education and re-introduction into society. Maybe they will learn to be more tolerant and live a peacefull way of life. As a matter of fact, lets start a fund where private citizens can donate money to subsidize deportation of US criminals to Norway, it's a win/win situation. Norway reforms the criminals for us, we don't have to keep them here, crime rates in US drop, and it seems like there's no crime in Norway, as is evidenced by the lack of firearms on their police officers, seems like their criminal system reforms them to 100% law abiding citizens. I guess everyone in this world has their candy land, even the armed thugs. Too bad that US thugs don't know where to fly to on their vacation, we should point them in the right direction, they will never want to come back. LOL As a matter of fact, their system works so great, lets deport all the leeches there too. We'll pay them $1000 a head to their all mighty oil fund. Just thought of it too - Europeans hate pollution, keep yelling about the electric car, less gasoline usage, alternative fuels energy. Where do you think your oil fund will end up if you actually get what you want? ROFL. Imagine the chain reaction, this is kinda ironic that US consumption of oil is what allows them to make money in their oil fund, yet at the same time they complain about US consuming so much oil. If we switch to electic cars, they will be yelling and begging for us to switch back to gasoline when their oil fund takes an enormous dive. Oh yea, now it makes sence, THAT'S why Europe made sure after Katrina that the flow of fuel into US does not stop. US economy falters, US fuel consumption falters, their economy collapses. [ 11-15-2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

First of all. You keep saying the government is "supposed" to take care of it's citizens. Why are those same citizens are not supposed to take care of themselfs and leave the government to do what it's SUPPOSED to do, which is protect the rights of the people, not redistribute money, not loot from those who earn, not support the unemployed, not provide retirement or medical care. The only thing the government is supposed to do, is PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE. That's it. Let me correct you on that one. The government DOES NOT make the money. It DOES NOT create wealth. PEOPLE DO. When I ask "Does the condition of poverty give you the right to someone elseÔÇÖs money? " and you answer "No, but the government has to take care of itÔÇÖs citizens" it means, people who work and pay taxes have to take care of those who do not. You see, that "taking care by the government" is actually done by me and others who make a paycheck, not by the government. When I ask "Does the condition of sickness gives you the right to have someone else pay for your medical care? " and you answer "You pay for medical care thru taxes" again, what you fail to realize is that medical care COSTS MONEY to those who pay taxes and is FREE to those who do not. Therefore, does the condition of sickness entitle you to FREE (because you HAVE NOT PAID FOR IT, people who paid taxes did, and lets even say that 100% of population works, WHY is it that a guy who paid 50% of his paycheck in taxes gets the same care as the guy that paid 20%? Isn't the guy who paid 50% in that case paying for the other one?) medical care? When I ask "Why do you feel that I am responsible for someone I have never met?" and you answer "IÔÇÖm not saying that you are responsible for someone you never met, but the government are responsible for itÔÇÖs citizenÔÇÖs and you help the government do itÔÇÖs job by paying taxes. " Again, doesn't that mean that I AM RESPONSIBLE? The government collects taxes FROM ME, and gives it to those who have less than me. So therefore you make ME responsible for other peoples lack of ....money, initiative, knowledge to get a better job, skill, experience, ect....whatever they lack, I become responsible for. Another question. WHY do you say the GOVERNMENT (which means people who PRODUCE) is responsible for the less fortunate, the sick, the poor, the leeches and the lowliest in our society? Why are THEY NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELFS? Why is it that if a person makes 70 thousand then his life is his own responsibility, but if another makes 15 thousand then it becomes the everyones responsibility? Why does the percentage increase when I make more? When I make more, doesn't that mean I work more? Doesn't that mean I either spend more of my life going through school? Or that my job is more dangerous? Or that my job requires more skill? Therefore WHY is it that if I spend more of my life going to school, risk my life flying a plane as opposed to pushing paperwork behind the desk, or put out fires, or make over 100,000 doing brain surgery, WHY do I have to pay more? The reason I MAKE MORE is because my job DEMANDS MORE, yet socialism seeks to collect more and make my pay equal to that of a waiter at burger king. When you say "- You donÔÇÖt get free food, you get a small amount of money so you can buy food, pay various bills. -" So that food is not free to those who collect benefits? When you get something you haven't earned, it's FREE. Your working neighbor however, PAID for it, after all, where do you think those "small ammounts of money" come from. "Free medical care: thatÔÇÖs was taxes are for." Again, where do the taxes come from? If they are collected from a person that earned it, and goes to pay for medical care for the person who hasn't. How is that different than that same person walking up to you with a gun, and demanding your money because he needs his cough medicine?

If you are pro socialism, Aapen Post, or anyone who is for that matter. Tell me, what right does one person have to take something away from another. Is it just because they themselfs have less than another or nothing at all. Does the condition of poverty give you the right to someone elses money? Does the condition of sickness gives you the right to have someone else pay for your medical care? Does the condition of being stupid give you the right to live off of someone elses labors? Why do you feel that I am responsible for someone I have never met? Why do you feel that if I make 20 thousand a year, then I am poor but if I make 80 thousand then I am too rich and should take on the responsibility to care for another instead of the responsibility to care for myself, my wife, my parents and my children. Why is it that the society gets to decide how much is enough for me to live on, and at what point in my income I should have more money taken away to give to another instead of spending more on my family. Have you heard a phrase "Only a slave does not get to keep the product of his labor" Well, now that you have, tell me. If you don't get to keep the product of your labor but instead have it taken away from you for the benefit of that who hasn't earned it, are you not a slave to the lowest, poorest, sickest, dumbest neediest in our society? Why do you feel that those who produce, own even a single dime of involuntary "contribution" to those who do not? And the final question, as ones country becomes more and more socialist. Takes more and more of your earnings, your labors, ect... What is the incentive for YOU to work harder, if the harder you work, the exponentially less you keep. Think about it, how much better is it if you work 8 hour days and rent your own place, buy your own food, pay for your own medical insurance, and save for your own retirement versus not working at all but geting free appartment, free food, free medical care, and not have to worry about retirement. When does one reach a point where it's just becomes better to give up, have your standard of living drop a little but the "benefit" of not having to work. Why do I have to live for the benefit of another? Is my life not my own? Do not try to justify all of the above by, "civilized society", "kindness to another", "egotistic", "egocentric", "selfish", "to the benefit of the people", "to the benefit of society", or any of the nonsensical statements. Give me a coherent, logical explanation of: Why it's ok to have legalized looting and redistribution of wealth backed by the government with proclamation of "Your money or our jails", yet it's illegal for the same poor person to pull out a gun and proclaim "Your wallet or your life". Isn't it the same thing, either they get their living paid for by you with the government as intermediary, or they get the money from you directly without the waste of burocracy. Either way, it's your money that ends up in their pockets without your concent. [ 11-14-2005, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

I've lived in Belarus till the age of 11. My cousins still live there, family, aunts, grandfather, ect... In US, by the age of 18 I was the ownder of my second car and first motorcycle, by the age of 20 I became a commercial pilot, by 21 I was already onto my third car and my 3rd motorcycle. What allowed me to have so much fun, fullfill my childhood dreams of becoming a pilot, and accomplishing whatever I dreamed up is CAPITALISM. If I was back in Belarus. I would've never been able to obtain a car (maybe by 25, and it wouldn't have been a new one), I would have never been able to fly airplanes commercially, I would have been working away my days, paying for every lazy, crippled, dumb, corrupt leech that happened to live in the same country. Everyone but me profitting off of my labor. My cousins have that life now, they hate it, but because they have never experienced economic freedom, personal freedom, and freedom of oportunity, they gripe about it, but never would take the initiative to do anything about it, for the simplest reason of there's nothing else possible in that forsaken country, short of throwing an outright revolution. On another note, when I was growing up, my mother had to work long hours, struggle, walk or take public transportation everywhere. Everywhere you look there's corruption. The ONLY people living good were the officials. Everything was government controlled, and the only slogan was "for the good of the people". It was for the good of the people that as a student in school you had an obligation during your summer break to work in "kolhoz" (for the farmers), not to pursue your own agenda. It was for the good of the people that your pay was so you never had enough to put away. ANYTHING that you would do for yourself was sneered upon, you were labeled an egoistic, self serving, egocentric, ect...words and phrases that were drilled into kids heads to be the worst insult a person could get. Everything that was for the good of the society however, ended up being the worst thing for you as an individual. It held down those with ambition as they could never accomplish anything that would give them a return on their labor, be it an inventor working his nights away on something new (he recieved NOTHING but a nice plaq for his labors, every invention counted as peoples national resource), or some head of nationalized factory working late evenings to maximize production (he still made only fractionaly more than the genator did, which fostered massive corruption among the to "CEO's if you will" and the barter system prevailed among them *you give me a car from your factory, I'll give you a tv from mine*), or the lowliest laborer that actually cared about the quality of his work (he would still get the same pay and the same recognition as the guy who showed up drunk, *yes that was prevalent too, because as you worked for the government, nobody would care about the quality of your work*). Me and my mother came here when I was 11 with less than a $1000 dollars. During the 13 years here, I have accomplished more for my mom and I than a person living in Belarus could in their entire lifetime. As an example, my cousins are married, and still live in the same home they were born in (government assigned housing), and raising the 3rd generation (their own kids) in the same appartment. They don't have money put away for property, they get paid peanuts, and whatever enterprises they are involved in on the side (the country is becoming capitalistic little by little) are not enough to make much difference to affect their kids lives or their retirement in the long run (such as buying property, new car, or saving up to travel the world). As US government is chipping away at our rights here. As it becomes more socialistic, when I hear about wellfare increases, medicare, public social programs, ect...it's like a stab in my heart. For every dime that is spent on that, comes out from my labor, and others labor, to go towards something that is at it's very core a socialist agenda, some leech, some looter, or some corrupt politician. It is taken to better the life of someone, at the cost of me bettering mine. When I look how much I pay out in medicare or social security, it makes me feel sick. Because I could make 4 payments on MY house with that money, for my own retirement and my own medical care. A little side story, when I crashed my motorcycle on the freeway a couple of years ago. I ended up with a broken wrist, and had no medical insurance. The night I went to the hospital, there was some guy that was all smelly, ragedy, and barely spoke English that was receiving medical care for some cold (in the emergency room). I ended up emptying out my savings account to pay for the x-rays, and examination. Tell me that his care didn't come from my "contributions" (that's what it's called on the paycheck) to medicare. I would rather have kept those contributions and put them towards half of my own medical insurance payments than have it take away and spend on someone who is nothing more than a leech. What incentive do you have to perform, to invent, to work harder, to sweat, to stay up nights, to labor if you know that ALL the hardships that you have to encounter on the way will get you NOTHING in return. You can work 12 hour days, feel like your spine is splitting in two when you come home for a 5 hour sleep and make only marginally more than a guy who worked 8 hours because of higher taxes on overtime. You can work 2 fulltime jobs, and instead of seeing your paycheck double, you see it only go up by 40%, with exponentially more going towards CA disability, social security, medicare, and EVEN MORE towards taxes. And then when you go out to a national or state park for the weekend, you end up paying a "FEE" for park maintenance, when you know that that "fee" was already taken out in your federal taxes or state taxes (depending on which park). Or when you have an ignorant, incompetent DMV employee tell you that they can't help you with something because the "computer won't let them" (and that's coming from the DMV MANAGER, it makes you wonder why you are paying taxes for their employees paychecks, medical, and insurance. That's the reasons I hate socialism. It is a cancer. It literally eats away at the society, country, individuals. It fosters laziness, incompetence. It provides a safety net to those who would starve to death at the cost of a second car to a family with 4 kids, at the cost of private education for someone elses child, at the cost of me emptying out my savings after an accident, at the cost of someone buying a house instead of renting, at the cost of a two week vacation in Hawaii for a couple that worked 10 hour days, ect...The leeches will never have enough, EVER. The person that has to sweat away and see the fruits of his labor dissapear into a bottomless pit with screams coming out of it "more, need more, give more, want more, you have more" will. I could write dozens of pages more. Personal experiences, their outcomes and my thoughts. But you get the idea. It is my right, as a free human being, to recieve the product of my labor, and keep it for my own purposes and gain. Nobody should have the right to take it away from me. Paying for government to run smoothly, such as roads, infrastructure (mail, miscelaneous paperwork processing, ect..) is one thing, paying for every bum, every crippled, every lazy, every social service, is another. You do know that there's NO government disability insurance for self employed, yet they STILL pay for disability and social services fees from their paychecks, WHY? Just as they self employed have to purchase their own dissability insurance, and put money towards their own retirement, so should EVERYONE ELSE, because their life, their decissions, the products of their labor is theirs to recieve, and they should NOT recieve more at the cost of you keeping less. [ 11-14-2005, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

It's not an evil government conspiracy rant. I explaned the reason that I think they made it illegal to have "large" magazines. I have disproved their excuse for "the bad guy having to reload before the cop" bs, for as you can see, any way you try it, the cops will still have more shots than the bad guy. I have put forth my idea of why they banned "large" magazines. If you have another reason that you can put forth and give a coherent reason for it, in more than just one sentence, go ahead, because then I would like to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism Libertarianism is a modern political philosophy[1] that strongly advocates the maximization of individual rights, private property rights, and free market capitalism. Specifically, libertarian politics holds that a person's freedom to dispose of his body and private property as he sees fit should be unlimited as long as that person does not initiate coercion on others. Libertarians define "coercion" as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or deception (fraud), that alters, or is intended to alter, the way individuals would use their body or property. The libertarian political principle prohibiting coercion is known as the non-aggression principle, and many libertarians consider it a defining tenet from which spring all their political views. Libertarians see themselves as consistent supporters of maximum freedom and minimum state intervention in all human activities (where "freedom" is defined as negative liberty). Libertarians hold that no one should be restrained by initiatory coercion. Thus, they oppose the idea of government intervening in private affairs to forcibly prevent peaceful "victimless crimes." In the modern libertarian political view, if one consents then there is no victim and no crime. As such, libertarians support the legalization of drugs, gambling, euthanasia, and prostitution, among others. They believe that individuals should have the liberty to make their own moral choices as long as they do not use coercion to prevent others from having that same liberty. They believe government should not only refrain from preventing individual moral choice but also refrain from imposing any supposed moral obligation on individuals. For libertarians, government should only intervene to prevent coercion. In the economic realm, libertarians uphold strong private property rights. Some oppose taxation entirely (e.g. anarcho-capitalists), but most support taxation as long as its use is limited to protecting individuals from coercion (minarchism). Libertarians maintain that protecting individuals from coercion is the only, or one of the few, legitimate political functions of government. Thus, they generally oppose the tax-funded provision of public services such as universal health care, welfare, social security, and public education, preferring that all or most of these functions be left to the private sector. Libertarians oppose governmental regulation of business other than regulations against coercion and fraud. To the extent that libertarians advocate any government at all, its functions tend to be limited to protecting civil liberties and the free market through a police force, a military (with no conscription), and the courts. Historically, libertarianism has grown out of classical liberalism; although the two philosophies are not exactly the same, they overlap in many areas - and a significant number of libertarians refer to themselves as classical liberals. Criticism of libertarianism from the left tends to focus on its economic aspects, claiming that capitalism of a radical laissez-faire (free market) character undermines individual liberty, or creates poverty and harms society and the economy. Both left- and right-wing critics claim that libertarian ideas about individual economic and social freedom are contradictory, untenable or undesirable. Libertarianism's proponents claim it to be a sound rethinking of classical ideologies and a rejection of harmful statist policies. They further claim that personal responsibility, private charity, and liberal economic policies (laissez-faire) are more effective, and/or more ethical, in eliminating poverty than government intervention and tax-funded programs. Libertarians believe that the means of production should be privately owned and that investments, production, distribution, income, and prices should be determined through the operation of a free market rather than by centralized state control. Hence, in opposition to statism and socialism, they support capitalism. According to libertarians, government interventions such as taxation and regulation are at best necessary evils (as they involve coercion and disrupt markets). Libertarians contend that independent, subjective valuations by individuals interacting in a free market are the only sensible means of making economic decisions and that any attempt by a centralized authority to override these decisions by decree will fail or have overall negative consequences (see Austrian School). Libertarians favor separation of government and economy; therefore, they also oppose all collusion between government and corporations (see crony capitalism) that would override the free market. Libertarians oppose initiatives that would seek to forcibly "redistribute" resources in an egalitarian manner. One reason is the belief of many libertarians that welfare programs serve as a perverse incentive to keep individuals from working to earn a living and that they tend to perpetuate unemployment and poverty.[11] The maximization of economic freedom, they assert, would reduce poverty by making the economy more efficient, obviating the perceived need for tax-funded programs. Moreover, they believe that any temporary equality of outcome gained by redistribution would quickly collapse without continuous coercion, reasoning that people's differing economic decisions would allow those that were more productive or served others more effectively to quickly gain disproportionate wealth again. They see economic inequality as an outcome of people's freedom to choose their own actions, which may or may not be profitable. Libertarians oppose forcing individuals to subsidize unprofitable businesses through taxation (see corporate welfare). Likewise, they oppose trade barriers to maintain businesses who would otherwise fail in the face of international competition, as well as oppose tax-funded programs such as The National Endowment for the Arts to support unprofitable artists. Libertarians believe government spending and government programs should be eliminated unless they are directly involved in protecting liberty and that private institutions should replace them wherever possible. When dismantling government services is impossible, many libertarians (like Milton Friedman) prefer market reforms like school vouchers to the status quo while others (like Lew Rockwell) see such programs as a threat to private industry and as a covert means of expanding government.[12] And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud. It sees the only just basis for law as arising from private property norms and an unlimited right of contract between sovereign individuals. From this basis, anarcho-capitalism rejects the state as an unjustified monopolist and aggressor against sovereign individuals, and embraces anti-statist laissez-faire capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists would aim to protect individual liberty and property by replacing a government monopoly, which is involuntarily funded through taxation, with private, competing businesses. The philosophy embraces stateless capitalism as one of its foundational principles. The first well-known version of anarcho-capitalism to identify itself thus was developed by economists of the Austrian School and libertarians Murray Rothbard and Walter Block in the mid-20th century, as an attempted synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchism. While Rothbard bases his philosophy on natural law, others, such as David Friedman, take a pragmatic consequentialist approach by arguing that anarcho-capitalism should be implemented because such a system would have consequences superior to alternatives. Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists, who see the rejection of capitalism as being just as essential to anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state. Many anarcho-capitalists believe that much of the source of dispute is a definitional problem, with the classical anarchists using the term "capitalism" in reference to state capitalism, where government grants businesses monopoly rights and special privileges over individuals ÔÇö something anarcho-capitalists oppose. In contrast, most anarchists believe the dispute over more than a definition, as they hold that profit is exploitative for a number of reasons. Despite this tension, some anarcho-capitalists see their philosophy as evolving from the American individualist anarchism tradition that includes classical liberal thinkers such as Lysander Spooner. Anarcho-capitalism can be considered a radical development of classical liberalism. Its grounding in liberalism stems from Gustave de Molinari. Many proponents of anarcho-capitalism argue that Molinari was the first anarcho-capitalist, though traditional anarchists often hold that Molinari is more properly understood as a laissez-faire liberal. Even Rothbard admitted that, "Molinari did not use the terminology, and probably would have balked at the name" anarcho-capitalist. Nonetheless, Molinari did argue for a free market and against a state monopoly on force, and his thoughts were influential on Rothbard and his contemporaries. The axiom of non-aggression is not necessarily a pacifist doctrine, it is a prohibition against the initiation of (interpersonal) force. Like classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism permits the use of force, as long as it is in the defense of persons or property. However, the permissible extent of this defensive use of force is an arguable point among anarcho-capitalists. Some argue that the initiator of any aggressive act should be subject to a retributive counter-attack beyond what is solely necessary to repel the aggression. The counter-argument is that such a counterattack is only legitimate insofar as it was defined in an agreement between the parties. Another controversial application of "defensive" aggression is the act of revolutionary violence against tyrannical regimes. Many anarcho-capitalists admire the American Revolution as the legitimate act of individuals working together to fight against tyrannical restrictions of their liberties. In fact, according to Murray Rothbard, the American Revolutionary War was the only war involving the United States that could be justified.[19] But, illustrating their general ambivalence toward war, these same people also sharply criticize the revolutionaries for the means used ÔÇö taxes, conscription, inflationary money ÔÇö and the inadequacy of the result: a state. While some anarcho-capitalists believe forceful resistance and revolutionary violence against the state is legitimate, most believe the use of force is a dangerous tool at best, and that violent insurrection should be a last resort.

I will go as far as to say that the founding fathers ideology wasn't liberal, it was libertarian. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...try/libertarian Like me

Jag is right in one respect Grizzle. You are confusing liberalism, you are confusing liberalism with libertarianism. Those two are 180 degrees from each other. Liberalism is a cancerous ideology that fosters socialism, libertarianism can be looked like the base of conservatives and capitalism. The government is to be instituted among men to protect their rights, not to take it away from them, which is what they are doing today, and have been since early 1900's. Oh, and Aperson. Hate actually accomplishes a lot of things. Hate is what started the revolution in US. Hate is what started the communist revolution in Russia. Blind hate is destructive, while hate that is backed by knowledge is a powerfull enemy. Me, my hate for socialism is not blind, it's backed by knowledge and understanding of what socialism IS, by experience with it, and by what I learned so far over the course of my life. And therefore, as time goes by and I learn more, experience more, become smarter, my hate for socialism will surely not go by "accomplishing nothing".

quote:Originally posted by Grizzle: quote:Originally posted by Soback: What you, Nomad, fail to understand, is that the US Constitution was written to be UNDERSTOOD by the common man. Without the need for lawyers. If you need a lawyer to interpret for you the meaning of "All men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ÔÇô" then, like I have been saying over and over again, with your lack of knowledge on the most simple statement on this earth proves that you have no bussiness discussing US Constitution.Well Soback, apparently the framers themselves could have used a small lesson in understanding what they wrote given that half of them were slave owners. Not only that, but your incessant intolerance and disparaging remarks towards the "socialists", liberals, Europeans and effectively anyone who doesn't agree with you shows that YOU don't understand those words either. There are those who read Karl Marx, and those who understand Karl Marx. I have LIVED under socialism. My cousins STILL LIVE under socialism. You think I don't understand it? The reason I hate socialism is BECAUSE, I understand it. And the reason I hate liberals is because they are the ones pulling and pushing this country towards socialism, and the reason I dislike Europeans, is because they are socialist. And just for pre-emptive pursposes: Don't try to talk politically correct bs about how I am generalizing. Generalizations are based on MAJORITY not the whole 100% but maybe 90 or 80, and any smart individual would understand that when I say Europeans are socialist, I don't mean every single one of them, I mean the MAJORITY of them, and to prove my point, I don't see any conservative Europeans on this forums, however I have met two, and they HATE Europe and having to work and pay for every single bum. Europe WILL be imploding, and there will be some major changes within a decade or two, and that's not coming from me, that's coming from them.

If you decide to go with Freelancer, this will keep you busy for at least a year after you are done with the original. http://www.lancersreactor.com/t/

quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: te only one I see with a flawd premise is 32. I was under the impression for limiting magazine size was to increase the chances the bad guy would have to reload before the cop does. So lets see. At minimum 2 cops against a bad guy (if there were more, there would be at least half a dozen squad cars). Both of those cops having primary guns, and back up pistols. A bad guy and a cop having the same ammount of bullets (lets say 10 in primary, and 5 in back up for simplicitys sake), that would equal to 10 bullets on a bad guy, and 30 bullets on the cops side. So, even if it was 1 cop. Who would reload first? Now lets see. A guy with a gun, and a criminal with a gun. That would be about equal right? Now lets see. Cops with guns, and massive protestors with guns. So would the law be designed to protect you against a bad guy? Doubtfull, as not only the chances of an ordinary citizen having a gun are much lower, but the restriction on bullet ammount would apply to a regular joe too. A cop against a bad guy? Doubtfull, as police officers not only patrol in pairs, but also recieve back up in dangerous situations, and always report in when stepping out of the car to inerviene on a possible crime. Or to increase the chances of success of putting down an armed uprising, or at least to even out the odds? Not only would police have more guns (an armed person in the protest would most likely carry only 1 gun, police would have their primary, back up, and a rifle/shotgun in the car, so while police would be out numbered, obviously, they however, would have more guns per person, and more shots per gun, giving them a distinct advantage), but police would also have specialized guns (with bans on "assault weapons" *that don't apply to law infocment", the chances of an ordinary citizen having such a weapon are minimal). BUT, the biggest question we have to ask is, WHAT WOULD PROMT SUCH A RESPONSE FROM THE PUBLIC AS TO TAKE UP GUNS AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENT? And WHY is the government obviously , passing laws and preparing for a possibility of such a response?

So, they couldn't control the people with this scheme http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/research/su...ce/Schweik.html "While the government pressed ahead resolutely, popular opinion moved against the Australia Card. Civil liberties groups took strong stands against it, and civil liberties arguments became more and more prominent. Members of the public began writing letters. Newspapers were inundated with letters. It was by far the biggest issue in the country, with 80 to 90 percent of correspondents opposed to the card. There were numerous petitions to parliament against the scheme, with a greater total number of signatories on this issue than any other in Australia's history. The media, which at first had generally favoured the card, gradually became more opposed. In September 1987, as the government moved towards passing the Australia Card Bill, popular opposition escalated. The Australian Privacy Foundation was set up. Among its founding members were prominent personalities such as pop star Peter Garrett and cricketer Greg Chappell. There were rallies in several parts of the country, bringing together unlikely allies, including civil libertarians, left-wing trade unionists and conservative bankers and industrialists. There were demonstrations in several cities. In Western Australia, an anti-card rally attracted tens of thousands, the largest number since protests against the Vietnam war. Many individuals, in their letters to newspapers, announced their intention to refuse to cooperate with the scheme. All this pressure began to cause cracks in the government's ranks. Many Labor parliamentarians privately pressured the Prime Minister to withdraw the legislation. " ---So since they couldn't pass one form of control, they have decided to at least take away the guns so that in a decade or two, the population would be easier to conrol, and would not be able to resist the abusive laws if they were to be intsituted regarldless of oposition. Notice the time frame, first the card. Then when people were protesting, and threatening with disobedience and public uprisings, they scraped the card and switched over to gun control. Interesting.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html " Tasmania had passed their Guns Act 1991, and its restrictions apparently began January 1, 1993. These restrictions included requirements that a person have a license for possession of a firearm, and that handguns be registered. After the restrictions began, use of firearms in assaults increased somewhat steadily for four years (through '96). Firearm suicide rates dropped from the peak they had reached in '92, back down to pre-92 levels, and so did overall suicide rates. The drop, then, was caused only by the '92 peak rather than the guns act. No trend can be discerned regarding homicide in the time period because the numbers were too small and variable for any reasonable level of statistical significance." "In early '96, Australia had been having some bad social and economic problems for several years. Inflation had been very high throughout the 1980s.4 Major banks had failed in 1991.5 There had been a large influx of immigrants from Asia. Both Asians and Australian aborigines thought themselves poorly treated and had demonstrated against discrimination toward them.5 Unemployment had been very high for several years.1,4 Relative poverty, an indication of inequity within the society, was very high, exceeding that of Canada, England and New Zealand and exceeded notably by the considerably higher relative poverty in the U.S.A.6 Alcoholism, unemployment, poverty, crime, etc. were very high among aborigines. Youth unemployment was very high. The portion of households with only one parent had been increasing fast for several years.7 Productive (manufacturing and natural resource) industry had been in decline for years. [Note that several of the problems just described are generally accepted as being strongly contributing causes for most types of violence and suicide.] The public was naturally unhappy with the state of affairs, which they naturally blamed on their government. A federal (commonwealth) election was called for, so the February 1996 police council meeting was postponed.3 A new federal government was formed, headed by John Howard. An issue to distract the public from real issues, and serve as a unifying force, would certainly be helpful at this point. In January, 1996 seven people were shot dead in a Brisbane, Queensland suburb. Then, on 28 April 1996, 32 people were shot to death, 19 were seriously injured, and three others were otherwise killed near Port Arthur, Tasmania. The public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press, the medical community, the Australian branches of the international gun control cartel, the commonwealth government (including their "institute of criminology") and others. Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of "gun control" they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come. Within ten days after the massacre, the research staff of the commonwealth's parliamentary library finished a report about the "gun problem" for the enlightenment and guidance of the gun-ignorant representatives (ministers) to parliament. Or, was the report just waiting for addition of a release date when the massacre occurred? This report3 had some valid and useful information about history and options for forcing uniform gun control. It also had much misinformation and blattantly biased statements about "military-style" firearms, their lethality and evidence suggesting that increased firearms possession might cause increased violenceÔÇöspecifically, a study by Martin Killias for the U.N. Interregional Crime (and Justice) Research Institute (UNICRI). Within another three days, the police ministers held an emergency "special" meeting on 10 May 1996 (attended by at least one gun control proponent from New Zealand) and approved a gun ban program. The program was virtually ready and waiting at the time of the meeting although it may have been adjusted some. Additional resolutions were added in meetings on July 17 and November 15. The state parliaments would have to pass some laws in order to fully implement all the agreed changes, but some changes were made immediately. For example, the Tasmanian police minister thought that the existing Tasmanian Guns Act 1991 gave him authority to require registration of certain semiautomatic centerfire firearms, so he issued an order to do so on May 7, 1996 (even before the 10 May APMC meeting). The new laws would virtually ban private possession of pump-action shotguns and all semiautomatic firearms (even of .22 rimfire caliber) and provide for the government to pay people over the course of a year (up through September, 1997) to turn in such firearms for destruction. The money for this was to come from a 1-year increase in the "medicare" tax (this particular tax partly to solidify the public acceptance of guns being a "public health" issue). The laws would provide for a person to possess a non-military semiautomatic long gun, or pump action shotgun, for professional use only if the authorities could be convinced that the person had a "genuine need." A "genuine reason" (to the authorities' mind) was required for a person to have a lesser firearm. And protection of life was not to be a valid reason for having a firearm. The official Australian buyback web site history page says that the agreement was the result of "detailed preparation and extensive consultation (i.e., conspiracy) over many years." A representative of the Australian Press Council was a participant in a February, 1997 symposium [.pdf file] of gun control advocates, convened by the Dept. of Public Health and Family Services, to plan "public health approaches to firearm violence." Does anyone doubt that the Australian press was already prepared to keep the public convinced of the need for gun control when the Port Arthur massacre occurred ten months before? There was objection by people (basically gun owners) who were concerned about losing their right to have firearms, but resistance was divided. Many gun owners and their representatives made statements accepting some of the restrictions and the basic concept that their governments could or should restrict based upon someone's idea of what need people might have for one kind of firearm or another. A huge demonstration (150,000) occurred in Melbourne. At least one other large (8000+) demonstration occurred in Brisbane, Queensland on June 29, 1996, but the media basically ignored these other demonstrations. Most politicians caved in quickly to the media onslaught. The AIC and the media worked on maintaining high support for the new gun laws. On November 4, 1996 the AIC released "Violent Deaths and Firearms in Australia: Data & Trends." About 70 percent of this 96-page report (RPP04) is about firearm deaths. The rest is about Australian homicide over the years. On the same day the AIC also issued a media release entitled "Lax firearm laws mean more deaths." Here's something else. Just came across it, might be interesting: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/OzCard.html

Yep, they did it in Australie in 89, or was it the early 90's? Took away the guns. Jacked up the taxes 5 years later. Population started rioting against the tax increases, so the government brought out the riot police, shot some people, and put down the riots. Talk about opression. Now THAT's the difference between the French, US and other countries demonstations where the scum goes out to say how much more benefits and entitlements they want, and Australian riot where the population went out saying ENOUGH with taking our money away to give to the leeches. The socialists KNEW that they would have to raise taxes, and feared a revolt. Hence all the sudden gun bans and controls, and then 5 years later, tax increases. So there went the freedoms of their citizen, those who actually work to SUSTAIN the country. Try telling me they haven't been literally enslaved, or that they shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Actually try going down there and telling them that. They will beat you down with their fists.

What you, Nomad, fail to understand, is that the US Constitution was written to be UNDERSTOOD by the common man. Without the need for lawyers. If you need a lawyer to interpret for you the meaning of "All men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ÔÇô" then, like I have been saying over and over again, with your lack of knowledge on the most simple statement on this earth proves that you have no bussiness discussing US Constitution. That's by the way why Europe is a cesspool that it is. Because they fail to recognize that men should be free to pursue their happiness and that those rights are UNALIENABLE (look it up). I pity any society that doesn't live by those words. And in this day, that includes even US. LOL, needing lawyers to explain to me what "All men are created equal" and "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" means. Very sad Nomad, because it seems that most of US people have become so ignorant as to believe the same thing. Which explains all the corruption, abuse, and injustice...it comes from people like you and is inflicted upon people like me. But, like I have been saying, or rather I have been quoting "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." and when that time comes, there will be hell to pay.

Oh, and by the way. I still haven't seen neither your consession that France is liberal, or the back up to your statements that it's not. Don't think I will let you make a false claim and then continue on like everything's forgoten. Maybe if I have time, I will even bring back some of the other threads where you were caught in either skirting the facts or plain out twisting the truth, caught, dissapeared, to re-appear again after half a dozen posts like nothing's happened. Doubtfull though, becaus times a wastin and there's money to be made, and wellfare recepients to support, or they might riot. Good thing I don't live in France and still have my gun.

ROFL, Nomad, you missed Matchoos point by a mile, so the joke's on you. But since you took it there first. You're right, maybe there is life on Mars, lets hypothise, would that be in WMD biologial form that some previous "un-named, lol" society has developed because the other society that used to inhabit that planet was too lenient in their inspection programs? ROFL, or maybe it's in the form of underground dwellers because they had to escape the massive destruction and torching of their civilization by poor, missunderstood and opressed youngs of their species that have devolved and eventuall died out because the productive element has escaped and moved underground thus cutting off the constant hand outs and letting them have "their own planet". LOL Catching on to Matchoos point now?

Like I said. You ever heard the word UNCOSTITUTIONAL? Do you understand what the word means? It means AGAINST CONSTITUTION as you just seem to fail to grasp it. Here's the reasons you fail to grasp it. Some of the ammendments are UNCOSTITUTIONAL. Like the abolishment of slavery for example. The reason it's uncostitutional because as you read the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ÔÇô" Which means, are you following me here, which MEANS that when those people were brought to America from Africa to be used as slaves, they are people right? right, so they have unalienable rights right? right, so the rights are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness right? right, you see where I am going with this? Slavery was the ABUSE OF POWER. Yeah, that's right, slavery was un-constitutional in the first place, and therefore the ammendment was un-needed because those actions were ILLEGAL, wrong, and a criminal act of GOVERNMENT in the first place. Which is what happens when people fail to keep their government in check with the Constitution. Which is what happens when you have ignorant popultion that went through public schools, whos PURPOSE is to breed ignorance for reasons that a person lacking the knowledge is the person who is a slave. A slave to society and to government. That's why I call us citizens slaves, because government is using them as such, in dozens of ways, one of wich is FORCIBLY taking their earnings and giving it to those who earned nothing. Only a slave does not get to keep the products of his labor. Then there you go about how some countries have had more than one constitution. You think people of the United States of America care about that? Or do you even that it's a good comparison? Some countries have serfdoms, some countries have and still do marry at 12, some countries you can have 10 wifes, so what. That's the reason why we are the United States of America, and are THE BEST country in the world, and those other countries are nothing but a SOME COUNTRY. As far as you saying that Constitution is "imperfect". How dare you..... some european liberal coming to this boards and telling the US citizens that their constitution is "imperfect". I would take it as an insult coming from someone living in the US, let alone from an ultra liberal all the way from the cesspool of civilized earth. The Constitution has stood the test of time, has worked, works and WILL work the way it's supposed to. The reason US government is the mess that it is, is PRECESILY BECAUSE they have violated and ignored the Constitution, NOT because of it. And the reason they were allowed to violate and ignore the Constitution is because the people of the US are ignorant of their own countrys beginings, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence. So things will continue going down and getting worse till such a time comes when the price of sitting on your butt or starting a revolution will be about equal. Then US citizens will realize that they it's bad no matter what, the price is the same, however sitting on their butts in day to day life will change nothing, while revolting and instituting a new government will give them a shot at better life. Then, and only then will it get better. The time to yank politicians back into their place has come and gone long ago. That's why they are afraid now, and that's why they want to be able to use military agains it's own people, to take away the guns from the people, and to shut up any kind of voice with common sence by labels of hate speech, intollerance and politically incorrect. So, Nomad, francly the only thing you have done in this thread, is piss people off. You lack of knowledge on US and it's law is minimal to say the least, and your understading is non existent. You have no leg to stand when you discuss US laws, but those provided to you by your liberal views and life long experiences with socialism, seeing how US is neither one (or at least not yet) you should go do a little more studying and stop trying to compare the Constitution of the US to those of other countries all the while saying how it's obsolete based on your hatred of persons right to defend himself "(Posted by Nomad: It is clear to me that the right given to US citizens to bear arms under the principle to prevent government abuses is rather obsolete)". That's for US citizens to decide. [ 11-11-2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

quote:Originally posted by nomad: Interesting. So am I right if I say that you should refocus on the current properties of the legal framework rather than keeping referring to an instrument, the Constitution, who suffered so many parallel interventions who diluted its spirit in some areas ? It is clear to me that the right given to US citizens to bear arms under the principle to prevent government abuses is rather obsolete. First for these juridical reasons. For every legal argument you would come with, you may expect the government to counter it with another one. Third, Grizzle IMO is quite right to outline the differences at the time the Constitution was written, and actual capacities of contemporary military forces. If everybody was able to operate a musquet or a cannon in very short time 2 centuries ago, it is not the case nowadays. Firepower, range, hardware, mobility, speed of operation & battlefield real time information synthesis don't give the slighest chance to any rebellion, except if the military would massively turn against those ordering them to engage said rebels. Therefore, your best guarantee is represented by cultural popular cohesion rather than political, religious and economic bickering, and gun ownership who technically only represents a symbolic opposition capacity with no practical field of application given the dissimetry of ressources (or lack of it) available to both camps. First: Constitutin CAN NOT be deluted, as ANY law that is passed that contradicts it, is ILLEGITIMATE. Ever heard laws questioned on the basis of being UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Yeah, that's what that means. Uconstitutional = illegitimate, kinda like your statement about constitution being deluted. But I know you are not from US, and don't know this countrys roots nor it's founding basis, so I'll let it go. Second: Constitution CAN NOT be absolete. So it is CLEAR when you even say ludicrous things like that, shows not only how much you know, but that your whole argument thereafter bears NO relevance as your opinions have zero value when held against the US Constitution. Third: No they CAN NOT come back with a counter argument. If your are going by the Original Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence, theirs is the ABSOLUTE law, and you CAN NOT make such laws that contradict said documents. There's many laws that do, and like I have already told you, THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, people are just too apathetic to care, which brings up to point # 4. Fourht: It doesn't matter who could operate a canon or a masquet. If you can not operate a gun, that's your problem, because there's millions of others who can. If you can't operate a tank, that's your problem too, not only because there's others that CAN (Jag for example), but the point of military use against it's own citizens is ILLEGAL still stands. So don't try to base your argument against gun ownership or that Constitutin given right to own a firearm is "obsolete" by going into some hypothetical argument about how there's a tech gap and any possible rebellion would be squashed. That's not only a poor argument against something, it also shows that you don't udnerstand the founding fathers reasons for creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the first place, and hence without that understanding you have no place arguing neither for nor against it. So I will quote it again, from the Bill of Rights: "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,ÔÇôThat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." This GIVES us not only the right, but THE OBLIGATION to control and keep our government IN CHECK. And when US citizens do not know their own countrys three most important documents, it allows the government to get away with anything. That's ONE of the reasons why our public education is in such a decrepid state, the government simply does not want it's own citizens to know the powers that they hold. But this statement: "...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Shows us that they KNEW that people will be dumbed down, and will be too ignorant, lazy or just plain out apathetic about the abuses the government will inflict upon the population, UP TILL the point where Enough will be ENOUGH. Also, notice the words that it is NOT only our RIGHT, but OUR DUTY to throw off such governments. So Nomad, with this little education, maybe you now will understand why the technology gap between the common man and military is a NON ISSUE.

Oh man, if SC doesn't bag you guys someone otta. What is this "where can I find it?" I mean COME ON, you two don't even live in the same state. Any store that sells pc games, might have it. Yellow pages, phone, mall. This is like one of those ludicrous, zero value, annoying posts on the Sims forums, or pretty much any other forum for that matter. Stop it.

quote:Originally posted by Aperson: Eh? Could just be a phenomenon localised to Europe. Eh? Could just be a phenomenon localized to Earth.

I don't even need to justify other uses for guns. A SINGLE use as a self defense weapon is the best one for an average joe. I would rather defend myself with a gun that bare knuckles or a knife, anyday. If you want to suffer concussions, lacerations, or a cracked skull because a criminal went after you with a beseball bat or a knife, it's your choice. Don't force YOUR lack of initiative, or lack of skillful use, or whatever other excuse you can come up with on me. It's as simple as that. You anti-gun people are like vegans who want to force their disgust for meat upon everyone else. Don't want to learn to use a gun? Don't. Don't want to own a gun? You don't have to. DO NOT however think that just because YOU are "alergic" to them, then your neighbor should be too. Or just because you think that YOU are incompetent at handling one, or keeping it from your kids, that your neighbor is too. Or for that matter that if YOU should hide under your bed and call 911 when the window in your house shatters, your neighbor should be too.

quote:Originally posted by Aperson: Well, I'm sure when the American Constitution was frist created, the hardware gap between civilians and military personnel wasn't as large as it it now. Also, Republics and Democracies are often lumped together and then refered to as "Democracy" by the media and public as they are rather similar. Soback: That arguement is rather silly as baseball bats and fishing rods primary purpose isn't violence while a a fire arm is created to injury or kill things and it's kind of hard to use it for anything else (Its recreational use could be/is considered practise). First: It does NOT matter how big that hardware gap is, it has ZERO relevance on hand guns rifles and their operation. We are not talking about parking a tank in your garage or buying an operational fighter jet, which by the way is LEGAL in the US, as long as the armaments are rendered useless. Because just like guns, fighters jets are of GREAT entertainment and recreational value, and you can own one starting at as little as $300,000. Second: Just by you saying "rather similar" shows how much you know the democratic form of government and a republican form of government. It's like saying that an apple is similar to an orange. The only thing that they have in common is both being fruit and both being somewhat round. Same with democracy and republic, they are both representative, and they are both a form of government. People who use these terms interchangeably just highlight their ignorance and because their lack of knowledge in that case is obviously lacking, so is then the relevance, validity and weight in their statements. It's like a guy who points at a moped, and the first words out of his mouth are "This motorcycle is great, it has 900cc engine....." He has lost me on the second word, because from then on, everything out of his mouth is bs based on his ignorance of the subject at hand. Third: A primary use of a firearm was for HUNTING. In a way, just like the fishing rod, to OBTAIN FOOD. They were inefficient as offensive and defensive weapons due to poor accuracy, heavy maintenance requirements, long re-load times, and the difficulty of obtaining (it took MONTHS to build even ONE). As time went by, guns have evolved, and became usefull as a self defense, recreational (not practice, remember hunting, yes, hunting is called RECREATION, and so is shooting at the range, people don't do it just for practice they actually have FUN doing it), and yes, even offense TOOLS. But like I said, I can turn a baseball bat into an offensive weapon, or a knife. How about arguing that knifes should be outlawed? Arent they designed to kill? But like anything else, they have other uses too. Just like guns do. Self defense, hunting, and recreation being the MAIN ones. But with liberals perverted minds, everything is turned on it's edge. And their main failure, is udnerstanding the simple truth of GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. If someone wants to kill you, they can do it with anything, a baseball bat, a knife or even a pencil. [ 11-10-2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Right and since hand guns fall under ARMS category, they have NO RIGHT to single them out and deny citizens it's ownership. Reason I am pointing that out, is because in some places they argued that they do not deny peoples right to bear arms, they just don't want to allow them to have hand guns, but they can own riffles all they want. Last time I checked, hand gun is considered a FIRE ARM. As far as guns only purpose is object of violence, I beg to differ. I could make the same argument for a baseball bat in that case. A baseball bats purpose is to hit things. You can either enjoy it hitting balls, or you can turn it into an object of violence and hit people (like some criminals have done). I don't see baseball bats being outlawed. Nor golf clubs, nor knifes, nor even pencils for that matter. You can turn pretty much anything into an object of violence, which leads me to the conclusion that an OBJECT is not inherently for the purpose of violence, a PERSON and how he USES it, IS. And to prove my point, I use a gun at the range. It's a recreational activity. Like a sport. I can ALSO use a gun for hunting. Also a recreational activity. It is ALSO however, an efficient self defense tool. So by the same token, you can ban fishing sticks, because I can sure turn it into an object of violence and beat someone to death with it, although protecting yourself with it can be kinda tough. So, since I am sane, rational human being of good moral character, I use those tools for my own enjoyment and in a manner that does not conflict with safety of others. Liberals however, the suicidal mazohists that they are, not only willingly give up their rights, their freedoms, and their safety to the government and the criminals, but they want to pass laws, encroaching on other peoples freedoms, other peoples rights, and other peoples right to defend themselfs. That's what pisses me off the most. They can do whatever they want with their lives, I however, DO NOT want them to dictate the same standards for MY life, and my rights to self defense, or my choice of a recreational activity.