On personal liberties

[Cleopatra]

Yes I am asking you, How do you propose we "resist" tyrannical police state policies?

Will you give up your pro-gun theories If I tell you??? Will you admit that you are wrong to believe that you need the gun to protect your personal liberty?

Not that I care, I just mentioned it because you had the nerve to point to me logical fallacies to discussions about gun-control.

What about waking-up and trying to persuade people around you to participate in the elections?

 

[MoeFaux]

I'm pro-gun.
All the anti-weapon laws are killing people. If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.
And women, more than men, should be pro-gun. A woman with a gun will stop an assailant. It prevents rape.

 

[Cleopatra]

Sorry, I just so rarely meet a fellow Nevadan with political views that I even somewhat agree with that I got carried away.


But I will agree that a lot of the laws that got pushed through in the wake of 9/11, and many of our countries policies since then are, shall I say, overzealous. I don't know anything more about the two activists or their organization so I can't, honestly, form any real opinion beyond that. But I do agree that many of the new laws that are designed to go after terrorists now, have the potential to bite us in the butt and allow unscrupoulous elements among our governemnt to go after any one they darn well please later. It's a real probelm.

American governments are easy to accuse people and countries for being terrorist organizations affiliates without providing enough evidence to support these claims, so none can really check if they know of what they are talking about.

How do you know that tomorrow the cooking club you belong to won't be considered by the government a terrorist organization?

 

[Tony]

Ummmm....vote the b*stards out of office?

So much for "resisting".

 

[Peach Jr.]

After putting the Littlest Peach down for a well-deserved nap, I finally got to look at MoeFaux's link. Wow. It's sad, but not unbelivable (unfortunately) that the McCarran Act is being invoked today. Has it been ruled unconstitutional? I had a hard time figuring that out from the article. Of course, my lack of sleep might have something to do with that...

Nevada's a Mormon state too? I thought Utah and Colorado had the lock on religious nuts. Apparently not...

 

[Tony]

Will you give up your pro-gun theories If I tell you??? Will you admit that you are wrong to believe that you need the gun to protect your personal liberty?

Hypocrisy abounds.

 

[Peach Jr.]

I'm pro-gun.
All the anti-weapon laws are killing people. If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.
And women, more than men, should be pro-gun. A woman with a gun will stop an assailant. It prevents rape.

My Mr. is pro-gun also. He's been urging me to take safety classes before we move and he takes his new job. The job would involve a *lot* of travel on his part and leave me and the baby alone for long periods of time.

Guns frighten me to death, and I can't make him understand that. I *really* don't want to learn how to use them...I'm not certain I could get good enough to not have it taken from me.

 

[Sundog]

Hypocrisy abounds.

Your guns give you the ILLUSION of security. Like a nuclear deterrent, they are useless if you ever have to use them against the authorities. Where do you think your freedom would be ten minutes later? Laying on the ground dead along with you.

 

[Cleopatra]

Hypocrisy abounds.

These were your arguments, dear Tony.

Don't roll your eyes that much, they will fall off your head and you won't be able to see whom you will be voting. Again.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

After putting the Littlest Peach down for a well-deserved nap, I finally got to look at MoeFaux's link. Wow. It's sad, but not unbelivable (unfortunately) that the McCarran Act is being invoked today. Has it been ruled unconstitutional? I had a hard time figuring that out from the article. Of course, my lack of sleep might have something to do with that...

Nevada's a Mormon state too? I thought Utah and Colorado had the lock on religious nuts. Apparently not...

Well, let me put it this way, Nevada started part of the Utah Territory. Our earliest settlement was called Mormon station and we have the biggest Mormon population outside of Utah (in terms of % not in sheer numbers). We aren't as bad as Utah by any means, but there are enough Mormons here to be a force in politics.

 

[Cleopatra]

MoeFaux

I apologize for derailing your thread but young Tony has been lecturing us for weeks that he needs guns to protect his personal freedoms and that this is the reason the Constitution gave him the right to carry guns...

The thread is about personal freedoms and how to protect them; guns is not one of the ways for a citizen to defend his freedom.

 

[Tony]

These were your arguments, dear Tony.

My argument with you was:

The irony is, Cleopatra is anti-gun and favors the control and/or complete ban of guns, but here she is saying we need to RESIST police state policies and stand up for our rights. Let me guess Cleo, we need to RESIST and stand up for our rights (but only the ones you agree with). Sorry if I am skeptical.

.....and you won't be able to see whom you will be voting. Again.

Huh?

 

[Cleopatra]

Skeptical Tony, where did you post this?

 

[MoeFaux]

Peach, there's nothing wrong with being afraid of guns. Guns are meant to destroy. However, with the proper education and training, you could learn how to be in control. You might be surpirsed to find that you actually like shooting.
There's all different kinds of uses for guns, from paintball to skeet shooting. Knowing how to use a gun doesn't make a person a killer. It just gives you a quirky hobby.
It never hurts to try something once. Hire a sitter and have the hubby take you to a practice range. Insist on a nice dinner afterwards, so you'll have a nice time no matter what.

 

[gnome]

ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
September 23, 1950
Congress passes the McCarran Act, also known as The Internal Security Act of 1950, overriding Harry Truman's veto. The act provides for severe restrictions on civil liberties, suspension of free speech, and placing of undesirable Americans in concentration camps. The act has never been repealed.

I'm on your side, MoeFaux, just wanted to correct an inaccuracy:

From the link you posted:

In seeking the deportation in 1987 of Hamide, Shehadeh and six other Palestinian immigrants allegedly associated with the PFLP, the Reagan administration's Justice Department invoked a provision of the Cold War-era McCarran-Walter Act, which barred membership in communist groups. But a lawsuit filed by the so-called L.A. 8 led a federal appeals court to declare the law an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, and Congress repealed it in 1990.

So it seems that this law has been repealed after all. Which isn't stopping the "Justice" department from abusing people's rights under the Patriot act or other legislation, just that this law is not the problem.

 

[LW]

If there just one passenger had had a gun on one of the planes on 9/11, the Trade Towers would still be standing. There's no doubt about that.

I'd say there is a doubt about that, because in that case also the terrorists could have been carrying guns on the planes. I (or anyone else) can't say for certain what would have happened then. It might be that passangers would have shot the terrorists. Or it might be that the terrorists having an element of surprise could have intimidated everyone to stay put.

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On personal liberties

snip...

the people who are actually using drugs are too damn lazy to get out and vote. ...

If only you could vote through your television, via remote control, the potheads would take over the world, and then look at it really intensely until it starts to look really, really wierd, man. Got anything to eat?

 

[Tony]

If so, why your support for the president and admiinistration responsible for the biggest inroads into personal freedom in the entire history of the country.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Tony]

Skeptical Tony, where did you post this?

Seek and yee shall find.

(a few posts up when Sundog asked me to explain the irony)

 

[MoeFaux]

Cleo, when someone says that they need a gun to protect their freedom, they're usually saying that figuratively. Tony (I'm assuming here, I haven't seen the original statement by him) isn't going to go shooting people who infringe on his personal liberties. What a gun enthusiast and fighter for freedom is doing is usually championing the RIGHT to own a gun. When that right is taken away, that freedom is gone. The U.S. Constitution is all about rights, and they're slowly being taken away from us as people either don't care, don't notice, or are too stupid to pay attention.
No one should say who I have a right to sleep with. The governement should not be in my bedroom.
No one should say what my belief system should be. That's my own business and the business of those who I share it with.
What I do on my personal time is MINE. Owning a gun is my RIGHT, based on the freedoms that this country established all those years ago.
Where do you draw the line on what is personal and what is the governments business?
The moral rule that most freethinkers abide by is: Live your life your way without harming others.
That our government is now imprisoning people who have merely THOUGHT about a crime is disheartening - see
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Noteworthy/03NewsNOTE06092003.htm

If guns are outlawed, then only criminals own guns.