OT It shall come about! HOPE NOT

No, that is *not* the new government system I am working on...
 
Nasty said:
No, that is *not* the new government system I am working on...
Click to expand...

Whatever system you are working on, make sure you put a back door into it, so you can delete the forumites information. :)
 
I belong to a privacy advocacy group. The stuff they send me is so frightening I've stopped reading it.

This page was sponsored by the ACLU? Too bad they don't support the Second Amendment.


If I recall, Ca. had the addresses of registered assault weapon owners in a data bank used by various agencies. This was supposed to help LE if they responded to a call in an area or even a residence with such registration.


munk
 
munk said:
If I recall, Ca. had the addresses of registered assault weapon owners in a data bank used by various agencies. This was supposed to help LE if they responded to a call in an area or even a residence with such registration.


munk
Click to expand...

Munk,

Do you mean that if there was an AR in the neighborhood, they'd bring a SWAT team?!? God, this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. :barf:

Nam

(for the record, Nam is short for Namaarie. Nothing to do with Vietnam, so please nobody be offended or mistake me for a vet. It's just quicker to type.)
 
Don't know- What I know is from news reports. What is on the data bank is hush hush. My impression was a residence with such a registered weapon would be approached with extreme caution. Remember, these weapons were banned in CA, not the US.
Some of the news reporting on this suggested police would be extra cautious just to know such a weapon was in the area. But that's news media.
The sad part is these citizens are the ones who complied with the law- not the hundreds of thousands who did not.

munk
 
On the one hand, I'd hope the cops would be extra-careful in general. On the other hand, I hope they don't start sending the Swat Team in the Armored Personnel Carrier to drive through gramma's door because they got the wrong address. Also, the people they most need to worry about are probably not on the list.

I still think the Swiss have it right. As I understand it - "Here is your automatic rifle. You WILL become proficient in using and maintaining it. You WILL use it to defend the country in the invent of invasion." In this case, deterrence seems to work (would it still work without the associated political wrangling and blackmail, I dunno?????)
 
Munk,

If this is true, then I'm with you 100%. I'm way more liberal on lots of things, but here is one issue on which we're totally in line. Gun restriction only affects those who would do things the legal way. Not only will this be ineffective, but it will hurt individual liberties. Banning decent people from seeing to their own protection will only hurt innocents. :mad:

Nam
 
namaarie said:
I'm way more liberal on lots of things, but here is one issue on which we're totally in line. Gun restriction only affects those who would do things the legal way.

Nam
Click to expand...
Nam I'm pretty liberal as well so let's examine that a bit shall we?
I'm of the mind that everyone has a right to do as they Damn Well Please or Not Please as long as they don't cause any harm to me or mine, or my property.
Do you feel the same way?
It seems to me that you do from what I've been reading, same as Hollowdweller.

Being liberal in and of itself isn't a bad thing as long as it pertains to Liberty for everyone without trying to control them.
When it comes down to that being liberal means that one leans towards Libertarian rather than another common label such as Democrat.;)
I'm a firm believer that the less the government interferes with us the better off we are.:D
Do you feel the same way?

Barb and I are registered Democrats but vote for who we feel is the best person to do the job.
The main reason we registered that way instead of as Independent is that Independents can't vote in the primary elections in the state of Oklahoma.
Being registered as Democrats lets us at least vote for the best man possible for the job.
Had Kerry stepped forward and run on a clear and concise platform with real and realistic plans as to how to run the country he would've gotten our vote.
 
I tend to believe in letting people choose their own way unless it hurts someonelse.
I believe Society has a right to protect itself, and therefore the institution of marriage can be limited. I've nothing against a civil union with consenting adults. I believe abortions past the first trimester should be limited in all but the most extreme situations. I do not believe the seperation of church and state was ever intended to limit religious expression, but merely to prevent the Govt from taking sides. I believe many drugs should be legalised.

I am always against the Fed govt assuming more power. I believe the second amendment provides the teeth for the first.


munk
 
Yvsa,

I do feel that way and, through the people in this forum, have looked seriously at the libertarian platform. They *do* fit me better than any other party. There are, of course, issues on which I don't sign off w/ them. Same w/ the dems. I *do* agree with you on both counts. I don't care much what people do as long as it doesn't hurt others or infringe on their rights & liberties. I think that the gov. should stay out of our lives as much as possible. Therefore, I generally support the libertarian party and consider myself more libertarian than anything else.

I'm somewhat more environmentally oriented than the libertarians. But I don't want to go there. We've done that before, and I've had enough for a while. :)

Also, I feel that the Dems have a lot more power than libertarians and fit me better than reps. on issues I think are currently important. Not all issues, mind you. I'm not a fan of their social program orientation or their larger gov. thing, gun control, and some other misc. stuff.

It's just that too many republican ideas make me mad right now. I feel that the republicans are trying to enforce morality. Their opposition to gay rights makes me really mad. What do I care if people who love each other can marry, regardless of sex? If churches don't want to marry gays, fine, but the government shouldn't discriminate. This is a big one for me. I understand if somebody is morally opposed to homosexuality, but the law needs to be secular IMO.

Really, Yvsa, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a republican. I'm not a full-ticket libertarian. I just choose by which candidate thinks what. When I say I'm more liberal than a lot of you, I mean on certain issues.

Sorry for the rant. I am pretty politically passionate, if you didn't notice. If I had to choose a party to fit me best, it would probably be libertarian. But no party fits me 100%. So, I choose which issues matter to me most and support one candidate or another.

What I love about this place, though, is that I can say this stuff without fear of real attack. We will discuss, sure, and maybe disagree on points. But we will always walk away friends. Thanks, Yvsa, for inviting my tyrade here! :D It felt good.

Nam

P.S. Munk, be nice. :) I'm sure you'll say somethin'. And really, I *don't* want to talk about the environment! :D

edit: I hadn't read Munk's when I wrote this.
 
namaarie said:
Yvsa,

I do feel that way and, through the people in this forum, have looked seriously at the libertarian platform. They *do* fit me better than any other party.

It's just that too many republican ideas make me mad right now. I feel that the republicans are trying to enforce morality. Their opposition to gay rights makes me really mad.

Really, Yvsa, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a republican. I'm not a full-ticket libertarian. I just choose by which candidate thinks what. When I say I'm more liberal than a lot of you, I mean on certain issues.
Click to expand...
Bold emphasis mine.;)
Well it's quite simple then Nam. You're simply an Independent like myself.:D :p

Nam, I agree with you 100% on everything you said.
Barb and I have a lesbian daughter so gay rights are very important to us.
Not being a Christian the lay of the country bothers me a great deal right now.:grumpy: :(
I can only hope and pray that most of the people that voted Bush were like Barb and me and not so much a vote For Bush but a Vote Against Kerry.
 
Nam:


Perhaps a Boy and His
Dog do not bother you under legal statute?
Perhaps a Boy and his Gerbil?

Or perhaps just constenting 12 year olds and their boyfriends?
It is not moral, so much as practical: where have civilizations come down upon these issues in the past? Thus, your care free idealizm become the death knell of us all.


munk
 
It all boils down to how much freedom are you willing to allow others to have to do their thing.

I say that, because if you don't want others to enjoy the same freedoms you posess you are being a hypocrite. And just because you don't want to do something shouldn't lead to judging that others shouldn't be allowed to do it as long as it doesn't diminish someone else's rights.

( I've got relatives in Conneticut who don't have firearms. That's fine. But when they think because they don't have a need for guns no one else should have them, that crosses the line. )
 
The Free-ist Society in the world is neither a society nor free.




Ed Know
 
Yvsa,

My sister is a lesbian, and I am not Christian. I feel we have a lot in common! :)

Munk,

We're talking about two consenting adults who are in love. Kids cannot give conscent, because they're not developed enough, mentally. They don't know what's what until a little later in life. Comparison to 12-year-olds for homosexuals is not valid.

Animals cannot give conscent for obvious reasons. This is also not a valid comparison. Two adult homosexuals, while their idea of love is different from yours and our societie's, are capable of deciding whom they love and what to do with their relationship.

Some think knives and guns are immoral and expressions of violence and a certain caveman mentality. I disagree. I'm capable of making such decision for myself.

And what is this "sacred" institution of marriage. In a society where far too many straight couples do not take marriage seriously, why do we not allow marriage for some who might. I'm not attacking marriage here, I'm attacking people who think they're better than others or do things better than others.

Munk, how will homosexual marriage hurt our society? From what moral plateau will we digress? Why should we repress the feelings and constitutional rights of a large group of tax-paying citizens because we think what they do is icky? Not too many decades ago, many though interracial marriage to be an unclean, immoral act. I hope nobody on this forum still does.

Lastly, having a homosexual sister, it gives me an interesting insight. For years, I didn't know. I grew up with her. She came out when she was 19 or 20, in college. She takes this seriously. She's not gay because she thinks it's cool or trendy. She's gay because she is gay and has always been that way. It explains a lot about her youth. She's always been this way. I'm saying that it's not a choice. It's who somebody is.

We cannot repress people in such a way. People have a right to love and to express their love. I agree that government should stay our of our lives. This said, some senator certainly doesn't have the right to say who can love and marry whom.

Nam
 
namaarie said:
Yvsa,

My sister is a lesbian, and I am not Christian. I feel we have a lot in common! :)

Snipped a great post for brevity.

Nam
Click to expand...
Bold emphasis and words are mine.

Nam we ndns call the gay community the Two Spirit People. They have always been with us and always will be.
There have been some really great lesbian warriors in history past but most of the old stories are being forgotten and since I have only heard a couple I'm not qualified to tell them as they have to be told so that nothing is added or nothing taken away.
There are also accounts of beautiful quill and bead work as well as woven goods done by men that are legendary.
The two spirit people were accepted and honored among most tribes long ago, sadly the homophobic feelings have been infiltrating the tribes since not many follow the old ways anymore.
Some two spirit people were also considered great medicine people with great power as well and many times were consulted by the Chief or Chiefs in matters of uncertainty.
And you're right, it is about who and what they are and not choice.
A lesbian friend we worked with years ago told Barb and I one day, "Some people think we are the way we are because we choose to be this way. I'm telling you that no one in their right mind would choose this lifestyle! We are this way because we are born this way.
We ndns knew this long ago and because of the old time family traditions there was no harm caused by any, straight or gay.
Child and spousal abuse was unknown among the ndn people in the old times but now runs rampant along with alcohol and drug abuse.:(
The tribal mores were much like the laws we have today except they were unwritten.
The people grew up with the mores and honored them because the mores kept life peacable as much as possible. If there were ever any questions then there was always the Council in whatever form it took for that particular tribe.
That leads too the fact that the US Government was fashioned after the Confederacy of the Five Nations and is a Republic.
We the People have pretty much lost control of Our Government.:(
We need the law to be able to live as free as possible but like my Brother Rusty says, "It all boils down to how much freedom are you willing to allow others to have to do their thing.

I say that, because if you don't want others to enjoy the same freedoms you posess you are being a hypocrite. And just because you don't want to do something shouldn't lead to judging that others shouldn't be allowed to do it as long as it doesn't diminish someone else's rights."
 
about now I should mention all the gay and lesbian couples I know in order to compete in this conversation

not in order

not the issue

munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top