joshbaumgartner

That's one reason I don't automatically attack celebrities who speak out, even when I disagree with them. Don is not the world's hugest movie star, but he's still a celebrity. Having gained some recognition in another field, far from disqualifying you from speaking on issues, I think is inherently noble, to use it to maybe make a difference for others, not just pad your own mansion.

I don't agree with a lot of things stars say when they speak out. Let's be frank, a lot of them make absolute fools of themselves. But a person like Cheadle is not one of those, and I do hope that people respect what he's doing raising awareness on issues such as Darfur and other similar situations in central and east Africa.

Josh

roachboy

a spokesmodel/spokesperson (whatever) is not the same as a leader.
just saying.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I couldn't agree with you more, but I still think a figurehead might be better than nothing.

ubertuber

I disagree that guns would play much of a role in a domestic resistance. Look at Iraq and Palestine. Movements don't resist modern militaries on the militarys' terms. They wage guerilla ware, because it's the only remotely feasible option. The idea of groups of revolutionaries fighting against the military is absurd.

Besides, as soon as there was a credible armed resistance that could actually threaten the government, I bet we'd see UN Peacekeepers here in a hurry. Darfur is small potatos, but with our nuclear stockpiles and chemical/biological agent research it wouldn't take Don Cheadle to get people interested.

Rest assured, the hypothetical 2nd American Revolution wouldn't look anything like the first at all. It would be a battle of ideas, media, and money, backed by guerilla tactics. And when the dust settled, you'd have a hell of time getting any kind of agreement that resulted in a nation that remotely looked like the US. We'd be a bunch of nation-states, none of which would have a balanced enough economy to support themselves - ripe for the picking. Unable to hang together, we would assuredly die separately.

The real problem with any of this is getting a critical mass of the population to do ANYTHING. We can't get 60% to VOTE for all the candidates put together! The masses in this country would shit if they didn't have their DSL connections, air conditioning, gas stations, etc. Face it, we lack the collective spine to do anything by force or revolution, no matter how bad things get.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dc_dux

Recent (20th century) history might suggest that non-violent civil diobedience is a more effective way to seek redress for grievances against the government and the political establishment.

In the US, it worked for the womens suffragette movement in the 1910s, the labor movement in the 1930s, the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

In India, it worked for Ghandi....in South Africa, it worked for Mandela....in Poland, it worked for Lech Welesa and Solidarity.....

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cynthetiq

People Power Revolution (Yellow) in the Philippines for Cory Aquino in 1986, Czechoslovakia 1989, Singing Revolution in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania 1987-1991, Serbia in 2000, Philippines (again) 2001, Rose Revolution Georgia 2003, Orange Revolution Ukraine in 2004, Kyrgyzstan 2004.

But be reminded that it takes only someone like Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, or the Taliban, to kill their citizens. History has proven that violence is more common than peaceful revolution. It is those types of oppression that the founding fathers cautioned and warned about, not the ones that were easily convinced to change their minds by everyone gathering together and singing Kumbaya.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

well, you all have your notions of we're too weak and limited to face the government and military that the US has, that's fine. A whole lot of people thought the very same thing in the 1770s, but a few stood out as radical.

James Madison
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Paine
George Mason
Samuel Adams

I think Dunedan and I are in pretty good company.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

pan6467

See I don't think a violent revolution is what is needed, 1) too many lost lives for what? and 2) in today's world enemies of the US would destroy us all, secretly or perhaps openly fund sides and what we have now isn't bad, we just need to tweak people's cheeks, wake them up and get them to want change.

You get enough people wanting change, change will come, that's the great thing about our country, don't like the current government change it at the election booths.

Money may buy ads, but grassroots and starting from the bottom and working up makes it harder for those wanting the status quo to fight it.

Will there be a time to take arms? Perhaps, but I don't think we would stand a chance against the enemy we'd face and I fear what we would end up with would be far,far worse than anything we have now.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ubertuber

To my knowledge, only 3 (maybe 4) of those ever guys took up arms against the British. The rest wielded the pen. The only who you could argue made his most important contributions through violence is Washington. But that would be pretty flimsy given the other roles he played. Every one of those individuals (with the exception of Hamilton, due to age) spent years, if not decades, pursuing non-revolutionary resolutions of the colonial dispute.

So, how is the scenario which you fantasize about like that particular list of people? How do you see yourself in their company?

P.S. It's pretty disrespectful of you to leave John Adams off of that list.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

samcol

I don't think people understand the fine line a government has to walk in order to carry on any kind of domestic war against gun owners or militas. You say firearms are no match for tanks? Regardless if they are or not, if people see tanks marching down the streets crushing sub divisions and apartments, then the governments cards are on the table. It is a pretty awesome display of power and authority to do something like that. They can't afford to try that without having an even greater resistance.

Nothing like a few dead children to get entire towns revolting.

The other key thing is, how many soldiers are going to ignore orders when they have to raid their own country?

There are many factors, including firearms, that could make defending ourselves against the government very successful. Face it even if only 1% of american's didn't hand in their weapons that is still a massive undertaking to go door to door looking for those needles in a haystack.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dksuddeth

which i'm happy to do. non violent, non combative change and cooperation would be great, in my mind, but i'm not willing to be disarmed to work with it. Violence, or the threat of it, must always be on the table as a last resort if tyranny is attempted.

no disrespect intended towards Mr. Adams, I just made a quick list. If I wanted to post all of the people that should be there, it would be a long damn post.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Only trouble with that argument (aside from what uber's already pointed out) is that back then, it was much easier for the rebels to match military hardware. They had muzzle-loading rifles. So did you. Sure, they had cannons, but then they weren't overly effective considering their reload rate, and they counterbalanced the cannons for you by being stupid and marching around upright while wearing scarlet red coats. Pretty easy for you to run from tree to tree and pick 'em off.

Today, unless you've figured out how to buy missiles, bombers, tanks, howitzers, and all the other advanced and deadly toys the military has, you don't have a prayer of matching their hardware.

And since the military has wised up and figured out how to fight, unlike the Redcoats, you don't have a prayer of having a tactical advantage over them either.

You insist that it's possible for a poorly armed and trained bunch of rebels to defeat the world's most powerful and best trained military, but you never tell us how it can be done. You insist that it's being done in 3rd world countries, without acknowledging that 1) those countries don't have a military anything close to what we have and 2) the rebels are generally being propped up by much more powerful entities.

In short, you're making wild, baseless statements without ever having any intention of backing them up with anything approaching rationality.

dksuddeth

read dunedans post on the subject, or not. choice is yours. your claim that we can't match the military equipment, of course. Not many can buy jets or tanks, etc., and the antigunners, such as yourself, have already limited the types of arms that the individual can own anyway. you've won. we have a potential dictatorship in the makings and thanks to you, americans have no chance of fighting back. congratulations, how do you feel about stripping away freedom?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

#17?
Wait a second. You said people shouldn't be able to get tanks and nukes and such. Are you reversing your position?
You seem to lack the ability to read.

IEDs would be all we need to completely overthrow the military. I, myself could easily build hundreds of bombs based in simple, untraceable things you can get from your local supermarket. And I've not had one day of military or weapons training. Of course, I, personally, don't believe in violence, but how is my personal philosophy going to stop you or anyone else? This is like the 12th time I've said this. Longbough and several other pro gun people agreed, but you seem to think the only way is with guns. That's just silly. If you want to go start your insurgency, the lack of guns isn't going to stop you, and if it is, then you're not a good gun nut.

shakran

Excuse me? I never said I was an anti gunner. But if you want to argue for the pro-gun side, try to come up with something that makes just a teeny little bit of sense, and don't spout lies and half truths in an attempt to snare the stupid into joining your crusade.

OK, let's say you're allowed to get a machine gun. Still think you can beat a tank? No?

This is what I'm talking about when I say your arguments are full of crap.


Here's what's going on here folks. dksuddeth has been spouting off for over a year that we need guns to protect ourself from governmental tyranny. Now that it's finally pointed out that he's not exactly racing toward Washington with his pals and loaded rifles, he chooses to blame US for his inactivity.

That's bullshit.

Complete and total bullshit.

You want your gun to fight a tyrannical government? Fine. You have one. Knowing you, you have several. Go fight the tyrannical government. Right now. Otherwise, admit that your entire argument for owning a gun is BS.

The simple fact is, you want guns. That's fine. Have all the guns you want, but don't try to justify it with some patriotic sounding, falsely noble "higher cause" for having the guns. Just admit that you like them and you'd rather the government not take them away from you. But stop pretending you have a valid NEED for those guns, because you don't.

dksuddeth

you're right shakran. you've always been right. you're a god among men. how could I have been so foolish and stupid. thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ASU2003

I would try non-violence first, but if we are talking about how we need to fight the government, something is definitely wrong. So, assuming that the government is taking everyones money and making two classes of haves(5% + military), have nots(95%), implementing slavery again, imprisoning and killing entire races or religions, or other extreme things that won't likely happen, I would think this tactic would work best.

1. Possibly retreat. Get to a foreign country or the middle of nowhere in a foreign land. Wait for other foreign countries to help you.

2. Blend in. Steal uniforms and become a threat from the inside.

3. Become a lone gunman. Take out important officials.

4. Covert/guerilla warfare. Snipers, motars, IEDs, RPGs, tripwires, remote detonators...

5. Start your own government if you have large numbers.

6. And probably a few other tactics...

I would say an opposition force would have a 25% chance of success if the US military stays together. If the US military splits (civil war style), all bets are off.

Willravel

Interesting list, ASU. I may send my family back with friends outside the country, but I wouldn't want to leave.

roachboy

going back to the op for a minute....

the funny thing about dk's list of 18th century superheroes is that they fashioned something of an actual politics fitted to conditions in the 1760s-1770s...but even in that context, they were hardly alone--they benefitted from a pretty dense political context (read bernrd bailyn's book on the ideological origins of the american revolution sometime) that defined stuff like tyranny in ways that jefferson (for example) simply recycled--in other words, they operated within a real-time political context, which they faced as a real-time political context, within which the political issues that oriented them were defined, as were the political objectives they pursued. that context is what enabled paine's writing to have an impact, for example (the irony is that paine's later writing would probably be rejected by these libertarian heros as "socialist"---but whatever: here we are in a world of selective reading selective quotation and arbitrary assemblage, so it hardly matters)

referencing these 18th century figures is one thing: referencing them as if their 18th century politics of tax revolt tipping into something like a revolution were a plausible basis for a 21st century political movement is something else again--absurd is what it is. a revolutionary project needs to refer to some pre-established politics in order to frame itself tactically--but this is neither a political program or a strategy----it is an explanation for word choices. if you cant even distinguish these dimensions, then the idea that you are elaborating anything like a revolutionary politics seems silly.

and it is not enough to bypass the problem and cut to elaborating fantasies of heroic guerilla fighters shooting out tank periscopes. this is functionally responding to questions about what the politics of a revolutionary movement are by suggesting that the person posing that question join you in playing army.

the question is not how you would deal with a tank, but what politics would prompt you to put yourself in that position. on this, there is no coherent answer. pointing this out seems to me the point of the thread. but it has not been addressed.


here's what i have been able to figure out from all the vagueness above (except for 17, which is interesting as a fantasy war scenario and should be a computer game): conservative libertarians (cls from here out) do not like taxes: the american revolution was a tax revolt therefore the cls are simply looking to rerun the american revolution. to make this work, the federal government has to be positioned rhetorically as an 18th century england-based tyranny---so the state is distant, alien--it is non-representative in that the cls do not like taxes but there are taxes therefore no representation (in other words, no=one called you up to ask what you thought)--

but that doesnt work as an argument so well--so instead you get the gun issue, which functions in cl-world as a way of defining "us vs. them"---the evil alien federal government under king george 3 wants to take away our guns and in so doing blah blah blah. so the fact that there are taxes, or the fact that there is a modern state at all is understood as important features of a general Oppression.

the twist here is that if the modern state is a problem then so is capitalism, which REQUIRES continual state intervention in the management of what it produces as a system with great efficiency and regularity--crisis--and which would fall apart quickly and abruptly without that intervention, taking half the cl worldview down with it because it would demonstrate--as if a demonstration were needed, given the actual history of capitalism--that there is no ideal-typical capitalism of little self-regulating markets and heroic Entrepreneurs operating in conditions of perfect competition wholly outside the reach of the state...this is the other element of cl-politics--it simply repeats this goofball assumption that capitalism is a natural phenomenon made up of markets through which god expresses herself on this mortal coil via relations ot equilibrium blah blah blah and the Evil State stands opposed to this working of nature--so a "revolution" could be imagined that would destroy the state and allow for Nature to Take Its Course in the form of some independent capitalism. presumably, once that Natural Capitalism is in place, one's ayn rand fantasies of being an Exceptional Individual can express themselves, whereas now the Man keeps you down. but if you do not buy this assumption concerning some "organic" capitalism as over against the "artificial" state, then there's nothing left to cl politics at all. the retreads of locke simply repeat this central position: the heroic individual tends his abstract plot of land and enters into contract with other heroic individuals for the performance of certain services and there we have the ideal relation of heroic individuals to the state in the heroically individual state of nature. used in an anachronistic manner, locke becomes a gloss on the illusory image of capitalism as the cl-set understands it.

so there is nothing revolutionary in cl-politics from this viewpoint. they just want to move from capitalism in the form it has taken since the civil war back into some collage they assembled that they confuse with the state of nature, with a pre-heavy industry type of capitalism.

the same logic works behind the doctrine of original intent.
the same logic works behind all that follows in terms of objections to contemporary legal practices (the jury system)...

strangely---if you actually look at tocqueville's democracy in america (say), from the first page of the foreword you see the main feature of the social formation he was trying to outline: equality of condition. it is everywhere in the book--and much of his analysis is geared around locating tendencies that would reverse this equality of condition an which he judged dangerous for democracy in america--the sort of thing that would destroy it. capitalism was a form of social being that results in an uneven distribution of wealth and so for tocqueville is was ANTITHETICAL to democracy as a socio-political form. most of the cl-types would probably say that equality of condition is "socialism"....

so follows the emphasis on guns, taken in isolation: guns as signifiers of an entire politics, guns as an index of the distance that separates the evil state from the 18th century patriots who claim to be real amuricans to the exclusion of all others...maybe it makes some sense to emphasize having a gun as the equivalent of having a politics for these folk because it is the only coherent element of that politics.

it plays well in the press. it gets marginal political groups some traction. it is apparently functional in that it seems to reinforce the conflation of nostalgia and revolution that lay at the center of cl-politics in their more "radical" expressions. but it is incoherent as a signifier and has nothing to do with an actual politics. there is no vision. there is no strategy. there is not even any coherent critique of the existing order because the assumptions behind it prevent it from being so (see the stuff about capitalism above). there is nothing but nostalgia. heavily armed people playing army while dreaming about an eternal repetition of 1775.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

Thank you, rb.

Your post is a pretty good summation of this thread.

The anti-gun control stance has been veiled with the aura of an almost mystical interpretation of patriotism and revolutionary heroism when really it is quite mundane. A stance that has, apparently, been swallowed hook, line and sinker by a lot of people. Either that or they just like the feeling they get when they think about it in those picturesque terms.

Some participants on this thread may not agree with that summation, yet no one really put forth much effort to enlighten me any differently. I am looking for evidence that there is some connection (in America) between gun ownership and an organized resistance to government tyranny...rather than just a bunch of people who really like guns. Not saying there's anything wrong with liking guns...just that that's all there is to it.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

host

....The "answer", for me...roachboy...can be distilled to political reaction to the points made in this video....(<b>Watch it all</b>....tell me when, since....we've enjoyed a US Senator who has said anything even vaguely close to what you view on the video.....)
......supported by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commiss...rial_Relations

It's 90 years later....and no improvement to the depth of wealth distribution in the US....maybe it's even worse....now, since the "have nots" had access to cheaper medical care and weren't able to obtain credit card debt and no downpayment mortgages on property plummeting in value......

.....and this:
.....and of course.....this:
....so "the politics" could be a reaction to a government bought off to do the bidding of the rich, suppress the popular vote, and totally corrupt the constitution and the system of checks and balances by refusing to provide legally mandated reports, executive directives, and correspondence of the executive branch, to congress......

Would all of that be any excuse for a willingness for bloodletting and bloodshedding.....?

mixedmedia

First of all, I want to amend my statement above to assert that I understand that self-defense is a real and valid reason for wanting to own a gun. But, whether you are defending yourself from a criminal or your own government is irrelevant to the issue of reasonable gun control laws.

Me personally? No. And frankly, I think any American sitting in front of their computer who owns a car, had breakfast this morning, enjoys a nice, clean glass of water whenever they want it and can sleep at night reasonably sure that a gang of thugs with machetes isn't going to break into their house and kill them and their family who would consider killing people for the state of affairs in America today hasn't earned the "privelege" of those sorts of thoughts.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Bill O'Rights

A-HA!!
See? You fell, right there, for their most devious of sinister plots.
First...they lure you in with the promise of clean water and relative safety.
Then...They make you fat and lazy with regular meals and a car.
Oh...then the most dastardly of plots. They stupify you with the internet.
It's a conspiracy! Can't you see that?!? Oop...gotta go now. They know that I'm on to 'em.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

flstf

There will not be much of a connection between the right to bear arms and organized resistence until things get much worse. I don't understand why you would expect to see one under today's conditions. Even when the government fails and the economic and money systems collapse, resistence will only come if the corrupt government goes all out to maintain power in a tyrannical manner.

Do you not believe those of us who think that the right to bear arms may be important someday since all governments on Earth eventually become corrupt and fail? Do you think armed resistence will be futile anyway so why even try? Having a healthy mistrust of our government does not seem like swallowing a mundane or mystical interpretation of patriotism to me. Many of us really believe that it may become necessary to forcefully resist a tyrannical government someday or at least have the ability to threaten to do so.

mixedmedia

Do you not believe those of us who think that the right to bear arms may be important someday since all governments on Earth eventually become corrupt and fail?


I don't see how it trumps the need for reasonable gun control TODAY.


Do you think armed resistence will be futile anyway so why even try?

Basically, yes. I'm not one to believe in the "go down shooting" ethic.

Having a healthy mistrust of our government does not seem like swallowing a mundane or mystical interpretation of patriotism to me. Many of us really believe that it may become necessary to forcefully resist a tyrannical government someday or at least have the ability to threaten to do so.

Sure. We each have our own theories, our own takes on it...but why should your theory supercede your having to acquire your firearms under the requirements of reasonable gun control laws?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

dksuddeth

what is 'reasonable' gun control to you?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

mixedmedia

Basically nothing much more stringent than we have now in many places. Ideally, laws would be consistent from state to state...

Waiting periods.

Comprehensive background checks.

And I would support the national registration of some firearms. Of course, at least I can understand the adversity to that concept. The other two that only contribute to someone's inconvenience in the process of acquiring a gun I don't accept. Tough shit.

I read a lot arguments, more like whining, that criminals can get guns faster than upright citizens and I say...so what? Corporate crooks can amass millions of dollars in a bank in the Caribbean a lot faster than I can, it doesn't mean I should be able to, as well. Crooks do everything faster. That's why they're crooks!

I realize that a lot of gun owners are okay with waiting periods and background checks. It's not those gun owners I am referring to. It's those who oppose any manner of oversight in the acquiring of firearms that I simply do not understand. And who furthermore, regard any attempt to control their acquisition of firearms as a forecast of the removal of all of their rights to gun ownership. And no amount of claims of self-defense, my rights, government tyranny, etc. can explain it away. Not for me.

It is reactionary and dogmatic. Two characterizations I generally view as too far off the beaten path of practicality to be making claims on social codification. No matter which side of the path they've wandered off on.

*edit*
Granted, flstf gave me a sober and more reasonable approach to the idea of "defending ourselves from our government" than I had yet to hear. And he tapped me on the nose a bit without sounding shrill about it. That helped.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

roachboy

goddamn, dk, you're more predictable than the chord changes in a bluegrass song.

it seems to me that if the arguments that you like to make about the Fundamental Political Importance of being strapped at all times mean anything, they do so because the politics you reference are understood to make some sense. well, they dont. so rather than start another tiresome dust up over your pet issue of gun control, why not take a deep breath and maybe, for once, explain your politics--you know, the politics that informs you stance on gun control.
from what i see, there's really nothing to them--but i'd be interested in reading how you try to explain them.

but this--you give the one--mm responds, so there's the 4--and the 5 is coming.....it always fucking comes...there's no interest in it--noone who listens to bluegrass really focusses on the chord changes--it's more about the medolic lines and the way the group functions as a group than about the 1 4 5 sequence of repeated AND lame major fucking chords.

a melodic line can surprise you in a bluegrass tune--the structure will NEVER surprise you.

so make a line.
*do* something.
dont just keep playing the changes.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

People still listen to bluegrass? That's interesting.

mixedmedia

I love bluegrass as a matter of fact.

And roachboy is right...it's the spirit of synergy in the music and not necessarily the structure.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Cynthetiq

The only thing that I can say about states and same laws is that I'm glad that they are different. I can choose to live in a place where the laws reflect more or less the lifestyle I want to live. Texas and Florida have concealed carry permits for everyday individuals. That is great and it works in those states. I cannot see how it would work in the state of New York within the metropolitan tri-state area and NYC.

To also say that I didn't transport my guns from California to NYC because my grandfathered assault rifles would not survive the trip and reregistration. Now you'll say,"But you don't need them to sport shoot or to hunt!" Sure, I don't. But people don't need cars with over 300hp or that go faster than 75mph. It is still about responsible ownership. Those that speed get their car taken away and those that use it responsibly get to keep them.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

Pot, kettle, black. I can always count on you to use some sort of argument by poetic language, especially in regards to any point I might make that you almost always disagree with.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

host

mixedmedia, the sentiment against gun registration and control was exemplified in the '80's film "Red Dawn", which drew a "cult like" following:
"P" = one percent of US population and "$" = one percent of US assets:
US Wealth distribution in 2004:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=12

Top one percent of US population own more than 33 percent of US assets:
Next nine percent of US population own 36.1 percent of US assets:
Next forty percent of US population own 28.3 percent of US assets:
Bottom fifty percent of US population own 2.5 percent of US assets:
The bottom 50 percent own only five sixths of what is displayed in the preceding visual aid.....

...and that measly 2-1/2 percent is intentionally "chipped away":
The senate voted down a democratic amendment to protect the medically bankrupt from "reform":

Shortly after the article above was published, almost all republicans in congress voted to pass a "reform bill" resisted by congressional democrats for at least ten years, and a democratic president until 2001, and the republican president signed the bill into law.....

....none of the benefits to credit card holders, promised by the industry in exchange for passage of bankruptcy "reform", actually came to pass:
We are "fed" soothing messages like this from "think tanks" funded by multi millionaire right wingers:
Until recently, we could console ourselves by proudly believing that, "at least we're free !":
If you consider the supporting info in my last post, and the material in this one, it is quite obvious to me that all of the "reform" since the 1916 Industrial Relations Committee study and report, commissioned during the term of President Woodrow Wilson and described by Senator Huey P. Long in the video of his mid 1930's speech in the US senate.....the right of women to vote, the labor movement that resukted in the National Labor Relations Board and legal protections for union organizers and a means for mediated labor negotiations with management and enforcement of labor contracts via binding arnitration, and later passage of the civil rights act, desegregation, and equal opportunity employment protections, passage of SSI and of unemployment insurance, and protection and oversight of employer funded pension plans, <h3>none of it....has resulted in more equitable distribution of wealth in the U.S.</h3> The trend toward more equitable distribution peaked in the early 1960's before income taxes, formerly levied at a top rate of 90 percent on income above $400,000 annually, began to be adjusted down to less than 40 percent, today.

Some folks have posted that they will "know" when the circumstances justify taking up armed resistance agains the government or agains the establishment, The POTUS has acted to usurp our protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and against our habeas corpus protections, and he has reinterpreted the constitution and international treaty protections to redefine torture to mean whatever he and his lawyers decide that it is. There is overwhelming evidence that he, his party, and his attorney general deliberately reversed civil and voting rights protections and enforcement to suppress the vote of the political opposition.

The disparity of wealth distribution has never been more unequal, and our protections against government surveillance, arrest without trial or legal representation, and against unreasonable, search, seizure, and surveillance have never been so blatantly transferred from the public to the federal executive branch, and voter protections have not been this weak since 1964.

Still.....we say that now is not the time, it is not appropriate for organized and determined protest and resistance, by any means necessary to reverse these trends and restore the pre-Bush era constiution, and pre 1960's top rate income tax levels, at the least.

So we wait.....I guess until the bottom 50 percent have lost the 2-1/2 percent asset holdings that they now enjoy, and the next 40 percent, half of the 28.3 percent of total US wealth that they currently hold....and when our uncle or our neighbor is hustled away by DHS agents in the night, to indefinite detention in an undisclosed location.......is that it? What is your tolerance level? Would a warrantless, "sneak and peak", "visit" to your home, or your safe deposit box, by government investigators, assuming you even discovered their intrusion, be enough to move you ?

Oh....that's right.....you say you'll know when resistance is appropriate....and I say.....bullshit ! Your present complacency....while your bill of rights are stolen and half of your countrymen calmly settle for crumbs....gives your sheep like resignation, away. You ain't ever going to do nothing.....Bush and Cheney have known it since December 12, 2000, and the rich men at CNP have known it since Reagan took office, and took away progressive income taxation.

The_Dunedan

OK RB, here you go. You want our politics? You want to know what informs our positions? Here you go: for the umpteenth time (let's see you acknowledge it instead of giving an off-the-cuff dismissal, for once) are the basics of the politics of the movement and people you so plainly despise.

1: All human interactions which do not cause unprovoked, unwarranted, unsolicited, or unconsented-to harm to other people are permissible. This includes any and all forms of marriage, living arrangements, commerce, trade, barter, etc. As long as you cause no concrete harm, whether physical or financial, to another person, we believe you have the Right to do as you like in your daily life. We do not believe that anyone, not your neighbor nor -all- of your neighbors, has the right to attempt to control your life when you have done no harm.

2: No person, or group of people, has the right to initiate the use of force, fraud, or coercion against any other person or group of people: nor do they have the right to delegate such initiation to others.* In some circles this is known as the Zero Aggression or Non Aggression Principle, and was firt articulated by L. Neil Smith, one of modern anarcho-libertarianism's first proponents. Believe it or not, our entire philosophy is -not- derived from Locke.**

3: The anarchistic wing of the libertarian movement, to which I some days subscribe, believes that if, as Jefferson said, "that government is best which governs least," that the best government is not to have one of the damned things.

3a: Anarcho-Capitalists believe that the modern Coropratist*** system is composed of an interlocking system of market distortions; the two largest and most damaging being Corporations and fiat money. They believe in the abolition of such things. Yes I know; Capitalists who don't worship Corporations! Maybe if you'd bothered to read the last several explanations of this I potsed, I wouldn't be having to explain this -again.- Since laissez faire Capitalism demands a market totally free of distortions (which Corporations, fiat money, chartered monopolies, etc. all are), we work for the abolition of such things.

4: Libertarians, as a rule, believe in keeping politics simple. While we value education, eloquence, etc...we also know from personal experiance that our opponents are all too eager to use confusing, obfuscatory, and obscure language in an effort to "blind with brilliance and baffle with bullshit." We tend, therefore, to shy away from discussions in which it is demanded that we "provide a coherant critique" and other such easily misinterpreted (or re-interpreted as conditions require) requests. We've had the goalposts moved and the strawmen set up so often that we're rather shy about getting into all but the simplest debates, using the bluntest language.

5: We do not believe, for several reasons, in controlling the types of weapons people may posess.
a: To prevent someone from purchasing an inanimate object is to lay the force of the law upon someone who has harmed nobody, effectively punishing him for a crime which has not been, and may never be, committed.
b: We believe, and history shows, that every regime of State-imposed arms control leads in the end to confiscation. Furthermore, said confiscations have always preceeded genocides and forced re-location.**** In short, we believe that a Gov't which wants its' people disarmed, even by degrees, is pretty obviously worried about its' citizens getting pissed off at it for something it is doing or planning to do. We would rather they refrain from doing such things, and the knowledge that stepping too far might result in Washington DC suddenly becoming Sadr City is an excellent motivator of such restraint.
c: We believe that a significant corrolary of the Right to Life is that one has the Right to defend ones' Life by any and every means which are available, and that to deny this corrolary Right is to threaten the Right to Life itself.
d: We believe in equality of opportunity, including opportinity to defend onesself and continue living in the face of armed aggression. Since a firearm is the only means by which the physically weak or numerically inferior may reliably resist the stronger and more numerous, to deny a person this ability is to re-inforce the inequality of opportunity inherant in criminal violence.

6: We do not believe in coercive taxation, again for a number of reasons.

a: It is immoral. We do not make distinctions between actions taken by individuals and actions taken by groups. Since it is immoral for me to take someone else's money or posessions without their permission (theft), it is likewise wrong for a group to do the same. Even if I bought you dinner with a portion of the money I stole, it does not negate the fact that the money I used to buy you dinner was first expropriated at gunpoint. Benefits accrued do not negate the immorailty of the way in which they were paid for. We believe, in other words, that the ends do not justify the means.

b: It stifles voluntary charity. We believe that if people got to keep all of their paychecks, instead of losing a significant percentage off the top, that they would have more money to put into private charities, which we consider a good thing. Believe it or not, we're not a bunch of assholes who want to see people starving, although I'm sure that's a handy charicature. We encourage private charity and want people to be able to afford to donate more to such operations, instead of having 50% of they paycheck stolen to pay for wars in various unpleasant places where we have no buisiness.

c: It encourages waste. As things stand now, the Gov't has no incentive to be frugal, to watch the budget, or to in any way curb its' spending. Such an environment of "free money" encourages pork and gaurantees corruption, because after all, if more money is needed it can simply be stolen. Taxes can be raised or shifted and, of course, more money can always be simply borrowed, created out of nothing, and printed into existance. The deficit incurred as a result of this environment will never be paid off, and has resulting in the sale of American labour, financial solvency, and national treasure to a combine of vicious Corporate/Banking interests who are -not- acting in America's best interest.

7: We dislike democracy because while individuals are intelligent, reasonable, and shrewd, groups are only as smart as their dumbest member. Groups or mobs are easily led, easily decieved, easily directed, and most important, they provide a kind of "face in the crowd" anonymity which permits people acting in a group to do things they would never do as individuals: murder 15-ish million people, for instance. Furthermore, since we believe Rights are absolute and democracy presumes that they are not (being subject, on some level, to the whim of the group), we believe that democracy places the Rights of all its' individual members in great danger. When the 51%, 75%, or 99.9% can vote whatever fate they wish upon the 49%, the 25%, or the .1% (which, under a democratic system, they can), the Lives, Liberties, and Properties of everyone in the system (any of whom can find themselves in the minority on a given issue) are placed in direct, immidiate jeopardy.

8: We do not believe in entangling ourselves, as a nation, with the problems, wars, and intrigues of other countries. This is not isolationism. We believe in trading with other nations, having commerce with them, traveling to them, learning from them...but we do -not- believe in getting involved in their wars or fixing their problems, nor do we believe they should be allowed to do so in the US. We should not be attempting to dictate defensive positions to the Czech Republic and Poland, and the EU should keep their long noses out of our gun-laws, taxation, and Supreme Court.

9: We do not believe that any person or group of people has the right to force any other person or group of people to work against their will. We regard any such scheme as slavery, since work is being expropriated from the worker by threat of force. Payment is irrelevant; the force is what matters. No matter how kind his treatment, how luxurious their quarters, how rich their food, a man who forces others to work for him is enslaving them. Period.
9a: As a corrolary to this, we believe that to steal someone's money or posessions from him is to steal the working time required to obtain that money or the posessions purchased with it. Therefore, the victim is forced retroactively to work for the thief. Ergo the thief is, in a small or large way, attemping to enslave his victim. Involuntary taxation, therefore, is regarded as a form of slavery, although it could be more precisely described as latter-day Serfdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The problem of communication here is paradigmatic. The paradigm of the militia/libertarian movement is Individualist, rights-based, and absolutist. The paradigm which we oppose is Collectivist, outcome-base, and utilitarian. One regards Rights as the absolute, pre-existing posessions***** of every human being, one regards them as mutable and subject to popular opinion.


There, I hope that helps. Try reading and responding to what was said this time, rather than responding to what Morris Dees -tells- you was said, or what you -wish- had been said. I'm not going to bash my head against a brick wall explaining these things again, so either respond to what was said and post some honest responses and questions, or don't bother. And no, questions such as "How are you -not- a bunch of crazies?" and "are you still beating your wife?" don't count. That sort of thing falls into the same catagory as "Do you still have those Weapons of Mass Destruction?"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*This concept right here is why we haven't started shooting yet. Our ideology forbids us to attack, to initiate the use of force. Unlike Democrats and Republicans, we actually have a principle, as opposed to an approval rating, standing in the way of "pre-emptive warfare."

**You keep insisting that our movement is based solely upon a misreading of Locke, but have never shown how this is so. Indeed, you've conspicuously ignored the vast corpus of non-Locke works which inform modern libertarian thought. This is a hugely irritating pattern: you never show how our politics are supposedly invalid, unworkable, or untenable, you simply insist that they just are, and sweep them aside as inconsequential. We're wrong because you say so; brilliant debate, there. You insist that we have no pre-existing politio-ideological framework, but only after having made sure to conveniantly brush said framework which does, in fact, exist aside as absurd or inconsequential. Here's a reading list for you: L. Neil Smith, Claire Wolfe, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Lysander Spooner, H. L. Menken, Vin Suprynowitz, and Robert A. Heinlein (essays as well as fiction; a bit dry, but worth it). I personally was further influenced by the writings and lives of H. D. Thoreau, Simon de Montfort (the third one, not the first one), Robert Anton Wison (read as political satire, not as fact), Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis.

***NOT Capitalist, as I've attempted to explain to you many times. Kindly stop employing this very convincing (to the unread) but highly inaccurate strawman. The modern world economic system is Corporatist or Mercantilist, in some instances approaching Fascism. It is -not- Capitalist.

****Not ever confiscation presages a genocide. However, every genocide of the 20th Century and prior has been preceeded by some form of arms confiscation.

*****Man has the Rights which he may physically defend without initiating force. Therefore I enjoy a Right to Life, because I can defend my life physically without starting the fight; the other person could attack me. However, I do not have a similar right to free healthcare or a new TV, because for me to secure such things would require me to initiate the use of force, by stealing someone else's money(taxes) or goods (TV) to get it.

host

The_Dunedan, how enthusiastic do you think that the ten percent wealthiest in this country would be about your political platform, compared to this one?:
I can never embrace your philosophy and vision because it maintains a status quo that will only grow stronger and shift even more of the 30.8 percent of total US assets that ninety percent of us have ended up with, even after a century of social, gender and racial equality reform.

How could you ideas ever reverse the present inequality of the distribution of wealth and political influence, or compete with a present day equivalent of results anywhere approximating this.....it actually happened...and it's high tide was the passage of the Social Security Act....an Act that I believe was only accomplished under Roosevelt because of the influence and accomplishments of this man:

scout

Checkmark, already law. Everyone must pass muster under federal rules to pass the background check. The federal guidelines are much more stringent than the state requirements in all the states but a couple.

Checkmark, already law. If your background isn't perfectly squeaky clean the federal government has up to 10 extra days to investigate you before you can walk out with any gun be it a long gun or handgun.

Checkmark, already law and thanks to the recent deal between the NRA and the Democrats more information will be available when you apply to purchase a handgun or long gun.

Checkmark, already law. When you purchase a firearm the make, model and serial number is recorded on a form that includes your name, address and other personal information. The gun dealer keeps his copy FOREVER. One copy is sent to the state and another is sent to the BATF. The state keeps their copy FOREVER. I'm not sure how long the BATF keeps their copy but you can bet it's probably FOREVER also. I've also personally heard the dealer tell the person he's talking to on the phone during my background check the make, model and serial number of the gun I'm purchasing so somewhere there is yet another record of my purchase.

mixedmedia

Well my point about consistency pertains more to the acquisition of guns than the use and management of them. I think it would be ideal if someone living in a state with waiting periods who wants to buy a gun for "irresponsible" purposes weren't able to simply cross a state line and acquire one much easier. As I believe is the case now.

Host,
People could come up with scenarios for films that would make it seem quite urgent to make gun ownership totally prohibited. Fact is, we do not live in a mythical world where Russians are bad and Americans are good. I find the prospect of living under the tyranny of American militias just as frightening as the prospect of living under the tyranny of my own government or any other.

And I'm not at all comfortable with what you're advocating here. Who exactly are we supposed to be killing? Are we to go into wealthy neighborhoods and just start shooting rich people? Which ones? Corporate executives? Which ones? Politicians? Which ones?

And what then?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

roachboy

dunedan:

first thanks for post 74. i'm not sure that i've seen an overview like that from you or anyone else here, but who knows maybe i did and forgot about it.

let me address a few of the snippy side points first before going into the main thing.

1. i dont "despise" right libertarians. i oppose them politically. there's a difference.

2. i reference locke as a heuristic. the separations that run through your post can be found in the second treatise.
i dont remember saying that locke's is the ONLY text you or anyone involved with this politics has read--it just happens that it fits and is a text that a lot of folk have had to read and so i reference it.
this is a messageboard. arguments require certain tactical choices be made, and one of them is in the assumptions concerning what folk may have read so that if you are inclined to reference texts (it's a tick of mine from graduate school that i cant seem to get rid of) this tactical consideration shapes which texts you choose.

hell, if i thought that many folk had read the illuminatus trilogy, i'd use that.

ayn rand? come on, you cannot be serious.

3. it's kinda funny that you would reference morris dees in all this. what's the problem with the splc exactly? i assume you're still pissed off about the "false patriots" study? i read it when it came out--it was interesting enough, but was hardly a depth analysis.
sara diamond is much better.

anyway, that piece came out in the period just before oklahoma city. the cluster of micro-groups that dees outlines includes some of those fine fellows from the christian identity movement, and at the time there was little in the way of discontinuity between christian identity and much militia materials, particularly in their radio emanations. since ok city, i expect that things have changed--i know that there has been an attempt to distance militia groups from the racist zanies. fine: that's certainly preferable to the reverse.

anyway, here goes.
there are three basic areas of disagreement.

first thing is that it makes little sense to frame all positions through the question of "rights"---particularly as you do it---your positions seems to rely on a notion of "natural law" which i take to be little more than a christian fantasy. at best, it is a normative construct that enables a certain type of critique to unfold of existing legal systems. so its a critical device. but it does not exist. so claims that people are endowed naturally with certain rights is arbitrary. i think that human beings have dignity simply because they are human and that if there is a moral a priori it is that the socio-economic order should operate in a way that respects the dignity of all human beings. capitalism is not such an order.

2. i dont think you understand contemporary capitalism at all.
this:
and this

are mostly jibberish.
the term substitutions make no sense.
corporatism is a social order built around a conception of a "natural" division of labor. it was a big part of catholic social philosophy in the 1920s-1930s and is one of the reasons why the church was not at all an outspoken critic of fascism. it has nothing to do with the present state of affairs.
mercantilism is a description of the mode of exchange particular to the british empire of the late 17th-early 18th centuries.
fascism is a political form rooted in a version of radical nationalism. it is not an economic organization: it is a political ideology. some versions of fascism can be tied to corporatist ideology--mussolini's for example--and some were far more amenable to capitalist business as usual, so long as certain ideological conformities were put in place (hitler's)....some were more internally repressive and backward looking (franco)--the list can go on.

the present state of affairs is a mutation of capitalism. there have been a number of mutations in the overall organization of capitalism. what that means is that capitalism is an abstract term which encompasses a series of discrete forms. so it is a particular type of noun, one that designates a series rather than an object. we live under a form of capitalism. that you do not like it does not mean that it is not capitalism. i do not like it either, but not for the same reasons as you do--but at least i can call it what it is. you cant. this is not a tactical advantage for you: it makes much of what you say seem incoherent.

this is one of the central problems. in the interest of full disclosure, i dont know why, but whatever: i come out of a marxist background. while i am not in any strict sense still a marxist, i hold that certain claims developed either by marx or through the tradition are correct. one of them has to do with the relation of a coherent critique of the existing order to any possible radical politics--that the former gives the latter its orientation. that the types of social organization one can advocate will change as the overall situation within capitalism changes. most importantly, if you are incoherent about the critique your politics will necessarily follow suit.

because you do not understand contemporary capitalism at all, it is possible to advocate surreal positions--your hostility to "government"--which i assume means the state, the modern state. well, dunedan, if you oppose the modern state then you oppose modern capitalism. modern capitalism is only functional because of continuous state intervention, direct and indirect.
i could go into how this works, has worked since world war 2, but it'd make this too long. another post, if there is a debate about this.

another way:
when you say for example that you "oppose corporations" what exactly do you mean? that you oppose the curious american legal fiction of the corporate person? that you oppose firms that are organized bureaucratically? that you oppose firms that operate on a scale beyond point x (where is that?)....somewhere lurking it seems there is hayek--hayek opposed MONOPOLY because he understood monopolies as necessarily irrational. are you mapping that onto corporations in general?

fiat money as opposed to what? what money is not fiat money? gold? how is the value of gold not every bit as arbitrary as that of paper? money is a medium of exchange, a social expression. like any other, it is convention-based.

it seems to me that what anarcho-libertarians or right libertarians want really is a system of small producers engaged in face-to-face economic relations. small producers too small to require bureaucratic organization. producers which engage in types of production that do not require amounts of capital that exceed an individual or small group's capacity. i assume that you oppose stock.

i think the main question in thinking about a radical alternative to the existing order has to do with how various types of activities are controlled and who controls them. i think your understanding of democracy is wholly problematic, not only in itself, but more because excluding demoratic forms of control over production (say) leaves you with nothing coherent to propose as and alternative form of self-organization, no way of thinking about hierarchy (for example)--no way of imagining a coherent alternative social arrangement, in short--so you have no choice but to advocate a kind of neo-1790s system. if your natural law conceptions run in this direction (who knows, they could...) then this network of small producers would embody an organic division of labor...because that division of labor is organic, it woudl require no oversight....because it is organic, its outlines would probably have to be written into law--and so it turns out that your position could easily become corporatist, in the sense in which folk who are not of your political context understand the term (see above).

your position on taxation presupposes that it is not legitimate for a group to vote taxes onto itself because it is in itself immoral to redistribute wealth. the ONLY way that makes any sense is in the context of your corporatist shangri-la of little producers. but even that would depend on the far more complex system/situations within which these small producers operate. on that, there is nothing to say--if the division of labor is organic, then the consequences of it are necessary so as to uneven distribution of wealth, you;d have nothing so say. it wouldnt even be a problem. class stratification could easily exist in your fantasy alternative order: but the effects of this would be even harder to address than they are now, because you would assume--like the conventional populist conservative types today do--that the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor, blah blah blah. on that basis alone, i hope that you folk never get anywhere near actual power. there's more to say on this, but i'd refer you to host's post above instead, which moves in this direction.

but you say that you oppose collective action. you oppose the idea of the collective. well, to my mind that is just a way of affirming powerlessness. and it is incoherent.

your critique of democracy seems to me absurd.

in general, i see in your position a dangerous alternative to the present order, one in which many of the worst features would be retained--not only that, but they would be transposed away from the political, into a hallucinated "natural order" and there would be no feedback loops that could address this because, well, there's no account made in your post of how such a system would work--only that democracy is bad.

that's a short version (believe it or not) os why i think your position problematic.

that said, though, thanks for taking the time to post an overview.
i'd be interested to see what you make of the response.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

This thought is wrong. you cannot buy a handgun from out of state. What you CAN do, is say you found a good deal on a gun in virginia, but live in new mexico. What HAS to happen is that the seller ships the gun to a federally licensed dealer in new mexico, who then performs the NICS background check before you can pick up the gun.

I started to try to read your post, but then got lost, as usual, because it makes no sense to me. I see a roller coaster logic to your debate that I can't keep up with. You call this jibberish, at least with dunedans basic layout, so I'll call yours jibberish.

You've edited the post since I started to respond and I see that you removed the 'redistribution of wealth' part. May I ask why?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

Thank you. That's a great and respectful reminder checkpoint for how we all can sit here and have respectful discussions.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.