Journal Timex's Journal: Edwards: Afraid of those he supports? 133
I read this article today, and chuckled.
The gist of the tale is that Edwards bought land in 2003 that is across the street from someone who happens to be Republican, who happens to own a gun (and isn't afraid to use it to protect his land)...
The trick is that (according to the article) Edwards has never spoken to this guy, and really has no clue why Johnson did what he did, and Edwards wants nothing to do with him. Ironically, Edwards is a self-proclaimed supporter of "poor people". "I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people," Johnson said. "But does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me."
On the one hand, I think it would be good for Government to be afraid of the People for the first time in decades, but given the Democratic Party's penchant for running away from all that scares them, I'm not so sure that the Democrats are worth trying to scare... They're certainly not worth anyone's effort.
[1] I use the term "class" here, though I really dislike the term. The Democrats like to push a class warfare within the United States, an "us versus them" thing, if you will. The funny part is that the Democrats in Power (DiP) are in the "enemy class", whilst the people they are supposed to be representing are "them dirt-poor people", most of whom the DiPs have no earthly clue about.
The United States is supposed to be a classless society, evidenced by the fact that the Constitution forbids granting titles of nobility (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 8). (It also forbids anyone holding office from accepting presents, et al. from any king, prince, or foreign state. I wonder how Pelosi and Co. are making out on their trip?) Democrats seem to be really keen on classes. Perhaps we should rename them to something more appropriate, like "Torries".
I'd be inclined to agree, but ... (Score:2)
It might be your property, but the law recognizes the right of the municipality and utilities, as well as the general public, to free access for all sorts of servitudes. Right-of-way is one such servitude. No appointment needed, no authorization from the owner needed, either. That's what servitudes and rights-of-way are by their nature
Re: (Score:2)
Call for a cop. Call for a pizza. See which one arrives first.
Re: (Score:2)
And there's the urban/rural divide in a nutshell. Well said.
Where I live, near downtown in a small city, there's no doubt that the cops would arrive first; they'd beat Dominoes by at least 15 minutes. Keeping a gun for self-defense is probably unnecessary and - with kids about - possibly counterproductive. Firing a gun in my yard is unthinkable; even birdshot might carry far enough to be a hazard to neighbors and there's no practical way to mak
Re: (Score:2)
Here the cop will beat the pizza by a wide margin.
However, the "call a cop, call a pizza" is a false-logic argument. It's not "either-or". For example, if he weren't such a hyper-aggressive grouch and alienating people, he could have called some neighbours, who are even closer.
But back to reality. If he really felt threatened, the smart thing would be NOT to attract attention, and NOT to make himself a "target". So again, he wasn't "feeling threatened" ... he was using the "empowerment" that comes from w
Re: (Score:2)
Here the cop will beat the pizza by a wide margin.
However, the "call a cop, call a pizza" is a false-logic argument. It's not "either-or". For example, if he weren't such a hyper-aggressive grouch and alienating people, he could have called some neighbours, who are even closer.
Um ... and neighbors could do what? So he is not allowed to act on his own, he either needs to get the help of cops or neighbors?
But back to reality. If he really felt threatened, the smart thing would be NOT to attract attention, and NOT to make himself a "target".
Yeah, sure, just let everyone walk all over your rights. Some people won't do that. It's sad that you will.
Also, and the best argument against him, is that if the people he went after had actually been a threat, he'd be dead.
Um ... no.
Think about it - someone points a gun at you and you're armed, what would you do ...?
Nobody pointed a gun at anbody. Please do not lie.
He would have to expect that, if they were armed, they would shoot him, so he was clearly operating under the assumption that they were either not armed, or that their intentions were peaceful.
Wow, you're stupid.
Yes, they were probably unarmed, or at least didn't have any weapons out. So? You bring out the gun so that there is no possibility of escalation.
He's an asshole, and he should have his guns confiscated before he does some real harm.
Yeah! Fuck the Constitution!
By the way
Re: (Score:1)
Peronally, I'm thinking of a word, and it begins with "R"... Its implications don't bode well for Democrats OR Republicans...
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, Alberto Gonzales is taking away your right to free speech before you do some real harm with your idiotic posts. How do you like them apples?
No, he's not. tomhudson is Canadian.
I know. And it doesn't matter. Slashdot is in the U.S., so the U.S. government can exercise authority over it. And tomhudson, despite perhaps never even setting foot in the U.S., is still protected by the First Amendment when posting on Slashdot, whether he likes it or not!
Re: (Score:1)
All riiight! the pudgester strikes again! Yep, that amazing "insight" proves once more that you got and open and shut case. You win. Game over. The discussion is closed. This personal attack thing* seems to be a favorite ploy of yours. I suppose in your head it works quite well. So very typical of the minions who mindlessly worship their master in the hopes he won't get squashed when stooping down to pick up the crumbs. Keep it up, homes. You're a real laugh riot. Thanks for all the grea
Re: (Score:2)
This personal attack thing*
I did not use a single ad hominem argumentum in my reply to you. That only applies if your attack of "the man" is used as an argument. Mine was not. It was merely a personal attack. And you're doing exactly what I was doing, and therefore have absolultely no standing to complain about it.
Yeah! Fuck the Constitution!
Your boy got there first. He'd only get sloppy seconds and probably some strange disease.
When did Timex violate the Constitution?
And speaking of logical fallacies, this, of course, is the tu quoque fallacy, which is both ad hominem AND a red herring. Two fallacies in one!!
The point being, of course, that
Re: (Score:1)
Not here, you didn't. But this isn't about me. I don't consider everything to about me. You made the statement above, and I just pointed out what it was. Besides, "ad hominem argumentum" are mutually exclusive since "attacking the man" is not an argument. But you use it quite frequently as a distraction. It really cracks me up when you accuse others of using it. Your real name is "Pot", right?
When did Timex violate the Constitution?
I wouldn't k
Re: (Score:2)
I did not use a single ad hominem argumentum in my reply to you.
Not here, you didn't.
Shrug.
Besides, "ad hominem argumentum" are mutually exclusive since "attacking the man" is not an argument.
Not a VALID argument, no. That is why it is called a "fallacy." One that in this case, I didn't make.
But you use it quite frequently
No, I do not.
When did Timex violate the Constitution?
I wouldn't know. I merely responded to your exclamation.
Huh? You brought Timex into this. Unless you were referring to someone else ... ?
You can find nothing significantly objectionable in what I actually write...
Life is too short, and there's not enough disk to explain what's objectionable in what you write.
Nice cop-out.
The sig might be a pretty good start.
What could possibly be objectionable about the obviously true statement, "more crime is committed in the cities, where more people tend to be black"? Perhaps you mean to dishonestly imply that I was saying black people commit more crime, when in fact I was making the opposite case, that
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I am confused...
As far as Edwards is concerned, I just see the whole thing as picking at straws. This little incident, if you can call it that, is nothing. We pretty much know that most politicians have nothing but contempt for the poor or anybody else outside their tight little circle. It's
Re: (Score:2)
As far as Edwards is concerned, I just see the whole thing as picking at straws. This little incident, if you can call it that, is nothing.
Sure. But it is symbolic for the bullshit that Edwards has been peddling since the beginning. He is a rich lawyer who avoids the lower classes except to prey on them, who sponsored the Iraq war resolution, who was a Senator and his party's nominee for Vice President, and his entire candidacy is based on the nonsensical notion that he is an antiwar outsider who loves poor people.
So these things don't surprise me in the least.
Who was surprised by this?
I suppose you would seem confused when trying to take in the big picture
Oh bullshit. You said not one thing that actually linked what you were talking to, explicitly or im
Re: (Score:1)
You're acting like he's different from anyone else. He isn't, and his constituency is fine with it. They're not interested in the pitfalls. Now he's taking his show on the road to see how it plays on the national circuit. The simple fact is he's just not presidential material. He doesn't have "it"*. You know, "it". Without "it", you go nowhere. He's like the competent musician who can never make it big. He's stuck in the
Re: (Score:2)
But it is symbolic for the bullshit that Edwards has been peddling since the beginning.
You're acting like he's different from anyone else.
He is. He is far more dishonest than most.
He's like the competent musician who can never make it big.
Edwards is competent? At *what*?
You said not one thing that actually linked what you were talking to, explicitly or implicitly, to the story about Edwards' wife and the "gun nut."
I wasn't aware I was talking about his wife.
I didn't say you were talking about this wife: you were talking about this story (that was the point of this discussion), which was primarily about his wife.
And the "gun nut" thing doesn't tell me anything I didn't already suspect. I suppose it's nice to verify my suspicions.
Huh? You only SUSPECTED that tomhudson called the man a "gun nut"? You didn't actually read the discussion you are commenting in?
Once again, I'm merely questioning why we single out any particular politicians insignificant foibles when the real issue is much bigger.
Once again, the foible is insignificant, but it says a lot about who Edwards really is: a complete sham.
My point is that you shouldn't put liars and thieves in charge of the country. The trivialities of the particulars are just that. They are trivial and do not address the general demeanor of the situation. In fact they serve to divert out attention from exactly that.
Pointing out that Edwards whole campai
Re: (Score:1)
Man, you couldn't be more wrong. Hillary is far worse, and her steamroller warrants much more attention than this two bit player that Edwards will always be. If you are really interested in your country's well being, you will do what it takes to expose this woman for what she is, and you'll demand a revival of all those investigations that were so neatly derailed by the Monica thing. With her you have real situation on your hands. And I, for one, consider her worse
Re: (Score:2)
He is. He is far more dishonest than most.
Man, you couldn't be more wrong. Hillary is far worse ...
So how does showing one person worse than Edwards mean that Edwards is not worse than most?
What I'm saying is that you're going after the wrong guy.
OK. You're wrong.
You're focusing on small potatoes. Look at the front runners, and you'll get a tiny bit closer to the big picture I'm trying to get you to see.
I don't see why you think any of this is mutually exclusive.
Edwards is competent? At *what*?
You would need to ask the people that keep him in office. They must have a reason for doing so, no?
I always assumed it was his hair.
You believe in Bush.
Not really. I just think he is better than any alternatives the Democrats put up. I said, publically, about four years ago, that I would consider voting for a Democrat over Bush, depending on who it was. (But I know, once again, it is easier for you to attack something I don't believe than something I
Re: (Score:2)
I just think he is better than any alternatives the Democrats put up. His handlers do all that.
It is insane to think that Bush is better than a grapefruit.
Fine. Then Kerry and Gore are well below grapefruits. They are rotten, poisonous, lemons.
He decides nothing. Same went for probably everybody since Johnson.
This could not be more incorrect. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton are all very well known to historians as taking very active roles in policy and decisionmaking. I don't know much about Ford's administration, so won't comment on him.
Those examples are very limited in scope.
Good brush off! ... You can ignore the issues with the best of them.
OK, I guess I will have to explain to you what happened there, because you obviously don't get it. You made a claim. That claim was that the overwhelming majority of politicians
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, no. Everyone at Gitmo must receive a status determination.
I repeat. What's it been four years without any of that?
I repeat: no, it has not. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that the law as I stated is being bypassed or ignored. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
THIS [nationalpriorities.org] is merely criminal. THIS [infoshout.com] is murder and absolutely incredible
Your own incredulity, I cannot speak to, but it is not criminal, and not murder. Those words have specific meanings that cannot reasonably apply here.
And more importantly to this discussion, it has asbolutely nothing to do with anything that we were discussing: it's unrelated to whatever you erroneously think is happening at Git
Re: (Score:1)
I am so sorry. I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. By "your boy" I meant Bush. I mean, it's not like he's the first or anything. I'm merely disparaging your collective failure to nominate and elect someone who is competent and honest, as opposed to someone who is riding it bareback, which is what came to mind when you made the statement, "Yeah! Fuck the Constitution!" That's all. I'm just saying it's been done, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Try again. Pudge's reply was to tomhudson. I replied to that comment, and that's probably why you're confused.
Not necessarily... Consider the following possibilities:
Re: (Score:1)
It might be your property, but the law recognizes the right of the municipality and utilities, as well as the general public, to free access for all sorts of servitudes. Right-of-way is one such servitude. No appointment needed, no authorization from the owner needed, either. That's what servitudes and rights-of-way are by their nature.
First, it's North Corolina, not Quebec. Yes, certain utilities have a right to be on one's property, but there may be limits of that right that may vary according to local ordinance.
Second, why wasn't Johnson taken to court over it, then? If he were in the wrong, Johnson would likely have had the book thrown at him, and he'd be in jail, not talking to the press about how Edwards won't talk to those he claims to champion. If he had been charged with anything, the gun issue would have made it a felony, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Rights of way are a fixture of US law, as are equitable servitudes ... :-)
A right of way or passage means that the landowner can't lawfully interfere with the persons who use that portion of his property in a legal means. For example, your land might totally enclose someone else's land - they have a right of passage through your land to get to the public road, and if you don't come to some equitable agreement in writing, they can force the issue before the courts. Same with public utilities.
Public utili
Re: (Score:1)
For that matter, why say "the people" instead of "the militia", if the authors really had in mind this being a right of "the militia" and not just "the people"?
You say that their choosing the phrase "the people" over "individuals" indicates that this right was not meant to apply to individuals. By your same logic, then, their choos
Re: (Score:2)
"The people" (the entire American populace) were prohibited from owning weapons. "The right of the people to bear arms" refers specifically to that prohibition - the country wanted the ability to defend itself - which is, again, also why it made specific reference to the militia.
The majority of the US population is not eligible under US law to be part of the militia - only able-bodied males between 18 and 45. In other words, no women, nobody under 18, nobody over 45, nobody who is not physically fit. No
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, the right to bear arms isn't the same as "I'm going to pack as much firepower as I want." A total ban on handguns by civilians would still give them the right to bear rifles and shotguns, and at the same time remove the easily-concealable handguns.
Something to think about, perhaps?
Re: (Score:1)
Either way, the right to bear arms isn't the same as "I'm going to pack as much firepower as I want." A total ban on handguns by civilians would still give them the right to bear rifles and shotguns, and at the same time remove the easily-concealable handguns.
Something to think about, perhaps?
No, it wouldn't. The same Liberal mind that would decide to outlaw handguns would write the law in such a manner that the item(s) banned would be as inclusive as possible, thereby allowing for the understanding (either through clear or obscure phrasing) that all firearms are banned from the "civilian" population. To deny that probability is to ignore the whole of the Liberal Democrat agenda.
In Massachusetts, I cannot own pellet gunsm nor can I own slingshots... It's only a matter of time before other mo
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, the right to bear arms isn't the same as "I'm going to pack as much firepower as I want."
True. Nice straw man, though, since no one in this debate is claiming that!
A total ban on handguns by civilians would still give them the right to bear rifles and shotguns, and at the same time remove the easily-concealable handguns.
Why would we do that?
Something to think about, perhaps?
As soon as you give me a reason why the freedom to have and conceal a handgun should be taken away from me, I will think about it. Until then ... no, I will not think about this stupid idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, they mentioned "the people" - general, the body of the population, not "people", individuals. Your argument actually reinforces my side.
Nope - them's the facts. Do your research, and you'll see.
Why not just ban all hand guns? Its not like they're needed for hunting - unless you're hunting humans. A total ban on hand guns also wouldn
Re: (Score:1)
As I said, they mentioned "the people" - general, the body of the population, not "people", individuals. Your argument actually reinforces my side.
No. Given the context of the Bill of Rights, interpreting "people" in the second amendment is inappropriate, if it is not understood to be the individual. Like I said, the framers of the Constitution knew the power of words. One needs look no further than the Declaration of Independence to figure that out.
Why not just ban all hand guns? Its not like they're needed for hunting - unless you're hunting humans. A total ban on hand guns also wouldn't be against the constitutional right to bear arms, either for a militia, or for "people".
When criminals frequently run around with guns, even if it is illegal to do so in some areas, some people feel the need to be able to defend themselves for any of several reasons. Those that carry ha
Re: (Score:2)
If all handguns are banned, then anyone who does get a handgun can be stopped for mere possession. It makes the law easy to apply. No waiting for someone to go nuts.
One of the problems with handguns is that they're easily concealed, allowing them to be transported to an intended crime scene without being detected. By the time you see the gun, its too late. Its a lot harder to be inconspicuous walking around with a couple of rifles or shotguns, and a lot harder to quickly hide them afterwards. A handgun
Re: (Score:1)
If all handguns are banned, then anyone who does get a handgun can be stopped for mere possession. It makes the law easy to apply. No waiting for someone to go nuts.
One of the problems with handguns is that they're easily concealed, allowing them to be transported to an intended crime scene without being detected. By the time you see the gun, its too late. Its a lot harder to be inconspicuous walking around with a couple of rifles or shotguns, and a lot harder to quickly hide them afterwards. A handgun can be dropped in a waste-paper basket, or shoved in a packsack, or in a jacket pocket. A rifle would stick out like ... well, like a rifle.
Read through the first paragraph carefully, then read the second. What you're asking for is a reason for police to search people, when they (the police) would normally have no reason whatsoever to search a citizen, thereby violating the fourth amendment to the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but on probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In other words, if the police have no warrant to search, they cannot search. You're basically asking that the entirety of the Bill of Rights be gutted, in one way or another, thereby stripping rights from the majority of American citi
Re: (Score:1)
You will accomplish one thing, and one thing only. You will create a bigger black market than the one we have for drugs. Guns will become MORE available 24 hours a day and without a background check. Cash is good enough. The US is THE biggest arms dealer in the whole wide world, legal and illegal. It's one reason why the economy hasn't completely tanked. Prohibition is another. This will only help push prices up and increase their profit margins. In addition you are only helping
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the motivators. They're different.
People are motivated to do drugs because they get pleasure out of them. Even if nobody else did drugs, they still would.
People want guns "for protection" - from other people with guns. Most people would not feel a need for guns "for protection" if guns were strictly and effectively prohibited.
Yes, in such a scenario, crooks will still get guns. But in such cases, you don't have to wait for them to commit a violent crime to arrest and punish them - the mere a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"How you turn somebody against such instant gratification that a gun provides to them will be quite the challenge."
Just goes to show that a lot of people want guns for the wrong reasons ...
BTW - can I steal your .sig?
Re: (Score:1)
If all handguns are banned, then anyone who does get a handgun can be stopped for mere possession. It makes the law easy to apply. No waiting for someone to go nuts.
I'll give you a simple relavent link to read that will make your argument clear for what it is: Wishful thinking. Read about what happened at the same Virginia Tech campus five years ago.
In a nutshell, here's what happened: A man goes on campus (when guns weren't banned) and kills three. Two students (one of whom was an off-duty police officer) ran to their respective cars, retrieved their handguns, and subsequently subdued the killer. The killer was tried and convicted for murder, and is serving multip
Re: (Score:2)
Virginia Tech is a case in point that Virginia gun control laws are a joke - the shooter was already judged by the courts to be a danger to himself and others before he legally bought his guns.
If hand-gun sale and possession hadn't been legal, he wouldn't have been armed. Those were legally-purchased guns, by someone who clearly shouldn't have been allowed to own any restricted weapons.
So, do you really want to continue to argue the right of the dangerously mentally deranged to legally purchase guns? 3
Re: (Score:2)
Its mostly street gangs who are looking to get guns ... which is why Toronto made a concerted effort in the last couple of years to clamp down on gang violence.
The average Canadian not only doesn't want a gun - they don't want to be in the same building as a gun.
It seems to work. Our homicide rates are well under half yours ... and we're not the only western country that can say that.
Handguns in the general population is a bad idea. Sure, let people own their rifles and shotguns - but your founding
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe it's time we annex Canada. That would be fun."
Can't be done, for reasons I've outlined many times in the past - the major one being that we can bring a huge chunk of the North American power grid down in minutes, and the same applies to the oil pipelines - and Mexico would join us in the oil embargo, as they would see themselves as the next potential victim.
That works out to the equivalent of 2 Hurricane Katrinas, with no way to replace them (there's not enough tanker capacity in the whole world
Re: (Score:2)
Better watch it - I'm sure we can find some more Celine Dion clones to send south.
"Blame Canada! Blame Canada!"
Re: (Score:2)
No, its a bit of a sticky point ever since it was leaked that during the '50s the US actually drew up plans to invade and literally take over Canada.
They wanted to ensure the continued American dominance of Canadian resources after events like this [answers.com], because they feared that the government would eventually turn to forced nationalization of strategic industries.
Military deployment to favour US business interests wasn't new even then - check out the Banana Wars [wikipedia.org] as a prior example of US "colonial" policy w
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who started with the ad hominems [slashdot.org], not me ... and you're also the one who gets all "touchy" when someone points out that the United States has a history of being behind the times on all sorts of social issues, such as slavery, gun control, and universal health care, and its history of double-dealing with "allies."
And I guess you missed the humour in this post [slashdot.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just ban all hand guns?
Because there is no need to.
Its not like they're needed for hunting
I don't have handguns for hunting. I have them for shooting people in order to defend myself and my family.
A total ban on hand guns also wouldn't be against the constitutional right to bear arms, either for a militia, or for "people".
Yawn.
Of course, those who use hand guns as a substitute for a certain part of their anatomy would be against it.
Yes, and I should hammer nails with my dick too. And use my tongue to drive screws.
Nah, I'll use the right tool for the job. Hammers for nails, screwdrivers for screws, and handgu
Re: (Score:2)
Tsk tsk ... so much material, and so little time
I'll just take one example ...
Re: (Score:2)
A total ban means you'd be able to get the nuts before they shoot - simple posession would be enough. And isn't that the goal - stop people shooting each other?
No, it is not. The goal is to be free. Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security, etc.
right ... its working really well in your country, isn't it?
Yes, it is. Thanks for asking.
Oh, its not.
Yes, it is.
Kids bring guns to school because they're afraid. And I'm not talking teen-agers here - these are kids under 10.
Very few kids do that, and they do it often when what they're afraid of has nothing to do with guns. If they didn't have guns, they would bring knives. This has nothing directly to do with guns.
People are afraid to walk the streets at night.
Usually not because of guns in particular.
Or to stop and help someone because their car might get hijacked.
Again. Same thing.
Its important to "preserve freedom" - or actually, the illusion of freedom.
It is important to use apostrophes. (I am not really flaming your poor writing, I just have nothing else to say in response to your meaningless aphorism.)
You're not free if you're afraid.
False. You are simply afraid.
But don't let me stop
Re: (Score:2)
Time for another "station break"
I was referring to your government - whiich is why I included this, and specifically mentioned the figure 10 trillion:
Re: (Score:2)
You make shit up about how I am not free because of things that in fact are not directly related to freedom, or saying that people acting freely is an example of not having feedom.
I call you on your bullshit.
Repeat.
The 2nd Amendment is obsolete. (Score:2)
To sum up - people say they want guns for "protection" and "self-defense", and because they need them under the 2nd Amendment, just in case they have to rise up and overthrow their government.
Must be fun living in Baghdad, USA.
The facts:
Re: (Score:2)
Must be fun living in Baghdad, USA.
Must be fun making shit up.
The facts:
Without reading further, I will make a prediction: nothing you say below will be a "fact." Let's see, shall we?
No populist militia has a hope in hell of overthrowing the government. They'd be cannon fodder.
First, this is a straw man. The point is not to be able to overthrow the government, but to deter the government from violating your rights. If you see an angry 50-pound dog baring its teeth and growling, do you go near it? Of course not. As George Orwell said, "a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to it--gives claws to the weak." That doesn't mean you
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh, you didn't know that the abolitionist movement in the mid-1800s existed almost entirely because people believed slavery was against their religious beliefs and should be abolished on that basis?"
For thousands of years, people pointed to the Bible as justification for owning slaves - both the old and (later) new testaments. The old testament taught that it was okay to enslave other people. In the new testament Jesus "taught" a lot of things ... but he obviously never got it into his head that owning
Re: (Score:2)
Then you provide this queer conclusion:
But since you won't learn from history (your own and other countries), you're doomed to repeat it ...
Um ... precisely what history have I not learned from? You certainly gave no examples.
However, I did give an example of history you have not learned of. Well, many
Re: (Score:2)
A little realpolitik. Religion was not the motivation for banning slavery in the US. Religion was, like today, used as a front for political and economic gain.
The motivation for removing slavery was political, not religious. It was used as a wedge between the northern and southern states; by offering freedom for slaves, the northern states were able to bleed the south of both labour and money.
Also, the ability to import slaves was coming under fire - for example, british ships banned all transport of s
Re: (Score:2)
Religion was not the motivation for banning slavery in the US.
False. Educate yourself on the actual abolitionist movement. You have no clue what you're talking about. Look up Charles Finney. And hell, before him, President John Adams, who opposition to slavery was solely on religious grounds. And even in other countries it was usually a religious motivation. See, for example, John Newton, a minister who was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.
Contrary to your post, slavery endured for longer than it should have specifically because religion backed it for so long.
Even if that were true -- which it clearly is not -- it does not have anything to do with my
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery was not abolished from religious motivations.
Abolition only came to fruition because of the economic and political benefits to the north in promoting its abolition. The founding fathers had many chances to abolish slavery, and they didn't ... they married into families that owned slaves. Were they all heathens and philistines? No, just "good christians" who, while they rejected a society where there were different classes, founded a society that had classes based on colour; a distinction that exi
Re: (Score:1)
To sum up - people say they want guns for "protection" and "self-defense", and because they need them under the 2nd Amendment, just in case they have to rise up and overthrow their government.
Must be fun living in Baghdad, USA.
The ["]facts["]:
1. No populist militia has a hope in hell of overthrowing the government. They'd be cannon fodder. Only someone who is suffering from paranoid delusions would argue otherwise;
You know, this sort of mind-set was once thought about 231 years ago... Nobody expected a bunch of "backward Yanks" to win against the British army, thebest-trained, most accomplished army of the day. Even today, it's not uncommon to find superior fighting forces getting their butts handed to them on platters by people who are not just fighting for what they believe in, but fighting for their own livelihood. (Iraq doesn't apply here, as most of the instigators are from Syria and Iran, not Iraq itself.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hi:
First, I do criticize my own government. But on things like
Re: (Score:2)
How many armoured helicopter gunships, tanks, APCs, aircraft carriers, destroyers, cutters, bombers, fighter jets and SAM missile batteries do your militia members have?
The "terms of engagement" have changed a lot. You'd need a few WMDs as a threat to even hope to have any leverage, and that would only be by holding civilian emplacements hostage to destruction - a war crime.
Re: (Score:2)
For those new here, see "OMG another bad car analogy" ...
Why not extend the same policy to Iraq? Let all the Iraqis have guns, except for "the evil doers." After all, if guns are so important to democracy, shouldn't you be exporting them to the Iraqi citizenry along with all the other tools so essential to "freedom and democracy".
Re: (Score:2)
The simple truth is that last week could probably have been prevented if Virginia had complied with federal law. I'll explain in another post...there's a nasty bug in slashcode that screws up block quoting on longer comments, but first.
Re: (Score:2)
Virginia Ignored Federal Law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think too many Canadians have a problem with people practicing their religion in private - they just don't want their politicians to impose any particular religious dogma on the population, same as you would be opposed to a politician telling you what "proper" religious beliefs and practices are. This is what officially-sanctioned religion devolves into, and its happened enough times over the course of human history, with so many different religious variants.
Many of the immigrants to the new worl
Re: (Score:2)
The pilgrims don't represent the majority of the people who came to the US. Its not like everyone came over on the Mayflower, despite what some "social climbers" want to claim (just like if you add up all the "pieces of Jesus' cross" floating around, you could build an ark :-)
You had 20,000 people immigrate to the US over a 10 year period for religious reasons (the Puritans). By contrast, the potato famine was THE largest source of immigrants - several millions. In the 10 years that cover the potato fam
Re: (Score:2)
You're not implying somebody's totally bay, are you?
Re: (Score:1)
Tsk tsk ... so much material, and so little time
I'll just take one example ...
Guess again [worldnetdaily.com]. So... Apparently, in a town where gun ownership is clearly mandated by law, not only does it prove you wrong, but people apparently want more of it, because the population is increasing. Interesting.
Kids bring guns to school because they're afraid. And I'm not talking teen-agers here - these are kids under 10. People are afraid to walk the streets at night. Or to stop and help someone because their car might get hijacked. Its important to "preserve freedom" - or actually, the illusion of freedom.
They say they're afraid, and sometimes they are. More often, they're just being stupid. I personally know one kid who brought a letter opener shaped like a sword to school, just to show his friends. Of course, the school (over)reacted, but not that I blame them. They have a zero-tolerance
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I'll just tackle one point :
I grew up in the poorest 6 block area of the
Re: (Score:2)
Placing more effective restrictions on gun ownership and us is not "punishing" anyone. That would be like arguing that enforcing seat belt laws is "punishing drivers"?
There's a trade-off involved. Want to own a gun? It comes with rules and regulations - and you should have to demonstrate a real need (like that you work as a security guard transporting large sums of money) - not just some vague "for protection against the boogie-man."
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact is that Cho was able to legally buy guns in Virginia, even though federal law prohibited him from buying guns. And apparently the ATF is saying this is "business as usual" for about 22 states. Sounds pretty "recklessly lawless" to me.
Canadians are free to buy rifles and shotguns with a permit.
However, hand guns ... well, you have to be a member of a shooting range, you have to get a permit to own the gun, and a permit to transport the gun - which is only valid to transport the gun to an
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to try some of these on for size ...
In some states you have to wear a seatbelt, because others didn't and got themselves turned into bloody smears on the dash.
In some states you have to wear a motorcycle hel
Re:Top reasons I would never want to live in Canad (Score:2)
"I have read are projecting that, if the replacement birthrate does not increase, Canada's workforce will be nearly 100% immigrants by 2011"
Obviously a total fantasy - that would mean that all the people born in Canada before for the last 61 years will have to die by 2011, which isn't possible, even in the event of a limited nuclear war.
As for birth rates in general, the world is already overpopulated, and the US is contributing to the problem. If current trends continue, US populaton will peak at over
Re: (Score:2)
"Let me clarify my statement about replacement birth rates and immigration: What I should have said is that immigrants would be supporting nearly 100% of taxation."
Even that number makes no sense - it would have required most people born in Canada to have stopped giving birth 61 years ago (retirement is 65), and for almost all THEIR children not to ever have children, for immigrants to be paying nearly 100% of taxation by 2011.
Its a "factoid" - one that sounds good, but has no basis in fact whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
"And the percentage of those children that will grow up to work in the well paid, skilled labour jobs that support most of that lovely "free" health care you love so much is not high enough to pay for an increasingly elderly population who require increasingly expensive care"
We're a much more urbanized society than the US; its one reason why we have better access to high-speed internet, etc. Its also why we need more skilled labour. And skilled labour pays better, so sure, it'll work out. Our pension pla
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to check out the history of public transit in the US - particularly how Ford and GM bought as many public transit companies as they could, and closed them down to artificially create demand for cars. IIRC, interrobang (another poster) has quite a collection of public transit documents.
Also, its your decision to send your kids to private school - at $10/gallon, maybe parents would find more incentive to improve the quality of their local public schools (which means everyone benefits), and t
Re:I'd be inclined to agree, but ... (+5, Funny) (Score:2)
It's not every Tom, Dick, and Harry, just Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin, and Harry Reid.
Re: (Score:2)
Rights of way are a fixture of US law, as are equitable servitudes ... :-)
A right of way or passage means that the landowner can't lawfully interfere with the persons who use that portion of his property in a legal means. For example, your land might totally enclose someone else's land - they have a right of passage through your land to get to the public road, and if you don't come to some equitable agreement in writing, they can force the issue before the courts. Same with public utilities.
Um. Did you read the article? "Monty Johnson brought out a gun while chasing workers investigating a right of way off his property." That does not mean they were legally on the right of way. It could mean lots of things, including that they were on his property investigating the possibility of a right of way.
Also, surprisingly enough, US law does NOT permit you to physically detain someone for simple trespass. You have to tell them to leave, and give them the opportunity to "cure" the trespass. Detaining them physically is, on the other hand, a criminal act.
Good thing he didn't do that.
I think you're thinking of the second amendment, which has been misinterpreted ... The "right of the people" is not the same as "the right of individuals". "The people" is collective - "persons" or "individual citizens" is not. Only the militia has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and the militia is limited to people of a specific age and gender.
Um ... if that were true, then we also have only a "collective" right to assemble, and to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. cf. First and Fourth Amendm
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are. They're probably spelled out in the property owner's lease -- exactly as if the previous owner gave a right-of-way to a second house when their lot was bisected.
Second, why wasn't Johnson taken to court over it, then?
Because taking someone to court is expensive, and unless someone raises a stink it's not worthwh
Re: (Score:1)
First, it's North Corolina, not Quebec. Yes, certain utilities have a right to be on one's property, but there may be limits of that right that may vary according to local ordinance.
Yes, there are. They're probably spelled out in the property owner's lease -- exactly as if the previous owner gave a right-of-way to a second house when their lot was bisected.
The guy in question owns the land, and it's been in his family for about a hundred years. There's no "lease". The laws that govern this situation are local (or state) ordinances, which I think we all agree govern this situation. Since we don't have the whole story on what happened in this instance, let's move on, shall we? Everyone (you, me, Edwards, and even Johnson himself) agrees that Johnson went out brandishing a firearm. If some idiot came running after me with a gun when I was simply doing my j
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might be your property, but the law recognizes the right of the municipality and utilities, as well as the general public, to free access for all sorts of servitudes. Right-of-way is one such servitude. No appointment needed, no authorization from the owner needed, either. That's what servitudes and rights-of-way are by their nature.
Um. False. Nice try though!
His claim that he needed it for personal protection is BS. If he was so afraid, why didn't he do the smart thing and phone the police?
Calling the cops is "the smart thing"? Question-begging fallacy. Again, nice try!
Then again, I avoid all gun nuts.
Ad hominem, too! You are pulling out all the stops!!
Nope- they're too right wing (Score:2)
What I don't get is why no political party in the United States realizes the huge disconnect between what the normal people want (Socially conservative, fiscally liberal) and what the Democrats want (Socially liberal, fiscally conservative) or what the Republicans want (One Law for the Rich, a different Law for the poor). In NEITHER case is anybo
Re: (Score:2)
Spending caps for political campaigns make sense, and some places have them, as well as other political campaign finance rules, to try to reign in the "buying of the vote."
However, having the courts appoint legal representation for all parties in every case would only lead to more lawyers ... even the worst ones would be guaranteed an income (think of it as welfare for lawyers). What would be good would be opening up the legal system so that people who aren't lawyers but can handle themselves in court
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about NO lawyers, like in small claims court?
Equal costs for everyone.
Equal justice for everyone
(cue sound of a million lawyers cringing in fear).
Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer, but he wasn't a member of the bar. The ABA didn't even exist when he died. Lawyers were just people who made their living arguing the law.
Re: (Score:2)
unless lawyers are chosen randomly and all paid the same, I see no other way to achieve "equal rights under the law" for the poor
So take away my rights to improve someone else's?
That may be warranted in some really bizarre cases, but only if everything else has been tried first.
Here's some ideas off the top of my head: force the government to pay more to get better lawyers for the poor if there is a significant disparity; get better judges who can see through the BS; get better juries by getting everyone to actually serve on juries; streamline the appeals process.
Re: (Score:2)
No, give you equal rights. Or are you against "All men are created equal"? I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were- George W. Bush certainly is.
That may be warranted in some really bizarre cases, but only if everything else has been tried first.
Everything else WAS tried first- read your history. At this stage in the game, we have virtually no constitutional rights unless we can pay for them.
Here's some ideas off the top of my head: force the go
Re: (Score:2)
what the normal people want (Socially conservative, fiscally liberal)
False.
what the Democrats want (Socially liberal, fiscally conservative)
Also false.
what the Republicans want (One Law for the Rich, a different Law for the poor)
Also false.
...
That's OK, if this is baseball, you just need one hit to go 1-for-4 and not totally suck
Until campaign spending is capped at under $23,000 for any race
Violation of First Amendment ...
until ALL attorneys in any court case are chosen by the court and not by the litigants
Violation of First, Sixth, and Ninth Amendment ...
any pretense at not having class in the United States is a sham.
Well, you're batting .000. Try again sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if for you, money is speech. Which to me is the most ludicrous argument ever. Besides, it's not as if the Constitution has existed for the past 120 years anyway.....ever since they took away citizenship and gave it to corporations only in SCCvsSPR, as far as I'm concerned, the Supreme Court has made the rest of the Constitution null and void.
Re: (Score:2)
Violation of First Amendment ...
Only if for you, money is speech. Which to me is the most ludicrous argument ever.
No, money is not speech, but the clear intent of a law to limit spending is to limit speech. And it is therefore unconstitutional.
Besides, it's not as if the Constitution has existed for the past 120 years anyway.....ever since they took away citizenship and gave it to corporations only in SCCvsSPR
False. That never actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the clear intent of such a law is to open up the field of potential viable candidates to those willing to spend the average yearly income of an American working full time; in other words, equality. But then again, the Constitution hasn't been about political equality, democracy, or the maintenance of a Republic since 1876, so what does it matter?
False. That never actuall
Re: (Score:2)
No, money is not speech, but the clear intent of a law to limit spending is to limit speech. And it is therefore unconstitutional.
No, the clear intent of such a law is to open up the field of potential viable candidates ...
Yes, by limiting the speech of other candidates. This is undeniable.
False. That never actually happened.
The proof is in your statement above that limiting spending is to limit speech- thus giving corporations, which control more spending than individual citizens, superior first Amendment rights.
The First Amendment does not state or imply that everyone has equal right to be heard. So ... false.
Re: (Score:1)
The proof is in your statement above that limiting spending is to limit speech- thus giving corporations, which control more spending than individual citizens, superior first Amendment rights.
The First Amendment does not state or imply that everyone has equal right to be heard. So ... false.
I find it interesting, when people interpret "You have a right to speak your mind" as "You have a right to have someone hear your opinions"... It isn't that at all.
HOWEVER, The point of the JE was about Edwards' fear of someone, presumably because that person is one of them-there gun-totin' 'Publicans.
It would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that Edwards is exactly the sort of person that the Democratic Party tells people they are trying to defend the Common Man from.
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment does not state or imply that everyone has equal right to be heard.
Correct. Moreover, the First Amendment specifically guarantees the right to use one's press for speech, implicitly guaranteeing the right to use one's property to purchase a press or other means of speech for the purpose of ... speech.
What you don't get is the right to use somebody else's press. And obviously you don't get the right to curtail somebody's use of their press, because that's explicitly forbidden. And thus you obviously don't get the right to prohibit somebody from buying or renting a pr
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess if you're against equality in politics, you're for the current state of the Republic- in which only the Nobelmen have the right to speak.
The First Amendment does not state or imply that everyone has equal right to be heard.
Depends on whether or not you believe that the interpretation of the Constitution owes a debt to the Declaration of Independance. If it doesn't- no problem. We're living in an oligarchial dictatorshi