Nice knowing you, America.

[Jenner]

Firstly, Liberals didn't start arming themselves and forming militias against Bush. We complained and pointed out how much rubbish everything he was doing was. We spoke out, we protested. We never showed up in DC with a gun and argued with secret service. This is completely different. This manner of behavior is way more hostile than even the most insane lefties dared to tread.

Another difference is that almost every media and news source in America repeated the lies and falsehoods that were spread and repeated by the Bush Administration even when evidence to the contrary was available and more solid than the party line they fed us. Almost every media source is going to great lengths now, to spread every lie and falsehood there is about everything the Obama administration is doing. Using every little thing that happens to take up a whole news day talking about that minor distraction instead of serious issues on days he does not make a mistake.

I love the freedoms America grants us, I love the ideal of what America is meant to be, I love the concept of liberty, equality and choice. I love the ability to, at least in some small way, have a say in who is in charge and what is and isn't legal.

But, if it's unpatriotic to save my ass when a bunch of misinformed, angry, gun-toting, unemployed and resentful folks just looking for anything to vent their frustrations finally get enough people together and enough fear and alcohol pumped into them to start rampaging across the country side. Well then, I guess I do, in fact, hate America.

Not only do you brandish me with a giant Elephant, but you don't even realize that there are very VERY violent liberal groups.

Commonly referred to as "Eco-Terrorists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism

Let me give you a list of a few:
Sea Shepard Conservation Society
Animal Liberation Front
Earth Liberation Front

The difference between these groups and leftist representatives and right groups and their representatives? Our representatives have not gone on national television and SUPPORTED and ENCOURAGED these acts of terrorism and murder. Prominent Members and spokes people of our political identity have not called for actions like this to be taken, have not demanded the deaths of the people they disagree with of their constituents. The conservative representatives HAVE done these things. You make a point, we have our hate groups, our killers, our mad men. But our representatives don't high five them on national television. In fact, many of our spokes people have spoken out against these atrocities from the left.

...Apparently you have forgotten about the scientist who died a year or so ago when he turned on his car in his own home and it blew up because some wacky liberal put a bomb on it.

A couple of years ago a hummer dealership was firebombed in southern California. I think we can cross the militias off that list.

Also at UCLA and UC BERKLEY there have been many fires in labs and death threats against scientist using animal test subjects.

SO

Your fear is COMPLETELY misplaced. In a news cycle or so you'll forget all about the white-supremisist-neo-nazi-death-to-women-minorities-jews-ect militia groups.

No, my fear is not misplaced, it is a completely valid concern. Perhaps YOU have forgotten the race riots after John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated? These groups have the goal of creating fear and uncertainty, instilling doubt and discouraging and intimidating debate. They are supposed to make people afraid, and their goal is to scare and intimidate the President, his administration, and his supporters. But hey, I'm surprised you came back to this thread. Usually your ilk just posts your "NO, YOU'RE WRONG, AND YOU HATE AMERICA, GOOD RIDDANCE" -Dung Beetle- and then wander off to post elsewhere, never returning to the thread.

I have no illusions of America being some fragile little teapot that'll shatter the moment it's rattled a bit. I don't plan to bail just because there's a threat. But I do however, being a timid, privileged whiny little white -Borgan-, want to know I'm be able to get out if these militias actually do get worked up enough to go on a rampage and are actually affective.
I can't help but think that that's what the conservatives want to happen. They want to invoke massive rioting and try to start a second world war under the Obama administration. Because the conservatives have lost all their support and painted themselves into a corner and that's all they got, is the wingnuts supporting them.

That's what I mean about lacking perspective. The fact that this is really a small (although noticed) group of people actually arming themselves and talking about secession is lost on you--there isn't a large enough group to actually pose any realistic threat. There are tons of things that can lead up to a civil war; none of the conditions in the US add up to that.

Also, "starting a second world war" is not the same as "starting a civil war" (unless your definition of "world" only includes the US).

Huh, I didn't notice that. I have no idea why the word world is up there, I was sure I typed the word civil. It must have been a slip of concentration. I went back and fixed it, didn't mean to confuse ya. I'm not quite that unbalanced. I do believe a civil war in America would cause some disruption in many other countries around the world, but, it wouldn't be the end of the world as we know it. I'm not saying a war will happen, I'm just saying I'd like to be able to get out if it does. I got my passport, so yay.

I really don't want any trouble to break out. But, these people aren't wearing those guns to make a statement, they are wearing those guns to scare people and to push buttons. You cross a dangerous line when you replace posters with weapons. It starts looking less like respectable dissent and more like the whispers of an uprising.

I want to get a bunch of my liberal friends together with gun rights and slap guns on them and picket directly across from these idiots, see how they like it.

This isn't a game, this isn't freedom of expression. This is intimidation. This is DIFFERENT and I would say the same thing if it was my people doing it.

[GhaleonOne]

But hey, I'm surprised you came back to this thread. Usually your ilk just posts your "NO, YOU'RE WRONG, AND YOU HATE AMERICA, GOOD RIDDANCE" -Dung Beetle- and then wander off to post elsewhere, never returning to the thread.

Just a minor quibble, but you are on a video game message board. Maybe it's just the ones I go to, but video game forums tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. I know if I was that outnumbered, I wouldn't bother. Then again, very few things politically will draw me into an argument like this anymore. I personally enjoy sitting back reading through these threads to see what Kiz and others say anyways, as there's usually some good knowledge in there to be gained.

[Jenner]

But hey, I'm surprised you came back to this thread. Usually your ilk just posts your "NO, YOU'RE WRONG, AND YOU HATE AMERICA, GOOD RIDDANCE" -Dung Beetle- and then wander off to post elsewhere, never returning to the thread.

Just a minor quibble, but you are on a video game message board. Maybe it's just the ones I go to, but video game forums tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. I know if I was that outnumbered, I wouldn't bother. Then again, very few things politically will draw me into an argument like this anymore. I personally enjoy sitting back reading through these threads to see what Kiz and others say anyways, as there's usually some good knowledge in there to be gained.

I wasn't trying to flame, I was expressing my pleasure that he decided to keep discussing it. And not only that, actually came back with something meaningful. Way better than what I usually do.

On that note, I did add some links to some of the text I posted in the "Obama is too nice" thread if any curious types wanna wander back over there and mouse over those to continue discussion. I'm still getting more info on that.

[GhaleonOne]

Dunno if you or Kiz changed that title, but I was really trying to come up hard with a good censor word for the dreaded p-word. They make things so much funnier.

[Alunissage]

I was trying to flame, I was expressing my pleasure that he decided to keep discussing it. And not only that, actually came back with something meaningful. Way better than what I usually do.

Another typo in that first bit? I was confused by this at first.

[Jenner]

I was trying to flame, I was expressing my pleasure that he decided to keep discussing it. And not only that, actually came back with something meaningful. Way better than what I usually do.

Another typo in that first bit? I was confused by this at first.

So it is, today is not my day. I fixed that as well. I recently purchased a new keyboard and I type so fast my keyboard sometimes doesn't register the keystrokes I'm making. If I'm mad, or excited, or in a hurry, I don't go back over it.`I really should too.

Dunno if you or Kiz changed that title, but I was really trying to come up hard with a good censor word for the dreaded p-word. They make things so much funnier.

I was the one who changed the topic title. I can't really think of a good lunar-themed censor either.

[phyco126]

I just wanted to add a little something to this thread. I try to avoid political discussions, mostly due to one side screaming death to the other, and vice versa. No real intelligence in any of it as it boils down to one thing: "My opinion is right, yours is wrong, and I hate you for it."

However, I work in a place that is very close to the ultra-conservative side. Despite our company being un-affaliated with them, most of our officers that are now there are on the frightening side of conservative militantcy. We used to have quite a balance of conservative and liberal officers. Now being one of the only liberal minded officers, this is what I have to put up with. Officers demanding that Obama be killed, complaining that they are on the terrorist watch list (which doesn't suprise me if they are demanding the death of the president), mis-information about Obama and new legislation under him, demands that all liberals be killed, accusing President Obama of ruining the economy (which last I looked, is actually improving, and last I checked, the economy failed during Bush's reign as President). The cash for clunkers program is a very good program, getting nasty vehicles off the road and boosting car sales. Apparently, that's un-American and Obama should be shot for it because it is crashing the economy and driving up fuel costs.

Now, many of these officers I like, so I deal with their comments like I deal with an excited child who thinks the computer is magic. Still, I like to consider that I am right in the center of the line of right and left. Leftists ignore me generally, I'm just un-American. Rightists, however, think I am the scourge of the nation and should be put to death. Right wing people that lean that far scare me far more than a handful of nutjobs dumping paint on someone's fur coat.

[Theta]

I have trouble trusting anyone who goes to extremes in their views. It is one thing to disagree with someone, but you do not have to arm yourself with automatics and IEDs (a very scary thought, in my opinion).

As for wanting to be a refugee, google Laurent Kabila or Joseph Mobutu.

[meg]

Leftists ignore me generally, I'm just un-American. Rightists, however, think I am the scourge of the nation and should be put to death. Right wing people that lean that far scare me far more than a handful of nutjobs dumping paint on someone's fur coat.

my family is heavily conservative. i was raised to be conservative. brainwashed, even. i signed one of those abstinence pledges and parroted everything i was told like a good little christian, growing up.

then i went to art school, and was surrounded by liberals for four years.

and you're absolutely right. cindy sheehan might be annoying, but nobody thinks she's going to up and shoot someone for disagreeing with her. when the news reported that there had been a run on bullets when obama was elected, i laughed, envisioning the paranoid old folks blockading their doors to keep the gays and darkies out. i'm not laughing anymore. militias and semi-automatics at presidential debates? that's not funny. that's not right.

and in case there was any question as to which side of the fence i fall on--i chose to marry another artist, and stay in the same primarily black/democrat/artsy town i went to school in.

and the refugee stuff is nonsense. america is going to be fine. we survived women's suffrage, and we survived the civil rights movement, and despite world-endangerment movies always having a black president, we will survive having a black president. and so will obama.

[Werefrog]

and despite world-endangerment movies always having a black president, we will survive having a black president. and so will obama.

December 2012, just saying. Makes me wonder how the Mayans predicted that Obama would be elected...

Edit: I was listening to Arcade Fire's Neon Bible again today and decided to post the lyrics to their song Windowsill since the lyrics seemed appropriate for this topic.


I Don't wanna hear the noises on TV
I Don't want the salesmen coming after me
I Don't wanna live in my father's house no more
I Don't want it faster, I don't want it free
I Don't wanna show you what they done to me
I Don't wanna live in my father's house no more
I Don't wanna choose black or blue
I Don't wanna see what they done to you
I Don't wanna live in my father's house no more

Because the tide is high
And it's rising still
And I don't wanna see it at my windowsill

I Don't wanna give 'em my name and address
I Don't wanna see what happens next
I Don't wanna live in my father's house no more
I Don't wanna live with my father's debt
You can't forgive what you can't forget
I Don't wanna live in my father's house no more
I Don't wanna fight in a holy war
I Don't want the salesmen knocking at my door
I don't wanna live in America no more

Because the tide is high
And it's rising still
And I don't wanna see it at my windowsill
I don't wanna see it at my windowsill
I don't wanna see it at my windowsill
I don't wanna see it at my windowsill

MTV, what have you done to me?
Save my soul, set me free!
Set me free! What have you done to me?
I can't breathe! I can't see!
World War III, when are you coming for me?
Been kicking up sparks, we set the flames free
The windows are locked now so what'll it be?
A house on fire or a rising sea?

Why is the night so still?
Why did I take the pill?
Because I don't wanna see it at my windowsill

I Don't wanna see it at my windowsill
I Don't wanna see it at my windowsill
I Don't wanna see it at my windowsill

[DeathBeforeDenial]

Let me say that I have no political affiliation. I don't vote, and do not understand any who truly believe real change lies within the slave-like confines of the wretched two-party representative democracy. Let alone a political system of any kind.

First off, don't act like tyranny, oppression, use of fear and violence etc are all of the sudden the tool of the right. To do so is foolish at best, if not disingenuous. Lets roll back the clock to 1918 where the Red Terror was sweeping through Russia. The work of extreme leftists, killed roughly 500,000 people. Later Stalinism resulted in millions more deaths. On the other side of the same coin, Italian, Spanish and German fascism in Europe left millions dead and miserable up until Franco finally kicked off in '75. This is basically looking at a handful of European countries, totally ignoring revolutions in Latin/South America, Asia, the rest of Europe, the Middle East and Africa of which there are a ****load. Liberal and conservative revolution are the most vile systems of oppression and despotism in the modern world. So quit "they're obviously more dangerous", "OMG they're buying guns, we're doomed" exaggerations. It's just old hat.

Now that the little misconception of one political affiliation being more violent or dangerous than another is cleared up, lets talk the guys with weapons at the demonstrations.

First of all, disregard anything that has to do with what they're doing as "making sense" or being the "smart thing to do". Is taking a weapon to a demonstration in those states against the law? No. Is he endangering anyone by carrying a weapon on his person? Doubtfully, considering a thoroughly noted police presence. Heck the Secret Service spokesman said they weren't an issue. And finally, which assassin/madman/killer carries a large weapon in full view of the public with hundreds of spectators around? Not a damn one of them.

Now, I agree. Carrying the weapon into that situation is ridiculous, but he has every right to do so. That's the funny thing. both sides love to cry about the other instilling fear, but the second a dissenting opinion/statement/gesture is made it becomes an "OMG ITS GONNA BE A BLOODBATH!!!11!". Seriously, think critically about a situation and don't rely on alarmist talking points of your own while crying about the same garbage from the other side.

[Agawa]

First off, don't act like tyranny, oppression, use of fear and violence etc are all of the sudden the tool of the right. To do so is foolish at best, if not disingenuous.

First of all, disregard anything that has to do with what they're doing as "making sense" or being the "smart thing to do". Is taking a weapon to a demonstration in those states against the law? No. Is he endangering anyone by carrying a weapon on his person? Doubtfully, considering a thoroughly noted police presence. Heck the Secret Service spokesman said they weren't an issue. And finally, which assassin/madman/killer carries a large weapon in full view of the public with hundreds of spectators around? Not a damn one of them.

I'm in total agreement with you regarding violence and the right/left wing - extremists on both sides do no good, and honestly I wish people would realize it is possible to identify with one and still agree partially with other political views.

As for carrying a weapon to a demonstration, why does the right of the carrier override the right of the demonstrators and speaker to feel safe? Carrying and displaying a weapon at a politically charged scene seems like a pretty implicit threat to me.

[DeathBeforeDenial]

As for carrying a weapon to a demonstration, why does the right of the carrier override the right of the demonstrators and speaker to feel safe? Carrying and displaying a weapon at a politically charged scene seems like a pretty implicit threat to me.

Where does the line get to be drawn in "needing to feel safe". I'd feel safer (As I'm sure many others would) if the minimum age for driving in this country were raised by 10 years. I'd feel more safe if police were accountable to a non-law enforcement oversight agency. I'd feel more safe if the government weren't taxing me into oblivion to fund a bloated and unnecessary standing army sticking its ass into every other country on Earth.

Really any argument could be made each side is attempting to intimidate the other. "Their side has far more people.", "They are calling police on us, teating us like common criminals.", "They made an obscene gesture, or are using inflammatory rhetoric." The whole idea of a gun being intimidating is coming from people who have had no exposure to weapons are fear them for their intrinsic qualities as weapons, not where they're being carried. And people like that, I really don't care if they get scared, because virtually anything they don't like scares them. Just like rednecks who fear liberalism just because of its name without understanding any element of its ideology.

[Ruby]

I have to say out of all the message I've seen posted in a long time , this statement below really frightens me.

Wild men are already starting to get bold enough to be openly violent, stand up to, and challenge authority.

Not that there was a standoff, or that a man was allegedly calling in threats about the white house and circling it*. But the kind of mindset it takes to come up with the sentence that "stand up to, challenge authority" is so a horrible and alien idea it frightens me. Does it occur to you the revolutionary war occurred for a whole lot less than what is occurring right now? Need I remind you that some of the founders of this nation were wont to write things like this.

What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Challenging authority was pretty much in all of their resumes. Now I don't agree with what the person did, it wasn't a smart thing to do. But the idea that what the government does is right because they claim to have authority and that they shouldn't be challenged, and that legal=ethical, is far more frightening then anything the man in that article did.

*And by the by, though I don't agree with what the man did, he hadn't been opening violent yet, contrary to your link title. Crimes require harm to have been done. And circling a building and then parking in one place, smoking, and glowering at it, while mean, creepy, and not likely to make you any friends, is not violent. The man hadn't done any harm yet. Did he warrent observation? Sure. Should he maybe have been removed from the property? (Except of course the government can't really ethically do that since it doesn't actually own any property, but again, another story.) Sure. But it didn't justify a gang of armed thugs attacking the man, smashing his rear window, firing several rounds of tear gas at him, tazering him, and dragging out of his vehicle to be locked up in a jail cell for 1-4 years before they decide to actually allow him to have a trial.

Regarding other comments about gun control, I have this to say.

[Werefrog]

Standing up to authority is great when it's necessary, not so much when you're taking up extremists views and digging your heels into the ground to prevent something that a really large amount of Americans want.

These Republicans (not all) need to learn what John Lennon (have you ever noticed how you never saw John Lennon and Vladimir Lenin at the same time? Just saying...) did a long time ago.

"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"

If you're too radical, you only hurt your position, which is exactly what the Republicans are doing.

Edit: Also, it's incredibly appropriate that I quoted the Beatles since The Beatles Rock Band comes out tomorrow as does the digital remastering of the their catalog (buying Revolver tomorrow, I think)

Edit 2: Also, the American Revolution was not started over less than the current situation. It was started due to a lack of representation. The President was elected as was Congress. As a sign that George W. might hang on an aircraft carrier would say, "Representation Accomplished!"

[Ruby]

If I may point out, why would the Republican party stand up to "authority"? They derive their power from the image of authority they have the same way the Democratic party does too. The job description of a politician is to reward your friends and punish your enemies. Politics as a profession attracts people who have a desire for power and the will to control other people for their own gain.

Now as for people standing up to authority. What's your breaking point? The revolutionary war occurred in reaction to far, far less than what we put up with today. The amount of taxes the British Empire was trying to squeeze from the colonies is a paltry percentage compared to the percentage that is taken today.

[Werefrog]

If I may point out, why would the Republican party stand up to "authority"? They derive their power from the image of authority they have the same way the Democratic party does too.

Umm... the same reason so many politicians try to position themselves as "outsiders". There's authority to be found in pretending to be against authority (at least temporarily speaking).

Now as for people standing up to authority. What's your breaking point? The revolutionary war occurred in reaction to far, far less than what we put up with today. The amount of taxes the British Empire was trying to squeeze from the colonies is a paltry percentage compared to the percentage that is taken today.

First, I believe that I said "Republicans" in my first post, so I was speaking about people. What's my breaking point? I guess maybe context. Even though the tax rates were much smaller than modern times, now the higher tax rates are socially acceptable, so it doesn't make sense to rail against it, because you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.

By your perspective, every single more developed county should be having an uprising right now because their tax rates are higher than the US's at the time of the revolution.

Standing up to authority where authority is completely just (as it is now as the President and the Congress were legitimately elected) is anarchy.

Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by breaking point. You mean for armed action against the government (since you keep coming back to the Revolutionary War)? In a democratic society, never. Jenner's point was that these people are doing more than just peaceful protest. Bringing a gun to a political rally is a type of threat, which is a type of force. I have no problem with people protesting, but this seems to be more to Jenner (and I agree but not the extreme she does)

[Ruby]

Before I begin, I note you added a "Edit 2" onto one of your previous posts after I had already stated my response to you. I'll be addressing that later. Though I find the idea that you think you're actually represented in Washington to be a bit funny. And I find the idea that you think that because you believe you're represented then what those representatives do is acceptable to be quite sad. Would you like me to quote a big list of horrible things that have happened that were legal? Should we start Japanese Americans being tossed into prison camps in World War 2, or should be jump straight to some of the purges in whatever flavor you should choose. Generally in those cases the people not subjected to the atrocity were the majority and thought they were quite finely represented.

Umm... the same reason so many politicians try to position themselves as "outsiders". There's authority to be found in pretending to be against authority (at least temporarily speaking).

But they're not standing up to authority. They're just doing whatever they can to make the other side look bad. When their roles are reversed again the Democrats will be doing everything they can imagine to discredit the Republicans when they're in power again. Then they'll steal from you and me to help their friends. Just like the Democrats steal from you and me to help their friends.

First, I believe that I said "Republicans" in my first post, so I was speaking about people. What's my breaking point? I guess maybe context. Even though the tax rates were much smaller than modern times, now the higher tax rates are socially acceptable, so it doesn't make sense to rail against it, because you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.

And why do you think that is? You don't think it has to do with the fact that the very same people collecting the taxes also control education, do you? Anyway, regardless of if a large number of people accept it, theft is still wrong, regardless of who or what organization is doing it.

By your perspective, every single more developed county should be having an uprising right now because their tax rates are higher than the US's at the time of the revolution.

I'm well aware things are worse and better in different ways in other places around the globe. I'm more concerned with ensuring liberty for myself. If someone else wants to choose to remain in bondage than that's their own choice.

Also, I use taxes as an example because it's one to easily relate to a broad audience. But I can certainly pull up many other examples, such as how the government hasn't followed the constitution for years, disobeys even it's own rules, and is completely unaccountable for it's actions, especially when those actions involve the loss of life, liberty, or property for the citizens within it.

Standing up to authority where authority is completely just (as it is now as the President and the Congress were legitimately elected) is anarchy.

Do you really consider the elected officials in Washington to be just? A minority of the population is involved in any election at all, and fewer than that number actually vote for the leader that is selected. There are also laws in place that are designed to bar entry to new players into the area. Democracy seems to have come down to two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. No, I don't find that particularly just.

Anarchy
- noun
A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I generally don't use this word because it's meaning has become polluted in common usage, which is bound to happen in any living language. Though I can see the merit of the idea, I do think there should probably be some sort of government, if for no other reason as a bubble against the other governments out there.

Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by breaking point. You mean for armed action against the government (since you keep coming back to the Revolutionary War)? In a democratic society, never. Jenner's point was that these people are doing more than just peaceful protest. Bringing a gun to a political rally is a type of threat, which is a type of force. I have no problem with people protesting, but this seems to be more to Jenner (and I agree but not the extreme she does)

None taken. I bring up the revolutionary war because it's a uniquely American example that I hope people can relate to. The action of Ghandi and Martin Luther King have shown us that one can stand up to authority without armed confrontation. I can think of at least one worthwhile initiative in this vein.

However, I don't see anything wrong with bringing a gun to a political rally. I understand that recent trends have made Americans skittish about fire arms, but I regard this to be a rather unhealthy trend. Remember that the second amendment was written after the violet overthrow of British rule over the American colonies. The framers were keenly aware of what the role firearms can be as a last resort in protecting liberty. Tyranny tends to increase in places where the populace has been disarmed.

And today I leave this post with a quote from Mary Ruwart's excellent book, Healing Our World available in print and online.

How We Violate the Principle of Non-Aggression Daily Without Even Realizing It!

If we decided we wanted a new neighborhood park, how would we go about getting one? We could call together other individuals who want the same thing and could raise enough money to own and operate the park through donations, by selling stock in a corporation set up for that purpose, or through other voluntary means. If those who did not participate in the fundraising effort decide later to use the park, we might require them to pay an entry fee. Obviously, we would be relating voluntarily and non-aggressively with our neighbors. If George didn't want to be involved as either a contributor or a park visitor, we would honor his choice.

Of course, another way we could proceed would be to vote for a tax to purchase and maintain the park. If a large enough gang of our neighbors voted for it, George's hard-earned dollars would be used for a park he didn't want and wouldn't use. If he refused to pay what our gang dictated, law enforcement agents, acting on behalf of the winning voters, would extract the tax, at gunpoint, if necessary. If he resisted too vehemently, George might even get killed in the scuffle.

Wouldn't we be using a gang called "government" to steal from George? Wouldn't we be the first ones to turn guns on a neighbor who hadn't defrauded or stolen from us? Wouldn't George eventually retaliate by getting government to turn its guns on us for projects that he prefers but we want nothing to do with? Wouldn't we alternate as victims and aggressors, as minorities and majorities? Wouldn't we just be taking turns directing the law enforcement agents toward each other?

[Werefrog]

Would you like me to quote a big list of horrible things that have happened that were legal? Should we start Japanese Americans being tossed into prison camps in World War 2, or should be jump straight to some of the purges in whatever flavor you should choose. Generally in those cases the people not subjected to the atrocity were the majority and thought they were quite finely represented.

I had American history too. Slavery, Native Americans, poll taxes, internment camps, and Gitmo (and what's the name of the other one that Obama still has open?). All bad things, all occurred because the US government was (and still is to some extent) not living up to its ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (not property rights. the founders chose pursuit of happiness is its ideal instead). For the most part, we're doing better. We strive to provide everyone with an equal education, we try much harder to make sure that everyone gets equal treatment under the 14th Amendment. Yes, there are still currently failings. But you know, it doesn't require revolt in the street. Also, these atrocities are a different level than the fact that Obama might make your taxes go up to keep people from dying.

Anyway, regardless of if a large number of people accept it, theft is still wrong, regardless of who or what organization is doing it.

I disagree that taxation is theft. Taxation is paying for the services that make society run smoothly (roads, bridges, schools, healthcare for those who really need it, the postal service [not the band], child and family services). All these things help you in some way. (And according even to Adam Smith there are things that government should fund because they are for the common good but really have no incentives for business). By not paying for these services, you are the thief.

I'm well aware things are worse and better in different ways in other places around the globe. I'm more concerned with ensuring liberty for myself. If someone else wants to choose to remain in bondage than that's their own choice.

Become a hermit, then. You can be free out there in the mountains, and you won't have to worry about anyone else.

Do you really consider the elected officials in Washington to be just? A minority of the population is involved in any election at all, and fewer than that number actually vote for the leader that is selected.

Yes, I do. It's a shame that there's such a low voter turnout and definitely is a call for alarm. I could discuss with you ways of fixing this problem if you would like.

Anarchy
- noun
A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I generally don't use this word because it's meaning has become polluted in common usage, which is bound to happen in any living language. Though I can see the merit of the idea, I do think there should probably be some sort of government, if for no other reason as a bubble against the other governments out there.

According to Merriam-Webster, the word anarchy dates back to 1591 (according to OED, it goes back farther). Now, I'm not very familiar with anarchist philosophy, but the earliest root of anarchist philosophy is mentioned being from the 1700s (this is from a Wikipedia article). So... umm... most likely my usage of the word is older than yours. M-W also lists a definition. Also, the OED says that my usage is about 300 years older than yours. Not that it really matters. I think that we're constantly combating authority, even when it's just, would result in an awful state of affairs. If you don't, fine. (Maybe you won't trust the etymology provided by OED since it represents an authority to be railed against)

However, I don't see anything wrong with bringing a gun to a political rally. I understand that recent trends have made Americans skittish about fire arms, but I regard this to be a rather unhealthy trend. Remember that the second amendment was written after the violet overthrow of British rule over the American colonies. The framers were keenly aware of what the role firearms can be as a last resort in protecting liberty. Tyranny tends to increase in places where the populace has been disarmed.

Second Amendment says you can have a gun, doesn't say that you can wave it about at a public event. Let's say that you have a disagreement with someone at work. You decide that when you see this person next, you'll bring a gun. You know, just to let them know you're armed. If this happened at someone's work, they surely would have been fired and probably arrested. There's not much difference here.

And today I leave this post with a quote from Mary Ruwart's excellent book, Healing Our World available in print and online.

I disagree that this is an example of force. I believe in the more traditional tragedy of the commons under which government was established to protect the greater good (the commons) and thus granted an acceptable use of force. If you don't believe that fine, I'm not going to debate it with you. That's just how I feel. There are just and unjust uses of force in my belief system. Threatening people with a gun to make them believe what you want is unjust. Your belief system dictates that all force is bad, and so I imagine the cognitive dissonance, that's going on in your head while justifying people using guns to scare people into back down from their beliefs, must really be giving you a headache.

[Ruby]

...while men usually recognize criminal acts when they are committed by an individual in the name of his own interest, they often fail to recognize the very same acts for what they are when they are committed by some large gang in the name of "social justice" or the "common good."

I find this quotation fits you quite well. Frankly, I find your inability to recognize these things when perpetrated by a large organization to be quite disturbing. I don't really think I can say much more to you on the subject, and I find the fact that you choose to ignore the use of violence and theft when you consider the end result beneficial to yourself quite disturbing.

Become a hermit, then. You can be free out there in the mountains, and you won't have to worry about anyone else.

I'm fairly certain someone probably said the same thing to Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ghandi at one point or another. Aren't you glad they didn't just move away?

According to Merriam-Webster, the word anarchy dates back to 1591

Yes, I know there is an older definition. It simply means without government, and the theory expounds upon the word's actual meaning. But when you use the word you use it to mean something completely different entirely.

Second Amendment says you can have a gun, doesn't say that you can wave it about at a public event. Let's say that you have a disagreement with someone at work. You decide that when you see this person next, you'll bring a gun. You know, just to let them know you're armed. If this happened at someone's work, they surely would have been fired and probably arrested. There's not much difference here.

I thought it would be good to address this misconception. First of all, this is what the second amendment actually says.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's a fairly easy to read sentence.* Now then, there is a very large difference between "waving" or "brandishing" a firearm than simply wearing one. Simple possession of a firearm is not a threat. Though I'm sure, thanks to our lovely government schooling, that you've been taught to think that it is. Remember, getting the populace to disarm is advantageous to any agency in power.

Also, your example is also a straw man. If I carried a firearm I'd be carrying it before, during, and after the argument. It'd be a constant, not a new element, otherwise I couldn't use it to defend myself.

Also, places of business are private property and are well within their rights to deny other people entrance for whatever criteria they so choose, including carrying firearms. Public places do not have this luxury because, being government controlled their founding document says they "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your belief system dictates that all force is bad, and so I imagine the cognitive dissonance, that's going on in your head while justifying people using guns to scare people into back down from their beliefs, must really be giving you a headache.

Not all force is not bad. Initiation of force is bad. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, or to have other consenting individuals defend them. Your belief system however seems to believe that initiation of force is good as long as it benefits X number of people. I'm not sure exactly what X is, but once again, that's a very frightening concept.

*I'd also like to remind you that rights don't stem from government. A person's right to defend themselves exists regardless if the Constitution exists or not. The purpose of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is to ensure that rights the people posses, by virtue of exiting, are expressly protected by the structure of the government. This article probably says it better than I can.