Darth Wong wrote:They say the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk.
Those weapons are being brought to these events for one reason, and one reason alone: to intimidate their fellow citizens. This is no sort of patriotism.
Well said.
If defies common sense that we permit this, the secret service must be flipping out.
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon "ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
Darth Wong wrote:They say the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk.
Those weapons are being brought to these events for one reason, and one reason alone: to intimidate their fellow citizens. This is no sort of patriotism.
Well said.
If defies common sense that we permit this, the secret service must be flipping out.
At the same time, there are many acts that can be labelled as intimidation tactics, such as public protest in large numbers and all that.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
ray245 wrote:
At the same time, there are many acts that can be labelled as intimidation tactics, such as public protest in large numbers and all that.
Don't be stupid. Unless there's weapons, rioting or attempts at unlawfully interfering with the normal operations of the protest area it's impossible to call a peaceful protest in large numbers an intimidation tactic without a rather massive amount of mental gymnastics.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
ray245 wrote:
At the same time, there are many acts that can be labelled as intimidation tactics, such as public protest in large numbers and all that.
Don't be stupid. Unless there's weapons, rioting or attempts at unlawfully interfering with the normal operations of the protest area it's impossible to call a peaceful protest in large numbers an intimidation tactic without a rather massive amount of mental gymnastics.
Which is an argument against civil disobedience isn't it? And why won't a protest group marching out in large numbers be intimating?
Bear in mind that I'm not saying that is anything wrong to public protest, but stating the fact that the presence of intimidation is there.
The degree of intimidation can be different, in regards to a peaceful protest and a protest where people are actively displaying their firearms, but the presence of it is still there.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
ray245 wrote:
Which is an argument against civil disobedience isn't it? And why won't a protest group marching out in large numbers be intimating?
Why would a peaceful protest group marching out in large numbers be intimidating if they're not violating any laws or carrying weapons? Peaceful protests in large numbers happen all the fucking time.
Bear in mind that I'm not saying that is anything wrong to public protest, but stating the fact that the presence of intimidation is there.
Except it's not.
The degree of intimidation can be different, in regards to a peaceful protest and a protest where people are actively displaying their firearms, but the presence of it is still there.
Except. . .it's not there at all. You're attacking something that simply doesn't exist.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
I have this image of a left-wing demonstrator going to one of those meetings wearing heavy body armor. And explaining to the reporters that he wants to be protected if one of those guys who enjoys showing his weapon in public freaks out and starts shooting.
I would very much like to see the YouTube clip of that.
Themightytom wrote:
At the same time, there are many acts that can be labelled as intimidation tactics, such as public protest in large numbers and all that.
Thats true but you recalibrate the consequences of escalation.
An unruly mob can be firehosed shouted down or otherwise rapidly de-escalated. if the dude next to you whips out his AR-15 You Know they're going to shoot back. Suddenly civil disobedience is a blooddbath.
Fuck it, lets let Obama carry a suitcase nuke on a deadman switch. Equality restored?
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon "ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
Perhaps during the next election, Republicans can stand outside polling stations conspicuously bearing rifles and waving signs saying "Vote Republican" in peoples' faces while they wait to vote. Maybe they could also have conspicuously armed protesters harassing people in poor minority-dominated areas who are registering to vote.
As long as we're going to allow political intimidation with a smile, why try to hide its true face?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:Perhaps during the next election, Republicans can stand outside polling stations conspicuously bearing rifles and waving signs saying "Vote Republican" in peoples' faces while they wait to vote. Maybe they could also have conspicuously armed protesters harassing people in poor minority-dominated areas who are registering to vote.
As long as we're going to allow political intimidation with a smile, why try to hide its true face?
That, of course, is merely a joke —for now.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
This is a general question for people who say this and back that up with the constitution. Unless I completely misunderstood in school, part of the reason the constitution was drafted was because the Articles of confederation government couldn't tax. Do they not know this, or are they hoping that the people they're bullshitting won't know?
It's funny how every Cracked reader seems to change occupation in between reading each article, so that they always end up being irrefutable field experts in whatever topic is at hand.-Dirty_Bastard, cracked.com commentator
This is a general question for people who say this and back that up with the constitution. Unless I completely misunderstood in school, part of the reason the constitution was drafted was because the Articles of confederation government couldn't tax. Do they not know this, or are they hoping that the people they're bullshitting won't know?
Direct taxation is new (1913) in the US and had to have an amendment to the constitution passed in order for it to be constitutional.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Yes, we had to explicately spell that out because
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (article 1 Section 9)
This is a general question for people who say this and back that up with the constitution. Unless I completely misunderstood in school, part of the reason the constitution was drafted was because the Articles of confederation government couldn't tax. Do they not know this, or are they hoping that the people they're bullshitting won't know?
Direct taxation is new (1913) in the US and had to have an amendment to the constitution passed in order for it to be constitutional.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Yes, we had to explicately spell that out because
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (article 1 Section 9)
Just out of curiosity is a particular political party associated with that legislation?
"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon "ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
Themightytom wrote:Just out of curiosity is a particular political party associated with that legislation?
The 16th Amendment was proposed by a Republican President (Taft) and submitted to the states by a Republican legislature. The Democrats also supported an income tax, though, as did a lot of third parties like the Socialists and the Populists.
So basically the legislation was passed by Republicans, but it probably would have passed regardless of which party was in power.
Darth Wong wrote:Perhaps during the next election, Republicans can stand outside polling stations conspicuously bearing rifles and waving signs saying "Vote Republican" in peoples' faces while they wait to vote. Maybe they could also have conspicuously armed protesters harassing people in poor minority-dominated areas who are registering to vote.
As long as we're going to allow political intimidation with a smile, why try to hide its true face?
That, of course, is merely a joke —for now.
Hey, not only conservatards own guns, you know.
In all seriousness the day I feel it necessary to carry a goddamn gun in order to be able to vote free of coercion is the day I seriously look at emigrating.
Or consider fighting back, but I'm a little old for guerrilla warfare.
Last edited by Glocksman on 2009-08-19 04:09am, edited 1 time in total.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
This is a general question for people who say this and back that up with the constitution. Unless I completely misunderstood in school, part of the reason the constitution was drafted was because the Articles of confederation government couldn't tax. Do they not know this, or are they hoping that the people they're bullshitting won't know?
Direct taxation is new (1913) in the US and had to have an amendment to the constitution passed in order for it to be constitutional.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Yes, we had to explicately spell that out because
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (article 1 Section 9)
IIRC, it's new in that it wasn't a permanent tax before 1913, but wasn't an income tax used to help finance the Civil War?
This is an honest question as I'm not a Civil War buff.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
It's not like violence over social issues hasn't happened in the United States before, viz. a local example, the Everett Massacre of 1916 when two steamers full of Wobblies came up from Seattle to support the striking workers at the Shingle Mills. The local sheriff rounded up 200 volunteer deputies in a posse that met them at the dock and heavy fire was exchanged (the captain of the lead steamer--the Verona--only survived by taking cover behind the ship's safe, and she was backed clear by the engineer steering from the engine room with enough power to snap the mooring ropes), with around 175 rounds piercing the wheel house alone. Five wobblies lay dead on the deck when she got clear and another seven either shot and fell overboard or were simply pushed over in the crush and drowned, but those that were armed had steadily returned fire and two deputies were killed and another twenty and the Sheriff wounded. People like to pretend we've been free of things like European armed social disputes but they have happened; for that matter, Seattle was the only city in the US to ever actually have a General Strike.
I know that certainly a lot of very left-wing union guys around here are armed, go hunting/shooting, and are just as red blooded as any of these anti-tax protestors and if they want to start intimidating such people with guns, then they're fully able to reply with guns. This is an insane road but armed intimidation of voters cannot be allowed even if preventing it results in bloodshed.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:People like to pretend we've been free of things like European armed social disputes but they have happened;
I honestly don't think anyone thinks the US is free of social strife, unless they are looking at a very select subset of history.
Assuming your definition of social disputes includes labor, there have been any number of violent episodes, from the one you mentioned to Matewan and the Pullman Strike.
As for non-labor violent episodes, major ones that come to mind are the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. I believe there have been at least one counter-fascist riot in recent times (Although you could also term the Toledo Riot a race riot and count it as part of the Civil Rights Movement, I guess). I'm not sure, but I think I read about at least one LGBT riot as well.
for that matter, Seattle was the only city in the US to ever actually have a General Strike.
What about the San Francisco General Strike? I believe there were also general strikes around the same time in Toledo and Minneapolis.
I'm mainly focusing on the perception among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun and pacifistic and therefore that they can have their cake and eat it too, by using firearms for intimidation without facing the consequences of doing so (which is armed violence between political factions).
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
Glocksman wrote:IIRC, it's new in that it wasn't a permanent tax before 1913, but wasn't an income tax used to help finance the Civil War?
This is an honest question as I'm not a Civil War buff.
Well, the Civil War was extenuating circumstances, with the fate of the Union on the line. The Constitutional Amendment allowed peacetime taxation to support the regular functions of government.
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'm mainly focusing on the perception among conservatives that liberals are anti-gun and pacifistic and therefore that they can have their cake and eat it too, by using firearms for intimidation without facing the consequences of doing so (which is armed violence between political factions).
I'm not sure where this perception comes from. I'm pretty liberal on a lot of issues, and I own a rifle and a couple of shotguns, while my home has what is best described as a small armory.
Still, like I said at SB.com: This is akin to having burly men with baseball bats standing near voting booths. They're not breaking any laws, but you do not have to be Henry Kissinger to realize what's up.
"Impossible! Lasers can't even harm out deflector dish! Clearly these foes are masters of illusion!' 'But sir, my console says we-' 'MASTERS OF ILLUSION! - General Schatten
Jason L. Miles wrote:I honestly don't think anyone thinks the US is free of social strife, unless they are looking at a very select subset of history.
A lot of people do. It's one of the cornerstones of American exceptionalism, and American exceptionalism is a favorite method of rationalizing away problems with the American political system because they hurt to think about.
America prides itself on pretending it's has no problems with its political system: Every US election, you hear the talking heads twitter and blabber about "Peaceful exchange of power" and "Unprecedented in most countries" and such, ignoring that such rhetoric would have been potentially good in 1776 but no longer is.
Hell, many people of lesser education I know thought in late 2008-early 2009 that America was the only democratic country in the world and that peaceful exchanges of power are rare, simply because of such talking heads.
In any case, this probably harkens the death of civilised discourse (if it ever existed) for some time. Even if they lose on healthcare, lose in 2010, and so forth, the Republicans aren't going to forget in 2011 or 2013 or such that they have a mob of people who are angry and afraid and don't know why, just itching to be pointed at whatever issue the leaders want to point them at.
Cpl Kendall wrote:Has there actually been any effort by his administration to legislate against guns? Or are these folks just more retarded then usual?
None whatsoever. Most of what I hear and see is "Well he's obviously trying to turn the country socialist, so of course he'll want to ban guns and disarm us first!"
Let's be realistic; they would have behaved like this if any Democrat had gotten into power. The American people became far more radicalized during the Bush Administration, for various reasons.
Don't discount that it was a black Democrat that was elected PotUS - there is a definite racist element among all the far-right nutjobs involved in this.
Arizona IS an open carry state, it IS legal to walk around with a gun on your hip or over your shoulder. I suppose the real question in my mind is just how close Mr. AR-15 got to the PotUS, and what would have happened if he had taken it off his shoulder and raised it to shoot.
An attempted or actual assasination of America's first black President could certainly touch off all sorts of riots and powderkegs, and I have no doubt there are people who would see that as an opportunity rather than a tragedy.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Broomstick wrote:Don't discount that it was a black Democrat that was elected PotUS - there is a definite racist element among all the far-right nutjobs involved in this.
Arizona IS an open carry state, it IS legal to walk around with a gun on your hip or over your shoulder. I suppose the real question in my mind is just how close Mr. AR-15 got to the PotUS, and what would have happened if he had taken it off his shoulder and raised it to shoot.
Some would say that the numerous Secret Service agents who were surely covering him would have splattered his brains all over the place.
Me, I question this, mostly because I am uncertain of whether he actually had any brains to begin with.
