Nevada......Is A Pit of SIN!

[MKSheppard]

CARSON CITY, Nev. (BP)--Nevada voters made a decisive statement in favor of traditional marriage Nov. 5, passing a constitutional amendment that specifies only a man and a woman's union will be recognized by this gambling-oriented state.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported the final statewide vote was 67- 33 percent, a 2-1 margin. This marked the second consecutive election that citizens had approved the ballot initiative, meaning it will now be state law.

[Shinova]

In simpler terms, this means??

[Darth Wong]

It means people in Las Vegas are homophobes. Ironic in light of the performers in Las Vegas, but they must make up a tiny percentage of the overall population.

Note how the article said "in favour of traditional marriage" rather than the much more accurate phrase "against homosexual marriage". Nice use of rhetorical methods

[Frank Hipper]

Poor Siegfried and Roy..........

[MKSheppard]

It means people in Las Vegas are homophobes. Ironic in light of the performers in Las Vegas, but they must make up a tiny percentage of the overall population.

Even more ironic considering that HOOKERS are legal.....WHEEE!

[TrailerParkJawa]

This kinda surprises me, I go to Nevada several times a year and it did not seem to be homophobic. But I didnt go around asking the average citizen in Reno, hey what do you think of gay guys getting married?

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is a sad day indeed.

[neoolong]

That blows. And in Nevada where nearly anything goes. That does not bode well for the other states.

[Darth Wong]

The rise of the right-wing takes another victim.

[MKSheppard]

The rise of the right-wing takes another victim.

Cry me a river, just another notch in things the government can send you
away for, along with pieces of metal being 1/2 inch too short...

[Darth Wong]

The rise of the right-wing takes another victim.

Cry me a river, just another notch in things the government can send you
away for, along with pieces of metal being 1/2 inch too short...

A physical possession and a life with someone are two very different things, Shep. For most of the people on this planet, the latter is more important than the former.

[MKSheppard]

A physical possession and a life with someone are two very different things, Shep. For most of the people on this planet, the latter is more important than the former.

You failed to grasp the point.....Government will eventually fuck you over
on something you truly like.

[Darth Wong]

You failed to grasp the point.....Government will eventually fuck you over on something you truly like.

Yes, but they'll start by fucking over the weak first, knowing that a lot of people will shrug and say it's no big deal. And this is what we're seeing in Nevada.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The rise of the right-wing takes another victim.

Cry me a river, just another notch in things the government can send you
away for, along with pieces of metal being 1/2 inch too short...

A physical possession and a life with someone are two very different things, Shep. For most of the people on this planet, the latter is more important than the former.

I agree with you, Mike. It's rather trite to bring up the material in the realm of the emotional. But Mark has an important point in the sense that firearms provide a final defence of your other rights. The government - through the system of checks and balances - ought to defend minorities from the tyrannt of the majority. But the majority should have the final right of defence - steel, to use the old wording - against the tyranny of the government.

In this case, it seems to have been done through the due process of the law, if regrettably so. And, honestly, I can't say that Nevada is a permissive state. It has that image, but really gambling and prostitution aren't that permissive when you think about it. Nevada is a western, inland state, and I'd expect nothing less from it. In contrast, for example, a measure to make it legal to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation was defeated in the city of Tacoma, Washington.

I have a question, though. What's the big deal about getting the government to recognize your marriage? This is the inevitable result of government regulation of marriage, and morality in general, period. Government regulation of marriage started in western civilization with the Catholic Church setting standards on marriage, and trying marriage cases in Church Courts; and then that function was taken over by the State, largely in the 19th century.

Maybe the government should stop issuing marriage licenses and ignore the fact that marriage exists as an institution, and deal with affairs which are actually relevant for the functioning of a modern industrial society. Then anyone can get married who can persuade a holy person of the appropriate faith to marry them, and the government has no excuse to give tax breaks to married individuals and can maybe be forced into an across-the-board tax cut.

I'm homosexual, Mike, and the way I see it - The problem starts when the government interferes with morality at all. Because then the prevailing moral standard of the government will be forced on people when they don't want it or are, in some cases, not ready for it. Institutionalizing gay marriage into the government bureaucratic canon would just at this point in time upset a country that sees marriage = man + woman. It would be a glorified tax shelter, and you'd probably have trouble convincing said holy people to marry you, because their parishoners or whatnot wouldn't want them to. I dislike marriage but not-marriage ideas even more for the same reason; it's a glorified tax shelter.

I think the best way to do it is simply to have the government stop issuing marriage licenses and let people get married on their time, as a purely spiritual affair. Now, I know you're an atheist, but I suspect there's some sort of atheist wedding commitment bond and there's people who could perform it - And you had a christian wedding in the end, anyway.

So to me the government sanction is something that just serves as a way to pander to a segment of the voting populace, and is potentially dangerous. It's a foothold for the government to legislate morality and it needs to be done away with. I'd like to see equality in marriage consist of government disinterest in marriage. But then, I am also a libertarian, so...

Now, obviously if gay marriage was legalized, I wouldn't be complaining... But it would be the government legislating morality, and relying on the suffrance and guidance of the government to make something a fact is not something that should be done often, nor with much trust. That's also why I can understand where Shep is coming from; if you can't trust the government with firearms rights, why trust them to defend the interests of any minority grouping of the population?

(For the record, on the other issue, though I am quite permissive in regard to firearms ownership, I think said ownership should be restricted to voting citizens in theory, and non-voting citizens and legal aliens legislated in by the states in practice. However, this would mean that someone who loses his civil rights like Shep could remain gun-free for the rest of his life, unless he also proves himself capable of voting again. I think the issue of gun control is massively relevant to any and all civil rights topics, simply because, to quote a friend on the matter: "The Second Amendment insures the rest." Without an armed citizenry, Tyranny is possible.)

[Darth Wong]

I agree with you, Mike. It's rather trite to bring up the material in the realm of the emotional. But Mark has an important point in the sense that firearms provide a final defence of your other rights. The government - through the system of checks and balances - ought to defend minorities from the tyrannt of the majority. But the majority should have the final right of defence - steel, to use the old wording - against the tyranny of the government.

All well in good ... in theory. But tell me- how many times in modern history (ie- with modern weapons in existence) has an armed citizenry revolted and forcibly seized power from the government? Is this realistically feasible? I have never heard a convincing argument that scattered distribution of small-arms will deter a modern army; the best anyone can do is try to distort the Soviet occupation of Afghianistan into a broadly applicable paradigm.

Frankly, the idea made a lot more sense when the "Founding Fathers" first wrote the constitution. Back then, the disparity between small-arms and military firepower was not so great as it is now.

[Frank Hipper]

I agree with you, Mike. It's rather trite to bring up the material in the realm of the emotional. But Mark has an important point in the sense that firearms provide a final defence of your other rights. The government - through the system of checks and balances - ought to defend minorities from the tyrannt of the majority. But the majority should have the final right of defence - steel, to use the old wording - against the tyranny of the government.

All well in good ... in theory. But tell me- how many times in modern history (ie- with modern weapons in existence) has an armed citizenry revolted and forcibly seized power from the government? Is this realistically feasible? I have never heard a convincing argument that scattered distribution of small-arms will deter a modern army; the best anyone can do is try to distort the Soviet occupation of Afghianistan into a broadly applicable paradigm.

Frankly, the idea made a lot more sense when the "Founding Fathers" first wrote the constitution. Back then, the disparity between small-arms and military firepower was not so great as it is now.

If it came down to it, I doubt the entire military would be against the side of a rebellious citizenry. But small arms in the hands of the populace could deter a predatory police force. Look at the Rodney King riots in L.A. Where were the cops?

[Vympel]

; the best anyone can do is try to distort the Soviet occupation of Afghianistan into a broadly applicable paradigm

And we all know how that misreably fails

- Afghanistan was not part of the USSR
- It shared an open border with Pakistan through which the Mujhadeen recieved logistical support
- The Mujhadeen were aided by a superpower in both training and logistics

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I agree with you, Mike. It's rather trite to bring up the material in the realm of the emotional. But Mark has an important point in the sense that firearms provide a final defence of your other rights. The government - through the system of checks and balances - ought to defend minorities from the tyrannt of the majority. But the majority should have the final right of defence - steel, to use the old wording - against the tyranny of the government.

All well in good ... in theory. But tell me- how many times in modern history (ie- with modern weapons in existence) has an armed citizenry revolted and forcibly seized power from the government? Is this realistically feasible? I have never heard a convincing argument that scattered distribution of small-arms will deter a modern army; the best anyone can do is try to distort the Soviet occupation of Afghianistan into a broadly applicable paradigm.

Frankly, the idea made a lot more sense when the "Founding Fathers" first wrote the constitution. Back then, the disparity between small-arms and military firepower was not so great as it is now.

I'll have to do some research on that; I assume you mean post-WWII, during which time, sadly, the number of such interanal disturbances has been so considerable that it could take some time.

As for why it's feasable? Hrmm.. Maybe I should drag Suphi here to explain it - She's a Royal Thai Army Colonel, military police. Essentially, the population acts to deny resources to an occupying army by resisting enmasse with small arms.

Furthermore, it keeps the enemy troops buttoned up. They can't open their tank hatches without getting sniped, they can't go out on foot patrols - So a sort of shadow society can function beyond the roads - And, again, generally the control of the occupying army is limited to their garrisons and the roads. Never the countryside, the cities iffy. They bleed, and its expensive, because they can't make the country work to produce for them - They have to bring in all the supplies for the army from the outside.

Now, in the case of the army of a tyrannical regime enforcing its will on an armed populace, think about the last. Since it is doing so against its own country, it cannot bring in supplies from elsewhere. The factories don't work, the harvest isn't brought in, there's no money for imports. The rebels might not win a single battle, but if the majority of the populace is resisting the government in such a fashion, it will implode in very short order without considerable outside assistance.

(And, yes, collaborators would be a primary target, even moreso than the government's administrative structure or the military forces, in some cases.)

Also, many times in coup situations the military actually stays neutral (There is a strong tradition of political neutrality in most armies), and in those small arms are more than sufficient - in large numbers - for dealing with national police and security forces the government would be using then to enforce its will.

[Darth Wong]

If it came down to it, I doubt the entire military would be against the side of a rebellious citizenry.

Ah, and that brings us to the real bulwark against a tyrannical government; public education. What makes an army rebel against its own leadership if not independent thinking somewhere?

If the people understand what their rights and principles are, then it will be difficult to get an army to support a dictatorship. It is THAT factor, not the negligible military threat of poorly organized civilians with small-arms fire, which keeps the wolf at bay. The latter is a fantasy, concocted by the kind of people who wear camo on the weekends and idly dream of singlehandedly defending democracy from their backyards.

But small arms in the hands of the populace could deter a predatory police force. Look at the Rodney King riots in L.A. Where were the cops?

They were protecting all of the rich white peoples' homes. It was a simple matter of priorities. And cops are not remotely comparable to the military; the military could have effortlessly smashed that riot.

[Darth Wong]

As for why it's feasable? Hrmm.. Maybe I should drag Suphi here to explain it - She's a Royal Thai Army Colonel, military police. Essentially, the population acts to deny resources to an occupying army by resisting enmasse with small arms.

Again, this is highly theoretical (it relies upon remarkably uniform civilian response, rather than the traditional situation of a huge bloc of the population siding with the fascists). Can you find an example of this occurring?

In any case, given sufficient unity, mobs of unarmed people can be quite effective too (see Yeltsin's siege in Russia), since they force the military to choose. The real key is public awareness, not the NRA; the people must be cognizant of the meaning of fascism, and seek to avoid it.

[Frank Hipper]

[Quote Darth Wong]They were protecting all of the rich white peoples' homes. It was a simple matter of priorities. And cops are not remotely comparable to the military; the military could have effortlessly smashed that riot.[quote] Yes they could have. And what an ungodly bloodbath that would have started. And I almost ended that sentence with a remark about them drawing their lines in Beverly Hills.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I agree with you, Mike. It's rather trite to bring up the material in the realm of the emotional. But Mark has an important point in the sense that firearms provide a final defence of your other rights. The government - through the system of checks and balances - ought to defend minorities from the tyrannt of the majority. But the majority should have the final right of defence - steel, to use the old wording - against the tyranny of the government.

All well in good ... in theory. But tell me- how many times in modern history (ie- with modern weapons in existence) has an armed citizenry revolted and forcibly seized power from the government? Is this realistically feasible? I have never heard a convincing argument that scattered distribution of small-arms will deter a modern army; the best anyone can do is try to distort the Soviet occupation of Afghianistan into a broadly applicable paradigm.

Frankly, the idea made a lot more sense when the "Founding Fathers" first wrote the constitution. Back then, the disparity between small-arms and military firepower was not so great as it is now.

$3 Billion. That's how much the US gave to Osama and his cohorts to fight Russia. So it's hardly relevent when it comes to Second Admendment agruements.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

But small arms in the hands of the populace could deter a predatory police force. Look at the Rodney King riots in L.A. Where were the cops?

They were protecting all of the rich white peoples' homes. It was a simple matter of priorities. And cops are not remotely comparable to the military; the military could have effortlessly smashed that riot.

And that would have been a political nightmare.

[Frank Hipper]

I wonder if they even WOULD have?

[MKSheppard]

They were protecting all of the rich white peoples' homes. It was a simple matter of priorities. And cops are not remotely comparable to the military; the military could have effortlessly smashed that riot.

That reminds me of the Korean shop owners using AR-15s and AK-47s and
Beretta Semi-automatic pistols with 15 round magazines to defend their
stores and liveliehoods against rampaging mobs, while the Cops sat
back several hundred yards, protecting the news crews who filmed the
entire thing.

Later, the footage was used to ID those Koreans who had the GALL to stand
up for themself and defend their stores and send them away to the Big House...