Here it is the libs are coming after our guns by kaneman

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Hardware,

Your prediction seems flawed to me. I fully expect the government to create money to bridge the gap of any shortfalls. This will cause a large quantity of inflation.

I can not imagine any future where this does not occur. It should be included in your analysis.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:10 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Too many people view uprising as romantic and that it would unquestionably bring about what they want"

Hello,

As a Cuban-American, I know from the experience of history, history that exists within living memory, that revolution does not typically get you the change you want.

I have never felt that revolution is a romantic concept. It is blood without rational thought, while playing a game of dice against the devil.

However, limiting the ability to engage in revolution carries its own host of evils. They are legion.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
As a Cuban-American, I know from the experience of history, history that exists within living memory, that revolution does not typically get you the change you want.

Not just Cuba, but the Communist revolutions of Russia and China, the islamic revolution of Iran, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, even the overthrow of Mobutu of Zaire/DRC.

History is replete with examples revolutions that were worse than the tyranny, cures worse than the disease, and "out of the frying pan and into the fire."

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Yanno, Anthony, in respect to recent commentary as a whole...

You may be a piss-poor crook, but you're a pretty good Anarchist, even if you don't subscribe officially to that personal philosophy.

And I find myself much gratified by that.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:57 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Hardware,

Your prediction seems flawed to me. I fully expect the government to create money to bridge the gap of any shortfalls. This will cause a large quantity of inflation.

I can not imagine any future where this does not occur. It should be included in your analysis.

Uhm, how do you "create" money? In America the government doesn't create money. The Federal Reserve system prints our money and manages the liquidity of banks in it's system using interest rates. Banks can expand the economy, by taking cash deposits and using them to make loans. The interest on the loans is used to pay the interest on deposits and keep the bank in operation. But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation. See the Weimar republic for examples.

If you want a good example of how quickly a currency can fail, research Argentina's economic collapses. They went from a fully functional currency to a failed economy, a dissolved government and near anarchy in 4 weeks.

Oh, and more fun? If America goes down, there's a good chance the rest of you are along for the ride. We've still got the peak consumer economy on the planet. Look up the root causes for the great depression and compare them with our economic situation now. Same/same, except the US government in 1929 was not up to its eyeballs in debt.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/18/students-shot-california-high-sch
ool/

So. Pro-Gun-Control people.

Please explain how this student was able to have a gun in California (of all places)?

But heres the kicker. Since California has some of the most strict gun-control laws, and this person obviously violated a slew of them... explain how more laws would prevent anything.

How making laws stricter HAS EVER stopped ANYONE?

Ya'll know me, you know I believe that we should all have a gun with us at all times. (After 18, before 18 with a permit). We should also be able to use it in defense of ourselves and others without fear of civil or criminal penalty.

Imagine also, if everyone had a gun, the boom in innovation. Bullet-proof vests, less-leathal options etc.

But I digress.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Hardware, to begin with, no, “squandered on entitlement programs” is incorrect, entitlement programs were squandered by the government. If you don’t know about that, I’m surprised; if you choose to ignore that and blame our economic mess on “entitlements” (by which, I’m guessing, you don’t mean entitlements to PRIVATE ENTERPRISE), I’m not too surprised. There are far too many who choose to do so.

Just FYI, if you're interested; if not, for any here who don't know the facts:

Quote:
The rationale for cutting Social Security seems to be that, during such difficult economic times, everything should be a candidate for the chopping block, and that the public should support such cuts out of a sense of patriotism.

The flaw in this argument is that u]Social Security has not contributed a dime to the budget deficits or the soaring national debt. Social Security is funded exclusively by payroll taxes (also known as FICA taxes), paid into the fund by working Americans.

In 1983, the payroll tax was increased substantially in response to the recommendations, the previous year, of the Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform. Prior to 1983, Social Security had operated on a "pay-as-you-go" basis with each generation responsible for paying for the benefits of the generation that preceded them.

The 1983 legislation changed the nature of Social Security funding. In addition to paying for the benefits of the preceding generation, as was customary, the baby boomers were also required to pay additional taxes to partially pre-fund their own retirement.

The net result is that the baby boomers have paid more into Social Security than any other generation. Yet they are often made scapegoats and blamed for the Social Security funding problem.

The intent of the 1983 legislation was to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years that were supposed to be saved and invested, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could later be drawn down to pay benefits to the baby boomers. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated more than $2.5 trillion that is supposed to be in the trust fund. If the trust fund actually held this amount in real assets, full Social Security benefits could be paid until at least 2037 without any changes. Unfortunately, none of the surplus revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent, by the government, on wars and other government programs without making any provisions for repaying the money.

During the past 25 years, five presidents, and the members of Congress/u], have participated in the great Social Security scam. All Social Security contributions made by working Americans, except the amount which was needed to pay current retirement benefits, has been funneled into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes.

Some like to say that the government just "borrowed" the money during the time period when it was not needed to pay benefits. But borrowing implies repayment, and u]no provisions for repayment have been made.

The government did not enact future tax increases that would automatically kick in when the Social Security money was needed. Neither did they enact legislation that would end other spending programs once the Social Security money was needed so the money could be transferred to the trust fund.

The government spent the Social Security money, pure and simple, without making any provisions for future repayments. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they could not be sold to anyone even for a penny on the dollar. The Social Security trustees confirmed the worthlessness of the IOUs in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report with the following words:
Quote:
"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."
In order for Social Security to pay full benefits after 2016, it will be necessary for the government to begin repaying the money it has spent on other things. This will mean increased taxes and/or additional borrowing.

Neither of these is politically popular, and there is no assurance that future politicians will be willing to raise taxes to pay for the irresponsible behavior of past politicians. If the money is not repaid in full, with interest, it will have been stolen by the government from working Americans who paid into the fund.

http://www.newschief.com/article/20100710/NEWS/7105014/1013/opinion?Ti
tle=Social-Security-money-stolen-by-government

I thought most of us knew all this by now and that it was only those who chose to be deliberately ignorant who kept attacking Social Security “entitlements”, but apparently not. Social Security, tho’ referred to as such, is NOT an “entitlement”, except insofar as the fact that we PAID for it, and it should have been earning interest all these years to REPAY US, entitles us to those funds. Which we will not get.

CTTS, my apologies. I didn’t intend for you to take it that I said you were advocating rebellion. My reference was to “The only thing I've advocated is keeping our right to own arms, as a deterrent against tyranny”, because I believe that is illogical. Purely my own opinion; I don’t believe armed insurrection would bring any conceivable kind of positive result, and would more likely (if it happened; if it was successful) bring about a far worse state of affairs than whatever could exist...especially as I also don’t believe America will ever become as tyrannical as others do.

For one thing, we are HUGE...that has to be taken into consideration. We aren’t Germany, or any other POPULATED tyranny of our size. The difficulties in coalescing a rebellion are myriad; the difficulties of ruling such a country are even moreso. Second, we are diverse...far moreso than Germany or, again, any other country as populous and diverse as ours. Third, the way our government governs changes every couple of years; someone would have to stop that and put a tyrant in power for things to become as you and others envision. I just don’t see that as happening. Yes, it continues bad practices, and Obama hasn’t changed that, I completely agree. One of the reasons I’m angry with him (but NOT disappointed; as I’ve said numerous times, I didn’t vote for him in the primary because I was afraid of just this sort of thing, and that he wasn’t strong enough o do what needed to be done).

If you are comparing us to Peru, Peru covers 496,225 square milesi. America: 3,794,101 square miles. The United States is the world's third or fourth largest nation by total area (land and water), ranking behind Russia and Canada and just above or below China.

Germany: 137,847 square miles. I don’t know how diverse its population was prior to Hitler, nor how diverse Peru is. But we are incredibly diverse; being a young country, we embody not one consistent heritage but many, all with different cultures and attitudees. Governing a country the size of America, compared to those two, is a whol different universe. IF the states broke up, yes, I can see individual ones being ruled differently than our current government. But as a whole? To me, it is impossible.

I agree with DT:

Quote:
I have never felt that revolution is a romantic concept. It is blood without rational thought, while playing a game of dice against the devil.

I believe any ATTEMPT at revolution here would result in a far worse situation than what we have now, or what we will have in the future, given I don’t believe tyranny can realistically exist in this country. I also agree with CTTS:

Quote:
History is replete with examples revolutions that were worse than the tyranny, cures worse than the disease, and "out of the frying pan and into the fire."

For me, it is—-call it “romantic” or “short sighted” or “not well enough thought out”---to seriously consider America becoming a tyranny OR that revolution would “fix” anything here.

I don’t see Hardware’s predictions coming true. That’s just my opinion.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:50 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Niki. Just because you wouldn't fight doesn't mean there are not any who would.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:50 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

To respond to your post Wulf, just on my own behalf:

The guy got the gun obviously because there are holes in laws, in enforcement, and even if they were perfect, it's a simple matter to get a gun illegally. That's true of any state, whatever gun laws they might have.

I'm not in favor of limiting gun ownership any more than it is "limited" now, because I recognize that people can get guns, legally or otherwise, easily in this country. It's too late to limit gun ownership.

I am in favor of banning some of the more egregous examples of guns that have no purpose whatsoever besides large-scale violence; there is in my opinion no cause for the more aggressive automatic weapons, as I don't view them as particularly more effective for self-defense than other automatic weapons.

I am in favor of limiting the sale of high-volume magazines, as all they are useful for is mass slaughter. If they weren't allowed to be sold, there would be fewer of them, period. Sure, they'd probably be around on the black market, but that's a fact of life with anything. Nonethelss, they would be harder to obtain.

I don't see them being useful for self-defense; if someone's coming after you with a high-volume magazine in an automatic weapon, your chances of "fighting back", however many bullets available, are pathetic. I know you'll disagree with that, but we live in different worlds (and I mean that insofar as fantasy of heroes and villains versus reality).

That's my response to your question.

Oops, I was typing as you posted. Where exactly did I say I wouldn't fight? You'll have to point that out to me, because it's not true, so I don't see where you could have gotten that idea.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:02 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I don't see them being useful for self-defense; if someone's coming after you with a high-volume magazine in an automatic weapon, your chances of "fighting back", however many bullets available, are pathetic. I know you'll disagree with that, but we live in different worlds (and I mean that insofar as fantasy of heroes and villains versus reality)."

Hello,

I found this statement curious. It seems to indicate that a a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:05 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation."

Hello,

This is correct, and it is conspicuously absent from your prognostications of disaster. I'm curious as to why, since it is the most obvious path the government would take.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I would argue that ANY limit (up to chemical, biological, nuclear weapon) on weapons is a violation of our civil liberties, is also a violation of our Constitutionally-protected (and needed) right of self-defense against ALL enimies (foreign and domestice) who wish to do the citizens of America harm.

ALLOW me to have an Ak-47. And, besides target shooting, I most likely would never fire it.

HOWEVER, should it be needed, in defense of my home, or in defense of my state, I would HAVE it to use.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

More than likely, I would never need to use it, but its that "what-if" that always plays.

Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?

Our right to self-defense, and our responsibility to civil-defense, is absolute.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:18 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mostly I suppose I just think it's silly--when you contrast America with REAL tyranny,....
I HAVE lived in REAL tyranny, the kind where there is only 1 newspaper in the country, and people disappear if they say ANYTHING against the govt, even privately. The kind where there exists no political opposition and no hope for political change, short of the death of the autocrat.

It is my opinion that America is approaching the REAL tyranny in these countries. It's not there right now, no. But it is heading in that direction.

I know people who have been to prison. Here I am, a middle class non-colored American who is as law abiding as they come. Yet I know people, middle class acquaintances and friends, who have served time in prison. This is not normal. This is not right in a free society.

What did these folks get prison time for?
I honestly think your past - I mean holy shite you lived in 4 of these places - has completely and understandably made you a bit hyper when it comes to this subject.
If you need any consoling just turn on the television and start listing all the sponsors. These people make way too much money with a happy populace and a stable government to ever let it get run over. Other countries are not like that, the countries you lived in were not like that.

I'm also curious - what would constitute tyranny in your opinion? Work camps? I saw the "one newspaper" reference, what others? I have no clue when people talk about Tyranny what they mean or if they are being purposely obscure because they don't really know themselves.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:19 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.

That was my point. An attacker knows what he’s going into, plans and I would assume has some experience with the weapon. A defender is usually not prepared for the attack, may have little experience (if any when it comes to shooting humans), and can only react. As shown by the guy with the gun in Tucson, just having a gun isn’t enough. Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker, and since anyone can get such magazines very easily, they aren’t effective as a defensive weapon. If they were unavailable legally, certainly they would still exist, but if you can’t do it with 15 bullets in your gun, I see no reason for anyone except someone who wants to kill a LOT of people quickly to be able to attain magazines with more. If there were less bullets in the gun, an attacker could still carry around several magazines, but the time it would take him to reload would at least give an opportunity for someone to take him down. That’s my reasoning.

Wulf, I don’t know if an AK-47 is one of the weapons I’m thinking of, so I can’t answer that. But as to

Quote:
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?

How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:24 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
If you need any consoling just turn on the television and start listing all the sponsors. These people make way too much money with a happy populace and a stable government to ever let it get run over. Other countries are not like that, the countries you lived in were not like that.

I'm also curious - what would constitute tyranny in your opinion? Work camps? I saw the "one newspaper" reference, what others? I have no clue when people talk about Tyranny what they mean or if they are being purposely obscure because they don't really know themselves.

Oh, well said and some good, previously unnoticed, points Pizmo. We don't hear enough from you, dammit, I wish we heard your voice more.

Personally, I don’t think CTTS is “hyper”, I think she’s comparing her experiences and knowledge to a place which is different enough for them to be less pertinent than she realizes, that’s all. Tyranny is certainly possible anywhere, even maybe in a country as big and diverse as the US, but I think applying the example of Germany or Peru, or other places she has experienced, doesn’t work.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:28 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat."

1. Katrina. When the waters rose, the first act of the state government was to confiscate all weapons.

Then, they put all the people in the Terror Dome.

2. The LA Riots. When they happened, the homes and businesses which were not robbed or burned were in chinatown (or koreaville not sure which). Why? The owners all packed heat. They shot at looters who crossed into their territory.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:59 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Also.

If in doubt, just read the Constitution.

Sometimes the system works as it should, as it was meant to.

http://networkedblogs.com/daifn

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.
That was my point. An attacker knows what he’s going into, plans and I would assume has some experience with the weapon. A defender is usually not prepared for the attack, may have little experience (if any when it comes to shooting humans), and can only react. As shown by the guy with the gun in Tucson, just having a gun isn’t enough. Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker, and since anyone can get such magazines very easily, they aren’t effective as a defensive weapon. If they were unavailable legally, certainly they would still exist, but if you can’t do it with 15 bullets in your gun, I see no reason for anyone except someone who wants to kill a LOT of people quickly to be able to attain magazines with more. If there were less bullets in the gun, an attacker could still carry around several magazines, but the time it would take him to reload would at least give an opportunity for someone to take him down. That’s my reasoning.

Wulf, I don’t know if an AK-47 is one of the weapons I’m thinking of, so I can’t answer that. But as to
Quote:
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?
How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat.

Hello,

I find some of your reasoning bizarre, Niki.

A prepared attacker with good knowledge of his weapon and the situation is the least likely to need lots of firepower. The definition of this sort of attacker would be a 'sniper' who has intimate knowledge of his surroundings, threat forces, weapon, and target.

The less prepared you are, the less in-command of your situation, your surroundings, your threats, and your weapon- then the MORE firepower you need to compensate for these shortcomings.

Firefights are exceedingly rare. Usually a gunfight is over within moments and takes place at extremely close range. However, in the unlikely event that a firefight should materialize (indicating that both the attacker and defender are taking advantage of surroundings and terrain to provide cover and/or concealment) I can not think of a situation where I would not prefer to have equal or greater firepower than my opponent.

You simultaneously assert that the illegal antagonist will be able to get the highest capacity arms via the black market, and then claim that since he has an inherent advantage (what I would call the 'initiative') it is pointless for the defender to have equal firepower.

So, you advocate policies to ensure that the illegal antagonist is the only person who will ever be able to acquire such arms, taking the hobbled defender (who lacks the initiative) and kneecapping him further by denying him an arms parity.

"How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference?"

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here. I am not convinced you have even a rudimentary grasp of the technology of firearms, nor any firm idea of where you want to place limits or why. It seems that you are feeling your way through the issue, seeking compromises that feel emotionally like they might do some good.

A similar amount of well-intentioned 'feeling' and ignorance of detail was the building-block for this nation's last assault weapons ban, including its arbitrary limitations on magazine size and firearm appearance.

I do not own any weapon that would be touched by such a ban. None of my firearms would suffer from limited magazine sizes or 'scary looking gun' laws. However, I am not blind to the possibility of people having legitimate use for such weapons, and would not want to see legislation enacted to limit lawful access to them.

In short, I am not in favor of hobbling citizens because I am afraid they might break the law some day. Nor do I wish to arbitrarily decide that they probably can't do anything to defend themselves anyway, so they should have the least effective armaments around.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:26 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker

Niki, if this were the case, no army would be able to hold position, and a machine gun nest would be worthless.

If magazines are common and easy to get, then I don't understand your point about an attacker having greater access to them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:49 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1293

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:06 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ron Paul WIN!

(and since I agree and support RP.. I guess I WIN too.)

lol

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
What did these folks get prison time for?

One person went for turning an antique weapon into an illegal weapon. He restores antique guns as a hobby. He was asked to falsely testify against one of his clients on the same charge. He refused. So they charged him with it.

The others (4 persons) went for failure to file income tax returns. They were tax protesters. One is a physician; he got 5 years. One got 7 years in prison. When he got out after serving his sentence, they charged him with failure to report to someone, and he went back in for another 7 years. He recently died in prison.

Quote:

I honestly think your past - I mean holy shite you lived in 4 of these places - has completely and understandably made you a bit hyper when it comes to this subject.

Yes, I agree. But let me explain. The hypervigilance wasn't always there.

When I lived in those places, we had to be VERY careful what we said. It is feeling of self-censorship that never relaxes. Now for 20 years in the USA, I've splurged and indulged myself in this haven of free expression. And I've loved it.

But the last 2 or 3 years, I'm starting to see signs of the kind of place where I grew up. I get that same feeling of self-censorship again, that I need to be careful. It's a reflex; the hypervigilance has come back because I feel the threat has crept back.

Obviously, I'm still spouting my mouth here on FFF, but my inner cautious self is telling me to stop. The only reason I don't is because I'm still in denial about my spidey sense going off.

Quote:
I'm also curious - what would constitute tyranny in your opinion? Work camps? I saw the "one newspaper" reference, what others?

Good question. Tyranny is the extreme end of political, economic, and moral control of a population by a elite group of persons who are themselves notably ungoverned.

1. Physical consequences for saying things the government doesn't like. Unapproved speech is illegal. Fines, prison, death, torture, death of loved ones even.

2. No democracy. No practical ability to change government policies. Sometimes they have a nominal process for change, but they erect obstacles that are prohibitive. In extreme situations, voting is simply a surveillance device to find out who is against the govt.

3. Control of common items (such as clothing and electronics) through excessive taxation or outright bans. In a tyranny, there is usually a thriving black market selling common household goods.

4. Corruption. Enforcement of the law does not depend on the law, but luck, personal wealth, race, and social status. Bribes are not only routine; the society wouldn't be able to function without them. Everyone would be in prison if it weren't for bribes.

5. Rigorous standards for morality that are enforced with harsh physical consequences. This can be anywhere from caning for littering to prison for possessing alcohol to death/torture for actual crimes. Tyrannical societies are VERY safe, clean, and orderly.

Those are just 5 common characteristics I can think of off the top of my head.

Incidentally, Peru is NOT one of the tyrannical places where I have lived. One of the reasons I like it here is because there is MORE freedom here than in the USA. I tell Peruvians what goes on in the USA, and they are aghast with horror.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:16 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

CTS:

Standing against the tide.

Good job.

Damn. We need more folks to finally do that.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:43 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation."

Hello,

This is correct, and it is conspicuously absent from your prognostications of disaster. I'm curious as to why, since it is the most obvious path the government would take.

All I said was the lack of hard capital in the form of loans would force the government to go on a crash diet. That diet can come from having plenty of worthless money in the coffers, or little or no still viable money in the coffers. Do you really want to argue the mechanism? Or is this just a nitpick?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:55 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
One person went for turning an antique weapon into an illegal weapon. He restores antique guns as a hobby. He was asked to falsely testify against one of his clients on the same charge. He refused. So they charged him with it.

The others (4 persons) went for failure to file income tax returns. They were tax protesters. One is a physician; he got 5 years. One got 7 years in prison. When he got out after serving his sentence, they charged him with failure to report to someone, and he went back in for another 7 years. He recently died in prison.

I'm sorry about your friend. Not knowing the details it's hard to judge but the last scenario… the IRS is well known for being the least forgiving and the closest thing to pure evil there is in a government agency… it's just hard to feel too much sympathy for their stance.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Tyranny is the extreme end of political, economic, and moral control of a population by a elite group of persons who are themselves notably ungoverned.

1. Physical consequences for saying things the government doesn't like. Unapproved speech is illegal. Fines, prison, death, torture, death of loved ones even.

2. No democracy. No practical ability to change government policies. Sometimes they have a nominal process for change, but they erect obstacles that are prohibitive. In extreme situations, voting is simply a surveillance device to find out who is against the govt.

3. Control of common items (such as clothing and electronics) through excessive taxation or outright bans. In a tyranny, there is usually a thriving black market selling common household goods.

4. Corruption. Enforcement of the law does not depend on the law, but luck, personal wealth, race, and social status. Bribes are not only routine; the society wouldn't be able to function without them. Everyone would be in prison if it weren't for bribes.

5. Rigorous standards for morality that are enforced with harsh physical consequences. This can be anywhere from caning for littering to prison for possessing alcohol to death/torture for actual crimes. Tyrannical societies are VERY safe, clean, and orderly.

Those are just 5 common characteristics I can think of off the top of my head.

Incidentally, Peru is NOT one of the tyrannical places where I have lived. One of the reasons I like it here is because there is MORE freedom here than in the USA. I tell Peruvians what goes on in the USA, and they are aghast with horror.

You tell Peruvians how bad it is here and yet none of the 5 things you list for Tyranny is happening here? You've lived in 4 countries other than the US, all during an armed revolt, and yet you tell your friends how bad it is here? I don't get it, what's up with that? Seems out of proportion. Maybe you over idealized the US at one time?
I appreciate your list, thanks - it's a good answer. It's also the first time anyone's explained what they fear when they say they fear Tyranny.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:15 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.
That was my point. An attacker knows what he’s going into, plans and I would assume has some experience with the weapon. A defender is usually not prepared for the attack, may have little experience (if any when it comes to shooting humans), and can only react. As shown by the guy with the gun in Tucson, just having a gun isn’t enough. Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker, and since anyone can get such magazines very easily, they aren’t effective as a defensive weapon. If they were unavailable legally, certainly they would still exist, but if you can’t do it with 15 bullets in your gun, I see no reason for anyone except someone who wants to kill a LOT of people quickly to be able to attain magazines with more. If there were less bullets in the gun, an attacker could still carry around several magazines, but the time it would take him to reload would at least give an opportunity for someone to take him down. That’s my reasoning.

Wulf, I don’t know if an AK-47 is one of the weapons I’m thinking of, so I can’t answer that. But as to
Quote:
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?
How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat.

I really hate killing an innocent theory, but you know that the rule of thumb for offense to defense is a 2/1 majority? Attack is always more difficult than defense.

How do you figure that an attacker gains advantage by a large capacity magazine and a defender does not? If you're firearm is in battery and has ammo in the magazine, you're still in the fight. The only thing stopping the defensive shooter in Tuscon was his responsibility. If the laws were structured differently, or if he had made another choice we might be arguing about the motivations of the deceased attacker.

Assuming I have a Glock 19 or 17 for a primary defensive carry piece, after the 17 or 15 in the primary magazine, do you want a reload with 15, 17 or 33? If I've expended 17 and still have active opposition, guess which one I want?

You also completely dismiss suppressive fire. I'm expending rounds to keep your head down so I or others on my team can move to a position with greater advantage. Either to neutralize you, or effect our escape.

Picking nits about the capabilities of various weapons is pointless. The cat is out of the bag on firearms.

As I have said before, skill can make even the least objectionable firearm world class. Witness this video of Jerry Miculek.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You tell Peruvians how bad it is here and yet none of the 5 things you list for Tyranny is happening here?

Tyranny is extreme. The USA is not at that extreme. But not being pure evil doesn't mean it isn't flirting with the dark side. Freedom exists on a continuum. The USA is just a bit farther down that continuum in many areas than is Peru.

Quote:
You've lived in 4 countries other than the US, all during an armed revolt,

Oh, no. Only one during an armed revolt. The other 3 got better when when the autocrats died.

Quote:
and yet you tell your friends how bad it is here? I don't get it, what's up with that? Seems out of proportion. Maybe you over idealized the US at one time?

Certainly there is a bit of over-idealization of the USA in all immigrants. That is why many of us come to the States, for the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

But it isn't that. There isn't tyranny in the USA right now, but there isn't freedom either. So to my friends here who live more freely, I tell them what the "land of the free" is really like. They are curious, because we have this reputation for freedom, you know? So I tell them how it really is, that we aren't as free as people think. You don't have to be completely tyrannical to be not-free.

Here are some of the things I tell them about:

1. You can't start a small business without getting all the appropriate permits, which all cost money. (Peruvians can start businesses like kids did lemonade stands in the old days. They just put out a table or a sign and do it.)

2. You are taxed 25-35% on the average of all the money you make. (Peruvians don't pay taxes unless their business income exceeds a certain threshold, and then a much smaller percentage like 5-10%. There are no personal income taxes at all.)

3. You can't sell food unless you get health inspections, and now you can't grow food to sell unless you pass inspections. (There are no health inspections in Peru that I know of.)

4. You can't hire people for whatever wage you agree on. You have to pay them a minimum of what the govt says. (Peruvians have no minimum wage or labor laws.)

5. You can't put 2 adults and 3 kids on a motorcycle or ride without helmets. You can't put more than one person per car seat or ride without seatbelts. You can't even ride a bike without a helmet. (Peruvians can travel however they want. Drivers are supposed to be licensed, and people in the front are supposed to have seatbelts, but that rarely gets enforced.)

6. Some schools have cops there to give tickets to kids. A kid was arrested for using a Sharpie in school. (Peruvian adults don't even get tickets, it is hard for them to imagine children getting them, and for such ridiculous, victimless offenses as mere disobedience or truancy.)

7. You can't fly on an airplane without being radiated or groped. (Peruvian airports have the standard metal detector and very friendly security personnel.)

8. The govt can take your kids away just because someone accused you. Then you have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to get them back if you can prove you didn't abuse them. (Insert horror story here.)

9. If cops catch you with a lot of cash, they can take that cash from you for no reason, even if you didn't commit a crime. Then it takes many months or even years and lawyers to get it back.

10. If you don't file taxes you go to jail. If you don't pay your fines, you go to jail. If you don't pay your child support, you go to jail.

11. 2.3 million Americans, or 0.75% of the US population, live in prison, the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The trade-off, I tell them, is that the American people believe they are safer and less likely to die than Peruvians. The question of tyranny always comes down to a freedom vs. security/cleanliness/order trade-off.

But the ones I talk to, they would rather be more free than more secure. My kind of people. Americans used to be that way, but not very much anymore.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 6:58 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation."

Hello,

This is correct, and it is conspicuously absent from your prognostications of disaster. I'm curious as to why, since it is the most obvious path the government would take.

All I said was the lack of hard capital in the form of loans would force the government to go on a crash diet. That diet can come from having plenty of worthless money in the coffers, or little or no still viable money in the coffers. Do you really want to argue the mechanism? Or is this just a nitpick?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

Hello,

I was arguing for a better prognostication. I expect a strong temptation for the government to create money to meet shortfalls before any serious 'diet' manifests itself. The 'diet' you speak of is something I anticipate as taking place only after the currency has been devalued, and they simply can't pretend anymore.

I think of it as a very important step on the continuum of ruin.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The 'diet' you speak of is something I anticipate as taking place only after the currency has been devalued, and they simply can't pretend anymore.

I think Hardware just skipped to "can't pretend anymore" and went straight to talking about the ruin.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Personally, I have no problem with 3 and 4. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the matter of food safety and child labor. As to 8, I’ve seen it used as many times to protect children from abuse as abused. I’ll settle for a half-full glass. As to

Quote:
The question of tyranny always comes down to a freedom vs. security/cleanliness/order trade-off

I don’t think that’s the tradeoff of “tyranny”, I think that’s a trade-off every society has to choose for itself. Freedom ain’t so hot, either, without some of those protections, and those protections, whether effective or implemented correctly, were put in place for a reason.

As to #5, enforcement of bicycling without a nelmet around here at least is minimal, if at all. And I of all people resented the HELL out of motorcycle helmets being required, but on the whole I'd rather that and pay less for people who end up in emergency rooms as a result. WE pay for those who can't when it comes to health care, and I'm not in favor of paying for anyone else's stupidity when it comes to motorcycle accidents. My own, yeah, I'd take responsibility for it, but it doesn't work that way.

Obviously 6 and 7 are unpleasant, and needless in some ways. But I would guess our increasingly-more-violent society contributes to the need for cops in schools, and that’s something we haven’t dealt with...yet, or well. The travel thing is just plain stupid, and IS a case of perception of security over common sense.

As to 9, it was my impression that if money was confiscated and the person was found innocent, that money was returned. Do you have facts to the contrary?

I’d be interested in learning how Peru gets by without taxing, could you elucidate further on that, please?

The incarceration thing is a personal bugaboo and I definitely agree with you on that one!

All in all, I'd rather feel SOMEWHAT safe and that there is SOMEWHAT of a safety net in this country than be freer, as you define it.

And once again, the population, culture and size of the two countries aren't comparable in my opinion as to how their respective societies decide to deal with issues.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I don’t think that’s the tradeoff of “tyranny”,...

I agree that was poorly worded. I should say, the "trade-off on the anarchy vs. tyranny continuum...."

Quote:
Freedom ain’t so hot, either, without some of those protections,...

See I disagree. I would rather live on the outer planets fighting criminals and dodging reavers than live in the safe and clean Core planets. That's me. I understand why others don't want to live on the outer planets though. Freedom is not pretty or easy.

Quote:
As to 9, it was my impression that if money was confiscated and the person was found innocent, that money was returned. Do you have facts to the contrary?

I didn't state the contrary. My statement was it would take months, even years, with lawyers, to get it back. (But yes, I have heard of at least one innocent person who did not get his forfeiture back. I just don't have the link and story at my fingertips.)

Quote:
I’d be interested in learning how Peru gets by without taxing, could you elucidate further on that, please?

I said they DO tax, just a LOT less. They can get by with smaller taxes because the government doesn't do very much. They have a small military (no wars), small police force, small courts, small prisons. They don't do a lot of road work or infrastructure development. They have no retirement, disability safety net, or welfare. How does one get by with a smaller income? You simply spend less.

Quote:
All in all, I'd rather feel SOMEWHAT safe and that there is SOMEWHAT of a safety net in this country than be freer, as you define it.

Yes, that's my point. Most Americans agree with you (that is why we have those laws, cause they voted for them somehow, right?).

My point is also that those laws sound very oppressive and draconian to people who are used to living with much more freedom and much less security.

In other words, America is not the "land of the free"--not anymore. Most Americans don't want to live in the "land of the free." They would rather live in the "land of prevention, security, and morality."

Which is fine. It's the prerogative of the majority to shape the country into whatever they want. The minority just has to suck it or leave.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:36 PM

BYTEMITE

Safety nets exist anyway, with or without government. It when we start to think everyone's being taken care already of that the cracks open up and certain people fall in.

Or when we let some people get away with things that really shouldn't be tolerated. Like polluters, like slavery, like warmongers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:44 PM

Niki,

I did find this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700

Court:
"We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking."

Mr. Emilio Gomez Gonzolez never got his money back. The forfeiture was upheld solely based on circumstantial evidence. Apparently, suspicion and circumstantial evidence is all you need to legally rob other people's money now.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:37 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I would rather live on the outer planets fighting criminals and dodging reavers than live in the safe and clean Core planets.

There is where we differ, CTTS. I happen to believe there are MANY options between anarchy and tyranny, and I think the US is neither. We live “cheap”, we don’t spend much and never have, have no credit cards or debt, save gas, etc. But that doesn’t make it possible to live easily in this country.

I’m afraid I still believe there are a lot of things that can’t be compared between Peru and the US, and that it wouldn’t be as easy, even if we wanted it to, for this country to be that way. I also think there are many other countries in the world that are far, far more “draconian” than the US. I nonetheless agree there are a LOT of things wrong, a lot of laws that need revamping or eliminating, and a lot of improvement to be made.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I happen to believe there are MANY options between anarchy and tyranny, and I think the US is neither.

That is what continuum means. Anarchy on one end, tyranny on the other, and most everything is in between.

There are no anarchistic countries, so obviously most countries on earth (which are not totalitarian) are somewhere in between.

From my point of view, Peru is quite a bit closer to the freedom end than is the USA.

Now you're saying the USA COULDN'T be like Peru even if it wanted to. I vehemently disagree. The USA doesn't WANT to be like Peru, that I believe. But any assertion that we are forced by our culture and population demographics to live the way we live...that feels like not taking responsibility for our choices.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:16 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Hello,

It is perhaps an irony that one of the things I worry about when I think of visiting England is that I might get attacked. I understand that violent crime occurs there on a comperable level to many parts of the U.S. My understanding of the law system there is that, when confronted with violent crime, the only certain legal recourse is to comply with your attacker and then call the police afterwards. I have heard that violent resistance, and particularly armed resistance (even if only with a handy bludgeoning object) can carry serious legal consequences. Moreso than in the U.S.

I do not know if these things I have heard about England is true, but the thought of it frightens me.

On the other hand, the citizens of all nations have the right to make whatever society they enjoy. It's up to me to decide if visiting is worth the risk.

--Anthony

Hey, I remembered this from before but didn't have time to reply at the time. I think foreign countries probably seem scarier from far off, with distant news reports etc., than in reality. That's probably true for us non US residents as well.

Regarding self defence in the UK, you may find this article useful, 'Self Defence and The Law' in the UK:

"Public Perception of Self-Defence
There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.

However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:

an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence."

http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 12:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Something in reference to THIS original post....

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You see, this is why you'd never make it as a criminal, Anthony - your brain just ain't wired that way.

You wanna off someone, here's how ya do it.

First thing ya do, get dressed, jeans, sweater, flannel shirt, cap, like every damn body else around here, only you put on surgical gloves and then knit gloves over em so you're covered for prints without bein really obvious about it and all.

Then you go down to the airport and rent a car, something ridiculously anonymous, go ahead and card it, don't matter none - drive it down to the red light district and put it in one of them parking garages nearby, take yourself a walk down to the corner, and when the local pushers make their approach, get them to hook you up with a gat, they'll be more than glad to sell you a nine real cheap, no doubt stolen and maybe with a body or two already on it, this is what you WANT but go on and play it cool... I'd say get em to throw in some bullets but even the dumbest punk around here isn't gonna hand you ammo for it and stand the risk of being robbed with the piece he just sold you, so slip up the street a bit and buy a box of crummy ass nine-mil and some smokes from one of the bodegas and pay cash, ain't no one even gonna notice.
Then you find somewhere discreet to load it, and hump it or hop a bus to your target, depending on how far.

You spot em out, follow em, get em somewhere relatively discreet, and storm rush, get in close and fill them with lead, give em six, seven, real quick, point blank, all in the torso, no fancy shit - you put ENOUGH lead in someone from that range, they're gone no matter what, then you roll em up, watch-wallet-rings-cellphone (you DROP the cellphone on the way off though, like you fumbled it) and get the hell gone.
Won't nobody come lookin, a salvo like that, the locals might call it in, but sure as shit they're not stickin their heads up or coming to investigate any time soon.

So you hump it or lump it back to the red light district and pick up your car from the garage, and on your way out, you cut through one of them dark alleys and pitch the piece and the loot out the window, don't even slow down, them skells will be on it before it hits the ground, and whichever one bags the piece will wind up with the rest, sure enough.
You drop off the rental, go home, take a shower, do a little laundry, no worries.

Now, damn good chance, almost a certainty, this'll wind up pitched in the "drug related" file and forgotten, oh-what-a-tragedy, hand me another double-glazed, eh ?

Rare, outside chance, someone rolls the skell when he tries to fence the loot, and you really think the cops are gonna buy whatever bullshit story about where he got the stuff ? oh hell no.
And being a skell, prolly with priors and holding a hot piece, they're gonna beat a confession out of him quick enough, and maybe close off a couple cases on it, for them it's win-win.
For you too, cause that's the end of the story right there, innit now ?

Now, one in a million chance, your target was high profile enough to warrant actual investigation, AND the investigator is some hot-shit sherlock type, at BEST all they'll get from anyone is that airport rental sticker, and the first thing hot-shot boy is gonna think is professional hit, at which point he goes off barking up the wrong tree never to be seen again.

And in the one in a billion chance that someone, somewhere, got the plate, and they ask YOU about it, you *already* got a flawless alibi.

"Look man, I was gettin a blowjob and didn't want my wife/girlfriend catchin wise, ok ?
So what'd she look like ?
Fuck man, I wasn't lookin at her FACE...
Come on, give us something!
Screw you, get my lawyer!"

Even if they don't dump it then, they'll wind up chasing their own damn tails lookin for that hooker, as the case gets colder and colder, and no way could they coach one well enough to slip it past even the dumbest of judges, so they got nothin, jack diddly shit.

And THAT, old friend, is how this kinda thing is done.

There it is...

I just ran across a news story that kinda creeped me out a little in regard to this!

http://detnews.com/article/20110128/METRO01/101280390/Tow-company--Bod
y-in-SUV-could-have-been-found-earlier

Quote:
Detroit— Police officials are investigating why the body of a 39-year-old Oak Park man sat inside his sport-utility vehicle for two weeks after a tow truck driver called police to have the vehicle towed.

Elder Anthony, owner of AC Towing, said one of his drivers spotted the Ford Explorer in the 3000 block of 24th Street, on the city's west side. He told the Board of Police Commissioners on Thursday that he followed protocol for companies that tow vehicles for the city: He called a police dispatcher to report what he thought was an abandoned car.

So, Anthony said, his driver waited. Nobody came.

"Finally, the dispatcher said there wasn't anyone available to process the call, so they told my driver to call 911 and report (finding the SUV)," Anthony said. "My driver called 911 — and then sat there for another two hours. Nobody ever came, so he finally left."

Two weeks later, on Jan. 24, after several calls from neighbors, a police officer finally came to the site. Inside the SUV, the officer found the body of James Mullen of Oak Park, riddled with bullets.

Anthony said his driver would have towed the car, but was told he couldn't. In June, the Police Department set up a temporary policy, "Tow East" and "Tow West," which covers Detroit's east and west sides, respectively. Companies are not allowed to tow cars outside their assigned areas.

The Rev. Jerome Warfield, chairman of the police commission, asked how the Police Department decides which companies are allowed to tow in which parts of the city. Deputy Chief James Tolbert said he would look into the issue.

"This whole issue is confusing," Tolbert said. "I don't think anyone in this room knows the answer, but I'll look into it and get the answer for you."

Warfield said the "Tow East" and "Tow West" parameters were set up under former Police Chief Warren Evans, and they no longer apply.

Anthony said Mullen's family could have been saved a lot of unnecessary grief.

That's just eerie, isn't it ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 7:08 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence."
"

Hello,

This would make British use of force indistinguishable from U.S. use of force.

Is that how it works in practice? Can I bludgeon a street robber with a club I keep for self defense, or stab him with a pocket knife, and be found innocent of any wrongdoing?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 6:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

CTs, Peru does have compulsory voting though?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTs, Peru does have compulsory voting though?

Yes, it does. And it is a pain, because you can't vote where you are. You have to vote where you registered, and changing registration is a pain. So on voting day, everyone travels to their hometown to vote. It is one of the very few national laws they enforce.

But, they usually have something like 26 candidates to choose from, so there actually IS a choice. It is very easy to get on the ballot. Campaigning is very active, though I hardly ever see negative campaigning like I do in the States.

No place is perfect. Peru has gun control as well. But, on a practical and day-to-day level, I see people living in a lot more freedom here than at home.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:49 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTs, Peru does have compulsory voting though?
Yes, it does. And it is a pain, because you can't vote where you are. You have to vote where you registered, and changing registration is a pain. So on voting day, everyone travels to their hometown to vote. It is one of the very few national laws they enforce.

But, they usually have something like 26 candidates to choose from, so there actually IS a choice. It is very easy to get on the ballot. Campaigning is very active, though I hardly ever see negative campaigning like I do in the States.

No place is perfect. Peru has gun control as well. But, on a practical and day-to-day level, I see people living in a lot more freedom here than at home.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Hello,

Can you carry other weapons, or is the restriction limited to guns?

And do the Police carry guns?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Can you carry other weapons, or is the restriction limited to guns?

Yes, police carry guns. And of course, criminals have them.

I have seen civilians carry guns as well, so the gun control is not a complete ban. I know guns are restricted, but I have to do more research to find out how. Regular Peruvians in my little rural town don't know what the gun control laws are, anymore than regular Americans would know what the laws are on owning rockets.

As far as other weapons go, are you talking about knives? People use knives and machetes and cutting tools all the time. That is no problem. I have no idea about swords or bows/arrows, and neither would anyone else I know.

Most murders we hear about in the news are committed with knives or beatings.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 1:09 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

You've gotten me interested in Peru. Now I'll have to do some reading.

BTW, ever eaten guinea pig?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:00 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Is that how it works in practice? Can I bludgeon a street robber with a club I keep for self defense, or stab him with a pocket knife, and be found innocent of any wrongdoing?

I assume so (though it's illegal to carry any knife bigger than a pocket knife). To be honest street crime like this has never been an issue in any of the places I've lived in or visited in Britain. Britain does have its deprived, rough side - but unless you're unlucky enough to live on one of those estates, it's not generally something you have to make an effort to avoid, or take precautions against. In my experience.

A few of the big cities like London especially are a possible exception, where one might feel at risk in certain areas. And I'm from the North So I don't know it that well. Having said that, I had a trip down to London a few weeks ago with my brother, to do a tour of the museums. We stayed in a cheap, near-city centre hostel and got about by walking, and the tube. Never worried about my safety before or during the trip.

As for self-defence examples, the only semi-contentious case I can recall is one where a farmer shot dead a burglar in his home. But I think this was more a 'revenge slaying' than an act of self-defence, as the farmer had been burgled numerous times and finally caught the guys in the act, and killed one of them as they were trying to flee (the one that died got shot in the back).

This is the guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

I sympathise with the farmer, but think the law should attempt to differentiate between real acts of self-defense, and acts with excessive, retributive force. And just because your in your own home doesn't make you above the law.

The only other example of self-defense that really comes to mind is an incident that happened to a colleague of my brother. They both live in quite a poor area of Derby, and the guy was walking home from the city centre late one night after a night out. Two lads demanded his phone and wallet, one of them pretending he had a knife. It descended into a fist-fight, and a running battle as the friend of my brother's tried to make it home with his possessions. He 'gave as good as he got' he says, and successfully made it home, and reported it to the police the next day.

I think in some situations the police would advise compliance with the assailant, but there's no question of incurring prosecution for choosing to 'hold your own', I think.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You've gotten me interested in Peru. Now I'll have to do some reading.

I went online and found this on guns.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/peru

According to this page, guns are licensed in Peru. For a license, one must meet these criteria:

1. Prove a genuine reason for gun ownership, such as security, hunting, target shooting, etc.
2. Have a clean background check including criminal, mental health, and domestic violence records.
3. Pass a test on firearm safety and firearm law.

A licensed owner may carry a firearm in plain view without any special permit.

Quote:
BTW, ever eaten guinea pig?

I did try it once. It was horrible.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:56 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You've gotten me interested in Peru. Now I'll have to do some reading.
I went online and found this on guns.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/peru

According to this page, guns are licensed in Peru. For a license, one must meet these criteria:

1. Prove a genuine reason for gun ownership, such as security, hunting, target shooting, etc.
2. Have a clean background check including criminal, mental health, and domestic violence records.
3. Pass a test on firearm safety and firearm law.

A licensed owner may carry a firearm in plain view without any special permit.

Quote:
BTW, ever eaten guinea pig?
I did try it once. It was horrible.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Hello,

I like items 2 and 3. Item 1 seems to allow the government to arbitrarily refuse you for no real reason.

We will presume your government can be trusted not to use their list of licensed guns to confiscate them from the population.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:26 AM