Weaver95: snuffy: Weaver95: snuffy: all i want to see happen is for our country to survive without us continuing to give up the rights and freedoms that we once were privileged to experience

too late for that. somewhere between the war on drugs and the war on terror we lost the 4th and 5th amendments. the 1st amendment is under serious attack and even the 2nd amendment might be gone soon.

mostly tho, we've lost the 4th and 5th amendments and their protections forever. they're never coming back.

and we are a weaker nation as a result of the facts that you have just stated.

you know that National Geo show 'doomsday preppers'? one of the preppers (David Sarti ) had his guns seized by local authorities after the local cops watched the show. now...this was a guy who was quiet, kept to himself and paid his taxes on time. Never any trouble, no history of radical politics or strange silly actions. He just quietly went about his hobby of preparing his home and property in case the government collapsed. Then that show went and made him look like a weirdo gun nut, the local cops had him declared mentally unfit and that was that - his armory was gone and now he's got a peck of legal trouble.

was the guy weird? sure. Was he dangerous? well...no. He'd been at his hobby for over a decade without anyone even noticing. If he'd stayed off that show, nobody would have known about his ENTIRELY LEGAL (if downright bizarre) hobby. But that's the country we live in now. If you have weird ideas, keep your damn mouth shut about it because our commitment to the constitution is only skin deep. you do something the state or local government don't like, they'll come after you for sure.

My G-d, we have got to be blood kin to me. You sound exactly like one of my grandfathers - the one who was a nutcase. All of his life he preached "The guvment'll come after you. They'll put you in the penitentiary." I wish they had taken that hateful, old coot away. But he lived a long, violent (on his part) life and died at the age of 78 having never seen the inside of a jail cell. For some of my relatives, his funeral was the happiest single day they had had in decades.

Lunaville: rebelyell2006: Marysue: So, we're saying a pretty large portion of our military is comprised of retards?

Doesn't surprise me. The ASVAB as an examination is painfully easy, and yet people have to get coaching beforehand and still they worry about passing.

And I'm sure your brother-in-law is willing to step away from that job with benefits at Lockheed Martin. Both of you most likely have a relative/s who benefit from the military-industrial complex, but by all means, denigrate those who have the most to lose.

jackasses.

Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. One of my fraternity brothers was in the Virginia National Guard, and he convinced me to go to this recruiting thing where I had to watch a video, take the ASVAB and in exchange I got a pizza dinner and a backpack full of cheap shiat like notebooks, pencils and a hat. With no commitments. I got a 97, even though I was slightly inebriated.

intelligent comment below: Nishu: but we won't cut the budget in any way that involves actually bringing our people home

Obama is bringing troops home. All from Iraq. In a year from Afghanistan. Sounds like he's the true anti-war candidate you should vote for, without the racist radical right wing religious backwards economic policies and anti-science Christianity from Dr. Paul.

I do plan to vote for Obama again and I hope you are right. I will be extremely upset if we are at war with Iran or Syria or anywhere else in November. Obama is under a lot of pressure to allow another war. I hope he holds out.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: hey, I never thought we'd lose the 4th and 5th amendments...nor did I ever expect to see RIAA (of all people) and the MPAA be out there doing their level best to obliterate the 1st amendment. next up on the chopping block is the 2nd amendment.

The NRA's been blowing the whistle about the sky falling on that one since it was founded. And gun freedoms have only grown in the mean time. What reason do you have to think that suddenly that's all going to turn around this time and the 2nd amendment is "next on the chopping block", other than the temptation to fantasize about it?

Gun nuts crying about the 2nd amendment make less sense than the Harold Campings of the world declaring the end of the world for the tenth time in a row.

It's funny you mentioned the NRA. I have a friend back home that provides his family's' meat via hunting. He received his first firearm at the age of six. He will have nothing to do with the NRA. He says they're extremist lunatics.

intelligent comment below: snuffy: since our future is so bright

The future is so bright. It's so bright because countless mindless idiots like yourself happily went to war, any war. For the past 50 years you have no problems joining the core and getting your welfare checks and spending the country into endless debt from the Presidents you all voted for, Reagan and Bush. But now that your checks have arrived and you have free health care and benefits for life, you want wars to end. The same wars you agreed to go to in the first place. The same politicians who voted for war you voted for in the first place. The same Republican party you defend to the death because God and Christianity and Jesus and stuff.

Excellent reminder for all of us. I had forgotten how only military personnel are allowed to vote in elections and their all important right to vote yes or no prior to each military engagement. I think these are important points for us all to bear in mind.

Deftoons: Sorry liberals. Voting for Obama shows just how much you sell out your principles out of fear of "the other guy" winning. I'll vote for Ron Paul (or Gary Johnson) with a clean conscience.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul doesn't even have the balls to attack Mitt Romney during a primary contest because he's hoping for political favors down the road. But I totally believe you when you say that he will stand for principles if he were actually to be elected.

I'm not surprised. The only GOP candidate who consistently speaks out against unjust wars is popular with the people who will be sent to die.

malaktaus: NewportBarGuy: snuffy: just so we know your background, have you ever served in the military during time of conflict outside of this country?

I'm sorry, was the DIRECT QUOTE not sufficient for you?

Why do you see this as such a crazy idea? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why we have a standing army, or is it just something you take for granted? As far as I can tell, there isn't an army in the world that would even consider an attack on America, and this is not true because of our military, it is a matter of the basic conditions of the modern world. I was in the army for five years, I deployed twice to Iraq, and why, exactly? How did I help to preserve our freedoms and national identity, and how has any soldier done so since WW2? The regular Army exists purely so that we can engage in imperial adventures. There should be a central organization to administer the nuclear arsenal, and aside from that the National Guard is entirely sufficient if the true purpose of the department of defense is, in fact, defense. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, and he hasn't precisely gone this far himself anyway, but this is a realization we're going to have to come to eventually, either now or, more likely, when we're completely bankrupt. It would be better for us if we came to this conclusion now, but I don't see that happening.

Costa Rica has no standing army. I would mind if we followed that example.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: too late for that. somewhere between the war on drugs and the war on terror we lost the 4th and 5th amendments. the 1st amendment is under serious attack and even the 2nd amendment might be gone soon.

Oh for fark's sake.

You can extend the bold to the first, fourth, and fifth there too. Weaver is a drama queen.

intelligent comment below: snuffy: i guess that folks here that do not think we have lost our personal liberty have not lived long enough to know what they missed.

That's what happens when you give Republicans and corporations free reign to do as they please, with little to no oversight. They even have the CIA make up intelligence so they can go to war with Iraq, trick Democrats into believing it, and scare them into voting for the Patriot Act or else. But keep voting Republican. This next time will be different! So vote for Paul. Vote for your Republican representative. Lets keep this collapse going at derp speed.

While Obama is getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan. Raising taxes on the wealthy and making corporations pay a higher rate than they've gotten away with in the past. Lower spending by at least 3 trillion over 10 years. But Obama and Democrats are the bad ones.

Oh, please, Democrats weren't tricked. Some of them are better liars. The American Friends Service Committee and various NGOs that operate in that region desperately tried to get the word out that invading Iraq was unnecessary. Tinfoil was distributed. There were a few hold-outs, like Cynthia McKinney. And where is she? Well, actually she is engaging in some serious and potentially dangerous peace work in the Middle East. If you dig, you can find information on her work there. But don't expect any articles on the topic to be included in any major news publications that you can pick up off the news stand in the supermarket.

ib_thinkin: and to suggest that the First Amendment is under any kind of assault at all is laughable.

Free Speech Zones

Alright, I'm going in.

WTF is with all this "second amendment" crap? I don't think some Farkers have actually read the thing, so here it is:

Amendment II

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

Okay, now we're clear on what the second amendment is, and exactly what it guarantees. So let's talk crazy. Here is the most absolute, extreme, and downright silly gun-control law that I can imagine:

"No household may own anything other than a single .22 caliber pistol and six rounds of ammunition. It must be locked in an approved storage container whenever it is away from arm's reach of a licensed adult."

Guess what? If the above nonsense passed Congress and was signed into law tomorrow, our second amendment rights still wouldn't be infringed upon. We would still be able to keep and bear firearms.

Do any Fark Libertarians seriously think that any president or congress will take measures above and beyond that silly example? Nowhere in the US Bill Of Rights does it specify that we are allowed to own a doomsday arsenal of automatic assault weapons with armor-piercing ammunition. Or carry a concealed sawn-off shotgun into our grocery stores or our kids' elementary schools.

Anyway, enough crazy. Now let's talk reality. The last time Obama made any serious mention of gun control was after the assassination attempt on Giffords. And nothing has happened since then. Nothing. He's been silent on the issue. So, two questions:

1. Why do Fark Libertarians think that, after November, he's going to suddenly drop all focus on economics and foreign policy and suddenly go after our guns?

2. Even if he (or any other administration) does pass a few laws about stricter background checks and bans a category or two, how exactly is that "infringing" upon our Second Amendment rights? I've heard some pretty extreme positions in my lifetime, especially from more liberal congressional candidates. But I've never seen a serious federal-level candidate openly take a position of "we're going to repeal the second amendment. No civilian should ever, ever, ever own a gun."

Instead of fear-mongering about losing 2nd Amendment liberties (perceived or actual), some people should spend their time making sure we correct what has gone wrong with the 1st, 4th, and 5th.

o5iiawah: intelligent comment below: raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting the deficit by 3 trillion over 10 years, that isn't good enough for you? I get it, he should get rid of the Fed and EPA, that will totally end the deficit! /s

His most recent budget proposal was a deficit of $1.3Tn. Assuming that stays constant over the next 10 years that will be $13Tn. Cutting that to $10Tn isn't exactly solving any problem.

it is the whole "cutting via reducing growth" line which people buy hook line and sinker

I get so sick of hearing about the deficit. I'd rather the deficit swallow the entire state of Texas whole than have one more young man lose a limb to war.

The funniest thing about this election is watching Rick Santorum take off. People don't like Santorum. They just really, really hate Mitt Romney and were willing to give anyone else a chance if they could, except for Ron Paul, because Ron Paul is crazy.

And the funny thing is, despite all their complaints of persecution, Ron Paul had it a lot easier than Rick Santorum did. Santorum was considered a national joke until recently, and you still can't google his name without laughing. He's operating on a shoe string budget, he didn't have a press secretary until a week ago. Yet he's still demolishing Ron Paul in the polls.

In short, Ron Paul isn't unpopular because there's a conspiracy to silence him. Ron Paul is popular because people simply don't like him. If people did, they wouldn't have skipped over him for Rick Santorum.

intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: His most recent budget proposal was a deficit of $1.3Tn. Assuming that stays constant over the next 10 years that will be $13Tn. Cutting that to $10Tn isn't exactly solving any problem.

it is the whole "cutting via reducing growth" line which people buy hook line and sinker

I never said his plan is a miracle from Allah, but it is saving 3 trillion over 10 years. It also is spending more now because the economy needs a lot of help. No, not the rich and corporations, but average Americans are struggling. Cutting government jobs and services is just stupid beyond comprehension in an economic downturn. Ask England how they're starting to deal with the cuts. Their economy is in negative growth and no high taxes on corporations and the rich mean even less revenue.

Then once the economy is back on its feet and people have money to spend, you have higher taxes which allow for growth of all classes, more middle income people mean more taxes, and cutting spending in areas that need reduction like the military, social security, medicare, etc.

Easiest way to fix medicare is single payer.

Easiest way to fix ss is raising the ceiling limit on taxable income (95k or something currently, could be more), and make it like real insurance, if you have X number of dollars of wealth you don't need ss checks every month for decades.

I'd eliminate the ceiling. Unless you are impoverished, any and all income would involve SS tax.

But like I said before, tell that to Republicans and their voters and all you hear in return is CLASS WARFARE! POOR DON'T PAY TAXES! CUT NPR AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD! and other useless nonsense that gets the country nowhere.

Sounds good to me. May we add a specific intent to withdraw from war and stay out of future wars? Because then you'll be describing my dream society.

From my experience the percentage of service members that support Ron Paul is no higher than the civilian population. Just like in the civilian world the Ron Paul supporters are just louder about their candidate.

Ron Paul would be a lame duck president. The Presidency alone will not get you what you're looking for and unfortunately the candidates similar to Ron Paul who are smart enough to help are also smart enough to stay out of politics.

I'm not really for his platform. But, if you can replace the fundies, I'll cut a check.

Ron Paul: Hear him speak briefly and you like him, hear him speak more and you'll vote for him; hear everything he says and you'll pray he never wins.

GoldSpider: ib_thinkin: and to suggest that the First Amendment is under any kind of assault at all is laughable.

Free Speech Zones

Freedom of speech means an end to property rights and safety?

So, like I can stand at the foot of your bed and yell Ron Paul while you fark your wife? Or I could use my second amendment rights and my first to walk right up to our president and set up for a point blank shot? if they force me stand further back then it's the end of the first.

A better complaint about the first would be the speech value of money and getting drowned out imo.

Are there any time, manner, place restrictions you agree with, all sarcasm aside?

intelligent comment below: Lunaville:
He's probably just sick of watching the nations' baby boys (and increasingly its' girls) shipped off to be harmed or killed for war profiteers. I've never been in the military, but I imagine it would get harder and harder for officers as their troops, seemed, to get younger and younger.

So vote Republican, because it's always the Democrats that march you off to useless war!

I was just about to put you on my list of favorites. Your holier-than-thou, self-righteous a$$ can do two things: read the thread and lick my a$$.

Smackledorfer: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: too late for that. somewhere between the war on drugs and the war on terror we lost the 4th and 5th amendments. the 1st amendment is under serious attack and even the 2nd amendment might be gone soon.

Oh for fark's sake.

You can extend the bold to the first, fourth, and fifth there too. Weaver is a drama queen.

Oh, he's usually Okay. He's one of my favorites. You are as well actually.

ib_thinkin: GoldSpider: Free Speech Zones

You think this amounts to an assault on the First Amendment? That, on the rare occasion that there's a massive public event the police designate areas where protestors may protest?

Some seem to believe that the first is not the freedom to speak, but rather the ability to force people to listen.

or so it seems sometimes.

ib_thinkin: Weaver95: too late for that. somewhere between the war on drugs and the war on terror we lost the 4th and 5th amendments. the 1st amendment is under serious attack and even the 2nd amendment might be gone soon.

mostly tho, we've lost the 4th and 5th amendments and their protections forever. they're never coming back.

Nah. Anything we lost in the Fourth Amendment we lost long before the War on Drugs, but we're getting some of it back, as the Supreme Court slowly realizes that the carve-outs it gave police in order to maximize their safety have been exploited by the police to circumvent the Constitution.

The 5th Amendment really is alive and well. The Second Amendment is dug in like a tick, and to suggest that the First Amendment is under any kind of assault at all is laughable.

Really, with the frequency with which I write my representatives, if my skull hasn't been knocked in yet, trust me, the First Amendment is alive and well.

Lunaville: Smackledorfer: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Weaver95: too late for that. somewhere between the war on drugs and the war on terror we lost the 4th and 5th amendments. the 1st amendment is under serious attack and even the 2nd amendment might be gone soon.

Oh for fark's sake.

You can extend the bold to the first, fourth, and fifth there too. Weaver is a drama queen.

Oh, he's usually Okay. He's one of my favorites. You are as well actually.

I come at most of the things he complains about from the same side. Just not so far. I've kinda made it a point to pick on him since he called me an authoritarian for not getting upset over the existence of speed limits though.

I definitely still like him as a poster.

thus thread has been at the top of the politics tab for quite a considerable time. are we even sure RON PAUL hasn't passed away by now?

ib_thinkin: Smackledorfer: Are there any time, manner, place restrictions you agree with, all sarcasm aside?

This. Lawyer?

Almost went that route actually. it'd be a lot of work though and a decent chance at being a pay cut.

I'd still kind of like to get a law degree though.

vygramul: clkeagle: "No household may own anything other than a single .22 caliber pistol and six rounds of ammunition. It must be locked in an approved storage container whenever it is away from arm's reach of a licensed adult."

Guess what? If the above nonsense passed Congress and was signed into law tomorrow, our second amendment rights still wouldn't be infringed upon. We would still be able to keep and bear firearms.

That's kinda like saying that if the government made it illegal for you to say anything other than, "I like pie, and our wonderful government," your free speech rights still wouldn't be infringed upon because you could still say those things freely.

No, it really isn't like that at all.

What, if any, restrictions on armaments should exist, in your opinion?

rockets? Icbms? Germ warfare?
what does arms mean exactly?

should felons have them?
Is tracking who has them ok?
What about restrictions forcing some level of gun knowledge on people before a sale? Would that be wrong?

Ime everyone believes in some restrictions on the second. I don't know anyone who thinks the founders, who knew about rifles, pistols, and cannons, would ever mean for everyone to have limitless destructive capacities.

Technology changes things. We cannot treat our constitution as though the founders could imagine the technology we have today. That goes for both expansion of the fourth to phones, various sensory enhancement tools, etc, to reduction of the second in some ways.

snuffy:

could it may be from the msm treating him like a footnote?

the guy has been running for president for 20 years.

believe it or not, the mainstream msm lamestream media didn't give a shiat about pat paulsen, either.