I thought full-auto's were illegal period and the only way to get around it was to by the full-auto mod spearately?

The whole thing in a single prolonged spray or in 3-4 bullet spurts?

Fully automatic weapons are not illegal in the United States.  You must pass a stringent background check, receive written approval from local chief law enforcement officer in your city / town, be licensed by BATF , pay a $ 200.00 tax, and be able to afford a very expensive weapon that was not manufactured after 1986.  There may be further requirements that I am not aware of but that is the general gist of it.

MG 34 is a select fire weapon that can fire either  single shots ( semi-auto ) or continuously ( full auto ). "Google" it, there's tons of information on the web.

Hmmm. It doesn't seem that your formula "there is a tug of war between stability and freedom of opinion" is always the case. It certainly applies well to totalitarian models, where the system cannot, by definition, tolerate dissent. It appears to break down when you consider a system that could tolerate the variety of ideas of its citizenry. The rule of thumb tends to be "if people are happy with the system, then they won't revolt against it". Suppression of dissent is not the only way to keep such a system running. In fact, such a system is inherently unstable because it increases the propensity of people to revolt against it.

Your statement would certainly apply well to a state like Nazi Germany, to take an example. The Nazis faced a problem. Ideologically, they were deeply anti-intellectual. Goering once remarked "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun" and then later "Intellect rots the character". Hitler, at the same time, was saying "Knowledge is the ruin of my young men [the youth of Germany]". The Nazi anti-intellectualism was implemented in the school curriculum, which disengaged from the purpose of the school (to educate) into one of rote indoctrination. They had to reverse most of these policies because their tertiary education rates were falling fast and they were unable to keep up in terms of R&D with other countries during WWII. The Nazis faced a problem. An educated populace would make in more likely that the people would revolt against the Nazi system. An uneducated populace would not be able to run the country.

Another classic example is Russian Tsardom. In the 50 to 100 years before the provisional governemnt was instated in Feb. 1917, many people asked not so much if revolution occured, but when. Alexander II was sometimes called the "Tsar liberator", a misnomer in my opinion since most of his reforms, especially the Emancipation of the Serfs, had very little actual impact and most were reversed by his son anyway. But Alexander II still presided in the form of a divine-right granted Tsar over the Russian empire over a country where the bulk of the people lived in extreme poverty and as such, his relaxation of the laws against right of assembly presented a problem, the "oxygen of publicity" to radicals who wanted to bring him down, and there were! For revolutionary activity in Russia goes back at least to the formation of the 1848 Manifesto by the narodniks, long before the SR, Mensheveiks or Bolsheveiks. Anyway, he was assassinated as a result.

These two examples illustrate a point. A totalitarian system will achieve stability by suppressing dissent and by extension encouraging anti-intellectualism. But a non-totalitarian system will not have this problem, presumably. There is no reason to suppose there is some innate tug-of-war between an educated populace, and a populace which is satisfied with the system in question. Also, your 1984 comparison does not seem valid in this case. If I recall correctly, Oceania was split into three classes, the "proles", the "inner party" and the "outer party". The proles posed no threat to the party because, like in Hitler's scheme, they had no capacity for independant thought. Of course, keeping a large majority of the population in uneducated, extreme poverty is most likely the reason that Oceania is (in the book), well... in extreme poverty. But I don't think FTD is advocating a police state, or stating that the opinions of the citizenry should be suppressed (like in 1984). His proposal relates purely to the manner in which people are elected to positions, meritocratically. Essentially, he wants the political world to function in the same manner that the academic world does. Working in the academic world myself, I like the structure of things and think it is the best way to determine things we want to such as the truth or lack thereof of a scientific theory, etc. I can't say whether it would work for a political system, although I think it would be interesting to try. But the key point to take a way is that such a structre would by definition necessitate a large highly educated populace (discussed below). So I think the primary problem is that your conceptualization of problems that might arise is fundamentally tied to how society works right now.

An educated populace would go well with a system that can tolerate the fact that educated people will form their own independant thoughts. In fact, it seems that what FTD is proposing would be unstable if the population were uneducated and incapable of independant thought. Correct me if I am wrong, but under FTD's scheme, the unique aspect, which does not exist today, is that the intelligentisa, instead of being a tiny elite, becomes the main class of people, in the same way that the "middle class" is the largest class in most Western industrialized nations today, correct? It would be interesting to see a large-portioned intelligentsia society. I personally would like it although I have no idea if it is plausible or not since society does not currently function in this manner.

Even with this simple theoretical justification, the presupposition behind this Divine Right, is the idea that the Monarch is wise, kind, and knowledgable.  For if the Monarch wasn't, God would have ordained someonelese.  And the reason why they maintained that King's son should be the rightful air was due to, again, their total lack of understanding of intelligence and genetics.  But, ideally, (that is ignoring obious facts about humans) a Monarchy is a wonderful idea.

1) There are different schools of Confucianism, namely, the Hsunztu and Mengtzi school.  One believed human nature was inherently evil, the other believed human nature was inherently good.  However, you do raise a good point that Confucious, as well as his two students Hsuntzi and Mengzi, ldid not live in a unified China, thus, they were not really referring to a single unity of China (in fact, its debateble if there was a China in these times). 2) I was referring to later Dynasties in which it was a monarchy complete with incest and al that Jazz.  Certainly the Han Dynasty was a success since that was 200 years of prosperity and progress (the development of the Silk Road that allows for continental trade).

What about the Han Dynasty in China? 

well, at this point it seems we're beginning to argue more about the merits of monarchy than whether or not there really ever has been a "theory" of monarchy, but since i love all things chinese we'll give it a go.

first of all, confucianism of any school is more about the cultivation of certain virtues (of which d.c. lau gives a great list, complete with explanations, in his introduction to his translation of the "analects" ) in individuals, especially those in government, which will allow them to make the world a harmonious place.  despite the embellishments that came with taoism and the later canonization of confucian philosophy (much of it under the han dynasty), there is very little mysticism to confucius himself.  confucius basically believed that the human race had degenerated (whether they were "essentially" good or bad, he himself never addressed) and that the only thing that could hold them to a proper ethic was observance of the "li" or "rites."  the rites were canonized to an extent but could also, and should also, be altered with the necessities of changing circumstances. 

the rites are only valid so far as they serve the virtues.  to the extent that they serve the virtues, they should be followed minutely.  one of the virtues is filial piety, which is primarily honoring one's parents and secondarily the ruler.  it was mencius who later retrospectively interpreted history according to these standards.  confucianism does not presuppose a monarch.  it often, however, presupposes an autocrat.  dynasties can and should be overthrown when they cease to be virtuous (confucius often cites approvingly the overthrow of the yin by the duke of chou).  if confucianism has anything to say about the government--and it has nothing systematic to say about it either in the "five classics" or the "four books"--it is in a philosophy of a benevolent dictator, certainly not a divinely appointed bloodline.  a ruler was "divinely appointed" in a sense, not by some random act of god before the beginning of time, but rather in his ability to attune himself the "the decree of heaven" ("t'ien ming" ), which is really just a euphemism for moral imperitive, but of course even the ancient chinese, like most ancient people, believed morals fell from the sky.

as for the han dynasty, it had several things in its favor.  for one thing, it was preceded by the terribly oppressive and short-lived ch'in dynasty, which operated on a central bureaucracy and took as its philosophy the legalist school.  legalism evolved from hsun tzu's school of confucianism through the philosophy of han fei.  this school recommend unbridled policies of terror; it also persecuted the confucians.  after this, the confucian han dynasty couldn't do any worse.

one bad legacy of the han dynasty, however, is that it marked the first widespread development of the landlord class that would become so decadent and parasitic later on, leading to the necessity of the three chinese revolutions: the first under sun yat-sen, the second under the coalition of chiang kai-shek's kuomintang and the chinese communist party, and the third under comrade mao.

be that as it may, the han dynasty was successful by economic standards and, to a degree, moral standards.  it took confucianism as its philosophy and was responsible for a great deal of the formation of orthodox confucianism.  on top of that, the han were able to function so efficiently mainly because of the bureaucratic framework that the ch'in had established and left behind.  the emperor himself was probably not concerned with most of the practical business of the empire.  the han coupled this centralization and professional bureaucracy with the moral integrity of confucianism and it worked.  it worked in a way that western liberal democracies could learn from.  and a lot of the reason it worked was, in my opinion, the ethics of confucianism.  as ezra pound wrote in his introduction to his translation of confucius:

"[Confucius's] analysis of why the earlier great emperors had been able to govern greatly was so sound that every durable dynasty, since his time, has risen on a Confucian design and been initiated by a group of Confucians.  China was tranquil when her rulers understood these few pages.  When the principles here defined were neglected, dynasties waned and chaos ensued.  The proponents of a world order will neglect at their peril the study of the only process that has repeatedly proved its efficiency as social coordinate."

this is of course highly idealized but he does have a point: confucianism is really sound ethical and social philosophy.  however, it does not require a monarch and it does not speak exclusively to monarchy.  comrade mao himself would have made a very different china had he spent more time grappling with confucius rather than writing him off.  the same goes for chiang kai-shek. 

Let's see here...

-I support the legalization of prostitution and all drugs. Is it any of the government's business who has sex with who, or what substances people put in their own bodies? Absolutely not.

-I am strongly opposed to what are in my opinion the three most dangerous religions out there-Christianity, Islam and Scientology. I actively oppose these dangerous delusions whenever I have the opportunity.

-I feel that the governments of most Western countries are far to soft on crime. I support the concept of "Lex Talionis" punishment as the most logical and just response to criminals.

I'm not sure how controversial this is but many people disagree with me when I say this. I think the government should keep out of marriage and personal relationships. No one should have to pay for a license to have a personal relationship with someone. The whole issue of gay marriage should be a non issue because the state should not give benefits to people based on what kind of personal relationships they have.

Interesting point.  All I can really say at this point is that two essential tenants, namely, family values, and that Confucious was always talking about King (in the D.C. Lau translation anyway) molds itself well to th idea of Monoarchy.  However, I do not see how you can say Confucious comments about what  proper King should be like and how one can become a proper King can be divorced from the idea of a single ruler but that is just splitting hairs at this point.  Nevertheless, Confucious enphasized that a proper King is benevolent, thus, even his theories when applied to a Monoarchy presupposes a wise and kind individual at the head.

Even as distinct from Monarchy as Confucianism can be, not even Confucious could forsee this flaw which occurs with every Monarchy no matter how prosperous it becomes.  This is, again, due to his lack of understanding of intelligence and genetics resulting in the false assumption that Wise and benevolent rulers will have wise and benevolent children, albiet, as long as he cultivated them properly (which makes him a little more knowledgeable than most Monarch ideas which does not even take into account the notion of cultivating the person I don't think).

Shun was  Sage-King was he not?  And Confucious valued the rites so highly becuase he believed it was the only way one can become a Sage-King. 

I'll give ya that one.  There is a story of Sage-King who saw the potential in a peasant and made the peasant his heir over his own son which Confucious valued very highly. 

I think all this has proven that yes, a monarchy can work in theory, but just like all theoretical systems it is incompatible with human nature and won't last forever

Which is all I was pointing out but i rarely get the chance to discuss Chinese philosophy with people.

And now we come to the real issue many have with Confucious, namely, his nack to say incredibly vague things.  I mean, what exactly did he mean when he said "I have no hopes of meeting a sage"?  he never clarified and niether Mengzi nor Hsun-ztu comleted that thought either aside form maintaining that, depsite Confucious own belief,s that he was a Sage.  One way to take it is the way you are.  another way is that he simply meant in his lifetime which does not mean he believed there would be no more Sages.  Keepin mind that he lived in the Warring States.  Perhpas if he lived in the Han Dynasty, his attitued toward Sages might have been different.  Also, you have to draw into question his knowledge of China.  he certainly could have traveled to all the provinces that made up what we now call China and seemd limited to 2 or three.  This means that, in the provinces he knew of, there were no Sages.

You corrected me yet again. 

Well, I kinda learned things backwards becuase I read selections from Mengzi and Hsu-ztu before reading the Analects so their teachings stuck with me more than the ones in the Analects.  However, I was just pointing out that his epistomological (or ontological?) explanation of goodness implies that, even if one can discover it on their own, one must also practice whatever rituals are necessary in order to remain good for it makes no sense that considering how much he did value ritual, and music, that their are individuals who are too good to do either one.  Espcially when you take into account his story of Ox Mountain in which people mistake is as barren and lifeless because no one properly cultivated it.  This suggests that if one does not keep up with the rituals and music, they can become evil regardless of good they have become.  Interestingly on Hsun-ztu's story of Goodness, your proposal that the Sage's were perfect and did not need to practice the rituals fits in perfectly since many of his arguments rely on a teacher knowing what is best for the student.

I'm not saying that it was difficult for them, I was just saying that they too must have also practiced it as well if we are to accept Mengzi's story on goodness.

Very true.  However, Hsun-ztu was one of the first ancient CHinese philoophers to write detailed essays on his views rather than relying on students to capture his ideas.  That oughta count for something.

I suppose I should have worded it differently for I did nto mean he was intentionally being vague.  I am simply saying, as you pointed out, many of the culturaly allusions are mysterious even to modern day Chinese which means, even if he is speaking plainly and with practicality (which I would agree he was) his plain speak is severly dated resulting in many of his statements, like the one you brough up about sages, are now vague and mysterious since it is the furthest thing from a conclusive claim and more of an observational one in that specific moment.

I would agree that it was rare but not impossible.  Didn't confucious believe that his youngest and most gifted student who was a peasant (and sadly died at a young age) was on his way to becoming a Sage?

Again, that is not really as clear you believe it to be.  He both seems reluctant to describe that as sagely and his reluctance is ambiguous (due to use not being able to decipher such things ans connotation or syntax in an ancient a dead version of a mdoern language).  He could mean that he feels that such attributes are impossible, thus not necessary for a Sage as he concieves it since he suggests Yao and Shun are incapable of fitting such a description and they are two of the anceitn Sage-Kings.

I think they are both wrong on that account too.  I say human beings a essentially nuetral.

He never talks about Shang ti no.  But the first Sage King actually had divine permission to be an emperor from Shang ti and surely Confucious would have accepted this as a fact since reference Huang Di who is credited with inventing the Calendar all on his own, among other things.  Again, it is ambiguous if he would deny any divine, spiritual, or ghostly, influence on the ancient Sage-Kings in regards to the rites and much of what we can decipher about Confucian thought on the origin of the rites is done through his two most successful students who tried to fill in the many gaps left by Confucious.