Right To Bear Arms Now A Real Right
Offline So....today the Supreme Court Of the US said guns are allowed to be owned by the average citizen, outside of the trappings of a well regulated militia. I am an avid gun enthusiast, and as such I have always taken the 2nd amendment to mean that a well regulated militia is not the only purpose that allows an individual to bear arms.
Being a progressive, this is one of the few, if any times, I have actually agreed with Scalia, the ultra-conservatives on the bench, and the Bush administration. Occasionally, even the enemies of freedom can be correct. I just hope this doesn't devolve into a slippery slope attempt by gun lobbyists such as the NRA to push to eliminate all gun restrictions in certain states. The NRA spokesman was on Hardball with Chris Matthews today talking about this topic, as well as other gun rights advocates talking about getting rid of background checks for certain people, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Of course, I see this as a separate issue of actually being able to be legally own a gun, I am, nevertheless, afraid this debate has only just begun with the admission of the court to be gun friendly in its current incarnation.
This opens up a whole can of worms as to what exactly arms are. Where do you draw the line for personal ownership...assault rifles, grenades, bazookas, tanks?Is the right unfettered? Does anyone who wants a gun, deserve to be able to obtain a gun, regardless of criminal history or mental health? Can cities or states impose restrictions that are more severe than federal ones?
There are an endless number of questions that need to be sorted out, and the gun lobbyists have already vowed to bring legislation to the court that will attempt to answer those questions definitively. I wonder what everyone thinks about this decision.
Good or bad court ruling?
Why, or why not?
Here is an article discussing the issue.
WASHINGTON — Silent on central questions of gun control for two centuries, the Supreme Court found its voice Thursday in a decision affirming the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressing a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities, Chicago and San Francisco among them. Federal gun restrictions, however, were expected to remain largely intact.
The court's historic awakening on the meaning of the Second Amendment brought a curiously mixed response, muted in some unexpected places.
The reaction broke less along party lines than along the divide between cities wracked with gun violence and rural areas where gun ownership is embedded in daily life. Democrats have all but abandoned their long push for stricter gun laws at the national level after deciding it's a losing issue for them. Republicans welcomed what they called a powerful precedent.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, straddling both sides of the issue, said merely that the court did not find an unfettered right to bear arms and that the ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country." But another Chicagoan, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley, called the ruling "very frightening" and predicted more violence and higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain welcomed the ruling as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
President Bush said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."
The full implications of the decision, however, are not sorted out. Still to be seen, for example, is the extent to which the right to have a gun for protection in the home may extend outside the home.
Scalia said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." The court also struck down D.C. requirements that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. The district allows shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
But he said nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights advocates praised the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Some Democrats also welcomed the ruling.
"This opinion should usher in a new era in which the constitutionality of government regulations of firearms are reviewed against the backdrop of this important right," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.
"I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down the district's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
The last Supreme Court ruling on the matter came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
No idea how effective CCTV cameras are in crime control. Extremely difficult to come up with any conclusion evidence either way. However I have absolutely no interest in the concept of 'privacy' in a public place. The whole idea is a contradition in terms. If the government want to film/record every inch of public space in the country thats fine by me. As far as I know I have exactly the same right too. It's entirely different once you get into your own home or your own correspondance etc not that there is anything too interesting in my life going on
When people drink too much and start beating the shit out of each other it realy doesnt matter how many cameras , police or guns are looking on they are simply no longer thinking in terms of rationality, being caught punishment etc. That is basically what the vast majority of violent crime is in the UK spur of the moment unplanned violence. Would be pretty surprised if that was any different in the US or any other Western country. I don't think for one minute think that gun access increases or decreases general crime but what it does do is change a black eye into someones brains blown out or a cracked rib to a corpse with a big hole on them.
I actually think if we liberalised gun laws in the UK we could probably come up with more murders than the US. We have a culture of weekend going out on the lash and starting fights. We arent talking gangs here we are talking white middle class males doing this. Fire arms would turn that into utter carnage
Is it though? Suppose your neighbor is an official who watches those TVs. He knows where you bank. He knows how often you go to the porno theater. He knows where you eat lunch every day. He knows if you frequent pubs. He knows if you smoke, and how often. He knows a LOT of things about you that you probably would no divulge to your spouse. And you think it isn't a matter of privacy. He knows if you meet a tasty little trumpet at a certain hotel every other Tuesday.
Privacy can be had in a crowd, IF you are not monitored in your daily habits. Privacy cannot be had when you are constantly watched every time you step foot in public.
And don't give me any crap about, "Oh, they would never do that". Bullshit. It is human nature to do that. Simple curiousity, especiallly concerning the familiar.
I agree, EVERYONE has the right to film in public. The point here is about ABUSE. Do you think what I delineated above would count as abuse? I certainly do.
So you agree the cameras do little to prevent crime?
Have you statistics for that? In most US bars in major cities, you are frisked before entering. While it is not illegal to carry a gun, they are within in their rights to deny entry to anyone they want - IOW people packing guns, or guys with no girls with them or ugly women. I think you have a very wrong idea about how gun crimes in the US generally go down.
Typically, the gun owner uses the gun on themselves or on a member of the family in a case of domestic violence. They could just as easily use a knife. It is generally not a matter of getting shoved in a bar and gunning the guy down - that typically only happens in cop shows.
Yeah, you really don't understand US culture. We don't kill one another in bar fights. We kill cheating spouses and gang rivals.
And before you bring up gangs, your gangs in the UK DO have guns - and that is where the bulk of your shooting deaths come from.
In both cases, it is typically over black-market drugs.
Ask me if that makes sense.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I really wish the 2nd ammendment would be repealed (at least as long as there was a liberal government). Or that the writers of the constitution would have made things more clear - instead of writing it the way they did either say every individual has a right to own a weapon or that the states have a right to have a militia (ie National Guard.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I really wish people like you would realize that gun crimes are a symptom of a problem and that guns in and of themselves are not. I think you could hardly call a government that infringes the 2nd Amendment Liberal either - it's anything but, it's facsist. Me owning a handgun or a hunting rifle or even an assault rifle is not the problem. I've gone through all proper channels to own these things, and they have never harmed a soul.
It comes down to the same logic liberals fault the Bush admistration for; because there is a threat, we are justified in taking away the rights of law abiding citizens, because, presumably this makes us safer.
I dont see how it matters if it is Habeaus Corpus and the 4th Amendmendment or the right to own a weapon and the Second.
Both desires to restrict such rights come from the same place - the desire to control and subjugate.
Frankly, if things get much worse, you anti-gun "liberals" may be glad some of us still can fight back.
And, btw, I think the framers were sufficiently clear. The people are the militia, then as they are now. I have the right to own a weapon, for personal use, for hunting, to defend my home - from all threats, foriegn AND domestic (and domestic includes our government). I don't have the right to own a tank or an A-bomb by such a decree. It is clear enough to me and the Supreme Court.
So unless you'd like to actually make an argument, I think your usefulness in this thread has expired.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Anyone who thinks that have any sort of privacy out in the public with or without cameras is living in the 19th century.
The state/private sector knows my location to within 100 metres 24-7 (my mobile phone)
It knows every journey I make over roughly 1/2 mile . I get a train or bus using an electronic ticket linked to central databases.
It knows what I eat and roughly how often (loyalty schemes at supermarkets)
It pretty much knows what I spend my money on (credit cards, does anyone seriously use cash these days)
It knows what I earn (tax office) the idea that cameras really make any difference to privacy is silly.
There are certainly laws on how it ues this information but no laws on actually obtaining them.
As for guns why can't peopl get it into their head if the government wants you dead you are dead, no guns, no constitution no nothing will prevent them. You are not in total control of your life you never have been and never will be. We have freedoms but only those due to functioning society when that fails make for the border is about the only sensible response.
Getting frisked in a bar?, if they did that in the UK on any sort of regular basis the entire British economy would collapse !
If based upon a governmental directive my death were to become a forgone conclusion then I am still left with the option ( based upon my ownership of firearms
) of forcing death upon them as well.
Yes I will die, but I will make a serious effort to ensure that some of them die with me
.....and really, what have I got to lose by fighting back? I'm dead either way ! 
Exactly....my ancestors made for the "border," that's why you and I are on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
No, they don't. Not without getting a warrant for that info, or because you are lost in the mountains. At least that's the way it WAS, before the recent FISA bill was passed. This info is also not supposed to be tracked and monitored, if it were, serious ethical and constitutional issues would be raised. Very poor analogy.
Not without a warrant, it shouldn't.
It is your CHOICE to supply that information. You give it WILLINGLY. Can't you see the difference?
But you have a CHOICE in that matter too. Your CC company or bank cannot and should not be allowed to share your information with anyone without a proper warrant either. You also have the CHOICE of simply paying cash, which I do whenever I can. Another very poor example and analogy.
IMO, the state shouldn't know that either, but knowing your annual income and where you live is a far cry from knowing if you're having an affair or like gay porno. Again, you really miss the point.
From your POV, it seems like the analogy is, well, they can easily see how tall I am, so they have every right to know how long my penis is as well. Knowing general info, such as where you live, is not the same as monitoring you going about your daily activities. Frankly, I find it disturbing that you equate these things.
And you don't find that disturbing? Why obtain information you have no intention of using, other than control?
Ask yourself, when a private business installs a camera, who does that camera benefit? The business. Why? Because the business will keep records that benefit THEM, and delete things that do not. You think your government put up cameras for YOUR benefit? How naieve. Security systems benefit those who operate them first, and those who operate them CHOOSE how they will impact those they observe.
Indeed, I am not. So what? I fail to see why be accountable in some regards means I should willing surrender my freedoms. There is a difference between being less powerful and defenseless. Again, how you don't understand that disturbs me.
And this is your problem. You think your rights come from the government. You couldn't be more wrong. Rights come from simple empathy and reciprocation. What you are saying here is that if your government resorted to facism, and it is, that when it got bad enough you'd leave. What makes you think they'd let you leave at that point?
Why, because everyone is packing a weapon? What the hell?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Indeed.
Where will you go, mrjonno?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
While I'm strongly for the 2nd Amendment, almost as much as the first. There are a few things I would change
It should not be as easy as it is now to own a gun. There should be deeper background checks, making sure the person is mentally capable of owning a gun. If this is already happening, please let me know because I obviously don't research stuff like this.
guns aren't the problem, in my opinion....it's the people who aren't mentally capable of knowing when to use a gun for self-defense or using a gun just for the hell of it.
I'm ok with people hunting, I mean if they're hunting just to say, hey...we killed something let's post this shit on youtube!!! then I'm not ok with it...but if they plan on doing something with the animal, like, say, dinner, then more power to you.
I'm iffy on people owning ak's, and m4's, etc. Mostly because I do not see the need for so much force in our society. If you need that much force where you live....move. I know it's not that simple but holy shit come on.
"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a religion, and he'll starve to death praying for fish." - Anonymous
"If God doesn't like the way I live, let him tell me, not you." -Anonymous
Wow RRS. Gun control insight !
Yin Yang - Everyone carries a gun , OR no guns .... ?
I think post 22, nigel the bold had it right, regarding Thomas Jefferson's clan "vision" , or well "logical" ....
"World" ETC, militaries uniting as supreme Royalty forces is scary .... Military man Pres Eisenhower spoke about this huge problem , finally , at the end of his reign .
How to equalize ?....
The cure ? Only the continued evolution of our species will possibly cure .....
...... what time is it anyway? ......
Basically "We the people need be the militia where no militia is needed. Yeah welcome to planet wacko Earth. Please help! .... We live here! ......
...... and YES , Jesus surly wept .... as YOU , all is ONE .... get it ?????????????
Atheism Books.
There are, and statistically speaking such laws have had little to no impact on violent crime in the US. Laws vary by state, and you can find an intro to them here:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/Gun_Laws_by_State.htm
Most states prohibit felons from owning weapons, have waiting periods for purchase and require background checks on all or certain purchases.
I own an AK, an M-1(s), an M-14, and an AR-15. I want an M4, but sale of them is currently restricted to law enforcement and military. I got my first M-1 through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I'm fully qualified and licensed to own all the rest, which are all assault rifles.
The CMP is a GREAT program, and if anything defines maintaining a MILITIA of the people in the US, this program does.
http://www.odcmp.com/
When I got my M-1, I had to spend a two days learning about the weapon and learning how to use, as well as going through extensive background checks.
I personally do not think such laws and checks do much to protect us, and I think violent crime statistics bear that out. However, while I frown on such red tape I am not vehemetly opposed to it, so long as the navigation of such tape does not effectively result in denial.
EDIT: In some states, with a Class III liscense, you can get a civilian version of the M-4. They are of course semi-auto, and usually the carbine version. They are ridiculously expensive though, around $7k to start.
EDIT AGAIN: I recently moved to Massachusettes, this is a rundown of the laws here:
State laws are ALWAYS more stringent than Federal laws, otherwise there would be no point in said law.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Signature ? How ?
My local paper recently posted an editorial blasting the supreme court for that decision (the city of Reading has a huge gun violence problem.) They said shotguns and hunting rifles are ok but called handguns "a cancer on society that needs to be eliminated."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
What the hell is a shoutgun ?
...you pull the trigger and it emits loud curse words ?
Fixed.
I just don't get that. I assume they say handguns are a cancer, becuase handguns are typically the weapon used in gun crimes. But nixing hand guns doesn't eliminate the tool. Ban handguns, and people will simply use rifles or shotguns. Handguns are more prevalent and popular simply because they are more affordable - they also deal far less damage than shotguns or rifles. Shit, a hunting rifle firing a hunting round is much more deadly than even a military weapon. NATO rounds are fully jacketed and typically smaller caliber than a hunting rifle - they are really designed to maim, because an injured soldier requires more resources than a dead one. Hunting rounds are lead tipped and mushroom or fragment on impact, because they are in fact designed to kill.
I'm betting the person who wrote that article never fired a weapon in their life. It's hard to take the opposing side seriously when they are ignorant.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
And this is your problem. You think your rights come from the government. You couldn't be more wrong. Rights come from simple empathy and reciprocation.
You are not born with 'human rights' , they are no more natural than a car. They are human inventions in the same way as the space shuttle. An useful invention too and this invention is given to you by the society you live in.
Americans of course always use the word 'government' when eveyone else thinks in the terms of society.
If I was alert and intelligent enough to notice my society turning to facism I would hopefully get out in time.
Failing that I would do and say what it took to stay alive but failing that well I'm dead.
Also there is no such thing as a fascist government there is a fascist society.
If society turns bad its far more likely be your neighbour shooting you rather than a stormtrooper
Please edit your above post, mrjonno, as it is distorting the entire page. The quote at the top seems to be the culprit.
First, you've broken the entire thread with your formatting, please fix it.
Second, I've been making an awful lot of points in my posts, and I've been noticing that you tend to pick one or two sentences to respond to. That's cool, but I expect you to provide the same degree of tolerance, hence:
So why haven't you? Lack of intellect or perception?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Well stated YN5. When the British nanny government finally evolves into an all-out totalitarian entity it will still be defended by its "subjects" and their servile mentality. Too many Brits seem to be experiencing the Stockholm Syndrome.
I only reply to certain points due to time (and getting formating to work) not out of disrepect for the person writing them. Through of course that doesnt neccessary mean I respect their views.
As I have mentioned before I don't differentiate between government and society in general. There is a nasty totalitarian streak being to form in British society but that comes from the media and unfortunately my fellow citizens. The government isnt creating this its representing it.
I'm totally against the 42 day lock up suspects without trial shit however I'm in a minority in this. Islamic fundamentalism doesnt scare me anywhere near as society's reaction to it does (society =government to me remember
.
While this streak definitely exists its not yet run society but who knows maybe a few more terrorists acts and it could
Thank you for answering my question. Clearly you are not suffering from lack of of intellect or perception, you are delusional.
You are living in a culture of fear, as is the US, and certainly your media and the average twits around you contribute (what is the equivalent of a FoxNews viewer in the UK? Daily Mirror readers?). But if you are naieve enough to think that your government is not helping to foster this culture of fear, and taking calculated advantage of it, and that you think society=government no less, well, good luck to you sir, you will need it.
For fucks sake, they've convinced you that Big Brother always watching you is in your own best interest. Once you drink that kind of Kool-Aid, you may as well enjoy the ride to 1984.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Chicken and egg situation really?. Is the climate of fear produced by the government or are they simply taking advantage of it to get elected?. Personally I think the right wing press (Daily Mail and Sun) have more ability to shape public opinion that the government itself can. I don't actually think a political party can get into power without the support of the Sun (Murdoch paper) They actually have more effect even than Fox news.
Being 'soft on terrorists or even suspected terrorists' just isnt a big vote winner. I strongly dislike my current government and its bullshit war on terror but it doesnt even come close to how much I despise a significant part of the British public.
What do libertarians say you can't look to the government for the solutions in your life but surely that must also mean you can look for it as a source of those problems as well?
Not to insult your knowledge on the subject(as I am not sure if you were aware, and making a point or unaware), but Rupert Murdoch owns Fox and the Sun, and they are both incredibly influential. One of the problems with the current culture of fear is that it is a deliberate tactic of ultracons to keep people scared, in a constant state of fear, and perennial war(ie War on Terror is a neverending conflict with an idea/tactic that can't be won).
I don't follow UK politics much, but if you have seen the documentary outfoxed, or follow your government and talking heads in the media, it is clear that certain forms of media are an actual extension of the government. Fox News anchors parrot talking points given to them by Republican operatives through internal memos put out by high ranking Fox executives(sometimes Murdoch). In some situations it seems that the chicken/egg conundrum is irrelevant, but rather the intertwining of and aligning of common goals creates a Government Media Complex(similar to the Military Industrial Complex) that creates, disseminates, and comments on "psuedonews" while intentionally manipulating public opinion and the framing of the issues simultaneously. It is not important in this instance to ascertain which came first, or which entity exerts more influence and is hence, more culpable, but rather see them as one entity with overlapping interests that often align themselves to the public's detriment.
Journalism is a dying industry. Punditry is more entertaining to most people. Infotainment and opinionators with similar worldviews have simply outcompeted objectivity and journalistic integrity. It is my opinion that most people who watch Faux News would rather be told what to believe(by a pundit sympathetic to their conservative ideals), than actually receive objectively truthful news and make an informed opinion on the merits of the evidence. This is all congruent with the unconscious authoritanian bent of conservatives in my opinion. Progressives and liberals are certainly not immune to such tactics, but the conservatives seem to be much more effective at exerting this sort of control over their demographics. Conservatives are just better at framing issues, political tactics, and creating soundbytes that condense complex issues into incredibly powerful emotional appeals that really do work..."with us or against us", "cut and run", "energy exploration" etc.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Then they always try to say the media has a liberal bias, which is nonsense. Air America is about the only one that does, but Faux News and 90% of talk radio have a conservative bias.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I only wish the Sun (murdoch vision) was an extension of the government more likely the government is an extension of Murdoch.
For people who don't know what the Sun newspaper is its basiclaly the equiviliant of the National Enquiry with a couple of differences
1) Tits, naked freely shown (yes our family newspapers have more nudity than mainstream American tv)
2) Its political views are taken very very seriously not just by the government but more importantly the general public. Who it supports gets elected
Jon
To maintain power the dynasty creates fear on confusion and false promises and runs the media. "You need us rich fucks because the world and money system is complicated and dangerous" ..... - the people live on crumbs of the mega rich.
Lots of films on this stuff. Can't remember the 'best', but here's a few,
"Power of Nightmares" , Video - 3 hrs ....
"Eat the Rich", sue the FCC, and the Pope, .... end patriotism, dogma, separation .... ONE Earth, ONE Race .... go COMMUNICATION.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmeres&hl=en&sitesearch=#
OR
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=power+of+nightmares&search_ty
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America - 215 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve - 41 min
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553
IN Video Google, ETC, - "Esoteric Agenda"
Movie 1 hr 30 min [ Ego, Religion, Sex, Money, Fear, Gov - Central Bank "owns the world" ETC etc ] ....the ending has an interesting positive ending ....
Please post your favorites .....
Atheism Books.
That's the thing, for awhile in the 90's, DC was the "murder capital" of the US. I don't think they're protecting anyone by making handguns illegal because those using them for illegal purposes aren't interested in the legality of it and will have one anyway.
Even though the ruling has been made, DC will still have the strongest restrictions in the country. I've been hearing that you can register one gun in the first three months, then it will probably need to be annually reregistered. Also, the gun must be trigger locked and unloaded unless there exists an immediate danger. It still hasn't been decided if gun stores will be allowed in DC at all.
SKEPTIC: Science & Knowledge Empowering People to Intelligently Choose
A Student Organization at The George Washington University
They clearly feed off one another, but it is still the responsibility of a citizen to say, look, you're going to damn far here - and I'll nail that home in a moment.
Yes, but what ultimately gives such entities power? Complacency and ignorance. It is not your government's or even your media's responsibility to inform you of goings on. It is not your government's or your media's responsibility that to stand up for your civil rights. It is yours.
Unfortunately, citizens typically do a shitty job of speaking up, speaking out or taking action until things are far too gone.
And that is where both the US and UK are now.
Sure, you despise the British public as drones and twits, but you yourself have little problem being on camera for the better part of your day, and what does that lead too?
It leads to the next logical step - your "protectors" monitoring all of your communications. Phone calls, internet use, text messaging, email, all of it.
That IS what your Home Office is pushing for.
The British government plans to form a database of every call, text message or email sent in the UK but are these new proposals really as controversial as they seem?
http://www.money.co.uk/article/1000928-government-plans-to-record-every-single-phone-call-and-email-you-make.htm[/url]
No, libertarians say the government won't do shit for you. You look to yourself and your community to solve problems.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Well I've pretty much assumed all modern western governments have access to pretty much all forms of communications their citizens make at will. Whether its 'legal' or not is pretty irrelevant they do it and if they break the law you will never know. You arent ever going to get any freedom of information act or similar apply to the security services.
Of course citizens have a responsibility in creating the society they live in but in the end of the day the majority trumps the minority. You can try to change the majority views to that of the minority but thats it. I know Americans are obsessed with constitutions but I can guarantee if 90% of the US population wants one day to round up the remaining 10% into a concentration camp and gas them no law or judge on Earth will stop them. If it gets to that situation its far too late.
As for finding out what is going on well you need a free press which includes being free as possible from large corperate interests. Citizens cannot just 'find out' what is happening
Correction, the minority runs the majority ...... mega $ $ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Folks ...........................................................................................>>>>>
Stretch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES I did it on purpose, I WANT IT ALL !
you have been stretched !
I will fix this if you ask !
Atheism Books.
Ok, I asked. You can fix it now.
"EAT THE RICH"
not anymore, Matt. that was the case 2 years ago, but things changed in an overtly hostile takeover. The liberal network (if you can call it that, it has one station in Phoenix; KPHX) today happens to be Nova M which was founded by Sheldon Drobney, the former head guy at AAR.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Even though I am an avowed atheist for me, this my "god" substitute....
Wut?
Someone at RRS is being cutesy. My posted graphic was an image of a handgun.
I would like an explanation as to why my original image was deleted and replaced with a swastika. Is this behavior something I should expect to deal with in the future ? Thanks.
WTF are you talking about? It still shows up as a gun for me.
How the hell should I know ? I didn't post a swastika and it didn't change itself, right ? The responsible party chooses to remain anonymous....what ever
I guess it's some mod's signal to me that I'm some sort of facist because ( egads ! ) I like firearms. That's cool. I can take a hint.
It looks the site with the gun pic doesn't like hotlinking and subs a swastika. I'll remove it if you stop sounding paranoid.
Maybe it only does it with certain browsers? Still a pistol for me.
Maybe it's cached. Try reloading.
that was weird
it was a swastika
now its a gun
EDIT wait wtf i refreshed the page and it is back to a swastka again
I think the problem is with the site linked to
This is the picture you want to show right?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I've seen this thread about 8 times and it's been a gun for me every time.
I did promptly fix my page "stretch" (post 82). Those long http addresses do that.
Can't that http paste loading problem be easily corrected, without using links, which so many don't use?
Atheism Books.
Except for aiia's post I see 3 swastikas...