the "free state" which only amassed 8% of votes for Ron Paul in the primary.

wankers; they don't want freedom they just want to smoke weed...

I love seeing all the known liberty activists getting their recent media attention. From FreeKeene to the Free State Project.

Most of the liberty activists in each area know each other, because it's such a small community. Even the ones in New Hampshire read http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/ and know a lot of what goes on in Pheonix.

More from the NH activists: http://www.videosift.com/video/City-Councilor-Won-t-Answer-Questions-at-Townhall-Meeting

More proof that those living in New Hampshire as part of the "free state project" are full of shit.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'snaggletoothed, libertarian, obama, new hampshire, ayn rand' to 'snaggletoothed, libertarian, obama, new hampshire, ayn rand, free state project' - edited by blankfist

Just to clarify things, the second amendment reads as follows:

"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."

This is probably the most loosely-worded amendment, aside from the 9th, and open to a TON of interpretation.

Such as... As we already have a standing army - the very definition of a "well regulated militia" - the entire amendment is virtually rendered obsolete. Since we already have a strong military, the citizenry need not arm themselves. But then the crazies will say "But what if we need to use our firearms against our own military?" This is an INSANE place to argue from, as it seems pretty un-American to even consider firing upon your own military. We should not even give any legitimacy to such arguments.

I'll cite this PDF released by the Washington, DC MPD, specifically the graph on page 6. It shows just how frequently firearms are used in homicides, compared to other weapons. I was searching for a Pie Chart that broke down the circumstances in firearm-related deaths in DC prior to the handgun ban. It showed that over half of all deaths from firearms were suicides, homicides made up over a quarter, and "legal" shootings (where the shooter was found to be within his rights to protect his own life or the life of another) made up less than 1% of all firearm related deaths. I'm having a hard time finding this chart again, but I know it exists, and it's still out there.

The whole situation reminds me of the British military occupation of Egypt that lasted from 1882 until 1936. (source http://tinyurl.com/3xwng5) That of course is colonialism not as blatant as the horrific Leopold II of Belgium's iron fist rule over the Congo which lasted from 1876-1908.

" the Belgian parliament compelled the King to cede the Congo Free State to Belgium. Historians of the period tend to take a very dim view of Leopold, due to the mass killings and human rights abuses that took place in the Congo: one British historian has said that he "was an Attila in modern dress, and it would have been better for the world if he had never been born". (source: http://tinyurl.com/crkget)

Was Bush 'an Attila in modern dress?" I won't say either way, but is lying to your country acceptable to potentially promote and improve it?


----------note sources are just Wikis, let me know if you want a research paper on it.

Thanks! yeah, I was seriously pissed after I watched that video. Arg... I hate it when butt heads like that get me riled up, but ah well. I'd like to kick him in HIS plumbing!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
thanks for the well thought out comment. Yeah that jackass is, eh, a tool.

In reply to this comment by MrConrads:
This guy is an absolute joke. He has no concept or clue of what living in a democracy really entails or what has actually contributed to upholding the free state he lives in and enjoys. Those were reporters that captured the flag raising on Iwo Jima, it was reporters that captured many of the images we think of when we talk about the allied landing at Normandy, it was reporters that went on bombing raids to document what the bomber crews went through, it was reporters that documented the forgotten war in Korea, it was reporters that helped stop the carnage in Vietnam, it was reporters that stopped the slaughter on the highway of death in Iraq, and its been reporters that have told the truth about what has happened in Iraq now, and the list could go on and on. This man is a disgrace to reporting and an absolute fraud. It sickens me that good, HONEST people are loosing their jobs every day while posers like this ass hole are given so many opportunities, non of which they deserve. Pay your fucking taxes you ass hole, and get off my tv.

thanks for the well thought out comment. Yeah that jackass is, eh, a tool.

In reply to this comment by MrConrads:
This guy is an absolute joke. He has no concept or clue of what living in a democracy really entails or what has actually contributed to upholding the free state he lives in and enjoys. Those were reporters that captured the flag raising on Iwo Jima, it was reporters that captured many of the images we think of when we talk about the allied landing at Normandy, it was reporters that went on bombing raids to document what the bomber crews went through, it was reporters that documented the forgotten war in Korea, it was reporters that helped stop the carnage in Vietnam, it was reporters that stopped the slaughter on the highway of death in Iraq, and its been reporters that have told the truth about what has happened in Iraq now, and the list could go on and on. This man is a disgrace to reporting and an absolute fraud. It sickens me that good, HONEST people are loosing their jobs every day while posers like this ass hole are given so many opportunities, non of which they deserve. Pay your fucking taxes you ass hole, and get off my tv.

"They could have built hotels on the beaches of Gaza"

ummm how could they do that when they have abject poverty and food/water/fuel/medicine all rationed and controlled by Israel who frequently refuses to let basic supplies enter the region.

That's saying someone can have a free state inside a prison.

How do you get investment when your prison guard wont recognize your people as a nation.

Also... how is it a war crime for hamas to shelter with their families but not a war crime for Israel to fire on the women and children?

If they didnt - if they had army barracks: they would be killed indiscriminately without mercy or taking of prisoners it would be suicide.

...and if there was no Hamas and no resistance what would happen? Israeli settlers would have nothing to fear...they would once again start claiming land and taking it with tanks.

This guy is an absolute joke. He has no concept or clue of what living in a democracy really entails or what has actually contributed to upholding the free state he lives in and enjoys. Those were reporters that captured the flag raising on Iwo Jima, it was reporters that captured many of the images we think of when we talk about the allied landing at Normandy, it was reporters that went on bombing raids to document what the bomber crews went through, it was reporters that documented the forgotten war in Korea, it was reporters that helped stop the carnage in Vietnam, it was reporters that stopped the slaughter on the highway of death in Iraq, and its been reporters that have told the truth about what has happened in Iraq now, and the list could go on and on. This man is a disgrace to reporting and an absolute fraud. It sickens me that good, HONEST people are loosing their jobs every day while posers like this ass hole are given so many opportunities, non of which they deserve. Pay your fucking taxes you ass hole, and get off my tv.

"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."

It has always seemed to me that guns and gun regulation have been a nature of state regulation and not national regulation. A sawed off shotgun might not have any uses in new york city, but out in the woods is a whole different story.

The amendments were always about restoring the power to the people, the fact that guns are in there is just one other way the founders were protecting our liberties from government oppression. Being that no real problems with the understanding of this amendment happened till all the founder fathers were dead and buried is a real shame because now we are left in the hands of technocrats and people pushing their own pet agendas.

^"The United States is responsible for the biggest acts of mass murder in the history of man."

You couldn't be further from the truth.

Congo Free State: 8,000,000
Russian Civil War: 9,000,000
Nazi Camps: 12,000,000
USSR under Stalin: 20,000,000
Mongol conquests: 29,000,000
China under Mao Zedong: 40,000,000

...just to name a few.

Some people like the idea of a constitutional scholar as President, which makes your point about the right to bear arms more prescient.

I assume you are of the opinion that the second amendment is as clear as an unmuddied lake; I'm yet to be convinced that second amendment rights are appropriately applied when arguing against more restrictive handgun ownership.

'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.'

Should this line not be tied to its 'Militia' and 'security of a free State' context? If not, why not?

And if you ask me, I'd say Article II Sect.2 defines 'Militia' almost as a civilian force conscripted into service.

'The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.'

"Hey Joe, good to see you joined up with the militia here to fight against the invasion or-what-have-you. Oh and you brought your highly concealable handgun... thats real swell."

Yes, I've read Naomi Wolf. Cheney took advantage of 911 like Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag fire, but Clinton/Obama seem different. During the previous Clinton administration not one American claimed we resembled post-WWI Germany, though 9/11 itself was blowback from Clinton and pre-Clinton policy. I never supported nuclear proliferation, nor threats designed to prevent it. Nukes are safe in India's hands, but not with Pakistan or Turkey. I never supported "pumping Iraq full of money and weapons". You are putting words into my mouth. Somebody has to stop the sectarian death squads in Iraq. Replacing US troops with UN peacekeepers is good because it would calm some of the jihadists. Total immediate withdrawal would probably lead to a 3-way civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites and an eventual 3-state schism, and Iraqi Kurd independence would lead Iran and Turkey into the fray, and I can't say for certain that the total death toll of that would be higher than UN peacekeeping over festering wounds of sectarian violence, but it probably would. I wish the Iraqi Kurds could get a free state without Turkey&Iran making a fuss about the precedent that sets. Kurdistan is the most peaceful and least fundamentalist part of Iraq. I'm sufficiently uncertain about the difference in eventual effect between gradual withdrawal & UN peacekeeping vs. total immediate withdrawal that it's not really the most important difference between the candidates. The biggest problem in Iraq is the damn fundamentalist religion. They prefer to just blow each other up over an argument that started with who should succeed the ancient impostor Muhammad. Most Iraqis oppose total freedom of religion, even the ones who are afraid of being oppressed by a majority of the opposite sect. It's madness. Some days I wish someone would translate the complete works of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Richard Dawkins into Arabic and air-drop 100 million copies.

"Restricting military hardware such as your extreme example of nukes is an entirely seperate issue from the outright banning of private gun ownership."

Why? Just because you can see the lunacy in allowing grenade launchers and the like to be legal but somehow think that guns are ok doesn't immediately make the distinction clear. Why is it ok for those things to be rightly illegal, but not guns? Neither have any useful place in a modern society.

" It's the 2nd amendment to the contitution, the document this country is founded on."
I'm sorry, but this blind adherence to a text written in the 18th Century is quite simply baffling to the rest of the world. It's no better than bible bashes picking certain texts from the bible and focusing on them with great fervor.

Yes Amendment 2 says
"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."

So, it was written in an age when they felt they needed a Militia to stay safe... and Amendment 3, right after that one is:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Which really does set the light in which the document was written, it was a time of fighting, of bloodshed and the like, and to BLINDLY try and use the second amendment to justify any and all gun ownership is plainly a cop out. I'm sorry, but rational reason is required here, not just saying 'Well, a 217 yr old document says so'.