Great sift. This is a series of fascinating interviews. *Money *Documentaries *Controversy *Law *Promote *History *Fear *Conspiracy (for 1:28)


The question this documentary is asking is: Are American citizens required to pay taxes on income gained by labour?

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Hi Shepppard! Thanks for completely ignoring the factual basis of my post. Here it is for you AGAIN, stated more simply for you:

1: Firearms have been smuggled into prisons. They can be smuggled into a country. If they are illegal then by definition the only private citizens that can get their hands on them are criminals.

(hurp hurp, it's the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" bit.)

2: Weapons are assembled in the middle of nowhere (jungle camps, Pakistani villages, etc) and do not require extremely specialized machinery to make. Even if they could not be manufactured openly, and even if they could not be smuggled in, criminals would still have no trouble manufacturing firearms and ammunition. To put a stop to this, you'd have to ban or regulate a lot of tools and materials that have many constructive uses.

This is why it's vital that private citizens retain the right to carry firearms. Because you can't stop them from getting them.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals? Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive.

Where did you get the idea that most break-ins are committed by people packing heat? I don't doubt it happens that some do have guns, but from all the break-in cases I've heard, the usual burlger/rapist is armed with something that's less obviously a weapon (and not as expensive as a gun), like a heavy pipe, wrench, or a knife.

If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

Well, I guess we'll all have to yield to your vast experience and/or research in the field of "home defense melee combat".

1: Failing that, saner people will realize that someone breaking into your house is going to have the advantage of surprise and will probably be stronger than you (as an expert in this field I'm surprised you didn't mention strength as a deciding factor in melee combat). Making you SOL.

It's much less of a problem if you have a gun though. You might be terrible at baseball bat fencing after being woken up midway through your sleep cycle and fighting someone on nocturnal sleep cycle, but that is less of an issue with a gun, nor do guns care how strong you are.

2. If he brings friends, then you're almost certainly SOL.

A gun solves the issue of being outnumbered nicely, since fights end sooner it's less likely you'll end up fighting two people at the same instant, and makes you more or less immune to being immobilized by one while the other attacks (because you can kill them before they get that close).

Last but not least this has nothing to do with someone "breaking into our house". The chances of someone being a victim of any kind of robbery are very low, and in any case it's not robbery that's the problem.

This has to do with your personal safety wherever you are. If there was a way to tell a burglar from a rapist or murderer, I'd be all for letting them take whatever they want and letting the police sort things out, or not. Even if I don't get my stuff back, it's not worth killing someone over. Unfortunately, the only way to tell ahead of time is let them rape or murder you.

In addition to all the other terrible flaws with your "baseball bat" idea, it's utterly useless when you're anywhere other than at home or home base. Last I checked, people also get mugged, and you'll get funny looks carrying a baseball bat around, in addition to it being completely ineffective against a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise.

Again, this has nothing to do with my personal worries. The chances that any of this happens to anyone are very low, but should it happen you're completely utterly fucked without a gun.

I contend that passing a law forbidding private citizens from carrying firearms leads to situations where one person can kill many, with the many helpless. This is unconscionable.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president?
are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

Yeah, except if you read the article you'd know the secret service wasn't worried because
A) the rallies took place well away from where the president was and they of course had that area secured (no firearms are allowed in a federal venue). As for our track record for assassinations, I can't recall one that had the assassin carrying openly while loudly demonstrating. Assassins like to keep a low profile, but I guess you wouldn't know that since you majored in "home defense melee combat" and not "underhanded techniques of murder for hire".

"There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people."

Not relevant, even if true.

The police can't protect you unless they're aware that you're in danger, and they're near enough to help. Those two facts mean there would have be many, many more police to make them an effective means of self defense. As it is, they are not an effective means for the defense of your person.

Fun fact: retired police officers and military love carrying and owning firearms. I wonder why?

Really, your post shows that you're about as in touch with reality as the right wing idiots that watch fox news.

No, more people do NOT need to do more things like this.

There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people.

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals?
Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive. If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president? are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

>> ^Lowen:
Awesome, more people need to do things like this. People are clearly conditioned by movies and the news to an irrational fear of private citizens with firearms, and if people don't exercise their rights in this way, we will lose the second amendment.
The idea that you can make people safer by banning guns is laughable when guns are assembled in rebel camps in the middle of jungles, mountain towns in Pakistan, and sometimes even smuggled into prisons.
Private citizens require firearms to defend themselves from criminals - without them, even a criminal carrying a knife, nonlethal weapon, or using nothing but his body can render someone helpless. This is far more common than deaths from school shootings, psychos who snap, etc. Again, it's the news at work, playing the story that is unusual and making you afraid of something rare.
I solute the protesters that carry firearms to these events - I hope it continues without incident. If so, it'll make the newscasters look retarded for running this series of "OMG ASSAULT RIFLES AT A PRESIDENTIAL PROTESTS! WTFBBQ!". Maybe then some of you video sifters will come around to the idea that the 2nd amendment is one that protects individual rights, just like all the others, and not a bizzaro provision needed, less we force the national guard to arm itself with nerf guns.
Also, for extra lols at you idiots saying this was alarming the secret service/president, here's what the secret service had to play:
"U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, 'Of course not.' "
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/ind
ex.html#cnnSTCText

Awesome, more people need to do things like this. People are clearly conditioned by movies and the news to an irrational fear of private citizens with firearms, and if people don't exercise their rights in this way, we will lose the second amendment.

The idea that you can make people safer by banning guns is laughable when guns are assembled in rebel camps in the middle of jungles, mountain towns in Pakistan, and sometimes even smuggled into prisons.

Private citizens require firearms to defend themselves from criminals - without them, even a criminal carrying a knife, nonlethal weapon, or using nothing but his body can render someone helpless. This is far more common than deaths from school shootings, psychos who snap, etc. Again, it's the news at work, playing the story that is unusual and making you afraid of something rare.

I solute the protesters that carry firearms to these events - I hope it continues without incident. If so, it'll make the newscasters look retarded for running this series of "OMG ASSAULT RIFLES AT A PRESIDENTIAL PROTESTS! WTFBBQ!". Maybe then some of you video sifters will come around to the idea that the 2nd amendment is one that protects individual rights, just like all the others, and not a bizzaro provision needed, less we force the national guard to arm itself with nerf guns.

Also, for extra lols at you idiots saying this was alarming the secret service/president, here's what the secret service had to play:

"U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, 'Of course not.' "

source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html#cnnSTCText

One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety

Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.

Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.

All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.

All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.

Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!

Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

theevilcomputernerd is indeed incorrect james. the constitution has no such requirement for the vp to eligible for the presidency. while it may have been previously implied (e.g. when the vp was decided by the candidate receiving the second most electoral votes), there is no current explanation to back up this idea. even if the age, time in u.s., and natural born citizen requirements do exist for the vp as well (and the constitution is not clear on this either), it says nothing of term limits.

amendment 22 which sets presidential term limits is similarly loose with language and therefore this hypothetical bill as vp could take over presidential duties upon the president's death/removal. perhaps for up to 2yrs (and perhaps more.)

and even if it were ruled unconstitutional for him to gain that office, there is a line of succession in place, in which case the vp would just be skipped. for a good example of this just go back to sec. of state madeline albright under clinton. if the presidential office had fallen to her (4th in line) it would have skipped over her to the sec. of treasury as she was not a natural born citizen.

cheers.