*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.

That is so awesome. I wonder what would happen to me if I walked through the Los Angeles public streets with an AR15 strapped to my back. LOL!

did you catch the vaccines=poison banner in the background?
jesus fucking christ
this either a joke, or hes suffering from some paranoid delusions. not folk heroism.

Amazing that it takes trying to provide goddamn health care - not the hijacked bailout, not tax breaks, not endless defense of corporate pillaging of America and the environment, not expansion of the roles of riot police and use of military-grade weaponry, not corruption in government and incredible levels of military spending, loss of privacy and not unjustified wars and torture - HEALTH CARE - that has brought this troupe out in force.

I'm against bloated, inefficient, pointless spending as well. But hell, if we're going to spend some tax dollars I'd prefer to see it spent on things like education and healthcare - not helping out the corporations that got themselves into financial messes this past year.

^Kevlar has made the best point to date. I wholeheartedly agree.

I just don't get how people applaud someone like this.

* He is always armed, he lives in a paranoid little bubble the requires him to be armed with deadly weapons to feel safe... and you think he's worth looking up to.

* He thinks that all taxation is theft. Now I know that there are others here on the sift that agree with this bizarre notion. I am FIRMLY on the side of you pay taxes for services that benefit the country you live in as a whole. Those taxes go towards all the necessary services and infrastructure you wish for in a civilized society. (How well government X spends Y dollars is another debate entirely, but to consider taxes 'theft' is just overblown insanity)

* EXACTLY as Kevlar has said... these people get all riled up over more spending on HEALTH! Gee, where were THESE people when the billions of dollars were/are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. No... they seem to think that's fine, because they f*cking loves them a large military.

* Taking friggen weaponry like this out into a public space is just all out f*cking stupid. I don't care what he's trying to say about 'freedom' etc. The fact is it's just stupid, to what f*cking end.

If someone like this becomes your poster child, then I can happily right off your 'movement' as being detached from reality. Sorry, but I was willing to listen to the claims about how bad Obama really is, but when the people making those claims are saying what a shining beacon this person is, and how taxes are theft... f*ck off, I switch off I'm afraid.

>> ^Kevlar:
Amazing that it takes trying to provide goddamn health care - not the hijacked bailout, not tax breaks, not ...

I believe a more correct word than "amazing" would be "unbelievable". As in, it really isn't a believable claim that health care is what they're upset about. It's far more believable that "health care" is just the rationalization they use to cover up the real reason they're so upset...that a black man is president. It just drives the wingnuts wild, doesn't it? And yet, even a wingnut knows you can't publicly be so racist as to object...so they use -any- excuse they can find, be it birth certificate or health care.

"he lives in a paranoid little bubble the requires him to be armed with deadly weapons to feel safe"

If owning a weapon means you're paranoid, then what do you think having a police force says about everyone?


"taxes go towards all the necessary services and infrastructure you wish for in a civilized society"

Like war, maintaining hegemony, prison industrial complex, etc.? Compulsory taxation is indentured servitude. It doesn't matter if you agree with how the stolen money is to be spent. Some probably think we should steal more from people to pay for more wars.

And, infrastructure is a good point. But it's paid for voluntarily by all of us who buy gasoline. The more you drive, the more you fill up your tank, and therefore the more you pay for infrastructure. Voluntary taxation isn't theft and it's very moral.


"Gee, where were THESE people when the billions of dollars were/are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan."

I agree. There seemed to be less outrage over going to war and the trillions in bailouts.

Where the hell is the "police brutality" when you need it?

>> ^blankfist:
"he lives in a paranoid little bubble the requires him to be armed with deadly weapons to feel safe"

If owning a weapon means you're paranoid, then what do you think having a police force says about everyone?

It's entirely different levels from having a police force who you can call on to uphold the laws of the land when need be vs. always carrying a loaded, deadly weapon with you.

"taxes go towards all the necessary services and infrastructure you wish for in a civilized society"
Like war, maintaining hegemony, prison industrial complex, etc.? Compulsory taxation is indentured servitude. It doesn't matter if you agree with how the stolen money is to be spent. Some probably think we should steal more from people to pay for more wars.

I did say that you can disagree with how it's spent, that's hardly the point. The idea is that you lobby and protest and vote in people that spend the money in a way that you think will better the country, not just remove all money going to the government.


And, infrastructure is a good point. But it's paid for voluntarily by all of us who buy gasoline. The more you drive, the more you fill up your tank, and therefore the more you pay for infrastructure. Voluntary taxation isn't theft and it's very moral.
Except that the fuel tax starts going away as you increase bio cars, especially if they are ones that are electric and are charged from your house that's powered by solar panels. Sure, they are a stupendously tiny minority at the moment, and for the time being they deserve to not have to pay for the roads for all the good they're doing, but once more and more cars stop needing petrol, you start losing that money stream and it needs to come from somewhere.

And what about public transport? You can say that the cost to run it should be entirely in the price of the tickets, but to run a GOOD public transport system is almost impossible to do at a profit or breaking even, so you need to provide more money into, which everyone should give to as it's a benefit to all. (less pollution, less congestion etc.) It's a case where the people who don't use the service ALSO benefit from those that do, so they should foot up some of the bill also.

Also, the whole idea of voluntary taxation falls over when you get to social security. As the very time you NEED it is when you're not in a position TO pay for it. Hence everyone should pay a little to ensure that if they DO need it, it's there. Just having any service be 'user pays' just doesn't work


"Gee, where were THESE people when the billions of dollars were/are being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan."
I agree. There seemed to be less outrage over going to war and the trillions in bailouts.

Agreed

spoco2,

There was a time before gasoline tax and someone came up with the bright idea to tax the gasoline to pay for infrastructure, so surely someone would do the same when bio vehicles become the norm. I think that's a moot point.


"It's entirely different levels from having a police force who you can call on to uphold the laws of the land when need be vs. always carrying a loaded, deadly weapon with you."

Obviously the only reason you'd carry a firearm is for self protection, correct? So when you say "call on [police] to uphold the laws" I imagine you mean "call on [police] to protect" as a replacement for carrying a firearm, correct? So, if I'm ever in a position where I need to protect myself and my fists are inadequate, I will need to find a phone and call the police and hope they arrive before something awful happens to me or my family.

That doesn't sound like a very good system.

Your idea of the police protecting us is illogical, because unless they're everywhere at all times, then you have no real protection. The only persons who will be where a crime goes down every single time is the aggressor and the victim. The victim requires a way to protect themselves, therefore carrying a weapon is the only real option.


"The idea is that you lobby and protest and vote in people that spend the money in a way that you think will better the country, not just remove all money going to the government."

I never said remove all money going to government. I'm a minarchist so I believe in a government albeit limited and small. I agree with paying some money to infrastructure and police, but the way in which we pay should be voluntary, hence the gas tax example I already mentioned which is only one example of many. A government can raise a lot of money through voluntary taxes, and income tax only makes up something like a third of the government's revenue, anyway. You mean to tell me we can't cut the government budget by a third? Come on.

Ahh, I can't be bothered doing my answers inline this time

I meant not so much the police protecting you from physical harm, it's not something that crosses my mind much really. It's more them finding and prosecuting people who break the law by stealing or breaking property etc. I've never felt the need to have a deadly weapon in my house... I just don't feel threatened as that guy obviously seems to feel.

You're coming from the mindset of fear, fear that the worst is bound to happen. I'm coming from the mindset of no fear, and as such live a happier, less stressful and worried life. And if it came to being broken into by an armed assailant, the chances of you getting to your gun and loading it (you don't keep it loaded do you, with any children around?) before they're on you is unlikely. So all you're really doing is housing a very deadly weapon in your house and creating more danger.

And taking issue on the fuel tax but ignoring the public transport system or social security dodges the cases where user pays does not, and can not work.

And I have no issue with a government being large. If it's a large government doing works that are generally considered to be of good worth and employs a large number of people to do so... then good. That's giving people work, they pay their taxes, consume, spend their money, keep the economy going and have created things that are of worth to the community as a whole.

Different governments get different things right and wrong, they can't always be right. But I'd rather not leave it all up to private companies who's sole aim is to make money, that's not the way forward for a country to have solid building blocks to have happy, healthy, housed and educated people.

>> ^blankfist:
spoco2,
There was a time before gasoline tax and someone came up with the bright idea to tax the gasoline to pay for infrastructure, so surely someone would do the same when bio vehicles become the norm. I think that's a moot point.

"It's entirely different levels from having a police force who you can call on to uphold the laws of the land when need be vs. always carrying a loaded, deadly weapon with you."
Obviously the only reason you'd carry a firearm is for self protection, correct? So when you say "call on [police] to uphold the laws" I imagine you mean "call on [police] to protect" as a replacement for carrying a firearm, correct? So, if I'm ever in a position where I need to protect myself and my fists are inadequate, I will need to find a phone and call the police and hope they arrive before something awful happens to me or my family.
That doesn't sound like a very good system.
Your idea of the police protecting us is illogical, because unless they're everywhere at all times, then you have no real protection. The only persons who will be where a crime goes down every single time is the aggressor and the victim. The victim requires a way to protect themselves, therefore carrying a weapon is the only real option.

"The idea is that you lobby and protest and vote in people that spend the money in a way that you think will better the country, not just remove all money going to the government."
I never said remove all money going to government. I'm a minarchist so I believe in a government albeit limited and small. I agree with paying some money to infrastructure and police, but the way in which we pay should be voluntary, hence the gas tax example I already mentioned which is only one example of many. A government can raise a lot of money through voluntary taxes, and income tax only makes up something like a third of the government's revenue, anyway. You mean to tell me we can't cut the government budget by a third? Come on.

looks like he shops at the same place as William 'D-Fens' Foster

http://www.videosift.com/video/Assault-Rifle-Interview-Outside-Obama-Event-Was-Planned

>> ^spoco2:
"You're coming from the mindset of fear, fear that the worst is bound to happen. I'm coming from the mindset of no fear"

I don't live in fear, but I am vigilant. I've been jumped in the street by strangers and I've also been threatened on the streets by strangers. Just down the street here in Santa Monica, my girlfriend and I learned of a lady whose house was just broken into. She was raped. My girlfriend was housesitting by herself just this past week in a small gated community in Tarzana, and another house in that community was broken into while the owner was at home. Bad things do happen sometimes. And sometimes they happen in your home, and sometimes in public.

But, I suppose being raped and victimized is par for the course for a "no fear" attitude like yours.

And there's really no reason anyone has to justify why they want to have a gun or carry them. It's a right. If you don't like people's rights, it doesn't matter, because it's not up for public discussion to determine. I think open carry should be a right of anyone in a free society... if they choose to do so.


"And if it came to being broken into by an armed assailant, the chances of you getting to your gun and loading it (you don't keep it loaded do you, with any children around?) before they're on you is unlikely."

That's nonsense. First off, when I was a child I was raised to clean the guns in my home. Under my father's supervision, I fired a .357 from my front porch when I was five. I had a respect for guns and knew they were dangerous, so I was always careful. The gun cabinet was always unlocked. The .357 sat next to my father's bed in a drawer. Loaded. My brother and I never played with those guns.

Having a loaded gun in the home isn't the issue, so your analogy is the typical anti-gun flawed argument that suspects people are too incompetent to live with a means to protect themselves. Even if it was unloaded, it wouldn't take much to retrieve the gun and have a better chance of not being raped or murdered or victimized.

Why would you want to remove someone's right to protect themselves? And hide behind a flimsy argument owning an unloaded gun equals being a victim. There's no proof of that. Silliness.


I won't even tackle the issue of government being large or small. You know where I stand, and I still don't agree with your take that even if good is being done with the stolen money that it makes it right. My analogy is, what if I broke into your home, robbed you, but donated the money to a charity. It would still be theft.

^The difference is, blankfist, that spoco and me both think and reason that having guns around in such enormous numbers as in the USA facilitates more violence. We've got the impression that for some reason there's this downward spiral in your country, where guns create shootings and shootings cause more gun purchases. Is this notion really that absurd? And I get that for now, when crime rates remain as high as they may be in your neighborhood, it feels safer to have the gun when you think the burglar will have one, too. But if crime in your area was suddenly reduced some 90%, wouldn't you say most people would feel less need for having a gun at their home? I think that supports my theory.

As far as solutions are concerned, I don't think a simple ban on all firearms would solve the problem - I think programs for increase in overall safety and some much-needed social policy (yes, America NEEDS more socialism) are the key.

Besides, you may have been taught not to mess with loaded guns, but how many kids disregard whatever their parents forbid and go for it when they get the chance?

^I live in a fairly safe neighborhood. I live a few blocks from where OJ murdered his wife.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, because we have the right to bear arms. No manner of democratic process can remove that right... though that doesn't stop them from augmenting it heavily. If you think it would be safer in the US without guns, it's really just an armchair evaluation, isn't it?

I wouldn't presume what works best for you in your country.

I have not seen anny evidence that says owning a gun makes you safer.

I dont have a problem with people owning sawds hunting rifals / guns, but I think if you are cought in the street or public place with one they should be confiscated and you should have to pay a huge fine. unless its in a case and is not laoded / bing transported to go hunting / to shooting range.


this whole debarcale just advertises to the rest of the world and the non stupid Americans how retarded allot of amerce is.

Amerce is so rotten brainwashed from within its ridiculous ,

^...you should have to pay a huge fine..."
Sorry. I hate to be that guy but, it's spelled "yuge" .. the "h" is silent.

>> ^blankfist:
Regardless, it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, because we have the right to bear arms. No manner of democratic process can remove that right...


Wait a sec, you're not saying there are no ways to change the Constitution, are you? I was under the impression that the Congress can draw up and pass amendments (even if they're amendments of amendments, right?), and, at the very least, the people should be able to vote on their rights.

All that aside, you're confusing me now. Nobody can deny that gun ownership is a right which can (and from time to time does) harm others - can you? One may argue the extent and potential of this, but I thought even libertarians (actually, especially libertarians) had the principle that the government can't intrude on an individual's rights UNLESS they are in violation of other people's right to live. That's a sound and a logical argument from where I'm standing right now, so feel free to poke any holes I'm not currently seeing in it.

P.S. Let's not do the "you know jack about my country routine", please. There are MANY areas for which you could provide valid and valuable criticism about the way my country is run (because my country is run almost exclusively by stupid greedy cunts), just as I can about yours. And civil discussion is always valuable - I know I've learned much from you, blankfist. And VS as a whole has provided me with valuable insight into US politics - like I've said before, I've met Americans who confessed knew way less about USA than I do. So I'm sorry for my lack of humility in this department

To modify the Constitution is extremely difficult and the Amendments must be ratified. You're talking about an incredibly difficult process that has very little to do with the democratic process. But, yes, there is a way to change the Constitution. I just wanted to stop you before we started going down the road of "the Constitution is a living document" shit that is a tired and laborious argument.

Hell, Jefferson wanted government, laws and debt to be generational and change every 19 years or so. Good thing he was in Paris at that time and Madison was his buffer to the Constitution.


"Nobody can deny that gun ownership is a right which can (and from time to time does) harm others - can you? One may argue the extent and potential of this, but I thought even libertarians (actually, especially libertarians) had the principle that the government can't intrude on an individual's rights UNLESS they are in violation of other people's right to live."

51% of the population cannot vote your right to bear arms away. The government cannot take this right away, either. But, if an individual takes his gun and shoots someone, he has used his right to encroached on another person's rights which makes him wrong. What is it that you're not getting? Sorry, that sounded harsh. Let me rephrase. What is it I'm not properly communicating.

Also, I have no idea where you live. And, yes, I wouldn't presume to know anything about your country, because I most likely do not know anything about it. Civil discourse is great. I welcome it. I apologize if I'm sounding snarky. I just feel like Sisyphus pushing a rock of Libertarianism up the mountain of Leftist Authoritarians and it gets very, very tiring.

I SAW THIS AND I FIND ITS AMAZING ..
WATCH THIS [spam redacted]

I doubt you could just "ban" guns in the US even if you wanted to, and get a good result. The guns are already out there, so it would be an extremely hard process to have them removed again.

In all of scandinavia, and most of Europe I think, guns are not allowed unless you have a permit. And even then you're not allowed to carry it on the street, not concealed, not open. This works pretty well, but I think part of that is because the culture of it is different - few people really want to have guns anyway, and that's a contrast to the US, where almost everyone wants to have a gun lying around. It would be better to change the peoples minds about that, than to just outright ban them.

*douchebag

There will always be statists OUTRAGED that the people who actually earn the money should want to keep it! Never understood that, or will.

Upset because there's corruption in endeavors the government is supposed to spend money on (like defense) the statist would rather see money "wasted" on endeavors the government has no legitimate role in providing (health care, government schools, price controls).

Which is dumber, supporting a government big enough to give you everything you want, or acting surprised when it takes away everything you have?

What's the data say? Perhaps pull up some facts and figures to support your claims, ladies.

My issue with this isn't that the guy owns a gun.

It isn't that he's carrying the gun in public.

It isn't even that he's bringing the gun to an area near where the President is.

It's that he's saying he will use the gun if the duly elected government passes a law he disagrees with.

That's not democracy. That's terrorism.

Actually I think he's saying they will protect themselves from continuing to be robbed by majority vote (mob rule/democratic process) and by the multiple laws that already steal from them.

I'm glad a stand is being made. It should've been made years ago.

Democracy is 51% of the people telling the other 49% what to do.

Democracy is the terrorist when it steals and murders and starts wars in the name of the majority.

^ blankfist, why do you hate America, and the Constitution, and democracy, and the troops?

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Guess who I just quoted there.

Would said person call our system of democratically elected representatives a democracy?

Did he own slaves?

Did he favor corporal punishment?

Was he a man with limits on his reason or knowledge, who allowed for the possibility of change to all principles? Or someone who felt that his word shall be law for all generations henceforth like a combination of monarch and messiah?

Do you want to water the tree of liberty, blankfist?

>> ^quantumushroom:
There will always be statists OUTRAGED that the people who actually earn the money should want to keep it! Never understood that, or will.

It's almost not worth having any discourse with you then.

Did not the people who earn the money benefit from government funded amenities, likes schools, roads, health care etc. ?

If they did not then they were already born into a family that could afford to do everything privately... but for how many generations can you go back on a currently rich family to find a point where they came from working stock who used public infrastructure to help them up?

See, in my mind, we need to provide as much as we can to allow the poor and uneducated to become educated, become skilled, become valuable, EARN an income and start contributing to society. By doing so we therefore start having a lot more self worth, a lot better family environment and a greater starting point for their children, and their children's children.

You great a self servicing system whereby you continually reduce the number of poor and destitute who need help from others.

YOUR mindset is that nothing should be provided to anyone, and everyone can get a great job if they just work hard enough. Really? So how do those people afford somewhere to live, an education, health care etc. while becoming skilled enough to become productive?

My mindset is that if you have enough money to be living comfortably and doing well for yourself and your family then why the F*CK not be giving some of that back to the community that gave you a chance if you needed it, and is giving a chance for less people to be reliant on support as a whole.


Upset because there's corruption in endeavors the government is supposed to spend money on (like defense) the statist would rather see money "wasted" on endeavors the government has no legitimate role in providing (health care, government schools, price controls).

What? Seriously, you don't think a government should provide health care or EDUF*CKINGCATION? Well, I write you completely off then. If you think that education should be a privately run endeavor, then you are a fully, and completely lost cause. If you can't see how running schools as profitable enterprises by private firms with private interests is a BAD IDEA, then, well, I just cannot understand that mindset.

Ditto with healthcare

And I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to in regards to price controls (unless you mean the subsidies for farmers etc.), so I'll leave that alone.


Which is dumber, supporting a government big enough to give you everything you want, or acting surprised when it takes away everything you have?


Or, perhaps believing that private enterprise has your best interest at heart and that somehow poor people can lift themselves up by their bootstraps through the goodness of private firms. Yeah, that's going to happen.

Stop with this 'I have money, I'm doing fine, I work hard, man I wish I didn't have to give some of MY MY MY hard earned money for those lazy poor people' mentality. It's selfish, lacking in any empathy at all, and just so narrow minded it sickens others.

All of this is answered in Anno 1404.
You settle peasants and invite the beggars. Turn them into nobles.
When your island is full and you've run out of fish to feed everyone, kill the beggars.

>> ^NetRunner:
Would said person call our system of democratically elected representatives a democracy?
Did he own slaves?
Did he favor corporal punishment?
Was he a man with limits on his reason or knowledge, who allowed for the possibility of change to all principles? Or someone who felt that his word shall be law for all generations henceforth like a combination of monarch and messiah?
Do you want to water the tree of liberty, blankfist?



Jefferson was a man of many complicated contradictions and the occasional duplicitous nature which I've mentioned numerous times, most recently here. He did own slaves, and petition through Congress his entire life for the emancipation of slaves, which he really did believe would be freed by the generation following his own. He was wrong, but he was very much known for his romanticized vision of people's good nature.

As for the "democratically elected representatives" he was very much for strong Republicanism with a democracy. Voting for their Congress representation was something he believed in for the people. I've never read whether or not he believed people should vote for their president or not. I know it wasn't an option for the people until 1828 when Jackson, the first Democrat, created the first populist presidential electoral process.

I don't know how he felt about corporal punishment. Weird question.

I know he proposed the idea of generational sovereignty, which I also talk about at the link above. That proves he believed people should not be held to the chains of their ancestor's government and specifically their debt. And, I don't disagree with that. It also doesn't mean I'm going to lay down and let authoritarian tyrants pass anti-liberty legislation, either. Because the one thing he believed in before all else was liberty.

I do want to water the tree of liberty. Thanks for asking. I don't want to do it violently, but I'd certainly like to see more liberty in my lifetime.

^ The liberty tree is like Audrey from the Little Shop of Horrors, at least according to Jefferson.

By "Republican" I suppose he meant the way things were when the Constitution was new; that the professional politicians should choose who got elevated to the Presidency, Supreme Court, and Senate, reserving nasty elections only for the House.

A touch of Rome in that, I suppose.

So you embrace the idea of "generational sovereignty", but seem to think that view of Jefferson's somehow amounts to a permanent immutable balanced-budget requirement that trumps everything that's actually written in the laws and Constitution, even though it goes against the spirit of having generational renewal of governing philosophy?

You then see it as liberty to disenfranchise a vast segment of the population who have worked for years to achieve their goals through legal and democratic means?

I guess it's a big non-sequitor anyway; the plan is to drive the long-term debt picture down by bringing health care costs under control. We ain't chaining you in debt, you're chaining yourself by trying to kill the reform.

Oh no no no. I do not embrace the idea of generational sovereignty, but like the idyllic message it tries to convey over it practical application. Especially how debt shouldn't be created and passed on to future generations, though you disagree with that. I also like the idea of not passing the laws of one generation onto another, or at the very least having a review process for them or something. Who knows, but I can't imagine a law against talking on a cell phone while driving will do the people much good in 2960 AD.

I don't understand your definition of liberty. Disenfranchise? Having more personal liberty doesn't disenfranchise. Having less of it does.

Wait... when did we start talking about health care reform? I thought this was about a man showing up in the town hall carrying an AR15.

>> ^blankfist:
Wait... when did we start talking about health care reform? I thought this was about a man showing up in the town hall carrying an AR15.

We're talking about health care because the man with the AR15 says he'll use the AR15 if we pass health care reform, because it's somehow imposing on his personal liberty.

Again, he's using your definition of personal liberty -- having a veto over all taxes and regulations passed by the government that he doesn't agree with. He doesn't seem put off by the idea of using violence, or at least the threat of violence to enact that veto.

Will people in 2960 be looking at this clip, and calling him a founding father, and one of the leaders of a righteous revolution? Or will they be disgusted at the idea that there were once people so confused as to literally threaten revolution rather than adopt a new, still primarily private, health care system that in all likelihood will improve his coverage, and not cost him an extra dime in taxes?