[sprite]

The constitution was created to be a living document, not some law written in stone by a man who says he got them from a deity. If you want such laws, and such an imaginary all powerful master, keep them inside the churches and away from rational human beings who want the freedom of will to govern themselves.

Edited on Aug 07, 2008 10:54

[sprite]

A simple definition is sometimes required: Progressives look for and fight for NEW solutions. Conservatives fight to maintain the status quo. We don’t need no more stinkin’ status quo, people!

Edited on Aug 07, 2008 06:24

[sprite]

The writing is on the wall. The U.S. is well down the path to a dramatic and negative change for the average citizen. American citizens don’t care about what they are losing because they don’t have the civil education required to comprehend and they are blinded by irrational fear. They elected George Bush not once, but twice. The fact that they are even contemplating electing McCain to carry on the Bush regime is evidence of this. Why would they care or even be aware of the loss of constitutional rights? (which, as far as I know, do not preclude reasonable search and seizure of certain well defined incoming goods and information)

Edited on Aug 06, 2008 15:38

[sprite]

Religions, all of them, have proven to have tremendous potential for insane behavior. I don’t trust any of them.
Regards our new Democratic presidential candidate; He is intelligent. Your current selection, GW, has very little intelligence by comparison, in addition to which, he is a religious man which adds to the dangerous mix. Stupidity and religion make a lethal mixture.

I don’t have a thing to hide either and they are welcome to make brief reasonable searches when I use public transport or public facilities. The devil is in the details, though. Let’s see what they seize, from whom and for what real reasons.

[sprite]

What is the question?

[sprite]

Alfred,
Hitler gave bigger and better guns back to the Germans..as well as some uniforms to go with them. Remember how that turned out?

You are not the only individual who desires the ability to decide what is reasonable protection. There are many others who feel an automatic assault rifle is what they need. Once the saturation level of gun ownership is reached, (maybe we are already there?) it will become necessary for all of us to be armed to the teeth. Then your assault rifle will be no better than a stick for protection. I hope you can see how silly this escalation is.

[sprite]

It is not certain that our rights to privacy will be further eroded but it could come to pass easily. Americans have always been easily frightened and have always been xenophobic so it wouldn’t take much for any government to convince Americans they need their guns and the travel restrictions as well as a host of other wrong minded false protections.. I am watching with interest and hedging my bet by considering hurrying up my exit to Costa Rica.

This is not about whether or not you have something to hide. It is about your individual right to privacy and freedom to travel. Neither of those rights are likely to impinge on the freedoms, safety or other rights of other citizens. That is all that should be considered. And feel free to worry all you want to about terrorists. Just please don’t impose your neurotic fears on the rest of us and make us go through these silly chinese fire drills at the airports.

Edited on Aug 05, 2008 14:40

[sprite]

I agree with everything above.

Regarding ID’s, they are already required for international travel in the form of passports. And the permission for international travel to certain countries already comes in the form of a visa. These things I agree with. That they are considering the above rules for domestic travel is disturbing. And special permission to leave the country to retire is also a bad thing. I don’t understand why taht would even be a matter of concern for any government unless they are intent on jailing an entire population from running from intolerable conditions.

Edited on Aug 05, 2008 14:42

[sprite]

You have always had to apply for permission to leave the U.S. Try going to Cuba and see what happens. Better still, try coming BACK to the U.S. from Cuba after entering Cuba via a free country like Canada.
Pornography and literature promoting the over throw of the US has always been illegal to import. Seizures of personal property happens all the time. How they go about identifying citizens for seizures is what has to be examined here.

Edited on Aug 05, 2008 08:31

Edited on Aug 05, 2008 08:52

[sprite]

The question of the right to bear arms nuzzles right down to the essence of human fear and how individuals deal with it. The reason that logic and statistics about the definite connection between crime, violence and firearms don’t sway the gun fanatics is because their problem does not lie outside in the environment. It lies within them. They incorrectly associate personal strength and bravery with their guns. They fail to see where personal strength and true bravery lies. Aaronbz gives a good example of where that strength really exists. It does NOT exist in a mere device you strap to your hip or sling over your shoulder.

Gun fanatics are really the fearful ones. Their distrust and suspicion of others have them backed into a corner, clutching their guns and declaring that we will have to take them from their cold, dead hands. That is fear personified.

However imperfect government has proven to be, it is still the only tool we have which permits us to build societies. Humans are pack animals. We crave social organization and we will always behave this way regardless of how many times our governments fail us. Despite all the horrific evil my own government has committed on the international stage, I still believe in the benefits of human co-operation. Which world view is more likely to make a better world; that of the gun toting loner with a perpetual chip on his shoulder or that of a fearless, trusting individual?

Edited on Aug 03, 2008 14:43

[sprite]

Good idea…no alcohol on flights.
I am not humiliated by following regulations which prohibit drinking and driving or the silly restrictions for passengers who board commercial flights. Nor do I consider myself “craven” for deciding to co-operate with a social contract which agrees to let the police enforce laws.

If the Libertarians are so fearful of losing their sacred rights to evil governments and losing their lives to a dangerous world filled with armed criminals, they are welcome to take their guns, fears and suspicions as far into the wilderness as they like, away from civilized society. They can take their chaotic, selfish and anarchistic philosophy with them as well. I think they ought to have the right to do that if they do not wish to participate in the usual societal arrangements. They can create their own Dodge City from the 19th century, complete with Boot Hill.

But wherever civilized people congregate, there have to be and there will rules and regs. People misbehave as individuals which results in crime. They also misbehave in groups (governments) which result in wars. Removing guns from individuals is proven to lessen violent crime. Removing armies from government has proven to eliminate wars. I give you Costa Rica as an example of the latter.

Edited on Aug 03, 2008 07:35

Edited on Aug 03, 2008 07:37

[sprite]

You make my point for me, Scott. Restrictive gun laws need to be universally applied to be effective.

The UK saw an increase in immigration. Could that be the reason for the increase in crime?Is is probable that the new gun laws were a response? This begs the question “How much worse would it be without the new restrictions?”

That there are concentrated pockets of crime only proves that people are segregated by economy and fear. Are you suggesting those pockets be abandoned and relegated to their
fates?Every man for himself? That the rest of us arm ourselves and get behind the walls of gated communities?

We sink or swim together by co-operating and organizing with the only tool we have; government. An armed citizenry has given up on co-operation.

[sprite]

1. “As safe as crawling on hands and knees can make you” is an article on this site which presents the suggestion of having flights where passengers can carry their own legal weapons on board.

2. The UK has a .15 per 100,000 population of gun homicides. The US has 3.98 per 100,000. Quite a difference, I’d say. I prefer the U.K.’s odds over the U.S. any day!

3.According to the Cullen Inquiry (1996), homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Additionally, the level of gun ownership world wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates specifically to the level of death by gunfire.

4. Correlating car deaths to gun deaths is a tactic that smokers use when they want to defend their unhealthy habit. It is a false comparison primarily because cars are a necessity in many counties as public transport is nearly non existent. Guns and cigarettes are life style choices people make, not necessities.

5. Armed citizens are no replacement for any government, no matter how inefficient that government might be. My god, are we talking mob rule here?!

6. Charlton Heston was entitled to his misguided opinion. He surely doesn’t speak for me or a lot of other people.

[sprite]

Well, guns are more effective than box cutter knives. I would imagine they could have had an even easier time of it….unless a few of the passengers got into a bloody gun fight over a bag of peanuts before the terrorists could make their move.

[sprite]

Americans with money do not wear them here in the states when they OWN them. I am a sea kayaker and I tie mine down on the stern deck. I doubt a Tico would pay a day’s wages to rent a personal floatation device. Tourists who are told the water is dangerous enough to warrant renting and wearing a PFD would probably just not bother to go in the water….and they would be right not to do so. And any life guard who let swimmers go into dangerous water, with or without a PFD, is not doing his/her job.

[Author]

Posts