a mere attempt at an AWB reduces this legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the state in any form. more people need to see the argument for why "limited government" has demonstrated such failure. discussion of secession and firearms are together a good indicator of the ethical inconsistency that arises when you try to convey this particular notion of good government. also there's the fact that nobody signed anything asking for it.
of course the problem with this position, and delivering said example, is that you also have to provide a constructive counterexample, for psychological reasons, to be convincing (to both liberal and conservative (although liberals are largely pushovers because they don't want to argue)).
unfortunately, the whole philosophic underpinning of anarchy is that if i can give you that example, then i'm telling you how it should be, and thus violating my principal anarchist ethic. there ain't no "how it should be." the whole point is to let market forces determine things for us. that translates to less work, and only the productive kind. no politics. amazing, i know.
i'd vote yes and explain all this, or at least the initial idea, but from looking at some of the commentary from other voters, it's obvious that not even the average "no" voter would understand my justification UNLESS i simply said it was about making obama fail.
everybody would get that: it's a rush limbaugh and anti-rush limbaugh talking point. "oh," they blink, "now i see."
I don't see any poll except at the "Newsvine" site. Where did you hide it?
I had a hard time "voting" at Newsvine. They always have to throw something in that makes it not really true. I certainly don't want anyone to enforce all of the other BS "laws."
Murder, rape, theft and assault are already illegal. That's all we need.
okay ... I've heard someone say it here before so I can not take credit for the sentiment: "Pass the AWB already and let's start this thing now before I am too old to fight!"
Reports of panicked gangs wielding "AK-47s" and robbing pharmacies of Tamiflu ought to do the trick. If not now, soon. They'll never back off. I won't back up. Without my rifle, I am not exactly nothing, but with it, I'm quite a bit more. A citizen, a sovereign citizen; a member of the unorganized militia, a constitutional republic's first, and last, line of defense. If they don't trust me with a gun, how can they trust me with a vote, or a car, or a pulse? Maybe they won't. Might as well get it out in the open and get it settled. If I live, I'll work for freedom AND peace. If I die, I'll catch up on my rest. I I I
Dragging it out and letting as many people who would resist die or be too old to fight is exactly one of their strategies. That's why you got to teach and involve the youngns'! They're trying to screw them up, we're trying to tighten them up. And getting as many women involved will be vital. Nothing says no, to gun control, like a red-blooded American Woman.
I voted yes (before you call me a coward, let me give my reasoning):
1) I don't have $700 for a gun with nice furniture. In the case of grandfathering, I won't have $3,000 for the same. So non-issue for me, I'm already in compliance.
2) If the guns are not grandfathered, and I'm willing to violate firearm laws, why would I break those laws for the sake of nice furniture? If I'm going to break the law, I'm getting me an automatic.
It says the page cannot be found. Guess they've taken it down?
ReplyDeleteWorked for me, and it 75% No new AWB.
ReplyDeleteI'm voting yes.
ReplyDeleteAn AWB reduces the legitimacy of FEDGOV.
This is a good thing.
a mere attempt at an AWB reduces this legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the state in any form. more people need to see the argument for why "limited government" has demonstrated such failure. discussion of secession and firearms are together a good indicator of the ethical inconsistency that arises when you try to convey this particular notion of good government. also there's the fact that nobody signed anything asking for it.
ReplyDeleteof course the problem with this position, and delivering said example, is that you also have to provide a constructive counterexample, for psychological reasons, to be convincing (to both liberal and conservative (although liberals are largely pushovers because they don't want to argue)).
unfortunately, the whole philosophic underpinning of anarchy is that if i can give you that example, then i'm telling you how it should be, and thus violating my principal anarchist ethic. there ain't no "how it should be." the whole point is to let market forces determine things for us. that translates to less work, and only the productive kind. no politics. amazing, i know.
i'd vote yes and explain all this, or at least the initial idea, but from looking at some of the commentary from other voters, it's obvious that not even the average "no" voter would understand my justification UNLESS i simply said it was about making obama fail.
everybody would get that: it's a rush limbaugh and anti-rush limbaugh talking point. "oh," they blink, "now i see."
Alright, Which 4 of you jokers voted "Yes" to David's poll?
ReplyDeleteCowards are everywhere.
ReplyDeleteThey're useless in a fight, and will stab you in the back first opportunity to lick the boots of the thugs.
No room at all for repealing existing laws, I see.
ReplyDelete76 percent say NO!
ReplyDeleteWhy not reinstate it? I'm tired of the waiting. Let them start the war. We're playing for keeps.
ReplyDeleteWill I obey it? That's another issue altogether.
All the more reason to support the FOURTH AMENDMENT.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any poll except at the "Newsvine" site. Where did you hide it?
ReplyDeleteI had a hard time "voting" at Newsvine. They always have to throw something in that makes it not really true. I certainly don't want anyone to enforce all of the other BS "laws."
Murder, rape, theft and assault are already illegal. That's all we need.
"Murder, rape, theft and assault are already illegal."
ReplyDeleteTrue, ML. And, how funny, not one of those is even a federal crime to begin with.
Treason, however, is.
III
"existing gun laws are enough"? I couldn't bring myself to say that, even by checking a box.
ReplyDeleteGimme a box that says "repeal unconstitutional laws," and I could get behind it, but...
okay ... I've heard someone say it here before so I can not take credit for the sentiment: "Pass the AWB already and let's start this thing now before I am too old to fight!"
ReplyDeleteReports of panicked gangs wielding "AK-47s" and robbing pharmacies of Tamiflu ought to do the trick.
ReplyDeleteIf not now, soon. They'll never back off.
I won't back up. Without my rifle, I am not exactly nothing, but with it, I'm quite a bit more. A citizen, a sovereign citizen; a member of the unorganized militia, a constitutional republic's first, and last, line of defense. If they don't trust me with a gun, how can they trust me with a vote, or a car, or a pulse? Maybe they won't. Might as well get it out in the open and get it settled.
If I live, I'll work for freedom AND peace. If I die, I'll catch up on my rest.
I I I
MamaL, right above David's picture in the left margin.
ReplyDeleteDragging it out and letting as many people who would resist die or be too old to fight is exactly one of their strategies. That's why you got to teach and involve the youngns'! They're trying to screw them up, we're trying to tighten them up. And getting as many women involved will be vital. Nothing says no, to gun control, like a red-blooded American Woman.
ReplyDeleteI voted yes (before you call me a coward, let me give my reasoning):
ReplyDelete1) I don't have $700 for a gun with nice furniture. In the case of grandfathering, I won't have $3,000 for the same. So non-issue for me, I'm already in compliance.
2) If the guns are not grandfathered, and I'm willing to violate firearm laws, why would I break those laws for the sake of nice furniture? If I'm going to break the law, I'm getting me an automatic.