It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What matters to you politically... No Labels Allowed.

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I believe government should protect from outside aggression, protect individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.
After that let me do what I want




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Julius Evola was a white supremacist. Edmund Burke wasn't terribly different, referring to Englishmen (whites) as the “chosen race”.

So I'm assuming you're advocating an "Aryan" Monarchy to "protect" the minorities who "wish" to be ruled because their pre-born "evil" spirits willed them to be physically manifest into a slave class?

I find this position at archaic, superstitious and disgusting.

Although, if we had a monarchy.. you'd be an ideal fit for royal Groom of the Stool, Misoir. The task would be fitting of your affections for royalty.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
The Federal Government in the United States of America should strictly abide by the constitution and only involve itself, in the 18 enumerated powers granted to it by the Constitution. Today, the Federal Government has given itself over 5000 un-constitutional powers that restrict the liberty, and invade the privacy of the citizens.

The Constitutional was written to restrain the government not the people.

The federal government was created to protect and defend the liberties of the citizens of the Republic, period.

We have moved woefully, from a republic, to a democracy, to an oligarchy, and the masses are oblivious.

Well the next stop is either Monarchy, or Dictatorship, but the masses don't seen to mind as long as they have their reality shows, and sporting events, but they WILL CARE, when the monstrous government taxes them literally to death to pay for the warfare / welfare state.

And actually, I can't wait, for the government to totally collapse, to wake the people up to the truth.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I believe government should protect from outside aggression.
After that?
Nothing much else.

Leave it to the individual states for everything else.

2 Ameros


Wow- you just perfectly described India and it's series of States.


A 2005 study done by Transparency International (TI) in India found that more than 50% of the people had firsthand experience of paying bribe or peddling influence to get a job done in a public office. Taxes and bribes are common between state borders; Transparency International estimates that truckers pay annually US$5 billion in bribes.

A 2009 survey of the leading economies of Asia, revealed Indian bureaucracy to be not just least efficient out of Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam, China, Philippines and Indonesia; further it was also found that working with India's civil servants was a "slow and painful" process.

Land and property Officials often steal state property. In cities and villages throughout India, consisting of municipal and other government officials, elected politicians, judicial officers, real estate developers and law enforcement officials, acquire, develop and sell land in illegal ways.


How does all this Corruption happen? Because there is no strong centralized (Federal) government to regulate and enforce the law.

When I see corporations and leaders calling for an end to Federal Government- I know they are drooling to dive into some black market dollars.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by macman
 


I guess we differ greatly here, I am not under the assumption that laws are written for what-ifs, I am under the assumption (Dangerous word, I know, but don't have time to do the actual research), that laws and regulations are written for the most part, after the fact. When a problem becomes known, they attempt to enact legislation to prevent it from happening again.

Somewhat like locking the barn after the horse is stolen.



If you believe in Liberty and Freedom, you will hopefully come to the idea that just because one person does something, a law should not be developed denying others freedom.
Say someone buys a legal M16, fully auto rifle.
Now, said person goes out and kills people.
The knee jerk reaction is to not only react to the person, but then to ban the purchase of the rifle.
That ban does nothing to punish the person that committed the act.
It punishes everyone else.
it does not stop people from illegally getting the rifle and does not stop murder.

That is the difference.

We don't need more, bigger, stricter and intrusive laws.
We need to just establish punishment for the action of murder.



While I do understand where you are coming from, and I have fairly moderate views on gun control, wasn't really thinking along those issues, more along the lines of Corporate regulation. Another member had stated that industry would regulate itself, and the post you responded to, was addressing the fact that they would not.

If corporations had never felt free to dump whatever into our air, water, and land, there would be no need for environmental regulations. If big Ag, had truly regulated itself, and had never sickened or killed people, there would be no need for food regulations. We could go on and on with these, but I think you can see the point I was trying to make here.

Now to tackle your issue for an example. I am ex-military, and a gun proponent who understands many of the restraints that are in place. If someone wants a shotgun, rifle, or hand gun, I really have no problem with it, as long as they are trained in there use, we do not need more accidental shootings, and unfortunately, they happen all the time. Next, we get into fully auto weapons, with a shotgun, rifle or handgun, I am somewhat limited in the number of people I can harm vs a certain amount of time.

Now throw in a weapon that is fully auto, potentially, I can harm a whole lot more people in a shorter period of time. Given that line of thought, should my drunk ass neighbor, who with a handgun might accidentally kill a person or two, now be given an rpg, so that in a drunken rage, he might be able to take out two or three families. My thoughts on gun control are that some common sense needs to be applied as to who is allowed to own what, not per se, to punish others.


All you want to do is legislate could haves and what ifs.
There is nothing in the Constitution's 2nd amendment stating that you have the right to bear arms, but only if you completed this Govt approved course, or these arms are ok, but these are not.
Just more rules to make you feel good.

You drunk ass neighbor can do damage with using his vehicle, while drunk. There are laws against that, but it does not stop people.

Guns laws just restrict the lawful person. That is it.

I have yet to meet a criminal who followed the law.

Accidents happen. There are no guarantees in life. Nothing is static and nothing remains forever.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Stratus9
 


Right because history has proven that strong central governments with overbearing regulatory power are immune to corruption. Yeah right on we need to get us as much strong central government regulation as we can get.



Folks seem to not understand how corruption eminates from regulation. If there are no regulations how do you get corruption? Who in government do you pay to get your way if the government has no power to set the rules that you are trying to avoid?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I wouldn't say there is government in other animals, but simply bullying. And how does that tailpipe treat mother nature?
As far as gathering food and defending your food constantly..........that's life my friend. That's good old life. No currency, no government, no racism. Just kill or be killed.
Take a crap in the woods; it is fertilizer.
Take a crap in a toilet; it is poison.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Some human beings (if they can be called that) scare the living hell out of me, but in your world you desire to let anyone own whatever weapon they can afford. As long as the other person is armed, it can't be murder can it? You are poor and sick, well you might as well die, because you are useless to society. You can't afford food, well then starve to death and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

I don't want to legislate much of anything, but there are those on this website that want to legislate what might or might not go on in my bedroom, but yet they claim they love freedom. They want to legislate my wifes body, but damnit, they want the right to an automatic weapon, they want laws against what I might choose to smoke, they want laws demanding that I attend a "Christian" church, but hey that is freedom and within the constitution.

ETA: Charity is not a .45 to the back of the skull, however, I truly believe there are those on this site that feel that way, I hope you all are proud of yourselves for your good Christian works.

Does anyone here besides me, see the hypocracy in the pile of crap that some want to refer to as freedom. You are free as long as you believe what I do. No thanks to that kind of freedom.


edit on 9/27/2011 by BubbaJoe because: I am pissed at the lack of intelligent discussion that is to be found, nothing but talking points. BLAH BLAH BLAH



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by macman
 


Some human beings (if they can be called that) scare the living hell out of me, but in your world you desire to let anyone own whatever weapon they can afford. As long as the other person is armed, it can't be murder can it? You are poor and sick, well you might as well die, because you are useless to society. You can't afford food, well then starve to death and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

I don't want to legislate much of anything, but there are those on this website that want to legislate what might or might not go on in my bedroom, but yet they claim they love freedom. They want to legislate my wifes body, but damnit, they want the right to an automatic weapon, they want laws against what I might choose to smoke, they want laws demanding that I attend a "Christian" church, but hey that is freedom and within the constitution.

ETA: Charity is not a .45 to the back of the skull, however, I truly believe there are those on this site that feel that way, I hope you all are proud of yourselves for your good Christian works.

Does anyone here besides me, see the hypocracy in the pile of crap that some want to refer to as freedom. You are free as long as you believe what I do. No thanks to that kind of freedom.


edit on 9/27/2011 by BubbaJoe because: I am pissed at the lack of intelligent discussion that is to be found, nothing but talking points. BLAH BLAH BLAH


Just because you are scared of someone, gives you no right to legislate their freedoms away.
Kind of elitist, don't you think?
I do my own charity work. I give on my terms. I help on my terms.
To force me to do so is not only taking away my freedoms, but is theft as a whole.

Since you feel good about restricting say firearms, then you deem it ok. Because after all, your feelings trump everything and everyone else.

Same goes for the Govt forcing me to pay for others. Since it makes you feel good, then it is ok.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by macman
 


Some human beings (if they can be called that) scare the living hell out of me, but in your world you desire to let anyone own whatever weapon they can afford. As long as the other person is armed, it can't be murder can it? You are poor and sick, well you might as well die, because you are useless to society. You can't afford food, well then starve to death and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

I don't want to legislate much of anything, but there are those on this website that want to legislate what might or might not go on in my bedroom, but yet they claim they love freedom. They want to legislate my wifes body, but damnit, they want the right to an automatic weapon, they want laws against what I might choose to smoke, they want laws demanding that I attend a "Christian" church, but hey that is freedom and within the constitution.

ETA: Charity is not a .45 to the back of the skull, however, I truly believe there are those on this site that feel that way, I hope you all are proud of yourselves for your good Christian works.

Does anyone here besides me, see the hypocracy in the pile of crap that some want to refer to as freedom. You are free as long as you believe what I do. No thanks to that kind of freedom.


edit on 9/27/2011 by BubbaJoe because: I am pissed at the lack of intelligent discussion that is to be found, nothing but talking points. BLAH BLAH BLAH


Just because you are scared of someone, gives you no right to legislate their freedoms away.
Kind of elitist, don't you think?
I do my own charity work. I give on my terms. I help on my terms.
To force me to do so is not only taking away my freedoms, but is theft as a whole.

Since you feel good about restricting say firearms, then you deem it ok. Because after all, your feelings trump everything and everyone else.

Same goes for the Govt forcing me to pay for others. Since it makes you feel good, then it is ok.


I love the fact that you pick and choose what to respond to, I want to restrict guns, others want to place retrictions on people's lifestyles and bodies, we are not even comparing apples to oranges here. I am not aware of a "Gun" lifestyle, however I am aware of several other lifestyles, that many people would like to place restrictions on in the name of religion, however they still consider that freedom. What I am reading from your response, as long as you can own any weapon that you want to, you don't care about what other freedoms might not exist for others. Attitudes like this are about 98% of what is wrong with this country. Let the poor, sick, and elderly die, discriminate against anyone that is not like me, but damnit I want my RPG.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by macman
 


Some human beings (if they can be called that) scare the living hell out of me, but in your world you desire to let anyone own whatever weapon they can afford. As long as the other person is armed, it can't be murder can it? You are poor and sick, well you might as well die, because you are useless to society. You can't afford food, well then starve to death and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

I don't want to legislate much of anything, but there are those on this website that want to legislate what might or might not go on in my bedroom, but yet they claim they love freedom. They want to legislate my wifes body, but damnit, they want the right to an automatic weapon, they want laws against what I might choose to smoke, they want laws demanding that I attend a "Christian" church, but hey that is freedom and within the constitution.

ETA: Charity is not a .45 to the back of the skull, however, I truly believe there are those on this site that feel that way, I hope you all are proud of yourselves for your good Christian works.

Does anyone here besides me, see the hypocracy in the pile of crap that some want to refer to as freedom. You are free as long as you believe what I do. No thanks to that kind of freedom.


edit on 9/27/2011 by BubbaJoe because: I am pissed at the lack of intelligent discussion that is to be found, nothing but talking points. BLAH BLAH BLAH


Just because you are scared of someone, gives you no right to legislate their freedoms away.
Kind of elitist, don't you think?
I do my own charity work. I give on my terms. I help on my terms.
To force me to do so is not only taking away my freedoms, but is theft as a whole.

Since you feel good about restricting say firearms, then you deem it ok. Because after all, your feelings trump everything and everyone else.

Same goes for the Govt forcing me to pay for others. Since it makes you feel good, then it is ok.


I love the fact that you pick and choose what to respond to, I want to restrict guns, others want to place retrictions on people's lifestyles and bodies, we are not even comparing apples to oranges here. I am not aware of a "Gun" lifestyle, however I am aware of several other lifestyles, that many people would like to place restrictions on in the name of religion, however they still consider that freedom. What I am reading from your response, as long as you can own any weapon that you want to, you don't care about what other freedoms might not exist for others. Attitudes like this are about 98% of what is wrong with this country. Let the poor, sick, and elderly die, discriminate against anyone that is not like me, but damnit I want my RPG.


While you love one part, you fail to see another.
I could care less who marries who, or what others do.
I do not discriminate against anyone except those that wish to deny my freedoms. Period!!!

To suggest that the Govt gets to decide who gets what welfare money is discrimination at its best.
Get off your soapbox long enough to ask me questions, or research my stances before you make wrong assumptions.
I was using the guns as an example, after all, it was a commonality pulled form your original post.

I am responsible for me, you are responsible for you.
Not a very hard thing to understand.

edit on 28-9-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by macman
 


Some human beings (if they can be called that) scare the living hell out of me, but in your world you desire to let anyone own whatever weapon they can afford. As long as the other person is armed, it can't be murder can it? You are poor and sick, well you might as well die, because you are useless to society. You can't afford food, well then starve to death and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

I don't want to legislate much of anything, but there are those on this website that want to legislate what might or might not go on in my bedroom, but yet they claim they love freedom. They want to legislate my wifes body, but damnit, they want the right to an automatic weapon, they want laws against what I might choose to smoke, they want laws demanding that I attend a "Christian" church, but hey that is freedom and within the constitution.

ETA: Charity is not a .45 to the back of the skull, however, I truly believe there are those on this site that feel that way, I hope you all are proud of yourselves for your good Christian works.

Does anyone here besides me, see the hypocracy in the pile of crap that some want to refer to as freedom. You are free as long as you believe what I do. No thanks to that kind of freedom.


edit on 9/27/2011 by BubbaJoe because: I am pissed at the lack of intelligent discussion that is to be found, nothing but talking points. BLAH BLAH BLAH


Just because you are scared of someone, gives you no right to legislate their freedoms away.
Kind of elitist, don't you think?
I do my own charity work. I give on my terms. I help on my terms.
To force me to do so is not only taking away my freedoms, but is theft as a whole.

Since you feel good about restricting say firearms, then you deem it ok. Because after all, your feelings trump everything and everyone else.

Same goes for the Govt forcing me to pay for others. Since it makes you feel good, then it is ok.


I love the fact that you pick and choose what to respond to, I want to restrict guns, others want to place retrictions on people's lifestyles and bodies, we are not even comparing apples to oranges here. I am not aware of a "Gun" lifestyle, however I am aware of several other lifestyles, that many people would like to place restrictions on in the name of religion, however they still consider that freedom. What I am reading from your response, as long as you can own any weapon that you want to, you don't care about what other freedoms might not exist for others. Attitudes like this are about 98% of what is wrong with this country. Let the poor, sick, and elderly die, discriminate against anyone that is not like me, but damnit I want my RPG.


While you love one part, you fail to see another.
I could care less who marries who, or what others do.
I do not discriminate against anyone except those that wish to deny my freedoms. Period!!!

To suggest that the Govt gets to decide who gets what welfare money is discrimination at its best.
Get off your soapbox long enough to ask me questions, or research my stances before you make wrong assumptions.
I was using the guns as an example, after all, it was a commonality pulled form your original post.

I am responsible for me, you are responsible for you.
Not a very hard thing to understand.

edit on 28-9-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)


I wasn't specifically trying to point a finger at you, and I do see both parts, as it appears that you do as well. That being said, while I do feel that should be some gun restrictions, that is not a litmus test of my beliefs, something we can just agree to disagree on. The major thing that I was trying to point out the hypocracy of many in wanting freedoms in one place, but taking them from someone else. I do apologize for causing this to appear to be personal between you and I, that was not my intent. I do believe in freedom for everyone, however, I am sure you and I can agree that this is not the case of many who post on this board. Freedom = Freedom for all, not just those like us.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by macman
 


Some human beings (if they can be called that) scare the living hell out of me, but in your world you desire to let anyone own whatever weapon they can afford. As long as the other person is armed, it can't be murder can it? You are poor and sick, well you might as well die, because you are useless to society. You can't afford food, well then starve to death and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

I don't want to legislate much of anything, but there are those on this website that want to legislate what might or might not go on in my bedroom, but yet they claim they love freedom. They want to legislate my wifes body, but damnit, they want the right to an automatic weapon, they want laws against what I might choose to smoke, they want laws demanding that I attend a "Christian" church, but hey that is freedom and within the constitution.

ETA: Charity is not a .45 to the back of the skull, however, I truly believe there are those on this site that feel that way, I hope you all are proud of yourselves for your good Christian works.

Does anyone here besides me, see the hypocracy in the pile of crap that some want to refer to as freedom. You are free as long as you believe what I do. No thanks to that kind of freedom.


edit on 9/27/2011 by BubbaJoe because: I am pissed at the lack of intelligent discussion that is to be found, nothing but talking points. BLAH BLAH BLAH


Just because you are scared of someone, gives you no right to legislate their freedoms away.
Kind of elitist, don't you think?
I do my own charity work. I give on my terms. I help on my terms.
To force me to do so is not only taking away my freedoms, but is theft as a whole.

Since you feel good about restricting say firearms, then you deem it ok. Because after all, your feelings trump everything and everyone else.

Same goes for the Govt forcing me to pay for others. Since it makes you feel good, then it is ok.


I love the fact that you pick and choose what to respond to, I want to restrict guns, others want to place retrictions on people's lifestyles and bodies, we are not even comparing apples to oranges here. I am not aware of a "Gun" lifestyle, however I am aware of several other lifestyles, that many people would like to place restrictions on in the name of religion, however they still consider that freedom. What I am reading from your response, as long as you can own any weapon that you want to, you don't care about what other freedoms might not exist for others. Attitudes like this are about 98% of what is wrong with this country. Let the poor, sick, and elderly die, discriminate against anyone that is not like me, but damnit I want my RPG.


While you love one part, you fail to see another.
I could care less who marries who, or what others do.
I do not discriminate against anyone except those that wish to deny my freedoms. Period!!!

To suggest that the Govt gets to decide who gets what welfare money is discrimination at its best.
Get off your soapbox long enough to ask me questions, or research my stances before you make wrong assumptions.
I was using the guns as an example, after all, it was a commonality pulled form your original post.

I am responsible for me, you are responsible for you.
Not a very hard thing to understand.

edit on 28-9-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)


I wasn't specifically trying to point a finger at you, and I do see both parts, as it appears that you do as well. That being said, while I do feel that should be some gun restrictions, that is not a litmus test of my beliefs, something we can just agree to disagree on. The major thing that I was trying to point out the hypocracy of many in wanting freedoms in one place, but taking them from someone else. I do apologize for causing this to appear to be personal between you and I, that was not my intent. I do believe in freedom for everyone, however, I am sure you and I can agree that this is not the case of many who post on this board. Freedom = Freedom for all, not just those like us.

No worries.
I am only as free as my neighbor. That is the way I roll.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


i have yet to see a law abiding citizen commit a crime.


"As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people."



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by macman
 


i have yet to see a law abiding citizen commit a crime.


"As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people."


Yes!!!!
Now if only more here would come to grips with the reality of this statement, we would be better off.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
What matters to me is the following :

1. Restoration of The laws of this land!
2. Return to sound and solid economic policy!
3. Restoration of American jobs.
4. Erasure of any tax subsidy or break for sending a job oversees.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join