Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

reply to post by FeatherofMaat

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed, absolutely and positively.

Being the "dimwit" that I am, you are going to have to explain the legal strategy in how it would even be possible to repeal the Second Amendment. This Amendment is not some sort of grant by government, it is an express prohibition on the federal government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Given that express prohibition, repealing that Amendment would be illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional. What other rights would you like to "repeal", I wonder?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

While we are at it why dont we stop mom and pop from setting up there own nuclear reactor in their back yard...

Thats a freedom the evil tptb have been keeping from us.

]

Indeed! Had we responsible government officials at the time the U.S. was developing nuclear weapons, surely someone would have pointed out that such a development would mean that all people would have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, which are most assuredly "arms".

Ever notice how so many try to frame the Second Amendment in a strict and narrow view of guns? It was wrong to develop nuclear weapons. No one should have nuclear weapons. No person, no "person", and no government.

Nuclear weapons are not a right. How is this so? Nuclear weapons cannot reasonably be used by individuals as defense. If you come at me with a knife and I drop a nuclear bomb, we are both dead. Of course, the IRA might find such an idea acceptable, but in terms of rights, what causes harm, and defense, nuclear weapons are not an option.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

I'll admit... I chuckled a little bit.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

While we are at it why dont we stop mom and pop from setting up there own nuclear reactor in their back yard...

Thats a freedom the evil tptb have been keeping from us.

]

Indeed! Had we responsible government officials at the time the U.S. was developing nuclear weapons, surely someone would have pointed out that such a development would mean that all people would have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, which are most assuredly "arms".

Ever notice how so many try to frame the Second Amendment in a strict and narrow view of guns? It was wrong to develop nuclear weapons. No one should have nuclear weapons. No person, no "person", and no government.

Nuclear weapons are not a right. How is this so? Nuclear weapons cannot reasonably be used by individuals as defense. If you come at me with a knife and I drop a nuclear bomb, we are both dead. Of course, the IRA might find such an idea acceptable, but in terms of rights, what causes harm, and defense, nuclear weapons are not an option.

I love your angle on this. and find it intriguing.

So I want to get this right. During the early history of this great country, our forefathers made the Constitution with certain things in mind. Of course the right to bear arms was meant to keep us protected from tyranny of other countries and of our own corrupt government, should it ever happen. But at the time they made this great document, weaponry such as nuclear bombs were non-existent. So they had in mind guns versus guns. Stick for sticks. Rocks for rocks. Whatever they got, we should have as well.

With this in mind, they did mess up making the nuclear weapon. Mom and pops could, and maybe should, have their own, in case a tyrant uses it against us. After all, we can have all the guns in the world and tptb can just hit a button and end it.

So if your truly patriotic, you should have a few nukes in your back yard and some ammo and guns. Course food and water go without saying...

This is my rant. Also, do away with human-powered vehicles. There are plenty of deaths from those as well.

Originally posted by sting130u
So they had in mind guns versus guns. Stick for sticks. Rocks for rocks. Whatever they got, we should have as well.

With this in mind, they did mess up making the nuclear weapon. Mom and pops could, and maybe should, have their own, in case a tyrant uses it against us. After all, we can have all the guns in the world and tptb can just hit a button and end it.

So if your truly patriotic, you should have a few nukes in your back yard and some ammo and guns. Course food and water go without saying...

Once upon a time, in my less educated days, I believed this in this train of thought, that the 2nd amendment was absolute. I believed that any person with the means to do so should be allowed a Cobra gunship, or a Sherman Tank, flamethrower, what have you. After all, if a government had those, why shouldnt a citizen militia, to prevent government tyranny?

Then I found out that the people with the money (and means to buy a Cobra heli) are the ones making the government tyrannical to begin with....and that allowing corporations personal armies would be just downright stupid, unless we are intentionally trying to make a dystopian future.

reply to post by aching_knuckles

Disingenuous? You refuse to answer point blank questions about your ideology and then you call me disingenuous? LOL When you attack the messenger and not his message, eh JPZ?

This is not at all true. You did not ask me a "point blank question about my ideology". This is actually what you did ask:

JPZ, quick question for you: You say that we all have the inalieable right to drive, without needing a license from a governmental agency. Does these mean that one also has no obligation to follow posted speed or yield signs, stop signs, red lights? Does a person have the freedom to drive drunk or under the influence of drugs?

I answered you simply and stated that if it causes no harm than it is done by right and outside of defense, what causes harm is not a right. This is a very basic and simple concept and yet you followed up with this question:

I dont understand your answer....does that mean I can run a stop sign as long as I dont kill anyone? As long as no one gets harmed, I should be able to drive drunk?

These are not "point blank questions about my ideology", they are specific questions about specific issues, and I maintain the answer to your question above is perfectly clear. Your problem, and if you are truly confused, your confusion lies in your presumption that running stop signs and driving drunk does not cause harm if "no one gets harmed", but both are acts of recklessness rooted in a profound disregard for other people's rights.

You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you do not have the right to stand in a crowd of people and point your gun straight up into the air and shoot it. It is a reckless action that may not cause a death or injury, but is still a harm. Parking your car behind another car in a shopping mall, or blocking someones driveway is a harm. You have no right to obstruct the right of others to freely travel, and even if your action of blocking the other is unaware of your thoughtless crime it does not remove it from the category of a criminal action.

No one should have to explain this to you, or have to explain to you that driving drunk, or running stop signs is an act of recklessness that causes harm. This does not vindicate arbitrary acts of legislation that place some sort of standard number on what constitutes "drunk", but if I, or you, or a law enforcement officer witnesses someone veering off the road, then back on, and driving in a reckless way, and once stopped and questioned it becomes clear that person is "drunk", then harm has been established.

Rape is an ancient concept too, that doesnt mean it is a good one.

Rape is a demonstrable harm. The principle of ignorantia juris non-excusat does not cause any harm at all. Are you suggesting that the principle of ignorance of the law is no excuse is a bad "conception"?

You may fool a lot of people around here, but not me; your argument has obvious valid flaws that you refuse to acknowledge, then just type a bunch of horse hockey up here in an attempt to sound smart with backhanded insults and insinuations.

What, pray tell, is a "valid flaw"? Sounds like horse hockey.

Let's be clear here about your accusation of "backhanded" insults. This accusation is just not true. You are offended because I have informed you that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you are feigning ignorance this makes your accusation all the more reprehensible. It is absurd for you to claim I have offended you by simply informing you of the law.

What I am asking you, YOU, is if you believe there should be stop signs...yes or no?

Yes.

Why do we have to go into discussions about dead languages?

We don't and I never imposed this upon you. I merely pointed out that the legal principle of ignorance of the law is no excuse is found in dead languages to emphasize how ancient this well established and accepted legal principle is. You chose to have a discussion on dead languages.

I understand you hate a "nanny state", but do you honestly think things would be better if there were no rules, a la Mad Max?

You are using a fallacious argument of excluded middle, or false dichotomy. Mad Max dystopias are not the only alternative to nanny states.

The entire point of society is to have rules and laws that allow us to be civilized, and by extension, have a civilization. You dont want this.

On the contrary, civilization is precisely what I want. If you want to know the level of insanity of any nation, just look at the number of laws they have on the books. A cluster of insane people does not a civilization make.

Where does it end?

Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Originally posted by sting130u

So I want to get this right. During the early history of this great country, our forefathers made the Constitution with certain things in mind. Of course the right to bear arms was meant to keep us protected from tyranny of other countries and of our own corrupt government, should it ever happen. But at the time they made this great document, weaponry such as nuclear bombs were non-existent. So they had in mind guns versus guns. Stick for sticks. Rocks for rocks. Whatever they got, we should have as well.

With this in mind, they did mess up making the nuclear weapon. Mom and pops could, and maybe should, have their own, in case a tyrant uses it a gainst us. After all, we can have all the guns in the world and tptb can just hit a button and end it.

So if your truly patriotic, you should have a few nukes in your back yard

Exactly. The intent seems to have been to allow the people to bear whatever weapons the government had, in order to prevent a monopoly of force in government hands from being directed against the people. If they had it, we could counter it. The biggest thing going at the time was cannons, which did indeed exist in private hands, although not in quantity - too hard to transport for the average backwoodsman.

The inhabitants of Boonsboro built their own out of a hollowed, reinforced log during a siege, but it blew up on them. Still, it wasn't "illegal" to do so, as it is today.

Nuclear weapons are in a similar category regarding transport, but they have an even bigger consideration against the need for individual possession. Ignoring the expense of building one, and the difficulty in transportation, we don't need them to counter governmental use against us simply because the government will not use them against us. If they did so, they would not just kill us they would also poison their own well. What good would the country be to them if they had to nuke us to extract us? They would be left with a useless radioactive wasteland. That's not in their favor.

No, the argument surrounding the individual possession of nuclear weapons is a red herring. It's an over the top attempt to win an argument by employing the ridiculous, useless, and nonsensical. An argumetum ad absurdum.

There are, however, machineguns, and even tanks and fighter jets, in private hands. A gent from a town near here was killed recently in a crash, flying a fighter jet he had just purchased back home. it was, as I recall, a Russian jet.

There are grenade launchers and the like in private hands, although they have now been much more heavily regulated - still, they exist.

"Arms" are not just firearms, but carrying it to the extremes of nuclear weapons is counter-productive. That money is much better spent on more conventional weapons.

This is my rant. Also, do away with human-powered vehicles. There are plenty of deaths from those as well.

Yeah - what he said! Bicycles blocking lanes and such are also just plain annoying, over and above the death factor!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What, pray tell, is a "valid flaw"? Sounds like horse hockey.

An excellent observation. Wouldn't a "flaw" be IN-valid, by definition?

Hmm, a tactical nuke in every backyard.

Probably would greatly increase everyone's concern for their neighbors well being, and especially their mental health.

Probably would make people want a lot more strict immigration laws.

Still, we'd probably have a nuke going off at least every few years, so I have to vote Nay.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Great! It sounds like we agree, except on a few parts. As far as insulting me, your tone obviously wasnt friendly; snarkily suggesting that I am "better off with a nanny state". So please, lets not play games and act innocent.

As far as "Mad Max" and the inbetween, I agree completely! The problem is, in all of your posts, I have never seen you compromise at all. Earlier in this post, you were advocating that people drive without a license...where is the compromise in that? You seem to advocate an extreme form of individualism throughout your posts that leaves far too many legal gray areas. While I dont like to think we need so many regulations, the ignorance and plain idiocy of Darwin Award winners alone should make you realize that we need some form of restraints on things....unfortunately, on lots of things.

And you never answered my question about age of rights...if we dont need a license, is my 10 year old free to drive, if I feel that he is responsible? Or if the decision is not up to me, then to whom? do we defer the government "allowing" us to have rights at 18 (or whatever appointed age)?

While I admire your arguments (sometimes) and wish we could live in your utopian freedom world, unfortunately our country men have proven themselves continually of being unable to handle the responsibility. We need rules, anarchy doesnt work.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

What, pray tell, is a "valid flaw"? Sounds like horse hockey.

An excellent observation. Wouldn't a "flaw" be IN-valid, by definition?

Right! Because I made one lapse where I meant to write that I had a valid argument, lets all lauff and lauff about it, and it just makes everything else disappear! Oh, what great writing!

But again, JPZ wasnt being insulting, right?

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

What, pray tell, is a "valid flaw"? Sounds like horse hockey.

An excellent observation. Wouldn't a "flaw" be IN-valid, by definition?

Oui mon ami. Flaw is generally defined, in this context, as an imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness. Valid, on the other hand, is generally defined as something that is well grounded, just, or producing the desired results, efficacious, or having legal force, and binding. So, we would have to extrapolate from this that a "valid flaw" would be either a well grounded and just flaw, or a flaw that produces a desired result and efficacious (which, in fairness to our friend, may very well be what he was getting at - that my flaws, being concealed in my argument, had the effect of successfully producing the result I desired, however that is a little too convoluted) that is just, and well grounded.

It very well could be that in his zeal to post a reply he actually meant to say something else, like maybe that he has a valid point in speaking to the flaws in my argument.

It is worth discussing in this topic because of law, language, and how we use it, perceive it, and understand it. Particularly in law, but more importantly when confronted by the ever so tautological and circumlocution of legislation written by the priest class lawyer sect. Many people conflate legislation with law and then complain they cannot understand it because of all the legalese. I would argue that if you understand the law, no amount of utterances of mystical incantations by the priest class lawyer sect can confuse or confound.

We must be careful to pay attention to the language being used and its intent.

reply to post by aching_knuckles

Great! It sounds like we agree, except on a few parts. As far as insulting me, your tone obviously wasnt friendly; snarkily suggesting that I am "better off with a nanny state". So please, lets not play games and act innocent.

It is good to find agreement. It is not good that you keep insisting my simple response to you was an insult. It is precisely because so many people are ignorant of the law that we have a nanny state. At some point you have to be willing to accept responsibility for your feelings and stop holding me accountable for them.

As far as "Mad Max" and the inbetween, I agree completely! The problem is, in all of your posts, I have never seen you compromise at all. Earlier in this post, you were advocating that people drive without a license...where is the compromise in that?

That is because I am uncompromising, and it should not be inferred by any of my latter posts that I offered a compromise. I have stood by my position at all times. Further, I am not advocating that people drive without a license, I am arguing the state has no lawful authority to impose a licensing scheme on people who drive. Because such an imposition is unlawful, then anyone arguing otherwise is the one advocating regarding licenses, and what they are advocating is that people obtain a license to drive.

You seem to advocate an extreme form of individualism throughout your posts that leaves far too many legal gray areas. While I dont like to think we need so many regulations, the ignorance and plain idiocy of Darwin Award winners alone should make you realize that we need some form of restraints on things....unfortunately, on lots of things.

What "gray" areas? Are you suggesting ignorance and idiocy is a "gray" area? Is the argument rooted in a belief that because of some, everyone has to pay by surrendering their rights?

And you never answered my question about age of rights...if we dont need a license, is my 10 year old free to drive, if I feel that he is responsible? Or if the decision is not up to me, then to whom? do we defer the government "allowing" us to have rights at 18 (or whatever appointed age)?

If a ten year old is perfectly capable of demonstrating that they can handle driving a vehicle in a responsible way, would you have a problem with them driving? Of course, you as a parent have the right to deny your ten year old any driving privileges of your car, but you do not have the right to prevent your neighbor from allowing his ten year old from driving as long as that driving is not reckless. That's the answer to your hypothetical. I am not aware of many ten year old's that are capable of driving in a responsible way, but perhaps that is because some arbitrary act of legislation has declared ten year old's less deserving of rights than older people.

While I admire your arguments (sometimes) and wish we could live in your utopian freedom world, unfortunately our country men have proven themselves continually of being unable to handle the responsibility. We need rules, anarchy doesnt work.

Freedom is not Utopian. It is simply the state of being free, but again you seem to be arguing that because of a few the many must suffer. This is fallacious reasoning.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


What about laser weapons? What about anti armour explosives? What about biological weapons?

How many people do you think one person should have the ability to kill if they have a bad day? Or would you just ignore such a question and go back to sucking on the Tea parties teet?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

What about laser weapons? What about anti armour explosives? What about biological weapons?

How many people do you think one person should have the ability to kill if they have a bad day? Or would you just ignore such a question and go back to sucking on the Tea parties teet?

nenothtu all ready explained this to you, but I will reiterate. It is not about how much ability any individual has to kill another, it is about the right to defense. As nenothtu explained, the reasoning is that the People have the right to defend themselves from tyrants both foreign and domestic. If your enemy has an ability far greater than yours it is then prudent to increase your own ability if you hope to defend yourself against your enemy.

My argument that on one should have the right to keep and bear nuclear arms stands. I would argue the same about biological weapons, but not about lasers or anti-armor explosives. Personally, I am not now, nor have I ever been a weapons owner...unless we count the pen, if it is indeed mightier than the sword. I am a big believer in tactics of peaceful non-acquiescence long before any armed revolution. If my strategy of peaceful acquiescence fails, I am forever grateful that there are people such as nenothtu out their armed to the teeth with fuzzy bunnies, prepared to defend me and you and others from tyranny.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by hocuspocus
so true... what is interesting is when things don't make sense the logic algorithm people are employing is dorked up. the events make sense using a more pertinent logic algorithm. it's never about guns and violence rather it is about control. when people wake up to that then they will understand enough to begin searching out the truth.

Hey, is there actually logic in bingo, because BINGO! It is, as it has always been, all about a steady aggregation towards power. The power junkies ignore Lord Acton's maxim that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why it is the People who hold the inherent political power, to spread the power evenly in an attempt to keep it from corrupting.

A post I made in another thread actually fits quite well here in response to yours good sir:

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
Talk talk talk.

I think we'll be arguing amongst ourselves as the sun expands to engulf our planet rather than finding a way offworld. Provided we don't damage the biosphere to a point at which life of our type is no longer possible.

What is actually being done to ensure we have these things that are being argued over?

I am the Lorax...

Think globally act locally.

Sounds trite, but it has significant truth to it.

-Find an issue you can reach out and touch
-Find others with as much passion
-Organize and act, write letters to officials and local media outlets

Have a goal, if you don't know where you are going, you won't get anywhere or make anything happen.

We as a species are comprised of both saints amd sinners and none of us are purely one of those or the other but rather are a blending of the two. It is individual decisions and actions which determine what will be made manifest.

What actions are you taking?

What will be the result of the decisions you make today?

Think about what could be accomplished if we ever did get our act together and made a determination that we would slough off the rampant desire for profit and control.

Fame and profit, as has been mentioned, are the only two things that so much of our society has been taught to pursue that to do anything else is either ignored or denigrated.

Trust me, I know first hand how such actions (attempting to save something of value for reasons other than profit) are used as cause for attack.

I have been labelled Liberal because I would see a magnificent tree saved rather than a new strip center/convenience store erected in it's place. Such lables are merely another means of attempting to control the perceptions of those who have as narrow field of view. A bit and bridle to go along with the blinders of mass media. Tug in one direction or another and the populace obediently canters of in the indicated direction.

Big oil
Big pharma
Big business
Big government

Maybe the problem is "Big"

Once you have any sort of organization, you have people who will do whatever they can to gain control of that organization.

As Frank Herbert wrote, "it's not that power corrupts. It's much more subtle than that. Power attracts the corruptable." (Paraphrased, it's been a while since I read the book this quote is in but the sentiment is the same)

Ergo, absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptable.

Another bit of wisdom from fiction:

"The whole damn system is wrong!"
Lisa Simpson

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


you are a troll, plain and simple. illogical argument. why does anyone click this and why is it one of the top links on the page. ATS has fallen off because they don't delete posts from government shills, though for all i know this website is run by shills

We need automated electric taxi systems to take us around, sure it might sound complicated at first but I'm 100% sure it's doable, would rid of much of the traffic accidents, would pollute less, would take off the need of multiple vehicles in big cities and we could use parking spaces for something else too.

Originally posted by PROT3CTOR
DO all the "gun haters" see and understand yet?? Or are you insanely blind and wish to stay that way?? Make sure your "argument follows" when you present it.....and if you dont know what it means for an "argument to follow", google "word logic". YOU CANNOT STOP PEOPLE FROM KILLING OTHER PEOPLE, IF PEOPLE WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE!! Take their guns, they'll use knives or homemade explosives....take those theyll use sticks and bricks......WAKE THE FUDGE UP !!

I'm not exactly a gun hater but I can easily say that guns are the most dangerous types of weapons. I know stupid people will always want to kill other people but at least, if they don't have guns, they can't really kill many or even one. You see, a kid with a gun could kill a trained soldier. It's not guns that kill people, but people that kill people but guns are the most dangerous of all weapons available to the public.

So lets say we take out all guns and people still kill each other with knives, it's still sounds like a win situation IMO for most of the populations safety against non-organized killers.

People die, there are accidents..

We can't keep giving up our rights and freedoms due to fear.

From what i see, that's a big problem in America these days.