Senate vote today?

xj-grin said:
You're somewhat right, Mike -- the constitution is the current "top" law, and assuming anyone that took an oath to follow it actually did, I agree with you that we would be in large part much more prosperous, happy and free if we had the same skinny book of laws that we had 200 years ago... hell I'd be thrilled with 100 years ago. I can tear down the constitution while defending the principles it hoped to enshrine because those principles are based on natural law -- that freedom you have as a human being, equality under the law, life, liberty...

Keep in mind, I'm a lawyer who at heart is an anarchist -- not chaos anarchy, just literally "absence of government" anarchy -- my perspectives tend to be a touch extreme. I'm a big believer in spontaneous order, and that there is no way to limit government effectively, in that the power hungry that seek to govern always seek to expand that power, and to grant favors to those who keep them there. At best we end up with a swinging pendulum of intrusive government, followed by minor revolution, followed by a re-growth of government. Our pendulum in the US hasn't swung for some time now...
Click to expand...

That's a point I've been trying to make for years. Anarchy is not the "absence of order," but the "absence of externally-imposed order."

Id est - a lack of government.

It is natural for people to seek to make order from chaos - which is what ideas like the "Social Contract" are all about. True Libertarianism is just a couple short steps up from actual anarchy - and, if we're not grown-up enough as a people to handle a genuine anarchy, I'll take a Libertarian Utopia (and anyone who doesn't like is free to leave, rather than change it.)

As far as power-hungry/power-mad people in government? I forget who said it, but I firmly agree with "the best man to wield political power is the man who does not want it." (emphasis mine.) Honestly, I think I'd rather see appointments by lottery anymore, than by popular election.

Shades of Starship Troopers, perhaps? Have your "lottery pool" composed of veterans - you are ineligible to hold any sort of office until you've separated. "Those who are not willing to protect the State should not be allowed to direct the State." Show you are genuinely committed to a cause greater than your own ego.
 
5-90 said:
That's a point I've been trying to make for years. Anarchy is not the "absence of order," but the "absence of externally-imposed order."

Id est - a lack of government.

It is natural for people to seek to make order from chaos - which is what ideas like the "Social Contract" are all about. True Libertarianism is just a couple short steps up from actual anarchy - and, if we're not grown-up enough as a people to handle a genuine anarchy, I'll take a Libertarian Utopia (and anyone who doesn't like is free to leave, rather than change it.)

As far as power-hungry/power-mad people in government? I forget who said it, but I firmly agree with "the best man to wield political power is the man who does not want it." (emphasis mine.) Honestly, I think I'd rather see appointments by lottery anymore, than by popular election.

Shades of Starship Troopers, perhaps? Have your "lottery pool" composed of veterans - you are ineligible to hold any sort of office until you've separated. "Those who are not willing to protect the State should not be allowed to direct the State." Show you are genuinely committed to a cause greater than your own ego.
Click to expand...

I largely agree, although I've always found the "love it or leave it" attitude about as meaningful as "America, F Yeah" -- its just nationalist crap, not really substantive. If we actually followed the confederate formula the founder's used, we wouldn't have this problem anyways -- the state's were fully intended to retain their sovereignty, and simply delegate very limited tasks to a small federal government -- essentially a big joint-defense treaty between nations. Under this model, while the feds couldn't regulate something like the right to bear arms, states could, since they were sovereign nations. That ended with the BS application of the bill of rights upon the states by the 14th amendment.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't wish to live in a state that didn't respect the bill of rights and my right to be left alone, but obviously others don't feel the same way. I don't have the right to force my opinions and way of life on them any more than they to force theirs on me. If we had retained the varied-state-government experiment, we could still have our US, but we would have the freedom and abililty to move between states with differing cultures/opinions/laws. If you didn't like it where you lived, i.e. California, you could move somewhere freer... and if the Californians made a mess of your state, you could again pack up and move to a freer state, assuming you were unable to regain control of your legislature and set things right. Such a model allows for a "libertarian utopia" in one locale, with a "socialist utopia" right next door -- notwithstanding my opinion that the latter is economically unsustainable and would have to change rather quickly...

Now we have homogenous law from DC that we are all expected to follow, and there is no-where freer to go, at least within the US. We'll fix this issue, or the American Experiment will be over for the time being, because what we're doing doesn't work, and can't last.
 
goodburbon said:
Is there a reason why I have to lose freedoms to appease your sensibilities?

Why, when there is a place across the Atlantic that affords you exactly the political climate you desire, without punishing me.

NOOOOO you have to make this place the place of your dreams. Well guess what, my dreams of this country are of freedoms, freedoms we had prior to 1986 when I could have purchased a machine gun off the shelf. Why does your right to have the country you want outweigh my rights as already afforded to me?


I hate your kind. Self righteous know it all.
Click to expand...

I think you mean 1934 - when the NFA was passed, and caused all the headache.

19APR1986 was, as I recall, the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act - which is what fixed the supply of transferable machine guns.

Prior to GCA68, you could still walk into a hardware store, pay cash, and walk out with a legal firearm - no paperwork, no FFL, no "prohibited possessor" crap.

Every time we clamp down to make it more difficult to buy firearms legally, we seem to end up with MORE violent crimes against the person, not less. Riddle me that...
 
Pz10420 said:
It's pretty amazing how quickly I became hated for merely stating that I don't think every crazy jerkoff in this country should have easy access to firearms. I don't want any of your freedoms taken away, I just would like to see a few less 5 year olds shot to death.
Click to expand...

As would I. But, I don't hold the firearms accountable - I blame the damned fool with his booger hook on the bang switch.

I see no reason why we should prohibit people from owning firearms - and leave them alone, unless and until they use it. Then, perform an investigation to determine whether such use was justified or not.
 
xj-grin said:
I largely agree, although I've always found the "love it or leave it" attitude about as meaningful as "America, F Yeah" -- its just nationalist crap, not really substantive. If we actually followed the confederate formula the founder's used, we wouldn't have this problem anyways -- the state's were fully intended to retain their sovereignty, and simply delegate very limited tasks to a small federal government -- essentially a big joint-defense treaty between nations. Under this model, while the feds couldn't regulate something like the right to bear arms, states could, since they were sovereign nations. That ended with the BS application of the bill of rights upon the states by the 14th amendment.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't wish to live in a state that didn't respect the bill of rights and my right to be left alone, but obviously others don't feel the same way. I don't have the right to force my opinions and way of life on them any more than they to force theirs on me. If we had retained the varied-state-government experiment, we could still have our US, but we would have the freedom and abililty to move between states with differing cultures/opinions/laws. If you didn't like it where you lived, i.e. California, you could move somewhere freer... and if the Californians made a mess of your state, you could again pack up and move to a freer state, assuming you were unable to regain control of your legislature and set things right. Such a model allows for a "libertarian utopia" in one locale, with a "socialist utopia" right next door -- notwithstanding my opinion that the latter is economically unsustainable and would have to change rather quickly...

Now we have homogenous law from DC that we are all expected to follow, and there is no-where freer to go, at least within the US. We'll fix this issue, or the American Experiment will be over for the time being, because what we're doing doesn't work, and can't last.
Click to expand...

The States were meant to be sovereign under the umbra of Federal law. This doesn't mean that the Feds could overreach into the affairs of the States, but what was specifically prohibited to the Feds was considered to be generally prohibited to the States as well - the States were otherwise free to manage their own affairs, with the Federal government to oversee interstate issues.

However, the people who seem to want to "transform" us into a "socialist Utopia" or whatever are, I firmly believe, free to leave at any given time. The "Socialist Utopia" does not work, and it always seems to involve ignoring the principles upon which this country was founded. That is the sort of transformation I honestly don't think we need - if the principle you wish to ignore outright needs to be changed, and there are enough people who think so, then there are mechanisms in place by which it may be changed. Don't ignore it and hope it will go away...

There are mechanisms in place by which we can effect change - temporal or basic. Ignoring these mechanisms tells me that the changes they want to make aren't popular enough to be fully implemented - and therefore should not be made.
 
The only point that I was trying to make is that there is already gun control measures in place in this country and I feel that the current system could be improved upon. I do not know what, if any, changes would be more effective. Not once did I state that I support any of the measures that are being brought before us. I do not wish to see anyone lose any of their rights.
 
well it went 18-17 and goes back to the senate with some amendments. Maybe it wont make it back through? Morse is a pretty brave little prick. "I only have 18 months left in my term, im not really worried about the fallout." ****in douche.
 
FWIW, looks like a slap on the wrist offense IF they can even prove you were in violation. And as THEY have to prove your guilt, not YOU prove your innocence, Im not really worried about it affecting me. I mean, yes, I will be voting against douchers that voted for it, and will continue to send in emails and calls to reps. But I LOL at the thought of changing WHAT I buy. More so HOW I buy will change a bit.(potentially.)
 
5-90 said:
The States were meant to be sovereign under the umbra of Federal law. This doesn't mean that the Feds could overreach into the affairs of the States, but what was specifically prohibited to the Feds was considered to be generally prohibited to the States as well - the States were otherwise free to manage their own affairs, with the Federal government to oversee interstate issues.

However, the people who seem to want to "transform" us into a "socialist Utopia" or whatever are, I firmly believe, free to leave at any given time. The "Socialist Utopia" does not work, and it always seems to involve ignoring the principles upon which this country was founded. That is the sort of transformation I honestly don't think we need - if the principle you wish to ignore outright needs to be changed, and there are enough people who think so, then there are mechanisms in place by which it may be changed. Don't ignore it and hope it will go away...

There are mechanisms in place by which we can effect change - temporal or basic. Ignoring these mechanisms tells me that the changes they want to make aren't popular enough to be fully implemented - and therefore should not be made.
Click to expand...

I think we disagree only on the nature of the "nation" that was contemplated by the States under the constitution. I would emphasize that if you look at the declaration of independence, it is interesting that the word "united" is not capitalized, while "States of America" is -- I again think this shows the central intent that no new "nation" called the United States was intended, but rather a limited treaty between sovereign states delegating extremely limited powers to the central/federal government.

None of the States believed themselves to be bound or restricted by the Bill of Rights that restricted federal action until the tyrant Lincoln decided to do away with the voluntary "union" to create and preserve the "Union", kill 800,000 Americans in the process (committing the one act of treason identified in the Constitution, war on the states) and effectively did away with state's rights. I would have absolutely no problem with California, Oregon or NY banning guns outright -- I would pity their citizens and expect an influx of emigrants therefrom to freer states, but their laws are their business. In Colorado, I have a problem, as I do nationally. I also am confident that the social utopias will fail, and eventually we'll have a multitude of varying free-market free states in varying degrees. A better place to live all around... This is also why, despite being an anarcho-capitalist, I tend to be more politically active locally.

Mike -- 2 of the 6 bills are dead (liability to manufacturers/sellers, banning on college campuses); one of the bills passed the Senate without amendment and is headed to Hick for signature (HB1228 - tax/CBI costs); the other three passed the senate, but with amendments, so they are back in front of the house (HB1229-background checks on private transfers, HB1224 - magazine restrictions; and SB195- bans online CCW training). Contact your house reps and tell them to kill these things, FWIW!
 
xj-grin said:
I think we disagree only on the nature of the "nation" that was contemplated by the States under the constitution. I would emphasize that if you look at the declaration of independence, it is interesting that the word "united" is not capitalized, while "States of America" is -- I again think this shows the central intent that no new "nation" called the United States was intended, but rather a limited treaty between sovereign states delegating extremely limited powers to the central/federal government.

None of the States believed themselves to be bound or restricted by the Bill of Rights that restricted federal action until the tyrant Lincoln decided to do away with the voluntary "union" to create and preserve the "Union", kill 800,000 Americans in the process (committing the one act of treason identified in the Constitution, war on the states) and effectively did away with state's rights. I would have absolutely no problem with California, Oregon or NY banning guns outright -- I would pity their citizens and expect an influx of emigrants therefrom to freer states, but their laws are their business. In Colorado, I have a problem, as I do nationally. I also am confident that the social utopias will fail, and eventually we'll have a multitude of varying free-market free states in varying degrees. A better place to live all around... This is also why, despite being an anarcho-capitalist, I tend to be more politically active locally.

Mike -- 2 of the 6 bills are dead (liability to manufacturers/sellers, banning on college campuses); one of the bills passed the Senate without amendment and is headed to Hick for signature (HB1228 - tax/CBI costs); the other three passed the senate, but with amendments, so they are back in front of the house (HB1229-background checks on private transfers, HB1224 - magazine restrictions; and SB195- bans online CCW training). Contact your house reps and tell them to kill these things, FWIW!
Click to expand...

As I have been given to understand it - the states were to be allowed limited sovereignty under the Federal umbra, but the basic limitations put on the Federal government (via the Constitution) also apply, in a basic sense, to other levels of jurisdiction below Federal. Apart from that, the purpose of the Federal government is to managed interstate affairs, provide for the common defense of the Union, and to handle anything that was larger than the States (for instance, negotiation with foreign nations.)

Granted, the last 30 years or so has seen a phenomenal example of Federal overreach - but this started happening in response to the Great Depression - it's been going on longer than most people (care to) realize.

Also, the idea of states passing firearm control measures (since that's essentially what we're discussion) is itself unconstitutional - under the Privileges & Immunities clause, one state can't effectively rescind a privilege (or limit a right) that people enjoy in other states. (This is also what causes a lot of trouble with the whole "gay marriage" thing - or with the legalization of medical marijuana. Same principle.)

We shall leave aside what happened to the Union 1862-1865 - that's a whole 'nother ball of wax, I think...
 
Hick said he wasn't sweating reelection. I'll do my best to mobilize gun owners across Colorado and see that he does sweat it...right before he has to apply for another job at the Wynkoop Brewery because he's no longer governor.
 
He's not worried about re-election because his puppet masters in D.C. have probably promised him a cabinet post for being a good boy and passing THEIR gun control bills.
 
There is a group organizing for a recall petition for Morse. He doesn't give a shit, but I'd be glad to see him go.
 
Fred said:
There is a group organizing for a recall petition for Morse. He doesn't give a shit, but I'd be glad to see him go.
Click to expand...


I signed up to help with Morse recall yesterday, and I'll be helping to recall Hick too IF he signs them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
AW4 losing 4th gear mid trip
Replies
0
Views
118
ljobbins
L
B
CPS Crank Fault
Replies
9
Views
180
lawsoncl
L
C
Renix Computer Demon
2
Replies
24
Views
516
Saudade
Saudade
macgyvr
Things I learned at Winterfest 2025.
Replies
5
Views
329
SAMSET
SAMSET
J
Whine after transfer case rebuild.
Replies
0
Views
124
jshultz78
J
Back
Top