25+ U.S. States Declaring Sovereignty

[Rogue Nine]

That as it may be...could it hurt to have the checks and balances... a bit less on the precarious side of things? I don't think it would.

Or maybe I'm just crazy for having reasonable skepticism?

Yar-El's point was that the government was apparently taking the people's money without their vote. Unfortunately, his assertion isn't true, because the people are the ones who elect their representatives to the government. This is the way it's been ever since the inception of our country. The people voted them into office and trusted them to speak up for them. The people did vote on the resolution; they just did it through their elected representatives.

 

Simple classical semantics turns of phrase. Had no idea you were a comedian.

Yar-El needs to learn to use the appropriate words if he doesn't want to have his statements misinterpreted.

 

In a possible word, specificity. It paints people of a group all one stripe without recognizing that there can be variations amongst that group of people. I.E. White, black, native american, mexican, asian, mutt, etc...

What are you talking about? I don't see how this relates to Yar-El's (flawed and erroneous) point that political correctness = limiting freedom of speech.

 

I'll wait some days before I check back in here to post what I believe it all means.

No, you won't because this is neither the topic nor the forum to do it in.

[Darth Avlectus]

What are you talking about? I don't see how this relates to Yar-El's (flawed and erroneous) point that political correctness = limiting freedom of speech.

 

Well maybe it doesn't connect. Not sure how applicable this is to today...I guess this is recollection of history, then. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with free speech on some level or another, though. How it could be limited by authority in some sense.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the way it (PC) was first implemented was as policy to prevent getting too specific about anyone or anything because it might be distasteful and offensive. I.E. about an idividual, to that individual or a certain group thereof (be it associated or NOT with individual in question). This got Stalin some major favor and thumbs up on his way into office as it expedited debate in a seemingly formal manner...

 

Soon enough though, people got the idea that certain distasteful/offensive things said equal hate speech, even if under specific examination it wasn't.

Or perhaps if you just speak out of turn and "offend" someone.

Maybe it isn't to that point yet, but, if (well intentioned) rules came down because of this in a much more intrusive way, it might.

Put another way, it can be the building blocks for dictatorship. "No speaking out of turn" as it were.

 

Whether or not we are in jeopardy of that happening today with the government, I would have to examine closer on all levels of free speech in order to say for sure. I guess it would help to imagine something general in modern times as indicators.

Bullying in the workplace for example:

 

BECAUSE I SAID SO: discouraging clarification when you ask why-- Pretty self evident I'd think. Not just a bad parenting tactic either. Usually followed up with threats or what have you. You aren't stopped from asking, however you are discouraged from it for fear of retribution by authorities applicable.

 

Y'all shut up now (for lack of better term): perhaps you witnessed an injustice to a coworker. Caught up in the blame game, he/she is about to get the grill, and you wish to tell the higher-ups the truth to avoid further miscarriage. (perhaps your immediate boss again, though not always mind you) In order to do that, though, you must speak out of turn and make yourself look bad on the formality side of things. The formality is where PC comes in. Especially if whatever establishment you work for is total formality nazi-ville. In some cases the higher-ups catch on and want to hear you out. Unfortunately, most of the time, higher-ups are inclined to *not* believe you since either

a>You have "offended" them. You are out of order. How dare you?! and/or

b>they have known your boss longer.

The establishment can now (albeit, bloatedly) claim you are insubordinate and willfully disruptive to the work environment. Your coworker still gets punished or canned, and you now have painted a target on your head. You weren't stopped from it, just punished for it.

 

Just some examples of how speech *could* be limited. I know this is only workplace. Still, I have a hard time believing such venom can't seep elsewhere. After all it is dealing with people. So it does need to be watched carefully.

 

The case (I think) that is trying to be made here:

--we ought to examine what hate speech is a bit closer,

--we need to be wary of controls to specific outlets of free speech even if those outlets are something we disagree on or dislike immensely as such rulings can backfire drastically

--if severe rulings are made against people just for something they said, it ought to raise eyebrows

 

No, you won't because this is neither the topic nor the forum to do it in.

Okay, then I won't. My bad.

[Tommycat]

I highly doubt this is leading to a new secession movement.

 

Those that don't think the government is overstepping it's bounds REALLLLLY need to look at what has been going on. Or do you support the USA PATRIOT ACT. Hey just because it was primarily supported by Republicans, and I happen to be a Republican, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. In fact it is even more relevant now. When you combine that over-reaching with further over-reaching being done by this administration it should worry anyone in this country that enjoys their liberty.

 

It is rather funny that people somehow feel ok with removing the right to keep and bear arms. It won't stop criminals from getting them. Heck I can make my own black powder. Anyone can. And making a black powder firearm is not that difficult(I did). It is one of our rights, regardless of how easy it is to skirt prohibition(hehe funny how that word seems rather appropriate) of firearms. How long will it be until another right gets taken away?

[Darth Avlectus]

I highly doubt this is leading to a new secession movement.

Thank you. There is a purpose to declaring their sovereignty. However secession is not it.

Those that don't think the government is overstepping it's bounds REALLLLLY need to look at what has been going on. Or do you support the USA PATRIOT ACT. Hey just because it was primarily supported by Republicans, and I happen to be a Republican, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. In fact it is even more relevant now.

Yeah, they can basically listen in to your phone conversations any time they want without a warrant. Which is complete and utter bull****. If that isn't stepping on the first amendment, I don't know what is. Bah, patriot act. It is anything BUT. REAL patriot stuff supports and strengthens the constitution. Glad to see you on the same page, Tommycat.

When you combine that over-reaching with further over-reaching being done by this administration it should worry anyone in this country that enjoys their liberty.

Yeah. In fact, I wonder...are there any plans by this current administration to attempt to put this act to rest? Just curious...

 

I believe there has been enough infighting within the republican party lately that now if one were to closely examine the result there are multiple different opinions about it in the republican party.

--- Some were for it without question. (Shortsighted and probably are retracting that to parrot the others, NOW that they are the scourge)

--- Some were for it only if it had limitations to it and wore off after a certain time. This is understandable as it was then, but now this group is licking its wounds as the calls get louder all the time to put the patriot act away.

--- Some were against it totally because it allowed government interference into our personal lives and screwed with the privacy act. Basically more government that wasn't necessarily law enforcement though could claim to be under that guise in the form of national/homeland security. In a generalized sense it was more government and thus contradicting their principle of being for less government.

 

Those on 'the right' who scrutinized (if not opposed) it did so because:

1) the potential overstepping seen then which they predicted (correctly) would happen, and has come to pass.

2) it defys the very principle of of "less government" that has long distinguished conservatives as I said above.

 

So this has lead to a conflict; a contradiction if you will. I find people all the time using this contradiction calling 'the right' imperialists. Hearing only what they want to hear.

You'd say: "I supported the patriot act to keep us safe, but it largely needs limitations on both its scope and focus, and its time duration limited. It has sorely needed them from the beginning"

They'd hear something like: "I supported the patriot act , limitations . sorely needed them from the beginning."

Ah, thank god for attention deficit disorder.

 

It is rather funny that people somehow feel ok with removing the right to keep and bear arms. It won't stop criminals from getting them. Heck I can make my own black powder. Anyone can. And making a black powder firearm is not that difficult(I did). It is one of our rights, regardless of how easy it is to skirt prohibition(hehe funny how that word seems rather appropriate) of firearms. How long will it be until another right gets taken away?

 

Careful, you might be charged with the "slippery slope" fallacy because it hasn't happened yet and you don't have absolutely definitive evidence that the right to bear arms will disappear--even if some people only want to just limit it a little bit. Of course you can trust politicians, right? They're mostly if not all moral and ethical people who won't do aaaaanything wrong when you aren't looking. Or try to push bills through congress really quickly and silently. Or do anything to further their own agendas. After all, it is only "proper" to hyper-focus on an issue and not the integrity of the one talking about it, because otherwise that's an ad-hominem. Besides, if you try to view it from a larger picture you're just muddying the waters.

[True_Avery]

I highly doubt this is leading to a new secession movement.

Agreed.

 

Those that don't think the government is overstepping it's bounds REALLLLLY need to look at what has been going on. Or do you support the USA PATRIOT ACT. Hey just because it was primarily supported by Republicans, and I happen to be a Republican, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. In fact it is even more relevant now. When you combine that over-reaching with further over-reaching being done by this administration it should worry anyone in this country that enjoys their liberty.

Its been worrying me since the day I got into politics.

 

It is rather funny that people somehow feel ok with removing the right to keep and bear arms. It won't stop criminals from getting them. Heck I can make my own black powder. Anyone can. And making a black powder firearm is not that difficult(I did). It is one of our rights, regardless of how easy it is to skirt prohibition(hehe funny how that word seems rather appropriate) of firearms. How long will it be until another right gets taken away?

Wont happen. Only the extremists want to get rid of guns for good. And, if I recall, you still have the right to own a firearm, talk freely, etc so I'm not sure I understand where you are going with that. Frankly, if a right gets taken away it is your fault, as well as everyone Else's for allowing that to happen. But, again, so far you can go down to the mart and pick up an ak-47 so I'm not entirely seeing the problem, or much of a slope in your point unless I am missing something.

 

Canada is a clear example of a country that loves their guns and loves their hunting, but has a pretty low murder rate especially with guns. This pattern follows with some others, and in the end I've come to my own conclusion that, in the end, there is just something up with the people (obviously).

 

A gun is a gun. It has no emotions. No feelings. It just is. It takes a person to pick that up and shoot someone, and I would much rather prefer the money going into banning guns to be instead placed into programs that try to find the origins of gun violence.

 

And before you point it out, I do realize that with guns gone all you get is more stabbings/beatings/etc. In the end you can't really keep people from killing one another regardless, but if that was a 100% case all around then every country and group on earth would have the same rate of murder which just isn't true.

 

While I am for control over heavy weaponry being kept out of civilian hands, I got no problem with anyone having a gun. I just believe we should stick to our course and make sure the guns that we do legally give out go to sane minded folk, and not given out like candy like extremists on the other side would like.

 

In the end, it would take a massive shift for us to give up our guns. And yes, I did say "us". As long as we are in our mind set, guns will stay in people's hands. But all it takes is a savvy leader to come around and convince us to let them go.

 

Guns will not be taken out of our cold dead hands. We will hand them over with our warm hands, or simply never give them up in the first place.

 

That is unless someone can somehow forceable take guns from the majority, in which case they would have one hell of a fight on their hands.

 

So, again, we shouldn't be investing in getting rid of guns as much as we should be investigating on why our murder rate is so high. Is it because of poverty? Is it because of stress? Daily demands? A society bred on violence? Masculine attitudes imprinted on children? Or even the availability of said weapons?

 

Regardless, I'm going to have to follow GTA's statement in saying that it is, in the end, a slippery slope fallacy. Sure, it could slide and tumble down to the point of all guns being banned. But, regardless, it is human nature that is deciding this battle and with or without our precious guns... people are going to kill each other. Of course, I know you realize that but I felt it needed to be pointed out in the context of the argument.

 

Also, as I said in the other thread, should we just make a gun control thread? It seems to be popping up an awful lot as of late.

[Tommycat]

GTA:

USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" and it does not break the first ammendment. Actually, it attacks the 4th ammendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

And in all honesty, when people hear you supported it at all, that's all they hear. I said one time, "I supported the USA PATRIOT Act, until I read it," on another forum. From that point I was labeled as a supporter of the "Patriot Act."

 

Seems to me that more than anything the states want to ensure that the federal government does not further step on the Bill of Rights. And they are using the 10th ammendment to assure that. Granted, if the federal government pushes further, it could lead to a dissolution of the USA. though that is very unlikely. More likely is something like "The State of Texas vs USA" in the supreme court allowing them to get around being forced to take Federal funds and give up control.

 

@ True_Avery:

I never thought I would see the federal government so blatantly attack the 4th. Now I have a hard time not believing they are willing to attack the 2nd. Especially with the AG stating so blatantly that he disaggrees with the supreme court's decision regarding the 2nd. Kinda how the Pro-Choice side were worried about an overturning of Roe v. Wade.

 

As for arguing guns pro/con, I've done it enough to know it's a dead horse with enough whip marks and boot prints to remake "A Clockwork Orange" and I think it has a few additional bullet wounds.

[True_Avery]

I never thought I would see the federal government so blatantly attack the 4th. Now I have a hard time not believing they are willing to attack the 2nd. Especially with the AG stating so blatantly that he disaggrees with the supreme court's decision regarding the 2nd. Kinda how the Pro-Choice side were worried about an overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Very true.

 

However, I think the general public has let the government get away with it thus far because it has not had much of an immediate, visible effect shocking enough to get people to rise against it. Sure, they can looked into whatever they want about you but other than those being arrested without trial, I assume that much of the public could give less of a damn.

 

Banning guns, however, would have an immediate after effect visible by the majority and would, I assume, would cause more of an uproar. It doesn't seem feasible to do it immediately, but possible over a relative period of time.

 

But, as I mentioned, when that times has come don't we deserve to have that right taken from us? If we have let the federal government create and inforce the Patriot Act, don't we in turn deserve such in some way for not making a more active attempt at stopping it?

 

That is awfully cynical of me to say, but I feel the blame can be placed on both parties in this case.

 

This is all speculation on my part of course, so feel free to ignore me if you so choose.

 

As for arguing guns pro/con, I've done it enough to know it's a dead horse with enough whip marks and boot prints to remake "A Clockwork Orange" and I think it has a few additional bullet wounds.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

But, again, doesn't it worry you more that you find arguing about it pointless instead of feeling empowered to do so?

 

That isn't a jab at you personally at all. Just curious. The whole "power to the people" thing seems to be falling out of style as of late, and it may be our own inaction that leads to future problems.

 

But, as for the gun control debate, I agree that it does seem to be a pretty dead horse. Could make a thread, but it would probably fall into a flame war anyway.

[Tommycat]

Very true.

 

However, I think the general public has let the government get away with it thus far because it has not had much of an immediate, visible effect shocking enough to get people to rise against it. Sure, they can looked into whatever they want about you but other than those being arrested without trial, I assume that much of the public could give less of a damn.

 

Banning guns, however, would have an immediate after effect visible by the majority and would, I assume, would cause more of an uproar. It doesn't seem feasible to do it immediately, but possible over a relative period of time.

This is where I'll have to disagree. Fewer and fewer people own guns now. Gun owners are increasingly being portrayed as nutty extremists, and gang members. So in the same fashion that the USAPATRIOT Act did not affect a majority, I can see them making the same type of thing occur. The assault weapons bans are one aspect. You start with banning full auto weapons. next ban assault weapons(with a very vague wording). Then move on to large caliber weapons. Repeat until people are so restricted that very few people own guns(legally). Then ban.

 

But, as I mentioned, when that times has come don't we deserve to have that right taken from us? If we have let the federal government create and inforce the Patriot Act, don't we in turn deserve such in some way for not making a more active attempt at stopping it?

 

That is awfully cynical of me to say, but I feel the blame can be placed on both parties in this case.

 

This is all speculation on my part of course, so feel free to ignore me if you so choose.

Meh I won't ignore your speculation if you don't ignore mine haha. But really, this is what scares me more and more. We may get to the point where it becomes easier and easier to give up more rights. That disturbs me. It also happens to be why I am so in favor of protecting our rights. And you are not wrong to place the blame on both major parties. And actually you may want to include some of the minor parties as well.

 

Yeah, pretty much.

 

But, again, doesn't it worry you more that you find arguing about it pointless instead of feeling empowered to do so?

 

That isn't a jab at you personally at all. Just curious. The whole "power to the people" thing seems to be falling out of style as of late, and it may be our own inaction that leads to future problems.

 

But, as for the gun control debate, I agree that it does seem to be a pretty dead horse. Could make a thread, but it would probably fall into a flame war anyway.

 

That's the reason I get tired of starting those threads. I prefer to educate people in person. It makes sure that we'll be more cordial to eachother.

[EnderWiggin]

And actually you may want to include some of the minor parties as well.

Those darn libertarians, taking away your rights

 

_EW_

[Tommycat]

Those darn libertarians, taking away your rights

 

_EW_

 

Only in that they end up voting for one of the main parties rather than sticking to their party leaders. We all share the blame. Well all US voters. So to give them a pass for voting for one of the two primary parties is unfair.

 

edited to add. And please not I did say "some"

[Darth Avlectus]

 

Its been worrying me since the day I got into politics.

You're a politician? RUN!!!!!!

Wont happen. Only the extremists want to get rid of guns for good.

Oh, you mean Ender?

And, if I recall, you still have the right to own a firearm, talk freely, etc so I'm not sure I understand where you are going with that. Frankly, if a right gets taken away it is your fault, as well as everyone Else's for allowing that to happen.

Did anyone ever tell you how hard it is to keep track of you, presonally? I think it's time we had another chat. You are a nuanced person indeed...

 

In general yes we still have the rights for now. Pray it stays that way. That it stays a slippery slope. Because if it solidifies and "proof" is present it is usually too late by then, I think.

 

But, again, so far you can go down to the mart and pick up an ak-47

Uhh, no you can't! Least not out here in the golden state of CA, missie.

In the end, it would take a massive shift for us to give up our guns. And yes, I did say "us". As long as we are in our mind set, guns will stay in people's hands. But all it takes is a savvy leader to come around and convince us to let them go.

Like a savvy leader who can turn any opposition talk or nay-say sentiment into hate speech? Sure, that was Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini.

 

Massive shift? Make people stop seeing the big picture where the massive shift could be viewed from--eliminate the necessity for it. It isn't massive if it isn't seen.

 

Time and patience; Whittling away piece by piece, Law by law, vote by vote. Hyper focus on _every_little_thing. Maybe internationalize things so there is influence from outside to tell you guns are not needed.

 

That's how it would happen. A little here, a little there. By attrition and blindness. When government finally has tweaked every aspect and every component, *then* it would move in on a more massive scale. Except by then it would be much less massive than you'd think. It would be a fell-swoop executed in a "positive light" that the majority has been conditioned to "see". It would be done over time as people got more and more complacent, lazy, and apathetic towards the concept of guns and probably self defense as a whole. Kind of like we are becoming, now. So I am increasingly skeptical.

 

Why won't I just give it up? Because there must always be someone on the other side. For your own good. I believe in self-sufficiency: Utopia is a lie.

 

Guns will not be taken out of our cold dead hands. We will hand them over with our warm hands, or simply never give them up in the first place.

The latter I hope is going to be the case. How fundamental...

Was it not a eugenicist by the name of Oswald giving a conference speech in 1962 about how people can be made to love their servitude? How if you could not persuade by force, then persuade by consent?

 

That is unless someone can somehow forceable take guns from the majority, in which case they would have one hell of a fight on their hands.

At the wrong time, yes.

 

W.R.T. what Tommy said about gun owners being portrayed as nutjobs...this would be critical. I.E. a traditional gun owner like a veteran assassinating a beloved public figure. Then that would ensure guns and their supporters would be seen as public enemy with all the tweaks and turns as I plotted above. (Order 66 comes to mind, grimly.) At a point like what I am speaking of, the climate will be such that most things regarding guns would be seen as a no-no and large majority opinion on it changed by then. Even if we were just in a war. The population would be ready if they 'just had an excuse' to ban guns forever.

A gun is a gun. It has no emotions. No feelings. It just is. It takes a person to pick that up and shoot someone, and I would much rather prefer the money going into banning guns to be instead placed into programs that try to find the origins of gun violence.

So, again, we shouldn't be investing in getting rid of guns as much as we should be investigating on why our murder rate is so high. Is it because of poverty? Is it because of stress? Daily demands? A society bred on violence? Masculine attitudes imprinted on children? Or even the availability of said weapons?

 

Hyper focusing is okay to solve problems so long as it comes full circle in the big picture. Justice is blind so we must be its eyes.

 

Surprisingly, masculine attitudes regarding discipline and resolve have disappeared. So I very much disagree with you on that last part. Violence bred society? More like pseudo-violence because were we bred on real violence we'd basically be akin to the dark ages where "lottery" was a town stoning. I'd say most people are docile compared to, say, 100 years ago. Especially in the instantaneous age of the microwave and hand-held devices, of wireless internet. Why should anyone have to work for anything? Many believe they don't have to.

 

Regardless, I'm going to have to follow GTA's statement in saying that it is, in the end, a slippery slope fallacy. Sure, it could slide and tumble down to the point of all guns being banned. But, regardless, it is human nature that is deciding this battle and with or without our precious guns... people are going to kill each other. Of course, I know you realize that but I felt it needed to be pointed out in the context of the argument.

True. Fine.

 

I'm not unreasonable, but I say there is nothing wrong with people today that couldn't be cured with some smacking sense back into their heads.

 

GTA:

USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" and it does not break the first ammendment. Actually, it attacks the 4th ammendment:

My bad. And yes, people only hear what they want to. Which is part of why I mistrust people.

More likely is something like "The State of Texas vs USA" in the supreme court allowing them to get around being forced to take Federal funds and give up control.

Ah, you mean like Wells Fargo was forced into taking funds though it was doing just fine? Sure.

However, I think the general public has let the government get away with it thus far because it has not had much of an immediate, visible effect shocking enough to get people to rise against it. Sure, they can looked into whatever they want about you but other than those being arrested without trial, I assume that much of the public could give less of a damn.

People are beginning to wake up to it.

Banning guns, however, would have an immediate after effect visible by the majority and would, I assume, would cause more of an uproar. It doesn't seem feasible to do it immediately, but possible over a relative period of time.

Which I covered above.

But, as I mentioned, when that times has come don't we deserve to have that right taken from us? If we have let the federal government create and inforce the Patriot Act, don't we in turn deserve such in some way for not making a more active attempt at stopping it?

...Maybe, Maybe not... I'll at least have done my part to try preventing it.

But, again, doesn't it worry you more that you find arguing about it pointless instead of feeling empowered to do so?

 

That isn't a jab at you personally at all. Just curious. The whole "power to the people" thing seems to be falling out of style as of late, and it may be our own inaction that leads to future problems.

Good point.

 

I can't speak for Tommy, but I am empowered to speak it whenever one wants to know. Suspicious also, though.

 

Falling out of style? Such vanity, that attitude is. If power to the people and self-sufficiency are "falling out of style", I should like to counter that the grim reality and the bitter truth are not subject to "falling out of style".

You will lose your power if you do not hold onto it, yes...but that does not necessarily mean we 'deserve' to have it taken away.

 

@ Tommy: Hey, pal, it's only slippery slope until it's too late. Though I have high appreciation for research, one thing it does have a problem with is ivory tower syndrome. Historically speaking, isn't government reluctant to let go rights it takes away? Hence why we prefer IT serve US, not the other way around. Which I would think would happen with fewer strings and hence smaller size...