You're being disingenuous by setting up a false dichotomy. How would governments support themselves if it weren't for taxation? (Money printing?) Restricting the method of revenue collection to voluntary means -- like lottos; allowing people to opt out of sales, income, and other taxes; or competing currencies -- inherently shrinks government.

People would protect their own property, or hire others to do it for them. How is this "getting rid of" property rights? Why is this not a better alternative to being forced to pay for a substandard product?

Well if you want to wait around a hundred years or so, you might get what you want.

If you think SCOTUS is going to overturn a ruling they made in your lifetime, in your lifetime, you are delusional.

Uhh, how does Saudi Arabia do that ??



You still didn't answer the question... Saudi Arabia don't got no stinkin' taxes. Is that good enough for you? ??

Uhhh, because that's called 'might makes right'.

People would go all New Jack City on your Prophsterior, or hire others to do it for them. Then your former 'property' would now be theirs. Wat-u-gonna do about it ~~ wag your now worthless governmental 'deed' in their face.... LMFAO.

It depends on the subject matter.

This is actually one of the recent court rulings I disagree with. I don't think the judges quite knew how the software works.

Only time will tell if the Supreme Court will admit its hypocrisy, or just come up with more rules and exceptions in another quickfix to be abused.

If politicians in the USA had any go in them, they would first forbid 99% of all guns in circulation and then order police to start collecting them from every household. This is the only sure way to save lives! But we all know that this is unlikely to happen with all the brainwashing of the right wing crazies done by Fox news and other similar 'news' outlets.

Maybe some day Proph and co will wise up and volunteraly leave their guns in to authorities or have them destroyed(of course destroying them will be monitored by authorities). One can only hope.

No proph would say that he homesteaded that land so they have to get off

Las: SCOTUS can amend its ruling whenever a new case is brought. Not sure why it'd take 100 years. But hey id like a constitutional convention to rewrite yhe whole damn thing do ill keep pushing for that.

You didn't ask a question. Is what "good enough" for me? I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia has taxes.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but "might makes right" is the world we live in when the rule of law isn't followed, like now. The people with the most might are usually members of government -- the enforcers -- unless you include the corporate puppetmasters that use their wealth to pull politicians' strings.

As for the scenario towards the end of your post: there would be conflict, however, it would be on a much smaller scale than wars that we currently experience. (Well, maybe you only experience it if you're in the Ukraine or Middle East.)

Can't tell if serious...

Wow! You were!

Let me guess: MSNBC viewer?

Not-sees. The entire lot.

You should go back and read through this thread.

Are you against taxes or against governments. If a government doesn't tax is that good enough for you?

I don't need to come up with an example for it to be a good question. Governments existed for 7-10k years, taxes have only been widespread since the dawn of capitalism ~400 years ago.

But, sure, I can play Wikipedia too... how about Bahrain. Bahrain don't have no stinkin' taxes... is that good enough for you ??

OK right. It would be "might makes right". And "might makes right" != 'Property Rights'. Not even close. So once again... you don't really believe your own shiz... you're just trolling for the sake of trolling.

I'm cool with governments, when they don't systematically abuse people's rights; so, in short, yes.

I was letting you know that your premise of Saudi Arabia not having taxes was probably false, and I was unsure if your question hinged on that assumption. It seemed to, since you keep giving me the false dichotomy of "taxes or government."

As for your last point, it's a matter of enforcement. Property is merely what you obtain with your life and liberty, and it's up to you to protect it with those rights. Unjust governments with a monopoly on force make this difficult, especially when they're corrupt.

As for Bahrain, no:

I'd prefer reforming 'Murica. Despite my constant assertions that the Constitution is a flawed document, it gets many things right.

You have a better chance that Sweden will outlaw hockey and tennis before that leftist fantasy happens in the US.

Yes and as technology changes the old dudes in robes will be a generation behind.

The problem here (from your perspective anyway ) is that this is a fundamental definition of a 240 year old part of the bill of rights. I can't see them reversing course without appearing to be arbitrary in their decisions.

An leaning on Miller like the national ACLU does to say it is not an individual right is an over simplification of Miller. If they thought that the whole case would have gone like this:

SCOTUS: Was Miller an active member of a militia?
Solicitor General: No
(Miller wasn't represented)
----game over----

But it didn't go that way, they hinged the case on a lack of "judicial notice" that the sawed off shotgun would be of no use to a militia, and kicked the case back down. But Miller had died, shot 5 or 6 times and it ended there.

ConCon won't happen, a lot of the states passing "gun rights" laws is enough to know you won't get 2/3 of the states on board. And the possibility of states causing some mischief on the way would stop the thought anyway.

And despite the ACLU at the national level maintaining in public that 2A is a collective right, at least 2 state chapters have broken ranks (NV and AZ). And the ACLU and the NRA are filing enough amicus briefs on each others behalf that if not quite BFF's, they do seem to be dating.

Gooblygook alert!!!!

A true-er* expression of human character and freedom would to 'give them up' voluntarily regardless of any external circumstance. The decision to cling to group violence potential and the decision to cling to personal violence potential are not far apart. To let go of either/both of these beliefs takes a lot of personally responsible decision making. In a true purpose of being mutually beneficial among individuals, is not done just for the individual's own accord.

Philosophically I think group violence potential is preferable to individual violence potential and America has the correct principles for an individual to responsibly choose both to some measure.

Recognizing such an organic change in beliefs from fear of violence to acceptance of domestic tranquility collectively is unpredictable completely by virtue of existing as a complex system occurring individual by individual voluntarily.

I think you would have problems finding many police willing to try.

Really?

I'm not surprised by anything that our supposed public servants will do anymore, in the name of safety. They'll serve you, all right. (But, not a warrant! They don't need 'em anymore, just their malfunctioning noses.)

Their main motivation is probably their own paychecks.

Cops budget growth will do what it's told to do. The DEA right now has a POTUS getting handed joints in Denver, while still going hard in the paint for their jobs. Gotta face the materialistic self interest and the entrenched ideology that control is solved by doing it more and more.

Let's not line up and shoot all cops. People who want war paint in broad strokes. Let's end the drug war and pay them more to become counselors as well as cops. And put cameras on all of em. Disenfranchise yourself at your own risk. An incorrect assumption about responsibility can have unintended consequences.

Combination of getting rid of bad laws, give them less trivial stuff to do and keep a budget that handles the scale of crime, without economic political bias. Another problem that's key is adult education and non-disagreeable basic reason game-type solving to complete defined activities towards a specific outcome.

In other words ****ing cooperate more. That's what this thread and actually the forums has taught me FWIW.

Long stretch between knocking on doors, and knocking to seize peoples guns.

I can agree with most of that.

Honestly, I would rather pay cops to twiddle their thumbs waiting for a call (like firefighters) instead of actively harassing the populace for silly infractions that jack up lives leaving the public feeling disenfranchised in the process. Taxation wouldn't be so bad, if this were the case. When you involuntarily pay for your own oppression, the absurdity becomes too much, though.

I can't (and won't) advocate violence because this only justifies escalation to an already militarized police force. People do have an inalienable right to self defense, but it's just more sensible to forego utilizing this option in order to educate those that would otherwise execute the same right to self defense (and you) if attacked -- even though they are the provocateurs -- having the full backing of the State on their side.

However, I can't help but remember reading about one writer living during Nazi Germany who claimed, that if the citizens (I think in an apartment complex, who consistently heard neighbors' domiciles being broken into, yet did nothing) had simply banded together with knives, axes, shovels, or whatever they could find, the Nazis may have changed their ways, knowing that each night they entered someone's house could be their last. (I wish I could remember the name, or dig up a link. Maybe someone else knows what I'm referring to?)

Though, these are different times, and the intarwebs didn't exist back then. Hopefully advances in technology will allow change to happen peacefully, this time. The camera is the new gun, when dealing with the State in this era. Unfortunately, exposure may not serve as enough of a deterrent, if it is conceded that retaliation will be absent as a repercussion. (Which is why I never rule it out.)

Cooperate, but know your rights.

Just like there's a long stretch between registration and confiscation, right?

You May Be Denying Climate Change, But The U.S. Military Isn't

"So we’d look at, for example, rising sea levels. This century, global sea levels are projected to rise several feet. Naval bases and installations around the world — along with the communities that support them — will be affected, and we need to plan for that.

Climate change affects military readiness, strains base resilience, creates missions in new regions of the world and increases the likelihood that our armed forces will be deployed for humanitarian missions. In many cases it also threatens our infrastructure and affects our economy. And our continued reliance on the fossil fuels whose consumption leads to climate change ties our nation’s hands on the world stage and tethers us to nations that do not always have our best interests at heart."

- Rear Adm. David Titley (Ret.)

Wait and see, a revolution will come to the USA sooner than you think and when this happens you can kiss your beloved guns goodbye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

It was only in 2008 that SCOTUS said that owning a gun is an individual right. I don't know why you're acting like this is some long-standing precedent. And keep in mind that we were one vote away from the Stevens opinion being the "law of the land", so I wouldn't act too smug about that.

I didn't say that a convention is likely, did i? My problems with the US constitution go well beyond the wording of some amendments. Anyway I consider public opinion to be a far greater barrier to further gun control laws than SCOTUS.

Perhaps if the Bilderbergs have their way, but the death toll would be massive and finding cops to do this across the entire county would be very difficult. States like TN, KY, WV, NC and TX would have to be treated as nothing but hostile territory, especially in the mountains/rural areas.

How hypocritical would it be to murder like 2% of your own population in an attempt to create a gun-free state?

You're way overestimating the number of people who would actually be willing to die to hold on to their guns.

Cops for the most part will do what theyre told when their pensions are on the line.

Scoring So Far...

1. Team #Not-Ultra-Conservative: 406

   (LetsGambool 63, kerowo 62, FlyWf 55, Kurto 51, JiggsCasey 46, DudeImBetter 44, Huehuecoyotl 37, Dids 20, Marn 17, bernie 11)

2. Team #Ultra-Conservative: 355

   (Proph 155, LASJayhawk 107, Cerveza69 47, MickeyB105 46)

3. Team #America: 46

   (spanktehbadwookie 46)

4. Team #Trolly: 23

   (Shame Trolly !!!1! 12, Trolly McTrollson 11)

* Standard scoring standards applies: To be counted, a poster must have >10 posts or >10% of posts in thread.