TomAiello

Providing a link to someone saying that no one should own a firearm ought to be sufficient, actually. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You are absolutely incorrect. There are numerous concealed carry license programs in the US today that have not even remotely led to any kind of confiscation. Remember that we're not talking about any registration or record of the actual weapons here. In fact, if a good license system was in use, it would reduce the paper trail for weapons transfers, making them harder for an ill-intentioned government to confiscate. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Because you should hand your collection over to me. I've got no idea what's in it, but I bet it's got some good stuff. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The original interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (up until very modern times) was that it protected the right to possess _military style_ weapons. In 1939, the court ruled that a short barrel shotgun was not protected because it was not in normal military usage. In my (admittedly zany right wing gun nut) opinion, the 2nd amendment was meant to protect civilian ownership of common military weapons, and as written ought to be applied to big fuckin' tanks and wicked helicopters with night vision. I think that reading the Constitution, with a knowledge of the immediate history of the drafters, it's pretty obvious they weren't concerned with hunting or (at least in the immediate sense) self defense. The reason they gave the right to bear arms it's own paragraph was that it was the cornerstone that secured the other rights enumerated in the other 9 paragraphs. They lumped together free speech, religion and assembly, but they wanted to make sure that there was no confusion about the right to keep and bear arms. That's because the right of the people to fight (in the violent conflict sense of the word) oppression by their own government was _the_ foundational principle of our nation. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The idea is that you have something to stand in for the right (the license) in the event you need to revoke it on an individual case-by-case basis (for example, for mental patients, or felons). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Didn't the North American colonists originally petition the king, asking him to overturn the acts of the (democratically elected, at least for the time period) parliament? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The intent was prevention of a government that stopped listening to its people. Handguns are the answer to that now. People walking down the street with a rifle stand out rather brightly, don't make for stealthy revolutionaries. I don't know that I agree. If we're ever in a real, open revolution situation (and I sincerely hope I never have to live through that), I can tell you that my handguns will be staying in the safe. Revolutions involve honest-to-god military conflict, and for that sort of thing a rifle is going to be in much greater demand. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That's when you pay money to some guy you don't really know so that his friends won't come and "talk" with you about it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If I pay my personal protection money, why should my corporation (outside the US) have to pay taxes on it's earnings (outside the US)? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Any statement of rights has the same problem. None at all. Our governments have shown that time and again. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What if I move my corporation there, and keep all it's profits outside the US? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

To distract you from the really important things that are going on at the same time? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Improvement in weapons technology, and change in distribution of ownership are my guesses. In 1960, most people had a WWII era view of firearms. People owned rifles, real weapons were rifles, handguns were less common and generally used by fewer people. Today, there are a lot more handguns out there, and people view them as more necessary in society than they did in 1960. Personally, I'm against gun bans, but I'd be more concerned about a ban on rifles than one on handguns. Rifles speak much more directly to the original intent of the 2nd amendment. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Here is a good start. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

This was the one place that I was hoping Obama would be better than McCain. Looks like I was wrong. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Not me. I'm more concerned about the trillions of dollars that are being borrowed in my name, and that my kids will be stuck repaying. Honestly, I'm wondering how many of these non-event "events" are engineered to distract the public from the important things going on. Turn on the news and you can hear about the great bowing controversy, about the nefarious iPod gift agenda, about the monarchy hug scandal, even about the outfit that Michelle Obama wore to meet with the first lady of France. What about the actual money spent (or committed to spending) on this jaunt--money we have to provide? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think that if I kept my banking anywhere within their reach, they'd attempt to force me to labor for them anyway. Or did you miss how important the elimination of "tax havens" (i.e. places beyond the enslaving reach of their taxation) was at the most recent G20 meeting? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In all seriousness, I have often thought that Liberty could be better served by some other system than democracy. Democracy tends to devolve to "majority rules" followed shortly by "majority rules absolutely." In virtually every case, modern, democratically elected governments have served simply as a tool for the oppression of the minorities in society. I'm not saying I see a better system, save perhaps some sort of anarcho-capitalism, although I will admit that Robert Heinlein's vision of "Constitutional Tyranny" is quite intriguing. The problem with democracy is that it tends to view the will of the people as the ultimate "good" and "right," forgetting that there are many freedoms that the group should not interfere with, whether they find them distasteful or not. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, functionally it is. In both cases, a person is forced to give up their labor for another person or group, and has no choice in the matter. In fact, in both cases, you see the owner justifying the system by pointing out how they "provide" for their slaves, and how their slaves would be far worse off without the benefits provided by the owner. Without their owners, the slaves would surely wallow in primitive barbarism--uneducated, unhealthy and unhappy. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Nancy Pelosi is probably the biggest threat to Constitutional rights in America today. I'm hoping that Barack Obama, who seems quite a bit smarter than her, can keep her from running amok. On the other hand, if she does push a bunch of her agenda through, it would give the Republicans another chance, and maybe this time they'd actually work for smaller government. Note that I'm not saying Obama doesn't favor many of her positions--just that he's smart enough to know that there will be a lot of backlash if that stuff gets passed into law. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think the biggest indicator that gun-control is going to be a non-starting issue is the number of democrats elected on pro-gun platforms in the last election. They've finally sorted out that agreeing with their constituents is one of the best ways to get elected. The corollary is that failing to agree with their constituents is a good way to not get elected again. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, she could have just driven her own car, without a license. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm talking about replacing existing laws with a different system. Right now you've got places where you have to wait 10 days and can't get full capacity magazines, as well as places that's it's virtually impossible to get a carry permit. I'd like to see that changed, and I think that a unified national system is a reasonable solution. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

At risk of dating myself, the first time I bought a handgun was before the NICS. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Well, if you want to start another thread, I'd be happy to make that argument.