Privately Owned Armored Trucks Raise Eyebrows After Dallas Attack 609
HughPickens.com writes: Manny Fernandez writes in the NY Times that the scores of military and police-style vans, trucks and cars offered for sale on Craigslist and eBay have raised concerns for some law enforcement officials, particularly after the Dallas attack on a police headquarters. Officials say the vehicles appear to be legal for the most part, so there is little they can do. Jeff Funicello, for example, is selling his black 1975 GMC armored truck on Craigslist. The body is armored, and the windows are bulletproof. It has sliding portholes to point rifles from and a sprinkler system inside. Long ago, it transported money, and it was once the target of a shootout in the 1980s. Of course, people have been driving reinforced cars long before the Dallas attack on a police headquarters. But the celebrities and executives who install bulletproof windows and other types of armor on their vehicles often do not want it noticed. Celebrity clients generally demand that the exteriors of their luxury armored vehicles look normal so they blend in. However those who buy and sell armored vans want people to look. And the popularity of apocalyptic movies and television shows has put a new twist and added a macabre cachet to such vehicles "This is America," says Funicello. "I should be able to have a howitzer or a bazooka if I want one. If I wanted to buy a fire truck, I could."
with friends like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
who needs enemies when we have swat teams to "protect us" from shoplifters by destroying our homes. http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/swa... [wnd.com]
so can you blame people for wanting to protect themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're saying that the SWAT team pretty much destroyed a house that had HOSTAGES INSIDE???? And you think that's okay?
Re: (Score:3)
Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its really the old "Man bites dog" thing. If its not fantastic, its not news.
Generally when it comes to this sort of thing, the importance of the issue is indirectly proportional to the geographic scope of the story. The incidents most likely to affect you will never make it past the local paper....because heart attacks, car accidents, and slips in the tub are not interesting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If nothing can be done why are these kinds of attacks far more common in the US than in other developed nations? There are plenty of things that can be done, you just don't want to even consider doing them.
You are correct though, this is a symptom, not the problem itself.
Re: (Score:2)
> Does anyone really believe that doing something about cancer well prevent future illnesses?
We barely understand the problem and we're actually trying. What do you really think can be done that doesn't amount to buying into snake oil really?
Just like with gun violence, if you think there is some easy answer then you have no idea what the scope of the problem is.
Same thing only different (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Same thing only different (Score:5, Funny)
Or cutting and welding equipment because you could armor a vehicle.
Who'd do such a crazy thing? I'd pity that fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between "no one should own a bulldozer" and "anyone should own a bulldozer".
I don't want my neighbor owning a bulldozer. He can't even park his Audi without rolling over my amaryllis.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? It's pretty trivial to own or operate a bulldozer. Even if you aren't interested in the cost of owning it outright, you can still rent it for a day. Easy peasey.
I have no desire to meddle in the business of others.
If it don't trust my neighbors sufficiently, then I'm living in the wrong place.
Re:Same thing only different (Score:5, Informative)
Actually a guy did weld armor on to a bulldozer and tried to take out a town.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Inevitable escalation of a broken philosophy (Score:4, Insightful)
I know ownership of weapons in America is a highly contentious topic so I fully expect to get modded down aggressively for this post. I want to try out the argument anyway. Please humour me.
Let us imagine two different countries: Macroland and Microland. The governments of the two countries are mostly similar, with two notable exceptions.
The government of Macroland punishes resistance to its rule heavily. It jails approximately 0.7% of its population. Its enforcement troops kill about 60 of its own people each month.
The government of Microland is dramatically less aggressive. It jails only 0.1% of its population, but more importantly, it virtually never kills its own citizens no matter what they did or how strongly they resist the government's rule. It took Microland about a quarter of a century to kill as many people as Macroland did in just one month.
Which country has the most oppressed people? Microland or Macroland?
I think most reasonable people would say that the citizens of the country that kills them the most often are the most heavily oppressed. After all, what's the basic power that lies behind abusive government oppression? What's the basic mechanism governments use to remove people's freedoms? It's violence. The country that dishes out the most against its own people would seem to be the most oppressive.
You have, of course, already figured out that the statistics given above are real [theguardian.com]. Macroland is the USA. Microland is (just for comparison) the United Kingdom.
Americans have the US Constitution and it is a mighty document. The Constitution has always been a vital part of protecting the freedoms of ordinary Americans from overreach by government. Yet the Constitution is flawed in one terribly dramatic way. By allowing and even encouraging a heavily armed society, it fails to strike any blows for freedom - as police have always had and always will have better access to top grade weaponry and armour. The chances of ordinary US citizens successfully mounting an armed uprising against the government is zero. And yet it simultaneously gives those same police a cast iron excuse for arming themselves to the teeth, as they are expected to enforce the law against an exceptionally dangerous population.
The result is that whilst Americans and British people have very little differences in their levels of freedom, they have enormous differences in their chances of being executed by their own governments ..... or by random mental patients.
I am British and I would like to see the UK adopt a US-style constitution. But not if it included a copy of the second amendment. Real data from today's world seems to suggest it makes no real difference to freedom but does make the world a vastly more dangerous place.
Re:Inevitable escalation of a broken philosophy (Score:4, Insightful)
The price of that equation is that, eventually, some of those legal weapons wind up in the irresponsible hands of the extremely antisocial.
If that is a trade-off the population can live with, then so be it. Each is free in a way of their choosing.
Re:Inevitable escalation of a broken philosophy (Score:5, Interesting)
as police have always had and always will have better access to top grade weaponry and armour.
I would argue this statement is false. When the 2nd amendment was drafted the hunting rifle in the hands of the average citizen was not especially inferior to that of the one in the hands of the local serif or for that matter the regular army soldier. Moreover the local serif and the soldier were no more able to defend themselves against said rifle than your average citizen was.
As far as larger weapons like artillery was concerned at prior to the civil war my admittedly hasty study of the subject indicates there was not much in the way of law that prevented a citizen (other than cost) from purchasing a napoleon; which would have been a state of the art field piece. Certainly there were lots of wealthy planters and the like who could afford them.
Re:Inevitable escalation of a broken philosophy (Score:5, Interesting)
as police have always had and always will have better access to top grade weaponry and armour.
I would argue this statement is false. When the 2nd amendment was drafted the hunting rifle in the hands of the average citizen was not especially inferior to that of the one in the hands of the local serif or for that matter the regular army soldier. Moreover the local serif and the soldier were no more able to defend themselves against said rifle than your average citizen was.
As far as larger weapons like artillery was concerned at prior to the civil war my admittedly hasty study of the subject indicates there was not much in the way of law that prevented a citizen (other than cost) from purchasing a napoleon; which would have been a state of the art field piece. Certainly there were lots of wealthy planters and the like who could afford them.
Actually, the average hunter's rifle was probably more effective than what the local sheriff or soldier had, because a hunter quite possibly had an actual rifle while the soldier would have been issued a smoothbore musket. And heavy artillery was certainly owned by private individuals at least up through the Civil War as there are numerous instances of wealthy individuals using ther own funds to raise and equip militia units during times of conflict (if you had the money this was an easy way to get a commission at the start of the Civil War on either side as they were desperate for troops).
Re: (Score:2)
It's still the same now. An enthusiast that buys his own weapon likely has a much better piece of equipment than someone that just has standard issue gear.
There are even catalogs used by the troops for enhancing their own personal gear while on personal deployment.
Re: (Score:3)
It's still the same now. An enthusiast that buys his own weapon likely has a much better piece of equipment than someone that just has standard issue gear.
There are even catalogs used by the troops for enhancing their own personal gear while on personal deployment.
I have close to 10 firearms myself, but I certainly don't have an M249, a 203, or kevlar with ceramic plates-all standard issue for military. An enthusiast might be better armed than your average patrolman who has a .40 pistol and a shotgun in his trunk, but the police still have easy access to surplus military light weapons and other weapons that are restricted to police use.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so.
Note that, to a certain ext
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US constitution was written in a time where both citizens and government had access to roughly the same level of weaponry.
There were no tanks, bombers or drones, there was no fast communication or transportation of armed forces.
If one were to draft a new constitution in this day and age, you would look a bit silly for arguing a civil militia with handguns and old military surplus equipment could keep a well-armed government in check.
Re:Inevitable escalation of a broken philosophy (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people that would think such a thing is silly are people that are completly ignorant of military history. Even recent history is littered with examples of the biggest military machine on the planet (and it's cronies) having much more trouble with "inferior" forces than they should.
"But you can't attack that tank with what you have."
Spoken like someone that never actually had any sort of military training.
Re:Inevitable escalation of a broken philosophy (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "trouble"? Recent history is littered with examples of the US military immediately and utterly crushing the armies and rebel groups in any country they invade. The rabble that remain and try to resist occupation cannot inflict any conventional military damage, which is why they resort of extreme tactics like suicide bombings. Tactics that don't work, but between soldiers, drones, warplanes, and NSA surveillance they have no better ideas that might work.
Likewise, the chances of any US citizens successfully engaging in armed resistance against the US government is zero. Here's what would happen:
1) If you decide to take your gun and resist oppression alone you will be gunned down within minutes or seconds, reported in the press as having mental health problems and everyone will have forgotten your name within a couple of days
2) If you try to find other like minding people and raise a resistance group the FBI and/or NSA will learn of your plot before it happens, and you will be arrested before you have any chance to make real progress with your plan. You will be charged with domestic extremism, terrorism, or some variant thereof, and disappear for the rest of your adult life into a Supermax.
In no situation does having a gun allow you to resist even very petty government corruption or abuse. You simply stand no chance at all, you will always lose. The only way to seriously change a government is through the ballot box, which is why every country except the USA doesn't pretend an armed populace has anything to do with freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to read up on the Warsaw Uprising sometime. Amazing what even a small number of firearms in the hands of people desperate enough to fight an army can do....
Re: (Score:3)
There are a few things to keep in mind though. First, Canada has more guns per capita than the United States. Two, there are still places in the U.S. remote enough that a rifle and/or shotgun are still important survival tools and assistance is quite a way off even if you can call someone.
Imagine being all alone in the U.K. surrounded by wilderness and the nearest help if something goes wrong is in France. Now you have an idea why people in the more remote parts of the U.S. believe they need a gun.
There are
Re: (Score:2)
Hint, shooting an angry bear is fairly low on my list of things you might need a gun for.
There is, for example, food.
Re: (Score:2)
You've left out a host of peripheral issues beyond body counts. "Living" means more than merely continuing to draw breath.
Which country arrests people for finding a shotgun in their flowerbed and immediately turning it in, because that proves possession? Which country allows the police to hold citizens for 28 days (and non-citizens forever) without charge? Which country doesn't allow criticizing absurd religious beliefs? Which coun
Re:Inevitable escalation of a broken philosophy (Score:4, Insightful)
(and non-citizens forever) without charge?
Oh the USA, in gitmo, right? Or are you referring to something else?
Which country has a 100% surveillance state as the expected norm
The one that has the NSA slurping up everything they can find? Or is it the country where most of the press are strongly critical of what they all call the "snoopers charter" which the government is trying to get?
I'll enjoy my freedom.
Tell me, Mr Anderson, what use is your freedom if you're already dead?
I know a guy who owns several firetrucks, (Score:2)
and a bomb lifter.
He collects weird stuff, I don't see a legal problem with it. His wife sure sees a problem with it, but that is another thing all together.
Sigh. (Score:3, Insightful)
"I should be able to have a howitzer or a bazooka if I want one"
And I should be able to not have such things next door to me.
I'll continue to happily live at least one continent away from this kind of attitude, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My neighbor has a howitzer. No problems. But I do check occasionally when I drive by that it's still pointed the other way.
Buy a Marauder (Score:4, Informative)
In these uncertain times, you can't be too careful. We should all be driving armored vehicles, like the Marauder [wikipedia.org]. Top Gear did a wonderful review of the vehicle, showing how practical the Marauder is for normal city driving.
Review part 1 [topgear.com]
Review part 2 [topgear.com]
Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet I've never heard of a howitzer being used in commission of a crime.
I also note that in the UK, ownership of a tank is perfectly legal. It has to be demilitarized (the gun barrel(s) filled with concrete, that sort of thing), but it can be managed, if you're rich enough. Saw an article the other day about some guy who uses his Scimitar light tank to drive to town to get groceries....
Re: (Score:2)
in the UK, ownership of a tank is perfectly legal
Super Furry Animals had a super blue tank [google.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
GOVERNMENTS have comitted many crimes using them.
That just proves that government is the problem and that people need to be able to fight against governments.
The very reason why us in the United States have a second amendment is not to protect ourselves from criminals, but to protect ourselves from a tyranny; a government out of control, and in that effort we must have a reasonable chance of success, which we won't have by using revolvers and shotguns.
If police need weapons like automatic weapons, grenade l
Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score:5, Insightful)
You say the same crap that's been used to justify weapons stockpiles for decades. How much government tyranny is it going to take for you guys to start actually defending all our/your freedoms? With all the crap the NSA, TSA, FBI, and all the other three letter agencies do, you'd think we'd have had a civil war long ago. You guys keep on saying you need your guns to protect from government tyranny and yet it increases day by day.
"American's quite simply will not tolerate infringements." What a joke! Apparently even heavily armed Americans will tolerate infringements as long as they get to buy guns and spout right wing bullshit all over the airwaves and internet.
When is this revolt of your's going to happen?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score:4, Interesting)
The vehicle would be registered and taxed based on its weight and displacement, so any damage to the road should be covered under the cost of the road fund license (commonly called vehicle tax or road tax), which is set by the DVLA.
If the vehicle is driven with its road track blocks installed (rubber blocks that go on the tracks) then in theory it should have a lower pavement weight than a similarly heavy lorry, as the vehicles weight has a greater footprint, and thus lowers the stress on the road.
Re: (Score:3)
The vehicle would be registered and taxed based on its weight and displacement
Dunno what it's like in other places but here in the UK (which the OP mentioned) vehicles over a certain age (think it's 40 years now, it used to be 25, then for a long time the date was frozen) are counted as "historic vehicles" and don't pay any road tax at all. Afaict most ex-military vehicles run by enthusiasts fall into that category.
Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not responsible for other people's fear.
Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not responsible for other people's fear.
Much more importantly, my rights are not subject to revocation due to other peoples' fear.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rich people don't commit crime, rob someone of $15 nonviolent only threatening violence without a weapon do 5 - 10 years, rob a few people of 15 million never see the inside of a cell.
If the threat of violence is credible, most laws treat it essentially just like an assault that actually employs the violence. Threatening to hurt somebody until they give you their property is a violent crime - because it's predicated on your willingness and threat to do violence in order to steal something. With or without a weapon has nothing to do with it.
And can you point to an example of someone who's actually robbed $15 million and not faced criminal prosecution? Or are you confusing robbery with
Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score:4, Interesting)
It is legal to own a howitzer or a bazooka in the US. The rockets and shells I believe are regulated.
You can also own a fighter plane and or a bomber.
You can own a tank in the UK as well.
If you ever go to an airshow odds are you will see people flying fighters and bombers that they own.
It sounds really dumb but frankly I just do not see people using any of these to commit crimes.
Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score:4, Interesting)
The rockets and shells I believe are regulated.... It sounds really dumb but frankly I just do not see people using any of these to commit crimes.
Gee, I wonder if one of those has anything to do with the other.
Hey, while we're on this logical path, make all guns legal, for anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Just regulate the bullets.
Re: (Score:3)
Already been tried. Supremes ruled it unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whats wrong with US society (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same logic one could apply to any First Amendment issue, or coding for that matter: "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Re: (Score:2)
It's for home defense, commie.
Re: Whats wrong with US society (Score:4, Insightful)
No the shame is that most Americans don't believe that social consequences are their problem. This is why your society looks more and more like a toilet every day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your society has a murder rate 5 or more times that of major first world countries. And you think YOU are the ones who are free?
Re: Whats wrong with US society (Score:3, Funny)
And you fail to see the need for weapons/armored vehicles. Dumbass!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're like a drunk with a hangover who thinks the solution to it is just to drink more.
Re: Whats wrong with US society (Score:5, Insightful)
We have many things wrong in this country. Corruption, excessive government spending, a military machine that gets involved in things we should not, and many relationships with countries we should not support. Most of our crime is gang related violence. They don't follow laws and have guns. Law abiding gun owners have never been a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly. These notable examples of white men running amok are the outliers. They are a nice juicy thing for the media to latch onto. Most gun crime is not. So the mindless liberals get a really skewed idea of what's really going on and what really needs to be solved.
But yes, NRA members are not the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That something that has changed is the 24 hour news cycle. These issues happened all through history, they are just getting major nationwide attention now because there is an effort underway to take away all guns.
Roof was not legally allowed to own a gun, so no amount of gun control would have kept that gun away from him. I have not seen any news yet on where the gun came from, there is something about his father possibly buying it for him, but that has been denied.
It is unfortunate that there is so much
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is anyone can own a gun, responsible and fully sane or otherwise.
Of course that's not at all true. Every state in the country makes provisions for keeping crazy and criminal people from buying guns. It doesn't help when one of their family members decides to commit the criminal act of facilitating their acquisition of one anyway. Several states are actively knocking on doors and taking guns away from people who have been convicted of certain crimes, or who have fallen under a protective order or deemed not sane enough to own weapons. You're just (knowingly, I'm sure) wr
Re: Whats wrong with US society (Score:5, Insightful)
The wide majority of gun crime in the US is committed with guns that the person using them has no right to posses.
Roof used a gun to shoot 9 black people in SC recently. He was under felony charges for drug crimes and was not legally able to own a gun. How will more gun control laws stop him from getting a gun?
Re: (Score:3)
According to the most recent updates, he did in fact purchase the gun himself, and therefore passed the NICS check (even though he was legally barred).
But then NICS is in a really shitty state in general, and it has been known for a long time by those who cared to research it. Databases are very incomplete and out-of-date, some categories are not entered there outright by some states etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to dealing with the dangerous places isn't the infantile approach of simply banning guns. You will still have violent criminals lurking about. They may even still have their guns despite being banned. They can just get them with the rest of their contraband.
The truth of the matter is that your serious drunks will just start sniffing glue next and perhaps just be less inconspicous in their squalor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Guns have nothing to do with it, or the Swiss would be awash in blood. Rather, what we need to do is focus on economic advancement of the underclasses, which are disproportionately populated by minorities (for whatever reason). And you aren't going to get there with welfare. That has been tried, and all it does is breed generation after generation of permanent crip
Re: (Score:2)
You guys keep saying that and yet we have the NSA snooping into everything we do on a phone or on line. The TSA practically strip searches anyone getting on a commercial flight. How much tyranny does it take for all you guys to start doing something about it?
Yeah, that's what I thought...keep talking...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/j2zlPNGuPbw [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right, "Freedom". Of course. In that case why stop at a bazooka, why shouldn't you be able to own a SAM or even an ICBM? I mean its your constitoooshnal right ain't it?
Go back to swinging from your monkey bars you cretin.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yeah.
Frankly I don't see the problem with merely owning any of the aforementioned items. The problem comes when you point them at other animals, or the things that other animals care about. What's so inherently wrong with using a weapon on your own property without harming anyone?
I'd like to see laws constructed such that the moment you intend to cause harm with a weapon, regardless of how big that weapon is, you have committed a misdemeanor. Actually cause harm, and you get upgraded to a felony, with
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is not called "Freedom", this is called "Money".
The people who buy these kinds of things want to show that they can buy anything, that is the "power" of money.
Funnily, in China, the guys with money avoid buying gaudy objects.
It's not because they are modest, it's because they want to avoid IRS.
Re: Whats wrong with US society (Score:3)
By the same token, US citizens should be able to buy nukes!
Now there *is* the small possibility of owners going postal now and again! Perhaps even rendering the place inhabitable. But thats a small price to pay for a free market, right? In the long run, the market always sorts it out (perhaps has a different species take over... maybe cockroaches.... viva la market!).
Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
The intent of the United States of America was to protect and value the freedom of the individual over and above the good of society.
Nowadays it seems people here in the "home of the brave" are fearful and lazy. So they would rather society protect them instead of having to be responsible for themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The intent of the United States of America was to protect and value the freedom of the individual over and above the good of society.
Nowadays it seems people here in the "home of the brave" are fearful and lazy. So they would rather society protect them instead of having to be responsible for themselves.
Where did you get the idea that the wealthy and successful business men that founded this country wanted to put individual freedom over and above the good of society?
Re:Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Where did you get the idea that the wealthy and successful business men that founded this country wanted to put individual freedom over and above the good of society?
By reading the Bill of Rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did you get the idea that the wealthy and successful business men that founded this country wanted to put individual freedom over and above the good of society?
By reading the Bill of Rights.
Not the prior AC, but the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are a good read as well.
Re:Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
About those "wealthy and successful business men" (clue: many of them were decidedly not wealthy Virginia plantation owners - most owned/ran small businesses at most, and many were little more than yeomen)... They staked their families, fortunes and lives on the whole revolution. Most of the ~50 signatories of the Declaration of Independence sacrificed a *lot* to the cause - family members, fortunes, lives, etc. Few of them came out of it as prosperous as they went into it.
Also note that they could have *very* easily set up a new monarchy, and would have probably gotten support to do so from the population at large had they tried. In fact, much of the public were clamoring to make Washington a new king (to his immense credit, Washington hotly refused it, and intentionally limited his terms in office.) Instead, these men decided that maybe, just maybe, an improved version of the classical Greco-Roman Republic would be a better direction to go for governance. This means putting primacy on the individual, and to stop the monarch's habit of curating society (usually to the monarch's benefit, but still...)
That emphasis on individual initiative and growth (and the activities of those who took it to heart) is basically what built the US. Without it, I suspect that we'd decline and collapse in less than a century. Mind you, this does not supersede law and order, but it does mean that the US government should, wherever possible and/or practical, get the hell out of the individual citizen's way. It's a pity that most folks either don't or won't realize this...
Re:Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
You've lost your argument in the first sentence. At best, there's a 50/50 split in the nation. If "most folks" believed as you believed, we would have struck down the 2nd amendment with ease. Yet whenever the political spotlight gets aimed at gun ownership all it does is drive more people to purchase firearms and ammunition. There is no popular support for putting collectivism ahead of individualism. Support stops the moment that someone is no longer able to have or enjoy a right they had previously.
Re:Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
true freedom is "i can do whatever i want, as long as i don't impinge on the freedom of others"
an immature douchebag thinks "i can do whatever i want, who cares who i hurt or what i damage"
you responded to a comment which said 'the shame is that most Americans don't care about a little thing called "social consequences"'
which is absolutely correct and is the only way you arrive at a true mature understanding of what freedom is
the problem, the abuse that hurts actual freedom, is shitbags who go around constantly ranting about freedom, when their conception of freedom has absolutely nothing to do with actual freedom, and are really the rationalizations of immature children who either are
1. maliciously trying to avoid the consequences of their actions, or
2. are so fucking ignorant they don't understand their actions even have consequences
morons and malicious people are the ones who truly damage the respect for freedom, and they are always the ones whining about "freedom" when they are caught or asked to account for or pay for the consequences of their irresponsibility
Re:Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
A republican congress.
Re:Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
you need proof that there are idiots and malicious people?
people who whine about "freedom" when really they are asking to be excused for their irresponsibility which harms others?
the drunk driver whining about his "freedom"?
the asshole blasting music at 3 AM whining about his "freedom"?
the shitbag who lets his dog crap on other people's property whining about "freedom"?
you are unaware of losers who whine about "freedom" when they are asked to account for their actions which impinges on other people's freedoms?
really?!
people are always quaking in their boots about evil authoritarian government coming to take away their freedoms just for laughs
the truth is the real threat to your freedom are the irresponsible morons and malicious pieces of shit around you every day. people who just don't know or just don't care about the freedoms of others and how their actions can hurt that
Re: Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
the amazing lie in national politics nowadays is "religious liberty"
i thought "religious liberty" means you can practice your religion how you want and government can't regulate that
that makes sense. i support that
but mindblowingly we have people telling us they are offended at, for example, gay marriage, so their "religious liberty" has to be preserved by allowing them to oppress others and respect other people's basic rights
how dumbfoundingly ignorant about what liberty and freedom really is!
orwellian even: "my liberty means i have the right to deny you your liberty"
how does someone get their head shoved so far up their ass that this repugnant freedom denying bullshit makes sense to them?
the way "religious liberty" is talked about in politics nowadays completely inverts the concept of liberty
hey, intolerant social conservative assholes: the concept of liberty never, ever meant that you have the right to deny liberty to others. a genuine insult to your liberty is someone denying your rights. it NEVER means that you have the right to deny the rights of others
your freedom ends when your actions hurt the freedoms of others
naturally, logically
ALL freedoms have this logical natural limit: the freedom of others
any government law that codifies that is PRESERVING freedom, and protecting freedom from social conservative assholes who want to hurt the natural freedom and liberty of others. it isn't government denying you your "religious liberty". it is protecting the rest of us from your gross violation of basic liberty
"religious liberty" as currently being referred to by conservative politicians is a crock of (perhaps willfully) ignorant shit, logically incoherent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the amazing lie in national politics nowadays is "religious liberty"
i thought "religious liberty" means you can practice your religion how you want and government can't regulate that
that makes sense. i support that
but mindblowingly we have people telling us they are offended at, for example, gay marriage, so their "religious liberty" has to be preserved by allowing them to oppress others and respect other people's basic rights
The practice of one's "religious liberty" which you claim to support also means being able to live it in daily life. Operating one's business in line with one's religious liberty is simply living out their religious liberty.
Now, aside from the that issue, everyone - business and individual alike - has the right to enter or not enter into a contract. You cannot force someone to enter into a contract - that is actually illegal, and voids the contract (by law) as there is no mutual agreement. This is the ch
Re: Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
you have no right to deny a business transaction to someone because of their sexual orientation
your understanding of contracts is completely ignorant
if some guy is buying a cake from you, and you deny him the cake because he's gay, you are destroying someone else's rights, you are not exercising your rights
i'm trying to understand where you got this moronic notion, and perhaps you are referring to the propaganda scaremongering that a church would be "forced" to perform a gay wedding, for example. but this is a complete pile of steaming crap because no one ever thought you can force a church to do something against that church's beliefs, the gays will marry at some other church that does allow gay marriage. it is about what the government will respect and not respect. and the government regulates our rights and protects us from violations of our rights in general society. for example: bigots who would deny someone basic rights because of race, or sexual orientation, or religious affiliation
replace "black man" or "muslim man" with any of the bullshit you wrote above, and you can easily see that the "liberty" you say is being exercised is actually in reality denying someone else their rights. denying freedom
liberty NEVER means you can deny someone else their liberty. if you think it does, you don't understand what liberty is
and if you are businessman and you won't serve a black man, or a gay man, or a muslim, you have no earthly reason to be running a business in america. you are unamerican. you should be sued and i would like to see you shut down. because i love liberty and the principles this country was founded on. and if you are going to destroy freedom and you are going to stand against basic rights and liberties you can go swallow a shotgun you bigoted unamerican fuck. you have no fucking reason to be running a business in this great country and standing against our liberties and the principles the founding fathers based our country on
you cannot define denying the liberty of others as your liberty
to do so simply means you are an ignorant malicious unamerican asshole who should not running a business
Re: (Score:3)
because who someone has sex with has nothing to do with a fucking cake purchase
but what someone does in a church is very much bound by the purpose of that church
you can't tell the fucking difference between a bakery and a church?
a muslim store owner cannot refuse to sell me a pencil because there is a picture of muhammad on my t shirt
at the same time, i cannot go into a mosque and insist they allow me to draw a picture of muhammad there
do you understand that?
the restrictions in open society, average busines
Re: (Score:3)
I thought I knew the difference between a bakery and a church. Except maybe when the church does a bake sale...
So, the pastor can abstain from doing business with a paying customer due to his religion, but the baker cannot abstain from the same due to his religion. Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me.
Here's a real question:
What if your mosque was selling pencils?
Re:Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
TL;DR - "It scares me, so it should be banned."
I appreciate that you put so much thought into your argument, but really, it reduces to just that. Take the first example - dude wasn't *shooting* anyone in the airport, and he wasn't pointing the weapon at anyone. So aside from your fear, what else is there?
Here's the trick - instead of clamoring the government to protect you from feeling frightened, just ignore the guy. Said "loser" (if he is intending to provoke) will realize that he got no reaction, and will simply go about his business. Win-win.
Realize that (at least conceptually) you should never get to control others' behavior via governmental force, so long as that behavior does not constitute a direct and obvious threat to persons or property.
You go out of your way to denigrate the persons who do the open-carry thing. In some cases, fair enough, it is stupid in some situations, depending on the person's demeanor and actions while doing so. However, three things come up:
1) it's legally none of your business
2) if you think it's done out of ego or inadequacy, then why do you feed that by reacting to it so fearfully?
3) most folks who carry firearms (concealed or not) do not go out of their way to draw attention to themselves as any sort of wannabe badass, perception/assertion be damned. A firearm is a responsibility, not a dildo - and all but a very small percentage of firearm owners bear themselves fully on this fact (which is why in nearly all cases, said firearms are unloaded and/or properly holstered with the safety on unless being used).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Great society we have if we have to take people's liberties away in order to get them to live with one another.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise surprise. No armoring yourself allowed. They want to be able to kill you easily.
Because there are laws preventing you from going to a metal shop, buying inch-think sheets of steel and welding them to your pickup? Just leave enough space between the steel and the car body so you can pour in some sand and you essentially have what most of the US Army was doing to humvees in Iraq because they didn't get uparmor kits. Should stop anything the police have unless SWAT brings out a .50 rifle or they have surplus AP rounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, the M2HB Browning with its .50 caliber armor-piercing cartridges went on to function as an anti-aircraft and anti-vehicular machine gun, with a capability of completely perforating 0.875" (22.2 mm) of face-hardened armor steel plate at 100 yards (91 m), and 0.75" (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m).[7]
Not quite, but still mighty impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the police aren't our masters. Although they are paid to "serve and protect" us, the truth is that their interest is whatever the government tells them it should be and the governments get their instructions from whomever pays the ruling party most. The party, not the government. So pay all the parties that are likely to form governments and you will always get your way.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Just like with "gun control", there will be exceptions carved out for the elites and government. In the end, an ample supply will still remain in society and the problem won't actually really be solved. You'll just disarm more of the responsible types.
This was a formerly "legit" armoured car tha got retired and surplussed out into some "normal civilians" hands.
Re:If you've got nothing to hide (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you've got nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
Or East LA. Or the wrong side of Boston, Houston, Miami, or most other big cities. You don't have to leave the USA to find third world countries.
Re:If you've got nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
And the only people with raised eyebrows are the ones that contract private transportation, much of it with "enhanced safety" and specially trained drivers.
It's like some dickwad whining about people having guns yet has armed guards on the payroll.
Re: If you've got nothing to hide (Score:3)
Those foreign agents really did a great job with Kennedy and Reagan.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but the real way to resist subjugation by the state is to free your mind. The armored car and big gun thing is just fantasy. Look at how well it worked out for this guy.
What modern authoritarian states are vulnerable to are public opinion. They can absorb large amounts of paramilitary opposition and as long as they retain the upper hand the regime is stable -- in fact the military opposition is useful to it. But they are critically dependent upon the willing cooperation of the populace and vulnera