Why don't critics of the Patriot Act take up arms against the US Government?

[CFLarsen]

Cleopatra said in this thread: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49209&perpage=40&pagenumber=2)
Originally posted by Cleopatra
Let's take a very crude example. Nobody took his arms to defend the State from Ashcroft's Patriot Act.

There must have been some american citizens that must have felt threatened by it and yet I didn't learn that anybody took his arms to apply what the Founding Fathers have advised....

I would like to hear the reason(s).

[shanek]

As I replied to that very post in that very thread, because it just isn't necessary yet, not when a dozen states and hundreds of municipalities are refusing to comply with it. The resistance so far seems to be both passive and effective. Taking up arms is a LAST RESORT.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
As I replied to that very post in that very thread, because it just isn't necessary yet, not when a dozen states and hundreds of municipalities are refusing to comply with it. The resistance so far seems to be both passive and effective. Taking up arms is a LAST RESORT.

How is this resistance "effective"?

What will it take, before you - personally - will take up arms against the government trying to impose the Patriot Act on you?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How is this resistance "effective"?

What will it take, before you - personally - will take up arms against the government trying to impose the Patriot Act on you? CFL, what do you mean "impose the Patriot Act on you." It has been imposed on us.

While many Americans were deeply skeptical about governmental reach they were also very concerned for their own safety in the wake of 9-11.

Certain abilities of law enforncement had been applied to go after organized crime but were unavailable to those fighting terrorism on our soil. It made some sense to match capability to track down crime syndicate participants and terror syndicate participants equally.

I know there is more to it than that but what exactly does your question mean?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How is this resistance "effective"?

Because in many areas it renders the USA PATRIOT Act completely unenforceable.

What will it take, before you - personally - will take up arms against the government trying to impose the Patriot Act on you?

Good question. For me personally, it would pretty much be when we approach martial law. Understand that if the government ever tells me I can't have a gun the first thing I will do will be to obtain one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Because in many areas it renders the USA PATRIOT Act completely unenforceable.

How precisely does this resistance render the Patriot Act completely unenforceable?

Originally posted by shanek
Good question. For me personally, it would pretty much be when we approach martial law. Understand that if the government ever tells me I can't have a gun the first thing I will do will be to obtain one.

When precisely do you "approach" martial law?

Do you understand the meaning of "precisely"?

[WildCat]

Claus, we all get it. You hate guns, and you have a bizarre obsession w/ the gun laws in a country you don't even live in.

The vast majority of Americans disagree w/ you on this, a gun ban isn't going to happen here. Get over it already.

And this is an absurd thread! Are you really surprised that Americans don't take up arms against the gov't because elected officials passed a law some don't agree with? Fascinating...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by WildCat
Claus, we all get it. You hate guns, and you have a bizarre obsession w/ the gun laws in a country you don't even live in.

I visit the US from time to time. I still have family there. I also care about what goes on in the world. You might have a problem with that. I don't.

Originally posted by WildCat
The vast majority of Americans disagree w/ you on this, a gun ban isn't going to happen here. Get over it already.

And this is an absurd thread! Are you really surprised that Americans don't take up arms against the gov't because elected officials passed a law some don't agree with? Fascinating...

I am surprised that those who hold on to their guns so much because they are so concerned about their (gun) rights, are not using them for their claimed purpose: To defend themselves against oppression from the said government.

That is fascinating.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How precisely does this resistance render the Patriot Act completely unenforceable?

How are they going to do it if state and local authorities won't cooperate?

When precisely do you "approach" martial law?

When they invalidate our votes, our courts, and remove our ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. That'd basically leave no other choice.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am surprised that those who hold on to their guns so much because they are so concerned about their (gun) rights, are not using them for their claimed purpose: To defend themselves against oppression from the said government.

Claus on fire insurance (EDIT TO ADD DISCLAIMER: This is (as should be obvious to anyone with an IQ larger than the room temperature) a restating of the above quote to a different subject to illustrate its absurdity, and should not be taken to be a direct quote of anything Claus Larsen has said in this or any other thread):

I am surprised that those who hold on to their fire insurance and pay the premiums month after month are not using them for their claimed purpose: to rebuild their house after a fire.

Guns are insurance. You have them in the hopes that you will never have to use them.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I visit the US from time to time. I still have family there. I also care about what goes on in the world. You might have a problem with that. I don't.



I am surprised that those who hold on to their guns so much because they are so concerned about their (gun) rights, are not using them for their claimed purpose: To defend themselves against oppression from the said government.

That is fascinating.


Wait a moment. I have a right to own a gun. That is as far as it goes. I have a right of free association yet I don't care to associate with many people, speech, press etc.

Rights are not use it or lose it.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Let's take a very crude example. Nobody took his arms to defend the State from Ashcroft's Patriot Act.

CFLarsen said;

I would like to hear the reason(s).

I am surprised that those who hold on to their guns so much because they are so concerned about their (gun) rights, are not using them for their claimed purpose: To defend themselves against oppression from the said government.


Ranb says;

Most people know that violence is not the most appropriate response for every occasion. Even gun owners know this. Gunpowder and lead fumes do not rot the brain that much.

We hold on to them just because we do not want to lose them anymore than we want to lose anything else we own. To most gunowners, firearms are just another thing they have in the house. Tell them they are not to be trusted with something else they own and you may get a similar "stick where the sun don't shine" reply.

Does your family in the USA have the same fanatical ideas about gun control that you have?

Ranb

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus on fire insurance:



Guns are insurance. You have them in the hopes that you will never have to use them.

The purpose of fire insurance is to provide money for property lost due to certain events. You have no obligation to use the mony in any specific way. I don't get this.

[shecky]

I alwyas thought it was amusing that the typical gun nut response regarding when they would use them against the government, was only when the government decides to take them away. I suspect they'd willingly give up just about any other right if it was suspended by the right God fearin' president. But the guns seem to be their own justification.

In practical terms, if the government decided to go to war with it's gun toting citizens, would it be much of a fight? Assuming , of course, such a thing would come to pass, where the U.S. military was willing to do the job. I could see some gun nuts willing to go in a blaze of glory. These would be like the guys who stayed behind in Falluja.

Even the most legally armed citizen resistance would be about as effective as Iraqi insurgents are today (if even that much). Which is to say guerilla/terrorist tactics may be the only effective tool of such insurgency.

All this is to say that if Americans are relying on the Second Amendment to protect them from their government's military, they're simply deluding themselves. Federal govt will always outgun even the most enthusiastic citizen to partake of the Second Amendment.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shecky
I alwyas thought it was amusing that the typical gun nut response regarding when they would use them against the government, was only when the government decides to take them away. I suspect they'd willingly give up just about any other right if it was suspended by the right God fearin' president. But the guns seem to be their own justification.

In practical terms, if the government decided to go to war with it's gun toting citizens, would it be much of a fight? Assuming , of course, such a thing would come to pass, where the U.S. military was willing to do the job. I could see some gun nuts willing to go in a blaze of glory. These would be like the guys who stayed behind in Falluja.

Even the most legally armed citizen resistance would be about as effective as Iraqi insurgents are today (if even that much). Which is to say guerilla/terrorist tactics may be the only effective tool of such insurgency.

All this is to say that if Americans are relying on the Second Amendment to protect them from their government's military, they're simply deluding themselves. Federal govt will always outgun even the most enthusiastic citizen to partake of the Second Amendment.

Assuming the military would fire on US citizens.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Ranb

We hold on to them just because we do not want to lose them anymore than we want to lose anything else we own. To most gunowners, firearms are just another thing they have in the house. Tell them they are not to be trusted with something else they own and you may get a similar "stick where the sun don't shine" reply.


Now, this I can agree with. I simply wouldn't want the govt taking my property.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Ed
Assuming the military would fire on US citizens.

Of course.

Assuming , of course, such a thing would come to pass, where the U.S. military was willing to do the job.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
How are they going to do it if state and local authorities won't cooperate?

Answer the question, please:

How precisely does this resistance render the Patriot Act completely unenforceable?

Originally posted by shanek
When they invalidate our votes, our courts, and remove our ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. That'd basically leave no other choice.

How will votes be "invalidated"?

How will the courts be "invalidated"?

I assume that by removing the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances, you mean freedom of speech. You have no problems whatsoever with the restrictions of freedom of speech in the Patriot Act?

Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Source (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13465&c=130)

Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.
...
The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later.
...
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.
Source (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13465&c=130)

This is not reason enough for you to take up arms against the Government?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus on fire insurance:

Do not forge quotes.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shecky
Of course.

of course......(sorry, read too quickly)

[gnome]

From my reading of the Declaration of Independence, which is an excellent guide in such matters, I believe... as soon as our government fails to derive from the consent of the government, it is time to overturn it.

It does not matter if I believe the majority have been duped into accepting something not in their best interests. The representative process must break down before I would feel justified in revolution.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Answer the question, please:

Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.

(edited quote)

This is not reason enough for you to take up arms against the Government?


Claus, they always could. They can supeana anything.

In fact, I would like to know if anyone can demonstrate that the more onerous elements of the Patriot Act are not possible legally in their own country.

Incidentially, how many countries require identity cards? How many make you leave you ID when you check into a hotel? Just curious.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Answer the question, please:

I did, liar. People refusing to enforce the law renders it unenforceable. Stop evading.

How will votes be "invalidated"?

How will the courts be "invalidated"?

If elections are ignored, for example, when the Republicans used the military to install their candidate for Governor of Alabama in 1872 even though he lost the election; and if the court system is ignored, like when the US military ignored the orders of a Federal court to allow José Padilla to have access to legal counsel.

I assume that by removing the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances, you mean freedom of speech.

No, that's a separate right. PLEASE read the Constitution.

This is not reason enough for you to take up arms against the Government?

Not yet, because there are still several avenues of redress open.

This is how small-minded you are, Claus. You just CANNOT see any other solution to such a problem other than violence, while accusing the other side of exactly the same.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do not forge quotes.

It wasn't a forgery, Claus. It was a direct transference of your logic to another situation. But again, any old excuse to ignore the argument...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I did, liar. People refusing to enforce the law renders it unenforceable. Stop evading.

I am asking you to be precise. Who has refused, and in what ways, specifically?

Originally posted by shanek
If elections are ignored, for example, when the Republicans used the military to install their candidate for Governor of Alabama in 1872 even though he lost the election;

Did we see an armed uprising then?

Originally posted by shanek
and if the court system is ignored, like when the US military ignored the orders of a Federal court to allow José Padilla to have access to legal counsel.

Did we see an armed uprising then?

Originally posted by shanek
No, that's a separate right. PLEASE read the Constitution.

I have.

Originally posted by shanek
Not yet, because there are still several avenues of redress open.

Like what? I could just as easy point to several avenues of redress before the Revolution started. So why don't you take up your firearm and fight this government that suppresses your constitutional rights?

Originally posted by shanek
This is how small-minded you are, Claus. You just CANNOT see any other solution to such a problem other than violence, while accusing the other side of exactly the same.

How quick you are with the personal insults. They always seem to come when you are cornered. Such as here.

It's very easy for you to boldly declare your insistence on your rights. It's quite a different matter when you actually have to live up to all those words.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
It wasn't a forgery, Claus. It was a direct transference of your logic to another situation. But again, any old excuse to ignore the argument...

It was an attempt to ascribe be quotes I had never said. That's a forgery.

[glsunder]

Why don't critics of the Patriot Act take up arms against the US Government?

For the exact same reasons Iraqis didn't rise up against Saddam: 1. It would fail. 2. You would be killed or imprisoned. It doesnt matter how good or bad the government is. If the revolt is sure to fail, you'll end up being much worse off than you were if you just sat down and shut up.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am asking you to be precise. Who has refused, and in what ways, specifically?

What, do you want me to list all of the hundreds of them?

Here's an informative essay on it:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR29.1/scarry.html

Did we see an armed uprising then?

Did we see an armed uprising then?

You asked ME where I would draw the line. What others would do or have done is irrelevant to answering that question. Stop evading.

I have.

Then how could you assume that the right to petition the government for redress of grievances means freedom of speech?

Like what?

I've given you several examples.

I could just as easy point to several avenues of redress before the Revolution started.

Most if not all of which, I'd wager, were tried and failed. Read On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson.

[more of Claus's typical personal abuse deleted]

[shanek]

For more historical perspective, here is the Tryon Declaration of Independence (one of the signers from which I am directly descended) signed on August 14, 1775:

The unprecedented, barbarous and bloody actions committed by British troops on our American brethren near Boston, on 19th April and 20th of May last, together with the hostile operations and treacherous designs now carrying on, by the tools of ministerial vengeance, for the subjugation of all British America, suggest to us the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country whenever the wisdom and counsel of the Continental Congress or our Provincial Convention shall declare it necessary; and this engagement we will continue in for the preservation of those rights and liberties which the principals of our Constitution and the laws of God, nature and nations have made it our duty to defend.

We therefore, the subscribers, freeholders and inhabitants of Tryon County, do here by faithfully unite ourselves under the most solemn ties of religion, honor and love to our county, firmly to resist force by force, and hold sacred till a reconciliation shall take place between Great Brittain and America on Constitutional principals, which we most ardently desire and do firmly agree to hold all such persons as inimical to the liberties of America who shall refuse to sign this association.

For them, the actions of the British in Concord and Lexington were enough to cross the line. We're not anywhere near there yet.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It was an attempt to ascribe be quotes I had never said. That's a forgery.

No, it was a restating of your quote on another subject to show how ludicrous it was. That's logic. Now stop evading and address the point.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
What, do you want me to list all of the hundreds of them?

Just a few. Why do you think I ask? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by shanek
Here's an informative essay on it:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR29.1/scarry.html

...preferably in your own words. You apparently are not able to have formed your own opinions, but was stalling for time until you could google up something....

Originally posted by shanek
You asked ME where I would draw the line. What others would do or have done is irrelevant to answering that question. Stop evading.

So, we did not see an armed uprising there, either. Kinda makes me wonder if there is anything at all that will cause it.

Originally posted by shanek
Then how could you assume that the right to petition the government for redress of grievances means freedom of speech?

Because redressing of grievances presupposes that you are able to speak freely.

Originally posted by shanek
I've given you several examples.

No, you point to what others think. In the total absence of your own opinions, of course.

Originally posted by shanek
Most if not all of which, I'd wager, were tried and failed. Read On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson.

Nevertheless, not all avenues of redress were tried, before people took up firearms. Yet, they did. And you won't, even given the many violations of the Constitution you hold so dearly. Can you say the "H"-word?

Originally posted by shanek
[more of Claus's typical personal abuse deleted]

Incredible. You pour post after post filled with personal attacks over me, and claim that when I corner you (in this case, out you as a hypocrite, because you don't put your money where your mouth is, that is considered personal "abuse" of you.

Whenever you resort to name-calling, it is clear you have no other options.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it was a restating of your quote on another subject to show how ludicrous it was. That's logic. Now stop evading and address the point.

I refuse to play your dishonest games.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ed
Claus, they always could. They can supeana anything.

In fact, I would like to know if anyone can demonstrate that the more onerous elements of the Patriot Act are not possible legally in their own country.

Incidentially, how many countries require identity cards? How many make you leave you ID when you check into a hotel? Just curious.

Still curious.

Are there records that are sacrosanct in Europe? The police can't get at them? Which ones?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Just a few.

How many is a few?

Here's the one that passed in Alaska (http://www.bordc.org/alaska-res.pdf) (PDF). Some excerpts:

[I]n accordance with Alaska state policy, an agency or instrumentality of the State of Alaska, in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Alaska State law, may not

<blockquote>(1) initiate, participate in, or assist or cooperate with an inquiry, investigation, surveillance, or detention;
(2) record, file, or share intelligence information concerning a person or organization, including library lending and research records, book and video store sales and rental records, medical records, financial records, student records, and other personal data, even if authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act;
(3) retain such intelligence information; the state Attorney General shall review the intelligence information currently held by the state for its legality and appropriateness under the United States and Alaska Constitutions and permanently dispose of it if there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity;</blockquote>

[A]n agency or instrumentality of the state may not,
<blockquote>(1) use state resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the federal government;
(2) collect or maintain information about the political, religious, or social views, associations, or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business, or partnership, unless the information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct;
(3) engage in racial profiling; law enforcement agencies may not use race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin as factors in selecting individuals to subject to investigatory activities except when seeking to apprehend a specific suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin is part of the description of the suspect;</blockquote>

Pretty much all the information you could want on these resolutions you can find here: http://www.bordc.org/

[more personal abuse deleted]

So, we did not see an armed uprising there, either. Kinda makes me wonder if there is anything at all that will cause it.

What do the words "last resort" mean to you, Claus?

Nevertheless, not all avenues of redress were tried,

Name one that wasn't tried.

[even more personal abuse deleted]

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I refuse to play your dishonest games.

More of your usual whining&mdash;what you ALWAYS resort to when someone points out a problem with your logic.

There was a VALID point there, Claus, which you apparently have no answer for.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
How many is a few?

Oh, would three be too extravagant? In your own words, of course.

Originally posted by shanek
Here's the one that passed in Alaska (http://www.bordc.org/alaska-res.pdf) (PDF). Some excerpts:

Yeah, yeah. Anyone can google. What do you think?

Originally posted by shanek
Pretty much all the information you could want on these resolutions you can find here: http://www.bordc.org/

What do you think?

Originally posted by shanek
[more personal abuse deleted]

BadaBing!

Originally posted by shanek
What do the words "last resort" mean to you, Claus?

That there are no other options. Clearly, that was not the case re. the Revolution.

Originally posted by shanek
Name one that wasn't tried.

How does negotiation sound? How does compromise sound?

Originally posted by shanek
[even more personal abuse deleted]

BadaBing!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
More of your usual whining&mdash;what you ALWAYS resort to when someone points out a problem with your logic.

BadaBing!

Originally posted by shanek
There was a VALID point there, Claus, which you apparently have no answer for.

I already gave you my answer: I refuse to play your dishonest games. I will not reply to a point I never made.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, would three be too extravagant? In your own words, of course.

Whaddya mean, "my own words"? You're asking me for examples of states and municipalities opposing the USA PATRIOT Act. What do "my own words" have to do with anything?

Yeah, yeah. Anyone can google.

:rolleyes:

It's what you ASKED FOR, Claus.

What do you think?

About WHAT???

That there are no other options. Clearly, that was not the case re. the Revolution.

Fine. Name one feasible pragmatic option that was open to them that they did not persue.

How does negotiation sound?

Tried it. It failed.

How does compromise sound?

Tried it. It failed.

Did you read the Jefferson/Dickinson paper I cited to you?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I already gave you my answer: I refuse to play your dishonest games. I will not reply to a point I never made.

YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!!

YOU MADE THIS POINT, CLAUS:

I am surprised that those who hold on to their guns so much because they are so concerned about their (gun) rights, are not using them for their claimed purpose: To defend themselves against oppression from the said government.

And I made a comparison to fire insurance and gave you this response:

Guns are insurance. You have them in the hopes that you will never have to use them.

Respond to this point.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!!

BadaBing!

Originally posted by shanek
And I made a comparison to fire insurance and gave you this response:

Respond to this point.

A point I never made. Please explain how that makes me a "liar".

Really. Please explain it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
A point I never made.

YES YOU DID, YOU LIAR!!!! I QUOTED YOU MAKING IT!!!

Here it is AGAIN:

I am surprised that those who hold on to their guns so much because they are so concerned about their (gun) rights, are not using them for their claimed purpose: To defend themselves against oppression from the said government.

STOP WEASELING, STOP LYING, AND RESPOND TO MY POINT!!!

[WildCat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I visit the US from time to time. I still have family there. I also care about what goes on in the world. You might have a problem with that. I don't.
Since you've claimed that you wouldn't fly on an airplane that has an armed Air Marshal aboard, and most do, how do you get here? Boat? Have you killed an Air Marshal yet? And if you think your family is in such great danger here, do the responsible thing. Get them out of the US before they get shot!


I am surprised that those who hold on to their guns so much because they are so concerned about their (gun) rights, are not using them for their claimed purpose: To defend themselves against oppression from the said government.

That is fascinating.
Prove that the US gov't is oppressing it's citizens, and then I'll answer your question. I must have been asleep the day when all elections were invalidated, martial law declared, the president assumed dictatorial powers, the courts were closed, etc.

This may top the thread where you claimed you'd kill an Air Marshal on sight for sheer loony-tunes nonsense.

[Chaos]

Shanek

May I point out that you analogy between the Second Amendment and a fire insurance is flawed?

Fire insurance cannot prevent anything from happening; it only restores the previous state (or something close to it) after a disaster has happened.

I guess a better analogy for what you have in mind would be a sprinkler installation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chaos
May I point out that you analogy between the Second Amendment and a fire insurance is flawed?

Fire insurance cannot prevent anything from happening; it only restores the previous state (or something close to it) after a disaster has happened.

I guess a better analogy for what you have in mind would be a sprinkler installation.

Well, your point is taken, but as far as I went with the analogy, that you have it in the hopes that you will never have to use it, it is still valid. But so is your sprinkler system analogy.

Heck, I have two fire extinguishers I hope I'll never have to use. Of course, if you've seen Clerks, you'll know that they can be used for defense, too.... :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by WildCat
Since you've claimed that you wouldn't fly on an airplane that has an armed Air Marshal aboard, and most do

They do?

Originally posted by WildCat
how do you get here? Boat?

SAS.

Originally posted by WildCat
Have you killed an Air Marshal yet?

No.

Originally posted by WildCat
And if you think your family is in such great danger here, do the responsible thing. Get them out of the US before they get shot!

We've talked about it, but they are comfortable where they are.

Originally posted by WildCat
Prove that the US gov't is oppressing it's citizens, and then I'll answer your question. I must have been asleep the day when all elections were invalidated, martial law declared, the president assumed dictatorial powers, the courts were closed, etc.

I am talking about the reasons why gun proponents want their guns: So they are prepared, when the gubmint comes after them.

Originally posted by WildCat
This may top the thread where you claimed you'd kill an Air Marshal on sight for sheer loony-tunes nonsense.

For security, yes. I don't trust anyone on board a plane with a weapon.

[Thanz]

CFLarsen and shanek -

I have had my run ins with both of you, and so I am sure that you will agree that in a dispute between the two of you, I have no favourites. In fact, I have wondered in the past which of you I find to have the more annoying posting style (in my own personal opinion, of course). This thread clinches it, and really, it is not even close.

CFLarsen, what the heck is your point here? I live in Canada and don't like guns any more than you do, but this is ridiculous. Surprise that citizens aren't revolting against the government? Most people know that violence (as shanek has said) is, or at least should be, a last resort. Those who don't are on the wingnut fringe of the militia types. And in case you have forgotten, some of those have taken up arms against the government. Remember Oklahoma City?

Further, shanek has stated his own opinion right at the beginning of the thread - armed uprising is not needed right now as there are other peaceful options. SOme of those options are currently working, as state and local authorities refuse to help enforcing the Act. His posting of links to articles on this are not substituting other's opinions for his own - they are backup for his own opinion. They are evidence that what he says is happening is actually happening.

That being said, I still think shanek has a bit of a short fuse. But at least in this thread, I can see why.

And now the world must end, as I have spent an entire post defending shanek and his posts.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Cleopatra said in this thread: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49209&perpage=40&pagenumber=2)


I would like to hear the reason(s).

Well, since I've always been pro-Patriot Act it never really ocurred to me. :p

-z

[Luke T.]

Americans are rebelling against the Patriot Act. They are rebelling in the courts.

I recall when the U.S. Government asked the states to provide the names of immigrants from certain Middle Eastern countries for possible interrogation, the state of Oregon refused.