matefrio wrote:The Annoyed Man et all like you»
You live a life of care free comfort that is now afforded you by lax enforcement of the law. I see you like a grasshopper not caring that there may be a harsh winter time coming watching us ants worry and work while the skys are clear.
Let's say someone gets elected in your area that doesn't like people who own machine guns and silencers. Suddenly we DO have busses to haul everyone away at the silencer and machine guns shoots and by then the law will all but be impossible to change. It only takes one tyrannical leader to darken the skies with such laws on the books.
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges."
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand
Wow.
First: Care free comfort? You really don't know me. You can
see me how ever you want to, but you are delusional without actually knowing me. I am self-employed. I work my tail off......when there is business.....and I am one of those who will be hugely impacted if Obama is elected to another term, even worse than I have already been impacted by his first term, because my business is directly impacted by his economic policies. This impact directly affects my income. This is one of the major reasons I so thoroughly resent libertarian efforts to bleed off republican voters. They are more concerned with maintaining the purity of their ideology than they are with the
immediate effects of those efforts on the very real lives of very real people, and on small business owners like me. They would rather see the results of another Obama term happen to the nation, than they would be willing to make certain
practical adjustments to their political activities. That makes them, for all
practical political purposes, identical to the hardcore leftists of the democratic party, who dismiss the concerns of real persons by saying "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." Anyone who takes that attitude with me is my personal enemy. You want to talk about frittering away the summer weather while worker ants work? That is exactly the description of the efforts of the Libertarian Party at this exact moment in American history, when those efforts are an indulgence the nation can poorly afford.
Second: AT NO POINT IN THIS THREAD have I said that the law shouldn't be changed. Review some of my posts on this board about how I view government and the 2nd Amendment before making unfounded accusations like that. My posts in this thread have consisted solely of saying, in effect, that
this is not an emergency—particularly not when the state government appears to be enthusiastically supporting lifting regulations against the possession and use of suppressors. In fact, my son and I have an appointment with our attorney for the purposes of setting up our NFA trust, exactly for the reasons that we support the decriminalization of these items. The more of them there are in citizen hands, the harder it will ever be for government to take them all away. I agree that the NFA makes it possible to instantly criminalize law-abiding citizens. The sooner the laws are removed from the books, the better. But when
enough people are on the NFA books, turning them into instant felons becomes a political impossibility. If an American government were able to
make it happen, then we already have bigger issues and it is time to resort to the bullet box instead of the ballot box. But until and unless such a time comes, it is much better to procede in an orderly and
unpanicked manner with removing such laws from the books. Again, you don't know me.
Third: Quoting Publius Cornelius Tacitus ("In the most corrupt state are the most laws")......Quote him in context. He also said "
Mores sunt tacitus consensus populi longa consuetudine inveteratus (The customs are tacit agreements made by the consensus of the people over a long interval (Legal term Domitius Ulpianus)). Tacitus is also one of the secular sources confirming the existence of Jesus Christ and the historicity of the crucifixion. Ayn Rand (whom you also quote) was a clinical model of sociopathy.....and yes, I've read her works. I find it wryly amusing that (Big "L") Libertarians like to quote Ayn Rand as the founder of their (libertarian) faith, and often deride Christianity based on Ayn Rand's attacks on the same, but also like to quote Tactitus—who confirms the crucifixion of Christ and who was anything BUT a libertarian—to support Libertarianism, an act of cognitive dissonance. Historically, a Roman Senator had to actually
agree with the idea of powerfully centralized Roman government—as someone who maintained opposition to that concept would not only never be elected to office, but in all likelihood would have been penalized for such views. And in those days, the penalties were draconian. Selective references to ancient history to support ones modern views had better be contextually true for that support to actually work.....particularly when the person quoted, Publius Cornelius Tacitus was also a historian.
I have nothing against
some libertarian principles. If I were to describe my own views, I would describe myself as "leaning toward, but not fully committed to a libertarian interpretation of republicanism." My personal favorite quote from a Roman Senator is Marcus Tullius Cicero-"The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall." You want to know where Io stand politically? Here is a good place to start:
viewtopic.php?f=83&t=54635&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
I think you owe me an apology.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT