• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A question every American should ask themselves.

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Of course not, and some wrongs will simply never be corrected.
The only reason some wrongs will be perpetuated is, as Edmund Burke said, "All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." (One of several slightly differing quotes attributed to Burke on that subject - the message remains the same even though the wording may vary a bit) This raises the question that if good men do something, what kind and how much of "something" is appropriate?
Maybe something drastic but not violent. Because lets take a hypothetical and say we have a successful revolution and overthrow the government, now what?
If that "something" is too drastic it will either become violent because of the participation of "organized" radical groups (street gangs, criminal organizations, militia, assorted anarchist groups, those who would be "king", etc.), or it will be made violent by the directed intervention of our own military forces when the government tires of peaceful disturbances - which historically grow less peaceful over time (Google "Bonus Army", if you doubt the government's willingness to do so).

All the "freedom fighters" will now be looking to take control for themselves, we have few true statesmen like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson et al that I think any violent uprising will be warped by fringe groups who will want to take total power and start their own oligarchy once the current system is out of the way. simply speaking, we need to work with the constitution and system we have, violence is not the answer except as a very last resort, and in modern society, I don't see violent uprisings ever working the way our founding did.
Agreed. See above re: "fringe groups"

Even the declaration of independence says " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
If our government was in the process of "selling out" our sovereignty and freedoms, such an action would be significantly more than a "light or transient" cause.

I really don't believe violence is the way to go, nor do I think an armed revolt will be nessecary, there are always those who will talk a big talk, but I'm a peaceful person at heart.
Violence begets violence, and 'round and 'round we go (Google "Hatfields and McCoys", or search Prohibition Gang Wars). Most Americans prefer to live in peace, but you will find - anywhere in the world - those who seem to live for an opportunity to commit acts of violence against their fellow human beings. As I see it, the problem(s) with a violent revolution within the ConUS is manifold:
1. It would be absolutely chaotic. There would be multiple and conflicting organized group agendas within the populace, and countless individuals with only one agenda - survival - for themselves and their family (and possibly a close circle of trusted friends).
2. The casualty count would be tremendous, and those least prepared for an emergency would be the first to go.
3. Any large-scale internal disruption within the ConUS, would be seen by those international forces which we do not consider to be friends, as an opportunity. Acting upon that opportunity could take one of at least two diametrically opposed positions - "wait and see" or "strike while the iron is hot". The "wait and see" approach would be to watch while we decimate the population ourselves. And (of course) the "hot iron" approach would be to join in the fray while we are no longer united as a nation, and gleefully helping us to destroy ourselves. If I were making the call, it would be for the "wait and see" approach. It is more economical for the outsiders in terms of weapons, munitions, transportation costs and casualties.

Resolving political problems through peaceful means is always the best way. However, if/when the Constitutional system that supports those peaceful means becomes unresponsive to the desires of the people, "all bets are off". These are just my thoughts, and certainly subject to disagreement (after all, I have been declared the resident forum lunatic by those who believe themselves to be omniscient :rolleyes:). Pax...

P.S. Along these lines, here's something for the Libertarians (and the like-minded) among us -
[FONT=&quot]As Libertarian writer Claire Wolfe has stated, "America is at that awkward stage: It's too late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards."[/FONT]
:D (That statement even made me smile)
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Actions such as the above is why I have respect for you, even when I adamantly disagree with you. I'm not certain if I would have had the foresight to think about it like that (who needs permission from who), but I will definitely be trying to look at it that way in the future if a similar situation ever arises. Great example, even better that it didn't take lawyers to figure out who was in the right.

Thanks. I am still very shocked that only 4 kids didn't get the finger print. And of those only one parent refused to sign a form asking for permission to not have them taken... It's very sad to me.

ETA: The thing about adamantly disagreeing... I'm not sure if we are having some active arguement in another thread (I truly, honestly don't hold any grudges, or even remember one argument to the next). If your a true 2A supporter your a friend of mine. I might call you a tard on one thread while contribuiting to your lawyer fees on another thread :)

Well, he saw me talk to the TSA agent (right by my side). The TSA said: its our policy. I said: Its my policy to place people under citizen arrest for touching my kid. Lets see whose policy is best.

They did not touch my kid and we went on our way.

But other people think its just fine and dandy.

Tip: the parent should ALWAYS go through a checkpoint first. If the kid goes first, they'll do whatever they want to him and you'll be on the other side unable to assist. If you are past the checkpoint, you can always go back.... (it used to be the reverse before the TSA begun their molestation processes).

Nicely done. And good advice about going first before the kid. Although the absolutely only reason I will fly any more is true family emergencies.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Of course not, and some wrongs will simply never be corrected.



Well not exactly, because by law small groups of individuals do not have total power and corporations are not directly in control, I see us as maybe a functional oligarchy because too few people are involved in political process, but we're not a true oligarchy because everyone who wants to can still get meaningfully involved in politics.



Maybe something drastic but not violent. Because lets take a hypothetical and say we have a successful revolution and overthrow the government, now what? All the "freedom fighters" will now be looking to take control for themselves, we have few true statesmen like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson et al that I think any violent uprising will be warped by fringe groups who will want to take total power and start their own oligarchy once the current system is out of the way. simply speaking, we need to work with the constitution and system we have, violence is not the answer except as a very last resort, and in modern society, I don't see violent uprisings ever working the way our founding did.

Even the declaration of independence says " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"

I really don't believe violence is the way to go, nor do I think an armed revolt will be nessecary, there are always those who will talk a big talk, but I'm a peaceful person at heart.

Not quite complete. This is how the Declaration of Independence addresses this issue.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Although the absolutely only reason I will fly any more is true family emergencies.

I don't like it anymore because the airline employees seem to hate flying too. They are not happy campers. But I still like the ringing in my ears when they yell "OPT OUT".... and then I yell back "RADIATION from nudoscan detected"... good times

Or when I'm inside and smoking my e-cig ... usually comes with a visit from the airport's finest claiming its against the law, when its not...

My kid is no longer a minor ... he's on his own .. thats why when your kid is a minor and he sees you dealing with gov't authority, you HAVE TO push your rights to the limit so he learns what that limit is. I have cursed at cops, TSA, other gov't officials just so that my kid learns that while the behavior is not nice it is acceptable under our rights. If one is always polite and condescending to officials that's what your kid will think is required. Actions speak louder than words. And I have sat there for 20 minutes with my kid at my side when gov't officials ask me a zillion questions and I sit there silent and the official gets all mad and yells and it does not bother me...my kid knows to say nothing to the cop....except to maybe tell him "I'll be happy to answer any question you have, in court" (and that answer gets 1/2 the officials going ballistic and 1/2 saying OK, I'm giving up on you).
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Yea, my minor son said "It's OK dad, I don't care" at the airport. I told him he does not get to decide what is right or wrong about a guy who wants to grope you.

Young people are not too bright ... its one of the reasons why I favor the draft (in addition to costs).. when they put their butts on the line or sweat for our constitution then they'll think twice about the "we don't care" answer.



Care to explain how a draft would not be in violation of the 13th amendment? Is violating the Constitution the best way to defend it? I think not.

How someone could claim to support individual freedom, and support a draft is beyond me. Either you support individual freedom, or you support a draft, you cant support both.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Care to explain how a draft would not be in violation of the 13th amendment? Is violating the Constitution the best way to defend it? I think not.

How someone could claim to support individual freedom, and support a draft is beyond me. Either you support individual freedom, or you support a draft, you cant support both.

Well I'll let the supreme court of the united states explain why a draft is not in violation
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/case.html
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Great job. I'm sure you taught him why in addition to it's not his decision.

Recent my son's school (he's in 5th) decided the only way for children to buy school lunches from now on would be by a finger print system.
I said hell no. I explained to my son that I felt the gov did not have the right to seize his finger print. I told him when he was grown up he could make the decision if he wanted to volunteer his finger print to the gov but I was going to save that choice for him.
They sent home a form. Telling me I had to sign some sort of op-ed out waiver. I wrote a letter back refusing to sign any waiver, stating they need my permission to seize my son's finger print. Not some sort of form I have to fill out to get permission for them to not take it.
I never heard anything about it.
Finger print day came. They told him his dad didn't sign a form so he had to give his finger print to the gov. He said he's not allowed. They said he had no choice. He physically refused to hand over his finger and was sent to the principal's office. The principal called my wife. She told him we will not allow the school to seize his finger print and he would bring his lunch.
Son tells me all about it when he gets home.
Next day I show up demanding to speak with the principal.
We sit down. I make a show of pulling my recorder out and turning it on and putting it back in my pocket. I did this for one reason, I was NOT trying trick him into saying something wrong so I could go above him, I wanted a quick peaceful resolution.
I said I'm so-and-so's father, I want an explanation as to why he felt he was bullied into giving his finger print yesterday.
He gave me the line about the waiver. I told him my stance about that, that he needed my permission, I did not have to get permission for them to not take my son's finger print.
I told him he wasn't getting the finger print. He said okay.
Then I said I want you to make it crystal clear to me that you are going to refuse my son a school lunch unless he gives up his finger print. (Just to be clear this is a lunch I pay for, I've been paying about $60 a school month for the last 5 years for this food with no problems)
He then told me he never meant to imply that, and that it was illegal for them to ever refuse a child a meal regardless of any other circumstances.
He said he can just scan his school badge like he has always done and everything is fine.
4 kids in the entire school did not give over their finger print. 3 signed waivers 1 did not.

Super OT but just wanted to brag about my kid standing up for what I told him was right, I hope he will understand the why of it when he is older.

ETA: I meant I was NOT trying to trick him. I was showing him the recorder on purpose to get a quick resolution, not to get him to say something wrong.

This is perhaps the best thing I have read on Opencarry.org in a long while. Thank you for standing up for your principles, your kid, and your rights.

I will be in WV next week, and would consider it an honor to buy you a box of ammo!
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Well I'll let the supreme court of the united states explain why a draft is not in violation
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/case.html

It's called sophistry of the courts.

Part of a being free country is the right of the citizens to be able to object to a military action by refusing to participate. If the citizens are not free to object by refusing to participate you would then have a tyranny and no longer have a free country.

A friend of mine was drafted and he told me how screwed our military would become if there was a new draft. Imagine soldiers who didn't want to be in the military telling the command to go drowned themselves. Thing about soldiers who would rather turn their weapons on the commanders rather than on the alleged enemy they are being pointed at.

I know that if the government tried to draft me the shooting would start before I even left home.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
It's called sophistry of the courts.

Part of a being free country is the right of the citizens to be able to object to a military action by refusing to participate. If the citizens are not free to object by refusing to participate you would then have a tyranny and no longer have a free country.

A friend of mine was drafted and he told me how screwed our military would become if there was a new draft. Imagine soldiers who didn't want to be in the military telling the command to go drowned themselves. Thing about soldiers who would rather turn their weapons on the commanders rather than on the alleged enemy they are being pointed at.

I know that if the government tried to draft me the shooting would start before I even left home.

Part of keeping a "free country" is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" if those freedoms are threatened. There is no free ride for anyone not claiming CO status, and personally, I question the equitability of that waiver. The laws of conscription into military service must - above all else - be equitable.
If at some time there is a true need for conscripted service, it must be applied fairly to all citizens who fall within the age guidelines for military service. Volunteers over the prescribed age should also be considered for acceptance on a case-by-case basis. Those found physically unfit for active military service should be diverted into civilian support positions (clerical, logistics, etc). There should be no waivers for college students, or those with political connections (records of those peopole were once stamped "PI"). If a military draft is good for one, it must be good for all. (In my mind, a conscientious objector is essentially a "pacifist"... which is only a different way of saying "victim-in-waiting"). Pax...
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
This is perhaps the best thing I have read on Opencarry.org in a long while. Thank you for standing up for your principles, your kid, and your rights.

I will be in WV next week, and would consider it an honor to buy you a box of ammo!

Thanks. You don't have to buy me the ammo but I would love to meet up with an OCer if your near me. WV is a big place. I'm on the tiny little eastern panhandle near Martinsburg. A M&G or trip to the range would be awesome.

ETA: toward to current topic, I don't think if there were a true need a draft would be necessary.
 
Last edited:

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Thanks. You don't have to buy me the ammo but I would love to meet up with an OCer if your near me. WV is a big place. I'm on the tiny little eastern panhandle near Martinsburg. A M&G or trip to the range would be awesome.

ETA: toward to current topic, I don't think if there were a true need a draft would be necessary.

Pm'd you.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Part of keeping a "free country" is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" if those freedoms are threatened. There is no free ride for anyone not claiming CO status, and personally, I question the equitability of that waiver. The laws of conscription into military service must - above all else - be equitable.
If at some time there is a true need for conscripted service, it must be applied fairly to all citizens who fall within the age guidelines for military service. Volunteers over the prescribed age should also be considered for acceptance on a case-by-case basis. Those found physically unfit for active military service should be diverted into civilian support positions (clerical, logistics, etc). There should be no waivers for college students, or those with political connections (records of those peopole were once stamped "PI"). If a military draft is good for one, it must be good for all. (In my mind, a conscientious objector is essentially a "pacifist"... which is only a different way of saying "victim-in-waiting"). Pax...

That can still not be an excuse to force people into service.

If people care about their freedom they will flock in droves to help defend it, rendering any need for a draft moot.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
Recent my son's school (he's in 5th) decided the only way for children to buy school lunches from now on would be by a finger print system.

R2qFh.gif


When the hell did they start doing this??????????? How is this even a "thing" now?!?!?
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Apparently they started implementing around WV in 07.
They say that the fingerprint information is encrypted so fingerprints won't be extracted from encrypted data storage, but they also say they promise to delete the information when he finishes high school. Heh heh heh. Even if I trusted this information to be 100% accurate I would still refuse simply on the bases of teaching my son the value of not volunteering personal identity information to the gov.

The principal told me the reasoning was so no one could charge lunches to another kids account. The official reason from the county is to speed up the line to give kids more time to eat.

Perhaps a RF chip under the skin will be next....
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Apparently they started implementing around WV in 07.
They say that the fingerprint information is encrypted so fingerprints won't be extracted from encrypted data storage, but they also say they promise to delete the information when he finishes high school. Heh heh heh. Even if I trusted this information to be 100% accurate I would still refuse simply on the bases of teaching my son the value of not volunteering personal identity information to the gov.

The principal told me the reasoning was so no one could charge lunches to another kids account. The official reason from the county is to speed up the line to give kids more time to eat.

Perhaps a RF chip under the skin will be next....

This is already covered in the "Affordable Health Care Law" (aka ObamaCare) and the FDA. The chip is made in Canada.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
Apparently they started implementing around WV in 07.
They say that the fingerprint information is encrypted so fingerprints won't be extracted from encrypted data storage, but they also say they promise to delete the information when he finishes high school. Heh heh heh. Even if I trusted this information to be 100% accurate I would still refuse simply on the bases of teaching my son the value of not volunteering personal identity information to the gov.

The principal told me the reasoning was so no one could charge lunches to another kids account. The official reason from the county is to speed up the line to give kids more time to eat.

Perhaps a RF chip under the skin will be next....

Next step - making your kids wear a symbol on their forehead or hand as the only way to get their food o_O
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Well I'll let the supreme court of the united states explain why a draft is not in violation
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/case.html


They did explain they rationalized and part of that rationalization was because other empires do it. These are empires of subjects not free men.

This does not mean it is "constitutional".

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States..
.

Matter of fact the constitution rejects the idea of conscription of free men.


That can still not be an excuse to force people into service.

If people care about their freedom they will flock in droves to help defend it, rendering any need for a draft moot.

This is a major basis of liberty and the ability of free people to reject or nullify government actions.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Excerpts from Daniel Websters speech against the draft in 1814...a draft was not instituted. Oh and Daniel Webster was a nationalist who believed in a strong central government if I am not mistaken. Even he was against the draft and he very adeptly spells out the hypocrisy of a free people being forced into service..

No means are to be taken by implication which would strike us absurdly if expressed. And what would have been more absurd than for this Constitution to have said that to secure the great blessings of liberty it gave to government uncontrolled power of military conscription?

- "Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?"

"The question is nothing less than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form."

A free government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free government without adequate provisions for personal security is an absurdity; a free government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man.

Sir, in granting Congress the power to raise armies, the people have granted all the means which are ordinary and usual, and which are consistent with the liberties and security of the people themselves, and they have granted no others. To talk about the unlimited power of the government over the means to execute its authority, is to hold a language which is true only in regard to despotism. The tyranny of arbitrary government consists as much in its means as in its ends; and it would be a ridiculous and absurd constitution which should be less cautious to guard against abuses in the one case than in the other.

It is enough to know that [the Constitution] was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children by the provisions of our government.

Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it?
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
They did explain they rationalized and part of that rationalization was because other empires do it. These are empires of subjects not free men.

This does not mean it is "constitutional".

.

Matter of fact the constitution rejects the idea of conscription of free men.




This is a major basis of liberty and the ability of free people to reject or nullify government actions.

Still in shock that you agreed with me on something. :banana:
 
Top