YOU are behind enemy lines now VA...now what do we do?

[swinokur]

If you are referring to G&S, an EO isn't needed. A memo or a phone call would work. I know a change in the statute is preferred, but I'll take a change any way it can be done.

 

[Vile Shadow]

What 2A issue could be construed as a legitimate reason for an EO?

That would be a good question for George H.W. Bush.

 

[letmeoutpax]

I care because those consenting adults you speak of are able to vote the same as you or I. The trouble is that drug addicts and drug abusers, alcoholics, whores and degenerate gamblers are slaves to their respective vices. Making an informed decision on election day isn't high on their list of priorities. These folks are easily misled, easily bribed and just as easily kept in their place by career politicians. If you think that you can have a functioning Constitutional Republic when the majority of the population is obsessed with vice think again. The Founders made it clear that our system of government was designed for a moral people and fit for no other.

Baltimore City is the poster child for consenting adults in action. Dope and coke flow like water, prostitutes are easy to come by, alcoholism is rampant, illegitimate children run the streets at 2 AM as though it were normal and probation before judgment is the sanction of choice for criminal behavior. If the choices consenting adults make didn't matter and didn't affect others Baltimore City would be just as safe and peaceful as it was in 1950. Unfortunately choices have consequences. Degenerates tend not to care about their liberties so long as they can continue to wallow in their own filth. I've known more than a few individuals personally who were committed to personal liberty until vice creeped in. After that they were indifferent or hostile toward freedom.

I agree with this 100%. Also something that has not been brought up is the fact that liberals, progressives, and radicals are bent on destroying the institution of the family. The culture wars are essentially about protecting the family and parents as the primary guardians of the children. Destroy the family and you will have a stable welfare state at best, or at worst a populace that can be aroused to revolution. When the people depend on the government you lose your freedom.

 

[letmeoutpax]

What happened to the post that used to be here?

 

[Brooklyn]

What does gay marriage have to do with wealth distribution? Have I ever stated that I support wealth distribution? Seems like you are just making things up and going on a rant.



Robert Taft disagrees. If he knew about the pro war, pro spying, anti civil liberties that the current Neo Conservatives were pushing he would be spinning in his grave. The social engineering programs of the current Republican party are in no way conservative. Republicans should be supporting ALL the constitution, which includes the 4th and 14th.

Don't you think its time for you to fix the Democrats and leave the Replicians alone. They are not going to save your ass. You will need to fix the party that claims to believe in Civil liberties but not property rights,that respects all lifestyles , expect Christian, that thinks all persons deserve a fair living , except business owners that create jobs.

Go fix the Democrats.. leave the Republicans alone..given a choice many would pull down the temple on their own heads if they could take the liberals with them.. after listening to many of them .. I am inclined to agree. And you have no idea what the difference between conservative and constitutionalist is. Nor why liberatianism is by definition not consistent with the constitution and can not be made so.

I am sure the Democrats will be more open to your ideas..

 

[Brooklyn]

You had better wake up the changes and demographics of the country; the culture wars are essentially over. (except for the lunatic fringe) You can not win a national election with a Rick Santourm ect. Who cares what consenting adults do, the religious right is dragging the republican party down. I would rather get 70% of some than nothing. Actually the 2nd amendment is ranking higher - that people support it in polls over the years nationally, while social issues only resonate with enough people that you can't win a national election.

No. The Democratic party will in time , after the social decay leads to enough dead people ,guarantee a resurgence of the Christian Right.

See limited Gov only works when society is self regulating. Religious belief,moral codes are one such system, and there are others. As an atheist I have chosen another system, and yet my moral code overlaps that of my religious friends here in many particulars. Back when I studied moral philosophy I developed an hypothesis to explain this overlap based on pure Darwinian principles.

Now I do not claim that gay issues should be the focus of any national debate. But their
Is no legiamate reason to force Churches to perform gay weddings,or businees to viotate thuer faith as a condition of a state issued business licence which they should never need to get in the first place,other than to restrict the free exercise of religion. Thus is what the left is actually succeding in doing while the right is being told that they don't even have the right to hold these opinions,let alone act in them. Yet we are told that any critism of Mulsem exterimst action is likely wise offenseive.

It crap and it wearing thin.

Let the left tear down the social order which makes limited Gov possible an the result will be tranny or civil war or both.


The moral authority of Church has allways be a check in part of state power,which is why tyrants , ancient and modern have needed to destroy or usurb that moral authority. From the hard right it becomes "Divine right of kings" and from the left it becomes destroy god and insert the state religion... say the cult of Hitler or Comuninusm as a new moral code.

In any case all. Social self regulation not under the control of the state is replaced with direct legal control or a state controlled religion.

Like the church of England whose formation was a explicit powrer play to escape the restrictions of Rome.


Let the left continue its play..and then we can rebuild. After enough have died in the social chaos. Darwin allways wins..of if you prefer..the hand of god. Either way its up to the left to get a clue and stop racing to the cliffs edge..

The right is not going to step in until after its to late..thats how it works.

 

[kcbrown]

Let the left continue its play..and then we can rebuild. After enough have died in the social chaos. Darwin allways wins..of if you prefer..the hand of god. Either way its up to the left to get a clue and stop racing to the cliffs edge..

Darwin always wins. And historically, Darwin has always led to authoritarian states.


Darwin will not win you liberty.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Darwin always wins. And historically, Darwin has always led to authoritarian states.


Darwin will not win you liberty.

It should. It's a state of liberty that allows people to be as stupid as they want, so sometimes the necessary Darwin awards for that stupidity get handed out.

It's the gooberment getting involved that gets in the way of that.

 

[kcbrown]

It should. It's a state of liberty that allows people to be as stupid as they want, so sometimes the necessary Darwin awards for that stupidity get handed out.

It's the gooberment getting involved that gets in the way of that.

Darwin rewards those who survive. Those who survive tend to be the ones who simultaneously work better in groups, and thus are better at following orders, while also refusing to challenge those with power (i.e., those giving the orders). That automatically confers greater power onto those who are inclined towards it, and strips power away from those who aren't.

Hence, Darwin gets you authoritarianism, which is the polar opposite of liberty.

 

[Brooklyn]

Darwin always wins. And historically, Darwin has always led to authoritarian states.


Darwin will not win you liberty.

Don't care. That's the point. The right is far better at this tyrany thing.

I will not be a subject...what's that leave? Jack booted thug that's what.

Not my first choice , but also not my problem. I am working to save the republic,but if that fails ..... I allways have a plan B.

I will not be a subject. .

 

[kcbrown]

Don't care. That's the point. The right is far better at this tyrany thing.

And that doesn't matter, since all roads lead to Rome, as it were.

I will not be a subject...what's that leave? Jack booted thug that's what.

No, what it leaves in the modern world is the end of you and your descendants.

The fight for liberty is worth that kind of sacrifice (at the point where nothing left on the table can possibly make any difference whatsoever), but it just means that Darwin will have his way with you as well.

Those who acquiesce to authoritarianism will survive. Those who do not will not, and neither will the genes that influence them towards fighting against authoritarianism. That is what Darwin results in.

Not my first choice , but also not my problem. I am working to save the republic,but if that fails ..... I allways have a plan B.

In a world where there exists no place where one can go to escape authoritarianism, there is no plan B save perhaps for your exit from this world.

I have no illusions about how this is likely to end.

 

[Brooklyn]

And that doesn't matter, since all roads lead to Rome, as it were.


No, what it leaves in the modern world is the end of you and your descendants.

The fight for liberty is worth that kind of sacrifice (at the point where nothing left on the table can possibly make any difference whatsoever), but it just means that Darwin will have his way with you as well.

Those who acquiesce to authoritarianism will survive. Those who do not will not, and neither will the genes that influence them towards fighting against authoritarianism. That is what Darwin results in.


In a world where there exists no place where one can go to escape authoritarianism, there is no plan B save perhaps for your exit from this world.

I have no illusions about how this is likely to end.

You have no clue how little I care about survival. But the plan is to be the tryant..

And if that fails.. I am fine with that death .

I do not give a f,,k what happens after I am gone. And I don't give a f,,k if liberals want to tear down the world.. that's on them.


See I am fine with being a tyrant,but I donot wish to be slave. Others feel likewise...and locke speaks to the social compact. That's my first choice. My second choice is tyrant. My third is death.

And I really don't give a f,,k after I am gone...that's on them. The rest is noise.

Now make your choice.

 

[kcbrown]

You have no clue how little I care about survival. But the plan is to be the tryant..

If you truly didn't care about survival, then you wouldn't want to carry a weapon for self-defense.

That's an interesting idea: be the tyrant in order to restore liberty. The other real tyrants won't have it, unfortunately. And they have far more power than you.


So the real question is: would you join them and rule the world with an iron fist, or would you fight for liberty and die? Your order of choice suggests the former, which would place you on the opposite side of many here, so my suspicion is that your order of preferences is more nuanced.

And if that fails.. I am fine with that death .

Well, I'm not. Who else would I spar with online?

 

[Vile Shadow]

Darwin rewards those who survive. Those who survive tend to be the ones who simultaneously work better in groups, and thus are better at following orders, while also refusing to challenge those with power (i.e., those giving the orders). That automatically confers greater power onto those who are inclined towards it, and strips power away from those who aren't.

Hence, Darwin gets you authoritarianism, which is the polar opposite of liberty.

I agree that authoritarianism is the polar opposite of liberty.

However, I disagree with the idea that only those who submit to authority are the only ones who shall survive. If that were the case the USA wouldn't exist because the founders instead would never have chosen to stand up to the crown.

 

[Brooklyn]

If you truly didn't care about survival, then you wouldn't want to carry a weapon for self-defense.

That's an interesting idea: be the tyrant in order to restore liberty. The other real tyrants won't have it, unfortunately. And they have far more power than you.


So the real question is: would you join them and rule the world with an iron fist, or would you fight for liberty and die? Your order of choice suggests the former, which would place you on the opposite side of many here, so my suspicion is that your order of preferences is more nuanced.


Well, I'm not. Who else would I spar with online?

Darwin says I am already dead. No kids. Done. Read Locke ,please. He shows a path from choas to liberty. In his view tyrants collide and the result is the social compact. Every man a king, but what price that kingdom? Balance of power is not just for States. Social compact theory shows a way..

I carry a weapon as part of my social compact. Without that balance of power can not be maintained. With out that balance of power social compact can not be maintained.

If you value liberty you must be a tryant. You must bring the fight if the fight is needed.

Btw I am listening to the police scanner in Baltimore...social compact ....not so much.. state of nature I think.. armed robbery just went down ..not to far from my 20..

Time to get serious..

 

[kcbrown]

I agree that authoritarianism is the polar opposite of liberty.

However, I disagree with the idea that only those who submit to authority are the only ones who shall survive. If that were the case the USA wouldn't exist because the founders instead would never have chosen to stand up to the crown.

Actually, you probably meant that it wouldn't exist because the founders wouldn't have prevailed. But that's part of my point. The United States exists because of an historical accident, a combination of circumstances that was both unique and necessary.

Had the founders lived in an area that was, say, next door to England, they never would have prevailed. Similarly, had they tried their revolt, say, today, against an England with the military might that the United States has today (similar in relative terms to what England had back then -- back then it was the superpower of the world), they never would have prevailed.

They won because they were separated from the tyrant by a large and dangerous body of water and because the average soldier's firepower back then was essentially the same as that of the average armed civilian. Change either of those, and the outcome changes, the founders lose, and the United States remains a colony of the tyranny that was England. And yet, despite those circumstances, they still barely won, and still required outside help to pull it off.


That authoritarianism is the historical norm doesn't mean that it is the sole form that exists. But it is the historical norm, and that isn't an accident.

 

[Brooklyn]

Actually, you probably meant that it wouldn't exist because the founders wouldn't have prevailed. But that's part of my point. The United States exists because of an historical accident, a combination of circumstances that was both unique and necessary.

Had the founders lived in an area that was, say, next door to England, they never would have prevailed. Similarly, had they tried their revolt, say, today, against an England with the military might that the United States has today (similar in relative terms to what England had back then -- back then it was the superpower of the world), they never would have prevailed.

They won because they were separated from the tyrant by a large and dangerous body of water and because the average soldier's firepower back then was essentially the same as that of the average armed civilian. Change either of those, and the outcome changes, the founders lose, and the United States remains a colony of the tyranny that was England. And yet, despite those circumstances, they still barely won, and still required outside help to pull it off.


That authoritarianism is the historical norm doesn't mean that it is the sole form that exists. But it is the historical norm, and that isn't an accident.

You still don't understand how succesful revolutions work.

England was not a tryany. It was acting as one,but it was the home of the enlightenment. Support for pressing the issue was thin..and raising the cost made maintaining and unpopular stance impossible. The primary vector of insurrection was economic.

Many of these elements are present to this day right here in our little corner of the enlittenment.

You also fail understand why authoritarianism is the norm. Or why post enlightment it does not matter.

How has the US outcompeated the rest of the world,give it obvious weaknesses?

How can humans exist at all in a world where microoranisms at the norm?

Locke does not just claim that liberty is possible.. it claims that the social compact is the ideal social organisation and will over time outcompete tryanical one,but as capilalism out compeates command economies. Small wonder they both come from and helped create the enlightment.


Historical norms based on pre industrial economic systems are false compare.


Learn why Locke thinks this way.. you can force a man to work,but you can not force him to innovate. This is because you can measure work and force output. But you can not measure creativity and will never know what has not been created.

The vector of any successful revolution is 1. A revolution of ideas. And 2. And economic necessity for survival . Darwin allways wins.. but he does not keep score the same now as he did in the days of Rome. But their too you will see much liberty in the economic realm as compared the stagnation of the feudal period.

All of the special cirmustance you site are still in place.. arguably more so ..but the one you ignore..the economic interdependancy is orders of magatude greater.

The revolution will be effected ,if needed, by mostly economic means.

 

[SoMD_Gen4]

13'er

These comments bother the shit out of me...
Yes, I am also a fellow "13'er" but half of you yokels look at that as if it was some bad thing when the law changes drove more people to become educated on guns. This forum is incredibly useful for that, and the fact that you make comments like this, to deter people from becoming more educated, is the stupidest thing ever!

 

[Vile Shadow]

These comments bother the shit out of me...
Yes, I am also a fellow "13'er" but half of you yokels look at that as if it was some bad thing when the law changes drove more people to become educated on guns. This forum is incredibly useful for that, and the fact that you make comments like this, to deter people from becoming more educated, is the stupidest thing ever!

I hear ya, but let's not start that battle again.

Let's direct our anger where it belongs, down there at the cesspool on the Severn.

 

[Long1MD]

You clearly have not read VA's state constitution, looked at the super majority of Republicans in the house and senate, looked a VA gun laws, or recognized that the last libtard Dem's 'one handgun a month' law passed by Doug Wilder 20 years ago was just repealed.

Still laughing?