Catfish Cove Moore Ok --Gun Buster Sign--

Robert318 said:

SNIP [post #40]

Click to expand...

I agree the problem lies with the hearts and minds of the people.

I disagree that government had to step in and do something. Government has shown a strong disregard for rights through-out history. It didn't suddenly get virtuous and step in because it felt it had to protect the rights of minorities. Not while it was busy screwing the economic rights of everybody including minorities. They're in it for themselves--power and money.

As to hearts and minds, ponder the absurdity: the "good" people are willing to initiate government force against "bad" people who discriminate against minorities. We're not talking about protecting minorities from "bad" people who initiate force against them. We are now talking about compelling "bad" people to provide service and property use to minorities. These "good" people are willing to use government to coerce other people. People using the government against others is all this really is. And, the government is more than happy to do it. Not because they think they have to protect rights--their behavior in numerous other areas proves that's a lie--but because it increases their jurisdiction and thereby their power.

And I'm fine with the 1954 ruling that segregation is illegal (well not totally fine, but I'll get to that in a second). The issue is that this should have ONLY applied to the government. So the GOVERNMENT segregating people should have been discontinued along with any GOVERNMENT laws that discriminated against people (like public bathrooms and water fountains). But the case went too far when it then pushed these restrictions onto the people. And Citizen did a great job at outlining the issue with this power the government now has. Another example is how several white firefighters sued their city because it refused to promote any of them. Why? Because not a single black person passed the promotion test so the city threw the test out as "invalid" because the test MUST somehow discriminate against blacks (they were saying something along the lines of the test playing into non-blacks mental strengths while blacks were pre-disposed to have a harder issue with the test due to how it was set up or some such nonsense).

And this is just one of the recent cases. These reverse discrimination cases (anti-discrimination laws that are designed to "help" give minorites a "fair" chance that have gotten to a point of discriminating against whites simply because they're white) are starting to become more and more common.

Citizen said:

I agree the problem lies with the hearts and minds of the people.

I disagree that government had to step in and do something. Government has shown a strong disregard for rights through-out history. It didn't suddenly get virtuous and step in because it felt it had to protect the rights of minorities. Not while it was busy screwing the economic rights of everybody including minorities. They're in it for themselves--power and money.

As to hearts and minds, ponder the absurdity: the "good" people are willing to initiate government force against "bad" people who discriminate against minorities. We're not talking about protecting minorities from "bad" people who initiate force against them. We are now talking about compelling "bad" people to provide service and property use to minorities. These "good" people are willing to use government to coerce other people. People using the government against others is all this really is. And, the government is more than happy to do it. Not because they think they have to protect rights--their behavior in numerous other areas proves that's a lie--but because it increases their jurisdiction and thereby their power.

Click to expand...

Ok maybe I may be reading into it too much but you sound like you feel so strongly about that people are being coerced into stopping something they themselves know is wrong that you give the impression that you feel as though you are a minority, again maybe I'm wrong. And who is truely a minority these days any ways, because it isn't Blacks, Spanish, or Asian or any specific race, it is actually inclusive to those in age of 65 and older and believe it or not those that are considered upper class. But people dont want to see the truth rather believe lies, gossip, and rumors, more often than not riddled with racist bias.

Let me ask you this, how are the " good people" supposed to get the " bad people" to respect others including the minorities if not by the use of the government, gang up together and show up on their doorsteps with bats, knives, and guns to persuade them to do the right thing when they don't want too or feel they should? Absolutely NOT, violence is NOT the answer, on the contrary inacting laws and enforcing the laws sets the message that kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

Did you do any research into the history of this country or simply get pissed off at what you see on the surface or what someone told you that you refuse to see any other perspective or see the good even though it seems harder and harder to find these days? Yes the government has some issues, we all know that, you would have to be blind and deaf and in a box to not know that. But the government is supposed to be " of the people, by the people, and for the people". So instead of trying to argue and or convince people on a gun rights forum our government has some issues, why not be more proactive and get involved with the government by writing your congressmen, or lobbying for or against laws that are fair or unfair and just and unjust or something like that.

Again I say that if all people had morals and respect for others we would not need or have such laws or need for such government interventions. But anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear and has turned on a tv or read a news paper or heck just walk or drive down the street in most places can see the lack of morals, respect for others, and lack of discipline. Being free has its price and among that price is self sacrifice, not self worship or selfishness. Being free does not mean that you can step on anyone you please.

With that said I have been told to share this for those that need to hear it;
Beware the road well traveled for it leads to death and destruction, return to the purpose for which you have been made for it leads to true life and freedom. Love, Peace, Joy, and Rest stands at the door and requires only that you let him in and abide with him.

For those who need to hear that they know who they are and like all of us they have the gift of choice called free will to receive that or reject that.

Robert318 said:

SNIP Ok maybe I may be reading into it too much but you sound like you feel so strongly about that people are being coerced into stopping something they themselves know is wrong that you give the impression that you feel as though you are a minority, again maybe I'm wrong. And who is truely a minority these days any ways, because it isn't Blacks, Spanish, or Asian or any specific race, it is actually inclusive to those in age of 65 and older and believe it or not those that are considered upper class. But people dont want to see the truth rather believe lies, gossip, and rumors, more often than not riddled with racist bias.

Click to expand...

Ayn Rand pointed out that the smallest minority is one person. Kinda stunning when you first think about it. I'm not particularly a Randian, but she nailed that one.

Robert318 said:

SNIP Let me ask you this, how are the " good people" supposed to get the " bad people" to respect others including the minorities if not by the use of the government, gang up together and show up on their doorsteps with bats, knives, and guns to persuade them to do the right thing when they don't want too or feel they should? Absolutely NOT, violence is NOT the answer, on the contrary inacting laws and enforcing the laws sets the message that kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Umm. When you make a behavior illegal, showing up on their doorstep with bats, knives, and guns is exactly what you are threatening. Well not the knives. And police have pretty much dropped batons for Tasers. But, threatening force, and then actually using force if there is resistance is exactly what is happening. Just because the "good" people depute professional enforcers to do it for them instead of doing it themselves does not change the essential element of force and coercion.

Robert318 said:

SNIP Again I say that if all people had morals and respect for others we would not need or have such laws or need for such government interventions. But anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear and has turned on a tv or read a news paper or heck just walk or drive down the street in most places can see the lack of morals, respect for others, and lack of discipline. Being free has its price and among that price is self sacrifice, not self worship or selfishness. Being free does not mean that you can step on anyone you please.

Click to expand...

This is the central nugget. You're saying laws are needed. You're saying that it is appropriate for government to step in. You're saying that government's role is and should include this subject area. I'm saying government does not and should not have that authority. And, this sub-discussion started with my assertion that the other poster was equating personal disapproval with government doing something about the behavior that is disapproved. I am saying such is dangerous.

Because of things like its monopoly on force, corruption, and hunger for power, government is far too dangerous for the simple calculation, "That's unfair! That should be illegal!"

Among many other things, you are saying, "Well you better not do it, because we think its bad. And, if you do it, we're going to sue you. And, if you physically resist we are going to subdue you. And, if you resist that, we are going to try to physically injure you. And, if you resist that, we will use lethal force on you." That's where that ends. If the bigot resists enough the assest forfeitures for losing the judgement, you'll kill him. All because he refused service to a minority or didn't put in a handicapped parking space, etc.

Aknazer said:

And I'm fine with the 1954 ruling that segregation is illegal (well not totally fine, but I'll get to that in a second). The issue is that this should have ONLY applied to the government. So the GOVERNMENT segregating people should have been discontinued along with any GOVERNMENT laws that discriminated against people (like public bathrooms and water fountains). But the case went too far when it then pushed these restrictions onto the people. And Citizen did a great job at outlining the issue with this power the government now has. Another example is how several white firefighters sued their city because it refused to promote any of them. Why? Because not a single black person passed the promotion test so the city threw the test out as "invalid" because the test MUST somehow discriminate against blacks (they were saying something along the lines of the test playing into non-blacks mental strengths while blacks were pre-disposed to have a harder issue with the test due to how it was set up or some such nonsense).

And this is just one of the recent cases. These reverse discrimination cases (anti-discrimination laws that are designed to "help" give minorites a "fair" chance that have gotten to a point of discriminating against whites simply because they're white) are starting to become more and more common.

Click to expand...

I am also fine with segregation laws being illegal. Segregation laws used the underlying threat of force against minorities to compel them to not go into certain places. Even if those places or businesses were happy to have them. So, those laws operated to the injury of non-minority businesses, too.

Citizen said:

I am also fine with segregation laws being illegal. Segregation laws used the underlying threat of force against minorities to compel them to not go into certain places. Even if those places or businesses were happy to have them. So, those laws operated to the injury of non-minority businesses, too.

Click to expand...

Well, well. It appears that there is something I need to share with you. Was trying to avoid making this personal, but it is what it is.

I have a disability. I have a service dog. Sometimes, and in some places, I need my dog with me. Why is not the issue and will not be revealed, as it's private medical information. However, I attended the State Fair, and the presence of my dog made this medically safer for me. While at the fair, I attempted to watch a free concert that was at the fair. A security guard who worked for a private security firm that was contracted to the fair decided that I needed to be hassled. I informed her of my status, she didn't care. I told her that she was violating Federal ADA law, she didn't care. I told her I wanted her supervisor, she persisted in making a scene and called for backup.

Long story short, several security people, some of which I know to be off duty LEOs put hands on me. They tried to take my service dog from me. I objected to being touched. Finally, a supervisor with the fair showed up and told them to back off. Together, we went to see the VP of the fair and he was aghast at how I was treated. The security guards were fired, their company contract was cancelled, and I didn't file any complaints with anyone.

The only reason that anyone with the Fair gave a damn is because they knew their security contractor had crapped all over my rights. I had the right to be where I was, doing what I was doing. They were using force to discriminate against me because the fair has a policy of no pets. My dog is not a pet under the law. The law protected me from being violently and forcibly removed from a place where I had the legal right to be and was doing nothing wrong.

And with that, I'm going to end my part in this conversation. The law is what it is, and regardless of your opinion on this, it is highly unlikely to change. All of this talk about whether or not it's the federal government's role to enforce anti discrimination laws is just so much mental masturbation. I have actual real issues that require my limited attention span, so I'm choosing to end my participation in this conversation.

okiebryan said:

SNIP I attended the State Fair, and the presence of my dog made this medically safer for me...

Click to expand...

If the state fair is run by the state on state property, I see no problem with forbidding state agents from offering you force or coercion to prevent your attendance simply because you have a service dog.

However, I am glad you told us about your conflict of interest, your personal interest.

Citizen said:

This is the central nugget. You're saying laws are needed. You're saying that it is appropriate for government to step in. You're saying that government's role is and should include this subject area. I'm saying government does not and should not have that authority. And, this sub-discussion started with my assertion that the other poster was equating personal disapproval with government doing something about the behavior that is disapproved. I am saying such is dangerous.

Because of things like its monopoly on force, corruption, and hunger for power, government is far too dangerous for the simple calculation, "That's unfair! That should be illegal!"

Among many other things, you are saying, "Well you better not do it, because we think its bad. And, if you do it, we're going to sue you. And, if you physically resist we are going to subdue you. And, if you resist that, we are going to try to physically injure you. And, if you resist that, we will use lethal force on you." That's where that ends. If the bigot resists enough the assest forfeitures for losing the judgement, you'll kill him. All because he refused service to a minority or didn't put in a handicapped parking space, etc.

Click to expand...

First off what I said was to the effect that the people and the peoples voice is the government hence the process of voting for our legislators and presidents. Also it is our voice that they are lisenting to when we write our legislators, granted they also have the ability to not listen to the people but that also puts the legislators at risk of losing the votes next go around and losing their positions.

Second at no time did I or do I endorse force to bring someone into line with my views that would mean that I dont respect their own free will with the only exception to the use of force bieng to protect mine or a loved ones well being on the contrary I stated violence is NOT the answer so dont try and twist my words. This is what I said

Let me ask you this, how are the " good people" supposed to get the " bad people" to respect others including the minorities if not by the use of the government, gang up together and show up on their doorsteps with bats, knives, and guns to persuade them to do the right thing when they don't want too or feel they should? Absolutely NOT, violence is NOT the answer, on the contrary inacting laws and enforcing the laws sets the message that kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Also you seem to say that its ok for people to discriminate but not the government.

The issue is that this should have ONLY applied to the government. So the GOVERNMENT segregating people should have been discontinued along with any GOVERNMENT laws that discriminated against people (like public bathrooms and water fountains). But the case went too far when it then pushed these restrictions onto the people.

Click to expand...

Without law we would have anarchy and people running around doing whatever they saw fit with no regard to others well being or others personal effects and this would include no regard for you and yours.

Lets just say for a minute that someone doesnt like your view about the government or your opinion, dont you know that the complaining about laws against ones behavoir are some of the very laws that protect your views and opinions.

Umm. When you make a behavior illegal, showing up on their doorstep with bats, knives, and guns is exactly what you are threatening. Well not the knives. And police have pretty much dropped batons for Tasers. But, threatening force, and then actually using force if there is resistance is exactly what is happening. Just because the "good" people depute professional enforcers to do it for them instead of doing it themselves does not change the essential element of force and coercion.

Click to expand...

Also these laws are for public places and not your own private residence so If you want to act like an undisciplined hoolagan with no morals and trash talk others in your house where others cant hear or see, that too is afforded by law. So you see laws can be bad and laws can also be good.

And on the contrary for the most part the government and or police dont just show up on your doorstep because you express your view or opinions unless you make threats to others safety or something of that nature. And also the very laws you are talking about are also geared to help curb corruption of those in authority.

And by looking at the way you broke up my previous post and try to twist my words is indicative that you tend to only see the parts that you want, and therefore has the effect of trying to discuss something with a brick wall which is also afforded to you because of law. Therefore I too am no longer going to particpate on this topic, Good day!

Robert318 said:

SNIP Second at no time did I or do I endorse force to bring someone into line with my views that would mean that I dont respect their own free will with the only exception to the use of force bieng to protect mine or a loved ones well being on the contrary I stated violence is NOT the answer so dont try and twist my words.

Click to expand...

Oh, but I am afraid you did. You may not realize you were endorsing violence, but when you advocated making it illegal to refuse service to minorities, etc., you advocated state violence against those who don't comply. That's what law is all about.

Robert318 said:

SNIP Also you seem to say that its ok for people to discriminate but not the government.

Click to expand...

I've made it pretty clear that initiation of force is central to the issue. If government is discriminating, for example, through segragation laws, it threatens to initiate violence against minorities who violate such laws when the minorities are merely in a proscribed location or using a prohibited facility, neither of which involves the targeted minority offering violence.

On the other hand, when a restaurant refuses service to a minority, there is no offer to initiate violence.

Government discriminating is an entirely different kettle of fish from a private business discriminating. The latter does not include violence and coercion.