• 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.

Because you must be responsible for yourself

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Pretty much lays out why we carry, and what the alternative to armed citizens is, I think:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul383.html
[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families. [/font]
[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more. [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? [/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government-mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.[/font]

[font="Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.[/font]
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

cloudcroft wrote:
I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

-- John D. (not a one-issue guy)
+1
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Tess wrote:
cloudcroft wrote:
I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

-- John D. (not a one-issue guy)
+1

-2

RKBA is #1 on my list, and so far, this guy is the only one who actually believes in it. All the rest are full of crap. Plus he's a wacko libertarian like me, so he fits into my strange world.
 

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

Tess wrote:
cloudcroft wrote:
I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

-- John D. (not a one-issue guy)
+1
May I ask, what more important issues?...please elaborate. Not meaning to be sarcastic etc. but, what could be more important than our lives and our ability to protect said lives?
I admit to not knowing much about Congressman Paul at present but, he would get my vote above ALL others that are "in the race" now......is there something about him that I should know?
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

Comp-tech wrote:
Tess wrote:
cloudcroft wrote:
I'm glad he can't win...his voting record on other more important issues leaves him wanting.

-- John D. (not a one-issue guy)
+1
May I ask, what more important issues?...please elaborate. Not meaning to be sarcastic etc. but, what could be more important than our lives and our ability to protect said lives?
I admit to not knowing much about Congressman Paul at present but, he would get my vote above ALL others that are "in the race" now......is there something about him that I should know?
In my case, although his web site "on the issues" says we need less government, not more, he has introduced legislation designed to legislate morality (see below). Now, many conservatives agree with the first below, but in my mind that's a religious stance, not a scientific one. I believe Mr. Bush has pushed us as closely toward a theocracy as I'm willing to go.

Second bill below is way too limiting. Mr. Paul is attempting to legislate his sense of "right" on others.

Further, Mr. Paul, like most Representatives and many senators, has such limited experience with issues other than domestic social issues that I don't believe he can be effective at foreign policy, long-term strategy, or economic issues.

Just my $0.05.

-----------------------------------

21. H.R.1094 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Sponsor:
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/15/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/19/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

[line]


22. H.R.1095 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
Sponsor:
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/15/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 2/15/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

------------------------------------------------------
 

mzbk2l

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
425
Location
Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
imported post

Wow. #21 and #22 above would definitely cost him my vote, as well as everyone else I can convince not to vote for him. I have no problem with a church espousing such beliefs for its members. I DO have a problem with the government trying to do the same.
 

LeagueOf1291

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
328
Location
Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
imported post

The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Interesting, I guess.

But I have to wonder, if a guy this libertarian can't get a bunch of gun nuts to stick up for him, it's no wonder the republicrats continue to take turns raping us every other election. You have to ask yourself, if this guy isn't good enough, who is? Rudy Guliani? Barak O'Clinton?

Election after election, I hear right-wingers trash libertarians, and libertarians trash constitutional party people, and republicans whining about how the democrats will screw us if we don't vote for their pissweak Bush-McCain-Romney-types, and Democrats trying toshow offtheir new stripes, and on and on it goes. In the end we get what we will always get: screwed.

I think partof the problem is that getting independent-minded people to agree on one thing for more than five minutes is like trying to herd cats past a catnip factory.

So I will continue to waste my vote on candidates that have no shot, and I'll see you all at Hillary's or McCain's inauguration party.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Interesting, I guess.

But I have to wonder, if a guy this libertarian can't get a bunch of gun nuts to stick up for him, it's no wonder the republicrats continue to take turns raping us every other election. You have to ask yourself, if this guy isn't good enough, who is? Rudy Guliani? Barak O'Clinton?

Election after election, I hear right-wingers trash libertarians, and libertarians trash constitutional party people, and republicans whining about how the democrats will screw us if we don't vote for their pissweak Bush-McCain-Romney-types, and Democrats trying toshow offtheir new stripes, and on and on it goes. In the end we get what we will always get: screwed.

I think partof the problem is that getting independent-minded people to agree on one thing for more than five minutes is like trying to herd cats past a catnip factory.

So I will continue to waste my vote on candidates that have no shot, and I'll see you all at Hillary's or McCain's inauguration party.

I'm still wishing for a candidate I could support enthusiastically. Haven't seen one in many many many years - wait, I don't think I've ever seen one. The only reason I don't (usually) waste my vote on someone with not a snowball's chance is that I've for years voted AGAINST someone (can you say John Kerry, or Billary Clinton?) instead of for a candidate I truly wish to see in office.

The problem is in being a fiscal conservative, a social liberal, a defense republican and a local libertarian, I guess.
 

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

Tess wrote
I'm still wishing for a candidate I could support enthusiastically. Haven't seen one in many many many years - wait, I don't think I've ever seen one. The only reason I don't (usually) waste my vote on someone with not a snowball's chance is that I've for years voted AGAINST someone (can you say John Kerry, or Billary Clinton?) instead of for a candidate I truly wish to see in office.
+1

I kinda' feel the same way....but to vote for someone that I don't like just to vote against someone I like even less seems a waste.
While I don't agree with him on the issues that you've pointed out, I still think enough of his views on other issues to give him my vote over the other choices.....if they can be called choices. There was talk of him running on something other than the Republican ticket.......I would like to see that happen.
I think it's time that we send a message to the Depublicans AND the Republicrats that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Move away from the two controlling parties......take back our country, so to speak.
Just my .02

BTW, here's where I've learned what I know of him... http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Someone like Ron would do so much good domestically in standing up to a Republicrat/Demolican congress that I could over look #21 and foreign policy, if those were my concern, and in some ways they are. But alas....lets see how long he is included in the debates. He knows he has no chance of winning but is in it for the good fight. I admire his resolve at 70 y.o. !! and consistent principles. I even recall hearing him say that he entered his second presidential race just to push 2Aissues. He's a good man.
 

mzbk2l

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
425
Location
Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:
The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
I disagree that question of life beginning is moral or philosophical; if science can not provide an answer to a biological question, what good is it?

I agree that abortion should be privately funded; I don't want my tax dollars paying for it.

I feel strongly that federal funds should NOT be withheld from an entity simply because it engages in family planning. If someone doesn't help some of these idiots figure out how to stop squirting out babies, ALL of our tax dollars are going to be paying for welfare bums.

While the government is not, and should not be, responsible for funding these types of organizations, the withholding of all funds simply because an organization participates in "family planning" is ridiculous and petty.

I voted for Bush (mostly to keep Gore and Kerry out), but I don't think I can vote for another religious nut like that.
 

LeagueOf1291

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
328
Location
Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
imported post

mzbk2l wrote:
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
I disagree that question of life beginning is moral or philosophical; if science can not provide an answer to a biological question, what good is it?

<snip>
Well, science, like any other discipline, is only good for what it's good for. Astronomy is no help in making cookies, and biology describes chemical processes in living things -- it doesn't define life, it merely observes its processes. Science is good for that much, but it's no good when it comes to defining what life is and when it begins.

Scientific methodology is useful for gaining empirical knowledge of certain aspects of the natural world -- and that's about where its usefulness ends. It relies on the principles of observation, falsifiability, and repeatability. We can observe things happening, we can come up with falsifiable theories about what we're observing, and we can repeat the observations to test the theories.

But none of this tells us the meaning of the biological processes we're observing. That is a value judgment that has nothing to do with empirical reality. Rather, when we ascribe meaning to the biological process of conception and call it life (or not), we're making a moral judgment about the inherent value of that thing we're observing.

So scientific methodology is a way of gaining empirical knowledge -- size, weight, composition, temperature, activity -- about the pack of cells, and then we move on the the question of what it is and what it's worth.

And that inquiry is entirely outside the scope of scientific methodology.
 

LeagueOf1291

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
328
Location
Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
imported post

mzbk2l wrote:
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
<snip>
I feel strongly that federal funds should NOT be withheld from an entity simply because it engages in family planning. If someone doesn't help some of these idiots figure out how to stop squirting out babies, ALL of our tax dollars are going to be paying for welfare bums.

<snip>
Orthodoxy is the basis for orthopraxy. In other words, what you believe determines what you will do.

If you believe that babies in the womb are alive and innocent and defenseless, then you will be horrified at the thought of subsidizing the doctors and parents who tear them into little bloody pieces and throw them in the garbage.

I have some friends, they have 12 children, and I gotta tell ya, that is social security. The four oldest work in the family business, but the entire family produces.

The solution is not to subsidize killing babies in the womb -- the solution is to abolish the welfare system and train the next generation to be productive. If people absolutely insist on "family planning," then go fer it, mate, but don't make me pay for it.
 

LoveMyCountry

State Researcher
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
590
Location
Ocean Shores, WA
imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:
mzbk2l wrote:
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
The question of when life begins is a moral and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

Abortion and other population control methods should be funded by individuals and private organizations that favor those methods -- not by the public.
I disagree that question of life beginning is moral or philosophical; if science can not provide an answer to a biological question, what good is it?

<snip>
Well, science, like any other discipline, is only good for what it's good for. Astronomy is no help in making cookies, and biology describes chemical processes in living things -- it doesn't define life, it merely observes its processes. Science is good for that much, but it's no good when it comes to defining what life is and when it begins.

Scientific methodology is useful for gaining empirical knowledge of certain aspects of the natural world -- and that's about where its usefulness ends. It relies on the principles of observation, falsifiability, and repeatability. We can observe things happening, we can come up with falsifiable theories about what we're observing, and we can repeat the observations to test the theories.

But none of this tells us the meaning of the biological processes we're observing. That is a value judgment that has nothing to do with empirical reality. Rather, when we ascribe meaning to the biological process of conception and call it life (or not), we're making a moral judgment about the inherent value of that thing we're observing.

So scientific methodology is a way of gaining empirical knowledge -- size, weight, composition, temperature, activity -- about the pack of cells, and then we move on the the question of what it is and what it's worth.

And that inquiry is entirely outside the scope of scientific methodology.

Wow. You explain things very well.I like that.

You're a lot smarter than I look. :p

LoveMyCountry
 
Top