tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post7031153521954247230..comments2024-03-19T08:42:45.690-04:00Comments on The Delaware Libertarian: Attempting to move the debate (but not necessarily the fight) forward...Steven H. Newtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-54284783550191701682009-04-30T12:09:00.000-04:002009-04-30T12:09:00.000-04:00G Rex
We can agree count your Bren as an antique i...G Rex<br />We can agree count your Bren as an antique if I can get the same status for my Nambu LMG 34Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-66231097114149114672009-04-30T11:28:00.000-04:002009-04-30T11:28:00.000-04:00Two questions:
Does my Bren gun count as an antiq...Two questions:<br /><br />Does my Bren gun count as an antique, or do I need to get a FFL?<br /><br />Will I get pulled over if I'm blasting "Metal Militia" on the car stereo? (From Kill 'Em All by Metallica for you Deadheads out there.)G Rexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-53828319586288235812009-04-30T07:58:00.000-04:002009-04-30T07:58:00.000-04:00Steve: do I have to insert a "break" tag between l...Steve: do I have to insert a "break" tag between lines in your comments now?Hubehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02735857200853965829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-34984516088930960842009-04-30T07:57:00.000-04:002009-04-30T07:57:00.000-04:00But do I want law enforcement to prevent violence ...<I>But do I want law enforcement to prevent violence from extremists with political opinions? Absolutely.</I>Then you should have been monitored for your OWN infamous statement, right DD?Hubehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02735857200853965829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-11466981450916565382009-04-30T00:03:00.000-04:002009-04-30T00:03:00.000-04:00In this paragraph
My perception (clearly marked a...In this paragraph<br /><br /><I>My perception (clearly marked as such because I do not know you and could be wrong) is that you tilt far closer to the security side of the equation than idea. Which does not mean I am suggesting you want to live in a police state or wipe out free speech, but it does mean that I am consciously willing to accept a higher degree of risk for myself, my family, and my country than you are, in exchange for what I perceive are valuable freedoms.</I>The word "idea" should read "I do." Sorry, late at night.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-67108294536866710232009-04-30T00:02:00.000-04:002009-04-30T00:02:00.000-04:00DD
You ask a legitimate question, and it is one wi...DD<br />You ask a legitimate question, and it is one with no objective, universally accepted correct answer.<br /><br />We had this discussion as a nation back when the NJ State troopers were pulling over young African-American males driving expensive cars on the Turnpike because that was the profile of drug dealers.<br /><br />We had this discussion when the TSA was setting up its enhanced screening process as a random process even though we knew that the 9/11 terrorists were not randomly selected out of the general population, and were highly unlikely (99.9999%) to be a grandmother in a wheelchair.<br /><br />We're having it again on a similar issue.<br /><br />As a policy discussion we're caught in a dynamic between liberty and security, and the amount of risk we're willing to accept in society.<br /><br />My perception (clearly marked as such because I do not know you and could be wrong) is that you tilt far closer to the security side of the equation than idea. Which does not mean I am suggesting you want to live in a police state or wipe out free speech, but it does mean that I am consciously willing to accept a higher degree of risk for myself, my family, and my country than you are, in exchange for what I perceive are valuable freedoms.<br /><br />And there's the rub: finding the zone in which both of us (as a metaphor for the whole debate) can live comfortably.<br /><br />Here's a more palpable example of the gulf between us: you believe that Timothy McVeigh is relevant to the current conversation and I don't. Why? Because in McVeigh you see the kind of unstable individual who is influenced by rightwing rhetoric and then assembles the means to carry out his wacko fantasies in gruesome fashion. I see Timothy McVeigh as a statistical inevitability in a free society, just like the Unabomber or the guys who threw the first bombs during the Haymarket Riot over a century ago. It doesn't mean I would not try to stop another McVeigh, but no system--even a totalitarian one with complete control of all weapons--will ever stop all the McVeighs.<br /><br />My problem with DL, ironically, has not really been around that issue. My problem with you guys is that I perceive some of you as being more (or at least equally) interested in this as a political club to pound your opponents with than in being genuinely concerned about reducing the potential for violence.<br /><br />And if that is indeed the case, then in some way you are approaching the moral level of the GOP characters pandering to the dangerous far right.<br /><br />But if this is not the case, I would expect you to be asking this: since I am not a Republican (and actually have a vested personal interest in seeing the GOP crash and burn), what is it about the rhetoric you have chosen to employ that makes me keep coming at you, when it would be so much easier not to do so?<br /><br />Here's my challenge: go back and read all the DL posts in April since that damn DHS report has come out. Then you tell me: could some (even many) of them be read more realistically as partisan posturing than genuine civic concern? I obviously think the answer is yes.<br /><br />The other irony for me (might as well get it all out there) is that your series of posts has been, frankly, ludicrously over-emphasizing the potential for politically motivated violence in this country. Some days I think you really believe that instead of Tim McVeigh or that abortion clinic bomber whose name I can't remember, the entire Missouri militia is going to show up in the mall gunning down children.<br /><br />The actual fact is that organized mass political violence in this country has been statistically miniscule in this country, and most of the large-scale killing since the 1960s has been done not by extremists, but by our government.<br /><br />Look up the Cointellpro murders of the Black Panthers.<br /><br />Think seriously about what happened in Waco.<br /><br />Examine the statistics of the number of American citizens during the past thirty years killed by law enforcement in the "war on drugs."<br /><br />We have recently surpassed China as the country with the largest percentage of its own citizens in prison.<br /><br />Take out the "lone wolf" violence and you tell me: since the days of the civil rights movement, how many Americans have actually been killed by organized, extremist political violence? Add back in Oklahoma City and all the lone wolves and then compare it to either the cases I mentioned above or the gang-related murder rate in Philly, Camden, DC, or Atlanta.<br /><br />That's a major reason why I tend to dismiss your rhetoric: as they say about economists, you've successfully predicted nine of the last five acts of organized political violence.<br /><br />But at least you and I seem to be making progress in this discussion.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-53373146936799196552009-04-29T23:01:00.000-04:002009-04-29T23:01:00.000-04:00Law enforcement should be in the business of track...<I>Law enforcement should be in the business of tracking and stopping real violent extremists.<br /><br />It has absolutely no business producing documents that editorialize on which political opinions are acceptable.</I>To prove that this will continue to be a circular argument among us, let me say that I agree with the above statement. <br /><br />But what do you do when some with political opinions turn to violence. Sure, they are extremists and not at all representative of everyone with that same political opinion, but they do have a history of violence. For example, those who are pro-life but, ironically, kill doctors and nurses and bomb clinics. Surely they are extremists and criminals. But they possess political opinions.<br /><br />Timothy McVeigh had political opinions too. <br /><br />Do I want to criminalize political opinions? Of course not. For in 4 years or 8 years or 16 years when the next Republican is elected President, my political opinions may be labeled extremist. But do I want law enforcement to prevent violence from extremists with political opinions? Absolutely. I want them to do everything within the law, respecting constitutional protections. The argument is over where the line is and if it was crossed.<br /><br />So you think the DHS report on extremist right wingers was an overbroad unconstitutional overreach that sought to criminalize political opinion. In some cases, I agree with you. In other cases, where there is a past history of violence by right wing extremist groups, I think it was warranted. And I would say the same thing with respect to left wing extremist groups that the DHS warned about, like the environmental groups that burn down new construction and the like.Delaware Demnoreply@blogger.com