This documentary was produced by a grass-roots organization. Moreover, the title of the documentary itself is a summarization. No pun intended. I posted this video simply to spread the word about the dangers of expanding government, not to mention government regulations that impact the liberties of all Americans.
The title is not a summary, it tells me only the title of the video you posted.
Also, you didn't make a pun.
As a concerned citizen I would like to know what these regulations are but, having been burned before, I'm not willing to spend over an hour watching a video that may be absurd. Could you give me a few examples of these regulations and how they impact my liberties?
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
If your unwilling to view a 74-minute documentary about the infringement of American civil liberties by governmental policies, I don't know what will. Is your house on fire? You obviously do not share the level of enthusiasm and concern that I have, not to mention the general populace in the US or NIA members. I'm not here to debate; I'm merely spreading a message (that I think is relevant in today's times). Watch the documentary or leave it alone.
If you can take the time to write evasive paragraphs but can't write me a summary I can only conclude that you haven't watched the documentary yourself.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
It just makes points showing the general collapse of the United States (both economically and politically).
It gives a number of examples showing just pure **** ups in the system and a few people who are preparing for the end of times.
Uhh, and unreasonable laws that make absolutely no sense or are applied in very strange ways. Like the body scanners at airports and how they said they wouldn't save the images but reports have found that thousands of these images are saved without reason.
Stuff like that, it's actually quite good.
__________________ "Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
I didn't watch the video, but I do agree that there are toooo many laws, toooo much government intrusions that are disrupting people lives. Just too much and if it doesn't stop like real soon, people are going to riot!
And I sure hope they do, cause I'll be right there with em.
__________________ Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.
Well, that's what the second amendment was made for. Shame that it has become virtually antiquated. What we SHOULD do is relax our "arms" laws so that state militias can arm themselves with tanks, fighter jets, bombers, and other lol stuff.
We should pretty much remove half of the laws we have, now, and amend the rest to be useful. When I say "half" I mean half.
I've looked into it, it would take me at least 2-3 months of very deliberate saving to even buy a handgun
considering blackwater already owns an airforce (mostly transport, but still) I'd have a long way to go
I get the joke though
god, I'm sure I plug this all the time, but have you read Orwell's "you and the atom bomb"? in his terms, we might be seeing a new age of military relations, where even states don't have the money to compete with the forces of private military companies... like, governments could build an aircraft carrier, but their citizens demand social services, and thus, mega-corporates could become the strongest military powers on the planet...
actually, the point is more, there is no way that you or I as individuals could defend ourselves against blackwater, especially as daduemon suggested, if private citizens were allowed to buy high tech military vehicles and weapons systems. You or I would never be able to afford even a single stinger/javelin system, whereas Blackwater could afford multiple X35s (I guess they are called F-35s, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-35)
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 07:31 PM
I'm not sure I entirely agree with his premise. Obviously cheap weapons give power to more people but that doesn't make them weapons of democracy, as he puts it, it just makes them weapons of distributed tyranny. The issue of a peace that is not peace exists equally on the small scale and the large scale.
In fact it seems to me that it would create an identical situation in the end. Imagine if we abolished all governments, removed all weapons and gave everyone a pistol (that they couldn't get rid of). Orwell and platitude bearing Libertarians would have us believe that this would produce democracy ("an armed society is a polite society"). But it wouldn't, it would produce military governments. Blackwater is still more powerful than you are, simply because there are more of them than you. We can fight back by banding together so Blackwater doesn't attack us but then we've perfectly recreated the "peace that is no peace", just on a scale of thousands rather than millions.
I think Orwell is still right about the current situation. Expensive weapons swing the advantage toward those already in power. And that strikes me as an intractable problem. If we never allow any groups or individuals to have lots of power/money then we'll just be crushed be the first people to try that.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
huh, I must have tuned out the "democracy" side of the paper. I always saw it more as a description of how possible civilian rebellion is in a modern society, with larger and more expensive weapon systems favoring the state. I agree entirely with your analysis in terms of democracy, there is nothing inherently democratizing about rifles being the dominant weapon of war, unless of course the people employing them want to use it for democratic means.
to me it is like the knight. knights tipped the balance of power toward kings and what not in the same way tanks do toward governments. sure, we are seeing suicide bombing and other insurgent tactics somewhat rebalancing things, but not really in the way that rifles did allow groups of common folk to oppose, say, colonial armies.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 4th, 2010 11:12 PM
