[abefroman]

I am a supporter of PETA

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

[The Tourist]

I think you guys missed my overall point. Let me explain.

The common denominator in both of the videos I linked demonstrates common, ordinary, everyday folks challenging their government and asking for redress. That was my simple point.

Of course, our nations highways are accessible by privilege and not an enumerated right, but I still get my day in court to challenge those parameters. I have gone to traffic court for example, plead my case and got points back on the ticket, for example.

Defining the document and refuting misuse of The Constitution is the main focus of the strict constructionists. For about 200 years the word "people" in the Second Amendment just meant citizens. Now folks like Chucky Shumer and Diane Feinstein claim it really means The National Guard. That's an example of "living."

(And it is a pet peeve of mine that elected officials place their hand on the Bible and swear to defend The Constitution, and then immediately proceed to try to blunt our enumerated rights.)

Now to the meat of the OP's debate. If the disposition of geese is an important personal issue, and for many here it is, then they have the most important tool imaginable right in their hands. That's freedom. Go lobby your government, that's what our Framers gave us.

Often I hear from liberals about guns and they say "we don't need them now." We will always need them. Governments should be afraid of its people, not the other way around. Even The Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "rise up and abolish." What do you think they meant, 'harsh language'?

Now I have heard from folks that those videos I linked are sometimes "in your face." Oh, I agree with that. But compared to the freedoms our Framers demanded, guys like me are just choir boys. Our Framers demanded freedom from all oversight in tyranny. Just about any action today requires 'permission.'

For example, I have a cutlery license. Why oh why is it so important to the government to know I scrape metal with a wet rock? Why to squeeze tax money, of course. So I ask, am I really getting representation for my taxes when that same money is redistributed for socialism? Last time I checked we were a republic...

[KYHeirloomer]

>rise up and abolish<

Actually, the phrase used is "alter or abolish," as in: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new governments........"

The major contribution to realpolitic from our founding fathers was the idea that the people have the right to alter governments using violent means.

The Declaration of Independence was written for two purposes. First was to announce that viewpoint, and justify the use of violence. If you actually read the Declaration you find it says that under such and such conditions it is not only just, it is imperative that the people use whatever means necessary to rectify evil. It then has a long list of "abuses and usurpations" to demonstate that those conditions have, indeed, been met. So violent overthrow of the government is thereby justified.

The second major purpose was to blame the king for the actions of parlaiment. There were reasons for that, of course, which, in the long run, didn't mean much in terms of the American Revolution. But the special Anglo/American relationship which has existed since 1814 (and, in reality, before that) results, in part, from the fact we did not declare war on parliament.

Later on the Constitution would assure a mechanism for changing governments without the need for violence.

>Now folks like Chucky Shumer and Diane Feinstein claim it really means The National Guard.<

That's somewhat of an oversimplification of what they say. First, keep in mind, that the amendment says that because a well regulated militia is necessary to our freedom, Congress shall make no law.....

What they are doing is not questioning the right, but the definition of militia. Then they use that to "prove" that it's not necessary for the rest of us to go armed. All that, of course, falls under the rubric "preemptive surrender," something that liberals are very good at.

However, once again, if we go back to what the founding fathers say, it is obvious what they mean by "militia" is the citizen soldier, ready to spring up whenever needed to defend against evil. Despite many philosophical differences, the fact is that Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson would all consider the National Guard to be a formally instituted military arm, under the control of the government, and, therefore, not a militia.

Even so, the liberals are wrong for a more basic reason. A stated reason for the law is not the law itself. So even if you could demonstate that we have a militia in the form of the National Guard, it's irrelevent. The law says, "Congress shall make no law...."

[Pete]

First off, let's stop the liberal bashing. As stated earlier I have both liberal and conservative views but in my opinion both "liberals" and "conservatives" have some pretty dumb and self-serving notions. Both have good points and really bad points. And both feel that what they do is for the betterment of society (at least in theory, though not always in practice). And if someone wants to start picking out individual issues, either pro liberal or pro conservative I will be more than glad to point out idiocies of the other. On to my point.

Heirloomer, please show me where, in the second admendment it says "Congress shall make no law...." That is the first admendment, so please don't tell me I need to read the constitution. Believe me I have read it, and whenever I get involved in an argument like this I always double check my facts before I make statements, especially when it comes to the constitution. Then I reiterate my point that the work "infringed" has changed meanings in the last 200+ years. If you look at the statement in the eyes of someone from 1790 it reads different than if you read it by today's standards. It basically reads, to someone from the 1790's that the government can't take away our right to bear arms, not that they cannot attempt to control what we, the people carry. Please read my last post and if in disagreement then please look up the word "infringed" and follow the history of it's definitions.

Again, I don't care if you carry a gun or not. And honestly, I am rather apathetic to the whole debate over the subject, but bugs me when the NRA misquotes and misinterprets the constitution. If, like so many people say, they read the constitution verbatium, then they need to read it understanding the meaning of words to a person from 1790, not as a person from 2009.

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer

The law says, "Congress shall make no law...."

I think your final comment caps this entire issue. Frankly, the government gets involved in far too much, and the assume that they should always have the last word.

And it's our own fault. We are a "modern society."

Even in simple matters. Within my lifetime if a man insulted your wife in a tavern, you smacked him. If he had any sense, he apologized for his conduct. Event over.

But not now. There will be six lawyers, a family counselor, an anger management team, a gender equity board and undoubtedly Gloria Allred and Al Sharpton to excoriate the victim. In some municipalites even yelling at the offender is an assault. Yikes, when did we turn into an entire nation of pantywaists?

I sincerely believe that any action the OP might be able to take is going to cost some real money, hours of research, a government representative, a newspaper article embarrassing him and even protesters surrounding his home. I doubt that there is really such a thing as free speech anymore.

In fact, right now today, I'll bet that there are scores of Secret Service agents actually investigating American citizens for publically denouncing BHO policies or speeches.

In all, I think those geese are 'dead ducks,' and nothing we can do as free citizens is even going to make a ripple.

[Pete]

Even in simple matters. Within my lifetime if a man insulted your wife in a tavern, you smacked him. If he had any sense, he apologized for his conduct. Event over.

But not now. There will be six lawyers, a family counselor, an anger management team, a gender equity board and undoubtedly Gloria Allred and Al Sharpton to excoriate the victim. In some municipalites even yelling at the offender is an assault. Yikes, when did we turn into an entire nation of pantywaists?

On this point you and I agree completely!! I'll share a story, that I may have shared on the forums before, but it is very appropriate to this last comment. A few years ago we were in Mexico. While there we visited Tulum (a Mayan ruin set on cliffs overlooking the Gulf). While there I noticed that there were no fences to keep people from getting too near the cliffs (nice as it didn't destroy the view). I made a comment to my wife and a Mexican guide overheard me. He laughed and said that here, unlike in America, if you get too close to a cliff and fall off it's your own fault. The government doesn't step in and "save people from themselves", nor would someone's family even consider suing because of it. I really think our country needs to get back to that kind of mentality.

[elchivito]

Originally Posted by Pete

First off, let's stop the liberal bashing. As stated earlier I have both liberal and conservative views but in my opinion both "liberals" and "conservatives" have some pretty dumb and self-serving notions. Both have good points and really bad points. And both feel that what they do is for the betterment of society (at least in theory, though not always in practice)...

Well said. Whenever I hear or read "liberals" this or "conservatives" that I understand that I am in the presence of someone who would blame all their woes on one side or the other. This is the definition of schoolyard thinking.
Back on topic, goose liver is to me another example of the excesses that humankind is willing to put onto animals in order to satisfy some sort of non-nutritional food need. Food "art" at the expense of the food source's comfort and well being. The rationalizations that the geese aren't afraid of their feeders and all the other hoohah is just plain silly. Much like whale served in school lunches, cattle kept in confined spaces and kept drunk on guinness to make them tender and absurdly expensive, or worse, fattened on feeds they should never be fed and pumped full of the inevitable antibiotics that are necessary to staunch the chronic diarrhea these feeds cause long enough for them to get big enough to kill. I am no PETA member. I am a rancher, hunter, gun owner and routine butcherer of cattle, sheep, goats and the occasional pig. I do however believe that as the stewards of the creatures that feed us, we have an obligation to treat them well and raise them as naturally as possible, ending their lives with as little pain and as much dignity as possible. While there's little doubt that PETA is full of nutballs, sometimes it takes the lunatic fringe to bring to light issues that would otherwise stay hidden. As long as most Americans don't see the inside of a slaughterhouse, they don't have to think about where their meat comes from. Ignorance is bliss for the average consumer. If organizations like PETA stir the pot a bit and expose some abuses, more power to them. It's sad to see them targeting individual businesses, and IMO isn't the most effective way to make their point, but if they aren't breaking any laws....this is the U.S.A. after all.

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by Pete

I really think our country needs to get back to that kind of mentality.

Early on in my career as a tinker, I worked at the old Gander Mountain East with a part-time employee who was a retired police officer. During the slow periods, we would debate, spin yarns and tell jokes.

He once commented that if he ever had to defend himself in liberal Madison, the local press would barbeque him. He opined that you only remain a victim as long as you're not the victor. Once he had successfully pommeled the mugger to the ground he would labeled a "rogue cop."

I laughed. He admonished me, "Chico, that applies to you, too."

When I asked him why, he pointed out things the press might try to tar me with. Old club member biker. Weight lifter tipping plus 250 pounds. Probable past with violence signified by broken nose and cracked teeth. Gun collector. Possessing a very sharp knife...

The fact that I'm pushing 60 years old, married and a baptized Christian would just take away the drama from good yellow journalism.

Laugh now, because I'll be calling you for bail money! I don't think I'll be too popular a citizen in this new socialist world order. I believe the last thing our government will tolerate is people who think and act for themselves.

In fact, some gun collectors have a name for this new breed of gutless folks. They call them "sheeple."

[OregonYeti]

Originally Posted by elchivito

Whenever I hear or read "liberals" this or "conservatives" that I understand that I am in the presence of someone who would blame all their woes on one side or the other. This is the definition of schoolyard thinking.

Right on. Who was it who said something like "if you're totally left wing or right wing, either way you'll fly in circles"? I like it.

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by OregonYeti

Right on. Who was it who said something like "if you're totally left wing or right wing, either way you'll fly in circles"? I like it.

Then you won't mind if I keep all of my tax money for myself, ship the illegals back home in cattle cars and make you pay for your own doctors then.

There are 300 million people in the USA. Most of the WWII population is ether fully retired or dead. The 78 million baby 'boomers are already retiring, and either paying less tax or drawing Social Security. About 13 million people are illegal aliens.

Clearly stated, the wage earners are dropping out, leaving only the slackers and the socialists to carry the government.

...I'll be in the schoolyard, not working, but spending your taxes in the form of my Social Security...

[OregonYeti]

This could get nasty . . . I have a response, but I will keep it to myself.

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by OregonYeti

This could get nasty . . . I have a response, but I will keep it to myself.

It doesn't have to be nasty. I am a tinker now, but for +30 years I was in finance as a credit manager. The last few years specializing in salvaging distressed corporations. I have more than a nodding opinion on how money flows through our society.

And I can ask you this, name one socialist country, just one, that ever spent themselves rich. It's not physically possible, and the "multiplier effect" has been debunked for quite some time.

In a nutshell, socialists believe that they can devise a budget better than the folks who earn the money. So they suck it all up, including the capital assets, and devise where the impetus of labor and subsequent wealth (if any) is to be allocated and then re-divided.

The Russian government once found out that numerous apartment windows needed to be replaced. They mandated that several tons of new glass be manufactured. The glaziers complied--and made window glass three inches thick to meet the figures.

A socialist with a checkbook is like a monkey with a football. Adhering to the idea that a strong socialist central government needs to take control is tantamount to building an oligarchy.

And what would you then do if you needed medicine and your socialist government decided it was better to triple the number of fighter planes, for "your safety."

There's an old adage that says that people get the government they deserve.

[Just Jim]

This thread has taken a decidedly political turn.
Back on topic please.