Registered: Jul 2001
Location: East Texas
Posts: 416

...told the TX National Guard to be prepared to police the airports in TX.
Subsequent news broadcasts throughout the day make it apparent that it will happen (and even locally to my rural location)

So...I have said this before @ other places (I'll say it here to see what happens)

The second ammendment specifies that the maintenance of a militia is essential.
The Fed gov't requires my state to take taxes from me and then send it to them.
They then allocate that money back to my National Guard.

How is that my militia?

How am I involved in its maintenance?

They are policing me.

How is that NOT a police state?

I'm not discussing safety vrs freedom,
I am asking if the definiations follow with what is going on.

I am now being policed by a military body which is directed by a large unaccountable ruling body who is taxing me to pay for said military control.

If you have flown into other countries (such as Honduras for example) you will know that they ALWAYS have armed military in place.

Who will remove these soldiers?
Why?

What can they demand of me?

Where is my protection under the law from a soldier with a assault rifle I am not allowed to own.

Where is my vote?

Where is my representation?

..this should be easy to tear apart...I'll check back tomorrow and see how it has progressed.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19517

Did you vote for your Governor? Even if you didn't, he still represents you and HE sent them there.
I've seen your pic, they aren't there to police you.
They are there to further secure your airport so as to prevent any further hijackings. I don't see this as any violation of your rights.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by theMAC


How is that my militia?

How am I involved in its maintenance?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: East Texas
Posts: 416

I did vote for the Govenor....now he is president
I also voted for Lt Govenor (naturally) and yes he is in charge of my state now.

He gets to make all sorts of discissions due to implied powers which are set up in prescedent form years ago.

Which is the same power he must use to remove them one day when this unseen threat has disappeared.
There in lies the potential interference with my rights.


"And here in the UK (not really terribly oppressive), we have police armed with assault rifles at the airports, to prevent terrorist attacks."

I have no doubt it works.
But what you are really telling me here is that there will always be men with guns in the airports in my area from now on, that I pay...for whatever reason.

*theMAC scratches his head*

Now, I grant you, he has decided to place the national guard in airports in my community based on his authority....but I have no idea what he based his decision on.
He or his assistants or my un-seen representatives certainly did not ask anyone I know.

The voice of the people is supposed to extend beyond the voting booth.

As for "Militia"
I am supposed to be part of the militia.
The militia is to protect us against the government ever abusing its power....instead the (federal) government owns and trains the militias replacement and TAXES me to pay for it.

The "under the law" statement was a weak tie in to the previous "my militia" statement.
You tore it a new butthole very well I must say.

But I stand behind the point: I am restricted in the firearms i can own and I am restricted in my participation in my militia, but I am taxed to pay for it with the authority to command them going to another fellow who does not have to consult me or my representatives.

As a side thought:
There is a current trend of zero tolerance for people who comit crimes with guns and the liability of the gun manufacturers through current litigation.
They want to take a rapist and give him more time cause he had a gun.
They want to take a killer and sue the guy who sold him the gun.
So either way the criminal still doesn't receive the brunt of the penal code based on his crime...only his circumstances. (I wish that was spliting hairs but its not IMHO)

So, naturally, I should be able to hold the govenor liable for the actions of the national guardsmen.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19517

And you would also be liable for voting him in and giving your tacit approval (by your vote) for his actions.

We elect people to RUN our various governments, not to stop and ask us what to do in every single situation. If their choices are not what the majority likes, we vote them out of office and install someone that does do what the majority wishes. I believe that is the basic idea of all that voting/democracy stuff.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: East Texas
Posts: 416

...now we're down to the meat & potatoes of my entire problem with the Federal Gov't of the United States of America

I got the idea we were supposed to be a REPUBLIC.

Not a democracy.

phrases like "and to the republic for which it stands"

words like "union"

declaration of independance

articles of confederation

constitution

I see the references over and over.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19517

They just used the word 'republic' because it had the right amount syllables for the pledge. (3 as opposed to the 4 in democracy).

We just say Republic or Democracy because Evil Empire is bad press.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9476

theMAC-

It seems that you are upset for a few different reasons:

1) Being policed

2) You have to pay for it

3) They have bigger guns

4) They are out of your control.

From what I understand, you aren't being policed so much as you live in an area in which one specific hub of public transportation is under a heightened state of security. Considering the threat to American national security, I think you would agree that extra security at airports is a good idea at this point.

Taxes are theoretically contributions from the masses that are then used to pay for stuff that benefits the masses. This theoretical ideal is often not realized in daily practice, but you'd agree that that is the general idea. Now, if you accept that added security is a neccessary element to a secure state of society, doesn't it follow that tax dollars should be spent on it? If there ever was a case of the contributions of the masses being used for the good of all, this sure seems to qualify.

Or would you prefer to the 'market' take care of it? Free market forces were in effect prior to the attacks and the private sector (airlines and airports) were in charge of security. From what I hear, many people working at the airport McDonald's made more money that the x-ray inspectors. The free market sure didn't come through for us there.

Regarding the armaments of the security personnel compared with your personal weapons cache, I am confused to your point. Do you want to be able to carry an assault rifle around the airport (and obviously extended this right to all others in American society, including would be terrorists, etc.)? Or would you prefer if the Guardsmen carried bolt-action Remington .308s? I don't really understand your beef with this hardware issue, unless it is just simple hardware envy. And I am not being demeaning or sarcastic when I say that: everyone always wants the biggest, baddest, bestest of whatever it is they are into.

As for the final point, wonderaz has outlined nicely how you must exercise your control over the military and national militia. You are right, we ARE a republic, not a democracy. A true democracy would have all of the decisions of the goverment voted on by all of the citizens of the government. This is utterly infeasible and we have instead developed a Representative Republic system wherein the general (democractic) populace elect representatives to 'represent' them in the decision making process, either by voting according position of the majority of the representatives constituency (closer to true democracy, but then we complain that they are too poll-driven) or by voting according to their personal beliefs and convictions (in which the voters opt out of the decision making process and effectively transfer their vote to said representative.)

My personal opinion: I wouldn't get to worked up over this 'infringement' on your freedom until they actually do something that infringes on you. Any time a person puts effort into a situation that is purely conjecture and their efforts are unlikely to have any effect on the outcome, I think they are just spinning their wheels.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19517

Well said, Nute.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: East Texas
Posts: 416

"1) Being policed

2) You have to pay for it

3) They have bigger guns "

Is where my freedom begins to fall off.

Taxes are a prime example, I'll use them for a metaphor.

I have NO problem with paying taxes to maintains my fine country.
My roads.
My boarders.
My states integrity in the eyes of the rest of the world.

So, I pay part of my income.
Gee, thats fair.
Thats equal.
Except that I can't afford the high rate the rich get charged so I am allowed deductions.
And I am allowed a lower bracket.

BUt when I take whats left of my check to Wal-Mart...I get taxed again.

and I have electric...taxed
and clean water...taxed
and if I say "fuck that" and put in a generator and buy fuel for it
...taxed
I have insurance..taxed
I make a good income and buy a nice car...taxed

I admit that I must pay some tax but when does it stop?
It doesn't stop...
They police this one "hub" they will police everything if I don't speak out.

Now back to the topic

I want my military to have the finest weapons available for the defense of my country.
But why does the defense of my country instinctively mean I may not have the same weapons at the same market value?
I don't want to take a assault rifle onboard an airplane...
And I don't fault my gov't for using military to protect my right to fly safely...
...but... (you knew there would be a but)
I see no check or balance in place to ever remove these soldiers from my airports.
I also see a history of a gov't that been slowly restricting what I can and can't have in the way of arms.

So I stand at the airport and feel like they took away my guns to make me safe and then gave the guns to someone else to make me safe.

"4) They are out of your control. "

amen....I really don't feel like I get a say at all...but I'm trying.

As for "free market"

The free market application of safety is as follows:

My gov'ts regulates/controls the requirements of the airlines to make me safe.
I pay ticket prices that reflect the gov't intrusion.
The airlines do their best to cut costs..man power is the biggest cost.

But thats my take on all this.

I believe you have republic and democracy reversed.

All this is a Representative Democracy
Thats why we have senators and representatives based on districts.
In a democracy men choose someone to make descisions for them. The majority chooses representatives to handle ruling.

In a republic your representatives are based on your actual population.
We become members of communities within states.
We take turns or elect representatives per captia
These reps take our actual votes to the local forum (county).
The countys conveine in a statewide forum.
The states business is handled like this and the voice of the people is dictated to the federal gov't as such.
Each state is an independant part of a union.
...All that died with Lincoln.

I am still a member of a republic...I just don't have much of one left to take part in.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9476

I hear you on the taxed, taxed, taxed, taxed bit. Logically it seems that the rule of double taxation should apply, but the real world is rarely logical.

Regarding the checks and balances, it would be nice if the Governor would have issued an intended withdrawal date of the troops, even if he reserved the right to renew their deployment.

I think the same should be done with laws. When a law is proposed, its intended consequences and outcomes should be enumerated. A temporary lifespan should be attacked to the bill and when that life span expires (say 5 years, arbitrarily), if the law hasn't served its intended outcome, it is automatically repealed and we revert to whatever was in place before hand. A system like this would help to ensure that progress is made in enacted meaningful legislation without mucking it up with laws that don't work at best and are a detriment to the system at worst.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: East Texas
Posts: 416

Well said, Nute.

I hope we may someday be able to help effect changes like these so our systems can serve their purpose more even handedly and with less constriction on our ability to try and succeed/fail at "the american dream"(or any dream that applys to you).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged