To Be Governed Is to Be Controlled

To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue.


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon articulated that in 1851. Would he be surprised at just how far-reaching the surveillance state and prison-industrial complex now reaches, a century and a half later? I doubt it. Even though it’s likely he couldn’t foresee global communications and related technological innovations, he was aware of the double-standards upon which arbitrary authority is based, and that until that parasitic entity is cast-off, it will continue to grow at an inverse relationship to the freedom of humanity.

Some conscience of today’s police state, in which virtually all actions – especially those done electronically – are documented, tracked, and possibly flagged and investigated, harken back to the days of the “Peace Officer.” But that is futile. Granted, such a goal is made with good intentions – most living in that era (except for non-whites) had less frequent and severe interactions with police employees, but the same conditions and perverse incentives utilized by its actors then, are used today. History, and incentives, prove that whenever a kernel of double-standards is allowed for, it will grow in size and scope, and become more tyrannical. Unless of course those said to be ruled – the subjects, the “citizens” – opt for a better reality.

Proudhon continued:

… To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

The fact that police employees act under the guise of “public utility” and “in the name of the general interest” means that police employees rightly – at least, according to their flawed institution – put the interest of an amorphous “society” – which translates into the norm desired by those who wield the reigns of political power – before the individual who they claim to protect. That is the necessary nature of their institution.

Police have no duty to protect the individual, yet they, and their cohorts – from the county sheriff to those at the National Security Agency, pretend in press conferences, and even to themselves, that they exist to serve the public. But what is the “public” to these supposed protectors but an amalgamation of individuals within an arbitrary political boundary seen as malleable when disagreeable to the political whims of the day? How many countless souls have been crushed or caged and forgotten about in the name of “the law?”


Leo Tolstoy

This is indeed a battle of ideas. There are no cages so impossible to break free from as those of the mind. It’s why the “education” (read: indoctrination of the youth) is so key to those working to further consolidate power. If the idea of arbitrary authority – of men and women who, based on their title or costume, have the “right” to control others – isn’t discarded, then even if the current tyrannical regime is toppled through force of arms, another will step in.

Coercion can never bring peace – that’s not to discount the use of defensive force, which is couched on principles of the non-initiation of force, and of recognizing and respecting each person’s right to self-determination. The bad ideas that facilitate today’s police state will erode as better ideas are adopted. That’s why sharing ideas and critical thinking is so key, as many of us have been exposed only to those that prop-up and perpetuate the current paradigm. As Leo Tolstoy penned in 1894:

If a man, through the growth of a higher conscience, can no longer comply with the demands of government, he finds himself cramped by it and at the same time no longer needs its protection. When this comes to pass, the question whether men are ready to discard the governmental type is solved. And the conclusion will be as final for them as for the yong birds hatched out of the eggs. Just as no power in the world can put them back into the shells, so can no power in the world bring men again under the governmental type of society when once they have outgrown it.


  • t

    Ah….uber-liberal crap. Remember….you can’t cry for constitutional rights and protections…..if don’t except the rest of the document. What crap.

  • t

    Oh….first.,,,,and second.

  • Cynical in New York

    Always nice to read badge licking comments from conservatives like “t”. It also shows how the conservative movement is pretty much a joke and nothing but a false opposition to Obama’s authoritarianism. Guess what conservatives before you get all huffy and puffy behind your keyboards and type of predictable insults at me. Your just as much of a bunch of statist hypocrites as liberals when you rightfully rail against Obama’s thuggery but then cry like liberals whenever someone dares criticized the state’s uniformed thugs.

    To quote Lew Rockwell:

    “What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night. There comes a time in the life of every believer in freedom when he must declare, without any hesitation, to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism.”

  • Alvin

    .if don’t except the rest of the document.

    Um……….I believe you are trying to say “accept” the rest of the document. There are far too many in this country (on either side of the political spectrum) who are “excepting” the Constitution.

  • RadicalDude

    That’s right up there with “If you don’t vote you don’t have a right to complain”. These ridiculous authoritarian platitudes are hilarious until you realize people are killed and attacked daily around the world, and these kinds of platitudes are just the kinds of “justifications” used to rationalize the senseless acts of authoritarian violence.

  • Alvin

    All of these arguments are academic if we don’t have economic freedom. There is fast coming a time (whether regulated by the government, or by protest of the people) when the government commits political suicide by “forcing” the people into activities against their wills or better judgments or the people protest (or are economically unable to because of what the government has done to the economy) the governments ham-fisted actions by participating in a minimal way in their economy. Either way, there has been a die cast that all but guarantees a contest between the government and it’s people. Those of you here that draw a government paycheck may want to invest some time into thinking on that for a bit.

  • RadicalDude

    We are well into the decline of the American Empire, I don’t know when it started maybe even before WWI but it has been in decline for a while. It is a gigantic bubble waiting to burst, like the USSR was before it collapsed.

  • RadicalDude

    The 20th century took America from being the land of the rugged individualist to the bureaucratic “welfare state”.

  • Alvin

    Began when Marxist/socialists started accumulating power, all the way back to Wilson (perhaps Teddy Roosevelt, haven’t made up my mind ’bout that). Just look at the freedoms lost under Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. We are about to recognize the 100th anniversary of the beginning of WWI, and if you research just what kind of people we Americans were a century ago, we’ve become all but unrecognizable to who we used to be.

  • AmigaJoe

    ‘Just look at the freedoms lost under Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. ‘

    -Now that’s funny. I think you left a few presidents out of that list, dude. Self-delusion’s a bitch.

  • Alvin

    So, I leave your demon (GWB) off of the list and you get all indignant. Whatever, If you are unable to see the forest because you’re focused on a single tree, I can’t help you. It is sad when you suffer from that which you see in others.

  • steve

    Wow , t is correct and to the point. Resistance is futile.

  • t

    RD: You are right. We aren’t the rugged individuals that are forefathers were. You can think those that have your thought processes… Pete and Ademo…..those that stick their hands out and want the government to find everything for them from birth to the grave for that. That isn’t the fault of those like me guy. Doctor heal thyself.

  • Alvin

    You can think those that have your thought processes

    It would appear that we aren’t as well educated as our forefathers either.


  • t

    Interesting you should say that.
    I was reading some things about the second amendment earlier. When you look at that amendment alone…and then read some of the other writings by the writers of that amendment…you can clearly see a lack of clear thinking. Of course…even funnier than that are the “Constitutional scholars” that have such differing opinions on what should be a simple, single sentence. But it’s not simple….it’s a mess.

    But hey….you keep thinking that you’re thinking.

  • Alvin

    And here we have t, openly and all but admitting he will gladly and forcibly “try” to take our guns. We see you for who and what you are, t.

  • t

    Wow. Nice imagination guy. Where do I say anything like that? Oh….nowhere. Like your shooting prowess….Alvin=liar

  • Alvin

    t, the 2nd amend. is the shortest and most concise of the Bill of Rights. It is not that difficult to derive it’s meaning (when you aren’t trying to glean some support for your position). But, here is where “you say that”

    Interesting you should say that.
    I was reading some things about the second amendment earlier. When you look at that amendment alone…and then read some of the other writings by the writers of that amendment…you can clearly see a lack of clear thinking

    How anyone could read the 2nd amend. and even upon reading a lot of what the foundation for the reasoning and phrasing of the 2nd, and spout that drivel is why this country will be tearing itself apart in short order. It is mind-numbed robots like you that will listen to and follow unconstitutional orders like unlawful weapons confiscation. If you don’t/refuse to see the 2nd as Washington, “the 2nd amend is there in case the govt. forgets the 1st” or “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”, then there is no hope for saving you from being on the side that will push this country there. The more police like you follow the current path, the less chance there is for this country to resolve it’s differences peacefully.

  • t

    So then….by your ‘strict reading’ of that sentence….you would agree that only militias should have firearms? That is clear what it says.

  • Alvin

    Whole-heartedly, t, And since a militia is made up of the citizenry, and since there are no limitations on militias (other than an age and ability description from the time), yeah, I’m for ALL citizenry retaining (not gaining) the right to OWN, SHOOT, and become proficient in the art of firearms usage. I’m even in support of felons firearms ownership. If you dem/lib/commies are alright with a felon (having served his penalty) regaining his/her right to vote, I’m for them regaining ALL of their rights. And that includes the right to self-defense.

  • t

    That’s not what is says guy. You want/demand a strict reading of what is a simple sentence. A “well regulated militia” isn’t just every yahoo. WELL REGULATED. You can’t ignore those words. Well….I’m wrong as you clearly did ignoring them.

    But as with most things…you miss read me. I want responsible gun ownership. The key to that is responsible. By your statements…you won’t qualify. Nether will the guys that walk around sporting their ARs trying to intimidate everyone they see.

    What funny..or sad depending….is how you don’t even realize what your saying with your analysis of such a simple sentence. I’d think you’d get it right being so simple minded.

  • Alvin

    Well, by all means t. Enlighten me in what a well regulated militia is. Give me an example of a Well regulated militia. Perhaps you could post the militia regulations for all to see if we “qualify”. Come on smart-guy, back up what you post.

  • t

    Well…in the time the document was written…militias were state controlled groups of able bodied men that could be called up when needed….trained and utilized for the defense of that state. That’s not really any secret.

    Just watch….come 2016 if things go wrong….we could easily run the risk that up until 2020…a retirement of death could lead to the single vote change to all that you think that amendment means.

    The example hat I originally gave…about reading up n the topic…I recommend it to you. Fascinating and frightening at the same time.

  • Alvin

    t, read a little more about militias in early American history. They weren’t State controlled. They were city and County entities. They didn’t get “called up & then trained”. They were volunteers that held mandatory training sessions (usually quarterly). The members voted their leadership (usually the wealthy merchants so that there would be some funding for their ammo or equipment). You don’t know nearly what you think or claim to know. And, where is the examples and regs?

  • John Q Public

    The local militias were transformed into the National Guard in the early 1900s.

  • Alvin

    JQP, you are wrong as well. The CONCEPT of the militias was hijacked by our government. The current Nat’l Guard is essentially an entity of the Feds with the control in the Governors’ hands. It is like the Federal Reserve Act taking over the banking in our country.

  • t

    Alvin: The local militias were all under state leadership. And JQP is right about the national guard, like it or not.

    But now that you’re starting down the road to thinking right (still a long way to go for you) what were the militias for?

    BTW…so far you’ve already reasoned away your “right” to a gun. If you get this part right….you may say that no one should have a gun. Again, that’s not what I want, but an analysis of the sentence and the times in which it was written is far different then what most think.


  • Alvin

    t, you have NO idea as to what you are talking about when it comes to the militia. You probably hate the militia idea so much that you consider them more of a “threat” than the Tea-party folks.

    The militias were formed in America in the late 1500s because the home countries that had folks emigrating here couldn’t/refused to fund the sending of their military to protect them from the Natives or other Nation-States’ forces bent on conquest. As the Natives, who tried, at first, to be accommodating toward the “invaders”, became increasingly hostile as more of “their” land (I used quotes as the Natives didn’t consider the land anybody’s) was being “taken over” and misused or abused. The militia system was instituted by the Colonists along the eastern seaboard so that they could protect their families, homes, and farmlands from this increasingly bloody threat. Now, the Natives weren’t the only threat to the Colonists. There were the French, and Spanish militaries to worry about. The nations of France and Spain had larger chunks of N. America than did the English. This posed a threat to the Colonists as well as to England. England sent small troop contingencies, which lead to problems between the Colonists and the troops, which is why there is much of those problems addressed in our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (the Constitution).

    These threats reached their height during the French-Indian Wars around the 1750s. The King of England recognized that the Indians were becoming more and more of a problem, and the colonists were crying more and more for military assistance, so he banned the colonists from crossing the mountain ranges into the Ohio Valley (Indian territory). The colonists disobeyed and were moving there anyway, thus the French-Indian War.

    Now, as far as militia, the sending of troops to the Colonies in the early part of the 1700s caused the Colonists to become lazy. They, having their defense needs taken care of by the military, started to become lax or almost ignore their militia “responsibilities”. In fact, the militia had become nearly nonexistent by the time the French-Indian wars took place. This lead to hard feelings between the English regulars (who looked upon the Colonists as lazy, cowards, and unruly) and the Colonists (who looked up the regulars as overbearing, arrogant, and unappreciative). This planted the seeds of the strife and anger that was to come in the mid 1770s.

    When the post French-Indian War years came about, the Colonists were upset about how the regulars were treating them (which is the reason why we have the original Bill of Rights), and how they were being taxed to pay for the regulars’ deployment for their defense, and how those tax levels were determined without the Colonists having a representative voice in the English Parliament when the debates and votes were taken for those tax levels to be determined.

    As this animosity grew through the 1760s and 1770s, the idea of revitalizing the militia became popular again. The “radicals” of the time revived the militia construct to assemble folks of like thinking, train those folks in marksmanship and the marshaling arts, and stockpile an arsenal and ammo dump so as to be on equal footing with the regulars should violence between them break out. There was also the attitude of using the militia as an “in your face protest attitude” at the time. The radicals of the time, later called rebels post Declaration of Independence, were the original hippies (not that I have any love or respect for hippies).

    I’m almost finished, so show some patience. By the spring of 1775, events had passed (the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre, key trials of grievances brought by Colonists and regulars alike) that the tensions in and around Boston were at a breaking point. The regulars, being outnumbered by the Colonists by nearly 1000:1, were more than a little fearful and on edge because of that numerical disadvantage. So, rather than wait for the Colonists to “snap” and attack them with their practiced marksmanship, training, and weaponry, the regulars decided that they needed to disarm (read that as confiscate) those very arms that they felt threatened by (does this sound familiar?). As a result, we have revered history now (Paul Revere’s ride, Lexington, Concorde, Bunker and Breed’s Hill, and the Green Mountain Boys’ feats) ALL because of a government’s poor decision to take weapons from citizens.

    Now, you may or may not have known a lot of that history. I’m betting that you’ve never been taught it in the chronological order in which it happened and why the instances of one action led to another. But, as the old saying goes, “those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. I like to say that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure as hell rhymes. The political climate of today is nothing new. We’ve experienced this before (1770s, 1850s, 1890s, 1960s), ain’t nothing new under the sun. What you have to ask yourselves is this. Am I on the right side of this current conflict in America? If you don’t KNOW your history, the chances are that you are NOT.

  • t

    Wow….look who gave was a wiki lesson. You almost got it all right too.

    First though…..nowhere have I ever come out against gun ownership. I have consistently called for responsible gun ownership…..which is what we all should want.

    But back to your lessons….
    Now I really loved your line about were the bill of rights came from. It’s completely wrong….but I love that you wrote it out.
    Now without a lot of what you wrote is completely contary to your idea of a ‘strict reading’, but let’s go into it. Now (this one goes out to YF) if you want to go into what was really meant by the amendments and the Constitution in general… Red to read first the Declaration of Independence and then maybe the Federalist Papers and the so called Anti-Federalist Papers. One imparticular, Federalist Paper #46 is often quoted concerning this topic. But like @Ariel and @Shawnlike to do to others….it’s always quoted out of context. Read it all. Read all of it, continue to educated yourself. You’ll see that everything I’m saying is spot on.

  • Alvin

    I couldn’t tell you what the wiki article says about this. I do know my history as I’ve read a lot of it. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights read almost like a history book. If you would take the time to read the documents as well as the historical record of what ACTUALLY occurred in America previous to those documents being written, you’d know this.

    t, you are just about anything except spot on. It is as if you are living in your own made up world. I can’t even feel the least bit of empathy for you. There is nowhere in your posts on any subject where you are willing to acknowledge the peoples’ expressly enumerated rights in the Constitution. Consistently, you shill for the government agencies that you hold so dear. You refuse to bring yourself to accept that the Constitution was written to restrain the actions of the very governmental agency that you work for. Then, you become offended and defensive when someone like me points that flaw of yours out. You are a governmental control freak………I get it. You have no respect for the average American……..I recognize that. You contort our law and our history so as to “support” your twisted view of what America is………I understand that. But, don’t come on this blog and try to be some kind of expert……….you clearly aren’t. As I’ve clearly pointed out, there is a time for choosing rapidly coming………and you or your similarly formed compatriots aren’t prepared for it.

  • Alvin

    t, here is what you posted.

    I was reading some things about the second amendment earlier. When you look at that amendment alone…and then read some of the other writings by the writers of that amendment…you can clearly see a lack of clear thinking.

    Here is the 2nd amend. regardless of the writings that preceded it,, it is the final stamped for approval amend. by the constructors as well as the people who voted on it’s ratification.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Now, how you (or others like you who wish to restrict, confiscate, prevent the purchase of, regulate the production of, deny the ammunition to, or otherwise keep out of the hands of the American citizen) or your like-minded cohorts are able to read anything other than what is written is beyond my comprehension. The ONLY conclusion I am able to reach, in regards to what you’ve posted, is that the likes of you and your ilk are clearly, and proudly, un-American in your thinking and how you see this country in relation to our founding and our history. As one of the founders said in reference to those who shrank from the challenge of standing up to their bully of a government, “Go from us, may the chains of your masters rest lightly on your wrists, and may history not recognize that you were among us”. You and your kind are pathetic. You search for the “easy way out” of every test of your courage. Fortunately for us that mostly means “spend more money”. But, concerning this issue, it means the lose of a God-given Right as spelled out in the Constitution. Go away from us, and may the memory of you be extinguished from our memories.

  • t

    Your education has failed. I tried….but you just failed badly.
    What’s worse…you have now gone down the @Ariel,path of just making things up. He keeps going on and in about en”police state” when the only person talking about it is him. You now are going in about me wanting to take guns from people when I have never said any such thing…nor do I want that.
    I went about the discussion with you hoping that you would learn more than just the typical gun nutter type who screas about the second amendment but has no idea what it means Alas….you have proven that you are just that though.
    Your lack of sophistication…the inability to understand the powerful political,forces at play…like many of “your kind” is quite sad. Because that amendment was so poorly written…it has left itself open to vastly differing interuptations…which I tried to get you to read so that you would learn from the exercise. The current make of of the legislative and executive branches are really only being held in check by the thinnest of threads. A slight change in the judicial branch and a few changes in the legislative and you could very well see serious gun control….decisions based on the exact same amendment that you think secures that right.

    So again…cut out all the nutter stuff you are into and educate yourself. Don’t just read what backs your point of view. Read it all and learn.

  • Alvin

    t, it took you THAT long to come up with….well……………THAT? LOL, LOL, LOL. Now, that is some classic dem/lib/commie material there. Tell you what, SPORT, you stay where you are in our country, and I mean there through the finest of times and when it gets downright unbearable. I and mine sure don’t want you and yours moving into our paradises. Take a look at the news stories ’bout which States peeps are leaving and which States they are moving to. Peeps are jumping from your liberal bastions in droves fella. Moonbats like you are creating unliveable enviornments for folks, In fact, I read where there may be hope for your part of America yet. The local unions for the Boeing workers overruled the Nat’l union by voting to cave to Boing’s latest contract offer. So, you see, even in Moonbatland, in a poor business environment, created by your moonbat president (I know it’s supposed to be capitalized), the local unions know that Boeing wasn’t bluffing ’bout taking those good paying jobs to some other State (most likely a red state). You keep your hope alive for your utopian society, but please, stay there dreaming. We love our America the good ‘ole fashioned way ’round here.

  • Alvin

    t, one last thing. About that thinnest of threads you are on about, the one that is supposedly barely keeping the 2nd amend. in the Constitution. (Looks around suspiciously) Psst…………lean in close………..I don’t want this to get out to a lot of folks. The elections coming up later this year………….it looks like a lock for the conservatives on the House side………….and the Republicans only need 6 Senate seats for control there………… With Obamacare (or the ACA, whichever makes you feel warm and fuzzy) getting sorted out this year………..and I mean all year………… is beginning to look like the Republicans are going to get those 6 and possibly one or two more. Now, you and your president (I know, it’s supposed to be capitalized) may think him a king or a dictator, but he won’t be able to take the gun out of my, or any other Americans’ hands by Executive Order. Sleep on that, t.

  • t

    Alvin: wow guy. You really are lost. I’m a red state conservative…just not a blind fool like you. I live out in the country in one of the fastest growing areas in the nation…growing in leaps and bounds…..not just a little county of 30,000 like you. Heck, that should have been easy to see as I have explained many times “no unions”.
    I tried to get you to read our real,history…openly and not just seeing what you want too. That clearly isn’t going to happen.
    As to the thinnest of lines that I spoke of. Guy….the American people are fickle. What may look like a lock right now can change in an instant. Though he is far from one of my favorites….but to paraphrase Clinton, it’s all about the economy. If the economy turns around…and signs are that it is going too..things may not end up like you think.

    Good luck guy….you need it.

  • Alvin

    (Alvin reaching into his back pocket and grabs the red bullshit flag, and with an upward motion tosses it straight up into the air, ala an NFL Referee). (loudspeaker comes on with a droll voice ” Bullshit violation for posting uber-leftist political positions and claiming to be a red-state-conservative, tag name, t. ).

  • t

    So…. I’m a leftist commie because I think you should read and earn to better prepare yourself for the political arguement that you aren’t well bereaved in?? Wow. Hopeless.

  • Alvin

    t, read slowly as to ascertain the writer’s intended meaning. Here I’ll spell it out for you.

    You are a leftist commie because you support a leftist commie platform plank. The confiscation and the banning of guns from the citizenry, is straight out of the communist agenda playbook. I couldn’t/can’t make it any more clear than that. YOU really, really, really, really wanting me to change my view on this subject isn’t going to alter how I see this. Your using one of a hundred written examples prior to the finalized 2nd amend. isn’t going to adjust my thinking on this subject. It is similar to Roe v. Wade. No matter how many laws you pass on this activity, people (being the humans that they are) aren’t going to NOT do it because the government said so. Humans are going to fuck each other no matter what you, the Church, or the government tells them to try to dissuade them from it. And, because there is a result of humans fucking, there will be some that don’t want to deal with that result, so there is going to be murders in their inability to deal with their consequences. The same goes for firearms. You, the police, or your government aren’t going to keep the citizenry from self-defense no matter how much preaching, law passing, or indoctrinating you attempt. Humans are going to defend themselves from other humans, whether they wear black and a ski mask, camouflage, or a uniform and a badge, humans instinctually act to preserve their lives. As long as the criminal class has access to firearms (whether legally or illegally obtained), and the military demonstrates that they are willing to follow unconstitutional orders, and the police are caught time and again abusing their authority and can’t control themselves or their co-workers, humans WILL obtain the means to protect themselves. I am exhausted of pointing this out to you. I state (what around here would be) the obvious to you, yet you either act or don’t actually see this. You, being the good little commie that you’ve proven yourself to be, won’t or can’t allow another to have their own viewpoint. Everyone, according to you leftist types, must be beaten (either verbally or physically) until there is no more resistance to your ideology. That is how your kind rolls. Everything is alright, as long as everyone agrees with or toes the party line. All we hear from you is how open and inclusive you are, yet, when someone disagrees with you, here you come with the name-calling, and the character attacks, and the incessant arguing. Smarten up t, you are the worst kind of a leftist. You are a commie, and don’t even know it.

  • t

    Wow. Myosin get dumber and dumber…but still funnier and funnier.

    Let’s look at your comprehension issues:
    I say repeTwdly that I want people to have guns….. You read that I am trying to take guns from people. Hmmm. I think that right there is self explanatory about you.

    I tell you to be informed….and you just keep on spewing the same old worn out extremist lines. K.

    Good luck dude. You and Timothy Mcveigh would have been great friends I’m sure.

  • Alvin

    t, there you go. Your using deflection and name-calling, straight out of Alinsky. You don’t have a leg to stand on concerning this discussion, yet, you continue droning on with I-don’t-know-what kind of argumentation.

    Once just once, I’d like to see you post an argument sans the name-calling. Not one of your postings maintains a single counter-argument. It is filled with “your wrong, I’m right,, AND you’re a racist” That is the pattern with you. This whole thread is filled with your defensive posts, yet it is you who once posted “I’m never defensive, and someone like you will NEVER make me defensive”. I point out that you have a border-line education, and you go on posting barely legible material. The manner in which you post, it is little more than discernible, yet, you fancy yourself some Clarence Darrow. It is utterly amazing the ego you posses with little to nothing to warrant it. If we were to allow a disinterested third party to read this thread alone, they would decide that my argumentation has overwhelmingly carried the dispute. However, you are so embedded with your ideology that you can’t own a semblance of objectivity. As I’ve said before, the time for choosing is at hand, and you are ill-informed to make it.

  • Alvin

    What is hopeless, t, is your ability to command the written word to convey a thought.

    So…. I’m a leftist commie because I think you should read and earn to better prepare yourself for the political arguement that you aren’t well bereaved in?? Wow. Hopeless.

    What the fuck is that posting supposed to mean? Bereaved in? I should be saddened and in mourning for someone? What word were you looking for there? I’ve been on this site (off and on) for 2 years now, and I’ve read your constant sniping at folks who are just venting their points of view. I’ve read your derisions and your name-calling. I’ve read your arrogance and your belittlement of folks whose only slight towards you has been that their “take” on the issues presented daily here run counter to yours. After all of your chest-beating and put-downs, when pushed to support your vaunted positions, you exhibit the writing prowess of a High School Freshman. Pathetic is how I see it.

  • t

    Wow again and again..

    So let’s review:
    . I take the position that I always have…..urging folks to remember that the Constitution that they claim to love created government, not rights (the rights mentioned are secured from government, not created by it)
    . I say I want people to have guns…but want them to be responsible
    . I specifically suggest to you to read more and expand your knowledge about a topic that you have shown a limited understanding of in the 2nd Amendment….in as much as all you know about it is a very one sided view that only supports your beliefs.

    . You call me a uber-leftist commie, liberal….
    . You keep coming up with some figment of your imagination about me saying I want to take people’s guns
    And you think I’m calling names?

    Then there’s your quote of me from someplace in your made up world. But more to the fact guy….i haven’t been being defensive. You don’t know it guy as you think you are fighting with me….while all you are doing is fighting with yourself.
    Dude, cool down and read back. I never called for taking guns. You dreamed that up. You have taken a single minded idea of what that amendment means…..I suggested hat you read everything that there is about it…..about how “scholars” read it and come up with vastly different interruptions of what it means. I suggest that you read directly what the writers of the document said about “militias” and how it’s vastly different than what you think it is…..and you think I’ve been “defensive”? Guy, what you don’t realize is that you got your ass handed to you so badly as you are so dim that not only can’t you follow along a simple step by step suggestion, you don’t even realize that the last thing you tasted was your teeth.

    Guy, go back to your mythical shooting prowess. Leave the thinking to those that think.

    My points are easily verified about what history was and what was written about, for and against the Constitution and the Amendments to that document. Just go read it. It’s interesting.

  • Alvin

    . I take the position that I always have…..urging folks to remember that the Constitution that they claim to love created government, not rights (the rights mentioned are secured from government, not created by it)

    And yet you post things that lead people who read them to understand that you wish to use the government to ban or modify that very amend.

    Then there’s your quote of me from someplace in your made up world.

    What made up world? I used YOUR posting. LOL. It wasn’t necessary for me to make it up, it was/is there for all to see.

    You keep coming up with some figment of your imagination about me saying I want to take people’s guns

    Because that is what you said, in your posting, There is no other conclusion to be drawn other than what you posted. LOL.

    And you think I’m calling names?

    Yes, t, I call you names, the very names your actions and arguments cry out what you actually are. LOL I don’t use the crude language to label you that I’ve read you use to label others, but yeah, I use your words, argumentation, and “logic” against you.

    . I specifically suggest to you to read more and expand your knowledge about a topic that you have shown a limited understanding of in the 2nd Amendment

    Once again t, it matters not all of the argumentation and printed position papers leading up to the crafting and the wording to the 2nd. amend. The final version is all that essentially matters. It was the amend. that was penned to the final version of the document, and it was the version that peeps voted for or against two centuries plus ago. It matters not a whit what those wrote who were wanting a more strict version of the amend. They were voted down then as you are voted down now.

    Well, t, I guess we’ll just agree to disagree. I’ve shown this whole thread to my co-workers. They are all howling in laughter at your arrogance. There is not one who is in support of you. I am even trying to take your side of this in the continuing argument just so that I am able to practice my debating skills, and also so as not to influence their positions since I am the boss. NOT ONE person is taking your side of this. To a person, the secretary and the janitor included, they all see you as an idiot (their words, not mine).

    t, this argument isn’t just between you and me. This is the national argument of our time. And, at least from the part of the Nation that I live in, your views are very, very unpopular. Now, I am sure you will say the same towards my position, and that is alright. You are free to believe how you believe (however wrong it may be), and I am free to do the same.

  • t

    There sent an argument between you and me. Yo have been arguing with yourself. I can believe hat you don’t get or understand that….it is evidenced in what can only be a meth induced hallucination in your thinking that I have any of what you just accused me of. Show a thread. Date time stamp….anything to back any of what you just said

    Gethest thou to rehab.

  • Alvin

    Dude, I can’t glean any meaning from that jumbled mess. You’re going to have to do better at thinking……or typing…….or Writing………or idea formation……….seriously, I’m a fairly intelligent person, and I can’t figure out what you are even remotely trying to convey.

  • t

    The point is:

    You have no idea what you are saying.
    You have had your ass kicked throughout this discussion….not because I’m arguing with you….but because you are just arguing with yourself.
    You,claim I have said things that clearly I have not.

    When taking into account the lies about me on this thread…the violent outbursts that are the Alvin calling card…..the extremist views….and the ridiculous shooting claims …..the diagnosis from distance is a meth addiction.

    Seek help.

  • Alvin

    Now THAT is some typical leftist responses, right there. You CAN’T refute what I’ve said so you lean on the tried and true leftist tactic of declaring victory (no matter the actual outcome) and disparage. LOL. You WON”T address anything someone points out to you. You simply name-call. Ah, now there is an effective argument. When you are bankrupt of argumentation, there is always that. Whatever, t. You slink away with your empty “victory”. We’ll be butting heads on other issues that you “comment” on here. Honestly, I enjoy this more than you can realize. So, if I were you, I’d spend some more time thinking before posting. I will be here to point out your flawed thinking. Chat with you soon.

  • t

    What points have you made?

    First you talk about a strict reading of the second amendment. When we go through that……you get lost with the “a well regulated militia” as it clearly doesn’t back what you are saying.
    Then we go into what a militia Is…and you show a limited (at best) understanding of what militias of the time were and why they were. Heck you didn’t even pick up that they were to be used to put down insurrections…not to to the insurrectionists.

    Then of course is the ridiculous claims that I am saying that people shouldn’t have guns. Nowhere will you find that I’ve said anything like that. I want responsible gun ownership….people acting responsible with guns…to remove the ammunition from those that want to take our guns. You call for everyone…. Even convicted felons (real criminals) to be armed. I suggest that the fools that run around with skin AR’s in town trying to intimidate everyone is very bad for gun owners. Those people…. The extremist types like yourself….are seen by the overwhelming populace as dangerous. Those people vote. And they will vote against what you want.

    If you want to live on the extreme….live there. But here in the real world, progress is made by meeting near the middle to work with those that you don’t nessicarliy agree with. That’s what our country was designed to be.

    But if you don’t want to believe me, ok. If you don’t want to really read and understand what our history was, ok.

    So continue to be violent and call for violence. You’ll most likely find violence.

  • Alvin

    t, I choose not to want to believe you. You haven’t the foggiest of what you speak to. I left the post allowing for you to believe as you wish, I only ask for you to leave me to do the same.

    I will address one point brought up by you. You deride me for calling for convicted felons (real criminals, as you called them) to regain their right to self-defense. I’m curious t, when is a person’s debt to society paid when they commit a crime, do the punishment society metes out to them, and then are released back into society. When does that “criminal” regain their rights? At what point do YOU stamp their bill “Paid in Full”? Allow me to ask another question. If a felon is denied the right to self-protection by having a Constitutional right denied them, and they are ENTIRELY dependent upon the State for their protection, and they are killed, would not the State become liable for that lack of protection? Think about it.

    If citizens like you are alright with a civil right (the right to vote) being restored to them, why is it that you are opposed to ALL of their civil rights being restored to them? Doesn’t that run counter to the Constitution’s definition of self-determination?

    You see t, there are much larger issues at stake than “well I think THIS, so it should be so”. Maybe you should take up thinking more deeply.

  • t

    Well now. Having just seen your post on a different thread that immediately called for violence…..why am I not surprised that you want to ignore that these criminals have proven themselves to be dangerous and not to be trusted.
    You say “paid in full”. You forget or want to ignore that they made a free will choice. We can forgive….but we would be foolish to forget.
    You know (actually, I’m sure you don’t) so very few people ever end needing a firearm for “self-protection”. The hugely overwhelming number of people in this country never have any physical confrontations in their lives….not even when you include childhood. Generally, the ones that need a firearm for protection (outside of their homes) are people who are associating with people and places where there is a known higher risk of problems.
    Anyway….they made a free will choice guy. That’s their fault. Oh….and as for their voting rights…..some places do, some places don’t. But it takes awhile.

    So that’s like strike, what, 18 for you on this thread?

  • Alvin

    t, you are so pathetic. I can read the glee in your post in you thinking that you’ve nailed a point. LOL.

    So, let’s say that YOU were caught defrauding your department by doctoring up your time sheets. Hell, let’s say you honestly made a mistake, but “the system” was hell-bent on being a hard-ass and nails you with a felony for it. You serve your punishment and then are released. Now, keep in mind we are saying the courts have stamped, “:served his time, and he is no longer required to visit a PO every once in a while”. YOU are okay with YOUR having lost your right to vote and gun ownership? YOU are telling me that YOU would simply hang your head and mutter, “well, it was the choice I made, and the system is what it is, and I guess I don’t deserve the right to vote or the means to protect me or my family”? I don’t think so.

    You see t, you seem to have an inability to see anything other than what you think you know. You are nothing more than an indoctrinated automaton.

    I’d say that is like strike-out number 18 for me (if you consider that I am the Pitcher in this game). Chalk up yet another backwards K in the scorebook for me (backwards k on the scorebook means strike out without swinging). That backwards K is appropriate as you’ve been frozen in the box watching (or I”ll even grant, fouling) pitches off, but getting sat down on every at bat.

    Keep ’em coming t.

    I’m just hitting my groove.

  • t

    Nice example. Not to realistic, but nice.

    But if I made that choice, I have to live with the consequences of that

  • Alvin

    t, proper English would be “too”, as in excessive. Again, simply pointing out your substandard education. Chat with you soon.