"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

John F. Kennedy

Andrew, stay fearful my friend, because, as long as you are fearful you are paralyzed. There is nothing sweeter than the thought of paralyzed Facsists!

I would be scared, if they were many -- but they aren't. Communists are a very small minority these days. The ideological threat are the radical government-hating libertarians, which are close the anarchism.

The mere fact that there are Socialist party members and leaders encouraging and taking part in the Occupy movement and promoting communism should scare everyone. It is just as simple as that.

• The occupy movement in Kilimanjaro did not have a real good day, or a day that they planned yesterday, but maybe it was because they planned to prevent work and school but didn't get organized till 10 am.

Max.,

Very incitefull and right on the money! We should dismantle the military and become the well armed militia for defense society our Forefathers intended. We've got one gun per person already here,.. so training, co-operation and mature leadership is all that is lacking. It would work, we can do it and we eventually will if we intend to survive. Germany and Japan benefited from this dermilitarized arrangement forced upon them for loosing ww2. Personally, I don't like guns. I am frightened and confused by those who do. Unarmed, and living at the foot of one of the largest military bases in the states, you can imagine my anxiety. Brings me round to the story Thom did today about this J T lunatic psuedo-soldier. Thom said all the guns in the states are owned by 10 - 20 % of the populous..The others (occupiers) appearantly don't think violence is a solution to conflict and have the courage to trust thier fellow man or at least try. I see this Militaristic Identity Crisis as just that, a crisis. A disease crisis called Militarism. People who are obsessed with guns display the symtoms of compultion and addiction. They should be treated not worshipped. I am sure what J.T. really wanted was the same power, authority and glory given to our so called hero's, the military and police .. Can't be a government sanctioned militant, just put on a costume,grab a gun and Git er dun! J.T. psycopath, Zuckerberg, , these are extreme examples,.. SGT Bales, and many others atrocities are proof that militant addicts will not be denied satisfaction. If we can't find a way to bring sobriety to Those addicted to Militaristic power we are doomed! or at least a lot of us will die when the shit really starts hittin the fan. I too, thought the 2nd was intended to balance government power.. Makes sense,. if we don't develop an alternative plan to deal with Militarism we may not have any choice but to battle it out. Maybe I should buy a gun afterall... tnx

Sorry to be off topic, but when Thom had the big discussion the other day about world peace with he and callers basically stating that it is not possible (essentially because “human nature prevents it”), I just kept thinking that you all should read a statement issued in 1985 by the Universal House of Justice (the elected, 9-member supreme governing body of the world-wide community of the Bahá’í Faith) entitled “The Promise of World Peace”. This document outlines a workable, realistic plan for establishing world peace – although it would be a difficult and long process – no magic involved.

Here is an excerpt of the first 2 paragraphs:

"To the Peoples of the World:

The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet -- in the words of one great thinker "the planetization of mankind".

Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity's stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the shole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be unconscionable irresponsible."

To see the whole document -- for free -- go to: http://bic.org/statements/promise-world-peace

This statement was sent to top-level government leaders of most of the nations on earth at that time, including a personally delivered copy formally presented to then-President Ronald Reagan.

If only those nations had taken the advice in this World Peace Statement back in 1985. We may have avoided so many tragic conflicts and the suffering they caused. This Statement is as relevant today as it was in 1985.

Some additional excerpts:

"For legal standards, political and economic theories are solely designed to safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be crucified for the preservation of the integrity of any particular law or doctrine."

"Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behaviour is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable.... With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the harrowing apprehension tormenting their daily lives. On the other, uncritical assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free play to individual creativity and initiative but based on co-operation and reciprocity."

Just an offering to try to expand the spectrum of ideas on how to achieve world peace....

And that they can be taken down one at a time. Don't give up.

I can imagine how well an armed citizen insurrection would go in America. All these gun nuts that think they'll stand strong and take over the federal government would soon find themselves arrested, droned removed, or killed out right trying to form a rag tag group army against the well organized disciplined American military. The best they could hope for is to be guerrilla fighters and irritants to the Government. And what would the result of that be? Martial Law, checkpoints and all civil liberties cancelled. There isn't even a regional areas like the North and South to form up against each other like during the Civil War. Its pure foolishness, that would result in changing the American Government, but not in the way they believe it will.

If you want to change the system you have to replace it, not try to replace who leads it.

N

When I own a navy, army, and air force, I might think I have some strength against oppression. That being impossible, I think it might be better if I own the government.

Money in politics? We're looking at the results.

In the 18th and prior centuries, the right to self-protection was unquestioned. Nat Hentoff went through the writings of the Constitutional framers and decided that Pat Buchanan was correct when he spoke of 2nd Amendment rights in 1992.

I have a probably large collection of weapons - and I'm not just talking about handguns. I have shotguns, rifles, some pistols, water pistols, slingshots, swords, folding and sheathed knives, and a few basball bats and baseballs (Sen. Franken takes three baseballs with him on airlines), and shoelaces. I'm thinking about getting a crossbow - shoulder injuries prevent me from using regular bows. I also have rocks from my back yard.

Note that the Tampa Bay ordinance will allow the arrest of anybody who posesses shoe laces. I can also see a protester wearing a bodice getting arrested, and then wonder how the cops will disarm such a person (assuming a woman). These folks are just plain crazy. I hope the people who unfortunatly voted for them will come to their senses. Restoring public education might help.

So an occupy protestor can be carrying a gun and a 7" long string... and they'll be subject to arrest for having the string?

Also wondering about the whole phallic implication here... did they want to make sure that all the doughy white men's penises wont be mistaken for illegal string since the average length of said units are under 6"?

I know it sounds funny.. until a protestor gets arrested for having too long a schlong.

N

In the discussion regarding guns there is an aspect that seems to be completely overlooked. Yes people argue about criminals having access to guns and "good people" having the right to own, carry and use guns. But, we are turning "good people" into killers by making it easy to buy, own and carry guns and by inacting laws that say "stand your ground" "shoot first its OK" etc.

Law abiding citizens without guns don't take chances or put themselves into dangerous situations. They avoid, back off or de escalate. Give the a gun and a law that says its OK to shoot someone who threatens you and you have created a potential killer.

Look at road rage for example. Lots of people lose their temper and drive recklessly, threaten, give the finger, etc. when driving. Just imagine if every driver carried a gun. You can bet there would be shootings on a daily basis.

Isn't it ironic that the people who want to change our government, or at least hold it accountable to the constitution, are not the ones desiring guns, but the ones who want to maintain the status quo cling to gun toting... all the while claiming its in case they need to change the government.

My understanding of the 2nd admendment was that it was designed to maintain a well regulated state militias in lieu of the Federal Government having a standing army. Don't forget at the time the admendment was written police departments didn't exist, the only law was generally a Sheriff and a few deputies. So now we not only have a large standing army, we also have pseudo militiarized organizations called police departments, we don't have well regulated militias just fringe group militias that live in a fantasy world that they'll take on the Federal Government some day.

Now I don't think the 2nd admendment needs to be deleted, but if you want to support it, then the first issue you should have is that our Federal Government dismantle the military.

N