Pentagon Shooter Worshipped Private Property Rights, Denounced Government 'Schemes' Like Public Education

[Peikko 1,575]

Criminals should not be able to purchase and keeps guns in their homes or on their persons either, but they somehow manage to. Because they are criminals, or insane. Take your pick.

One we can know and do something about if we don't bury our heads in the sand, the other obviously is more difficult. It's a trite thing to say Mr Ranger, you can do a lot better than that.

[Ali G. 37]

The guy had a history of mental illness so his politics could have been rooted anywhere on the political spectrum. He was big fan of marijuana and 9/11 conspiracies so he'd right in with a lot of Bush haters.

The mentally ill shouldn't be allowed to buy guns anyway.

I understand and the reality is that if he didn't have a gun, he would have used something else. The issues I see here is that the baseless anti-government rhetoric is only increasing. Civilized democracies don't use guns and violence to get their way, we vote on it. Furthermore, this sometimes means that people can and will disagree with us and we may not get our way. What has to change is the notion that if one does not get their way, they have the right to bear arms and harms others. Realistically this is no different to what Al Qaeda is doing against the US. Acts of violence as we have seen in the past, by Americans against other Americans, should not be tolerated period. The worst and most embarrassing example of this was the assassination of JFK.

PS Libertarians now seems to be the liberal equivalent of the republican party - with the same warped pie-in-the-sky views on life and society.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Booyah

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Realistically this is no different that what Al Qaeda is doing against the US.

You're right. It isn't. These libertarian small-government types are doing nothing more than aiding and abetting terrorism.

[Ali G. 37]

You're right. It isn't. These libertarian small-government types are doing nothing more than aiding and abetting terrorism.

They are actually. I myself used to think the liberals aided the terrorists but such lunacy is 100 fold the threat of any anti-war rhetoric. It actually emboldens the terrorist into believing even Americans feel that terror is the preferred method of voicing an opinion.

For myself, it actually reinforces why we need a stable strong government, rather than every yahoo running around doing as they see fit. Allowing everyone do as they please is doomed to end in anarchy. Hence, why most other first world countries do not allow it and set reasonable limits.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Booyah

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They are actually. I myself used to think the liberals aided the terrorists but such lunacy is 100 fold the threat of ant anti-war rhetoric. It actually emboldens the terrorist into believing even Americans feel that terror is the preferred method of voicing an opinion.

For myself, it actually reinforces why we need a stable strong government, rather than every yahoo running around doing as they see fit. Allowing everyone do as they please is doomed to end in anarchy. Hence, why most other first world countries do not allow it and set reasonable limits.

You sound like the kinda guy who would agree with the following mission statement. I know I do.

MISSION: The ... Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

[Ali G. 37]

You sound like the kinda guy who would agree with the following mission statement. I know I do.

MISSION: The ... Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

Whoever wrote that is spot on there.

Similar thought was also the reason behind the article you posted the other day, where the federal government is talking over the hospitals in Aus, as research found it can save a tonne of money and do a better job utilizing their economies of scale.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Booyah

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Whoever wrote that is spot on there.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

[alienlovechild 75]

The issues I see here is that the baseless anti-government rhetoric is only increasing. Civilized democracies don't use guns and violence to get their way, we vote on it. Furthermore, this sometimes means that people can and will disagree with us and we may not get our way. What has to change is the notion that if one does not get their way, they have the right to bear arms and harms others.

I wouldn't say all criticism of the government is baseless and I haven't seen anything showing a movement towards more anti-government violence than in the past. Most people vote and don't go on a killing spree. Even our current president had a friend who bombed the Pentagon but let's not dwell on that.

There's no "right" to harm others, Booyah. The shooter broke several existing laws.

[Ali G. 37]

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

Now there is an organization that gets it. The government is not the issue, rather, who we vote in, how it's run and how it functions.

The anti-government rhetoric is not only baseless, as there are no international examples of it, but it's the equivalent of suggesting we should ban all cars because of Toyota's faulty component; all in lieu of discussing how to fix or replace a component. It's ridiculous to think that all cars should be scrapped because of this. Surely if a car is extremely faulty, you scrap that model and start again. It's the same deal against the government. I have said it from day one, in my opinion, the problem here is with the system being used. There is a reason why the parliamentary system is so successful while the presidential system is now only used by second and third world countries.

Then again, good luck trying to change that. Even I know it's not going to happen. People cannot even pass healthcare that will benefit Americans over corporations, can you imagine the rhetoric of switching the system of government? Forgeataboutit. Heck, you cannot even switch to metric measurement; which are actually easier to read and make more sense.

[Ali G. 37]

I wouldn't say all criticism of the government is baseless and I haven't seen anything showing a movement towards more anti-government violence than in the past. Most people vote and don't go on a killing spree. Even our current president had a friend who bombed the Pentagon but let's not dwell on that.

There's no "right" to harm others, Booyah. The shooter broke several existing laws.

People disagreeing with one another is what makes a democracy. For example, while the left and right may disagree on how to fund something like health care in AUS, you will not ever hear anyone talk about destroying the government because of it. Over here you have parties with diametrically opposing views arguing on society and life. It's just not feasible in the long run.

Republicans are getting into bed with a dangerous force by siding with libertarians. I can tell you that much. There is a perceived right to kill, as American history is filled with it. From the Oklahoma bombings to some idiot flying their plane into the IRS. This is why as the world moves on, frees itself from previous financial obligations due to WWII, less and less people listen to America. Who wants that sort of lunacy in their backyard..

Edited March 5, 2010 by Booyah

[alienlovechild 75]

People disagreeing with one another is what makes a democracy. For example, while the left and right may disagree on how to fund something like health care in AUS, you will not ever hear anyone talk about destroying the government because of it. Over here you have parties with diametrically opposing views arguing on society and life. It's just not feasible in the long run.

Republicans are getting into bed with a dangerous force by siding with libertarians. I can tell you that much. There is a perceived right to kill, as American history is filled with it. From the Oklahoma bombings to some idiot flying their plane into the IRS.

Not exactly accurate as most Americans believe the two major parties are too much alike but they take up most of the political center leaving nothing for a third party or multiple parties as you'd have in most countries. Our system has been feasible for 234 years so I'm not buying your hype from reading headlines.

Libertarians are dangerous and believe they have the "right to kill"? Most of thousands of murders were committed to people belonging to the Democrat's voting base but I wouldn't say Democrats believe they have the right to kill their fellow citizens.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm just glad he wasn't very prepared. If he killed both guards quickly and efficiently he probably would have gotten his hands onto an MP5. Then he would have been REALLY dangerous.

[Ali G. 37]

Not exactly accurate as most Americans believe the two major parties are too much alike but they take up most of the political center leaving nothing for a third party or multiple parties as you'd have in most countries. Our system has been feasible for 234 years so I'm not buying your hype from reading headlines.

Libertarians are dangerous and believe they have the "right to kill"? Most of thousands of murders were committed to people belonging to the Democrat's voting base but I wouldn't say Democrats believe they have the right to kill their fellow citizens.

What worked is of no interest to me as times have changed. Fifty years ago the US made up more than 55% of the world's economy, now it makes less than 20% - and is falling.

You don't need to buy anything, you just need to look at the facts. Look at who is using the presidential system in comparison to who is using the parliamentary system.

The apparent Right to kill and libertarians are two separate issues.

I'm just glad he wasn't very prepared. If he killed both guards quickly and efficiently he probably would have gotten his hands onto an MP5. Then he would have been REALLY dangerous.

He probably could have bought it at a Virginia gun show

[mRx 16]

How does private property rights, public education, and the US monetary system have anything to with this?

[alienlovechild 75]

What worked is of no interest to me as times have changed. Fifty years ago the US made up more than 55% of the world's economy, now it makes less than 20% - and is falling.

You don't need to buy anything, you just need to look at the facts. Look at who is using the presidential system in comparison to who is using the parliamentary system.

Look at the larger picture. The U.S., EU and Canada are all making up a smaller percentage of the world economy. The rest of world is becoming more consumerist and destroying the planet's environment. They need to return to their huts so we can feel better about our economic superiority.

The parliamentary system was more widespread due to the Europe empires that provided the model.

"The U.S., Canada and Europe will generate less than half of global economic output this year as the recession accelerates a shift in wealth toward China and other nations, a research group said.

The three economies will together account for 49.4 percent of the world economy in 2009, the London-based Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd said today in its quarterly ‘Global Prospects’ publication. That’s down from a range of 60 percent to 64 percent between 1995 and 2004."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=afHK5HlLD90o