There is a common culture of dependency among all who’ve been ensnared by the welfare state. In the case of rural “trailer trash”, the dependence on the state came and removed a bunch of people from the mainstream economy by making welfare a more attractive option. Specifically, this is linked to the minimum wage, which is designed solely to lock people with few skills out of the economy.

Once the black market associated with meth made it into these communities, violence started climbing, just as the black market associated with other drugs (crack) has done in the inner city and just like prohibition had done seventy years before.

It’s a combination of three factors: Denial of access to the mainstream economy, a subsistence-level support from the state, and a lucrative black market created by the state. Again, absolutely nothing to do with race aside from the fact that all the actors were homo sapiens. Put those three factors together at any point in history with any group of people, the result will be exactly the same.

If you choose to be insulted by reading things between the lines that simply aren’t there, it is your choice. I’m glad to be accountable for what I have said. I’ve simply never said what you’ve said I’ve said.

Different music, different clothes, same self-destructive culture of dependency on the welfare state and the drug economy (meth, anyone?). Point still stands.

And again, quit with the insults. You’re only making a damn fool of yourself.

This is not the only place murder exist. Talk about trailer trash… ? Check you own.

All I’m saying is you’ve got no grounds for calling folks cowards when all they want is to live their own lives without undue interference. While I pushed the bounds of civility in expressing that point (and I apologize for that), the point still stands.

You say the government should do something. Fine. First is to stop subsidizing the violence. The inner city neighborhoods that spawned this self-destructive culture are a direct result of LBJ’s Great Society combined with the War on Drugs. Creating a welfare state that keeps people trapped and then creating a black market that encourages violence as a method of advancement sure seems great in hindsight, doesn’t it?

Second, prosecute crimes, don’t restrict liberties. If murder is wrong, prosecute murderers. Don’t go after their chosen implement, because they’ll either continue to use it anyway or find another, while law abiding citizens will be stuck. When you talk about dead bodies piling up on ideology, consider that the places where people are most likely to die by gun violence are the places where guns are most restricted. It’s not cowardice to point out that gun control allows robbers to rob and murderers to kill with near impunity. (It ain’t bravery either, it’s just laying the facts bare. If that offends you, sorry.)

I act in my own life to help the people around me, so it’s not an issue of being a self-interested, pie-in-the-sky libertarian, which is a position you’ve ascribed to me in the past. In addition to that, I throw my voice into the debate on the issues of the day, gun control, health care, free speech, privacy…

I hope that, in doing so, it will help some folks to realize that other, better, courses of action are available than those proffered by the two major parties and the mainstream media. Admittedly, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the tsunami of big-government proposals coming from those sources. That doesn’t make it worth any less, in this day and age, since the internet is allowing the truth to escape the gatekeepers put in place by the powers that be.

I’ll be happy to debate you on any issue at any time, but when you start calling people cowards and idiots instead of engaging in debate, it simply reflects badly on you. Moreover, with the folks who hand around this website, you will get called on it. Again, I apologize if this offends you.

And you know, it *IS* rather funny that you get a bunch of like-minded people on a website dedicated to advancing liberty. Really, it is.

The difference of opinions here are like the different hues of a color, aqua, indigo, cyan cornflower, etc.

You all have put a lot of words in my mouth, because that is the only way you can argue against what I said.

No we have advanced a coherent philosophy – that people have a right to defend themselves against attack, and to acquire and use tools that assist them in this. We have further argued that the United States constitution, which essentially lays out what powers the Federal Government has, not only does not grant it the power to forbid people from owning and using weapons peaceably – it is expressly forbidden from doing these things. Scalia’s decision – to a limited extent agrees with us.

Nowhere in there are we putting words in your mouth. Granted, sometimes we point out the underlying assumptions in your arguments. Sometimes we have to guess at what you are saying because of your creative interpretation of grammar.

I have lived in some bad neighborhoods but have not lived in fear. That is your assumption. It is also your assumption that I would want to disarm every one. But I stand on what I said.

OK – we misunderstood you. When you complained about all the death and misery that people cause with firearms, we assumed that you were scared of them. If you only want to disarm some of your neighbors because you think its for their own good – our counterpoints remain: if someone wants a gun to defend themselves, neither you nor I have any right to stop them. Period. These victim disarmament laws you call for don’t affect people who don’t want to own a gun. They can carry on without them.

Nor does repealing these laws mean that now the state gives permission for people to murder or assault each other. Those laws remain on the books.

Your position – that victim disarmament laws should remain on the books – means that you are calling for people who want to arm themselves for their own defense remain disarmed. You seem to feel that this is for their own good – that they should be prevented from acquiring a gun because they might do something bad in the future with it. In my mind this is as outrageous a position as if you were advocating for laws that forbid teaching blacks to read and write on the off chance that slaves would be able to pass messages back and forth and thus plan an uprising.

I actually don’t see the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing the right of an individual to own a hand gun; but I didn’t call you all idiots for not comprehending the language as I. The more I see of your response toward me; I will say, idiots!

Actually, VRB, at first neither did we call you names. In fact, I believe no contributer called you any names even when you started calling us cowards and the like. I have read your arguments as to what the second amendment means. And yes, it is deeply flawed because it wholly ignores what the Constitution is – a document delineating the powers of a new form of government. In fact, your reaction was precisely the one warned against by Hamilton when he opposed adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution: he feared that people would mistakenly assume that the constitution granted rights rather than listed the powers of the Federal Government

Please note – there is a wide variation in views here on this board. While there is broad agreement concerning classical liberal values, that’s about it. I, an anarchist, think that the Federal Government is illegitimate and that the U.S. Constitution is null and void. Other contributors strongly disagree with me on this subject. We have wide disagreements on whom we want to see win the presidential election, on the war in Iraq, on immigration, monetary policy and similar weighty issues. Yet, we debate and discuss these issues with decorum and politeness.

You all won, celebrate! You have empathy for no one.

Fuck you. Did you know that my mother in law chased off a would be rapist by brandishing a hand-gun? Or that my mother who lacked the means to defend herself was brutally assaulted and left for dead in the streets of Cambridge? You’ve never helped my mother through a panic attack brought on by a flashback. I have.

If I were a coward, I would confine my thoughts to my own blog.

Yes, because the Internet is so dangerous.

You see Quincy, I see it as y’alls problem too. Why is it some one else rather than yours? People that might have solutions, always seem to be somewhere else. With all this mind power here and at the think tanks, too.

Actually, we don’t see our neighbors being armed as a problem. If my neighbors wanted to kill me, they could burn my house down. Or run me over when I go out for a jog.

I once had a neighbor in Florida who was convinced that Catholics were the devil incarnate. He kept track of all the Catholics that lived in our apartment complex. He often tried to warn me of the danger they posed to me. He warned me that they weren’t only out to get him, but me too. And in a way he was right – my Catholic neighbors posed the same problem to me that they did to him – none at all.

I also feel that government should do something for its citizens. It greatly bothers me that people are more concerned that 10 year old can buy a pack of cigarettes, than can buy a gun.

Speaking for myself, I think 10 year old kids should be able to buy a cigarette, assuming they can find a willing seller. On the other hand, cigarette smoking is very unhealthy. Gun usage – not so much – did you know in Switzerland every home has an automatic rifle? And that every year there is a shooting tournament with kids as young as six plinking away at targets with pretty good sized guns? Yet somehow the Swiss kids don’t get emphysema.

I as one citizen can’t approach that person whose selling them, find their source, arrest; then prosecute.

True. however, there is nothing preventing you from taking up law enforcement if you wanted too. Of course, there is nothing preventing you from shining the harsh light of publicity on someone selling cigarettes to kids and encouraging people to boycott the salesman. Just because you lack the temperament do do something like that does not mean that the government has to step in to do it.

I am usually not a conspiracist but I think the NRA is like a bootlegger it lobbies to protects it franchise of illegal guns.

First – the NRA does not sell guns. It does have gun salesmen and makers whoa re a part of it. But the NRA is an advocacy an educational organization. Secondly, it demonstrates a mindset where someone who makes something and sells it is “exploiting” the person whom they sell it to. News flash! If you buy something because you want it – you are not being exploited! Is the grocery store owner exploiting you by selling you food you want? Are you exploiting your employer by making him pay you his precious money for your labor services?

The black market in guns exists because people want guns and aren’t allowed to buy them legally. Granted, some of the black market serves people who want to use the guns to attack other people. But the black market also serves those who want to defend themselves.

Last but not least, bootleggers hate decriminalization of their business. Why? Because prohibition keeps the competition down

Those young people don’t have the resources to get all those guns, the lowly drug dealers don’t either.

A new gun goes for between $200 – $1,000. A new car goes for $15,000. Many of those lowly drug dealers can afford a used car.

Where I live the most active gang isn’t in the city, it is a motorcycle gang. So the source of some of the stuff isn’t even in “Da hood.”

Oh, well that explains it then. Clearly biker gangs will obey victim disarmament laws. Or their victims can fight them off with baseball bats or something.

So yes I depend on laws that my government can enforce, with the hopes that it stays the amount of violence until social change can come about.

Well, in that case you will be waiting the rest of your life. Government action is violent. I breaks down and destroys society rather than enhancing it. If you want social change that results in a more peaceful society – having a government prosecuting victimless crimes like owning a gun is the second worst way of bringing it about.

It’s Big Brother, whether I look to it or not.

What?!? OK. Even I can’t decipher this one.

I also feel that government should do something for its citizens. It greatly bothers me that people are more concerned that 10 year old can buy a pack of cigarettes, than can buy a gun. I as one citizen can’t approach that person whose selling them, find their source, arrest; then prosecute. I am usually not a conspiracist but I think the NRA is like a bootlegger it lobbies to protects it franchise of illegal guns. Those young people don’t have the resources to get all those guns, the lowly drug dealers don’t either. Where I live the most active gang isn’t in the city, it is a motorcycle gang. So the source of some of the stuff isn’t even in “Da hood.”

So yes I depend on laws that my government can enforce, with the hopes that it stays the amount of violence until social change can come about.

It’s Big Brother, whether I look to it or not.

I have lived in some bad neighborhoods but have not lived in fear. That is your assumption. It is also your assumption that I would want to disarm every one. But I stand on what I said.

I actually don’t see the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing the right of an individual to own a hand gun; but I didn’t call you all idiots for not comprehending the language as I. The more I see of your response toward me; I will say, idiots!

You all won, celebrate! You have empathy for no one. If I were a coward, I would confine my thoughts to my own blog.

When I go running to Big Brother to restrict things I don’t like instead of addressing the issue myself, you will be absolutely accurate in calling me a coward. Same goes for every other contributor here.

Until that day, you’re talking out of your ***.

When I have a chance, I will take a look at the paper.

Of course, he’s probably wrong; it’s almost impossible to accurately predict energy consumption needs. But it’s anice change to the wild optimism of most central planners.