My experience with Amtrak Agent


PDA






steverjo
April 30, 2008, 11:16 PM
I was researching fares and schedules on Amtrak for some Summer travel yesterday. After I decided that the schedules would not work for me I kept talking to the agent and asked her about my ability to carry a gun onboard just to see what her answer was (I already knew).

She told me that guns were not allowed. I asked what if it is unloaded and I have no ammunition. She said no. When I asked what if the gun were locked inside a hard case and then also locked inside my checked baggage if I had no ammo at all with me. She said no. It was against policy.

When I asked her if she thought that was a good policy, she said yes. She said that only active duty LEO should carry. I asked what about retired LEO or LEO on disability pension. She said no. Just active duty only.

When I asked how does an unloaded gun, locked in a case with no ammo anywhere differ from a hammer or baseball, she sounded like she was going to have a meltdown but came back with her answer of "It's a gun, I don't believe you should ever be allowed to have guns under any circumstance".

Am i crazy or is she clueless?

If you enjoyed reading about "My experience with Amtrak Agent" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jcwit
April 30, 2008, 11:21 PM
Obviously you're crazy, just keep it quite.

Geronimo45
April 30, 2008, 11:30 PM
Amtrak policy holds your 2d Amendment rights to be invalid, and has for a while. The lady's right on that point.

Her arguments strike me as:
"The policy is always right."
"Why?"
"Because it is the policy. The policy would not have been made if it were not justified."
"What if it's not justified?"
"It is justified, or it would not be policy."
Circular reasoning. Very mind-bending when you encounter it.

Sans Authoritas
April 30, 2008, 11:44 PM
Steel on target, Geronimo.

-Sans Authoritas

Seancass
April 30, 2008, 11:51 PM
what does "i dont believe you should be able to have guns under any circumstance" have to do with policy? could have said, "ok great, this thing will be a whole lot easier to rob/hijack with no guns on it anywhere."

Nagant
April 30, 2008, 11:54 PM
Guess I'll never travel by amtrak. Not that I'm surprised by any of this, of course....

Picard
May 1, 2008, 12:35 AM
I was thinking of taking my pistol on an Amtrak train, unloaded and in a case, since they don't have metal detectors or anything like that. At the station, however, I saw a cop walking around with a bomb-sniffing dog. That dog might have smelled some residual gunpowder and I would have been a cooked goose. I'm glad that I didn't take it. It's not worth the trouble. There are better fights out there to be fought than to get in trouble with Amtrak.

Hopefully things will start getting better after the DC Supreme Court case. Gun free zones are a bunch of nonsense.

SomeKid
May 1, 2008, 12:46 AM
Doesn't the FOPA protect you on AMTRAK when traveling, or are they free to ignore Fed law?

Chrontius
May 1, 2008, 01:18 AM
Apparently, they think the FOPA doesn't apply.
I'll leave it to the lawyers to work out.

Also, people wonder why trains' business is suffering.

GigaBuist
May 1, 2008, 01:19 AM
Doesn't the FOPA protect you on AMTRAK when traveling, or are they free to ignore Fed law?

I don't quite get that either. I don't suspect that FOPA comes into play, but when the airlines, now under federal control, permit checked baggage to contain firearms I would presume that Amtrack would. Obviously that isn't the case.

It came up in our household a few months ago. We can't travel Amtrak because I won't go anywhere I can't keep a gun somewhat nearby.

bogie
May 1, 2008, 02:00 AM
Guys, I knew about their policy 10 years ago. Welcome to the world.

All you get by arguing with the help is ENSURING that the help thinks that gun people are (a) stupid; and (b) stupid dangerous.

kingpin008
May 1, 2008, 03:42 AM
I can see where you were coming from, but I think questioning the woman while she was at her place of employment was a bit tacky. It's already been establised that Amtrak is anti-gun (you admit knowing as much before you started the conversation) yet you insisted on grilling the woman about her views.

Why? What does it matter what she thinks? Even if she were the most pro-gun individual in the country, it wouldn't make a difference. Instead, you took up her time asking pointless questions, hoping for an answer that, knowing the company's policy, could have cost her her job had a supervisor been listening.

I guess I just don't see the point in your wanting to subject her to the 20 questions game.

Dksimon
May 1, 2008, 04:39 AM
Wether or not he wanted to play 20 questions is beside the point.
I dont think anyone should have the right to say that we cant carry guns.

Standing Wolf
May 1, 2008, 04:40 AM
It's a gun, I don't believe you should ever be allowed to have guns under any circumstance

Your tax dollars and mine at play in the service of leftist extremism—or did you think Amtrack was paying its own way?

papajohn
May 1, 2008, 05:16 AM
Wait until some wacko violates their policy, and shoots a bunch of train passengers. Then maybe the survivors or the victims' families can sue the crap out of Amtrak for not providing adequate security.

I'm still trying to figure out why this hasn't happened yet after the mall shootings. Are there really NO lawyers willing to sue the mall owners for millions? After all, they disarmed their victims, then failed to protect them..........

Papajohn

Dismantler
May 1, 2008, 08:01 AM
I am with the Amtrtak lady on this one. The OP sems to have set out to pull her chain. If the policy is no guns, why would you tweak this lady?

I am in customer service, and people like steverjo can really make your day miserable. Most customer service people do not really want to get into any kind of discussion with the customer. We are a captive audience, and we do not really care what your world views are. We are there to give you fast courteous service and then get to the next customer. When somebody like steverjo comes along and starts to push our buttons, we naturally get angry, and all of the following customers suffer because of our now bad mood.

What's that you say? You do not get fast courteous service? Well, try the job some day. If you spend the day listening to crying kids and stand up comedians that come to your line, you'd be cranky too.

The conversation with the Amtrak lady served no purpose. It only reinforced her belief that gun owners are nitwits.

These are strong words on my part, but trust me, we in customer service just want you to do the transaction and move on. We are NOT interested in your politics, humor, or philosophy. Turn the tables around. Do I as a cashier in a convenience store want Obama and Hillary supporters preaching their liberal BS to me? Well, I got some of that during the NH primary, and I just moved them along instead of engaging in their conversation. To be fair, the Ron Paul supporter was a PITA, too. We just do not want to hear it. So, please spare us.

Pilot
May 1, 2008, 08:06 AM
What's that you say? You do not get fast courteous service? Well, try the job some day. If you spend the day listening to crying kids and stand up comedians that come to your line, you'd be cranky too.


Did you ever consider getting a different and perhaps better job?

Texshooter
May 1, 2008, 08:13 AM
I don't think you are crazy, but it sounds like she was giving you her honest opinion on questions you were asking.

Personally I find it offensive that you are busting this persons chops over policy she has no control over. She is just trying to make a living like all of us.

She told you the policy of Amtrak (not hers). What more do you want from her?

qajaq59
May 1, 2008, 08:18 AM
When I asked her if she thought that was a good policy, she said yes. She's doing about the dullest job in the RR industry and dealing with hard heads all day. (Likely including her bosses.) You asked for her opinion and she gave it to you. I don't see the problem.

cassandrasdaddy
May 1, 2008, 08:23 AM
crazy? maybe
but there is another word for what you did. and were i to do that i wouldn't have the courage to tell people. though thats the firsrt step to getting better

Dismantler
May 1, 2008, 08:25 AM
Pilot, let us save my job status for another discussion. I am trying to make a point about the Amtrak representative, and what she has to put up with, for those who have never had a customer service job. I am curently working on other jobs. Thanks though. I'm working on it. Maybe in a month, after I recover from the surgery. :) And I actually have left that job. After I recover I will not be going back!

Pilgrim
May 1, 2008, 09:52 AM
"It's a gun, I don't believe you should ever be allowed to have guns under any circumstance".

When I worked for the Sheriff, a records clerk once told me, "I think only the police and military should have guns."

I answered, "That's nice. It will make it easier for us."

She answered, "For what?"

I said, "For us to make you do whatever we want and you can't do anything about it."

The look on her face showed that she didn't like where that could lead to.

Pilgrim

Robert Hairless
May 1, 2008, 10:07 AM
I traveled by AMTRAK frequently enough so that I've seen people drinking and behaving boorishly on those trains. I'm not thrilled by the thought of them carrying guns or having access to them on the trip from here to there.

MakAttak
May 1, 2008, 10:11 AM
I traveled by AMTRAK frequently enough so that I've seen people drinking and behaving boorishly on those trains. I'm not thrilled by the thought of them carrying guns or having access to them on the trip from here to there.

Wow, Robert, I think I've found a rare mis-step. I can only hope this is an example of your sarcasm, but I don't see it.

If these people are willing to behave boorishly, what will stop them from carrying guns? It has already been noted Amtrak has no metal detectors.

Perhaps it's that lovely "Gun-Free Zone" sign that works so well at malls and colleges?

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2008, 10:15 AM
We can't travel Amtrak because I won't go anywhere I can't keep a gun somewhat nearby.

You are not missing a thing.

Soybomb
May 1, 2008, 11:11 AM
I traveled by AMTRAK frequently enough so that I've seen people drinking and behaving boorishly on those trains. I'm not thrilled by the thought of them carrying guns or having access to them on the trip from here to there.
Like Mak, I fail to see the sarcasm here. Is this a genuine opinion?

kingpin008
May 1, 2008, 11:21 AM
I dont think anyone should have the right to say that we cant carry guns.

So...if they don't agree with you, they shouldn't be allowed to have an opinon?

Nice to meet you, Comrade.:rolleyes:

MakAttak
May 1, 2008, 11:30 AM
So...if they don't agree with you, they shouldn't be allowed to have an opinon?

No, they can HAVE the opinion, they just shouldn't be allowed to express it.

(For those unable to recognize, not only is this sarcasm, it is also illustrating the hypocrisy of saying you can have guns, but not use them!....)

TallPine
May 1, 2008, 12:20 PM
Wow, you actually talked to a live person at Amtrak - instead of a voice recognition system ???

BikerRN
May 1, 2008, 12:34 PM
Amtrak policy holds your 2d Amendment rights to be invalid, and has for a while. The lady's right on that point.

Her arguments strike me as:
"The policy is always right."
"Why?"
"Because it is the policy. The policy would not have been made if it were not justified."
"What if it's not justified?"
"It is justified, or it would not be policy."
Circular reasoning. Very mind-bending when you encounter it.

I love to use "Circular reasoning" at work when I really want to make someone upset. It works every time. :D

tmajors
May 1, 2008, 01:06 PM
I've never ridden anywhere by train...

Do they even have security checkpoints like airports do?

MakAttak
May 1, 2008, 01:13 PM
I've never ridden anywhere by train...

Do they even have security checkpoints like airports do?

Nope. Not even a metal detector.

tmajors
May 1, 2008, 01:17 PM
Nope. Not even a metal detector.

So really the only thing that prevents someone from taking a gun is the honor system that is followed only by good guys...and maybe the occasional bomb/drug sniffing dog.

I see. Guess it's a good thing I don't take the train.

scrat
May 1, 2008, 01:20 PM
Sterjo well all i can say is you cant change everyone. Obviously this person knows nothing about guns and nothing about 2a rights.

akodo
May 1, 2008, 01:21 PM
I dont think anyone should have the right to say that we cant carry guns.

So...if they don't agree with you, they shouldn't be allowed to have an opinon?

Nice to meet you, Comrade.

I think what he means by "say" is "set policy." Think about word useage. "The policy says...." "corporate says...."

cowssurf
May 1, 2008, 01:26 PM
Another kudos for Geronimo. You hit the nail on the head with a nice dialectic.

damien
May 1, 2008, 01:35 PM
With all due respect to their policy....

If you are only traveling within states where your permit is valid, why not carry? If they find you violated their policy you might get thrown off the train, but how could you be prosecuted? Is there a federal law I don't know about?

CNYCacher
May 1, 2008, 01:40 PM
Just a pointer, there is no such thing as "checked baggage" on Amtrack. The train doesn't really have a belly like a plane does. Bags that you don't want to bring with you to your seat can be stowed at the front or rear of each car.

And no, there are no security checkpoints or even a ticket checkpoint. When the train comes to the platform, everybody gets on, the train leaves, and the guy comes around checking your ticket. Those who don't have a ticket are thrown off at the next stop.

Also, I believe there actually IS a law regarding firearms on trains. I have a very hazy recollection about reading it once. If you are interested, you may want to research further.

It was about 3 years ago the last time I rode on a train.

Robert Hairless
May 1, 2008, 02:06 PM
Wow, Robert, I think I've found a rare mis-step. I can only hope this is an example of your sarcasm, but I don't see it.

If these people are willing to behave boorishly, what will stop them from carrying guns? It has already been noted Amtrak has no metal detectors.

I'm rarely "sarcastic" and in this instance there's no satire, irony, or anything other than literal statement involved. Not only is it genuine opinion but also it's Grade A certified and comes with the manufacturer's limited warranty exclusive of suitability for any particular purpose. Read what it says:

I traveled by AMTRAK frequently enough so that I've seen people drinking and behaving boorishly on those trains. I'm not thrilled by the thought of them carrying guns or having access to them on the trip from here to there.

Those two sentences are mine own. Whatever you add to them is yours, not mine. Have fun distorting.

For what it's worth, by the way, I've seen someone taken off an AMTRAK train at Union Station in Washington, DC, by two rather large refrigerators on legs for what I was told was having a gun on the train. The refrigerators said "Excuse me" as they walked their companion past me, and a conductor followed behind.

Now don't turn those two sentences into the story of a public execution or beheading unless you embellish it with elements of your own and take credit for the confection. :)

Seems to me, by the way, that in addition to the AMTRAK rules accepted by those who take passage on its trains the District of Columbia has some laws or other that might also apply within its city limits.

Soybomb
May 1, 2008, 02:15 PM
So really the only thing that prevents someone from taking a gun is the honor system that is followed only by good guys...and maybe the occasional bomb/drug sniffing dog.

I see. Guess it's a good thing I don't take the train.
How come? It seems like they're pretty safe. Maybe being forced to take off your shoes and pour out your water doesn't actually make you safer? How many news stories have there been about people getting guns or other weapons on planes? I'm not convinced that elaborate security has much an impact on your safety. Personally I'll take the low security way every time.

I traveled by AMTRAK frequently enough so that I've seen people drinking and behaving boorishly on those trains. I'm not thrilled by the thought of them carrying guns or having access to them on the trip from here to there.
By this logic isn't concealed carry a bad idea really anywhere?

Robert Hairless
May 1, 2008, 02:27 PM
By this logic isn't concealed carry a bad idea really anywhere?

Aha! Does that statement mean you have at last conceded that I am Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Emperor of the Planet Mongo? Or is it an example of your inability to read simple English without filtering it through your own quirky thought processes? Or are you simply being willful or perverse?

Stay tuned to this station, Little Orphan Nanny fans, and see if you can figure out the outcome of this thrilling episode.

In the meantime, you can use your secret decoder badge to decipher the following statement:

I traveled by AMTRAK frequently enough so that I've seen people drinking and behaving boorishly on those trains. I'm not thrilled by the thought of them carrying guns or having access to them on the trip from here to there.

No hints, kids. You have to do this one on your own.

Robert Hairless
May 1, 2008, 02:34 PM
In the meantime, you might want to sip your Ovaltine while reading this recent editorial from the Wilton (CT) Villager: (http://www.wiltonvillager.com/wilton_templates/wilton_story/295613416342728.php)

Amtrak acting appropriately on security

Amtrak, the nation's rail network, has announced an incresase in security measures, including random screening, and that seems a proper course of action.

There has been little in the way of security mesasures on the rail system and perhaps we have to consider ourselves lucky.

Impetus for establishing the security checks have been the number of terrorist bombings aimed at mass transit systems in Londan, Madrid, India and Russia.

The first implementation will come here in the Northeast Corridor, the rail system's busiest line. Thousands of passengers move daly between Boston and Washington, including those riding the high speed Acela.

The concentration of passengers on a train is a tempting target for a terrorist.

As proposed by Amtrak, the screenings will be random on the theory that they are harder for terrorists to counteract that fulltime procedures. You won't have to take off your shoes, only submit your baggage to a sweep by a detection device if you are asked.

Officials assure the public that the check will only take a few minutes. and you won't have to arrive at the station an hour early as you might at an airport.

There will be other security measures, including armed guards along with bomb-sniffing dogs. Just their presence on a platform might deter a would-be bomber.

The plan is modeled after that used on the New York subway system, a model that has withstood challenges in the courts. We think is entirely appropriate and not intrusive. It's for our own safety.

And if you still have some Ovaltine left after decoding my simple two sentences in plain English and after you've read about AMTRAK's security, you might want to continue sipping while you read the agreement between AMTRAK and the Washington, DC, police department (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1242,q,546731,mpdcNav_GID,1541.asp). It references the Standard Operating Procedure of the Amtrak Police Department on Firearms.

ArmedBear
May 1, 2008, 02:34 PM
Amtrak is one of our government's most blatantly obvious socialist stupidities.

Railroads were shutting down passenger service because they were hemorrhaging money. So the Federal Government coercively took over passenger rail service, and claimed it would be "self-supporting." How, exactly, was this going to happen?

Amtrak should never have happened, and it should be shut down immediately.

We have several commuter rail systems running in parallel with Amtrak in this area. Amtrak doesn't serve this need. I fail to see what need, exactly, it DOES serve.

Note that, if there's a route where real demand exists, railroads would be eager to offer passenger rail service on this route anyway. And if there's no demand, why run the trains?


The concentration of passengers on a train is a tempting target for a terrorist.

What concentration of passengers would that be?

On commuter rail, yes, but on Amtrak?

Soybomb
May 1, 2008, 02:35 PM
I'm sure whatever point you're trying to prove is terribly clever but I've missed it. Seems like sort of a pyrrhic victory, but congrats.

kingpin008
May 1, 2008, 03:34 PM
And no, there are no security checkpoints or even a ticket checkpoint. When the train comes to the platform, everybody gets on, the train leaves, and the guy comes around checking your ticket. Those who don't have a ticket are thrown off at the next stop.

Wrong on both counts. My fiancee and I took the train no more than six months ago to visit my mom in Florida. We had to stop in to the customer service station to make sure our bags were the appropriate size, and they were randomly screening passengers bags at the station. This was the case at every stop we made - our bags were never searched, but other passengers' absolutely were.

tmajors
May 1, 2008, 03:52 PM
How come? It seems like they're pretty safe.

Not a safety issue for me. If there ain't a mechanism to disarm the bad guys at the door, then I don't disarm either. That's my rule. So good thing I don't take the train cause eventually I'd probably get in trouble.

MakAttak
May 1, 2008, 04:13 PM
Those two sentences are mine own. Whatever you add to them is yours, not mine. Have fun distorting.

For what it's worth, by the way, I've seen someone taken off an AMTRAK train at Union Station in Washington, DC, by two rather large refrigerators on legs for what I was told was having a gun on the train. The refrigerators said "Excuse me" as they walked their companion past me, and a conductor followed behind.

Now don't turn those two sentences into the story of a public execution or beheading unless you embellish it with elements of your own and take credit for the confection.

Robert, I distorted nothing.

I merely asked the question: Although you prefer not to have those idiots armed, what is stopping them from doing so?

I have traveled rather infrequently on Amtrak (twice per year, generally around Christmastime) from CHICAGO, no less, and have not been screened nor approached.

Perhaps DC is different, but I know from my experience that not every train is scrutinized.

Now, please impugn my statements; unfortunately I will not get to enjoy it until much later tonight.

qajaq59
May 1, 2008, 04:47 PM
And if there's no demand, why run the trains?Go talk to your congressmen. Amtrak wanted to shut down service to a lot of cities that didn't make them money and congress stepped in and wouldn't let them. And all paychecks in Amtrak come from ticket sales, so your taxes were not paying that service agent.

doc2rn
May 1, 2008, 06:27 PM
I doubt I will ever get on a train, they only stop here at 2 am to let the hobos off, and they dont really stop for that.

bogie
May 1, 2008, 07:09 PM
Amtrak's major problem is that it is run by career bureaucrats who seem to think that trains are bad.

I used to have a neighbor when I was in the city... He wasn't rocket scientist material, but he was highly motivated. He wanted to become a porter, or other type of attendant, on a train. He let slip that he liked trains during an interview, and was told that they didn't hire "train buffs."

Sigh.

Yet it seems that most of their routes are not designed around inter-city/interstate transport, but are instead designed as "train buff" tours.

Double-sigh.

Let's look...

St. Louis to Atlanta...

1) St. Louis to Chicago to Charlottesville, VA to Atlanta - 36+ hours.

2) St. Louis to Chicago to DC to Atlanta - about the same elapsed time.

Blithering idiots are running the show.

Pricing is $210 to $360, and if you want a "bedroom" type dealie, since you're going to be traving for at least two days, that's another $283...

Greyhound tops out at $110, and gets me there in 17 hours - about twice driving time, but hey...

bigjohnson
May 1, 2008, 10:18 PM
Regarding the government subsidy of Amtrak....

Back in the 1930s, electric utility companies refused to provide electric service to many rural areas. The justification for their refusal was that it was not cost effective. In cities and suburban areas, they would have dozens - even hundreds - of customers per mile of electric line. In rural areas, however, they might have to run ten miles of cable and erect hundreds of power poles just to serve one customer. So the government, in the form of the Rural Electrification Administration, stepped in and provided subsidies to the electric companies so that farms throughout the country would have access to electric power. The thinking in Washington was this: If private business cannot or will not provide a necessary service, then it is the responsibility of the government to do it.

This was the same thinking that brought about the National Railroad Passenger Act of 1970, which created Amtrak. The freight railroads were unable to continue running passenger trains because of the huge losses they incurred, and rail passenger service was deemed to be a "necessary service". So the government stepped in. It probably would have been a better idea to subsidize the freight railroads and let them continue to run the passenger trains, but actually Amtrak has not done all that bad of a job. Ridership and revenue is up again this year (the 12th year in a row). Ticket sales cover about 80% of Amtrak's operating costs, while ticket sales in European countries cover only about 45% of the costs of running their government-owned passenger rail services. Of course, European countries spend a huge amount percapita on passeenger rail... much more than is spent here in the US. And that expenditure certainly shows when you ride their trains.

Amtrak needs MORE money, not less.

As to their policy of no guns: I think they're wrong. I can also tell you that I carry a gun almost everywhere I go. And that includes riding the train. The words to remember are "discretion", and "concealment".

CAPTAIN MIKE
May 1, 2008, 10:35 PM
Uh....Duh....What is 'FOPA' stand for. Two posters used the term but nobody defined what the letters stand for. Pardon my ignorance.

trinydex
May 1, 2008, 10:38 PM
doesn't that sound like her own policy?

Geronimo45
May 1, 2008, 10:40 PM
Firearm Owners Protection Act, 1986 (IIRC). No new MGs registered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOPA

Sans Authoritas
May 1, 2008, 11:21 PM
Amtrak needs MORE money, not less.

Big,

Why do you want to force me, at gunpoint of taxation, to pay for services that other people use? Is that just?

Should I continue to be forced to pay to (poorly) indoc... er, educate other people's kids, too?

-Sans Authoritas

bogie
May 1, 2008, 11:56 PM
The problem is that Amtrak's people are looking at their own operation as a novelty, rather than as usable transportation.

Throwing more money at that will result in a larger novelty.

Aguila Blanca
May 2, 2008, 01:07 AM
Doesn't the FOPA protect you on AMTRAK when traveling, or are they free to ignore Fed law?
The FOPA should cover you on Amtrac (assuming you'll be traveling interstate and not intrastate), but the geniuses who wrote the FOPA apparently never took into account that some Americans travel interstate by means other than their own private automobile. That's what got the guy arrested at Newark airport. The law basically says you can transport (not "carry") firearms when traveling interstate. But ... the specific rules laid out for how to do so in compliance with the law ALL describe travel in a private automobile.

Robert Hairless
May 2, 2008, 02:10 AM
I'm sure whatever point you're trying to prove is terribly clever but I've missed it. Seems like sort of a pyrrhic victory, but congrats.

I merely asked the question: Although you prefer not to have those idiots armed, what is stopping them from doing so?

I don't understand why you both have such difficulty with such simple English, why you both read so much that isn't there into them, or why you invest such emotion in those two simple sentences I wrote:

I traveled by AMTRAK frequently enough so that I've seen people drinking and behaving boorishly on those trains. I'm not thrilled by the thought of them carrying guns or having access to them on the trip from here to there.

The first of those two sentences said that I've seen people drink and behave boorishly on AMTRAK. I have.

The second sentence said that I am not thrilled by the thought of those people carrying guns or having access to them on long trips while they drink and behave boorishly. I'm not.

Nowhere have I expressed an opinion about AMTRAK's firearms policies or how they relate to the Second Amendment or any such thing, and I'm just not sure I have any real opinion on the subject.

I don't like restrictions on people's ability to carry the means to defend their lives but, as I said, I've seen such downright bad behavior by passengers on AMTRAK that I'm not thrilled by the prospect of people who behave boorishly or drink to excess being armed or having access to firearms on the trip. I've thought a little about the AMTRAK ban on firearms in checked baggage. It doesn't seem reasonable to me but I don't think I know enough to have earned an opinion.

Although Soybomb's intellectual ballet on what I said really is mildly entertaining it isn't useful or relevant, and as often is the case I don't understand its purpose or why he exaggerated a simple expression of my own experience into a target worth attacking.

MakAttack is just beyond me. I don't know how to distort "not thrilled by the thought of" into "prefer not to have," but I suppose that the way to do it is to make the question carry the burden, begin by denying that it is a distortion, and conclude by asserting that any response is likely to "impugn" his statements. Good way to win an argument, I suppose, although the technique didn't seem to stop Barack Obama from mildly rejecting the Rev. J. Wright when he did the same thing with equal skill:

Robert, I distorted nothing.

I merely asked the question: Although you prefer not to have those idiots armed, what is stopping them from doing so?

Maybe you see some sense in your statement as some kind of response to what I wrote. I don't. It's irrelevant to my statement that I am not thrilled by the thought of people behaving boorishly and drinking carrying guns or having access to them in railroad trains. It never occurred to me that maybe there's the need to point out that everyone on a moving railroad train is captive. So, again, I'm not thrilled by the thought of people who can't or don't control themselves being armed on a train in which everyone is a potential victim. I don't see that not being enthusiastic about something is the equivalent of condemning it, but you do and that's the important thing I guess.

So I think it's real good that you "have traveled rather infrequently on Amtrak (twice per year, generally around Christmastime) from CHICAGO, no less, and have not been screened nor approached." I'll certainly take that into account when I think about what I witnessed in Washington, DC, and what I've recently read about AMTRAK increasing its security in the Northeast corridor. Rather than impugn your intelligence I might decide to trust your eyes instead of my own, and I'm certainly willing to consider trusting what you say about AMTRAK security instead of what AMTRAK says about it.

Oddly, all I did to initiate this nonsense was relate a brief summary of my own experiences and my tentative feelings about it. After all the thread started with one person's experiences, then others contributed their experiences, so I thought to contribute a bit of my own. Little did I think that even a couple of people could weave such enormous Byzantine tapestries out of such small stuff.

Pyrrhic victory? Impugn? Oh gee, Miranda, there you go putting on airs and it ain't even Saturday night? :)

MakAttak
May 2, 2008, 02:34 AM
And irony of ironies, I awaken in time for my expected flogging.

(I'm sorry my levity in my previous post was misunderstood: I expected no less than to suffer from your sardonic wit, Mr. Hairless. Hence, my "impugn" statement was tongue in cheek, something rather difficult to convey)

You are correct, I did make the assumption that "not thrilled by the thought of" could mean "prefer not to have," especially given this thread began with a discussion of an Amtrak agent who began by supporting Amtrak's policy and lead to a position of total gun control.

And honestly, I don't know how to distort "not thrilled by the thought of" into "prefer not to have,"

I think you can easily see how such an assumption can be made given the context of the thread.

However, I will concede I have made assumptions and have been rightfully criticized for them. I apologize for imputing unexpressed desires.

As for security measures, I have given you a different point of reference- the entirety of Amtrak is not found in the Northeast. Thus, the security measures taken there do not cover the whole of the service. If you are only concerned with what happens in the Northeast, please feel free to disregard my experience.

bigjohnson
May 2, 2008, 09:54 PM
Sans Authoritas wrote:
"Why do you want to force me...to pay for services that other people use? Is that just?"

Well, yes it is. My tax monies are used for a variety of things that are of no direct benefit to me. For example, federal fighway funds, to which I contribute via my taxes, are being used to build and repair highways in states where I have never been and never intend to go. But does it bother me? No. Because that's the way it works in this country. And that's the only way it can ever work. Our tax money goes into a big pot, and projects and programs that the government needs to operate are paid for out of the pot. Every project or program may not benefit me directly, but it benefits the nation as a whole.

That's the way it is with Amtrak, and that's the way it is with free public education. You might not like paying taxes to support schools when you have no children in those schools, but what's your alternative? Would you force the parents of school children to pay for all of the operating expenses of the schools, and essentially do away with the system of free public education that has been an essential part of our nation's heritage for over 200 years?

Based on your comments, I think you would. But perhaps you might want to think of the other people in this country for a while and not just think of yourself.

Sans Authoritas
May 2, 2008, 10:17 PM
Sans Authoritas wrote:
"Why do you want to force me...to pay for services that other people use? Is that just?"

Big wrote: Well, yes it is. My tax monies are used for a variety of things that are of no direct benefit to me. For example, federal fighway funds, to which I contribute via my taxes, are being used to build and repair highways in states where I have never been and never intend to go. But does it bother me? No. Because that's the way it works in this country. And that's the only way it can ever work. Our tax money goes into a big pot, and projects and programs that the government needs to operate are paid for out of the pot. Every project or program may not benefit me directly, but it benefits the nation as a whole.

Growing up, I learned that I should pay for the things I wanted, and not expect or force other people to buy them for me. The "common good" is only the sum of the good of the individuals that comprise a collection of individuals. It is not something above, beyond or outside this definition, as you propose.

I don't have a right to have a highway funded by people who live 600 miles away. The same goes for them. If there is an actual legitimate demand, the market can accomodate it.

Big wrote: That's the way it is with Amtrak, and that's the way it is with free public education. You might not like paying taxes to support schools when you have no children in those schools, but what's your alternative? Would you force the parents of school children to pay for all of the operating expenses of the schools, and essentially do away with the system of free public education that has been an essential part of our nation's heritage for over 200 years?

Actually, yes. I should be expected to pay for my children's upbringing, should I not? I don't have a right to force you to feed them, clothe them, babysit them or buy toys for them, so why do you you think people should be forced to pay for their education?

There were very few, if any, tax-funded schools at the time of the spawning of the Constitution. The idea of taxpayer-funded schools was almost universally scorned as a "wicked" idea. Church-based schools were the cornerstone of educational institutions. It was not until the early 1900's that you saw a boom of tax-funded schools. Before that dark age, children read Cicero, Dante and Homer in high school, often in their original languages. Today, you are lucky if you can find a child who can formulate a coherent, properly punctuated paragraph in English.

D.C. has the country's most-funded public school system and is dead last in standardized test scores.

Back before the government took monopoly control over "education," there was accountability in schools. People demanded results from their money. (Money they still had in their wallets because they weren't being forced to pay for other kids' educations.) When their expectations were not met, people put their children in other schools. Money is still the best incentive to gain results. Now tell me what happens when you try to withhold money from the pits that are public schools. That's right, the monopoly holder comes and kicks down your door to collect.

The best thing anyone can do in this violence-backed monopoly is to homeschool one's kids. And we see the results of that: their SAT scores are consistently and statistically off the charts. For infinitely less money than the average public school ravages from taxpayers on behalf of each child.

Private schools would once again be more plentiful and cheaper if the government got its monopoly-hooks out of the field. That's because private schools have monetary incentive to try to excel: something the government does not have. At all. They'll get their money no matter what. And they'll continue to pump out the same bilgeous results that they have for the past 40 years.

Big wrote: Based on your comments, I think you would. But perhaps you might want to think of the other people in this country for a while and not just think of yourself.

Again, this isn't about me. This is about the foul idea that anyone should be forced, at gunpoint, to fund/subsidize the services another person would like to enjoy. Just think how much money people would have if they were able to not pay 30% of their incomes to subsidize socialist programs. Much more than enough money to voluntarily enter into agreements with other parents to give their kids an outstanding education.

-Sans Authoritas

bigjohnson
May 2, 2008, 11:48 PM
Sans Authoritas:

Where do you draw the line on this? Should I pay only for roads in my home state? Following your logic, no. After all, my tax money might go to build a highway in southwest Virginia, or repair the bridge-tunnel at Hampton Roads, neither of which I use.

Maybe it should be limited to spending my tax money only in my county. But then again, my county is pretty big, and they might use my taxes to build a road in a part of the county I don't live in and where I don't normally travel, and using your test of fairness, that wouldn't be right, either.

Using your logic, the only way to pay for the building and upkeep of the roads would be to have toll booths every half-mile or so. That would ensure that I would only pay for those roads that were of a direct benefit to me.

The next time you are cruising down the Interstate (which the federal government paid 90% of the cost) think about what you said in your last post, and maybe you'll see how little sense it makes.

Autolycus
May 3, 2008, 12:16 AM
So Robert Hairless do you have an opinion on whether people should be armed while driving as some of these people have access to weapons. Would you object to that as some of these people behave boorishly while driving and may have alcohol in their vehicles. I am sure you are not thrilled about that.

My opinion is that you should be allowed to carry a firearm on the train, even if it does not thrill some people such as Robert Hairless. People should have the right to carry. I think that because some behave boorishly on the train is reason I should carry on Amtrak.

I also would look at the whole picture. With gas rising to near record highs due to the greed of oil executives we will see the use of Amtrak increasing. I have seen many college students on the Amtrak when I ride it. I enjoy it as I feel it is nicer than flying and it is a less costly alternative to driving automobile. ( I dislike flying as I feel it is extremely unnatural and I just really don't like it.) My own opinion is that as a nation we should start looking to mass transit systems such as those in Europe for inspiration. I would also like to see national reciprocity and allowing people to carry firearms on trains.

As someone else stated though there really is no way to secure a firearm on Amtrak. Everyone has access to everyone elses luggage. Perhaps introducing a luggage car would be a method to combat this problem. Another alternative is to get a sleeper car and store your belongings in the sleeper.

Sans Authoritas
May 3, 2008, 05:02 PM
Big wrote: Where do you draw the line on this? Should I pay only for roads in my home state? Following your logic, no. After all, my tax money might go to build a highway in southwest Virginia, or repair the bridge-tunnel at Hampton Roads, neither of which I use.

Maybe it should be limited to spending my tax money only in my county. But then again, my county is pretty big, and they might use my taxes to build a road in a part of the county I don't live in and where I don't normally travel, and using your test of fairness, that wouldn't be right, either.

Using your logic, the only way to pay for the building and upkeep of the roads would be to have toll booths every half-mile or so. That would ensure that I would only pay for those roads that were of a direct benefit to me.

An EZ-Pass style system would be more than adequate to ensure everyone who travels a road pays for the services they use. And it would not cover only the services they use, but would actually turn a profit for the company that maintains the roads. This "profit" phenomenon is something you never see in a tax-based government.

The next time you are cruising down the Interstate (which the federal government paid 90% of the cost) think about what you said in your last post, and maybe you'll see how little sense it makes.

The Federal (and state) taxpayers already pay for more than 90% of public schools, too. The question is, do they have a need to? And does your neighbor (who votes) have a right to force you to pay for his kids' educations, merely because he says (votes) so? Does the will of a majority somehow make any action just?

My post showed that taxpayers do not need to pay for the services that other people enjoy, and that services get more efficient and cheaper when the individuals who comprise government bureaucracies get their little monopoly-hooks out of what the free market could be accomplishing, no matter what the service is.

You didn't counter the points I made in the argument: you only said, "where do you draw the line?" The line was very clear.

-Sans Authoritas

Dismantler
May 3, 2008, 05:29 PM
Geez! :uhoh: This thread really morphed! :o

bigjohnson
May 3, 2008, 08:25 PM
Sans Authoritas:

So all taxes are illegal/immoral? So everything should be run by private industry or not run at all?

You wouldn't be a member of Posse Comitatus would you now?

Sans Authoritas
May 3, 2008, 09:16 PM
Big wrote:
So all taxes are illegal/immoral? So everything should be run by private industry or not run at all?

Look at what at a "tax" is at its elemental level, and tell me that taxation is not immoral.

I pay taxes, but certainly not because "I owe them."

Here are some articles that discuss what taxation is. Reading all of them would be phenomenally worthwhile.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/giles7.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard24.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/chodorov/chodorov10.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli10.html

-Sans Authoritas

bigjohnson
May 3, 2008, 09:26 PM
If you really believe that nonsense, then there is nothing that I, or anyone else, can say will make any difference.

I must ask, however: If all taxes are immoral, how about gun laws? Are there any "moral" gun laws?

By the way. I read two of the "essays" you suggested. I couldn't read any more of them as I had to run out to the supermarket and get a roll of heavy-duty tinfoil to line all my hats with.

Sans Authoritas
May 3, 2008, 09:53 PM
Big wrote: I couldn't read any more of them as I had to run out to the supermarket and get a roll of heavy-duty tinfoil to line all my hats with.

Insults in the face of unfamiliar, uncomfortable ideas. Delightful.

Big wrote: I must ask, however: If all taxes are immoral, how about gun laws? Are there any "moral" gun laws?

Absolutely: "Don't handle any weapon unsafely, or threaten, injure or kill, any non-aggressor with any weapon."

The summary of all legitimate gun laws.

-Sans Authoritas

cassandrasdaddy
May 3, 2008, 09:55 PM
big johnson you too?

i think its a miracle the government hasn't been overthrown with all these heros of the revolution around. they ever get off the net and on the barricades things will sure change

bigjohnson
May 3, 2008, 10:27 PM
Sans Authoritas:

So it's morally okay to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old, or to a person who is obviously mentally disturbed. Or to furnish a pistol to a person with a history of committing armed robberies.

Great. Just great.

*********************************************************
And to you, Casandrasdaddy:

You think I"M the revolutionary? Politically, I'm slightly to the right of Darth Vader. But I'm a firm believer that along with rights come responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to obey the law. I don't like taxes any more than Sans does. But if the law says I've got to pay taxes, then I may grumble a bit, but I'll pay. Raise my taxes though, and come November I'll do my best to get your butt voted out of office.

Having said all that, let me point out that I'm not one of those guys who believes that no government is the best government. Nor am I one who seeks an all-inclusive cradle-to-grave nanny state of the type we are facing should either of the current democrat candidates be elected. Believe it or not, there IS a middle ground. The world is not black & white. Those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the many shades of grey are blind indeed.

Sans Authoritas
May 3, 2008, 10:38 PM
Big wrote: Sans Authoritas:

So it's morally okay to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old, or to a person who is obviously mentally disturbed. Or to furnish a pistol to a person with a history of committing armed robberies.

Great. Just great.

Big, I never, ever said that it was moral to sell a firearm to a child (without his parents' consent) or to an obviously mentally disturbed person.

In the case of either, you would be accountable both legally and morally for any harm they caused, through criminal negligence.

If you sell a firearm to a child (without his parents' approval, who must make the decision of what he owns) or to an obviously mentally disturbed person, you are in great part responsible for whatever actions are committed with that firearm.

If someone gave gallon of gasoline to a 10-year old without good reason to believe that what he is going to do with it is moral and safe, should I not be, in part, morally and legally accountable for what he does with it?

Big wrote: The world is not black & white. Those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the many shades of grey are blind indeed.

There is no "grey area" in a moral question that is not the result of the simple fact that the truth of the morality of an action is not fully known. There is no such thing as a moral and just blending of good and evil. Evil is the absence of a good that should be present, not an entity in itself. Therefore, what is perceived as "grey" is either good tainted with evil (the lack of a due good) or the action is simply not recognized as such, despite one's best intentions.

-Sans Authoritas

junyo
May 3, 2008, 11:17 PM
I take the train fairly frequently. For 3-5 hour trips it's easier than driving myself, and easier/faster/cheaper than air travel. Sans the security checks and with machine check-in, total travel time is comparable if not better than flying, with less delays and more comfortable accommodation's. Allentown to Richmond, 2 hours flight time is usually 6 hours of trip time by the time you factor in the counter and security. It was actually 14 hours of total trip time the last time due to lateness and mechanical issues. Two trips before that it was 11 hours. The train, even with an hours drive into Philly, gets me into Richmond in 5 hours, only slightly slower than I could drive it, and I get a comfy seat with actual legroom, a dining car, and a place to plug in my laptop. Comparing it to the Lil' bit of Calcutta that is bus travel is a joke.

Before I knew the rules, I CC'd on the train or pack one for home, and never had an issue with either a firearm on my person or in my luggage. Unless they make massive operational changes the probability of it being an issue would seem almost nil. Not that I would advocate violating an arbitrary rule.

Picard
May 3, 2008, 11:20 PM
There is no "grey area" in a moral question that is not the result of the simple fact that the truth of the morality of an action is not fully known. There is no such thing as a moral and just blending of good and evil. Evil is the absence of a good that should be present, not an entity in itself. Therefore, what is perceived as "grey" is either good tainted with evil (the lack of a due good) or the action is simply not recognized as such, despite one's best intentions.

Amen. In regard to explaining morality, you hit the nail on the head.

bigjohnson
May 3, 2008, 11:21 PM
Okay. You agree that it's morally wrong to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old or to a mentally disturbed person. But your previous post indicated that you didn't think it should be LEGALLY wrong to do so. Most of English common law, and many of our present-day statutes have their basis in MORAL and RELIGIOUS laws and edicts. The crime of murder is legally so serious because the MORAL prohibition of murder has always been so.

I agree with you that many of our present-day gun laws are oppressive, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. But that doesn't mean that we should allow ANYone, at ANY age, with ANY background, to own a firearm. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act, and others which I have neglected to mention, are all total bull*****. I know that as well as you do. But there are gun laws on the books that DO make sense. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I realize that when many politicians talk about "reasonable gun laws", what they really mean are laws that would require all guns to be melted down and made into man-hole covers. But you surely realize that there has to be some way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mental incompetants without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

And by the way: When I spoke of the many shades of grey, I wasn't talking about "moral relativity". But I'm sure you already knew that.

Sans Authoritas
May 3, 2008, 11:38 PM
Okay. You agree that it's morally wrong to sell an M16 to a 10 year-old or to a mentally disturbed person. But your previous post indicated that you didn't think it should be LEGALLY wrong to do so. Most of English common law, and many of our present-day statutes have their basis in MORAL and RELIGIOUS laws and edicts. The crime of murder is legally so serious because the MORAL prohibition of murder has always been so.

Yes. Prior restraint is an unwise concept. I simply believe that you should be accountable for the consequences of your actions. Just as I don't believe you should have your tongue cut out if you go into a movie theater to keep you from screaming "fire" and causing people to die, but you should be held responsible if you actually harm people.

I agree with you that many of our present-day gun laws are oppressive, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. But that doesn't mean that we should allow ANYone, at ANY age, with ANY background, to own a firearm. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act, and others which I have neglected to mention, are all total bull*****. I know that as well as you do. But there are gun laws on the books that DO make sense. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I realize that when many politicians talk about "reasonable gun laws", what they really mean are laws that would require all guns to be melted down and made into man-hole covers. But you surely realize that there has to be some way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mental incompetants without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Yes. If the criminal or mentally incompentent person is a danger, he should be in dead or in confinement. Period. Such a measure does not infringe on the rights of peaceful (forget "law-abiding:" obeying laws and being peaceful are are not synonymous) people.

And by the way: When I spoke of the many shades of grey, I wasn't talking about "moral relativity". But I'm sure you already knew that.

You were talking about laws, taxation and the reason and morality behind their creation and implementation, were you not? Government? That pertains to morality. Likewise, there are ideas that are true to human nature, (good) and ideas that are contrary to human nature. (Goodness is lacking.) Coercion of innocent, just men is contrary to human nature. (Any true coercion is contrary to human nature, but punishment for a crime is a result of someone who has forfeited his right to a particular thing is not truly coercion, as it was accepted by the offender in the commission of the act. For example: a man who initiates aggression and tries to kill another man has forfeited his life by the action.)

Taxation is nothing else but the initiation of aggression against men who have done nothing but live in peaceful society, and voluntarily interact with other men. I forfeit nothing by living peacefully with other men. We all benefit by our peaceful interactions. When we start choosing how to spend each other's money, problems arise. When we make a claim to a "right" to do so, that is where true blindness enters into the picture.

-Sans Authoritas

bigjohnson
May 3, 2008, 11:46 PM
I'm not sure if you realize this, but prohibiting the sale of a firearm to a convicted criminal is a lot different from cutting someone's tungue out because of what they "might" yell. Maybe they're both examples of prior restraint, but the tungue-cutting is a pretty poor example. I thought you could do better than that.

Sans Authoritas
May 3, 2008, 11:50 PM
I'm disappointed in me, too, Big. Here's a more "reasonable" prior restraint: how about clapping someone in branks before they go into a theater? We both know that you can have someone kicked out of a theater for talking: why not prevent it in the first place?

That's right: because it is unjust and inconvenient to those who know how to keep their mouths shut while in the theater. It punishes everyone instead of the offender.

As a superior alternative to prior restraint for everyone, how about ensuring that the "wrong hands" are either cold and dead, or holding onto prison bars instead of firearms, so the rest of us don't have to worry about them ignoring the rights of others, as we all know they do anyway, whether they use a firearm, knife, bat or boot?

-Sans Authoritas

bigjohnson
May 4, 2008, 12:04 AM
So the only punishment for a felony is going to be life without parole? And you're going to institutionalize all mental patients for their entire lives? Who's going to PAY for all that if there are no taxes?

Autolycus
May 4, 2008, 12:09 AM
Said by Sans Authoritas: As a superior alternative to prior restraint for everyone, how about ensuring that the "wrong hands" are either cold and dead, or holding onto prison bars instead of firearms, so the rest of us don't have to worry about them ignoring the rights of others, as we all know they do anyway, whether they use a firearm, knife, bat or boot?
So you would punish the mentally ill for being ill?

So convicted felons cannot rehabilitate themselves? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that people who are not in prison (prisoners obviously have no rights but the state takes on the responsibility of being their ward) have to lose their rights? Do they not pay taxes when they are forced to do prison labor?

Sans Authoritas
May 4, 2008, 12:21 AM
So the only punishment for a felony is going to be life without parole? And you're going to institutionalize all mental patients for their entire lives?

If someone is a danger to other people, do you think he should he be out on the streets, whether or not he can "legally" obtain a firearm or not? That's my only question.

Who's going to PAY for all that if there are no taxes?

Dangerous mentally unstable people should be under sane supervision at all times, do you disagree? If this is the case, how are they going to get ahold of a firearm, legally or otherwise?

As for how these things would be paid for? The same way it was before the government was our Mommy and our Daddy. The individuals' families would look after these people, or they would be taken in by charitable institutions funded voluntarily (and imagine how much money people could donate if they didn't have to sink it into the money pit of government "charities.") This includes church institutions and other secular institutions.

As for undoubtedly violent criminals such as rapists (repeat and otherwise,) etc? They have proven they are a threat to human beings. Execution is inexpensive. If you can use lethal force to defend yourself from a forcible rape, and someone has proven that they have and likely will rape again, execute them. As it is, rapists spend an average of about 7 years in prison leeching off the taxpayer.

And imagine how much money would be saved by legalizing the victimless acts that ended up causing perhaps 40% of the prison population.

Yes: such things can be funded in ways other than by gunpoint.

-Sans Authoritas

Sans Authoritas
May 4, 2008, 12:33 AM
So you would punish the mentally ill for being ill?

Is keeping people safe from dangerous people "punishing" the mentally ill for being mentally ill? I did not say we should execute the mentally ill. We should not. But we should keep them from harming other people. It would be preferable to have their family members do that, but sometimes, it is not possible. This is where voluntarily-funded charitable institutions come in.


So convicted felons cannot rehabilitate themselves? Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that people who are not in prison (prisoners obviously have no rights but the state takes on the responsibility of being their ward) have to lose their rights?

Surely convicted felons can rehabilitate themselves. It's happened. But I didn't see how those two animals in Connecticut rehabilitated themselves after 27 break-in convictions, right before they raped a man's wife and two daughters, then burnt them alive. Why were they out? And would having had a prohibition against their purchasing firearms helped at all? No. No, it would not have helped.

I'm all in favor of anyone who is out on the streets being able to purchase firearms. But if someone is dangerous, he should be in prison. There's no happy middle ground to the infringement of rights.

-Sans Authoritas

cassandrasdaddy
May 4, 2008, 03:08 AM
I'm all in favor of anyone who is out on the streets being able to purchase firearms. But if someone is dangerous, he should be in prison. There's no happy middle ground to the infringement of rights.


so how does lew rockwell tell you you can accomplish this

bigjohnson
May 4, 2008, 05:54 AM
So prisons should be funded by "voluntary contributions"? You can't really believe this.

And how about putting "dangerous" people in prison? Who decides which among us is "dangerous"? And how does that person who makes the decision get paid for his time?

What about families who refuse to believe that one of their members is mentally ill. and therefor refuse to keep him/her confined? Do you and your vigilante friends shoot them?

Lastly, what would happen if I and my friends decided that YOU were "dangerous", and had YOU put in one of OUR "voluntarily-funded charitable institutions", behind bars? Since there would be no court system for you to appeal to, (how could there be one, since there would be no taxes to pay for such a thing?), how would you ever get out? Who would look after YOUR rights?

If you enjoyed reading about "My experience with Amtrak Agent" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!