The Loss of Freedoms List (Vanity Post)

Cornpone | 25 Jan 2005 | Cornpone

[Cornpone]

Dear Freepers,

I'm getting old and perhaps a little wacky but as I look back over my life I continue to try and understand how my country hasn't quite turned out the way my mother and father brought me up to believe it should be and what it was I was always raised to defend. So I've started making a list of those things that just seem to represent a betrayal of what I always thought America is about...freedom. Its a short list, I'm still working on it and I know many, if not most, will not agree with everything on it. But I'm sure everyone has something to add to it...like the state of medical care in this country which I haven't even begun to think about. Anyway, they are simple things that individually don't amount to much. But, taken together they represent a fundamental change in our culture if you think about it. Please help me add to this list. I don't know what I will do with it. Perhaps I'll just go nail it on the doors of Congress..not likely. I'd rather nail it on the doors of the White House except we can't really go there anymore...another freedom lost.

• Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws

• Mandatory automobile seatbelt laws

• Mandatory boating lifejacket laws

• Increasing erosion of property rights

• Increasing regulation of alcohol consumption, tobacco use and firearms possession

• Virtual elimination of the right to self defense

• Denial of the right to carry a weapon for self defense

• Hate crime laws that ridiculously imply that the murder of one human being is more heinous than the murder of another based on some politically motivated criteria

• Encroachment on the constitutional right to assembly

• Increasing attempts to limit our constitutional right to free speech through hate speech laws that seek to dampen dissident opinions

• Increasing restrictions on demonstrations of personal faith with a bias against Christians

• Increasing restrictions on hunting

• Increasing restrictions on fishing

• Increasing restrictions on the traditional use of fireworks

• Increasing restrictions on traditional methods of outdoor cooking

• Increasing restrictions on water rights and usage

• Increasing government incursion and attempts to regulate the possession of domestic animals which in all cases don’t happen to be ‘pets’

• Unfair taxation to fund social practices abhorrent to most Americans

• Government advocacy of socially deviant lifestyles

• Government attempts to redefine millennia-old family relationships and bonds, i.e., gay marriage

• Affirmative action laws and policies that unjustly punish and deny opportunity to current generations based on the shortcomings of generations long past

• Ridiculous product liability judgments that seek to limit access and deny choice through judicial activism rather than legislative debate

Add your thoughts to the list please.

God Bless our Forefathers and God Bless You

[secretagent]

But I would rather that the 14th amendment were repealed because it gives way too much power to the federal government. We have state constitutions with their own bill of rights.

With the repeal of the 14th Amendment, would states then have the power, under the federal constitution, to again disenfranchise blacks? (assuming they changed their own constitutions).

[dervish]

Why does that surprise you?

If I take my dog to a park I have to keep her on a leash or get a $100 fine if caught. There is no exception to this rule even if a dog is trained.

[satchmodog9]

San Fran just banned smoking outside in parks.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Well, I'm a dog owner and dog lover, but I guess I don't find leash laws at all unreasonable. I'm frankly glad dogs are required to be on a leash - but maybe that's 'cause I used to jog a lot, and I've run into a few that I wish had been on a leash.

There are off-leash parks in my area, by the way - are you sure there aren't any in yours?

[Cornpone]

I think the answer is basically yes.

[Dan Evans]

With the repeal of the 14th Amendment, would states then have the power, under the federal constitution, to again disenfranchise blacks? (assuming they changed their own constitutions).

Yes they would. Assuming it were repealed, do you think there is a danger of that happening?

[Junior_G]

Gun bans in individual townships are annoying; but my main point is about the loss of gun rights at the federal level. There are plenty of "common sense" restrictions on the ability of individuals to purchase guns, and on the types of guns they are allowed to purchase. Most of these did not exist before the 1960's, and none of them existed before the 20th century. There are now age restrictions, restrictions on buying guns across state lines, and restrictions on ordering guns through the mail. You can't buy firearms without going through a background check to make sure you haven't been convicted of a felony or domestic violence (another "common sense" restriction-----I mean, who is going to defend the 2nd amendment rights of somebody with a domestic violence rap on their record?) There are entire classes of firearms that are now banned. If I knew for a fact that no more rights would be taken away, I could probably deal with it; but I have a feeling that somewhere down the line we'll be taken the way of our enlightened neighbors in Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. We've already taken the first steps.

[Southack]

"There are now age restrictions, restrictions on buying guns across state lines, and restrictions on ordering guns through the mail. You can't buy firearms without going through a background check to make sure you haven't been convicted of a felony or domestic violence..."

That's too broad of a statement. You *can* buy guns across state lines. You *can* buy guns through the mail. You *can* buy guns without a background check, too. Legally.

Gun shows, for instance. Estate sales. Classified ads. Private sales of guns require no background check, no backdoor government registration of a new gun owner.

Likewise, any firearm made in 1898 or before, or any modern made *copy* of an 1898 weapon or earlier, can be sold through the mail, across state lines, and with no background checks.

So you can buy all of the 1898 Mauser sniper rifles and Winchester repeaters that you care to own. You can buy 1898 six shot pistols, or modern made copies of those weapons, too.

Bankers (i.e. lenders), can even repossess modern firearms, should the debtor default, without a background check.

[Southack]

"my main point is about the loss of gun rights at the federal level. ... I have a feeling that somewhere down the line we'll be taken the way of our enlightened neighbors in Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. We've already taken the first steps."

We've already taken the first steps to roll all of that back. The federal Assault Weapons Ban is dead. D E A D. Dead.

The federal ban against arming commercial pilots is likewise dead.

We're voting on new bills this year to prevent the gun-banners from suing our gun manufacturers out of business (needed tort reform).

We've rolled back, federally, the various state, county, and city anti-gun laws that were being used to arrest gun owners from merely driving through certain areas.

...And state after state (now 46 out of 50) has passed CCW laws in our favor!

[Dan Evans]

In 1920, it was illegal for men to buy beer.

Today we can't buy DDT to control mosquitoes and as a result, millions around the world have died of malaria.

In the 1930's, gold was illegal to own ($100 limit).

Today gold is virtually illegal to mine.

In the 1940's, our military was racially segregated and the government mandated at gunpoint how many ounces of sugar you could have in your pantry.

Today, schools, businesses and government have racial quotas and the government mandates how much water you can have in your toilet.

In the 1950's, Blacks were being beaten by policemen, hosed by firemen, bitten by sheriffs' dogs, as well as prevented from even *registering* to vote by Jim Crow laws.

Today, Black families are burdened with crime. Their children are raised without their fathers in dysfunctional families in cities much worse than the 1950's.

In the 1960's, it was *legal* to pay women less than men for the same job

Today, honest businessmen are sued by women for all kinds imagined grievances -- like claiming they are entitled to the same pay for "comparable work".

In the 1970's, it was illegal to drive more than 55 miles per hour.

Today it's illegal to sell a car that doesn't get the proper gas mileage as per federal CAFE requirements.

In the 1980's, it was illegal to use the Internet for profit.

Today the Federal government makes a profit on the Internet.

In the 1990's, it was illegal in most states to carry a concealed handgun.

Today you can't carry a sharp object on an airplane.

[fire_eye]

We are losing ground on every other issue, though - and it is only because the politicians FEAR us gun owners that they are restoring our rights, not because they believe in firearms ownership.

The right to shoot back at the government when it steps over the line is the most important of all, but if we could organize on behalf of other rights, in a monolithic bloc, the way we have on behalf of RKBA, we might be able to reverse the depradations of our other rights by the statist scum, also.

[Southack]

"Today you can't carry a sharp object on an airplane."

Sure you can (besides your mind)!

I can carry a knife, pistol, rifle, smoke a cigar, and sip my favorite beverage all while flying *my* plane.

What you are talking about isn't a restriction on private transportation, but on mass transit.

Well, mass transit, be it busses or aircraft (regardless of who operates them), is a lot like being in public. You don't expect to be able to run around naked in a public park, for instance, but you can run around naked inside your private house.

Same thing with aircraft. What you carry in a private aircraft is quite different than what you can carry in some form of public transportation.

So if you want to be free, use your freedom to purchase private property such as your own aircraft (they actually aren't even very expensive if you buy them used).

[Southack]

"Today it's illegal to sell a car that doesn't get the proper gas mileage as per federal CAFE requirements."

No, that's not an accurate statement. Vipers, I assure you, do not meet federal fuel mileage guidelines.

[Southack]

"Today the Federal government makes a profit on the Internet."

Even if true, that's no loss to your freedom or rights.

[Dan Evans]

The 2nd amendment allows us to bear arms in public places. It isn't restricted to our home or our private vehicles.

[Southack]

"We are losing ground on every other issue, though..."

Compared to women who have the right to vote today that they didn't have in 1910?

Compared to Blacks today who have the right to vote but were prevented from so doing by Jim Crow laws into the early 1960's?

Compared to being able to trade stocks over the Internet today versus going to jail for so doing if you made those Internet trades in the 1980's?

Compared to the 55 mile per hour federal speed limit that lasted into the 1980's?

Losing ground?!

[dervish]

There are some parks that have dog runs, but not all. People are permitted to walk dogs on these extend-a-leash contraptions that are downright dangerous because they are near invisible and allow the dog to go far anyway. But that's ok because it's a "leash."

I guess this is a narrow pet peave (pun intended) of mine. I have a wonderfully trained dog who I control better without a leash, she heels beautifully, than most people do with a leash. Yet I get harassed when she is walking at my side and we are minding our own business.

I walk her off leash, but because the parks are patrolled, I leash her when I walk in the park. Such is the irony of my situation.

I do sympathize with the hazards of running and dogs and cars.

[Southack]

"The 2nd amendment allows us to bear arms in public places. It isn't restricted to our home or our private vehicles."

Yes, and the 1st Amendment allows us the freedom to disrobe in public, not just in our homes or private vehicles.

[Dan Evans]

Car manufacturers are forced to have a minimum fleet mileage on all the cars they sell. As a result, we have a lot of very small cars on the road along with very big SUV's and trucks exempt from the regulations. A very dangerous situation created by the government.

[Southack]

"Car manufacturers are forced to have a minimum fleet mileage on all the cars they sell."

Restrictions on *companies* are very different beasts than are restrictions on individual human freedoms.