Replies

No accident. They knew what they were doing.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- Ayn Rand, 1957 -

Hoodat, it is just amazing how well Rand/Rosenblum understood the tyranny called communism. My son has just read Atlas Shrugged for the third time, and had to remind me who Dr. Ferris was. That is clearly why Rand remains among the most vilified authors in US history by the progressive media. She mocked them with frighteningly accurate prescience. My son (18) noted that Dr. Ferris was the only one of Rand's characters who understood the nature of the war. Ferris decided that the producers couldn't win, and made his fortune attacking Rearden steel, while designing a weapon of some sort.

Sounds like Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren, who knows solar and wind are fairy tales, but has spent most of his forty years attacking nuclear power and arguing that the real solution is to eliminate four fifths of the population. It got Holdren a cushy office paid for by Theresa Kerry's dead conservative first husband, an enormous salary at the Kennedy Center, and a lovely home on Cape Cod. Holdren has rewarded the bag carriers with Solyndra funding, and twenty or thirty other boondoggles, most of which will quietly slip away under Chapter 11 while the investors will walk away, as Kaiser of Solyndra did, with hundreds of millions in clear profit. That was always the game, and anyone familiar with the technology knew it.

BTTT

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

- Ayn Rand, 1957 -

Well done Hoodat.

May God give us strength.
Tatt

I recall that little interaction in that book very well...

I have a thought, and certainly anyone is free to chime in and debunk, or add to the thought...

Maybe the intent is to NOT enforce on an overall level, but to sytematically setup targeted efforts and spin the web to catch the few stupid enough to fall into those traps...Then move on, change the landscape,make travel and other commerce at the behest of these surgical “enforcement” efforts???

Since the overall idea os to disarm the general public to the point that it will be bred into the psychy of the populace thagt guns are evil and those that posess them are criminals, lower than pond scum...

So I say lets not fight the PR war, we will lose that one, if we have not already lost it anyway...

If we believe that the enforcement effort, at whatever level they choose to implement it is un-Constitutional to begin with, is it therefore acceptable to utilize force, or deadly force against it, either as a reactionary condition, or should those efforts be sought out and engaged???

Honestly we need to stop dancing around this (unmentionable) response we may very well need to address...The people did not create the governments infringement on ourselves, we did elect these people to office that ARE the ones taking away the very core of our ability to be free men and women in this country...And that is obviously not something the founding fathers intended this to go...

So, we have a distinct difference of opinion with the government, AND those that elected the folks supporting this effort...

A historical lesson (fact) comes to light again in this country...

Brother against brother, father against son, nieghbor against nieghbor...sans a gender inclusive example...But this is what we are now up against, again...

And the ones who created this conflict, seeded it...So it narrows our focus, so to speak...

Can we correct this at the ballot bow??? Sure...

Can we afford to wait a year and a half to send that message to the government??? Can we outlast them???

Will we succeed???

I have my doubts...

All of this, of course, is just my opinion...No offense intended...

But we need to get serious about this, and a lot of folks needed to do this a long time ago...