Reply #17: Not making that point [View All]

[sweetheart]

I'm suggesting, that maybe the framers were serious about empowering
the individual with all the powers that they empowered the state.

I've argued this before, years ago on DU as a long thread about the
straw man, and i'm bored with that line of thinking. My point here
is less to do with nukes, and more a re-framing of how the framers
considered individual liberty.

The fact is, that all it takes is ONE individual to be suicidally
dissenting in a society and you have a "war on terror"... that it
seems, the right to dissent in such a way is the ultimate crime,
driving them to the ultimate fear.

That somewhere it is unwritten that one of our own children would
consider using a nuclear bomb to blow up his/her family... and that,
truth be told, it is their right, be they of sound mind and body.

As they are then exercising the ultimate criticism of a society,
not to vote for the opposition, not to "not vote" but to vote
NO, explosively.

More and more people are voting "no" explosively these days, and in
that sense, it is highly relevant. Who is allowed to vote no
with mass murder weapons and who is not. And why does a society
based on a principal of individual liberty, goodwill and trusting
its individual militia members to defend the state, suddenly
is the enemy of those very indivdiuals, reserving the right to
suicide bombing only for the criminally insane.