We try and portray ourselves as average LAW ABIDING citizens. This post does not show us in that kind of light.
Did anyone here suggesting that the law is (or might be) absurd suggest actually breaking the law? I didn't see that, perhaps I missed something. Keep in mind that as this thread progressed, it's spurned off into two sub-threads of
sort...
-The activities of this guy in question
-Whether or not the act of building the devices should or shouldn't be illegal,
etc.
Many of us (myself included) would not build these devices, because it's against the law. That doesn't mean, however, that someone isn't allowed to say that the law is dumb or doesn't accomplish anything. Does that make us "radicals" for suggesting that? IMO one can still be "law abiding" but not agree with the law.
Hell, if anything, the fact that this incident occured at all is a testament to the fact that most prohibition-based laws don't really stop the targeted behavior.
FWIW, the "target audience" you speak of, would also be offended upon reading a thread where someone suggests that VT style gun laws (eg, NO
LAW!) should be the "law of the land" but somehow, that's OK to talk about, despite the fact that the same target audience would still consider
us "radical" for mentioning that.
Of course, this all goes back to the "what is considered reasonable regulation" argument. I think some of the posts here by libertarians and not, alike, were to spurn some thoughtful discussion about that issue..... I think it's important to have serious discussions about these kinds of things- to get people to stop falling pray to "gut media brainwashed reaction" and seriously think about laws and their legitimacy, application, and enforcement. If we don't question so called "conventional wisdom" once in awhile, how do we know whether or not it's really sound? Part of the reason the government has gotten away with boning the crap out of people's freedoms is because it and the media have managed to brainwash people into accepting THEIR groupthink about issues and short circuited people's individual thought, etc. Government, media, and other forces HATE the curse of the individual because whenpeople think freely, it makes their realm less profitable overall. (Course "profit takes different forms- for the government its power and empire building, for media it's about making stories that "sell" or enforcing the whims of the mahogany row types that run the outlets...) These entities hate individual freedom, choice, etc, because it screws up their agendas.
I guess I'm not as paranoid as some are about media casting aspersions, etc.... or antis, for that matter. F*ck em. Even if you refrain from saying anything supposedly "radical" they have this nasty habit of taking even the most benign statements, twisting them, and casting us as "radicals" anyways.... so we might as well be able to say what we feel instead of beating around the bush.
FWIW I won't neg you, and I doubt most of the posters you disagree with would, either. IMO it's childish to neg someone for a difference in
opinion.
-Mike