Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Guns and stuff... [modified]

Guns and stuff... [modified]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comsecurity
82 Posts 20 Posters 2 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S Stan Shannon

    I think your algebra is flawed. We try to squeeze every thing that occurs into one political model that has been provided for us by the left conveniently for that purpose. The irony of your position, as I understand it, is that if the government were to control corporations to the point that they were no 'threat' to the public good, but rather a benefit to it, would in fact be the very purpose that the fascist were striving to achieve. I'm not defending corporate-government corruption. Bribing politicians or being involved in the political process is a bad thing and can be responsible for great public harm. It might reflect the dark side of Jeffersonianism, free makets and all that, and maybe we need a new word for that. But it is not fascist in any way at all.

    Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

    M Offline
    M Offline
    Matthew Faithfull
    wrote on last edited by
    #71

    I'm not proposing that the governments control the corporations directly at all. I'm simply noting that globalist, if you prefer, corporations have outgrown the nation state based model assumed by Jefferson. They have the excuse that it no longer applies to them. The solution proposed by the socialists, world government, would only benefit the faschists and this is why Rockefeller and friends are happy to pay the socialist academics to organise and promote it. The solution proposed by Mr Bolton, Cheney etc of the USA simply taking over the world is no better, it amounts to the same thing. There is an uneasy but extremely influential truce between the money power of the ultra right wing uegenics supporting faschist elite, typified by for example Rockefeller or the neo-con crazies and the left wing, often exMarxist or neoMarxist academics who control much of the school curriculum, are the guru's of political correctness, (thought police) and staff the beauracracies of organizations like the UN and EU. They are all in the end anti-democratic totalitarians, albeit with opposing views of where the same road will lead and why. The problem for those who believe in democracy and the genuine freedom of the individual is that this in-the-closet alliance has grabbed most of the levers of power, political, social and financial on both sides of the atlantic. It is going to be very difficult to dislodge. So far it is only the inevitable in-fighting between the aggressive neo-cons and passive-aggressive remainder (other-cons if you like) which has stalled the progress of the EU project, killed the FTAA, is causing econimc chaos and has occasionally exposed enough cracks for us to see a little of what's really going on. Ultimately the solution is to return to a human scale system where the corporation cannot grow bigger than the state and the state cannot grow bigger than the nation and become too distant and detached to be subject to democratic control. The only way this will happen is if the people are prepared to use what power remains in their hands to make it so. We all have to be able to say not just, 'I'd rather be poor and free than a rich slave' but also 'I'd rather be poor and free than a rich slave owner'. If we can at least agree on that then we have a good place to start from. 'We hold these truths to be self evident...' :)

    Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S Stan Shannon

      Thats a completely different discussion. As I argue incessantly, I am opposed to the collapse of Jeffersonian federalism which occured during the 20th century and the use of the 14th and 16th amendments to empower the federal government to ignore the original restraints upon its authority. So, no, I would obviously not support the federal government coercing states into violating the 2nd amendment.

      Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

      J Offline
      J Offline
      jchigg2000
      wrote on last edited by
      #72

      Good Job. I think you used enough big words to shut him up... ;P

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • M Matthew Faithfull

        Ah the sad truth is that its correct

        Richard A. Abbott wrote:

        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

        but it has been ignored for too long, the USA no longer has such a militia and hence the consolidation of Federal authority, enforced by the ATF and FBI and the repeated tragedies this has led to. Americans have not lived in a free state, as would have been understood by the framers of their constitution, for a long time. Their federal government having almost entirely taken over the authority of the States has sold the right to print its own currency, to a private club (Federal Reserve), and the right set its own external trade policy, to another private club (WTO). It is in the process of selling the right to set its own internal trading standards and regulations under the SPP/NAU and long ago handed over much of it foreign policy to the CFR. This has recently been rolled back somewhat by the neo-con crazies, but will accelerate again whoever is elected next November. Government of the people, by the people, for the people? Hardly, more like centralised control of the people for the elite by whichever shmuck with a gun in his back is stupid enough to get selected.

        Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

        R Offline
        R Offline
        Reagan Conservative
        wrote on last edited by
        #73

        Ever heard of the NATIONAL GUARD? That's your state militia, fool! I guess you were asleep in your civics classes in school (or do they have those classes any longer?)

        John P.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • C cp9876

          I also looked this up. I think the concept of

          digital man wrote:

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

          is irrelevant today. I can't imagine that a motley collection of civilians with a random selection of handheld weapons could contribute significantly to the security of the US against an enemy that had overcome the armed forces. You would be far better spending the money that civilians spend on arms on the national guard. What came out yesterday was the idea that gun ownership would protect you from a government that went mad. The Government cannot get out of control without the support of the armed forces, and I can't see that you would make a difference with a few guns when the armoured vehicles come down the street firing 25mm depleted uranium rounds at anything that resists. Your only hope is to turn the army, and if history is anything to go by unarmed people power may be just as effective (Philipines, Moscow). Anyway, the bottom line is that it is not my country and I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to live. I'm lucky enough to live in a very safe part of Australia, and I like the fact that there are very few guns here. There are very safe parts of America too, but I think it is sad that no matter where you go you can never get away from the guns (not even the Amish community was safe).

          Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

          S Offline
          S Offline
          Stan Shannon
          wrote on last edited by
          #74

          Obviously a "militia" of citizens armed with off the shelf weaponry would represent little obstacle to the full might of an modern professional military force. However, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where significant portions of the professional military, especially the Guard, would join the militia. Of course, that would not be the difficult part. The difficult part would be how you would feed everyone after the government closed all the super-markets, quicky-marts and fast food restaurants down. Any plan that included stoping by a McDonalds or a 7-11 on the way to the battlefield would probably need to be reconsidered.

          Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

          C 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • R R Giskard Reventlov

            I was quite impressed by the robust defence of the right to bear arms by John Simmons and others in a debate here yesterday. It got me to go back and re-read the constitution and amendments. It is still a great document and its sentiments are entirely fresh and laudable. I may not agree with the actual possession of weapons but I can see how the 2nd amendment gives you upholds that right… “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And, therefore, I have to admit that I am wrong in this one: whilst I don’t get the personal need for weapons I can see that you need have no other justification for doing so other than that which your constitution provides.

            bin the spin home

            modified on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:34 AM

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #75

            digital man wrote:

            A well regulated Militia

            Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines....

            Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • A A Wong

              cp9876 wrote:

              What came out yesterday was the idea that gun ownership would protect you from a government that went mad. The Government cannot get out of control without the support of the armed forces, and I can't see that you would make a difference with a few guns when the armoured vehicles come down the street firing 25mm depleted uranium rounds at anything that resists.

              I beg to differ. The Vietnam war and Iraq war shows that gurilla tatics does work to a certain point. There are other cases where rebel forces toppled well armed governments as well. Ultimately, it is the will of the citizens that matter, but armed resistance does contribute to it.

              C Offline
              C Offline
              cp9876
              wrote on last edited by
              #76

              A Wong wrote:

              The Vietnam war and Iraq war shows that gurilla tatics does work to a certain point

              As I said you can't stop the advancing army, you can give it a hard time long term - and reduce your country to rubble using the examples you gave. Contrast this to the attempted coup in Russia against Gorbachev where unarmed people stopped the fully equipped army with scarcely a shot fired. It appears that stopping armies is more to do with humanity than weapons. If you ensure that your soldiers are educated like all citizens, then you have a good chance of stopping your army by massing in front of it. Taking up weapons and shooting at soldiers will cause them to see you as an adversary and try to kill you. They have better weapons. The reason this doesn't work in China or N Korea is that the army (like most ofthe population) is brainwashed. I suspect that if the protesters in Tiananmen square were armed it would have been over quicker and the loss of life greater. From the news coverage we saw it appeared that the army was reluctant to fire on unarmed citizens. Keep the ability for your armed forces to think - defend the freedom of speech with your life. Look there is no right answer to this - I'm just trying to point out that civilians being unarmed can still enjoy huge power - and possibly achieve greater outcomes. A gun may not necessarily help.

              Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S Stan Shannon

                Obviously a "militia" of citizens armed with off the shelf weaponry would represent little obstacle to the full might of an modern professional military force. However, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where significant portions of the professional military, especially the Guard, would join the militia. Of course, that would not be the difficult part. The difficult part would be how you would feed everyone after the government closed all the super-markets, quicky-marts and fast food restaurants down. Any plan that included stoping by a McDonalds or a 7-11 on the way to the battlefield would probably need to be reconsidered.

                Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

                C Offline
                C Offline
                cp9876
                wrote on last edited by
                #77

                Stan Shannon wrote:

                However, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where significant portions of the professional military, especially the Guard, would join the militia.

                It's possible that this is more likely to happen if they were asked to attack unarmed civilians, rather than go off and join the folks who are shooting at them. This is more to do with issues than how well armed the opposition is. Educate your military and protect your freedom of sepeech.

                Stan Shannon wrote:

                Any plan that included stoping by a McDonalds or a 7-11

                I agree, any form of guerilla warefare is goodbye to life as we know it. I still think that the tactic of having an unarmed civilian population has potentially more chance of stopping the army in the early stages than having a folks taking pot shots at them. Also I can imagine the Government trying to shut down the food supplies for an armed opposition militia, but it would have less chance of convincing the military to do this if all they were going to do was starve an unarmed population. If the Govt is trying to use the army against you then you need to turn the minds of the army. I think shooting at them is probably the worst approach.

                Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

                modified on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:38 PM

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • R Ro0ke

                  Yes, nature doesn't give you rights. But that's not the point, this subsection of the thread started because John mistakenly used the word "natural" when describing the right. I was only stating that many of the paralyzing toxins are the natural defense of plants or animals.

                  S Offline
                  S Offline
                  soap brain
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #78

                  This subsection of the thread started because I merely said that the term 'natural' doesn't apply, and then everyone rushed to tell me how stupid I am in thinking that rights somehow transcending humanity doesn't make any sense. As if a being on the opposite side of the universe could somehow independently derive these 'natural laws', and deduce that everywhere in the universe all men have the right to bear arms...I mean, you'd have to be bloody retarded to think that. And yeah, paralyzing toxins are the natural defense of some plants and animals - but how does them having a right to defend themselves have any meaning? They DO it anyway, but not because they're 'allowed' to, because there's nothing that's going to prevent them. Nature simply doesn't work that way.

                  Richard of York gave battle in vain.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • S Stan Shannon

                    But I never said that humans define them. I merely assert that they exist. That they are a part of nature. Of God's law. That nature intends for me to be the owner of myself, and that, as my own onwer, I possess a valid natural right to defend that which I own. And, yes, to assert that is to assert that the Universe has purpose, has intent, has reason. To suggest otherwise, that the only rights are those that exist as a conseguence of legal definition, is to assert that man has no fundemental claim to any right. That the universe is purposeless, unintentional and irrational, and that legal systems are free to define right however they please.

                    Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

                    S Offline
                    S Offline
                    soap brain
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #79

                    You said that the concept of 'rights' is part of the human mind. You didn't say that they transcend the human mind. If rights were a fundamental law, then that means that they can be independently verified anywhere in the universe by someone who is not human, someone with absolutely no affiliation with humans. Do you think that they would be able to observe the right to bear arms in the way that the planets move, the way that light and magnetism works, the way that forces work? Could they find the right to free speech in the protons and electrons of an atom, or even smaller than that? A right basically says that you're allowed to do something and that others aren't allowed to prevent you from doing that, otherwise they will be punished (because if there was no punishment then they would be meaningless). Where's the retribution for the cat that eats the mouse, impinging on its right to live? Outside of human society, these 'rights' don't exist in any meaningful way. They aren't build into time and space, they're wired into most people's brains, into societies. Because, of course, different societies have different ideas as to what rights people have, and you can't prove that you're the ones that are right.

                    Richard of York gave battle in vain.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S soap brain

                      Stan Shannon wrote:

                      I would argue that I don't need to. Humanity is a part of nature, the human mind is a part of humanity, and the concept of rights is part of the human mind. The universe is the sum of its parts, which includes the concept of rights.

                      So it is only humans that define rights? But saying that rights are a law of nature is saying that humans define laws of nature.

                      Richard of York gave battle in vain.

                      M Offline
                      M Offline
                      Madmaximus
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #80

                      “So it is only humans that define rights? But saying that rights are a law of nature is saying that humans define laws of nature.” Yes we can, since we are defining how/what a human governing body can/can’t do to individuals then rights are involved. The people are telling a governing body that this is a nature right to defend one self and they can’t pass a law against it. However they chose to do so is up to the individual. So one day when you grow up, maybe you might understand this… but I doubt it. :laugh:

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • T TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

                        you're an idiot. ok, since you have no right to live, i'll come over there and kick your ass until you die. and since you don't believe in the right to defend yourself or own guns, it'll be easy as pie.

                        L Offline
                        L Offline
                        Lost User
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #81

                        ahmed zahmed wrote:

                        you're an idiot. ok, since you have no right to live, i'll come over there and kick your ass until you die. and since you don't believe in the right to defend yourself or own guns, it'll be easy as pie.

                        We don't need guns moron. As everyone knows, Yanks can't read maps and if you attempted to book a flight you'd end up in Austria. Ravel has nothing to fear from you trying to do anything.

                        Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • T TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

                          i didn't say that there should be no restrictions. I'm all for licensing, etc. Licensing doesn't remove or infringe the right. For instance, I don't think individuals should necessarily be able to own a tank, at least not without paying lots of money for a license and going through training, background checks, etc.

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          Lost User
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #82

                          When you say that reasonable restrictions may be allowed, you have already accepted that your natural right may be restricted by the state? Are you suggesting that the debate just is on the extend of the restrictions that the federal government may impose. I always thought that the restrictions on possessing arms was in lieu of the state providing you defense against attacks.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes

                          • Login
                          • Don't have an account? Register
                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups