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 3 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 soap brain

    If nature gives you the right to live, then why does it off so many people so often for no reason?! If nature gives you the right to defend yourself, then why are there so many toxins that paralyze you, so you can be eaten without defending yourself?

    Richard of York gave battle in vain.

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Ro0ke
    wrote on last edited by
    #45

    Many of these toxins you're talking about are actually the defense mechanisms of plants or animals. Nature doesn't give you the right to live, each person has the sole responsibility of surviving. As civilizations were established, laws came into effect to help enforce this.

    S 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S soap brain

      No, it wouldn't. Nature gives you a natural want for self-preservation etc. You defend yourself because you want to live. You're naturally imbued with everyone else caring about themselves first and foremost. Rights simply do not exist unless defined by humans. Tell me, how would you define a 'right' outside of humanity?

      Richard of York gave battle in vain.

      S Offline
      S Offline
      Stan Shannon
      wrote on last edited by
      #46

      Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

      No, it wouldn't. Nature gives you a natural want for self-preservation etc. You defend yourself because you want to live. You're naturally imbued with everyone else caring about themselves first and foremost. Rights simply do not exist unless defined by humans.

      Oh, a student of nietzsche. then. Not nature but will.

      Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

      Tell me, how would you define a 'right' outside of humanity?

      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.

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

      realJSOPR S 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • S Stan Shannon

        My only point of disagreement would be the continued use of what is essentially a set of Marxist political defintions. The left has framed this entire debate as some kind of a contest between Socialism and fascism. It isn't. The debate is between Marx and Jefferson and always has been. There is nothing 'fascist' about corporations. That is a Marxist construct. A corporation is only 'fascist' if it allows itself to be used as a component of a national agenda of some kind. If it is simply acting in a way that increaese profits, it is behaving precisely as it should be. Free market capitalism is not the enemy of anyone aside from Maxist (who are threated by individual choice implicite in free markets), but the friend of all lovers of freedom.

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

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Matthew Faithfull
        wrote on last edited by
        #47

        No, I'm not using the Marxist definition of Faschism but the definition of Mussolini who first put it into practice. 'The merger of the corporation and the state'. This has been forgotten by those who only remember Hitler's National-Socialism. The 'fascist' corporation is one which seeks to own and control the state, to take on the nature and powers of a state (e.g. Federal Reserve), to be above the law, beyond restraint by legal or political processes. International capitalism has taken on many of these characteristics by escaping from the authority or control of any single state, giving the excuse for international socialists to demand world government to control world corporations. Of course the very people planning for world government are funded by the world corporations who will nominate its members, fund its policy think tanks and implement its bought and payed for edicts. This is the modern face of international faschism, supported by socialists, packaged as inevitable globalisation. It is I agree the absolute antithesis of Jeffersonian nation self determination, equality under the law and free trade.

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

        S 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Matthew Faithfull

          No, I'm not using the Marxist definition of Faschism but the definition of Mussolini who first put it into practice. 'The merger of the corporation and the state'. This has been forgotten by those who only remember Hitler's National-Socialism. The 'fascist' corporation is one which seeks to own and control the state, to take on the nature and powers of a state (e.g. Federal Reserve), to be above the law, beyond restraint by legal or political processes. International capitalism has taken on many of these characteristics by escaping from the authority or control of any single state, giving the excuse for international socialists to demand world government to control world corporations. Of course the very people planning for world government are funded by the world corporations who will nominate its members, fund its policy think tanks and implement its bought and payed for edicts. This is the modern face of international faschism, supported by socialists, packaged as inevitable globalisation. It is I agree the absolute antithesis of Jeffersonian nation self determination, equality under the law and free trade.

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

          S Offline
          S Offline
          Stan Shannon
          wrote on last edited by
          #48

          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

          The 'fascist' corporation is one which seeks to own and control the state, to take on the nature and powers of a state (e.g. Federal Reserve), to be above the law, beyond restraint by legal or political processes.

          That isn't true. Mussolini's 'corporatism' was the very opposite of that. It was the state controlling the coporations to achieve the objectives of the state - all the resources of the state being combined to achieve the will of the state. I'm not suggesting that there is not a problem with corporations trying to corrupt government for their own purposes, but that is not fascism.

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

          M 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Stan Shannon

            Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

            No, it wouldn't. Nature gives you a natural want for self-preservation etc. You defend yourself because you want to live. You're naturally imbued with everyone else caring about themselves first and foremost. Rights simply do not exist unless defined by humans.

            Oh, a student of nietzsche. then. Not nature but will.

            Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

            Tell me, how would you define a 'right' outside of humanity?

            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.

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

            realJSOPR Offline
            realJSOPR Offline
            realJSOP
            wrote on last edited by
            #49

            You do know that you're trying to have a discussion with a fence post...

            "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
            -----
            "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

            S S 2 Replies 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

              I Offline
              I Offline
              Ilion
              wrote on last edited by
              #50

              digital man wrote:

              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.

              Notice, also, how *short* (how "high-level," rather than "nitty-gritty detailed") it is, amendments and all.

              digital man wrote:

              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.

              :cool: :rose:

              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.

                realJSOPR Offline
                realJSOPR Offline
                realJSOP
                wrote on last edited by
                #51

                It's easy to buy a tank, and there are many private tank owners. It's (almost?) impossible to (legally) buy ammo for it though. In that context, a tank is merely a motor vehicle. You can also legally own a cannon. I'm sure there's paperwork that goes along with those two examples, but you can own them nonetheless.

                "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                -----
                "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                S 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • S Stan Shannon

                  Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                  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).

                  I find that a difficult comment to argue with. Just as long as it is understood that most of that has come about as a consequence of the 'progressive' evolution of our government and its legal system to conform to a more European political world view, and is not the result of 'conservative' or 'right-wing' influences. Lets at least be intellectually honest about the philosophical history of all this.

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

                  I Offline
                  I Offline
                  Ilion
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #52

                  Stan Shannon wrote:

                  Lets at least be intellectually honest about the philosophical history of all this.

                  From a conspiracy-monger (and with socialistic leanings, at that)?

                  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."

                    realJSOPR Offline
                    realJSOPR Offline
                    realJSOP
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #53

                    cp9876 wrote:

                    There are very safe parts of America too

                    Everything within about 150 yard unobstructed radius of my firing position is safe (except what I'm shooting at of course). Paper targets are in a extreme peril, though. :)

                    "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                    -----
                    "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • realJSOPR realJSOP

                      "well regulated militia" - taken in the context of the time, "regulars" was the term for federal troops, and "well regulated" *probably* meant that the militia would have sufficient arms, supplies, training and leadership to perform the task of defense. "Regulated" certainly doesn't imply that the government can dictate who can/can't own a gun, nor what type of gun can be owned. In order to form a militia, "the people" must be pre-armed because they're not in the employ of the armed services. This means they have the right to "keep and bear arms" in the interest of personal and national defense. Currently, we have the (state) National Guard which has taken the role of militias, so there's really no need for a militia right now, but a militia can certainly be raised at a moment's notice (much to the chagrin of the US government). Gun control laws is an attempt to keep criminals from owning/using guns, but being criminals, they already don't obey the law, so what's the point in prohibiting ownership? I refuse to forfeit my constitutional right to own a gun just because some asshole shot a convenience store clerk in the commission of a crime.

                      "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                      -----
                      "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                      I Offline
                      I Offline
                      Ilion
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #54

                      John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

                      Gun control laws is an attempt to keep criminals from owning/using guns,

                      That's the *charitable* interpretation of the impulse to nullify others' rights.

                      John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

                      Gun control laws is an attempt to keep criminals from owning/using guns, but being criminals, they already don't obey the law, so what's the point in prohibiting ownership? I refuse to forfeit my constitutional right to own a gun just because some asshole shot a convenience store clerk in the commission of a crime.

                      But, even if there are no nefarious hidden reasons, it's still an asinine impulse.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • S Stan Shannon

                        Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                        The 'fascist' corporation is one which seeks to own and control the state, to take on the nature and powers of a state (e.g. Federal Reserve), to be above the law, beyond restraint by legal or political processes.

                        That isn't true. Mussolini's 'corporatism' was the very opposite of that. It was the state controlling the coporations to achieve the objectives of the state - all the resources of the state being combined to achieve the will of the state. I'm not suggesting that there is not a problem with corporations trying to corrupt government for their own purposes, but that is not fascism.

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

                        M Offline
                        M Offline
                        Matthew Faithfull
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #55

                        Maybe but still ( a + b ) = ( b + a ) . If the two are merged how can one say whose objectives they are persuing? Only by looking at who benefits financially in terms of gaining power. In Europe at least it is certainly not the states, they have become hollow shells, unable even to pass their own laws in many areas of policy. While the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) can write their own laws, hand them over to the European Commission and have them imposed on 27 states usually without debate and certainly wihtout the possibility of ammendment. In the US when the president wants money to fund whatever he has to get a vote through Congress but they can't give him the money. For that he has to go cap in hand to a private club who will lend the state, their dollars, at an interest rate they decide. If you ever wander where your federal taxes go, the answer is to pay the interest on that money previously borrowed. In effect a secret-membership club of ~20 people have bought the US federal government with its own money. This may not be classical faschism but that's hardly the point, the outcome, mass slavery to a pack of unethical thieving "£$%%^s is the same.

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

                        S 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • realJSOPR realJSOP

                          You do know that you're trying to have a discussion with a fence post...

                          "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                          -----
                          "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                          S Offline
                          S Offline
                          soap brain
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #56

                          Nice one...

                          Richard of York gave battle in vain.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Stan Shannon

                            My only point of disagreement would be the continued use of what is essentially a set of Marxist political defintions. The left has framed this entire debate as some kind of a contest between Socialism and fascism. It isn't. The debate is between Marx and Jefferson and always has been. There is nothing 'fascist' about corporations. That is a Marxist construct. A corporation is only 'fascist' if it allows itself to be used as a component of a national agenda of some kind. If it is simply acting in a way that increaese profits, it is behaving precisely as it should be. Free market capitalism is not the enemy of anyone aside from Maxist (who are threated by individual choice implicite in free markets), but the friend of all lovers of freedom.

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

                            V Offline
                            V Offline
                            Vincent Reynolds
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #57

                            I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. --Thomas Jefferson

                            S 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Stan Shannon

                              Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

                              No, it wouldn't. Nature gives you a natural want for self-preservation etc. You defend yourself because you want to live. You're naturally imbued with everyone else caring about themselves first and foremost. Rights simply do not exist unless defined by humans.

                              Oh, a student of nietzsche. then. Not nature but will.

                              Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

                              Tell me, how would you define a 'right' outside of humanity?

                              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.

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

                              S Offline
                              S Offline
                              soap brain
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #58

                              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.

                              S M 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • R Ro0ke

                                Many of these toxins you're talking about are actually the defense mechanisms of plants or animals. Nature doesn't give you the right to live, each person has the sole responsibility of surviving. As civilizations were established, laws came into effect to help enforce this.

                                S Offline
                                S Offline
                                soap brain
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #59

                                Ro0ke wrote:

                                Nature doesn't give you the right to live, each person has the sole responsibility of surviving.

                                So you agree with me?

                                Richard of York gave battle in vain.

                                R 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • realJSOPR realJSOP

                                  It's easy to buy a tank, and there are many private tank owners. It's (almost?) impossible to (legally) buy ammo for it though. In that context, a tank is merely a motor vehicle. You can also legally own a cannon. I'm sure there's paperwork that goes along with those two examples, but you can own them nonetheless.

                                  "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                                  -----
                                  "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                                  S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  soap brain
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #60

                                  John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

                                  It's (almost?) impossible to (legally) buy ammo for it though.

                                  Why?

                                  Richard of York gave battle in vain.

                                  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."

                                    A Offline
                                    A Offline
                                    A Wong
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #61

                                    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 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • V Vincent Reynolds

                                      I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. --Thomas Jefferson

                                      S Offline
                                      S Offline
                                      Stan Shannon
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #62

                                      Granted. Jefferson was very much an agrarian and opposed to the rise of the industrial state. I can't argue against that. Hartmann[^] has a good overview of all of that. Still, as with so many issues, it is difficult to separate out where "private property" rights should become an essential concern of a centralized federal authority. Boettke[^] has some thoughts. Modern coporations are an extension of private property, which in my view, is an entirely Jeffersonian concept, even if the man himself had issues with it.

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

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S soap brain

                                        Ro0ke wrote:

                                        Nature doesn't give you the right to live, each person has the sole responsibility of surviving.

                                        So you agree with me?

                                        Richard of York gave battle in vain.

                                        R Offline
                                        R Offline
                                        Ro0ke
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #63

                                        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 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Stan Shannon

                                          The intellectual origins of the bill or rights was inspired by the anti-federalists who wanted strict limitations upon the power of the federal government before they would sign off on the constitution. They did not want their states subjected to whatever tyrannical control might evolve at the federal level. Through out most of American history that has been the interpreation of the bill of rights. That is, for example, why no one in Dodge City ,Kansas in 1877(?) got bent out of shape when Wyatt Earp forced them to register their weapons with the town marshall. As an anti-federalist, I have no problem at all with a state or community formulating legistlation which restricts gun ownership (or free speech for that matter), I just don't want the federal government doing it.

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

                                          C Offline
                                          C Offline
                                          CataclysmicQuantum
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #64

                                          You realize the federal government can manipulate the States into its will don't you? What if the federal government convince all States to confiscate all guns, would you be OK with that?

                                          The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.

                                          S 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