Guns and stuff... [modified]

[Stan Shannon]

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

[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.

[CataclysmicQuantum]

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.

[Stan Shannon]

Its a hobby of mine...

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

[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

[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

[73Zeppelin]

ahmed zahmed wrote:

rights exist as a universal, eternal law. Kind of like the Law of Gravity.

No they don't and the fact that you have no evidence in support of that ridiculous claim just reinforces my point.

---

[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

[KaRl]

I don't give a fuck about the 2nd amendment - what I care is that guns are controlled here. That said, I think that being armed would change nothing when facing a dictatorship. If the future dictator has troops he can trust, then a civilian militia is no match for a trained army (especially for the so-called 'finest army in the world' :rolleyes: ). If the troops are not mandatory loyal, then the presence of the crowd is enough to stop them, see Russia 1991 for instance. The civilians were not armed, but they succeeded nonetheless to derail the putsch.

There are two things that one must get used to or one will find life unendurable: the damages of time and injustices of men Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Matthew Faithfull]

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.

[jchigg2000]

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

[Reagan Conservative]

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.

[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

[Lost User]

digital man wrote:

A well regulated Militia

Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines....

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

[cp9876]

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."

[cp9876]

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

[soap brain]

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.

[soap brain]

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.

[Madmaximus]

“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:

[Lost User]

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