Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
You are incredibly delusional dude, not only that, the world isn't some 1984 dystopia. The government isn't out to get us, furthermore, a few small arms aren't going to stop a government from steamrolling you. The reason guns should be heavily limited in America is because of the ease of getting them, we can no longer bear arms against a government of our magnitude.
So because we could never compete with our government should they ever possibly turn against it's people.. we should just roll over and allow them infringe on our rights now?
Slowly our ability to defend ourselves against the government has been taken away from us because people like you are to delusional to understand... The government might not be "out to get us" but from speaking from personal experience.. it's certainly not trying to help us..
You can try and take these few lines I've posted and dissect them to try and understand what kind of person I am.. but you'll never be able to because we were brought up in different areas.. taught by different people... learned through different means..
I've learned through the years.. my first lesson was when I was 5.. that you never take what people in power say at face value.. and Law Enforcement should always be questioned..
The only way to prevent totalitarianism is to prevent rampant poverty and instability. Otherwise it is human nature that big enough number of people will in their desperation support anyone who promises improvement in their situation and will be willing to murder for that. And when government has support of big chunk of population, you might fight, but you will lose. At that point it is too late. What you should do instead is to try to prevent that. That is not to say that you should do anything government tells you to. Governments are corrupt to lesser or bigger degree, but the way to go is to try to improve them, not to dive into unproductive fearmongering.
Actually food for thought. Maybe Americans have such a bad experiences with the government, because their governments are consisting of people that are exactly like them, who try to make anything government tries to do completely ineffective and broken. No wonder then that the government does not work well. Plus when you try to fight the government at every step instead of trying to improve it of course it won't improve.
In case you have forgotten, mcc, Hitler was elected before he burned down the Reichstag. Now there is no question that the economic turmoil in the Weimar Republic, the hyper inflation, which occurred as a result of France's demand for excessively punative reparations far in excess of the armistice agreement was a catalyst for the rise of Hitler and the establishment of totalitarianism. but the real problem wasn't poverty. The problem was the intellectual climate at the time. At the turn of the 20th century in Germany everyone was either a fascist or a communist. That was it. Anyone who was liberal (and to our American readers when I say liberal I mean it in the European context of being broadly opposed to state power and in favour of free trade and free markets) was dismissed as a crazy reactionary. That was the intellectual and political climate of the time and because of this Germany was destined for totalitarianism.
You make the valid point that the government does legally what other criminal organizations do illegally. But is that really a justification? Remember my point was that the government was the only organization that obtains it's revenue through coercion. But you were quick to point out that a thief (or more exactly a robber) does the same thing. Now in what context should I take this, but to equivocate the two? Simply because what the government does is "legal" does not change the moral status of an action. Robbers rob. The government robs. They are both evil and no amount of hand wringing can change this fact. It's wrong to steal. Full stop.
On December 22 2012 19:15 Gimmeurladderpoints wrote:
On December 22 2012 13:40 Esk23 wrote:
Watch from 35:35 on, Jesse Venture destroys the gun control/ban debate. If it's not clear to these people by now after all these arguments, then they simply are just choosing not to.
Seriously, you guys in america are afraid, that the goverment will opress you and use the military against you? First of all. That's not realistic at all. But IF... they would do that. You think a few texans with semi-automatic guns would be able to form a resistance against the biggest and strongest army in the world.
Why wouldn't they be able to? A few people in Afghanistan and Iraq Can do so with a couple of rusty AK-47's, IED's, and children. Why wouldn't we, having access to more stuff, be able to be a bigger thorn in the side if we were oppressed by our own government. You guys think its crazy that we would be scared of what our government would do to us, just look what they do to other people.
Yeah. How did that work out for the people in afghanistan and Iraq? Not all that great as far as I remember.
The point isn't how well they are fairing, its that they didn't roll over for the U.S. government because they thought they had no chance. And they are still fighting.
On December 22 2012 19:15 Gimmeurladderpoints wrote:
On December 22 2012 13:40 Esk23 wrote: youtube.com/watch?v=r7WGMGHNHfw
Watch from 35:35 on, Jesse Venture destroys the gun control/ban debate. If it's not clear to these people by now after all these arguments, then they simply are just choosing not to.
Seriously, you guys in america are afraid, that the goverment will opress you and use the military against you? First of all. That's not realistic at all. But IF... they would do that. You think a few texans with semi-automatic guns would be able to form a resistance against the biggest and strongest army in the world.
Why wouldn't they be able to? A few people in Afghanistan and Iraq Can do so with a couple of rusty AK-47's, IED's, and children. Why wouldn't we, having access to more stuff, be able to be a bigger thorn in the side if we were oppressed by our own government. You guys think its crazy that we would be scared of what our government would do to us, just look what they do to other people.
Yeah. How did that work out for the people in afghanistan and Iraq? Not all that great as far as I remember.
And also. Why wouldn't they do that to their own people? Are you serious? Why would they is the much more obvious question!
Afghanistan actually has a very impressive record of defending themselves from larger, better equipped powers than themselves. Regardless though, the effectiveness of armed resistance is not very substantial to the argument. We in the United States have had our own share of failed uprisings, the most obvious of which being the American Civil War, yet we still believe the right to keep and bear arms is essential to the maintenance of a free state. If that's not something you agree with there are plenty of other places in the world were you can live, many of which have a lot of the same protected freedoms as in America; just without an armed population.
On December 23 2012 03:10 TerribleNoobling wrote: In case you have forgotten, mcc, Hitler was elected before he burned down the Reichstag. Now there is no question that the economic turmoil in the Weimar Republic, the hyper inflation, which occurred as a result of France's demand for excessively punative reparations far in excess of the armistice agreement was a catalyst for the rise of Hitler and the establishment of totalitarianism. but the real problem wasn't poverty. The problem was the intellectual climate at the time. At the turn of the 20th century in Germany everyone was either a fascist or a communist. That was it. Anyone who was liberal (and to our American readers when I say liberal I mean it in the European context of being broadly opposed to state power and in favour of free trade and free markets) was dismissed as a crazy reactionary. That was the intellectual and political climate of the time and because of this Germany was destined for totalitarianism.
You make the valid point that the government does legally what other criminal organizations do illegally. But is that really a justification? Remember my point was that the government was the only organization that obtains it's revenue through coercion. But you were quick to point out that a thief (or more exactly a robber) does the same thing. Now in what context should I take this, but to equivocate the two? Simply because what the government does is "legal" does not change the moral status of an action. Robbers rob. The government robs. They are both evil and no amount of hand wringing can change this fact. It's wrong to steal. Full stop.
If you notice poverty was not the only thing I mentioned, instability and lack of democratic tradition are also factors. If only one manifests it is still possible to avoid some kind of totalitarian attempts, but with two or three are present it becomes nearly inevitable and no guns will help with that.
Again you did not read what I wrote. I did not use legalistic argument to justify government power, I used societal mandate.
EDIT: Plus you use word rob. Robbing makes sense only after laws/ethics are established. So government does not rob, it taxes and equating that with robbery is pretty typical example of "1984" new-speak that anarcho-capitalists use. Most of their arguments are based on rewriting meanings of words.
On December 23 2012 03:10 TerribleNoobling wrote: In case you have forgotten, mcc, Hitler was elected before he burned down the Reichstag. Now there is no question that the economic turmoil in the Weimar Republic, the hyper inflation, which occurred as a result of France's demand for excessively punative reparations far in excess of the armistice agreement was a catalyst for the rise of Hitler and the establishment of totalitarianism. but the real problem wasn't poverty. The problem was the intellectual climate at the time. At the turn of the 20th century in Germany everyone was either a fascist or a communist. That was it. Anyone who was liberal (and to our American readers when I say liberal I mean it in the European context of being broadly opposed to state power and in favour of free trade and free markets) was dismissed as a crazy reactionary. That was the intellectual and political climate of the time and because of this Germany was destined for totalitarianism.
You make the valid point that the government does legally what other criminal organizations do illegally. But is that really a justification? Remember my point was that the government was the only organization that obtains it's revenue through coercion. But you were quick to point out that a thief (or more exactly a robber) does the same thing. Now in what context should I take this, but to equivocate the two? Simply because what the government does is "legal" does not change the moral status of an action. Robbers rob. The government robs. They are both evil and no amount of hand wringing can change this fact. It's wrong to steal. Full stop.
Look we don't give a shit if you want to ignore social contract theory. Go find an unclaimed piece of land and start a anarcho-capitalist commune. It's your choice to live in your country. If you don't want to live in your country, live somewhere else. It's a relatively free national market. Tax and regulation are the terms you accept by living in a specific area. Government is no more of a thief than any other lessor. Government owns the land, government takes care of the land, government rents it out to you and every business in the land.
mcc : you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. Well I have a question for you. A series of questions. Try your best to answer them honestly.
Is it wrong for me to rob you? Is it wrong for me to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
Is it wrong for the government to rob you? Is it wrong for the government to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
What really gets me about these gun control advocates, is if they are so against guns, why do they never seek to take guns away from the military or the police? Really they are not against guns, they are against individuals having guns to protect themselves. They are all for the government having guns, despite the fact that governments are responsible for every atrocity that has ever happened anywhere.
Watch from 35:35 on, Jesse Venture destroys the gun control/ban debate. If it's not clear to these people by now after all these arguments, then they simply are just choosing not to.
Seriously, you guys in america are afraid, that the goverment will opress you and use the military against you? First of all. That's not realistic at all. But IF... they would do that. You think a few texans with semi-automatic guns would be able to form a resistance against the biggest and strongest army in the world.
Why wouldn't they be able to? A few people in Afghanistan and Iraq Can do so with a couple of rusty AK-47's, IED's, and children. Why wouldn't we, having access to more stuff, be able to be a bigger thorn in the side if we were oppressed by our own government. You guys think its crazy that we would be scared of what our government would do to us, just look what they do to other people.
Yeah. How did that work out for the people in afghanistan and Iraq? Not all that great as far as I remember.
The point isn't how well they are fairing, its that they didn't roll over for the U.S. government because they thought they had no chance. And they are still fighting.
"In spite of the fact that guns will not help combat a tyrannical government presence, I still believe that people need guns for the express purpose of combating a tyrannical government presence." ~Aukai
Look we don't give a shit if you want to ignore social contract theory. Go find an unclaimed piece of land and start a anarcho-capitalist commune. It's your choice to live in your country. If you don't want to live in your country, live somewhere else. It's a relatively free national market. Tax and regulation are the terms you accept by living in a specific area. Government is no more of a thief than any other lessor. Government owns the land, government takes care of the land, government rents it out to you and every business in the land.
Contrary to popular belief, government did not arise from social contract. Instead as Oppenheimer points out in The State government arose through the conquest of one tribe by another. The state was born in conquest and exists to perpetuate exploitation. One could easily turn that species argument around on you - if you love the state so much, why don't you move to North Korea? There's no anti government nuts there!
On December 23 2012 03:24 TerribleNoobling wrote: mcc : you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. Well I have a question for you. A series of questions. Try your best to answer them honestly.
Is it wrong for me to rob you? Is it wrong for me to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
Is it wrong for the government to rob you? Is it wrong for the government to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
What really gets me about these gun control advocates, is if they are so against guns, why do they never seek to take guns away from the military or the police? Really they are not against guns, they are against individuals having guns to protect themselves. They are all for the government having guns, despite the fact that governments are responsible for every atrocity that has ever happened anywhere.
You might want to reconsider your last sentence there, bud. Many people would consider Sandy Hook an atrocity.
Plus you use word rob. Robbing makes sense only after laws/ethics are established. So government does not rob, it taxes and equating that with robbery is pretty typical example of "1984" new-speak that anarcho-capitalists use. Most of their arguments are based on rewriting meanings of words.
Laws exist even if the state does not define them. There is natural law which one can ascertain through the use of one's own reason. Robbery is when you take by force. If you don't pay your taxes (submit to the robbery) they will lock you in a cage where you get raped by a dude named Bubba (the force). How is this NOT robbery? Just because you call it taxation instead of robbery? Who is using the Orwellian doublespeak now?
On December 23 2012 03:22 Jormundr wrote: Government owns the land, government takes care of the land, government rents it out to you and every business in the land.
You might want to reconsider your last sentence there, bud. Many people would consider Sandy Hook an atrocity.
Oh please. You are comparing the death of 20 school children with the Hollocaust or the Khmer Rouge's barbaric march to the country side? Or the Gulag's in Soviet Russia? Get some historical perspective that is not limited to this week's news cycle.
On December 23 2012 03:24 TerribleNoobling wrote: mcc : you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. Well I have a question for you. A series of questions. Try your best to answer them honestly.
Is it wrong for me to rob you? Is it wrong for me to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
Is it wrong for the government to rob you? Is it wrong for the government to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
What really gets me about these gun control advocates, is if they are so against guns, why do they never seek to take guns away from the military or the police? Really they are not against guns, they are against individuals having guns to protect themselves. They are all for the government having guns, despite the fact that governments are responsible for every atrocity that has ever happened anywhere.
On December 23 2012 03:24 TerribleNoobling wrote: mcc : you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. Well I have a question for you. A series of questions. Try your best to answer them honestly.
Is it wrong for me to rob you? Is it wrong for me to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
Is it wrong for the government to rob you? Is it wrong for the government to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
What really gets me about these gun control advocates, is if they are so against guns, why do they never seek to take guns away from the military or the police? Really they are not against guns, they are against individuals having guns to protect themselves. They are all for the government having guns, despite the fact that governments are responsible for every atrocity that has ever happened anywhere.
Dude, take a step back.
Who is the terriblenoobling guy, i have seen some stupid comments in this thread but i think he tops them all.
On December 23 2012 03:24 TerribleNoobling wrote: mcc : you accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. Well I have a question for you. A series of questions. Try your best to answer them honestly.
Is it wrong for me to rob you? Is it wrong for me to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
Is it wrong for the government to rob you? Is it wrong for the government to threaten you with violence in order to get your money?
What really gets me about these gun control advocates, is if they are so against guns, why do they never seek to take guns away from the military or the police? Really they are not against guns, they are against individuals having guns to protect themselves. They are all for the government having guns, despite the fact that governments are responsible for every atrocity that has ever happened anywhere.
Yes it is wrong for both you and government to rob me. It is wrong for you to threaten me with violence to take my money. It is wrong for government to threaten me with violence to take money they have no right to. And I will not play your dishonest game with calling taxes robbery. They are not. Government has the right to tax me, it does not have the right to rob me, robbery being unlawful taking of money , something taxes are not.
And you again lie as government are not responsible for every atrocity. On topic is government responsible for the shooting in the school ? No, thus disproving your claim.
On December 23 2012 02:43 AmericanNightmare wrote:
On December 23 2012 02:27 docvoc wrote:
On December 23 2012 01:38 Aukai wrote: Media?
You are incredibly delusional dude, not only that, the world isn't some 1984 dystopia. The government isn't out to get us, furthermore, a few small arms aren't going to stop a government from steamrolling you. The reason guns should be heavily limited in America is because of the ease of getting them, we can no longer bear arms against a government of our magnitude.
So because we could never compete with our government should they ever possibly turn against it's people.. we should just roll over and allow them infringe on our rights now?
Slowly our ability to defend ourselves against the government has been taken away from us because people like you are to delusional to understand... The government might not be "out to get us" but from speaking from personal experience.. it's certainly not trying to help us..
You can try and take these few lines I've posted and dissect them to try and understand what kind of person I am.. but you'll never be able to because we were brought up in different areas.. taught by different people... learned through different means..
I've learned through the years.. my first lesson was when I was 5.. that you never take what people in power say at face value.. and Law Enforcement should always be questioned..
The only way to prevent totalitarianism is to prevent rampant poverty and instability. Otherwise it is human nature that big enough number of people will in their desperation support anyone who promises improvement in their situation and will be willing to murder for that. And when government has support of big chunk of population, you might fight, but you will lose. At that point it is too late. What you should do instead is to try to prevent that. That is not to say that you should do anything government tells you to. Governments are corrupt to lesser or bigger degree, but the way to go is to try to improve them, not to dive into unproductive fearmongering.
This sounds a lot like the reasoning used against gun control, and I agree with the sentiment. What is most important in preventing most social tragedies is prevention of poverty, as it seems to me to be the most common source of human suffering.
On December 23 2012 03:26 Jormundr wrote: "In spite of the fact that guns will not help combat a tyrannical government presence, I still believe that people need guns for the express purpose of combating a tyrannical government presence." ~Aukai
Timeless wisdom
"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~ Thomas Jefferson
On December 23 2012 03:24 TerribleNoobling wrote: What really gets me about these gun control advocates, is if they are so against guns, why do they never seek to take guns away from the military or the police? Really they are not against guns, they are against individuals having guns to protect themselves. They are all for the government having guns, despite the fact that governments are responsible for every atrocity that has ever happened anywhere.
And that's when you stopped being credible. Congratulations on finishing your first semester of college. You have a long way to go if you want to be taken seriously as an anarchist.
Anyway, as for labeling the pro gun control crowd, can we at least agree that in modern politics that the pro-gun control crowd is majority liberal and the anti-gun control crowd is majority conservative? As far as I understand, the general sentiment is that the liberal camp wants less guns in the hands of citizens and less money in the hands of the military. That would seem to contradict your claim that the pro-gun control crowd doesn't want to take away guns from the military. As to not wanting to take away guns from the police, you got me there. Don't know of many people who want to take guns away from the police.
mcc : So basically your argument is, when the government takes my money without my consent, with the threat of violence, that's not robbery, because they're the government so it's okay, it's taxation, but if I take your money without your consent that is robbery, because I'm not the government?
EPT
