toldailytopic: Gun control. Should there be any limit to the type of gun or weapon th

[lightbringer]

Shhhhhhh. You might hurt his feelings.

His feelings!? :shocked: :chuckle:

 

[Nydhogg]

Enemies foreign and domestic....That isn't an oath you or I take lightly my friend. I may no longer be in the service, but I'm still a Marine. If there was a revolution in this state, I'd help put it down.

It would be a shame. If there was a revolution I'd be honor-bound to fight FOR it.
Let no man ever claim that I was a counter-revolutionary, a loyalist, or a statist.
I'm a sworn enemy of any and all government. Government is tyranny, and to the extent I'm able to harm it or (the Gods willing) put it down I will do so.

You've sworn a bad oath if it can compel you to defend the government against the people. A very bad oath.

 

[lightbringer]

It would be a shame. If there was a revolution I'd be honor-bound to fight FOR it.
Let no man ever claim that I was a counter-revolutionary, a loyalist, or a statist.
I'm a sworn enemy of any and all government. Government is tyranny, and to the extent I'm able to harm it or (the Gods willing) put it down I will do so.

You've sworn a bad oath if it can compel you to defend the government against the people. A very bad oath.

"I'm a sworn enemy of any and all government."

How can this be a true statement?

If it is true, you would not fight ever!

For as far back as written word can take you there has always been and always will be a government.

"If there was a revolution I'd be honor-bound to fight FOR it."

Then you would be fighting for a new government!

The Oath was to defend the Constitution of this country and is an honorable Oath. If factions (Domestic Enemies) within the government or the people attempts to change the Constitution, thereby changing what we stand for, it is our duty to fight to retain it.

The difficult part is deciding if the Constitution is under attack and by whom, can it be stopped through the political system or is it necessary to stage a revolt!

 

[Nydhogg]

I'm an anarchist.

We have that kind of problem. I guess I'd defend the government of the US against, say, a theocratic uprising. I would fight against the government of the US for any less authoritarian alternative. Assuming we put that alternative in place, I'd be willing to fight for the government against more authoritarian factions and against the government for less authoritarian factions.


The goal being to reduce authority. In any confrontation I'll always side with the least authoritarian faction.

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm an anarchist.

I'd be willing to fight for the government against more authoritarian factions and against the government for less authoritarian factions.

The goal being to reduce authority. In any confrontation I'll always side with the least authoritarian faction.

You're a libertarian not an anarchist. At least it sounds that way to me :idunno:

 

[Nydhogg]

The ultimate goal is anarchy, but I'm a big lesser of two evils guy.

Would team up with the Devil to fight the greater threat to my freedom. That does not mean I would be LOYAL to any government at all. Temporary, situational alliance against bigger threats.

No more than that.

 

[lightbringer]

The ultimate goal is anarchy, but I'm a big lesser of two evils guy.

Would team up with the Devil to fight the greater threat to my freedom. That does not mean I would be LOYAL to any government at all. Temporary, situational alliance against bigger threats.

No more than that.

Enemy of my enemy, is my friend?

But then when the war is over, you just change direction and fight your friend?

 

[Nydhogg]

The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy, no more, no less.

I can work with the enemy of my enemy, but I have no allegiance towards them.

 

[vegascowboy]

His feelings!? :shocked: :chuckle:

Well, I don't know. I guess I just presumed it was a he. :ha: :chuckle:

 

[lightbringer]

Anarchy:
No enforced authority.
Absolute liberty for the individual.
Non-recognition of authority and order.
Anarchism is to do it for yourself.

Which would lead to lawlessness, and bring about chaos....so you wish to go back to the stone age and the fittest survives...which would start the whole thing over at the tribal/gang level due to the fact no one individual can survive for long alone and will develop alliances with other individuals etc. etc.

I think I prefer the American way.

 

[Nydhogg]

Don't think Mad Max.

Think the pioneers. Think ranchers in the woods. Think hippie communes minus the pigs trying to seize their weed and lock them up. Think worker-owned co-ops, and homesteaded land.

Think self-defense and mutual defense instead of gang war or pigs in blue (which is a State monopoly on gangs).

 

[vegascowboy]

Don't think Mad Max.

Think the pioneers. Think ranchers in the woods. Think hippie communes minus the pigs trying to seize their weed and lock them up. Think worker-owned co-ops, and homesteaded land.

Think self-defense and mutual defense instead of gang war or pigs in blue (which is a State monopoly on gangs).

Have you had an experience with LEOs that has led to your hatred, or is it simply because they are in a position to enforce laws?

 

[lightbringer]

Don't think Mad Max.

Think the pioneers. Think ranchers in the woods. Think hippie communes minus the pigs trying to seize their weed and lock them up. Think worker-owned co-ops, and homesteaded land.

Think self-defense and mutual defense instead of gang war or pigs in blue (which is a State monopoly on gangs).

Wow! I miss-read you completely...a hippie that missed the era!
That must bum you out man, didn't get to protest in Haight Ashbury or go to Woodstock, bad trip dude!

The hippie utopia!:rotfl:

But what do you do with the Mad Max type guys?

 

[Nydhogg]

They kinda clash with the "mutual defense" thing. Prepared defenders typically have the upper hand against aggressors.

The mutual defense, the all-volunteer militia I've always advocated is like the cops minus the authority, the searches and the arrests for conspicuous noncrimes like smoking weed.

The mutual defense, militia, or people in arms (call it as you wish), is there to protect and to serve, but with no authority to give orders, enforce law or control.

There is aggression, they stop it and then retaliate. No aggression, they just keep doing their stuff and going about their business.

 

[Buzzword]

They kinda clash with the "mutual defense" thing. Prepared defenders typically have the upper hand against aggressors.

The mutual defense, the all-volunteer militia I've always advocated is like the cops minus the authority, the searches and the arrests for conspicuous noncrimes like smoking weed.

The mutual defense, militia, or people in arms (call it as you wish), is there to protect and to serve, but with no authority to give orders, enforce law or control.

There is aggression, they stop it and then retaliate. No aggression, they just keep doing their stuff and going about their business.

I've heard that version of anarchism defined simply as:
"Each individual within the society bears the full weight of governance."

Which would be okay, if/when humanity ceases to be selfish by default, greedy by default, ambitious by default, etc.

Anarchism only works if every single human being on the planet ascribes to it, with no exceptions.
If every nation in the world except Luxembourg ascribed to Anarchism, Luxembourg could rule the world, based simply on being the only organized population on the planet.

If one man within the society openly criticizes Anarchism, then the system has failed, has become just another form of tyranny, and is doomed to be overthrown.

At least, that's my reading of it, based on Alan Moore's writings and interviews on the subject.

Kinda the same problem as most of the interpretations of Marxism I've read.

 

[Nydhogg]

You're making a mistake. You're assuming that once freedom is achieved, the people will peacefully consent to thugs asserting authority.

The success of anarchism depends on people actively not consenting to be ruled. Physical non-consent when it needs be.

 

[lightbringer]

They kinda clash with the "mutual defense" thing. Prepared defenders typically have the upper hand against aggressors.

The best defense is offense!

The mutual defense, the all-volunteer militia I've always advocated is like the cops minus the authority, the searches and the arrests for conspicuous noncrimes like smoking weed.

Gotta have authority or you will never keep the mutual organization going.

Gotta have authority to say who is breaking the law.

Gotta have authority to take a persons liberty away.

The mutual defense, militia, or people in arms (call it as you wish), is there to protect and to serve, but with no authority to give orders, enforce law or control.

Whats to stop them from say hanging some one they have a grudge against because the other guy has better land or a prettier girl friend?

There is aggression, they stop it and then retaliate. No aggression, they just keep doing their stuff and going about their business.

Would be nice if it worked that way, but it would become chaos eventually, humans need rules and restrictions.

 

[Nydhogg]

That's why a society that prides itself on being free must first educate to abhor tyranny, social control and aggression.

 

[lightbringer]

I've heard that version of anarchism defined simply as:
"Each individual within the society bears the full weight of governance."

Which would be okay, if/when humanity ceases to be selfish by default, greedy by default, ambitious by default, etc.

Anarchism only works if every single human being on the planet ascribes to it, with no exceptions.
If every nation in the world except Luxembourg ascribed to Anarchism, Luxembourg could rule the world, based simply on being the only organized population on the planet.

If one man within the society openly criticizes Anarchism, then the system has failed, has become just another form of tyranny, and is doomed to be overthrown.

At least, that's my reading of it, based on Alan Moore's writings and interviews on the subject.

Kinda the same problem as most of the interpretations of Marxism I've read.

:thumb:

 

[Ktoyou]

WA State pigs are usually cool-headed guys.

You do not see this as offensive? Maybe in your wacko world it is just common language, but in the real world, referring to the police as pigs is offensive.:hammer:

I have not formed an opinion of you yet; however, I am not impressed.