Gun Control

JimmyD

Member
Messages
432
I keep getting an error message when I post.

I can post other things, but when I straighten out people in regard to reality of government, it will not allow it?

WTF is that about?
 

JimmyD

Member
Messages
432
"A: Everything in life hangs in balance by the threat of force or violence.

The only reason as to why you aren't assaulted every time you step outside (or

into a store for example), is because deep down.. people fear what you may do

in return (fight back). This is simply nature. You talk as if it's a bad

thing. If there were no threat of violence (or force), there'd be total chaos

and anarchy. People are like kids, if kids are never spanked (or there is no

threat of spanking), they tear everything down"

You confuse rightful defense with violence. Violence is an act of abuse, while

defense is a response to violence.

And anarchy is not chaos. It is a means of social organization absent

systematic violence, also described as "Order without Power", as Anarchy means

"No Rulers". Libertarianism is the 'how to' of Anarchy.

"B: "right to own and any all property acquired through honest means" What is

honest means? Let's say (for instance), a woman is property of a man. Ok. I

see a girl, she's my wife. Now.. you also want her to be your wife. So how

will we settle this?

The courts? Before you could sue, you just took stuff or settled it like

cavemen.

What is getting it by honest means? You could say I got my wife by honest

means (I was there first!), but one may have to defend what you get by the

threat of force or violence (dishonest means)

If I go buy land, is that honest means? In America, the land you buy was most

likely stolen from Native Americans... that's theft, and genocide. Not very

honest is it?"

I already answered that. Honest means means acquiring property without

violence. If you earned and bought/traded it, or it was gifted to you, then it

is rightfully yours.

And people are not property. When you say "My wife" or "My friend, family,

neighbor, etc." It is in reference to responsibility and not property. You do

not own your wife, but rather have a responsibility towards her. ..BIG

difference.

Indians have a right to take their land back by any means necessary, because

it is theirs until they willfully sell or give it to you.

"So how will we settle this? The courts? Before you could sue, you just took

stuff or settled it like cavemen."

You don't own her, nor does the other man. Who she marries is her decision, no

one else's (except the groom must be willing, of course)

"You have a right to do whatever you want as long as it isn't violating others

- Says who?"

Reality. In the real world, people are individuals with free thought and

choice who determine their own wants, needs and values, and how to manage

their lives. To argue to the contrary is to suggest that you are property or a

slave, subject to the whims of others.

"Simply put, if you are pulled over with a ton of guns and ammo.. and you say

"i'm a sovereign citizen, you're not real. You're not the boss of me!". Not

only will you get tazed, but you will be jailed for not cooperating with a

sworn officer of the law. Basically, that's not fictitious authority. That's

real authority."

You confuse force with authority. Pigs have force. Their authority only

extends to willing serfs who demand their violence, and not according to

geography as they claim.

"We are subject to laws of people (see: government) whom we pay our taxes

(kind of like rent. We pay them $$$ in the form of taxes for the privilege of

living in their borders, we abide by their terms..If you break those terms,

you go to jail) we pay taxes to.

Anyone refusing to obey the law, is a criminal, an outlaw and is living

outside of those laws. What's more is, people who claim that the laws and

rules don't apply to them.. are the first ones to call for 911 and help when

SHTF."

You confuse crime with social order, theft with contribution or a willing two

party exchange, rightful existence with privilege, etc.

You are not subject to the laws of the people, as people have absolutely no

right whatsoever to dictate the terms and conditions of your life or property,

either by proxy or directly. The people have no right to form a government

that claims jurisdiction over anyone who does not agree to them. Government is

simply a system of violence because it does everything with coercion and

threat of force.

Taxes are theft, extortion, by definition. The taking of property against

consent of the owner is theft. It matters not how or why, if it is taking

something against the owner's permission, it is theft, a form of violence. No

one has a right to steal. Using coercion, a threat of force, to take property

is extortion.

The law is criminal. People who disobey the law are not criminal for

disobedience.

Law/government is a bunch of people hiring others to say magic special words

at a religious ceremony, then writing and signing papers that dictate what

everyone is a specified geographical area is to be and do and own, etc. ..or

be hunted and either caged, assaulted or even killed for disobedience. That is

called organized crime, systematic violence, or a violent religious cult.

Government is one form of organized crime. To argue otherwise is to suggest

that anyone has a right to own another simply by having a religious ceremony

and claiming as such.

If I chant some magic words and write down that I own you, then dress up in a

super-hero costume, does it make me your master to do with as I please? Of

course not. That is exactly what government is.

If I were to try it anyway and you disobeyed or shot me or whatever, does it

make you a criminal? Of course not. Why? Because I have no right to do that.

So what is the difference between that and government? - principally, nothing.

"Did you just advocate for the murder of a police officer? That's

communicating threats, perhaps even terroristic threats. Jesus. Someone get a

mod in here, what is life."

No. That is called defense. Just because a pig has funny clothes or says magic

words does not give them authority or a right to control/threaten/violate you.

Killing a pig is not murder - it is defense. Everyone has a right to defense

against violence.

"No, you can't kill anyone especially not police officers.. because you WILL

be stuck in a small cage, forced to live like a rat and essentially, be stuck

in a human zoo until you leave this Earth. 0/10. Would not recommend anyone

listen to this guy."

The consequences are dependent upon their ability to enFORCE it. But you

indeed have a right to defend yourself against acts of violence by whatever

means necessary or available, whether they are pigs or not.

"Believe what you will politically, but it is force which will either make

your ideas just that.. ideas, or will make those ideas, the actual law. The

only way to get change is through force and violence, that's just how it is.

Any ideology centered around, not using force.. just isn't gonna work, quite

frankly."

That is retarded. You are essentially arguing that violence is what gives

something legitimacy.

"You start off talking about getting property honestly (like buying already

stolen land), and then you proceed to say just go kill a bunch of cops. Are

you on medication? (serious non-rhetorical question)"

You grossly misinterpret and skew the position, as well as respond with ad-

hominem. I stand by my position that cops are criminals and the right to

defense applies to their violence.

Who has a right to violate? No one. ...not even a piece of shit in funny

clothes with a gun who goes to church.
 

JimmyD

Member
Messages
432
I can see it now the sequel to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre coming to a town near you.

That thing is bad ass. I want one.

While watching the above video about new laws to violate property rights, it occurred to me that the need for firearms can be circumvented to some degree.

Sure, take the assault rifles to make it safer to SWAT people, ....so the people instead drop incendiaries and explosives from drones into pigs. (Pig Roast -lol)

Snipers assemble of rooftops ....where they are especially vulnerable to flying chainsaws.
 

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Zenith
Messages
8,711
Florida House voted YES to allow teachers to be armed. Governor will sign.

I asked my children how they felt about that. One said "Yay!" and my youngest said "I will feel safe".

I already purchased bullet proof pads for their book bags, too.

I say just station an armed soldier at the entrance to every school, but people are too worried about scaring the children.
The thing is, kids don't view the military as the bad guy by default. They see them as protection.

Of course, you end up with (some) cops that don't do a damn thing, but I think a soldier is dedicated to doing his duty.

@SomethingCursed Actually, Mexico is the most obese nation in the world.

 

Iochd

confido esse meruit
Messages
55
If you care to carry out basic research into “terror attacks” and “mass shootings” phenomenon, you will come to the realisation that you should have no concerns about safety in regards to these two avenues, either in the past or at this juncture in time.
Regarding Military versus Police, both take orders from whomever controls their leaders but the former will do this wholly without question.
 

Negan

THE member
Messages
181
It annoys me to no end that people think that they can arbitrarily infringe on the second amendment because "reasons".

1) The 2A is not for hunting. I'm so sick and tired of hearing people say, "You don't need an AR15 to hunt!".

2) The 2A is for killing. It's that's simple. For example a government who would want to oppress you. It's our safeguard to keep the government in check as they know their citizens are armed.

3) "Assault rifles are dangerous and no civilian needs them!" Ugh, so tired of this one. The "assault rifles" you see for sale aren't anything more than regular hunting / sport rifles in cosplay. They look mean, but they aren't automatic or any more "assault" than a wooden stock sport rifle.

4) "MAD" - Mutually Assured Destruction. This saved our rears during the cold war, and it's what keeps bad guys with guns from attacking just anyone. If you want to rob someone, you'll want to find someone who doesn't look like they can defend themselves. Because if they could, chances are you'd die.

Now take away the citizens possibility to protect themselves by taking their legal guns, what have you accomplished? There are still plenty of illegal firearms out there with more crossing the border daily. All you've accomplished is making it easier for bad people to do bad things to good people.
 

Top