TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Our betrayal
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN awww, dont be like that buddy. we're all fond of you.

working on my responses...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't think I misconstrued anything... but you're welcome to try to explain how the United States should both be a sovereign entity and give up its monopoly on the use of power.

The state still has a monopoly on the use of power. That power is limited by the constitution. In the event the state throws out the constitution in some form of tyrannical takeover of the government by some radical faction, then the armed people have the power to resist. We have the right, as some of our Founding Fathers said, to resist tyranny...start a revolution.

quote:

I mean, christ on a bike, you've basically laid down an argument saying it's within the rights (and justified capability) of the people to launch an armed insurrection anytime any law is passed that is disagreeable to the majority with guns. Who is going to choose when the people should rise up with their hunting rifles to take down the government? You? Trancer-X?

I never said it is the right of people to launch an armed insurrection ANYTIME. It is, though, the right of the people to resist tyranny of the state. You have asked, "who decides when the state is tyrannical?" Well, the constitution decides. If the state begins detaining people without charge, indefinitely, you know we're close. If the state suppresses freedom of speech, you know we're close. Freedom of religion, etc., etc. We are no where close to that, but history has shown, every state, no matter how well run, eventually devolves into chaos. Entropy.

quote:

And using your argumentation about honoring sovereignty over all other considerations worldwide is hardly a strongman - you spend your time tearing down the sovereignty endowed onto the United States through social contract and defending sovereignty where it doesn't even exist in Afghanistan. That's about as incoherent a position as I've ever heard.

I'm not tearing down the American sovereignty. I defend the sovereignty of all countries, large and small, rich or poor, mighty or weak. My position is consistent. But we're not talking about the American regime's sovereignty. We're talking about it's and the people's powers, what they should be, and who has the right to use it.

I'll restate my position...The people should be armed (at least those non-criminals who want to be) so as to preserve their power in the event of a tyrannical state. The right of the people to use power is only just when the American regime violates the constitution with which it is bound. Think indefinite detentions, show trials, revoking of basic rights and freedoms, etc. While the American regime respects the rights endowed by the constitution, then the state has a sole monopoly on the use of power.

So, I have never said the people should be able to just wontonly use their power to start insurrections over trivial matters, etc. etc.

quote:

Your heart is in the right place on a lot of issues, Krypton, but some of your positions are radically incompatible with one another.

we are suddenly less fond of you

jesus, ill let lesbiankalashnikov deal with that one. oh krypton, you're a funny one.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, consistently wrong!

nah uh!

quote:

wrong. what you mean, is that the state has a monopoly on violence. in modern liberal democracies, this is how it should be. why? because the citizens have other recourses to offset their inability to use effective, lethal violence (though of course, individuals still have the ability, just not the right).

I agree. A regime which obeys its constitution should have a monopoly on power. I have never said anything otherwise.

quote:

the citizenry can mobilise to protest particular issues, they have recourse to the ballot, ombudsman, the courts, the constitution. not to mention the myriad of other institutions (like the ACLU) that fight issues on behalf of the common man? these are the measures that protect the citizens from the state, not their revolvers.

These are measures which can be undertaken against a regime testing the waters. I'm talking about a tyrannical regime. One which will shoot protesters. One which will detain indefinitely without charge. That kind of regime deserves to be resisted through lethal means.

quote:

look at things like the vietnam war, which caused such social unrest that it was always doomed to failure. the point is, if the populace cares that much about an issue, weapons are completely redundant.

The American regime still largely obeyed its own constitution in regards to the law. So, of course protests and other such activities would be effective in changing the system.

Let's look at Burma. The people have no power whatsoever. And when they peacefully protest, they are brutally suppressed. A regime like that deserves to have an armed insurrection.

quote:

as stated above, the firearms are not what give civilians power. the only "power" firearms give civilians is their ability to kill other civilians. if you need a refresher course on the "power" firearms give individuals rebelling against state authority, go and check on the branch davidians.

Power and firearms are integral to each. You can't have power without the ability to use force (i.e. lethal weaponry). The Branch Dividians were not fighting for their constitutional rights. They were fighting for a radical religious view.

quote:

the contention that the right to bear arms acts as a counter-balance to local, state and federal statutory authorities is absurd.

Rather I say, the right to bear arms acts as a counter-weight to any potential failure of the government to uphold the constitution. In that case, it is the responsibility of the people to defend it for themselves, in the event the regime is unable to do so...whether through radical factional takeover, or, collapse, etc....

quote:

if your president, your congress, your governors, your courts and your constitution do not protect you from george hitler, then the gangbanger on the street corner with his pistol sure aint going to either.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Kill the gangbangers.

ffs, its not monopoly of 'power' you asshat. its 'violence'.

quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

ive never quite understood why quotes from dead yanks seem to have such a hold on the american psyche.

you sound like trancer, haha.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ffs, its not monopoly of 'power' you asshat. its 'violence'. ive never quite understood why quotes from dead yanks seem to have such a hold on the american psyche. you sound like trancer, haha.

No, trancer uses quotes as his argument. I use them, in support of my own argument.

Monopoly on the 'use of power'. Violence. Same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Monopoly on the 'use of power'. Violence. Same thing.

its an already coined term which has been in use for quite some time.

"monopoly of power" sounds like you own all the utility companies

Re: Re: Re: Re: Our betrayal

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Sorry, it honestly would have made more sense if I hadn't gone and accidentally deleted 4 paragraphs of responses to you Sometimes I really hate web browsers.

I can relate. I lost my first original post in this thread after about 3 paragraphs in the exact same way - accidentally clicked the back button and since I was at work, I was using IE, so I had to start all over again. That version made a lot more sense too, I promise!

Not to mention the fact that it was about 8am. pkc thought it was bad having to wade through reading all that crap at 930, imagine having to write it even before then and on about 2 hours of sleep nonetheless. =/

When I go to PDD and see Krypton, or I read over this thread, I like to think of this scene in Space Balls.


Lord Helmet can be anyone, the dolls would be Krypton and :insert any issue:, and Colonel Sanderz would Lira.

I hope all of you realize just how big of losers you are. Debating each other over this garbage... Wow, go kill yourselves with a gun, please.

Yes, our time would be much better spent talking about how much we love anal.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The state still has a monopoly on the use of power. That power is limited by the constitution. In the event the state throws out the constitution in some form of tyrannical takeover of the government by some radical faction, then the armed people have the power to resist. We have the right, as some of our Founding Fathers said, to resist tyranny...start a revolution.

Or, as Jefferson insisted, the obligation to revolt every few decades to keep government honest. Don't rely on the Founding Fathers argument - it's largely moot.

After all, Jefferson also said this:

"Reformation in government follows reformation in opinion."

It doesn't follow the use of guns; it follows non-violent processes.

And just for kicks, one of your Founding Fathers also said this:
"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson

So maybe we should just all be members of Skull and Bones instead of carrying guns around. Somewhere, I think that Trancer is rolling in his bunk bed.

quote:

I never said it is the right of people to launch an armed insurrection ANYTIME. It is, though, the right of the people to resist tyranny of the state. You have asked, "who decides when the state is tyrannical?" Well, the constitution decides. If the state begins detaining people without charge, indefinitely, you know we're close. If the state suppresses freedom of speech, you know we're close. Freedom of religion, etc., etc. We are no where close to that, but history has shown, every state, no matter how well run, eventually devolves into chaos. Entropy.

We detain people without charge - extraordinary rendition.
We suppress freedom of speech all the time - various obscenity laws, prior restraint, etc.
We have laws proposed every year to institutionalize Christianity (creationism, school prayer) in our public schools.

So are we close to needing an armed insurrection or no? Again, who decides when we've crossed that line? You?

quote:

I'm not tearing down the American sovereignty. I defend the sovereignty of all countries, large and small, rich or poor, mighty or weak. My position is consistent. But we're not talking about the American regime's sovereignty. We're talking about it's and the people's powers, what they should be, and who has the right to use it.

Sovereignty (n.) = a sole legitimate authority (monopoly on power) over a population in a defined geographic territory.

That's the Weberian definition used by lawyers, political scientists, sociologists, etc. You're arguing that the people of the United States should be able to violently rise up and annul the power of the government they've democratically elected to represent them. That's not a sovereign government.

And why is it that the United States can't aid those doing the same in other countries? For instance, in Somalia, you argue that the Islamic Courts are sovereign simply because they exist... when in reality, they're pretty unpopular with a wide segment of the population, they institute organized repression based on clan and religious allegiances, and they practice corporal punishment on the same magnitude of the Taliban (who you also support). That's where the inconsistency lies.

quote:

I'll restate my position...The people should be armed (at least those non-criminals who want to be) so as to preserve their power in the event of a tyrannical state.

Preserve their power? What's the point in having a government if it is subject to the whims of the organized majority with guns? Not that an organized majority would ever be able to do anything against the national military - that's just lala land.

quote:

The right of the people to use power is only just when the American regime violates the constitution with which it is bound.

Depending on how it's interpreted, it's violated every day.

quote:

Think indefinite detentions,

Check.

quote:

show trials,

Check.

quote:

revoking of basic rights and freedoms,

Check.

Time for a revolution!

quote:

While the American regime respects the rights endowed by the constitution, then the state has a sole monopoly on the use of power.

I didn't realize that American sovereignty was so conditional, but the sovereignty of the Taliban was not.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Yes, our time would be much better spent talking about how much we love anal.

Word, anal is great.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Popular convention states that guns are merely tools - weapons like any other, only extensions of man's innately brutal and undeniably animalistic will to kill those of his kind over an innumerable amount of reasons. Do you agree that they are merely tools or is there something more to it?

Thanks for that...
To the question I'd have to say they are tools much like what swords/spears/bows were. They are a tool used to kill things (in defence or offence)

Been thinking about buying a gun lately... and listening to country music.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Been thinking about buying a gun lately... and listening to country music.

I'd say yes to the gun but rather then country you should go with bluegrass.

But bluegrass just can't quite convey how much I love my country nor please the fine folks at Frito-Lay for giving us the taste of a generation - a generation of choice and freedom.

/freedom fireworks

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On But bluegrass just can't quite convey how much I love my country nor please the fine folks at Frito-Lay for giving us the taste of a generation - a generation of choice and freedom. /freedom fireworks

Come on... nothing typifies America more then 4 appalacians, a mondolin, fiddle, bass, and slide guitar jammin' out while chewing some Redman plug and drinking burbon distilled in Jethro's wood-shack... unless of course they all have side by side stubby barrel Winchesters leaning against a stump some near a ragin' bonfire.

*sets down his whittlin' project to bust out a sick spoon riff*

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Come on... nothing typifies America more then 4 appalacians, a mondolin, fiddle, bass, and slide guitar jammin' out while chewing some Redman plug and drinking burbon distilled in Jethro's wood-shack... unless of course they all have side by side stubby barrel Winchesters leaning against a stump some near a ragin' bonfire.

i think these days this typifies america a bit more




Shotgun!

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec i think these days this typifies america a bit more Shotgun!

That's not a shotgun! tsk tsk


I wish I would've caught this thread fresh. Its way too big to read through now and try to contribute

*takes hal's whittlin' project for firewood

We need more serious threads like this in the c0r, or am I just being lazy and joining in with the existing ones?

Oh and Krypton, you're still an idiot.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.