|
Our betrayal (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Goddammit, he did hijack it with his antics, didn't he? Oh, that Krypton! |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Wait, are you disagreeing with me or with the justification I have presented? Disagree with it all you like, but it does not change the fact that people arm themselves out of fear, out of personal protection or, as Lebezniatnikov brought up, out of simple cohesion to cultural folkways. I didn't say this was everyone and everywhere in the world, but if you think it's only something happens in the United States, then I think you'd best take a look around.
If you also believe that military, morals, laws and establishment "work fine" then perhaps you'd best take a step back and define your terms. Very little about the world "works fine", as innocent people die to the ideals of the self-appointed righteous each and every day in this absurd carnival of weaponry we have built our cities upon, and it's not always to the hands of those who violate your sense of moral conduct. |
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.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
The constitution should probably go under a slight re-wording to entitle citizens to the right to bear muskets. |
:stongue: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Consider that he is a US citizen over the age of 18 |
That's giving him the benefit of the doubt, no? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
:( |
awww, dont be like that buddy. we're all fond of you. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
awww, dont be like that buddy. we're all fond of you. |
working on my responses...:disbelief |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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. |
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
we are suddenly less fond of you ;)
jesus, ill let lesbiankalashnikov deal with that one. oh krypton, you're a funny one. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
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. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 :p |
|
|
|
|
