|
Our betrayal (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
fixed. |
PKC...is that you?
 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The gang bangers are going to be armed one way or the other. Do you actually trust a government with a monopoly on power? Because I sure don't. Every government which has ever existed has had some degree of corruption. In case Bush decided to waive Habeus Corpus, he'd have a nice surprise waiting for him. |
What? You're out of your mind.
By the way, you're not even consistent with your own positions. You cry about breaches of sovereignty all around the world, but the definition of sovereignty includes "a monopoly of power over a defined geographic territory"... so now you're arguing that the United States should not be a sovereign power, but that it should be some sort of anarchic entity subject to the whims of whomever's stockpiled the most weaponry? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
The idea of a militia being able to counteract oppression by a centralized government is absurd, mostly because the power of central governments in every country has grown far beyond anything envisioned by the men who wrote and ratified the U.S. Constitution.
Anyway, I think Americans want guns for personal defense mostly because they fear being helpless at the hands of somebody who wants to hurt them. Given the crime rates in some parts of this country, and the fact that the sort of people they fear will find ways to get guns regardless of their legality, I can't say I blame them. Although we really need to ask why violent crime -- not just gun crime -- is so much more common in America than in other similarly developed societies. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
What? You're out of your mind.
By the way, you're not even consistent with your own positions. You cry about breaches of sovereignty all around the world, but the definition of sovereignty includes "a monopoly of power over a defined geographic territory"... so now you're arguing that the United States should not be a sovereign power, but that it should be some sort of anarchic entity subject to the whims of whomever's stockpiled the most weaponry? |
No, you're throwing out straw man arguments. And I am very consistent with my positions. First off, the state has a monopoly on the use of power, i.e., police, army, national guard. Second, the people do not have share this "use of power". They simply have the potential to use their power in opposition to any tyrannical regime, which, as the last 8 years have shown us, came too close for comfort. Power and the use of power are two different things. I may have unlimited power, but choose not to use it. If the people are disarmed, they have no power. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
And I am very consistent with my positions. First off, the state has a monopoly on the use of power, i.e., police, army, national guard. Second, the people do not have share this "use of power". They simply have the potential to use their power in opposition to any tyrannical regime, which, as the last 8 years have shown us, came too close for comfort. Power and the use of power are two different things. I may have unlimited power, but choose not to use it. If the people are disarmed, they have no power. |
1. That doesn't make any sense.
2. Despite how awful President Bush was, we didn't even come close to a popular uprising (which would not have been warranted or successful even if every citizen had three guns and a hand grenade). |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
1. That doesn't make any sense. |
What doesn't make sense? I am a citizen and I have a gun and therefore have power. I still can not go out and start arresting people therefore I am not allowed to use my power on others. This "use of power" is reserved for the state. Now, in the event of the state abusing its "use of power", the armed people with their power are able to reject the consent of forced governance. Tyrannical governments govern with or without consent. An unarmed people cannot fight back because they have no power.
| quote: | | 2. Despite how awful President Bush was, we didn't even come close to a popular uprising (which would not have been warranted or successful even if every citizen had three guns and a hand grenade). |
Bush wouldn't have dared challenge the people's power by suspending constitutional rights. A lot of conspiracy nut jobs like trancer would say, "We're on our way to a police state, blah blah blah." The fact is, no police state can be established if the people have the power to resist. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
No, you're throwing out straw man arguments. |
Never have I known of someone who labels as "straw man arguments" so ing often. It's like the only argument you are quasi-familiar with, so everything that doesn't make sense to you is suddenly a straw man argument, which basically means that everything is a straw man argument to you. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
No, and that's where I completely disagree. We invented a method to not have to do this. You know what it is? Laws, regulations, morals, law enforcement agencies and the military. They work fine, or at least everywhere outside of the USA they do. |
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. |
|
|
| RJT |
Between this and the James Joyce thread, I really wish I had more time for c0r lately - which is really something I never thought I'd ever say.
I am not finished with it yet, but one of the series of essays I've been working on re: HST has basically been on his attitude towards guns, weapons in general, "self defense", the paranoia such attitudes brought him, and the ethical contradictions I perceive to be inherent to his obsession with/use of guns in relation to his other writings.
I'll try to wrap it up over the holidays, because anything I tried to post in here right now would probably not do justice to the effort the handful of you have put into this discussion.
Just know that I really appreciated it, and you've reminded me what this place is like at it's best. :) |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Bush wouldn't have dared challenge the people's power by suspending constitutional rights. A lot of conspiracy nut jobs like trancer would say, "We're on our way to a police state, blah blah blah." The fact is, no police state can be established if the people have the power to resist. |
I don't think that you understand power... hey, "power" must be a strawman argument! |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Never have I known of someone who labels as "straw man arguments" so ing often. It's like the only argument you are quasi-familiar with, so everything that doesn't make sense to you is suddenly a straw man argument, which basically means that everything is a straw man argument to you. |
WTF are you talking about? Calm the down. Do you know what a straw man is? Lebez is misconstruing all my previous and current arguments so as to make them seem illogical. Got it? ...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I don't think that you understand power... hey, "power" must be a strawman argument! |
Hey, great argument. You said absolutely nothing. |
|
|
|
|
