gun law reform... please!

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Funny thing. SCOTUS ruled that the government is not obligated to protect citizens from citizens - that includes the unborn, doesn't it.
Agreed. Killing the unborn is still murder, and illegal anyway. They may not have a duty to protect the fetus, but they have the duty to punish the murderer.

When I was at the Ron Paul rally in Tampa a week or so ago, there was a guy there named Walter Block. He was an economist. He presented a discussion that I enjoyed very much so. It was Eviction vs Abortion. It was not his view, but an idea he had about a middle ground on the issue that allows principles to be followed still.


It went something like this:

A fetus is a person at birth, and has the right to live. It cannot be arbitrarily murdered.
A woman has the right to her body, and the right to evict from her body anything in it. She can not be forced to carry another person in her.
Abortion is murder, where you kill the fetus/child and then get rid of the body.
Eviction is taking it out, but trying to save it if possible.

His point on it was that some day all babies from conception will be savable, and then abortion will cease to exist as the murder of babies.

It seems like both sides would accept this if the technology were available. The left would accept the woman being able to make her own choice about herself but not about murdering the baby and the right would be able to accept removing babies from people who didn't want them.

Back to the point about not protecting the people. What is the point in the government that controls all the power jealously and strips it from the people yet has no obligation to provide it to the people? It is plain that the answer is there isn't a point and the government is retarded.
 

2much

Active Member
it still boils down to this. when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. i wont give up my right to owning a weapon or 2. especially the way things are these days
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Iaido, katana, don't enter my home uninvited, no need to bring guns to town though.

Kynes is right about the army for the most part, except that qualifying marksman is good, that is actually horrible, infantrymen who don't hit at least 38/40 are ridiculed mercilessly. The army does have great training for shooters that specialize though. A lot of guys who sign up for infantry are being picked up for SOPC (special ops prep and conditioning) in order to send them to Special Forces Assessment and Selection. In laymen's terms they are being groomed to become green berets from recruitment. There are way more spec ops in all branches than there ever has been.

There are also civilian training camps run by serious professionals in the North Carolina swamps. The training they offer is equal to or better than what a green beret or navy seal receives and quite often are run by retired members of these elite forces.
 

snowboarder396

Well-Known Member
Iaido, katana, don't enter my home uninvited, no need to bring guns to town though.

Kynes is right about the army for the most part, except that qualifying marksman is good, that is actually horrible, infantrymen who don't hit at least 38/40 are ridiculed mercilessly. The army does have great training for shooters that specialize though. A lot of guys who sign up for infantry are being picked up for SOPC (special ops prep and conditioning) in order to send them to Special Forces Assessment and Selection. In laymen's terms they are being groomed to become green berets from recruitment. There are way more spec ops in all branches than there ever has been.

There are also civilian training camps run by serious professionals in the North Carolina swamps. The training they offer is equal to or better than what a green beret or navy seal receives and quite often are run by retired members of these elite forces.
While the training from the civilians maybe by those guys that are prior or ex special forces.. there training is to give you an idea of how it is and what its like... unless your training with a private security firm then those classes and training camps your talking about are no where near as good as or intense as the real thing or the training they went through.. I'ts only to give those civilians an idea how there training was esp. for those interested in going into the military and doing that kinda thing. They sure as hell arent gonna put civilians through the same crazy intense training they went through. Im sure most wouldnt even try continue once they knew what they were really getting into. In fact alot would probably whine and cry was to hard.. its the closest thing to going through what they went through but not even close to the real thing
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
While the training from the civilians maybe by those guys that are prior or ex special forces.. there training is to give you an idea of how it is and what its like... unless your training with a private security firm then those classes and training camps your talking about are no where near as good as or intense as the real thing or the training they went through.. I'ts only to give those civilians an idea how there training was esp. for those interested in going into the military and doing that kinda thing. They sure as hell arent gonna put civilians through the same crazy intense training they went through. Im sure most wouldnt even try continue once they knew what they were really getting into. In fact alot would probably whine and cry was to hard.. its the closest thing to going through what they went through but not even close to the real thing
Their training is designed to do one thing
Extract as much money from the Tacticool crowd as they can
 

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
Ahh its good to live in a state with monthly gun shows. Thinking about upping my arsenal before they become illegal.

I like how more gun control just spurs people to buy more :wall:
 

budlover13

King Tut
Their training is designed to do one thing
Extract as much money from the Tacticool crowd as they can
But it accomplishes the buyers goal of training regardless. That's like saying a grocery store is there to just make money and not feed the hungry. DUH!
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Agreed. Killing the unborn is still murder, and illegal anyway. They may not have a duty to protect the fetus, but they have the duty to punish the murderer.

When I was at the Ron Paul rally in Tampa a week or so ago, there was a guy there named Walter Block. He was an economist. He presented a discussion that I enjoyed very much so. It was Eviction vs Abortion. It was not his view, but an idea he had about a middle ground on the issue that allows principles to be followed still.


It went something like this:

A fetus is a person at birth, and has the right to live. It cannot be arbitrarily murdered.
A woman has the right to her body, and the right to evict from her body anything in it. She can not be forced to carry another person in her.
Abortion is murder, where you kill the fetus/child and then get rid of the body.
Eviction is taking it out, but trying to save it if possible.

His point on it was that some day all babies from conception will be savable, and then abortion will cease to exist as the murder of babies.

It seems like both sides would accept this if the technology were available. The left would accept the woman being able to make her own choice about herself but not about murdering the baby and the right would be able to accept removing babies from people who didn't want them.

Back to the point about not protecting the people. What is the point in the government that controls all the power jealously and strips it from the people yet has no obligation to provide it to the people? It is plain that the answer is there isn't a point and the government is retarded.
Killing the unborn is not murder in this society and is not illegal. Banning abortion IS "protecting the fetus".

That some day will be a difficult one.

The point in government is to provide order, something that no other organization can do.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Killing the unborn is not murder in this society and is not illegal. Banning abortion IS "protecting the fetus".

That some day will be a difficult one.

The point in government is to provide order, something that no other organization can do.
There was order before the governments existed. Not sure that you realize that. There had to be order for the government to have ever come into existence.

Killing the unborn is illegal depending on your definition of a person. There is no law that says abortion is a right, there is a court decision that says Unless person is defined, it is a gray area. Killing the baby/fetus is not needed to evict it from the womb, it would die on its own without intentionally killing it.

Even currently, it is legal for states to outlaw abortions past 21 weeks per Roe vs Wade. Once the technology is in place to remove the fetus and keep it alive then Abortion can be outlawed anywhere in the US and Roe vs Wade no longer matters. It isn't the Federal Governments place to decide these things regardless.

I don't see how anyone on either side of the abortion debate can think its ok to abort/murder a baby that could live outside the mother. I am pro-choice, but I think once it can live on its own it is a person. Removing it is a womans right to her body, but killing it isn't. Not because of God or anything like that. Common sense says a baby is a baby if it can live outside the womb whether that is 21 weeks or 40 weeks.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
There was order before the governments existed. Not sure that you realize that. There had to be order for the government to have ever come into existence.

Killing the unborn is illegal depending on your definition of a person. There is no law that says abortion is a right, there is a court decision that says Unless person is defined, it is a gray area. Killing the baby/fetus is not needed to evict it from the womb, it would die on its own without intentionally killing it.

Even currently, it is legal for states to outlaw abortions past 21 weeks per Roe vs Wade. Once the technology is in place to remove the fetus and keep it alive then Abortion can be outlawed anywhere in the US and Roe vs Wade no longer matters. It isn't the Federal Governments place to decide these things regardless.

I don't see how anyone on either side of the abortion debate can think its ok to abort/murder a baby that could live outside the mother. I am pro-choice, but I think once it can live on its own it is a person. Removing it is a womans right to her body, but killing it isn't. Not because of God or anything like that. Common sense says a baby is a baby if it can live outside the womb whether that is 21 weeks or 40 weeks.
in all hierarchical social systems from ant colonies to wolf packs to primitive hunter/gatherer tribes to modern nation states order comes from the governance by the ranking membership of the society. ranking members do not come into being from order imposed by nebulous forces, ranking members impose order through their authority as the queen ant, alpha wolf, tribal elder, or king/mullah/pope/emperor/el presidente for life. you have been tricked by life in a constitutional republic into believing that order is a natrual result of society rather than society being the result of order.

order is an artificial construct created by the ranking leadership in the society to achieve common ends. as long as these goals are beneficial to society the ranking leader holds his position, but when he fails, his position is lost, there is a breif period of anarchy then order is restored by the new ranking organization.

your basic premise is flawed.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
in all hierarchical social systems from ant colonies to wolf packs to primitive hunter/gatherer tribes to modern nation states order comes from the governance by the ranking membership of the society. ranking members do not come into being from order imposed by nebulous forces, ranking members impose order through their authority as the queen ant, alpha wolf, tribal elder, or king/mullah/pope/emperor/el presidente for life. you have been tricked by life in a constitutional republic into believing that order is a natrual result of society rather than society being the result of order.

order is an artificial construct created by the ranking leadership in the society to achieve common ends. as long as these goals are beneficial to society the ranking leader holds his position, but when he fails, his position is lost, there is a breif period of anarchy then order is restored by the new ranking organization.

your basic premise is flawed.
I assume you replied to the wrong person.

Here is my statement :"There was order before the governments existed. Not sure that you realize that. There had to be order for the government to have ever come into existence. "

Caando is the one who said government creates order. I said order creates governments. I never defined order.
 

thehole

New Member
30% of the population owns guns. That is a 100 million people. They might not all have common sense, but the military simply isn't big enough to stop even 1% of that number if it came to it.

When you say 7.62, I assume you mean 7.62x39. Our current armor will stop multiple rounds of that. It will not stop round after round of 7.62x54. It is rated to stop 1 round of 7.62x54. That being said, it doesn't stop it every time and it only covers a small part of the body. Thousands of US soldier deaths proves the point that body armor is so-so. Sure, Id rather be wearing it if I have to take a shot in the chest.

Isn't that just what our military does? Stand around and wait to be shot at? There is no army to fight, so they are just holding areas. Not standing in the middle of the desert yelling 'shoot me!', but they aren't hiding in the woods/caves/sand like the enemy. Think how hard a time we are having in Afghanistan and they don't even have the landscape we have. Can you imagine trying to stop people in the swamps of the south, the mountains, or the forests? It would be Vietnam style. You don't know where they are, but they know where you are.
The US military's current armor wear does not guarantee stoppage of a 7.62x39 round. I should know. And when it does stop a round most of the time it does not leave the person wearing the armor unscathed. Level IV and beyond armor which is the only type of armor able to MAYBE stop such a round, is too heavy for most combat situations. Most soldiers choose mobility over more armor.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
There was order before the governments existed. Not sure that you realize that. There had to be order for the government to have ever come into existence.

Killing the unborn is illegal depending on your definition of a person. There is no law that says abortion is a right, there is a court decision that says Unless person is defined, it is a gray area. Killing the baby/fetus is not needed to evict it from the womb, it would die on its own without intentionally killing it.

Even currently, it is legal for states to outlaw abortions past 21 weeks per Roe vs Wade. Once the technology is in place to remove the fetus and keep it alive then Abortion can be outlawed anywhere in the US and Roe vs Wade no longer matters. It isn't the Federal Governments place to decide these things regardless.

I don't see how anyone on either side of the abortion debate can think its ok to abort/murder a baby that could live outside the mother. I am pro-choice, but I think once it can live on its own it is a person. Removing it is a womans right to her body, but killing it isn't. Not because of God or anything like that. Common sense says a baby is a baby if it can live outside the womb whether that is 21 weeks or 40 weeks.

The good Doctor K explained as well or better than I could that as soon as there are two people together, there begins even then to be "government".


Fathers, tribal leaders, chiefs, kings, emperors are all heads of a form of government.

There is no lasting societal order without government and there never has been.

you didn't say "killing the unborn" you said murder. I said that abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal definition, the illegal taking of a human life. If abortion is indeed taking a human life (which is the question you pose) and that taking is not against the law, then abortion is not murder.

What is funny is that I am working currently on a blog that addresses your point from a sociological and legal prespective.

In short for this post, what do you propose happen to this evicted zygote? Regardless of the technology, the costs will always be very large and ongoing for at most 9 months of intensive care of one sort or another.


Medical costs for a premature baby are much, much greater than they are for a healthy newborn. In 2005, preterm birth cost the United States at least $26.2 billion, or $51,600 for every infant born prematurely. The costs broke down as follows:
  • $16.9 billion (65 percent) for medical care
  • $1.9 billion (7 percent) for maternal delivery
  • $611 million (2 percent) for early intervention services
  • $1.1. billion (4 percent) for special education services
  • $5.7 billion (22 percent) for lost household and labor market productivity
The average first-year medical costs, including both inpatient and outpatient care, were about 10 times greater for preterm infants ($32,325) than for full-term infants ($3,325).

These estimates come from Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention, a report published by the Institute of Medicine (2006) and funded in part by the March of Dimes.


Add to this the inordinatly greater cost as the "age" of the "baby" is younger and younger. The cost of supporting a one day old zygote will cause these figures to be exponentialy higher as these figures are reflecting a child two or three months premature, not 9.

Now this is to say nothing about post pregnancy care. Who would you propose pay for this, given that the woman would have ordinarily paid 500 - 2000 for an abortion?

After all, it is presumed that the woman who would have her creation "evicted" is likely doing so because for one reason or another she is not willing to herself bring it to term.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
i you have been tricked by life in a constitutional republic into believing that order is a natrual result of society rather than society being the result of order.
Doc, you remind me of an interesting observation I had.

I don't know if you have ever seen the show "colony" I think that was the name. It was an "experiement" where a group of people unknown to each other are put in a difficult situation mimicking a nuclear war or a plague or some other wide spread natural disaster - I believe there was another one headed up by Morgan Spurlock inventing a scenario where modern people were forced to be hunter gatherers.

the colony show had at least three different scenarios. In each of them no leader was selected, no "form of government". At times there were votes over what course of action to take, at other times each simply did what they supposed was most important. Of course in these scenarios the members were set upon by other outsiders - in one case one of the members was kidnapped.

What I found interesting is that none of these members ever came to the conclusion One that the others agreed to obey without thinking or critique.

These people actually VOTED on what to do about the kidnapp victim. In every case in every scenario their insistance on having every member be equal in all decisions crippled their ability to cope or survive

Such is as you say, we somehow believe that our method of government is transferable to every other situation - including, perhaps, to third world countries and.... those with an abundance of sand and oil.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I assume you replied to the wrong person.

Here is my statement :"There was order before the governments existed. Not sure that you realize that. There had to be order for the government to have ever come into existence. "

Caando is the one who said government creates order. I said order creates governments. I never defined order.
no, i replied to the correct person. governance does not arise from order, order arises from governance. subjugating one's own self interest for the good of the society does not occur in anarchy, it occurs in structured ordered social groups.

you dont need to define order. it already has a definition. it is the polar opposite of chaos, you also dont need to define light and shadow, up and down, or hot and cold. these are firmly established ideas well understood by everyone.

canndo is correct. you are incorrect. without their queen, ant colonies descend into disarray, the workers panic, the drones freak out and the nest tenders frantically attempt to pupate a new queen before the food stores run out. without the queen, the colony is doomed to chaos, and ants are incapable of living alone outside of a social structure. just like most of the human populace today. most of the people in the cities would not know how to catch and kill their own prey, what plants are food and what plants are poison, and where to find clean water and shelter from the cold even 20 miles from their current home. without money and supermarkets most of you would starve. face it, come to grips with it, and accept thet you are social creatures who require a social structure to survive. only a few, a very few like myself and my brothers and cousins were taught and trained to survive without society, but that shit sucks hard. no interwebs, no porn, no tasty burgers and french fries, no central heating or air conditioning, no goddamned pretty girls, just beards and buckskins. a sausage fest on a cold mountain, and i dont swing that way. so therefore i too am a social creature.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
i you have been tricked by life in a constitutional republic into believing that order is a natrual result of society rather than society being the result of order.
Doc, you remind me of an interesting observation I had.

I don't know if you have ever seen the show "colony" I think that was the name. It was an "experiement" where a group of people unknown to each other are put in a difficult situation mimicking a nuclear war or a plague or some other wide spread natural disaster - I believe there was another one headed up by Morgan Spurlock inventing a scenario where modern people were forced to be hunter gatherers.

the colony show had at least three different scenarios. In each of them no leader was selected, no "form of government". At times there were votes over what course of action to take, at other times each simply did what they supposed was most important. Of course in these scenarios the members were set upon by other outsiders - in one case one of the members was kidnapped.

What I found interesting is that none of these members ever came to the conclusion One that the others agreed to obey without thinking or critique.

These people actually VOTED on what to do about the kidnapp victim. In every case in every scenario their insistance on having every member be equal in all decisions crippled their ability to cope or survive

Such is as you say, we somehow believe that our method of government is transferable to every other situation - including, perhaps, to third world countries and.... those with an abundance of sand and oil.
close but no cigar homey. you mistake our republic for a democracy. thats some good thinking work and youre on the right track, but we have a republic with representatives so we dont have to poll the hoi polloi to get the herd's opinion on every issue (but modern politicians do this because they suck) in a crisis, if no-one steps up and takes command society fractures and individual survival rates plummet. when the shit hits the fan if you leave the decisions up to the herd, or the dipshits who hold endless committee meetings while the city burns, then youre all gonna die.

i was raised by people who are now called "Preppers" which is a stupid retarded name, i prefer the old style: Survivalists.

first thing my uncle taught me from his 3 tours in nam, when leadership fails and shit is going sideways somebody has to take command, this may mean decking the bigmouth who is shouting "we're all gonna die!" or it may mean slipping a knife between the ribs of an incompetent officer, and it may mean shooting some dumbasses who insist on doing dumb shit like trying to surrender to charlie, but you gotta do what you gotta do to keep your ass out of a bamboo cage in a swamp.

second thing you gotta do is secure food and water for the short term, then secure your perimeter, then you can start planning for the long term shit like rescue, defending in place, bugging out or whatever is most feasible.

everything he said has been proven true. indecision kills as fast as blind panic. i seen 7 men die because they decided to run from a fire, uphill, when the Shake-N-Bake fire shelter would have saved them. the smell of barbecued pork still makes me a little sick, and hungry to this day. i seen a dumbass lose his nose, and just a few more milimeters, it would have been his head, because he looked up when we shouted air drop, instead of hitting the dirt. a loose axe thrown by the fire retardant drop from 200 feet took his nose clean off. like a boss.

in the coming zombie apocalypse/nuclear war/socialist revolution/anarcho-falderall i will not be one of the bodies piled up in the streets unless i have the misfortune to be caught unawares.

in non-crisis situations democracy is a topheavy wobbling monolith of ineffectiveness, but a republic can stand (like rome) even if they have to elect a dictator for a few years (like gaius marius, or FDR) the problem with republics is that you cant force somebody to be free or make their own choices. some societies prefer a top down, dogmatic approach, while others prefer a dog eat dog lifestyle where they hope they can be the dog on top when the dust settles. in the end, freedom is as harmless as true communism, you just cant force somebody to share, or make their own choices, its only the half measures of freedom or communism that result ins despotism. i oppose half measures.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
i you have been tricked by life in a constitutional republic into believing that order is a natrual result of society rather than society being the result of order.

close but no cigar homey. you mistake our republic for a democracy. thats some good thinking work and youre on the right track, but we have a republic with representatives so we dont have to poll the hoi polloi to get the herd's opinion on every issue (but modern politicians do this because they suck) in a crisis, if no-one steps up and takes command society fractures and individual survival rates plummet. when the shit hits the fan if you leave the decisions up to the herd, or the dipshits who hold endless committee meetings while the city burns, then youre all gonna die.

i was raised by people who are now called "Preppers" which is a stupid retarded name, i prefer the old style: Survivalists.

first thing my uncle taught me from his 3 tours in nam, when leadership fails and shit is going sideways somebody has to take command, this may mean decking the bigmouth who is shouting "we're all gonna die!" or it may mean slipping a knife between the ribs of an incompetent officer, and it may mean shooting some dumbasses who insist on doing dumb shit like trying to surrender to charlie, but you gotta do what you gotta do to keep your ass out of a bamboo cage in a swamp.

second thing you gotta do is secure food and water for the short term, then secure your perimeter, then you can start planning for the long term shit like rescue, defending in place, bugging out or whatever is most feasible.

everything he said has been proven true. indecision kills as fast as blind panic. i seen 7 men die because they decided to run from a fire, uphill, when the Shake-N-Bake fire shelter would have saved them. the smell of barbecued pork still makes me a little sick, and hungry to this day. i seen a dumbass lose his nose, and just a few more milimeters, it would have been his head, because he looked up when we shouted air drop, instead of hitting the dirt. a loose axe thrown by the fire retardant drop from 200 feet took his nose clean off. like a boss.

in the coming zombie apocalypse/nuclear war/socialist revolution/anarcho-falderall i will not be one of the bodies piled up in the streets unless i have the misfortune to be caught unawares.

in non-crisis situations democracy is a topheavy wobbling monolith of ineffectiveness, but a republic can stand (like rome) even if they have to elect a dictator for a few years (like gaius marius, or FDR) the problem with republics is that you cant force somebody to be free or make their own choices. some societies prefer a top down, dogmatic approach, while others prefer a dog eat dog lifestyle where they hope they can be the dog on top when the dust settles. in the end, freedom is as harmless as true communism, you just cant force somebody to share, or make their own choices, its only the half measures of freedom or communism that result ins despotism. i oppose half measures.

Hang on, I never said ours was not a Constitutional Republic. I neglected for your sake however, to say that most are under the impression that ours is a democracy, you see that word waved around here often as though those who managed to pay attention only to their 8th grade civics presentation actually believe that we all vote for every option or decision.


I, unfortunately will become one of the casualties should things collapse, I like to believe otherwise, knowing the plants I do and having self sufficiency that many of us who inhabit the underground that is the pot culture but I know in my heart that I will finally fail.

Unless you think to save me - I do have a series of valuable skill sets and knowlege - should things fall appart I will be sure to get you my address.

you would quickly find that there are some individuals who, when they can.... lead, and when they cannot, know perfectly well how to follow.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
On a similar note, many on the right claim that California is in the state it is in because of democrats and liberals.

I have another view.

I believe the state has the problems it has because it depends so heavily on referendum. The people of that state leave it to the uninitiated and the lay to make decision on their own governance - they vote over issues that they have no understanding of and laws are enacted based on this ignorance. Furthermore, they insist that anyone who has gained the experience and knowlege it takes to run a state be forced out of office just at the time they are most capable of rendering proper decisions with respect to the management of the state.

They are perpetualy run by novice voters and novice elected officials who are rarely able to rule with needed expertice.
 
Top