The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Then had the slaves had arms their masters would not be able to treat them so badly, would they? Many people sold themselves to slave masters in exchange for protection and in hope to have a certain standard of living. Only that it was then their choice. Nowadays, we do not have that choice as we are already born slaves. Taking arms away from us takes our civilisation a few thousand years back in time.

---

But when the slaves did acquire arms it was to punish those who did treat them badly, so the reverse of your argument holds: had there been a consensus between the two communities on what was just, the violence would never have occurred. The problem lay in a social structure designed to privilege one class over another where the 'masters' did not believe slaves by definition worthy of equal respect, or an equal share in the resources they produced, so resistance and resentment were built into the system which is why slavery has not survived in its traditional form.
The justification for the modern state resides in the concept of a social contract in which citizens surrender a degree of liberty to the state in return for its protection and a share of the resources they produce. A key to the social peace this aspires to is that the State retain the monopoly of the use of force, shaped by a system of law, to prevent lynch mobs, gangs or resentful individuals taking the law into their own hands, which is why it is essential to remove weapons from individuals, who do not need them anyway because the State is there to protect them, which for the most part is a system that has worked, though it is clearly flawed at times and in some places.
Civilization has always advanced when peace is a dominant feature of society, where weapons are all but irrelevant in the conduct of daily affairs because there is no need to settle a dispute through violence or intimidation. The wide availability of guns in the USA challenges the authority of the state at Federal and State level, and is one of the many factors that undermines the claims made for the USA as 'the greatest country in the world'.
Civilized people have no need of guns, it is as simple as that.

When the slaves agreed to waive their freedoms to bear arms they believed their masters would treat them in accordance to whatever contracts they got themselves into. If their masters decided to break that contract and there was no jurisdiction to take their side, then naturally, they had no other option but to take matters into their own hands. It is natural that if you have a group of people that are privileged over another group, then the other group are going to hate them.

I cannot see why the state should have monopoly over the use of force. If the state minds its business, which is keeping order within the boundaries of its reign and protect its borders from outside dangers, I cannot see why citizens, or subjects who support the state should not be able to bear arms.

You are totally wrong saying that technological advancement is always attained during peace. Cold war and whoever produces and demonstrates a working "nuclear device" is a good example here. World wars, with tanks, tactic gases and VX missiles are also good examples. It does not mean that great inventions cannot be achieved during peace. Unfortunately, during peace, there are many communists whose aim is to prevent these for the sake of their personal "well-being"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Many people sold themselves to slave masters in exchange for protection and in hope to have a certain standard of living. Only that it was then their choice.

---

I suppose you think that the abolition of slavery was a communistic restriction on peoples' freedom?

I'll pose the question that I posed before and you ignored. Why don't you go live in some lawless country like Afghanistan or Somalia, rather than being a hypocrite and continuing to live in a country where you are protected by laws and a functioning government? I think your anarcho-libertarianism is really just a radical chic pose, and you would be scared shitless if you ever had to face the consequences of what you advocate.

Definition of monomania (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

1 :mental illness especially when limited in expression to one idea or area of thought
2 :excessive concentration on a single object or idea

Sound like anyone we know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Why don't you go live in some lawless country like Afghanistan or Somalia, rather than being a hypocrite and continuing to live in a country where you are protected by laws and a functioning government? I think your anarcho-libertarianism is really just a radical chic pose, and you would be scared shitless if you ever had to face the consequences of what you advocate.

---

I posed the same question to RedVex earlier in the thread and I imagine she will choose to ignore the request for debate.

It’s not dificult to imagine that she would be one of those most desperately in need of the assistance of the state she seems to have so much disdain for were that assistance ever to be withdrawn.

I, on the other hand, as a mild mannered psychopath with a cheery disposition and a penchant for violence would be just dandy. ��

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1799467]

When the slaves agreed to waive their freedoms to bear arms they believed their masters would treat them in accordance to whatever contracts they got themselves into.
--Really, I think you know slaves never agree to anything, they are enslaved without control over their own lives, a point so basic I don't understand how you can think slaves can negotiate anything with their masters.

I cannot see why the state should have monopoly over the use of force. If the state minds its business, which is keeping order within the boundaries of its reign and protect its borders from outside dangers, I cannot see why citizens, or subjects who support the state should not be able to bear arms.
--Yet again, it is because the rule of law that is fundamental to a free society can only be applied by the one authority the citizens give it to, precisely to make it unnecessary and illegal for armed gangs, posses, and lynchmobs to replace the law. Hollwyood might disagree and applaud the lone hero who cleans up his neighbourhood with guns, the reality is a self-important jerk like Zimmerman repudiating the existing authority of the law to confront and then murder Trayvon Martin who was just walking home from the shops. Do you get it now?

You are totally wrong saying that technological advancement is always attained during peace. Cold war and whoever produces and demonstrates a working "nuclear device" is a good example here. World wars, with tanks, tactic gases and VX missiles are also good examples. It does not mean that great inventions cannot be achieved during peace. Unfortunately, during peace, there are many communists whose aim is to prevent these for the sake of their personal "well-being"..
--But that is not what I said. I said Civilization has always advanced when peace is a dominant feature of society. Even allowing for some exaggeration on my part, it is not about war and technology but civilization broadly defined, allowing for a balanced judgement to assess the good and the bad. The cardinal point is that war by its nature is not civilized behaviour.

Yeah. I meant people who sold themselves freely in exchange for food, and a certain benefits - like I had written in earlier. Those people decided they would not need weapons, and as you noticed that decision turned out badly for them.

Yet again, a gangster will get a gun regardless of any law against it. A decent man won't if it is prohibited by law. Should a conflict between them arise the decent man has much less chance to protect his property family and self.

We have peace as "dominant feature of society" yet Europe is dying under european union's occupation, while in China, for example, trains travel at 500km/h and skyscrapers rise like mushrooms after rain. War is a very civilised behaviour. What is not civilised, however, is for example when ISIS attacks American people and American government, whose responsibility is to protect them, does not declare war on ISIS and does not annihilate it within a week or two. White civilisation has gone back in time thousands of years, to barbaric times from long before the Roman Empire.

Oh Neither Afghanistan nor Somalia are monarchies, they aren't anarchies, I cannot see what is there to debate. I am where I am at the moment and that is that. I would probably need to be mad to go to an Islamic country. This is also why I mentioned earlier that I am still debating whether I am actually going to settle here for good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Oh Neither Afghanistan nor Somalia are monarchies, they aren't anarchies,

---

You say you like monarchy, but the preferences you state involve lack of regulation and even lack of law and order. When you were shown the Monty Python skit that you mistakenly(?) took to be serious, you interpreted it to mean that one person can block another's path and threaten to kill them leaving the other the legitimate choice to flee. You also apparently believed someone could continue to fight after having his arms and legs severed.

If you cannot find a state that chooses to function without any laws or regulations then what about a failed state without a functioning government? You maybe don't realize it or are all bluster, but what you're recommending is a state where others are free to take your life and you theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

You maybe don't realize it or are all bluster, but what you're recommending is a state where others are free to take your life and you theirs.

---

People sometimes think they want this because, in their delusion, they believe that they would be at the top of the food chain, when in reality they'd be closer to the bottom.
I'm not necessarily applying this statement to anyone here, but I hear this shit all the time from people who think they're geared to survive in a straight up dog eat dog world, when the reality is far, far different.
We all think we're BatMan when we sit in the theater, but once we step outside, we're all just bystanders. (or for the Trekkie fans - most of us are really just red shirts.. :D ).