The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Love the passion; although I’m probably not prepared to repeal the 2nd Amendment nor ban the NRA I agree with the spirit of the proposals.

Libertarians are all over the map when it comes to the legitimacy of the ‘State.’ I can understand that because the legitimacy of a State depends upon which State is under discussion. The USA is a democratic republic that grew out of collection of colonies seeking mutual support both in throwing off British rule and in creating an infrastructure of law to protect and aid communication, transportation, and trade on a relatively isolated continent. Our laws are not those of an invader nor a monarch whose power was inherited. Our laws are negotiated, drawn, passed and interpreted through a democratic process to which, through our active participation, we lend our consent; a process most of us our proud of. Not to say it doesn’t require a lot of tweaking and vigilance. To assert there should be less government is to say that we the people should diminish our own power: that we should not address societal issues, nor attempt to solve environmental problems, nor address meaningful conflicts, nor redress injustices, nor seek to make life better for ourselves and others. These sorts of things, the libertarian says, should be left to individual people - not the government. But what if the government is the people?

Back to guns.

The 2nd Amendment apparently addresses the need to be able to quickly organize a armed militia to rally to the defense of the Nation, when that Nation is without a standing army.

It seems to me the amendment is simply no longer applicable to any real situation. It seems to me there is no Constitutional support for gun ownership. Nor is there any Constitutional support to prohibit it. So I suppose I agree that repealing the 2nd Amendment should have no logical or legal bearing on any particular case. All the relevant law is elsewhere. However, the political fallout of demanding the repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be ( in fact is ) devastating. I do not see anything in the 2nd Amendment that should obstruct regulation of firearms. I think more practical efforts would be to establish better background checks (Why should one man who is not a dealer be able to buy 33 firearms in a single year without raising a single alarm? - which was the case for the Vegas shooter), require sellers to keep records, computerize the system, establish waiting periods, define then ban assault weapons, rescind concealed carry (the public has a right and a need to know who around them is carrying a lethal weapon) etc.

“The National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization and should be banned.” As much as I like the rhetoric, I think we probably both agree it would be a poor political move if not an illegal one. But I’m curious, if this actually came up how would the NRA argue that they are not a terrorist organization? Perhaps they would say they are not directly contracting terrorists, just encouraging them. Not arming them, only making sure arms are available.

Thanks for this Trish, an eloquent defence of US democracy that puts it in context and undermines the arguments of the libertarians.

I know I was pushing the envelope as far as terrorism goes, but on the other hand, we don't actually know yet what motivated the Las Vegas murderer, and if mass murderers with mental health problems are set aside, you are still left with armed people, individuals or groups who engage in acts of murder which are intended to attack the USA, using individuals as victims to make their case. This was the context in which the Oklahoma City bombing took place, and there is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices were terrorists.

The problem with the NRA is that it does not distinguish between a Constitutional right, and the 'arms' referred to in the Amendment, so that it makes no distinction between a farmer who has a practical need to own a gun to shoot predatory foxes that eat his chickens, and an individual who need offer no reason at all to the vendor and can amass an arsenal of guns be they pistols that fit into a purse or large weapons that in most cases are only used in military combat. At some point, the NRA should either accept that it is facilitating terrorism by opposing gun control, or concede that it must do so in order to prevent terrorist attacks as best it can, identifying weapons themselves as items to be banned from ownership, and finding exacting methods to screen individuals who wish to buy a gun. As far as I can see, whether they call themselves the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Liberation Angels of America, or Ma Rainey's Gang, there is nothing to stop a group of individuals from purchasing enough weapons to threaten an entire town in their attempt to overthrow the State or cause immense damage to it.

What is the point of the NRA condemning acts of terrorism if it then does nothing to stop them, but does protect the means whereby those acts of violence are inflicted on innocent civilians?

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......

Quote:

---

Drunken driver who killed mother visiting premature newborn twins had blood alcohol level of .21

---

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.3574102

You're right: we won't ban guns, we won't ban alcohol, nor will be ban tobacco. For one thing, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these. We do however, regulate all three (arguably alcohol more stringently than guns). There is a distinction between alcohol, tobacco and firearms as was pointed out by many other posters: firearms are designed specifically to kill, alcoholic beverages are to be sipped and enjoyed. Can we do more to prevent the abuses of alcohol? Probably. Name something other than banning. Of guns? Definitely.

You might as well debate with a dalek, trish. We went through this on another thread, where MrFanti just kept repeating the same point ad nauseum. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...check-in/page8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......

---

-Except of course that banning alcohol has already happened, namely in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, passed in 1920, subsequently repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.

As for guns, the issue for responsible Americans is not the total ban on guns but removing from the market place military grade weapons. I take a different view, and would ban all weapons in the UK, and think in time the US will have to consider this option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these. .

---

There are a LOT of people wanting a total ban on guns.....Meanwhile, the thing that kills more than guns (alcohol) continues to wreck havoc..
Yes, you are hypocrite if you don't want alcohol banned in the same swipe with guns....

Quote:

---

5 killed on their way home from church by suspected drunk driver

---

http://www.kltv.com/story/18677579/5...d-drunk-driver

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You might as well debate with a dalek, trish. We went through this on another thread, where MrFanti just kept repeating the same point ad nauseum. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...check-in/page8

---

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

Mr Fanti,
Is there literally no point at which you are able to stop shouting the same misproven point for long enough to ask yourself if that point is relevant.
Don’t just respond (yet again) with your relentless comments about alcohol until you have a think about it.

The purpose of alcohol is to enhance ones enjoyment. If it is abused, people can get killed.

The purpose of assault rifles is to kill people. If they are used correctly, people get killed.

If your able to think about this and come back with some points for debate, brilliant.

If you just respond as previously by sticking your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut and shouting “Alcohol, Hypocrite, Alcohol, Hypocrite” then I’ll assume you’re an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

---

Out of curiosity, do you want alcohol banned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You're right: we won't ban guns, we won't ban alcohol, nor will be ban tobacco. For one thing, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these.

---

I absolutely think tobacco should be banned. It is a stimulant to a degree ...but to no benefit whatsoever. Nicotine is simply a poison. I think it should be banned and I am dead serious.

Though I agree with you on gun regulation, I disagree that serious people don't want a total ban. If by, serious people, you mean US politicians, I'm sure there are plenty that would have no problem with a total ban, just as I'm sure there's a percentage of the population that would have no problem with a total ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

---

Why then are you refusing to accept that the US has banned alcohol in the past? And it was not only a failure but created a golden age for the mafia and organized crime who made millions or more from illicit alcohol sales, just as a ban on tobacco would create a lucrative illegal market in addition to the billions being made from illegal narcotics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

I absolutely think tobacco should be banned. It is a stimulant to a degree ...but to no benefit whatsoever. Nicotine is simply a poison. I think it should be banned and I am dead serious.

Though I agree with you on gun regulation, I disagree that serious people don't want a total ban. If by, serious people, you mean US politicians, I'm sure there are plenty that would have no problem with a total ban, just as I'm sure there's a percentage of the population that would have no problem with a total ban.

---

I agree that tobacco is a huge health hazard but I don't know what kind of black market there would be if we banned it. We'd be I think the only country or one of a small number to do so.

I also somewhat agree with you and somewhat with Trish about whether serious people want a ban. Some things are untenable and you kind of only want them in the vaguest sense. I agree there is a sort of dualism in the way some people talk about guns. On the one hand, maybe they only want assault weapon bans, but on the other, they may secretly lament that they can't go further. But I don't know if that means they would want a ban or just something more restrictive that is barred by the second amendment, like a handgun ban within certain city limits. It's not politically convenient to talk about wanting to go further than the second amendment allows because it creates paranoia and bars any compromise to regulate as far as we're allowed.

But then what Trish is talking about is that most mature people accept that the path forward is regulation. I mean, secretly I may lament that alcohol can't be banned, but I don't seriously want to ban it...if only because it can't effectively be banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Why then are you refusing to accept that the US has banned alcohol in the past? And it was not only a failure but created a golden age for the mafia and organized crime who made millions or more from illicit alcohol sales, just as a ban on tobacco would create a lucrative illegal market in addition to the billions being made from illegal narcotics.

---

Oh I agree that, much as I would like it, there is no way to ban an item such as cigarettes outright (especially when viewed in the sobering light of the morning sun)...all you can do is try to regulate it to death until it gets to the point where smoking becomes futile...I believe most states now have some type of indoor smoking bans..and some major cities even have bans in parks and some outdoor areas (not to mention the huge increases on product cost by taxation). Death by a thousand cuts.

I think that is the fear that some folks have with guns. That the word 'regulation' will basically be tantamount to a ban.
That once you "open that door..."
I think that's horse shit though. When it comes to firearms, there should be heavy, common sense regulation. I think the winds favor a bill but congress is incapable of any type of reform at this moment anyhow. So this debate will go on and on without any gov't action even remotely on the horizon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree that tobacco is a huge health hazard but I don't know what kind of black market there would be if we banned it. We'd be I think the only country or one of a small number to do so.

I also somewhat agree with you and somewhat with Trish about whether serious people want a ban. Some things are untenable and you kind of only want them in the vaguest sense. I agree there is a sort of dualism in the way some people talk about guns. On the one hand, maybe they only want assault weapon bans, but on the other, they may secretly lament that they can't go further. But I don't know if that means they would want a ban or just something more restrictive that is barred by the second amendment, like a handgun ban within certain city limits. It's not politically convenient to talk about wanting to go further than the second amendment allows because it creates paranoia and bars any compromise to regulate as far as we're allowed.

But then what Trish is talking about is that most mature people accept that the path forward is regulation. I mean, secretly I may lament that alcohol can't be banned, but I don't seriously want to ban it...if only because it can't effectively be banned.

---

I believe in common sense regulation. But I think the fear is that the population is fickle and tends to want laws created to "fix" the problem of the moment. Even when reality dictates that some things can't be fixed completely no matter the cost in human life. But fixing something 'somewhat' is still better than 'not at all'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

(Why should one man who is not a dealer be able to buy 33 firearms in a single year without raising a single alarm? - which was the case for the Vegas shooter), .

---

It's all about the money , money , money.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.3574102

---

Have you ever heard of somebody shooting alcohol at people during a concert ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yosi

Have you ever heard of somebody shooting alcohol at people during a concert ?

---

Exactly.
I think quite often when people speak of the dangers of alcohol, the easiest thing to think of is the amount of people killed from drunk driving. But drinking and driving is already illegal, all we can do is try to continuously improve on enforcing that law. We have LE checking on drivers and have the ability to regulate some of it in civil court also, but beyond that, who knows, the technology exists to create cars that test blood alcohol levels and won't start if too high, but self driving cars could make something like that obsolete before it really ever hits the ground.I'm drifting a bit, but the point is constant regulations won't stop all fatalities, but they certainly help to limit them to an extent.
The same would go to gun regulations.

Yes.. you should never drink and drive for you might spill too much.

Oh. Drunken gunmen have less chance of hitting so banning alcohol is a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

There are a LOT of people wanting a total ban on guns.....Meanwhile, the thing that kills more than guns (alcohol) continues to wreck havoc..
Yes, you are hypocrite if you don't want alcohol banned in the same swipe with guns....

---

In relation to guns, tobacco and alcohol, I stand corrected. There are some serious people who seriously propose banning at least one of these. Fred, for example is for a complete ban on tobacco. I can’t say I agree, but he makes a good case. Nevertheless, my larger argument stands. All three are highly regulated and arguably alcohol more so than guns. Most people are of the opinion that all three should be regulated at least to some extent. Charges of hypocrisy against them would therefore be spurious.

Calls for better enforcement of the regulations against alcohol (higher fines for drunk driving, better policing of environments wherein it’s likely to occur etc.) are not generally opposed by those of us who would also like to see stronger firearm regulation and better enforcement. I, for example, would like to see no carry in National Parks, and by ‘no carry’ I mean no alcoholic beverages, and no firearms in National Parks. If you want to throw in no tobacco too (it’s a fire-hazard after all), I’m okay with that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Out of curiosity, do you want alcohol banned?

---

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.

---

If we all agreed that alcohol should be banned you would simply switch to other arguments for why nothing should ever be done to restrict guns.

It's odd that you complain so much about alleged hypocrisy in others when you are doing it yourself. You don't want any restrictions on your right to buy guns, yet you are happy to argue for restrictions on other peoples' rights when it suits your purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

If we all agreed that alcohol should be banned you would simply switch to other arguments for why nothing should ever be done to restrict guns.

It's odd that you complain so much about alleged hypocrisy in others when you are doing it yourself. You don't want any restrictions on your right to buy guns, yet you are happy to argue for restrictions on other peoples' rights when it suits your purpose.

---

Obviously,
You haven't been reading and/or comprehending what I've been saying. So you must like being argumentative.
So let me break it down for you because it's really quite simple

1) If you are for a ban of guns, then logically, you should be for a ban of alcohol - because alcohol kills way more than guns.
2) If you are for gun ownership, then logically, you should also be for the right to drink whenever you want.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

Neither argument is logical without additional hypotheses. In a cost/benefit analysis one should weigh benefits against costs as well as argue the costs and benefits considered are exhaustive. Accusations of hypocrisy are premature until you have successfully accomplished this task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Obviously,
You haven't been reading and/or comprehending what I've been saying. So you must like being argumentative.
So let me break it down for you because it's really quite simple

1) If you are for a ban of guns, then logically, you should be for a ban of alcohol - because alcohol kills way more than guns.
2) If you are for gun ownership, then logically, you should also be for the right to drink whenever you want.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

---

If you want to ban abortion, then logically you want to ban war.

If abortion is banned because it kills the unborn child, war must be banned because it kills the born child.
Guns kill babies, therefore guns must be banned (because I assume you don't want to ban humans, who breed and own guns).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

I do not want alcohol banned.

What I'm saying is that if you want guns banned, then you better want alcohol banned also - otherwise, you are a hypocrite since alcohol kills more than guns.

---

Is there anything at all that you have to add to the debate aside from this? I mean anything whatsoever?

By your logic we should not waste a penny on curing cancer because heart disease kills more people so until heart disease is completely eradicated, all efforts to cure cancer are pointless.

There's no way Mr Fanti's analogy is relevant since nobody here seriously recommended banning guns. What people are recommending is the kind of common sense regulation we have for other harmful products. Why should one product be exempted from life-saving regulations? Even if its ownership is constitutionally protected, it can still be regulated to prevent unlawful and/or dangerous uses.

So why are we discussing this phantom issue? May I suggest that Mr. Fanti has nothing to say about gun control that doesn't completely misrepresent the opposing viewpoint.

Slaves in the Roman Empire were also prohibited from bearing arms...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Slaves in the Roman Empire were also prohibited from bearing arms...

---

Because they were so badly treated by their masters they snapped and killed them, the event in Sicily known as the First Servile War

According to Diodorus Siculus, politically influential slave-owners, often Roman equites (sort of like a horse-bore Knight) did not provide enough food and clothing for their slaves. The slaves turned to banditry to survive. The poorer Sicilians were the sufferers. Several decades of increasing tension finally broke out into war as the slaves revolted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites

So, as was to be expected, the Roman authorities took sides with the landowners, the businessmen and the elite against the slaves who created their wealth, though the ban on slaves bearing arms is not constant throughout the age of the Roman Empire.

And, curious is it not, that the first legal measures to control the ownership of guns and firearms in the USA was the panic that set in after the Civil War when white people became terrified that freed slaves seething with rage and resentment would go on the rampage throughout the South with the guns they acquired during the war. Gun control: imposed on slaves and black people, lifted on white people.

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.

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 ).