American weapon's laws

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by unregistered

and I came to an understanding (later somewhat validated by Ayn Rand) that government, any government,
and ALL governments, are the enemies of all free men
because governments serve themselves first

You did NOT get that from Ayn Rand! Read "The Role of Government" in "Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal".

It is because all men are not rational that governments are necessary. If they are utilized consistent with the rights of the individuals they serve, they are not enemies, but benefactors of free men.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by pHaestus
This is the essence of human nature and "control" though, eh? Not limited to governments; corporations are exactly the same. Just replace "votes" with "market share". I guess you could extend it to drug dealers as well; replace "market share" with "crack whores" or something....

Please do not equate governments, who put a gun to your head to ensure your compliance, with businesses who can only ask for your business. If you wish to use examples where business has gotten into bed with government to ensure their success (a la utilities, etc.), the problem is with the government which allowed such a thing to happen.

Bob

[BillA]

fuzzy wuzzy wuzza bear, . . . . .

come on Ben, address THE issue, in real time
it is:
the initiation of force against another (on an immediate personal level in this thread)

deal with it; no twaddle about 'when you grow up you'll understand/know better'
(I went to school in Europe, this is a very old line to suppress thinking and questioning)

please, none of your fantasies about what you think a prison 'should be'
deal with the reality of TODAY: prisons are parking garages for the violent,
and certain classes of competitors of the government's defined monopolies (drugs, fraud, etc)

due deliberation, measured response, Queensbury Rules, deterrence, rehabilitation
-> those are sops for YOUR conscience

earlier you (?) mentioned insurance, as if such were a mitigating factor in the loss incurred
(insurance against rape, murder, disablement ? godamn what logic)
my same question again: why should the victims and non-victims have to make installment payments on a disaster ?
(gee, could the ins. co.s be a part of this skimming scam ?)

the Fat Burghers of Europe have spoken clearly, many times -
from the Romans with the advancing Goths and Huns, onward to today
as I recall the words were "Peace in Our Time"

why do you think that the Moslem fanatics consider ‘us’ weak, corrupt, and morally bankrupt ?
while Saddam is respected because he does that which is necessary to further his intentions

do you recall Mao’s words ? - “Power comes out of the barrel of a gun”
all the rest is window dressing; such is our world

ahh utabintarbo
a 'quote' out of context ? (I know, std technique)
did I not say in the very next line:
"(I know, anarchy is no better as all must be rational - and all are not)"
but I'm cheered to see that Rand is still quoted

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by unregistered

ahh utabintarbo
a 'quote' out of context ? (I know, std technique)
did I not say in the very next line:
"(I know, anarchy is no better as all must be rational - and all are not)"
but I'm cheered to see that Rand is still quoted

But YOUR out-of-context quote conveyed the impression that Rand's opinion was that governments were necessarily the enemy of free men. With your following statement (quoted above), you make no attribution to Rand. It therefore appears that your opinion (quoted above) is in contravention to Rand's. Was this your intent?

Bob

btw: I'm cheered that you're cheered!

[BillA]

in THE activity that Objectivists most revel in, we will dissect

"If they are utilized consistent with the rights of the individuals they serve, they are not enemies, but benefactors of free men."

so:
if they are NOT consistent . . .
then:
they ARE enemies

ok now ?

as a Libertarian (not in a political activist sense), I tend to always view the government as the great trampler
unless of course one has lots of money, and 'connections' help, in which case one has all the rights imaginable - literally

my comment re anarchy is quite similar to your quote of Rand's, but stated so to preclude the 'anarchy is a good system' discussion
(anarchy is a good system but only in a rational society where differences are negotiated - not the case here where might-makes-right)

if one has a very vivid imagination and can conceive of a society consisting only of rational individuals, then there is no need for any form of government

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by unregistered
in THE activity that Objectivists most revel in, we will dissect

"If they are utilized consistent with the rights of the individuals they serve, they are not enemies, but benefactors of free men."

so:
if they are NOT consistent . . .
then:
they ARE enemies

ok now ?

as a Libertarian (not in a political activist sense), I tend to always view the government as the great trampler
unless of course one has lots of money, and 'connections' help, in which case one has all the rights imaginable - literally

my comment re anarchy is quite similar to your quote of Rand's, but stated so to preclude the 'anarchy is a good system' discussion
(anarchy is a good system but only in a rational society where differences are negotiated - not the case here where might-makes-right)

if one has a very vivid imagination and can conceive of a society consisting only of rational individuals, then there is no need for any form of government

We are not so far apart. I tend to agree with your view of government as it exists today. However, to be consistent in a reality where men are not always rational, a limited government is necessary. While it is well nigh impossible to insure complete individual rationality, it is much easier to regulate organizational rationality. Organizations of any size tend to leave big footprints when they leave the path of "righteousness", thereby making them harder to turn against their core mission - protecting individual rights in the case of government. It is in the but only's that we have any contention.

"Can't we all just get along" - Rodney King

[airspirit]

The big fallacy of the anti-capital punishment crowd is that the government is doing something just as evil as the murderer when they execute them. This is sheer and utter BS. In killing an innocent member of that society, that murderer gave up their rights to life. When the government executes a known murderer, they are not doing the same thing because they are not killing an innocent. By removing the life from that killer, they are doing society the greatest favor they can by removing that killer FOREVER from free circulation, and ensuring that I, as a taxpayer, am not paying for his stay at the Hilton Penitentiary. A person who kills an innocent does not deserve to live for they willingly, and knowingly gave up those rights (who doesn't know that there is a death penalty?).

On the other hand, somebody that kills in defense is justified in doing so. If somebody breaks into your house, you don't know if they have a weapon, you don't know if they have friends, and you don't know what their motivations are. I'd rather look back in hindsight and say "Well, the poor bugger just wanted to take my TV and eat my dog, maybe that wasn't so bad, but he shouldn't have picked my house" than to say, "Gee, I wish I would have shot that bastard before he raped my wife and daughter, killed my sons out of perverse glee, and stole my new water block #Rotor shipped me." You see, if you're in your own home and on the right side of the law, and that intruder has no legal business in your home, it is wise to assume that since he is in violation of the law, he's probably a bad guy, and it is best to take the ultimate step in protecting yourself. It is because of the "IFs" in the situation that you should kill first and ask questions later.

At any rate, when I was younger I found a box of shotgun shells in the woods during hunting season. I thought about it a while, and build a simple zip gun out of lead pipe and fittings, a drill, a nail, a slingshot, and a carved length of 2x4. Though it was explicitly single shot (you had to unscrew the barrel to reload it) and it was difficult to fire (a chunk of metal was attached to the slingshot strap and it had to be pulled back pretty far to fire it), it was quite an effective gun. I blasted through the entire box of shells knocking apart old rotten stumps and bottles, and then dismantled the thing and hid the homemade stock. Nobody was ever the wiser. The moral of the story is that if a smart 12 year old can make his own firearms, no amount of regulation is going to keep guns out of the hands of determined criminals with infinitely more resources than some kid out in the woods had. It has been said that if it was illegal to own guns, only criminals will have them, and it is very true. I'd rather have the law abiding public keep access to a form of self defense than turn us into a herd of sheep (though we already seen to be a land of sheeple here in the US, some of us still have some bristles left) waiting to be shorn by whatever nut job feels like it. In the western states, especially, there isn't usually time to wait until the nearest officer who is 15 miles away comes running to the rescue ... you have the imperative to defend yourself and your own. I feel sorry for those that are unable due to laws or unwilling due to cowardice or misapplied ethics to defend themselves. Hopefully you will never have the need to raise a weapon in defense of yourself or your family, but if the need ever arises, you'll probably all be dead.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy "Killemall!!!!" type mofo, but I'm not crazy enough to believe that our pussified law enforcement system that has been deballed due to polical correctness and tolerance of diversity can adequately protect me. Around the nation you have political apointees running our law enforcement agencies that have no clue about how to really protect their constituents, and prevent the cops on the streets from doing anything to help anyone. God help you if you're a young white male anymore in most of the country ... you're the only one that they're allowed to pull over or question. Anything else is racism. Personally, I feel secure in knowing that if I ever hear breaking glass or a creaking door at 2AM, I'm going to have the means to take one more dirtbag off the street for good. Maybe it'll be the one that would have killed your family the next day.