U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-10-2009, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,115 posts, read 9,199,435 times
Reputation: 8988

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
What is the point of having a government (or a police or army) if you don't believe that they can and / or will protect their citizens?

I guess Americans are schizophrenic (or paranoid) when it comes to their government and personal safety?
Government has never promised to protect all people. And you cannot sue the government for failure to protect - except in the case where one is in their custody.

In fact, justice is only applied AFTER the criminal injury to one's person or property. Ergo, it is patently foolish to rely upon government for one's protection.

The right to life is useless unless defended against those who would take it from you.

 
Old 05-10-2009, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,115 posts, read 9,199,435 times
Reputation: 8988
http://www.city-data.com/forum/8731960-post170.html

In a society where all responsible adults are armed versus a society where only a subset of responsible adults are armed, which one would exhibit the highest respect for the rights of another?

[] Armed Society?
[] Disarmed Society?

There are two systems of law in operation, at this time.

TWO LAW SYSTEMS
Law of Love:
1. Harmless action in support of one's right to life (Good)
2. Self sacrifice for the benefit of another. (Greatest Love)
Law of the Jungle:
3. Harmful action in support of one's right to life (Evil)
4. Harmful action for no reason (Worst)

Harmless productive people are "good" and harmful predatory people are "bad" only under the Law of Love.

Under the law of the jungle, predators are "good" and prey are "good to eat." Prey who fight back are "bad".

I conclude that only predators object to a fully armed society, because armed prey are "bad".
 
Old 05-10-2009, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
[

Under the law of the jungle, predators are "good" and prey are "good to eat." Prey who fight back are "bad".

I conclude that only predators object to a fully armed society, because armed prey are "bad".
I'm not sure I follow you You seem to be saying that:
1. Predators are good.
2. The Good (predators) object to fully armed society.
3. Fully armed society is bad, since the good object to it.
 
Old 05-10-2009, 04:35 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,886 posts, read 12,536,143 times
Reputation: 5210
Quote:
Originally Posted by rarch View Post
Would a gun free USA be possible for the USA or just a ideal of pacifists, and religous types or would this mark the US becoming a moral and decent society if this were to occur


would never happen, for in order to be gun free, the entire federal goverment, state goverments and all cops would have to be disarmed.

get rid of their ability to hold the individual citizen hostage, they just might find themselves without any ability to pay taxes at all.
 
Old 05-10-2009, 04:36 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,886 posts, read 12,536,143 times
Reputation: 5210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by LSU Tiger Z71 LoL What is the point of having a government (or a police or army) if you don't believe that they can and / or will protect their citizens?

I guess Americans are schizophrenic (or paranoid) when it comes to their government and personal safety?


personal safety? look at any major disaster and ask yourself if the goverment has ever been there on time.

also remember that the federal goverment, and cops are not their for the individual citizen, they are there for the general populace.
 
Old 05-10-2009, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,115 posts, read 9,199,435 times
Reputation: 8988
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I'm not sure I follow you You seem to be saying that:
1. Predators are good.
2. The Good (predators) object to fully armed society.
3. Fully armed society is bad, since the good object to it.
Under the "LAW" of the jungle, predators are good. And they object to their prey being armed.

The idea was to show that current laws may be in favor of jungle law, instead of the law of love (harmless production).
 
Old 05-10-2009, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Under the "LAW" of the jungle, predators are good. And they object to their prey being armed.

The idea was to show that current laws may be in favor of jungle law, instead of the law of love (harmless production).

All the conservative, private-property people are in favor of the law of the jungle. Whoever can grab everything for themselves is morally and legally in the right to do so. Just blame the losers for not being personally responsible enough to grab everything for themselves.
 
Old 05-10-2009, 06:53 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
[Asbestos underwear flag on]
For details, read:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/8462589-post119.html

Summary:
American people are sovereigns.
U.S. citizens are subjects.
Citizens come from the people, but all people are not citizens.

If you are unaware of the distinction, you may be mislead to assume that "citizens" and "people" are synonymous.

If you are aware of the distinction, and read the pertinent laws, you will find that Congress has never, ever impaired the rights of the people to bear arms (firearms). But citizens *(subjects) have been denied the privilege, and are restricted in many aspects.
Ok, I see where you are going. I missunderstood your position by a long shot. My apologies.
However, anyone living in the country is subject to laws passed by congress or local legislators. That being the case isn't it true that congress has infringed on the rights of both the people & the citizenry? After all anybody wanting to buy or carry a firearm must abide by the restrictions & regulations in place.
 
Old 05-10-2009, 07:16 PM
 
Location: The Shires
2,257 posts, read 1,721,588 times
Reputation: 1050
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
All the conservative, private-property people are in favor of the law of the jungle. Whoever can grab everything for themselves is morally and legally in the right to do so. Just blame the losers for not being personally responsible enough to grab everything for themselves.
Unfortunately, humanity isn't quite ready for true Libertarianism. Humans, by nature are generally far too greedy and far too destructive for such "freedoms" to work, in practice. If, as a race we can learn to evolve to the point where we at least have a good mutual respect for one another, then maybe it'll work.....until then, I'd rather not live in some sort of "dog eat dog", fragmented society....a little too Mad Max for me.
 
Old 05-10-2009, 07:19 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
All the conservative, private-property people are in favor of the law of the jungle. Whoever can grab everything for themselves is morally and legally in the right to do so. Just blame the losers for not being personally responsible enough to grab everything for themselves.

Huh?

You paint with too broad a brush. I'm conservative & I believe you are entitled to what you earn & nothing more or less.

It could be easily said that all "Liberals" want to punish folks for working hard & making a decent life by taking what they earned & giving it to others who, for whatever reason are less successful. It wouldn't be any more true than your statement though. Actually its nothing more than bitter hyperbole.

The truth is that Jetgraphics's analogy serves quite well to illustrate the fundamental flaw with useing gun control as a tool to fight crime. Its like planting flowers to discourage bee's.

As you have said repeatedly, and a bit hypocritically given your anti gun position, gun control & crime statistically have little to do with one another & most often when a correlation can be found it suggests that the places with the strictest gun control have high violent crime rates. If, as some people imply, the availability of guns was a driving force in violent crime then rural small towns & less populated areas would have the highest crime, because thats where more folks are armed & gun control is less strict. Since thats simply untrue it becomes obvious that crime is driven by more complex societal issues.
Personally I put alot of blame for urban crime on social programs that give people who have nothing to do all day a means of support that does not occupy their time. But thats way off topic.

On topic however I'd ask why people wish to create a safe working environment for criminals?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top