Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 7. (Read 36630 times)

Often the law are general and not specific to a person. The constrains is put on the suggester too.

your loss not mine.

LOL!!!

Great find there.

So, your experiences are something like this?

It's one of our thornier problems, and we have a number of solutions. Next time I log on I'll have some interesting links for you. However, I'll give you a short form right here.

Systems of courts do not and never have needed a central authority. Look up the Law Merchant and Admiralty Law for a couple of widely cited examples, also the Irish system prior to their conquest by Britain. They give you some ideas of how disputes can be settled satisfactorily without an overarching and highly corrupt(ible) authority.

Also, you'll find if you study American frontier history that for the most part PRIOR to major federal involvement, the natives and the whites got on fairly well. There were hotspots, but overall it wasn't until the USG started claiming land in spite of treaties that things got seriously ugly.

However, children learning to use firearms at an early age went back WAY before that. The revolutionary war would not have happened if the kids couldn't shoot.

My hatred of democracy isn't related directly to the NAP, it's related to two things I perceive to be true. One, individuals can and do make good decisions regarding their own fate, and two, groups exclude the individual BY FUCKING DEFINITION. I don't have any desire to be a cog in your machine, and your machine won't allow me not to be. Mob rule with a fancy name is still mob rule. The founders of this nation almost without exception did NOT want a true democracy, but rather a republic with a democratic method of selecting it's rulers. I don't find that a lot better, but it's at least less random.

Also, with the passage of the seventeenth amendment, one of the major checks on central power was eliminated as the States no longer have a sovereign representative. Essentially the seventeenth eliminates the senate in all but name. This worked very well for previous imperial ambitions as well. Look up Julius Caesar and Adolph Hitler, specifically the Reichstag Enabling Act in the latter case. Violent revolutions are simply not as effective for governments as a policy of gradually rolling back any liberties the people have obtained. The boiled frog concept has worked really well for those who rule. Not so well for the frogs.

you mean, you don't want to go into a subject that you know nothing about?  No one will be bothered if you don't.  You said some condescending, stupid things about "children" and you got caught on it.  Now moving the goalposts doesn't work.

with that, you go on ignore.

So a lynch mob, then? Or an elected authority, i.e. a government?

Which?

Which is ridiculous, but true.

For if it isn't the accuser, then it would be:

- Some authority - but they're against authority.
- A jury of peers or some voting system - but they're against democracy.
[/quote]

Now you guys are conflating NAP with anarchy 

There are no objections to authority, if the people chose to give someone authority over them. For instance in arbitration. There are no objections to a jury of peers, since that's how society works, period. You can't escape others judging you for doing something wrong, and refusing to do business with you or shun you from their lives, whether you are for democracy or not. So yes, it could be some authority that both the accuser and the accused agree to use to settle their dispute, and yes, it can be a jury of peers, or just society in general. Neither require a government in order to exist. It's like you think everything in the world was invested and created by a government or something 

Wait, are you saying that colonizing other people's property, kicking them out of their homes, and killing them when they try to take their home back, is NAP? Really? Are you really suggesting that people who believe in NAP supported that?



I said "people directly involved, the general society, and any judges that may get involved in figuring out the details." Basically same as now. What would you consider satisfactory? Do you now consider our current system satisfactory?

Which is ridiculous, but true.

For if it isn't the accuser, then it would be:

- Some authority - but they're against authority.
- A jury of peers or some voting system - but they're against democracy.

In NAP its quite easy: the accuser determines the guilt of the accused.

Regarding NAP and the NAPsters' hatred for democracy. I never did get an answer from them about who determines the guilt of the accused that was satisfactory.

oh, you mean when religouse extremist from europe(the forefathers of 'Murica) invaded other peoples land('Murica), and the original inhabitants(The indians) defended themselves and their property? Do you really want to go there? You NAP people REALLY want to go there?

Fortunately it does not matter much what you think.  There are countless examples of children  defending themselves and/or their families with firearms.

These go back to when Americans had children that went to one room school houses.  There were quite a few pitched battles between those children and attacking Indians.

So I would say, based on considerable evidence, that children are quite capable of realizing what power they have in their hands.

the numbers in the picture is: Number of people killed in school shootings in the lasts ten years. readgin your posts i seems the you think that its the numbers of school shooting incidents in the last 10 years.

what i pointed you was that 'Murica was a bigger country then Isreal, and it was there for expected to have a high number of people killed simply because they are bigger. a simple estimate, calculated in my head says that there is about 1 person killed per 1M in habitants in school shootings per 10 years, in both country. and in denmark we have 1 person killed per 2M habitants in school shootings per 10 years. meaning that in denmark less people is getting killed in school shootings, then in both Isreal and 'Murica, as they both seems to have pro-gun politics.

Granted, it might be a bad idea to sell guns AND ban them from schools at the same time, as slightly less people are getting killed in isreal then 'Murica. But i really don't think thats its a good idea to give guns to children, they are incapable of realizing what power they have in their hands.

I actually agree with uniform application of gun control. If you are not in control of your gun, you have a problem.

Now, if by gun control, you mean those who by the fiat of government possess all the guns, and the "citizens" (slaves, as they are disarmed) have no weapons available to them, that's a whole different thing.

Several of you have pointed out, more than once, that an armed revolution is futile. I daresay you are wrong, but it is undesirable. However, when the people, whether all of them or a large group, do decide to secede or "secede in place" and use the power of their numbers to withdraw consent peaceably, that government that so many of you think is their for your benefit will come against them WITH guns. And defensively, we the armed outnumber the goons by a significant number. Luckily for the 545 people who rule this nation, most of the slaves don't understand how vastly they outnumber their masters. But, having been involved in politics, I can guarantee to you that those who rule you DO understand it. And fear it. It's one of the reasons they go after hobby weapons and not handguns. It's why they promote "diversity" programs that are designed to not only fail but inflame the passions of different cultural groups within the nation. It's why they start diversionary wars overseas with false flag events. They will do ANYTHING to keep you looking anywhere but at them.

Also, this is a personal observation I made over the course of the ten years I was involved in republican party politics: All those elected or seeking election want power the way a drowning man wants air. ALL of them. These are the people you cede the power of legal violence to if you buy into democracy and/or gun control.

I dropped out. I looked at the alternatives. I chose to be an anarchist, as it makes the most sense to the enrichment (in all senses) to the greatest number of people. I do not vote, therefore I have EVERY right to bitch. I reject the system, not because it has failed, but because for those who rule it, it has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the ancient Emperors. You cannot FIX a system that works as it was designed. You can either accept it, and all that it implies, or reject it because it is a flawed outcome. Government is SUPPOSED to become vastly powerful. Those who say otherwise fall into exactly two camps. Those who would rule (are selling you something), and those who are deluded.

All you need for that is a lot of people with a lot of guns keeping other guns out of the area you want to keep gun free. Problem solved (except for all those guns at the border)

I'm stupid. Please explain it to me.