Iowa FTW

[RageBeoulve]

This may be helpful.

[RageBeoulve]

I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.

I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.

[Bastet]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

Convicted felons can get a gun whether or not it is legal if they are up to no good. Also, convicted felon is a broad term. What crimes does it cover? Are all convicted felons even guilty of their charges? Does convicted felon mean you are a lesser person, even if you've  proven  yourself rehabilitated?

you just took a crap and named it after me.  Aw, poop.

Lovely odor.

[Al Swearegen]

Years ago in Australia, we had an insane man get hold of a gun and have a monumental shoot up. Killed a lot of people.
The government had a law against owning of guns ut in place and a massive buy back scheme. Worked well.
Really helped with gun crime here.

So now can I extrapolate this Australian experience to America? I don't think so. I can say what worked here worked well and for all the right reasons and has been better for us. Because of the US Constitution, the size in population, the culture, the constant state of fear fed to Americans by the media, and for a multitude of other reasons, I do not think Australian solutions will work.

[RageBeoulve]

Well said.

[odeon]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.

Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.

Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Er, no.

[odeon]

On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.

Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws.  Volunteerism....what could go wrong?

How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?

It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.

Comprising one person, maybe.

Last I checked, the population was more than one.

Modern Times

I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.

Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic.

We have been through this before, Lit. It doesn't work.

It does, if the society is small enough. Every nation state should be split up to about parish level. With a population of just a few hundred or at most a few thousand people it would work.

History disagrees with you.

And how would you go about to split up the nations?

[odeon]

Do you think we should all be allowed military helicopters, missiles and grenades too? Because, let's face it, with nothing but your rifle, you#re gonna do FUCK ALL to the government.

Of course. Why should the military have monopoly on those weapons?

Because then the current gun-related statistics would be dwarfed by some really big numbers involving "Tomahawk-related accidents in the home", "school bombings involving nukes" and the like.

I think it happens that the responsible US military bombs schools, not in the US but in Afghanistan etc. And you know what happens in Syria right now.

Sarin gas to everybody!!!

[odeon]

Let say you take down the government,  don't you think you would be paving a way for mafia style operations?  There is always gonna be people who take charge.  It is human nature.

Who's bitch do you wanna be?

[odeon]

Oh now what the fuck. I come back, read back a bit, and what do I see? Dodging, attempts to derail, etc. What a bunch of pussies.

Odeon-

Innocent, like a teenager returning home late. Accidents involving guns in the home are quite common.

Are you familiar with the statistics on that, sir? Accidental shootings are far less common than criminals murdering people with guns. Mostly black on black crime, too. Passing laws will stop that, right?

Did you need help finding this information? I would be glad to do that.

It's such a relief that accidental shootings do not dominate the statistics.

But incidentally, where did I claim they did?

I won't feed your circle jerk, then. I bet that you'd dismiss every example I'd produce as someone not giving "110%". What's the bloody point?

I do not see the connection with a cop not performing his duties and you debating gun ownership. Please explain.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Rage?  Put the above in context and explain to me what you didn't understand. If you catch me in the right mood I may attempt to rephrase for your benefit.

If you actually read the thread instead of giving in to the knee-jerk, you will note that this thread is yet another example of the usual I2 gun law debate, which gives it a context in which both our replies should be read.

It does indeed. I've noticed people have a habit of skimming my posts. Maybe they don't like what I have to say? And they think they can "boycott" those things? Because of bias and feels?

The thread is not titled "the things I actually need to overthrow the government".

I take great relish in saying I didn't start this little mess, Odeon. Adam did. 

No, he didn't. Adam commented on an existing mess. You opposed his views.

I've said time and again that you need a lot more than guns if you want to realistically overthrow a corrupt government, which is the raison d'etre for the 2d amendment and what you people will frequently refer to when wanting to keep your guns, whatever the cost.

I believe I made three posts detailing why guns are the backbone of an armed revolt. Very detailed posts. Of course much more is required than guns, but without guns? Impossible, and you know it, good sir. Please fully read my posts if you'd like to debate me.

Then why are you bringing it up in a thread discussing questionable ideas in Iowa?

The only reason this whole overthrowing the government idiocy came up is because 'mericans will always bring up the 2d amendment if somebody questions the "right" to carry a gun.

Didn't there use to be text in your constitution about people held for labour in one state not be allowed to be freed by the laws of another? You overcame that little problem in the constitution, eventually. Gives me some hope that you might eventually see that carrying a weapon should not be a right, no matter what.

It amuses me that carrying a gun should be regarded as a right when equal health care to all is not.

[odeon]

Adam doesn't have the right spirit!

I'm starting to think he actually doesn't understand these concepts, Lit. I've seen that the guy is pretty into activism, and seems to really care about humanity. Seems like the right "spirit" to me. Maybe he -really- doesn't get it. 

Or maybe, oh, I dunno, he does but you don't. What makes you so certain that you are right?

Because his points aren't holding up. I am defeating them, as i'm sure even anti-gun folk in here will point out. The honest ones anyway.

No, you are not. Why would you think you are? I mean, objectively?

[odeon]

You are being extremely close-minded, Adam. Its like arguing with a religious zealot. Did you know that knives and pointy shaped things WERE originally designed to kill things? They have since become tools to be used for safety and utility.

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan#The_tools

I'm going to have to ask you to be more clear.

The Oldowan tools are among the oldest known. It is not clear what their primary use was or why they happened in the first place.

[odeon]

I will make one more jab, here. It is ridiculous to first come in and make claims, then act the victim when those claims are challenged. It is ridiculous to act as if it is a personal insult when the challenges of these claims hold weight. THIS is the main problem I have with the crowd that usually tends to be anti-gun, feminist, "atheist", etc. These people call themselves "progressive" usually and go through the motions of activism, but only because it is trending. I think the majority of you people care about appearances, and your heart is completely empty. I think you have been robbed of most of your humanity.

I didn't start this giant argument, Adam did. But i'll damn sure finish it. I'll finish the FUCK out of it.

This makes no sense to me, Rage.

When addressing a claim, attack the claim, not the person who made it. Why do you imply that opposing guns is not progressive? Why do you imply that the people opposing guns have empty hearts?

[TheoK]

Seems? Does it or doesn't it?

it does...

If you write 'seems like' people might do research.

Louisiana just passed a bill that nullifies all gun control legislation.  Now convicted felons can buy guns.

There should of course be no gun control at all. The founders of the US never intended any limits on gun ownership.

Aside from that owning guns is a natural right. You simply have the moral right to own a gun, period.

Moral
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Er, no.

Read what Spooner says about natural law. I posted a link.

Although Spooner says that you shouldn't give a weapon to a madman, he also says that all legislation is a crime. Ergo it is criminal to deny anyone the mere possession of anything. Morally criminal, of course.

You have the moral right to do anything that isn't malum in se. Yet most of the state's laws are about things that are only malum prohibitum. This is because the state's laws have nothing to do with moral justice but on the contrary are there to deny you your natural rights to keep its own power.

[TheoK]

On that note:
Ordinary people will do fucked up things when fucked up things become ordinary.

Lets give everybody a gun, promote competition through capitalism and nullify the government and laws.  Volunteerism....what could go wrong?

How could it possibly go more wrong than it is today?

It is incredible that most people don't understand that 99% of the things that are wrong on this planet is because of the state. They think that this is bad but that it would be 1000 times worse without a government. But anarchy works perfectly if the society is just small enough.

Comprising one person, maybe.

Last I checked, the population was more than one.

Modern Times

I have posted this before. Why do you keep denying it? When Brentwood was Modern Times, they had no cops, no courts and no crimes. Everyone signed a social contract, a real one on paper, not a false imaginary one. Everyone followed the rules voluntarily.

Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic.

We have been through this before, Lit. It doesn't work.

It does, if the society is small enough. Every nation state should be split up to about parish level. With a population of just a few hundred or at most a few thousand people it would work.

History disagrees with you.

And how would you go about to split up the nations?

"History" said for many thousands of years that there was no way to get rid of racism, slavery, marital rape, homophobia etc. Most people in charge were actually for those things.

The nations would be split up be people refusing to obey all laws, refusing to pay tax, refusing to obey authorities etc. The nations only exist because people obey.

The thing is that 99.99% of all people today are brainwashed idiots. They don't even use the legal system as they could. I have calculated that you could even stop the Swedish courts from functioning if everyone who got a speed ticket denied to accept it but took it to court instead. But do they do it? No.