General / Off-Topic Gun Nut America
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
Einstein certainly wasn't an anarchist. It's ludicrous to even suggest it.
Ghandi was an Indian nationalist, so I'd say that that's a bust.
There's just no way that I can square the circle of economists being anarchists in my head. I suspect that our fellow forum user is mixing up Libertarianism and Anarchism.
Anarchism is just another extreme force, nothing good ever came out of the extreme, placed on the left or the right.
Last edited:
Anarchism is the one and only logical conclusion of libertarianism (not to be confused with any political party that calls itself "Libertarian"). Liberty and freedom have not and will not, now or ever, be protected by government (let alone democracy; monarchism was a much better friend than democracy ever could be). In fact, your claim Gandhi was an Indian nationalist says nothing since Gandhi himself was a student of the Non-Aggression Principle (not to be confused with pacifism or the principle of pacifism; Gandhi did not support pacifism) and said that (which was stolen by a conservatard): "The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least." But like I said, it gives anarchism further leverage knowing non-anarchists have an inherently-anarchist agenda. Call them whatever you want, at the end of the day they either support anarchism or stole from the anarchist philosophy and the state does not care either, you're either for more government power or for anarchy in the eyes of the system (as proven by the last three centuries; anyone who attempts to limit the system gets labeled as anarchist).
Larken Rose - Minarchism: Great Start, Horrible Finish
(Also, a lot of socialists including many I've long argued against would get angry over the assertion that because Einstein was a socialist he could not be anarchist. Though it certainly benefits Voluntaryists like myself to see someone for government promote socialism as not being compatible with anarchism as many of us really frakking hate socialists who claim to be anarchist.)
Anarchism is not the least bit extreme. What is extreme is this belief you or anyone else have the right to control what others do when no aggression is being committed.
Last edited:
Minonian
Banned
There is a huge difference to kill because you must, and to kill just because you can.
And also USA the only country in the entire world, where the protesters got the nerve to sue the cops, after they killed 3 of them, because they were "brutal". LOL? Just for this, the whole nation deserves nuclear annihilation, or at least a nice big b*slap just to come in his senses... Seriously?! What is this? They are killing cops for no reason, and think after that they can be good with them?! No! This is the point where the cops must use brute force to end the whole charade, before the whole thing spirals out of control.
Edit; What are they waiting for??? Hugs and kisses?
besides, these poor rathernotsayings are seriously think shooting cops going to resolve the issue of police brutality, and excessive lethal force? It's just makes everyone trigger finger more itchy...
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
True that.
And also USA the only country in the entire world, where the protesters got the nerve to sue the cops, after they killed 3 of them, because they were "brutal". LOL? Just for this, the whole nation deserves nuclear annihilation, or at least a nice big b*slap just to come in his senses... Seriously?! What is this? They are killing cops for no reason, and think after that they can be good with them?! No! This is the point where the cops must use brute force to end the whole charade, before the whole thing spirals out of control.
Edit; What are they waiting for??? Hugs and kisses?
besides, these poor rathernotsayings are seriously think shooting cops going to resolve the issue of police brutality, and excessive lethal force? It's just makes everyone trigger finger more itchy...
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
True that.
Last edited:
There is a huge difference to kill because you must, and to kill just because you can.
And also USA the only country in the entire world, where the protesters got the nerve to sue the cops, after they killed 3 of them, because they were "brutal". LOL? Just for this, the whole nation deserves nuclear annihilation, or at least a nice big b*slap just to come in his senses... Seriously?! What is this? They are killing cops for no reason, and think after that they can be good with them?! No! This is the point where the cops must use brute force to end the whole charade, before the whole thing spirals out of control.
Edit; What are they waiting for??? Hugs and kisses?
besides, these poor rathernotsayings are seriously think shooting cops going to resolve the issue of police brutality, and excessive lethal force? It's just makes everyone trigger finger more itchy...
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
True that.
Really, you would solve gun violence by killing 100s of millions of people?
Please do not conflate us with a few crazy people. It is, as always, a lot more nuanced than that. Plus, check your news sources, no protesters killed those cops. That was a murderer who drove hundreds of miles to kill cops in retaliation for their unjust killing of a restrained black man. I'm not saying it is right, but hatred begets hatred. Just like terrorism, it only gets worse the more the government tightens its grip.
Can you feel it tightening? I can. The ruling elite, they're closer to determining that people are unable to govern themselves than you may think. They're itching for BLM to get out of hand - sad really. Truth is, the more young black people they see getting shot up by police, the better they like it. They encourage their own people to get slaughtered. Resist Whitey. He's the cause of all your trouble. When things get bad enough, martial law will arrive wherever BLM sets up shop. It will become the new SA. If the liberals win in November, a full scale assault will begin on the second amendment. Once they breach the Bill of Rights, that will pretty much be the beginning of the end, if race wars don't engulf the country before then.
So sayeth the Great Crackadamus. You read it here first.
Last edited:
Oh, that is hilarious, lol
Minonian
Banned
I think you should know when someone just wasting his breath.
No need of it. After multiple cop killings they was edgy. And honestly it's can't be a surprise, not to mention, in FB and other junk media sources, they was talked about long months cops must be killed. And by the look of it, it wasn't just trash talk.
This is not without prelude, and how the cops acted in return not without reason.
Last edited:
Bro, did you even watch the video in the OP?
I don't think he did. People don't like to think about stuff that don't fit into their world view.
I don't think this logic holds. By definition criminals ignore laws anyway. Despite this we have tons of regulations for cars and such, for example how worn your tires are allowed to be. Sure some people will ignore the law. They also get caught eventually and have to face the consequences. Same with any other control law really. Gun control works, it just doesn't work perfectly and instantly. Doing nothing "because criminals" is not sound logic.
I think it's the word "control" because we do need to "control" who own the weapons. That is why background checks are in place.
It works, not perfect but you can't just walk in to a store and buy a gun an ammo and walk out the same day.
I do have a license to carry a personal firearm, and I can carry it around. However its under a lot of regulation and that is just fine.
The problem is that if you live in some European countries, its almost impossible to own a firearm of any kind? However its very easy to get one illegally.
just remember, not even pepper spray are legal in some countries, same goes to tasers and similar not lethal "weapons".
Try and buy a bullet proof west in some countries, you can't even do that? I don't understand how anyone can defend that with, you don't need that?
tell that to the people in France, Germany and all the places where people was gunned down.
That is not freedom, you simply don't have the freedom to protect yourself and your family. In my opinion that is slavery plain and simple.
It works, not perfect but you can't just walk in to a store and buy a gun an ammo and walk out the same day.
I do have a license to carry a personal firearm, and I can carry it around. However its under a lot of regulation and that is just fine.
The problem is that if you live in some European countries, its almost impossible to own a firearm of any kind? However its very easy to get one illegally.
just remember, not even pepper spray are legal in some countries, same goes to tasers and similar not lethal "weapons".
Try and buy a bullet proof west in some countries, you can't even do that? I don't understand how anyone can defend that with, you don't need that?
tell that to the people in France, Germany and all the places where people was gunned down.
That is not freedom, you simply don't have the freedom to protect yourself and your family. In my opinion that is slavery plain and simple.
A simple comparison of homicide rates is all that is required to defend laws concerning the regulation of firearms. And no, being obliged to comply with the same regulations enacted by democratically-elected governments as everyone else isn't 'slavery'. Not remotely. Do you even have the slightest clue just how ridiculous the comparison is?
100% missed the point, the number of accidental firearm deaths in the US outnumbers the number of mass shooting deaths by 2:1.
The "good guy with a gun" argument relies on the assumption that "good guys with guns" save more lives than are lost as a consequence of mass gun ownership.
Even if every single mass shooting was stopped (unlikely in the extreme) it would only save around 365 lives a year. That is half the number of people killed as an unarguable consequence of mass gun ownership.
Note that that figure excludes murders and suicides that wouldn't have happened. It also excludes the police killings that wouldn't have happened. Last year the UK police fired their guns "in anger" 7 times. The number is so low because in the overwhelming majority of police/public interactions there are no fire arms present. Misunderstandings and escalations are much less deadly because no fire arms are present.
You mention the figure of around 30k vehicle deaths a year, that is about the number of firearms deaths the US has (from all causes). That is to say the US kills as many people with guns as it ids with cars.
In the UK that ratio is something like 100:1
Either cars are a hell of a lot more dangerous in the UK or our lack of mass gun ownership reduces our gun deaths.
As for banning cars, if you banned cars, what would be the economic and societal damage? Yeah you'd have an extra 30k people live but no mobility, no road transport, you'd go back to the 1920's or earlier.
If you banned guns, what would be the economic and societal damage? you'd have an extra 30k people (well a bit mess, some people would still be murdered and some still kill themselves), some gun manufacturers and ammo produces would go out of business. That's it, you'd look like the rest of the developed world where you're more likely to be killed by a car, or a zoo animal, or a falling object than a gun.
Don't know where you got that info that you can't buy pepper spray, bullet proof vests or guns in Germany or France.
You're able to buy the first two without any control over here and guns after you fulfill the requirements (gun cabinet, registration, etc).
What you're not able to buy are weapons made for war (fully automatic weapons (although you can buy a weapon that was fully automatic if it was downgraded to semi automatic), mines, grenade launchers, flame throwers, hand grenades, anti tank weapons, etc).
Do you need a fully automatic assault rifle with 30+ rounds to protect your family? If yes, you should consider moving to an area where you don't need them (like out of Iraq or Syria).