It's a quick response but,

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: What a great response. I think you just did a very good job of defending the minarchist point of view. You've led me to only more questions darn it. "The citizenry grants power to a governing body to provide protection to them as a whole." The unanimous citizenry or the majority?

The founders of the government. Meaning those who originally found the government are the ones who agree to this. After that by excepting citizenship in the lands governed by that government one agrees to be subject to it. If you choose not to be subject to the agreement you can leave and go somewhere else and form a government more to your liking, unless you have enough support to overthrow the current government and reform it.

quote Can people delegate right's or powers that they don't have to somebody else?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this. Could you give me some examples of the powers you mean?

quote "Basically I could steal from someone who is to weak to do anything about it." Is there no voluntary means of preventing theft or the recuperation after the fact?

In the state of natural law, no. Well, I suppose I could walk up to you and tell you I like your hat, and you could hand it to me to keep me from stealing it… You could of course wait until I was passed out drunk one day after stealing your hat, steal it back and put out one of my eyes when you did. This all assumes you have the chance to, as when I stole the hat from you I could have cut off both of your feet making it so you had even less a chance of exercising natural law against me. However even then you could get your family and friends to come after me. So you see natural law is all about your ability to enforce it yourself. If you don’t have superior force to call on to right a wrong, your more likely to suffer wrongs. If you have superior force, your more likely to initiate wrongs as you are less likely to suffer from doing them. Now under a governing body charged with this duty, the 75 year old man in the corner store that sells dish wares could bring charges against the 25 year old man that burned his store down. The governing body would then decide on the guilt based on evidence and punish the younger man, something the older would not have been able to do on his own. The governing body could also require the payment of damages from the younger man to the older. So they idea of a government is to provide a constant set of laws that all the populace is subject to equally and enforce them. Where as without a government in natural law, if you stole from me I may think you deserve to die and if I was capable of achieving that punishment you would be dead, where as the next guy may just think you need to return the property you stole plus a little more to try to deter you from doing it again. Natural law, the one offended sets the punishment if they are capable of inflicting a punishment.

quote If it is a binding agreement, there are two subpossibilities—it is either explicit or implicit. Here is the definition on an explicit contract from http://www.businessdictionary.com -"A contract in which the terms and requirements incumbent on all involved parties are clearly stated in writing, agreed upon, and signed by all participants." It can't be an explicit contract to me or you because neither of us signed it. This matters because if it is okay for a person or a group of people to create implicit contracts that are somehow binding, then anybody could justify rape, murder, slavery, theft, etc.

It is a explicit contract. While not “signed” by you, you are voluntarily entering into that contract by your continued residence within the lands it applies to, according to John Locke. So long as you remain a part of the society the government governs and within it’s lands, you agree to be bound by that contract. If you find the contract unacceptable, again according to Locke as I already stated, you are free to find your own ungoverned lands and form your own government or attempt to overthrow the government you find unacceptable and reform it.

Really I do suggest people read the link I posted. It’s not a easy read, but it is very informative. I find myself going back and reading parts of it here and there to refresh my memory because it is very insightful. I am still thankful for getting into a political debate with a philosophy major as he turned me onto several political related philosophical texts. From Locke to Hobbs to others, I learned a lot. I’m just surprised my brain has retained any of it… LOL.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by TK: Personally protection against another armed citizen is a separate subject, but the argument that citizen can stop the military is ludicrous.

I'm not exactly thrilled about every citizen walking around armed either. Some people should not be armed at all.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Some people should not be armed at all.

And that is the real issue facing us as a Nation, in a simple easy to understand sound bite.

Its not the equipment, its the person.

Hopefully the focus of any new government action will directed more to keeping arms out of the hands of those in the population that should not have them.

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Probably it doesnt cause enough arguments or further agendas

Or, sell weapons, ammunition, and memberships.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Hopefully the focus of any new government action will directed more to keeping arms out of the hands of those in the population that should not have them.

And I wonder just how they are going to determine that.
Psychopaths can be very intelligent.

Not to mention guns are always available.
Criminals don't buy their guns at the store.
And they sell to anyone.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Never attended one....and I was pretty good in history. Nope....I'm a University of Chicago Laboratory School brat from 1st grade thru high school. GO MAROONS!!

I went to public school during high school, teach at a public school, have a Masters in American History, and slept at a Holiday Inn Express. Nowhere in the 235+ years since our country's declaration, do I remember any mass confiscations of weapons by a government entity within the US, nor is there any precedence for such claims. If anything, the mass proliferation of weaponry points to the contrary. I also don't understand the "sky is falling" view that not being able to shoot 30 rounds out of a "magazine" somehow equates to Hitler rounding up the Jews.

Never had a mass confiscation of guns in America?



http://www.nytimes.com/2005...agewanted=print&_r=0

1991 NYC banned most semi-auto and long guns. They gave all owners a period of time to get rid of them, turn them in, or have a gun smith make them inoperative. When that grace period was over, the NYC police used the gun registration to raid, arrest, and charge anyone left that did not comply. They also confiscated the illegal guns.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Never had a mass confiscation of guns in America? http://www.nytimes.com/2005...agewanted=print&_r=0 1991 NYC banned most semi-auto and long guns. They gave all owners a period of time to get rid of them, turn them in, or have a gun smith make them inoperative. When that grace period was over, the NYC police used the gun registration to raid, arrest, and charge anyone left that did not comply. They also confiscated the illegal guns.

New Orleans was pretty much under Martial Law. Citizens could have weapons, just not out on the streets. If you wanted to keep your weapon-keep it at home. That's pretty clear and reasonable (under the circumstances) to me.

But, I am intrigued about New York City and plan to do some research on it.

Ruby Ridge
Waco
Boiling frogs

In NYC..if I were living there at the time this happened I can honestly say I would not be alive today.. and I can promise you that several others would not be alive today. It would have been bad enough to make national headlines.. why you may ask?.. because I would not have waited for the fight to come to me.. in fact.. I could still be fighting today. I don't plan on boarding up and trying to last it out.. I plan on pursuing, fighting, and eliminating the enemy. My first enemy on American soil will most likely one day be our law enforcement trying to take my rights away. My rights that I have fought for, that I have earned more than most. You can call me crazy.. but it is NOT crazy, it is called fighting for what I deserve, fighting for what is right. 99.999999% don't have the balls to do it,, and that is why our government is taking over, but the ONLY way this will EVER happen to me.. is when I am dead.

[This message has been edited by dn69141 (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by dn69141: In NYC..if I were living there at the time this happened I can honestly say I would not be alive today.. and I can promise you that several others would not be alive today. It would have been bad enough to make national headlines.. why you may ask?.. because I would not have waited for the fight to come to me.. in fact.. I could still be fighting today. I don't plan on boarding up and trying to last it out.. I plan on pursuing, fighting, and eliminating the enemy. My first enemy on American soil will most likely one day be our law enforcement trying to take my rights away. My rights that I have fought for, that I have earned more than most. You can call me crazy.. but it is NOT crazy, it is called fighting for what I deserve, fighting for what is right. 99.999999% don't have the balls to do it,, and that is why our government is taking over, but the ONLY way this will EVER happen to me.. is when I am dead.

This is Stan.
This is Stan taking night courses.
Any questions?

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Were you there to know what was said and what wasn't? .

No but i can read what happened. There are countless documents written by people that did live thru it. How they felt, what really happened, etc. A common thread is that no one expected things to go so bad.. and by the time they did, it was too late.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 01-12-2013).]

quote Originally posted by carnut122: New Orleans was pretty much under Martial Law. Citizens could have weapons, just not out on the streets. If you wanted to keep your weapon-keep it at home. That's pretty clear and reasonable (under the circumstances) to me. But, I am intrigued about New York City and plan to do some research on it.

The NOPD went door to door and confiscated weapons from law abiding citizens while cowardly avoiding the armed gangs of thugs roaming the streets.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: The NOPD went door to door and confiscated weapons from law abiding citizens while cowardly avoiding the armed gangs of thugs roaming the streets.

I still remember the little old lady they beat to the ground to take hers away.. And while i agree a bit of propaganda ( but still truthful ), the pictures of semi truck loads of confiscated weapons left in the elements in barrels to rust away instead of being returned to their owners.. They finally did return them, after they were totally ruined.


They were following orders.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: I'm not exactly thrilled about every citizen walking around armed either. Some people should not be armed at all.

I'm with ya! The first "gun controls" started because people in the small towns got fed up with the guns going off for all for all kinds of dumb-ass reasons. On the other hand, I don't think the majority of people want to carry or will.

I grew up gun-loaded, but today it just doesn't get me off. I lost interest in it being the focus of my attention. There is more to life that the excitement of owning a gun. For others, there is nothing else like it. That's fine by me.

quote Originally posted by Khw: It is a explicit contract. While not “signed” by you, you are voluntarily entering into that contract by your continued residence within the lands it applies to, according to John Locke. So long as you remain a part of the society the government governs and within it’s lands, you agree to be bound by that contract. If you find the contract unacceptable, again according to Locke as I already stated, you are free to find your own ungoverned lands and form your own government or attempt to overthrow the government you find unacceptable and reform it.

Does a man conscripted into the Navy against his will consent to his servitude by not jumping overboard?

Unfortunately, you are not free to find your own ungoverned lands. For one, there are no 'ungoverned' lands. I own land that I bought but somehow the government still claims partial ownership over it and me. Also the U.S. will deny your renunciation of citizenship if you are solely leaving to avoid the taxes/government and even if granted, it's frequently a 10 year process.

It seems to me that if you are going to use the "If you don't like it, then leave," argument, you are refuting the basic premise of property rights. If I have property rights to my land and house, why can somebody tell me to leave?

EDIT TO ADD: “Taxation is theft, so why blame the victim? Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation "if you don't like it you can leave"? That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. Why not say the same things to victims of physical and sexual assault?” ~ Chris Leithner, 2009

[This message has been edited by NoMoreRicers (edited 01-12-2013).]

quote Originally posted by carnut122: I also don't understand the "sky is falling" view that not being able to shoot 30 rounds out of a "magazine" somehow equates to Hitler rounding up the Jews.

If you do not understand it then leave it alone or really look at it with an open mind. Limits on the constitution are losses. Banning 30 round clips are not going to stop anything. They are a starting place for the Democrats to continue they’re brainwashing then it goes to the next step until we are all their sheep. I hope that most people learn from this and stop voting for Democrats.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Does a man conscripted into the Navy against his will consent to his servitude by not jumping overboard? Unfortunately, you are not free to find your own ungoverned lands. For one, there are no 'ungoverned' lands. I own land that I bought but somehow the government still claims partial ownership over it and me. Also the U.S. will deny your renunciation of citizenship if you are solely leaving to avoid the taxes/government and even if granted, it's frequently a 10 year process. It seems to me that if you are going to use the "If you don't like it, then leave," argument, you are refuting the basic premise of property rights. If I have property rights to my land and house, why can somebody tell me to leave?

Ah, but see no one told you to leave. It is your choice that you are free to make. Granted, the ability to find ungoverned lands is nowhere near what it was back in 1690 when Locke wrote his philosophies. Also, with the abscence of ungoverned lands, you would have to imigrate to a governed land more of your liking, but you are free to make that choice and pursue what needs to be done to accomplish it. That or try to overthrow what you have now, assuming you can amass enough support to do so. I'm not "using" the "if you don't like it leave" argument, I'm "using" the "you have a right to make choices for your own life" arguement. You can choose what is acceptable to you. You can choose to put up with things you don't like or take steps to place yourself in a situation more to your liking. It's called liberty, and the only way a government can limit yours is if you choose to let it. By living within the boarders of a gvoernment and accepting the protections it gives you submit yourself to it's limitations on your liberty by choice. That's why Locke went so deep into the idea of a representitive republic, because the idea of an inherrant ruler or dictator was extrememly restrictive on it's populaces liberties. For example, if you read the link I posted for Locke, it explains his philosophy on the kind of government we have and how it should work. For a contrary opinion you would read The Leviathan by Hobbs. His phiosophy is one in support of inherrant rule (royal family) and his views on the state of natural law are more anarchist than Lockes. Really alot of this is hard to explain if you haven't read any of it. There are so many minor details that are used to "prove" this or that concept in the philosophies written.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: New Orleans was pretty much under Martial Law. Citizens could have weapons, just not out on the streets. If you wanted to keep your weapon-keep it at home. That's pretty clear and reasonable (under the circumstances) to me. But, I am intrigued about New York City and plan to do some research on it.

For an educator you have a pretty inaccurate view of history.


It didn't happen that long ago. Did you not notice at the time?

quote Originally posted by TK: Dude. Read.

So you have not been advocating putting "reasonable" restrictions on the 2nd. You did not write that the 2nd is moot because you think you can't beat the fed military machine? Others see this is a clear demonstration of why we should have access to ALL weapons the government has. Others have also stated that is not how the battle would play out.

Thing of it is, freedom is not free and is often very dangerous. Get over it or go hide.

quote Originally posted by Khw: Ah, but see no one told you to leave. It is your choice that you are free to make. Granted, the ability to find ungoverned lands is nowhere near what it was back in 1690 when Locke wrote his philosophies. Also, with the abscence of ungoverned lands, you would have to imigrate to a governed land more of your liking, but you are free to make that choice and pursue what needs to be done to accomplish it. That or try to overthrow what you have now, assuming you can amass enough support to do so. I'm not "using" the "if you don't like it leave" argument, I'm "using" the "you have a right to make choices for your own life" arguement. You can choose what is acceptable to you. You can choose to put up with things you don't like or take steps to place yourself in a situation more to your liking. It's called liberty, and the only way a government can limit yours is if you choose to let it. By living within the boarders of a gvoernment and accepting the protections it gives you submit yourself to it's limitations on your liberty by choice. That's why Locke went so deep into the idea of a representitive republic, because the idea of an inherrant ruler or dictator was extrememly restrictive on it's populaces liberties. For example, if you read the link I posted for Locke, it explains his philosophy on the kind of government we have and how it should work. For a contrary opinion you would read The Leviathan by Hobbs. His phiosophy is one in support of inherrant rule (royal family) and his views on the state of natural law are more anarchist than Lockes. Really alot of this is hard to explain if you haven't read any of it. There are so many minor details that are used to "prove" this or that concept in the philosophies written.

So if I drive my Fiero through your front door and declare your house to be my new kingdom and I tell you that you have to wash, wax, and detail my Fiero 4 hours a day or I will send you down to the dungeons, is this legitimate? After all, you are free to move to a new home.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: So if I drive my Fiero through your front door and declare your house to be my new kingdom and I tell you that you have to wash, wax, and detail my Fiero 4 hours a day or I will send you down to the dungeons, is this legitimate? After all, you are free to move to a new home.

Ask the Native Americans.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Ask the Native Americans.

It was wrong in that situation just as in any other situation where the initiation of violence or the treat thereof is used.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: So if I drive my Fiero through your front door and declare your house to be my new kingdom and I tell you that you have to wash, wax, and detail my Fiero 4 hours a day or I will send you down to the dungeons, is this legitimate? After all, you are free to move to a new home.

No, because my home is contained within the lands governed by the government it's people set up. Now if you were to overthrow that government and form a new government that allowed such a thing, then yes. I in that case would exercise my choice to try to overthrow the new government you set up or move to somewhere with a government more to my liking.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: I went to public school during high school, teach at a public school, have a Masters in American History, and slept at a Holiday Inn Express. Nowhere in the 235+ years since our country's declaration, do I remember any mass confiscations of weapons by a government entity within the US, nor is there any precedence for such claims. If anything, the mass proliferation of weaponry points to the contrary. I also don't understand the "sky is falling" view that not being able to shoot 30 rounds out of a "magazine" somehow equates to Hitler rounding up the Jews.

I in no way meant to either disparage the public school systems or those who have dedicated their working lives to the education of our nation's children in such institutions. My post was in response to a previous one which I felt not only made an assumption about where I received part of my education but also cast aspersions upon the public school system as a whole. Personally, I applaud those who have chosen teaching as their occupation and am in awe of the dedication such an occupation requires.

As the slogan goes "If you can read this, thank a teacher. "

Having gotten that bit of gratuitous politicking out of the way , I could not agree more with your assessment of the alarmist mentality which seems to be ingrained in this issue. Despite all the "gloom and doom" proclamations being made surrounding the subject, we are long past the point where complete and comprehensive gun eradication could ever be achieved...not, as I have stated previously, that such a policy is even being proposed. In my opinion, the debate surrounding this issue demonstrates in no uncertain terms the intransigence of those who oppose what many in the US view as but one step in a multi-faceted attempt to curb the epidemic of gun violence presently plaguing our nation.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-13-2013).]

Sensible limitations, no, that isn't the right word, because what we is thoughtful and constructive parameters for owning a gun, not limitations. Anyway, those sensible parameters have solved the gun related crime problems in Chicago, haven't they?

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: Sensible limitations, no, that isn't the right word, because what we is thoughtful and constructive parameters for owning a gun, not limitations. Anyway, those sensible parameters have solved the gun related crime problems in Chicago, haven't they?

The most glaring problem with the "Chicago Solution" as I and many other city residents view it is it doesn't enploy any significant efforts beyond the obvious matter of the weapons themselves. One of major objections is that it does not utilize a multi-faceted holistic approach to the issue and is only addressing "one leg of the stool" as it were. If the prohibition also employed anti-gang policing, mental health screenings, after-school programs for disaffected youth (to name but a few dynamics) in accordance with the attempt to control the number of guns on the streets, there's a distinct possibility the initiative would achieve a more positive outcome. Simple gun control legislation is not sufficient to address what is a much more broadly ranging problem.....though I also feel it is certainly a major part of the solution.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-13-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: The most glaring problem with the "Chicago Solution" as I and many other city residents view it is it doesn't enploy any significant efforts beyond the obvious matter of the weapons themselves. One of major objections is that it does not utilize a multi-faceted holistic approach to the issue and is only addressing "one leg of the stool" as it were. If the prohibition also employed anti-gang policing, mental health screenings, after-school programs for disaffected youth (to name but a few dynamics) in accordance with the attempt to control the number of guns on the streets, there's a distinct possibility the initiative would achieve a more positive outcome. Simple gun control legislation is not sufficient to address what is a much more broadly ranging problem.....though I also feel it is certainly a major part of the solution.

Good post, Doni. I agree that any solution to this problem requires well though out holistic approach for any possibility for success.

We do differ in our opinions however, as I do not agree that more gun laws are a significant part of the solution. The current laws are very comprehensive, provide harsh penalties for noncompliance, and are, tragically, not being enforced to the degree that they should be.

All laws do is codify behavior and punishment - its the punishment side of the law that provide the deterrent to noncompliant behavior. Any law that is not enforced on the punishment side is not an effective deterrent to crime, a key to the situation we now find ourselves in.

Revolving door prosecution of gun related criminal activity has gone on far too long in America. Prosecution of gun crime offenders, swift and without plea bargaining to lesser charges and punishment, will be more effective in curtailing overall gun violence than the expansion of the legal code.

Laws are ineffective without prosecution.

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 01-14-2013).]

I meant to say " what we want " above.

Doni, we cannot afford the level of government we have now. How do we pay for the level of government you suggest? I am not suggesting, as you well know, that these efforts are not needed, but how do we pay for them? Secondly, while we need better methods of identifying those with serious mental health problems, we do not need more government paid
" health professionals " involved in assessing mental heath, especially of school-age children. The result of this has already given us a nation of drugged children, most of whom do not need drugs but need adults who put will time effort into direction and assistance. Part-time parents in a consumer-oriented, self-absorbed, self-gratification driven society cannot rear children, but will drug them because some woefully unqualified school functionary said to. I have had experience with the Ritalin solution. What the child bored because he was far more capable than his school level needed was stimulation and direction, not drugs.

BTW, Adam Lanza had no history of violence. Was his withdrawal a predictor of violence? For what sort of " evidence ' do we start looking ? ( No preposition at the end of that sentence ) Musicians who take drugs are suspect, if you ask me. Anyone who makes a career of politics is mentally ill, and a liar on top of that. Professional football players, who are frequently hit in the head? What about police officers on SWAT teams? Surely that association with violence has an effect. And what kind of " help" will anyone get? Our record with PTSD in the military is not encouraging. I support efforts to keep potential murder weapons out of the hands of killers, but that means we need to start with cars in the hands of mothers born in South Carolina, or in 1971, like Susan Smith. Thoughtful people analyzing the facts can easily draw the conclusion that the hysteria over gun ownership sounds like it has a different purpose.


As for government minions and mental health care, God help us if they start with this forum.


Multi-Faceted Holistic Approach sure sounds like a good name for a band.

[This message has been edited by heybjorn (edited 01-14-2013).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: We don't need another reason. Our right is clearly and unquestionably protected by the very foundation of this country. Its really as simple as that and no further 'justification' is required. Everything else discussed is just fodder for the anti-gun movement to twist around.

True. I dont need a reason.

quote Originally posted by Khw: No, because my home is contained within the lands governed by the government it's people set up. Now if you were to overthrow that government and form a new government that allowed such a thing, then yes. I in that case would exercise my choice to try to overthrow the new government you set up or move to somewhere with a government more to my liking.

Do you think might makes right? If not, what's the difference between might makes right and what you said above?

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Do you think might makes right? If not, what's the difference between might makes right and what you said above?

Do I think might makes right? No. However under natural law, that is the case. That is the reason governments are formed, so the same rules apply to all no matter their might.

quote Originally posted by TK: Personally protection against another armed citizen is a separate subject, but the argument that citizen can stop the military is ludicrous.

Bravo TK Bravo.

To use this as an argument is crazy. The law was written when there was a level playing field. They all had muskets.
Tanks, Fighter Jets, Smart bombs, Drones, NUKES. Citizens with Multi clip Rifles could not stop a tyranical government. I own guns. Not to protect myself from the Government. But to protect myself from bad people.

If you honestly think that our government would turn on us, YOU ARE NUTS.

quote Originally posted by bonzo: Bravo TK Bravo. To use this as an argument is crazy. The law was written when there was a level playing field. They all had muskets. Tanks, Fighter Jets, Smart bombs, Drones, NUKES. Citizens with Multi clip Rifles could not stop a tyranical government. I own guns. Not to protect myself from the Government. But to protect myself from bad people. If you honestly think that our government would turn on us, YOU ARE NUTS.

Turn on us? How do you mean? As long as they are in control of course they aren't going to turn on us. It's when you have an uprising and the government has to utilize military force against it's own citizens to supress it that it turns on us. Don't think it can happen? Maybe you need to look at history.... Does the USSR ring a bell, just for one example? How many times have you read or heard in a broadcast about some foreign country utilizing the military to put down riots in it's own lands? Any government can turn on it's people if it is threatened on a large enough scale. If you don't think it can then you are nuts because history proves you wrong.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 01-14-2013).]