Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:20 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:35 am buy a gun

the party hasn't started yet...

-Imp

I think it's so quaint how Yanks think owning a gun means they could use it in a combat situation against their now battle-hardened infantry.

I've heard that argument used against libertarians and the answer I've usually heard is that they trust that there would be mutiny to whatever degree if the armed forces were directed unjustly against citizens fighting for their rights. However, that doesn't seem to have transpired on many occasions that I'm aware of such as what happened to the Branch Davidians or during the Bundy Standoff. In those cases, the Feds pretty much cracked down and I'm not aware of any push back from their own troops or agents.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:20 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:35 am buy a gun

the party hasn't started yet...

-Imp

I think it's so quaint how Yanks think owning a gun means they could use it in a combat situation against their now battle-hardened infantry.

yes its cure in a dumb sort of way.

mostly dumb.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:20 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:35 am buy a gun

the party hasn't started yet...

-Imp

I think it's so quaint how Yanks think owning a gun means they could use it in a combat situation against their now battle-hardened infantry.

I think it's naive to assume the infantry would be our enemy.

Most of the law enforcers, the military, are gun owners and conservative-minded.

Look at the situation in Virginia: the legislature is lookin' to enact heavy restrictions on gun ownership in a state known for its gun ownership, and law enforcement in a great many counties ain't havin' none it, openly defyin' the legislature, sayin' they won't enforce the laws, and they're bein' backed by county gov and citizens.

No, in what may be comin', the bulk of law men and soldiers won't be movin' against citizens; they'll be movin' with citizens.

OK. So it sounds to me like a minarchist could approve of government stepping in during extreme emergencies such as earthquakes, hurricanes or large scale civil unrest and what not to restore order or help those suffering. Am I wrong?

I think rioting is an unwarranted aggression that ought to be put done by local constabulary and citizens.

I think local constables and citizens ought to lend an assist to local folks caught up in natural disasters.

The trick is organizing without entrenched bureaucracy.

Here's a example of how do that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun_Navy

Couple organizations like the CN with charities like Associated Catholic Charities and Second Harvest and a good chunk of, for example, FEMA goes the way of the Dodo.

See, the thing to remember: the night watchman model is way smaller, far more local, far more accountable, and not nearly as rigid as the current model. And: it requires a higher degree of overall self-reliance among citizens than what's runnin' now.

As I say in the thread I offered: America ain't ready for minarchy.

Fanatics: not exactly how most small gov Americans are.

henry quirk wrote: No, in what may be comin', the bulk of law men and soldiers won't be movin' against citizens; they'll be movin' with citizens.

Against whom then?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:58 am

henry quirk wrote: No, in what may be comin', the bulk of law men and soldiers won't be movin' against citizens; they'll be movin' with citizens.

Against whom then?

Those who'd leash free men and women (like the Virginia gun grabbers).

You know, commies & socialists (which includes a good many dupes and sympathizers among Republicans and, sad to say, Libertarians).

So much for free speech and democracy in the Land of the Fat.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:55 pm So much for free speech and democracy in the Land of the Fat.

How is takin' a man's gun for no good reason free speech?

How is a legislature voting to leash to leash citizens democracy?

And: fat gets a bad rap...I'd rather bang a pudgy woman than a skeletal one.

henry quirk wrote: How is takin' a man's gun for no good reason free speech?

Well presumably they're thinking about the 10,000 yearly dead.

How is a legislature voting to leash to leash citizens democracy?

Presumably they were voted in and presumably you can vote them out if the majority don't like the policies?

And: fat gets a bad rap...I'd rather bang a pudgy woman than a skeletal one.

Pudgy and fat are two different things.

Well presumably they're thinking about the 10,000 yearly dead.

So, punishing the innocent along with the guilty; moreover, presuming guilt from the start, this is democracy, free speech, etc.?

#

Presumably they were voted in and presumably you can vote them out if the majority don't like the policies?

Sure, but they're supposed to be bound up, these employees. Let's say the Virginia legislature wanted to put darkies back in the fields, and the majority backed such a thing: 'oh well, they were voted in fairly, so we'll have to wait till the next election'. Oversteppin' requires opposition today, not tomorrow.

'C'mon, Henry, slavery and gun control are two different things.'

Not from where I stand they aren't.

#

Pudgy and fat are two different things.

Eye of the beholder.

henry quirk wrote:
So, punishing the innocent along with the guilty; moreover, presuming guilt from the start, this is democracy, free speech, etc.?

#

20,000 dead a year. You've killed over a million people for less.

Sure, but they're supposed to be bound up, these employees. Let's say the Virginia legislature wanted to put darkies back in the fields, and the majority backed such a thing: 'oh well, they were voted in fairly, so we'll have to wait till the next election'. Oversteppin' requires opposition today, not tomorrow.

'C'mon, Henry, slavery and gun control are two different things.'

Not from where I stand they aren't.

And yet your stance appears to be fine with using the military against your minorities?

Eye of the beholder.

Nah!
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl= ... mrc&uact=8

"20,000 dead a year."

Doesn't matter if it's 100,000 or a million: if Joe hasn't unjustly deprived another of life, liberty, or property with his gun, then his gun ain't nobody's business.

#

"You've killed over a million people for less."

Not me.

#

"And yet your stance appears to be fine with using the military against your minorities?"

What?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 1:20 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:35 am buy a gun

the party hasn't started yet...

-Imp

I think it's so quaint how Yanks think owning a gun means they could use it in a combat situation against their now battle-hardened infantry.

my second amendment is not why i can own a gun (I have no wish to - i'd shoot myself if i had one). common law is why i can and why you can too, after you join a gun club.

granted it was easier to buy an instrument of murder before Hungerford in your nation, but your still can via our common law.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:55 pm So much for free speech and democracy in the Land of the Fat.

lol, i laughed, for there are many - most - here that are FAT. but do not be so fast to point that fat finger sir, UK in the last 20 yrs has gotten as fat an americans!

i'm thin BTW - not to brag.............but bragging.........lol.

the last thin (and gunless - but can buy and gun, but why would i being a depressant-type?) man standing in Okie-homa.