The gun lobby is deranged

[BigRob]

I don't see how it is self defense if I come to the aid of somebody I don't know. Another example suppose I use force against someone who is planning to commit suicide. Am I violating his rights when I think suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem?

What is your point in all this Ayn Rand stuff? You guys keep trying to pin me down on some abstraction. Can you tell me where you are trying to go with this.

I am not quoting Ayn Rand -- I was simply thinking about both Gen's and your statements and had the question I posed. I think its an interesting concept -- but in terms of the Ayn Rand stuff, I will have to let Gen respond to that one.

 

[Gipper]

Better than the murderous tyranny of the brainwashed child-killing gunmen, surely?

So sad to see someone fully accepting of the power and tyranny of the state over the individual. You prefer security over freedom....but you will get neither.

It does not surprise me that tyrants can take power and murder millions, when we have people unable to think or reason....thanks to the government indoctrination centers.

Murdering tyrants love you and your kind.

 

[Iolo2]

So sad to see someone fully accepting of the power and tyranny of the state over the individual. You prefer security over freedom....but you will get neither.

It does not surprise me that tyrants can take power and murder millions, when we have people unable to think or reason....thanks to the government indoctrination centers.

Murdering tyrants love you and your kind.

I live in a democracy without guns, ta, and as soon as we see the back of the English well be able to laugh at you as you deeply deserve.

 

[Gipper]

I live in a democracy without guns, ta, and as soon as we see the back of the English well be able to laugh at you as you deeply deserve.

You, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and all the other statist mass murders have much in common.

 

[Iolo2]

You, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and all the other statist mass murders have much in common.

Nutty codswallop. Stick to beer, lad!

 

[Pandora]

It feels like we traded one loon for another

 

[Iolo2]

It feels like we traded one loon for another

Quack, quack, brainwashed quack! Obey your masters and all will be a complete crapup!

 

[Pandora]

Quack, quack, brainwashed quack! Obey your masters and all will be a complete crapup!

Thanks for the confirmation

 

[Iolo2]

Thanks for the confirmation

What a tremendously intellectual level of debate! You are a credit to your padded cell!

 

[Pandora]

What a tremendously intellectual level of debate! You are a credit to your padded cell!

Debate? I am not the one throwing out crazy ideas in thread after thread then refusing to back them even when repeatedly asked.





You are going to have to keep your insults for yourself; it’s a gift I won’t accept, leaving it in your lap J

 

[Iolo2]

Debate? I am not the one throwing out crazy ideas in thread after thread then refusing to back them even when repeatedly asked.





You are going to have to keep your insults for yourself; it’s a gift I won’t accept, leaving it in your lap J

Explain, slowly, what question-having-an-answer you believe yourself to have asked.

 

[BigRob]

Explain, slowly, what question-having-an-answer you believe yourself to have asked.

I am still a little curious about your claim that state boundaries are "gerrymandered".

 

[dogtowner]

I am still a little curious about your claim that state boundaries are "gerrymandered".

he is better of not bothering given the response to this query before.

 

[Gipper]

Nutty codswallop. Stick to beer, lad!

It is sad that you are incapable of recognizing your brainwashing.....but then it wouldn't be brainwashing if you did.

I think this spells it out rather well. To bad you and your kind can't comprehend it. No doubt you TRUST Big Ears 100%, but mistrust the American people 100%.

Every time there is a shooting at a school, shopping center, city council meeting or other location where innocent people are shot or killed by a private citizen and not a government employee, the Left immediately calls for civilian disarmament, maybe not all at once, but certainly by degrees.
What is odd about this is that not a day goes by that MoveOn.Org doesn't send out some kind of alert about banksters or corporate bogeymen who are up to no good. They probably are, but these people never see any danger from omnipotent government, only private cabals that operate for gain, but have no arrest or taxing power and no history of setting up gulags and murdering people en masse.
It's as though they have upended Jefferson's admonition, " in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution." Instead of mistrust of government officials they have mistrust of the citizen and instead of binding down the government they want to free the government and bind the citizen. They don't trust John Q. Public, but they do trust Obama, Bloomberg, Stalin, Hitler, Castro or Robespierre.It's as though the Bolsheviks can be trusted, but the peasants can't be.http://lewrockwell.com/sullivan/sullivan-c13.1.html

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes in some circumstances. What comes to mind is if somebody is harming me, someone else, or society.

I'm really not sure why the word initiate is so confusing... It means someone is minding their own business, not using force against anyone, not violating anyone's rights, then someone else comes along and initiates force against that person and thereby violate their rights. So let me ask again...

Do you believe any individual has a "right" to initiate force against others?

I don't see how it is self defense if I come to the aid of somebody I don't know.

That's probably because you do not understand the Right of Self Defense, it's likely never been explained to you, and/or you've never given it any serious thought, and/or you've never bothered to ask anyone... So here it is: The Right of Self Defense is the Right of all individuals to use force against those who initiate the use of force. That means if you witness a woman being mugged in an alley, and even though you don't know her, her life is not your own, and it's not your purse being stolen, you have the Right to use force against the mugger (because he is the one who initiated the use of force). It's not purse defense, it's not woman defense, it's Self Defense.

Another example suppose I use force against someone who is planning to commit suicide. Am I violating his rights when I think suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem?

If that individual is initiating force only against himself and no one else, then yes, you are violating his rights. Our Right to Life means that your life belongs to you and no one else, it doesn't mean you have a "right" to choose who lives and who dies, it doesn't mean you have a "right" to force someone to continue living against their will, nor does it mean you have a "right" to be provided - at the expense of someone else - with every material good or service necessary to live.

Like every other area in life, you may disagree with the decisions an individual makes, and you may disagree with their reasoning behind the decisions, but their life belongs to them, not you, and you only have the Right to make decisions about your own life - not the life of any other adult. You have the Right to try and persuade them, with reason, but you do not have a "right" to impose your will on them by force.

What is your point in all this Ayn Rand stuff?

I believe I've only quoted her once during our conversation... Let's not get sidetracked into making this about her, it's not, it's about the immorality of initiating the use force against others.

You guys keep trying to pin me down on some abstraction.

Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. ​

My question to you regarding the "right" to initiate the use of force against others is very specific. Either you believe such a "right" exists or you do not; either you believe individuals have a "right" to murder innocent people or they do not; either you believe they have the "right" to rape, rob, and enslave their fellow man or they do not. The claim of moral ambiguity, the claim of an elusive gray area, is the abstraction. It is an attempt to justify, without stating it aloud, that some men - under certain circumstances - could (or even do) have such a "right".

Can you tell me where you are trying to go with this.

To the obvious and inevitable conclusion: No individual has the "right" to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances.