Quantcast

DEMOCIDE (death by governments) was the leading cause of non-natural death last century!!! Do you trust this institution with the power to choose what guns we're "allowed" to possess?

The Bantam Seditioner 2012/12/19 04:45:05
Not even counting war casualties or strikes against other armed combatants, the governments of the world killed over 260,000,000 people in the 20th century, and the trend continues. For those who say "it can't happen here", please keep in mind that very many nations have declined into tyranny and mass murder that were peaceful democratic countries before some catalyzing or destabilizing event (hyperinflation and financial depression in Wiemar Germany, for example).

In the wake of last week's tragedy, many people are, understandably, feeling somewhat desperate. But please take caution that your desperation and momentary emotional vulnerability does not cloud your judgement on the issue of human rights, including the right to protect one's home and family from aggressors, whatever their station in life or level of officialdom may be.

As despicable and deplorable as the actions of Adam Lanza may be (and I think nearly everybody here will agree that they were), no Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Jared Lee Loughner could ever hope to unleash something on the scale of Fat Man and Little Boy over Hiroshima and Nagasaki...or intern tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during the 1940's...or even launch one drone strike against innocent Pakistani civilians. Not only is the US government capable of doing so; it HAS done so in the past and has shown a predilection to engage in such behavior insofar as they can get away with it. Please, don't give up the one remaining check on state power that keeps the people practicably equal with their leaders. Think about this...I beseech you.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Philo-Publius 2012/12/21 18:16:56
    Philo-Publius
    +2
    So you're telling me that FEMA ad offering the internship was a scam?
    scam
  • The Ban... Philo-P... 2012/12/21 18:24:14
    The Bantam Seditioner
    +3
    Just like the kids used to say "never trust anyone over 30", I think it's a good policy to never trust anyone from FEMA. :)

    Hey Philo, how are you celebrating Mayan prophesy Day? Havin' a good one? I'm really hoping something happens to day and will be kinda bummed if it doesn't. Any predictions?
  • Philo-P... The Ban... 2012/12/21 18:33:35
    Philo-Publius
    +2
    My celebration is consisting, so far, of sipping coffee whilst watching the snowflakes fall outside my window (not much has come down yet, but they're calling for up to 4 inches). Well, that and playing around on here and doing a little reading in-between, I guess.

    My prediction is that whatever paradigm shift that was to take place can now proceed, unobstructed by the sundry and conflicting anticipations that had been.

    (That is to say, maybe we'll all be on the same page now; more unified in view and purpose.)
  • Dan 2012/12/21 05:00:29
    Dan
    +1
    Extremely valid point. I find it ironic that so many who hate the patriot because it threatens our freedom are for gun control. Seems contradictory to me.
  • tom Savage 2012/12/20 21:07:18
    tom Savage
    +2
    We can trust ourselves. No one is trusting the "Government" to decide for us. This is a democracy. We are having a national discourse and will decide what is best for ourselves. The final decision will not be unanimous. There will be many who disagree. nevertheless, it will be the peoples decision the a "Government" dictate.
  • T A tom Savage 2012/12/26 06:36:53 (edited)
    T A
    The same government that was elected by 17% of the population?

    People don't get to decide what other people may buy or sell, possess or not possess, unless you believe we are all slaves to one another. And in this case, a tiny minority.
  • tom Savage T A 2012/12/26 23:07:49
    tom Savage
    And your alternate system is?

    A. Anarchy?
    B. Dictatorship led by ___?
    C. Single party system of Republicans only?
    D. Alternate not listed _____________________?
  • TerryAgee 2012/12/20 19:47:33
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/12/19 20:11:20
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    I doubt that ANY drone strikes were launched "against innocent Pakistani civilians." I believe that EVERY drone strike was launched against terrorists, although there were undoubtedly many innocent Pakistani civilian deaths as collateral damage.

    That's the difference between the sides in the War On Terror. Islamists target non-combatants, whereas we target terrorists.
  • T A Kaleoku... 2012/12/20 04:07:45 (edited)
    T A
    +2
    What a terrific difference and no doubt sweet comfort for the survivors.

    What if they retaliated. Would that be just or unjust?
  • Kaleoku... T A 2012/12/20 04:28:44
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    Good question! Sounds like the premise of "Homeland." By "they," do you mean the nation of Pakistan? Individuals who were actually injured in the attacks? The Taliban? Al Qaeda?

    I believe the nation of Pakistan condones the attacks, because they cannot control these tribal areas. Hostilities already exist between America and the Taliban/Al Qaeda, who already represent those targeted by drone strikes.
  • T A Kaleoku... 2012/12/20 04:55:41 (edited)
    T A
    +2
    I mean the survivors of those you refer to as collateral damage. Would they, in your opinion, be justified in retaliating? If so, who would be a legitimate target? Politicians? Military? The tax cattle who make it possible?

    I'll have to look up homeland. I've never heard of it.
  • Kaleoku... T A 2012/12/20 05:20:10
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    IMHO, individuals are never entitled to retaliate against governments, either their own or another. To do so is to engage in criminal actions. They may only petition their own government to settle their grievances.
  • T A Kaleoku... 2012/12/20 05:56:51
    T A
    +2
    What makes it criminal for an individual to act on ones behalf? What makes people in government different than other people?

    Also, please note I asked if it would be just, not if a government would sanction it.
  • Kaleoku... T A 2012/12/20 06:31:35
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    "What makes it criminal for an individual to act on ones behalf?" The actions of the person determine whether or not it is criminal, not if they are acting on someone else's behalf.

    "What makes people in government different than other people"? If they are acting on behalf of the government, they are serving as agents. If they are not acting on behalf of the government, they are the same as any other private citizen.

    A personal vendetta may or may not be "just," depending on the circumstances.
  • T A Kaleoku... 2012/12/20 14:37:18
    T A
    +1
    You know the circumstances for this particular situation. Would retaliation be just for the survivors of the so called collateral damage? We know they were non-combatants due to their classification as collateral damage.

    Is a person acting as an agent of government different kind of being than a private citizen?

    Does a person's nature or moral status change depending upon whether he works for the government or for not?
  • Kaleoku... T A 2012/12/20 18:38:18
    Kaleokualoha
    "Would retaliation be just for the survivors of the so called collateral damage?" Once again: "IMHO, individuals are never entitled to retaliate against governments, either their own or another.

    "Is a person acting as an agent of government different kind of being than a private citizen?" They are not "a different kind of being," but their rights and responsibilities differ from those of a private citizen.

    "Does a person's nature or moral status change depending upon whether he works for the government or for not?" Their nature does not change, but their moral status changes when they become an agent of their government. As an agent, they assume different rights and responsibilities.

    IMHO

    "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Moynihan
  • tom Savage T A 2012/12/20 21:45:55
    tom Savage
    One can act on one's own behalf and be justified. It's is the act that could be criminal. The rule of law applies whether domestically or internationally. The perpetrating a violent act by an individual on another person or a nation, regardless of the revenge motivation, is not legal nor just.

    "An eye for an eye is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree, or according to other interpretations the victim receives the value of the injury in compensation. According to Jewish interpretations the victim in criminal law gets financial compensation based on the law of human equality eschewing mutilation and 'lex talionis'."

    "As mentioned in (Qur'an 2:178) "O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution (Qasas) for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct."
  • T A tom Savage 2012/12/26 06:49:02
    T A
    "The perpetrating a violent act by an individual on another person or a nation, regardless of the revenge motivation, is not legal nor just."

    But isn't that exactly what the politicians and the military personnel that do their bidding are doing? Or are they not individuals perpetrating violent acts on another person or nation (which is simply a a group of individuals)? Are you saying there is no recourse for the victims of a politicians' evil whims or that such recourse is only available should others grant the victims permission to seek redress? That would seem to deny self ownership, meaning the victim is a slave to the will of others. By whose authority is this victim made subject to another's will for the redress of sufferings caused by others?

    I'm very familiar with halacha, thanks.
    __________________________

    Excerpted from http://www.torah.org/learning...

    68. Murderer and Protection of Life - Rotze'ach u-Shemiras Nefesh

    It is forbidden to murder, as it says "You shall not murder".1 A murderer must be put to death, as it says "He shall be avenged"2; it is forbidden to accept compensation from him instead, as it says "You shall not take redemption for the life of a murderer...; and there shall be no atonement for the blood that was spilled... except the blood of him that s...

    "The perpetrating a violent act by an individual on another person or a nation, regardless of the revenge motivation, is not legal nor just."

    But isn't that exactly what the politicians and the military personnel that do their bidding are doing? Or are they not individuals perpetrating violent acts on another person or nation (which is simply a a group of individuals)? Are you saying there is no recourse for the victims of a politicians' evil whims or that such recourse is only available should others grant the victims permission to seek redress? That would seem to deny self ownership, meaning the victim is a slave to the will of others. By whose authority is this victim made subject to another's will for the redress of sufferings caused by others?

    I'm very familiar with halacha, thanks.
    __________________________

    Excerpted from http://www.torah.org/learning...

    68. Murderer and Protection of Life - Rotze'ach u-Shemiras Nefesh

    It is forbidden to murder, as it says "You shall not murder".1 A murderer must be put to death, as it says "He shall be avenged"2; it is forbidden to accept compensation from him instead, as it says "You shall not take redemption for the life of a murderer...; and there shall be no atonement for the blood that was spilled... except the blood of him that spilled it".3 It is forbidden to execute a murderer before he has stood trial, as it says "And the murderer shall not die until he stands before the congregation for judgment".4 However, we are commanded to prevent an attempted murder by killing the would-be murderer if necessary, and it is forbidden to refrain from doing so, as it says "And you shall cut off her hand; you shall not be merciful"5; and similarly for attempted fornication, as it says "[If the man seizes her and lies with her...] just as a man rises up against his friend and murders him, so is this thing."6 It is forbidden to refrain from saving life when it is in one's power to do so, as it says "You shall not stand on your friend's blood."7,a

    One who kills a man by accident must be exiled to a city of refuge and it is forbidden to accept compensation from him instead, as it says "He shall dwell there until the death of the high priest... and you shall not take redemption from [one] who flees to his city of refuge [to return and dwell in the land before the priest dies]."8 We are commanded to set aside such cities in the land of Israel, as it says "You shall set aside three cities... [to which a murderer can flee]"9; all the cities given to the Levites are cities of refuge, as it says "The cities that you shall give to the Levites: the six cities of refuge that you shall give for a murderer to flee there, and besides them you shall give 42 cities".10,b
    (more)
  • tom Savage T A 2012/12/26 23:17:14
    tom Savage
    We are a Nation of laws. We also adhere to international law. Many of our laws are based in a religious text but many are not. In our form of democracy we have elected leaders and appointed individuals are assigned the task of upholding the law. An individual is not authorized by law to avenge. That is the law. Operate outside of the law and you are subject to the consequences.
  • ConLibFraud 2012/12/19 17:23:27 (edited)
    ConLibFraud
    +3
    You left out OK city bombing and 911.

    The 2nd Amendment exists so We The People can arm and defend ourselves against this treasonous tyrannical government. If the bastards have automatic weapons then so do WE THE PEOPLE!!!!!!
  • holly g... ConLibF... 2012/12/28 17:57:41
    holly go lightly
    Touche`
  • Batou 2012/12/19 15:04:43
    Batou
    +1
    There is only one check on state power. It's not guns though.
  • T A Batou 2012/12/20 04:00:19
    T A
    +2
    The willingness of people to obey? The strength of their belief in the myth of the state?

    Or (may bob forgive me for even asking), the vote?
  • Batou T A 2012/12/20 04:42:13
    Batou
    Funny. I was thinking more along the lines of public will. See reality is funnier that way.
  • T A Batou 2012/12/20 06:07:21 (edited)
    T A
    +1
    Excerpted from Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548


    To achieve the good that they desire, the bold do not fear danger; the intelligent do not refuse to undergo suffering. It is the stupid and cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their rights; they stop at merely longing for them, and lose through timidity the valor roused by the effort to claim their rights, although the desire to enjoy them still remains as part of their nature. A longing common to both the wise and the foolish, to brave men and to cowards, is this longing for all those things which, when acquired, would make them happy and contented. Yet one element appears to be lacking. I do not know how it happens that nature fails to place within the hearts of men a burning desire for liberty, a blessing so great and so desirable that when it is lost all evils follow thereafter, and even the blessings that remain lose taste and savor because of their corruption by servitude. Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.

    Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to y...
    Excerpted from Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548


    To achieve the good that they desire, the bold do not fear danger; the intelligent do not refuse to undergo suffering. It is the stupid and cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their rights; they stop at merely longing for them, and lose through timidity the valor roused by the effort to claim their rights, although the desire to enjoy them still remains as part of their nature. A longing common to both the wise and the foolish, to brave men and to cowards, is this longing for all those things which, when acquired, would make them happy and contented. Yet one element appears to be lacking. I do not know how it happens that nature fails to place within the hearts of men a burning desire for liberty, a blessing so great and so desirable that when it is lost all evils follow thereafter, and even the blessings that remain lose taste and savor because of their corruption by servitude. Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.

    Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows —to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.
    (more)
  • Batou T A 2012/12/25 08:22:36
    Batou
    While I may disagree with Boetie's characterization of the public or how easy it is to acquire liberty. I think his realizations and ideas of civil disobediance are far more significant.

    It's fairly ironic that he was a judge.
  • T A Batou 2012/12/26 07:00:11
    T A
    +1
    All that need be done is to stop feeding the creature money and faith. Deny it's "right" to rule by living as a free person. It is true that no individual's actions as a free person would alone make a dent in the power of this creature that feeds on faith. Yet, if enough people see that it has no power but what they give it and that it has no desire for their good but only to feed from them like a parasite, they could be free tomorrow. The only difference of opinion regarding the public is that they are taught to believe this lie from birth. Like prisoners from birth they are fed lies to hold them in thrall to the state. It is not so much stupidity as well practiced indoctrination like that of any religion and surrounded by people who have been taught the same thing they cannot recognize the harm that it does to them.
  • andy15554 2012/12/19 14:52:47
    andy15554
    +4
    The libs are saying all semi-automatic guns should be banned, they are after the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms
  • Tink123 2012/12/19 14:38:38
    Tink123
    +2
    Big shocker there. lol
  • mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/12/19 13:24:19
  • The Ban... mk, Sma... 2012/12/19 13:30:13
    The Bantam Seditioner
    +2
    Anytime, mk! Thanks for reading! :)
  • Arizona1950 2012/12/19 13:04:16
    Arizona1950
    +4
    TSA Moves to Sovietize Internal Travel: The Next Step Of The Police State Unfolding ...

    Wendy McElroy, writing for the Dollar Vigilante, has uncovered a TSA move to extend its airport Gestapo zone to the nation’s mass transit system and highways.

    McElroy spotlights an application on page 71431 of Volume 77, Number 231of the Federal Register that “constitutes a preliminary step toward systematically expanding TSA’s authority from airports to highways and almost every other means of public travel.”

    The effort will eliminate the ability to travel anonymously around the country and remove “one of the last remaining differences between the US and a total police state,” McElroy writes. “The total police state you experience at airports wants to spill into roads and bus stops, to subways and trains. Or, rather, the TSA wants to solidify and spread the fledgling and erratic presence it already has.”

    The application for funding submitted to the Office of Management and Budget explains that the TSA “seeks to establish the current state of security gaps and implemented countermeasures throughout the highway mode of transportation by posing questions to major transportation asset owners and operators.”

    xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Arizona... Arizona... 2012/12/19 13:05:59
  • explorer1618 2012/12/19 12:39:09
    explorer1618
    As long as it's out of anti-government nut jobs hands - Hell Yes
  • A Founding Father 2012/12/19 11:13:26
    A Founding Father
    +1
    What sort of nonsense are you pandering? We had all those guns you want to praise and we unleashed the Fat Man and Little Boy and cheered then and still today will cheer our doing that to innocent civilians. Since that date, by the way, we have killed more than 444,000 civilians here in the U.S. by gunfire, and wounded more than nine times that number. That is more than all the U.S. casualties of WWII. What good are these guns you
    sleep with? Very useful to criminals, robbers, murderers, lunatics, police and military authorities, and those who hunt deer, bear and elk. All the rest, just toys in the closet and something to take to the range and pretend to shoot "enemies" as part of that borderline insanity lurking just below the surface of far too many.

    Actually, I have one nearby and value it's comfort as my protection if ever needed. But, I don't need a military style weapon with a 100 round magazine, a weapon of mass murder.
    If I miss six times I deserve the inevitable result of my inability to deal with the circumstance.
  • T A A Found... 2012/12/20 04:15:16
    T A
    +1
    Are you actually comparing the numbers killed in 6 years with those in the subsequent 72?
  • A Found... T A 2012/12/20 04:28:41
    A Founding Father
    I am pointing out that WWII, often described as the most destructive war of history and producing the greatest number of casualties we have ever left on foreign soil, is not as great a war as we fight right here at home among ourselves. While something just short of 8,000 have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since we invaded there in 2002, more than 130,000 have died here in the U.S. of gunfire in the same period. With numbers like that we don't need enemies, we are the enemies.
  • Cat 2012/12/19 08:42:23
    Cat
    +1
    I really was with you till I read this: "launch one drone strike against innocent Pakistani civilians". Please support this statement with evidence that civilian casualties are not just collateral to strikes on enemy targets. I don't think US policy dictates strikes against innocent civilians". Aside from being immoral and evil, it would be diplomatically counterproductive.
    Please explain your statement.
  • The Ban... Cat 2012/12/19 08:54:07
    The Bantam Seditioner
    +1
    Here are a few links. I'm not in the habit of using CNN as a source (for obvious reasons), but I hope allowances can be made given how generally under-reported these incidents have been.

    http://www.policymic.com/arti...

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25...

    http://articles.washingtonpos...

    http://lewrockwell.com/margol...

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/30 17:10:22

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals