Case for the 2nd Amendment made clear for all
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:46
VIEWED: 4322
PAGE 2 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
then the real killers will be stopped by the populous armed with tranqs. They can then do what they want, cut of his head if they want, but probably lock him up is what they'll do
Yeah, they'll be able to stop them, but my point there was that before anyone would KNOW to try to stop them, the perpetrator would have to attempt to act first. Hence why I said there would still be injuries, though admittedly much fewer than right now (which is why it's a good idea).
I didn't know that about the suicide and murder rate, just perception, I guess. Thanks. :)
Still think something needs to be done to help these people before they go off the deep end.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bytemite
I completely agree with all of the above. As for doing something for them, take a cold libertarian browncoat perspective on that for the moment. Essentially, you have reavers who are hopeless timebombs best removed from your society, and you shoot them or stun them when they go off.
Then you have River Tam, who is the salvageable loon that you have to save. Fortunately for her, she has her own personal brother doctor, which isn't 100%, but at least it means that the rest of the crew is still alive.
Sticking to firefly for the moment, if we were to assume no intervention by Simon at any point than at some point, River would have killed the crew.
But, consider that in this scenario, the mainstream medical establishment is BSC, two by two hands of blue, in that case, River would have killed the crew, and because govt. is incompetent, should would have killed them too.
So, the next question becomes "Who" is it that deals with the potential problems, and that means you and me and not the govt. and hospitals, because look at the bang up job they're doing now.
Next is "when." River is a created problem for a reason. She represents our societies creation of lunacy. If you prevent the intervention that make lunatics, you've easily solved the majority of the problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're going to hate me for this, because I know you hate socialism, but in your example I think what would help is the community.
If people felt good about their lives and their relationship with the people around them and the world at broad, I think there'd be less stress and less mental illness.
I think government should be local ONLY. So in my head, what government should be and the way a community should work intersect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What will USA be like when Hussein Obama bans all guns?
Paki homebrew gun factories, new 1911 for $50:
www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE2305DC&sc=1363196
Obama wants to Surge Afghnistan.
Alexander the Great couldn't do it.
Communist Russia couldn't do it.
British Empire invaded Afghanistan with 16,000 troops, only one survived...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've been aware of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp for years. She's a hero of mine!
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/guns.htm
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Texas is looking to allow open-carry now, instead of just concealed-carry. Could be interesting.
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm in favor of community. Social Engineering is not a bad idea, it's a bad form of govt. You can't have a dictation of social and moral values to all the people, but you can collectively associate like minded citizens, which is why religions exist.
Quote:
If people felt good about their lives and their relationship with the people around them and the world at broad, I think there'd be less stress and less mental illness.
Yes, but society has been manipulated to prevent this stability, to increase production, and decrease reproduction. This creates stress because it removes us from our natural state, It creates a lot of mental illness, not as much as chemical psychotrophics do, including those found in everyday foods.
Quote:
I think government should be local ONLY. So in my head, what government should be and the way a community should work intersect.
I would agree, but you need an overarching union to protect each state from domination from some outside power. The structure of this would have to be elaborate. I have one which actually is based on what my sister devised for her rehabilitation classes. It rewards even handedness and neutrality, and punishes use of power, not just abuse, but any exercising of power. It naturally leads to a leadership of the powerless to govern a body which possesses no power. This does nothing but prevent another body from taking its place, allowing freedom for the individuals within it. I think that if this works with a group of substance abuse cases, it might work with a group of communities as well. In a more complex reconstruction, but that's the general idea.
One of the Tory MPs made an excellent case for NATO as the best form of Govt., because it had no power to legislate, but its existence had prevented the formation of independent offensive militaries. It's flaw was the same as the above, that it could be replaced by another body, the EU, which is just the sort of thing we would have to guard against.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
John,
Your points on Afghanistan are well taken. The pashtun value chaos and oppose order, because they know that order is the only power which can strip them of their core social beliefs. Thus, they will never surrender. Somalia is a similar affair. The NWO hates societies like this, because it can neither understand nor control chaos.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Texas is looking to allow open-carry now, instead of just concealed-carry. Could be interesting.
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
That's cool, but when I lived in Kansas that was the law there but it was not honored by law enforcement. If you were walking down the road with a six shooter they would haul you downtown for questioning, then release you if they found nothing to charge you with. A friend of mine lived in Arizona in the 70's and said they still had pistol checks to drop off your guns at the entrance of bars.
I think in Frem's Utopian future everyone carries a weapon (exposed and concealed) therefore limiting the necessity to use them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's probably not feasible to not have an overarching government, I agree, but it seems like a distant government can rarely make the necessary legislation to meet a community's needs. What's more, my impression is the only point of a national government is to provide the framework for a national military and an economy based upon supplying such. I know, I know, ours also sets international policy and standards for social programs, but I don't feel that's what the federal government's real, unspoken purpose is.
I respect that our soldiers are trying to fight for our safety, and that they're not responsible for what our government decides to do, but I really don't like the wars we fight. And a strong national military can be tricked into acting against the people they're supposed to serve... Just seems like a dangerous idea.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME