Not really, actually. Today a small man can still stand up and face a big corporation. Large corporations still get fined billions for bribery because some law abiding individuals are willing to fight them and to bring them to their knees. Gangsters still go into prison, no matter how large their private armys are. Sure it does not always work (see Oakland) , but it does work most of the time.You are describing human life.
The path to world peace
Skipjack wrote:Not really, actually. Today a small man can still stand up and face a big corporation. Large corporations still get fined billions for bribery because some law abiding individuals are willing to fight them and to bring them to their knees. Gangsters still go into prison, no matter how large their private armys are. Sure it does not always work (see Oakland) , but it does work most of the time.You are describing human life.
I am not getting my message through to you. The reason a small man can stand up and face a big corporation is because years ago, the meanest SOB in the tribe decided everyone should do what he said or else. First he used his fists. Then rocks and clubs. Eventually Guns, and he became the head of the government. Since it displeases him for his subjects to damage each other (his property) he decrees that the only person allowed to damage his property is him!
This is how government gets established, and how it's traditions get passed on, even though we no longer have an overtly criminal leader. (till recently)
The point is, Once the death dealing gets established in the system, and everyone knows who's gonna kill them if they get out of line, all the system dynamics stabilize.
Notice how little crime occurs in Saudi Arabia? This is because Arabs refrain from committing crimes because they are more inherently moral and upstanding, right?
No, it's because the punishment is swift and sure!
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
That's one way early governments (tyrannies/monarchies) got established. However, ever read Rousseau? Even the biggest SOB has to sleep sometimes. If he pisses everyone else off too much, some of them will just kill him when he's not expecting it.
Governments also naturally got established by a bunch of people getting together and deciding that, collectively, they had to establish rules for society. They also needed to be able to effectively organize themselves into military forces when threatened by other tribes. As a result you got early republics - everywhere from ancient Greece to some of the native tribes in North America (Iroquois Confederacy).
Now, you could argue that the guys who got together to form such a republic were a collection of SOBs who were tougher than everyone else they ran into. Well, so be it - someone had to do the job (just like the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana). Yes, in ancient republics only a minority of people were citizens - many were slaves (and women were often treated as property, although not in the Iroquois example). But, government does not necessarily derive simply from one person bullying the others.
Governments also naturally got established by a bunch of people getting together and deciding that, collectively, they had to establish rules for society. They also needed to be able to effectively organize themselves into military forces when threatened by other tribes. As a result you got early republics - everywhere from ancient Greece to some of the native tribes in North America (Iroquois Confederacy).
Now, you could argue that the guys who got together to form such a republic were a collection of SOBs who were tougher than everyone else they ran into. Well, so be it - someone had to do the job (just like the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana). Yes, in ancient republics only a minority of people were citizens - many were slaves (and women were often treated as property, although not in the Iroquois example). But, government does not necessarily derive simply from one person bullying the others.
If this is the book I am thinking of, John Lott was a big PROPONENT of gun control and did an in-depth study of gun ownership and usage in America in order to bolster his political views. The data caused him to change his mind. An honest social scientist. Almost a contradiction in terms.Skipjack wrote: So it is a book written by someone, full of facts, or not...
He may just as well be working for the NRA, hell if I know.
That is what police and courts are for. I don't believe anyone here has recommended lawlessness. What they have recommended is self protection.Skipjack wrote:As I said, how do you prevent the whole thing getting out of hand, if there is no neutral authority to keep the order?
You will have a law less society where the one with the biggest guns gets his way. How can that be desirable?
What amazes me is how some folks here in the US think that the police will protect them when it has been decided at the highest level of the court that it is NOT the police's job to protect them.
These same people expect you to waited 15 to 30 minutes for government police to get there to protect you but won't wait 10 minutes for for the government bus to take them where they want to go; all that while folks are MUCH more likely to get killed by private automobiles than private guns. Dumb!
The thing is, that I dont even mind guns. My father is a hunter and I am was a member of the Schützenverein (gun club) once. I did however strictly shoot for sports with rifles. I personally dont see any reason why anybody would need a handgun.
If you need to defend your home, a rifle will do. For military purposes, rifles do.
For doing your anti government revolution whatshallmacallit, rifles would do.
Rifles, unlike handguns are very impractical for commiting crimes with, since you can not conceal them very easily.
Anyway, my point is not so much that guns are bad. However some here have been stating that stricter gun laws are bad and they clearly are not (because then we would have infinitely more crime here than you have).
It also do believe that there has to be a neutral entity keeping the control on the streets. Without that, you will soon have feudal battles between clan lords, or gangs respectively.
Some here clearly said that you dont need a police (if everybody is armed) and I object that.
If you need to defend your home, a rifle will do. For military purposes, rifles do.
For doing your anti government revolution whatshallmacallit, rifles would do.
Rifles, unlike handguns are very impractical for commiting crimes with, since you can not conceal them very easily.
Anyway, my point is not so much that guns are bad. However some here have been stating that stricter gun laws are bad and they clearly are not (because then we would have infinitely more crime here than you have).
It also do believe that there has to be a neutral entity keeping the control on the streets. Without that, you will soon have feudal battles between clan lords, or gangs respectively.
Some here clearly said that you dont need a police (if everybody is armed) and I object that.
Yeah. That one.KitemanSA wrote:If this is the book I am thinking of, John Lott was a big PROPONENT of gun control and did an in-depth study of gun ownership and usage in America in order to bolster his political views. The data caused him to change his mind. An honest social scientist. Almost a contradiction in terms.Skipjack wrote: So it is a book written by someone, full of facts, or not...
He may just as well be working for the NRA, hell if I know.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
So, the answer to guns is simple, no? Ban all guns, except for single-shot breech-loading rifles over 5 foot long. That way, if anyone tries to run-amok shooting at random, they are gonna get a pile of people rushing them in between each shot.
Simples.
And as for 'civil defence against one's own Government' (the purpose of the 'right to bear arms'), then the only way to put up an effective defence against an on-slaught of "Government forces" is to have hundreds of people all shooting their breech-loading rifles sequentially. A sort of 'democracy in action' as you can only shoot quick enough if enough of you agree together to shoot as a squad!
(OK, so this isn't my discussion.. Just thought I'd add the quip...I'll go back to sleep...)
Simples.
And as for 'civil defence against one's own Government' (the purpose of the 'right to bear arms'), then the only way to put up an effective defence against an on-slaught of "Government forces" is to have hundreds of people all shooting their breech-loading rifles sequentially. A sort of 'democracy in action' as you can only shoot quick enough if enough of you agree together to shoot as a squad!
(OK, so this isn't my discussion.. Just thought I'd add the quip...I'll go back to sleep...)
At which point the situation will be as most gun owner control proponents claim will be the case with liberal gunlaws, the "big guy" (this time with a knife) will be able to strong-arm you into doing his bidding. Amazing how 2# of steel can balance the scales between a 90# gal and a 240# guy.chrismb wrote:So, the answer to guns is simple, no? Ban all guns, except for single-shot breech-loading rifles over 5 foot long. That way, if anyone tries to run-amok shooting at random, they are gonna get a pile of people rushing them in between each shot.
Simples.
I believe Maxim fixed that problem for the British government.chrismb wrote:So, the answer to guns is simple, no? Ban all guns, except for single-shot breech-loading rifles over 5 foot long. That way, if anyone tries to run-amok shooting at random, they are gonna get a pile of people rushing them in between each shot.
Simples.
And as for 'civil defence against one's own Government' (the purpose of the 'right to bear arms'), then the only way to put up an effective defence against an on-slaught of "Government forces" is to have hundreds of people all shooting their breech-loading rifles sequentially. A sort of 'democracy in action' as you can only shoot quick enough if enough of you agree together to shoot as a squad!
(OK, so this isn't my discussion.. Just thought I'd add the quip...I'll go back to sleep...)
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Chris,
You are probably pretty close to the intent of the Founding Fathers of this country. It did take us a while to learn to reload as fast as the guys in red coats we were rebeling against, though. They could reportedly fire about four times a minute, but we cheated by hiding behind trees between shots.
As Simon said much earlier, the real reason for the right to bear arms in our Constitution is to retain the ultimate right to rebel against a sufficiently unjust goverment, should our experiment in democracy fail. The principle was so important to the founders that they accepted the resulting collateral damage.
On tomligon.com I have a link to a picture of the first Ligon in the New World, also a Thomas Ligon. One of his claims to fame was a battle with indians circa 1644. He fired three shots from a gun later described as being "8 feet long" (the gun still exists, on a different stock, and presently measures only about 7 ft long). The three shots killed 7 indians ... the effects of a fowling piece that would today be classified as a cannon. So you might revise your statement to even longer guns, but account for the effects of a handful of "buck and ball".
http://www.tomligon.com/Toms.html
You are probably pretty close to the intent of the Founding Fathers of this country. It did take us a while to learn to reload as fast as the guys in red coats we were rebeling against, though. They could reportedly fire about four times a minute, but we cheated by hiding behind trees between shots.
As Simon said much earlier, the real reason for the right to bear arms in our Constitution is to retain the ultimate right to rebel against a sufficiently unjust goverment, should our experiment in democracy fail. The principle was so important to the founders that they accepted the resulting collateral damage.
On tomligon.com I have a link to a picture of the first Ligon in the New World, also a Thomas Ligon. One of his claims to fame was a battle with indians circa 1644. He fired three shots from a gun later described as being "8 feet long" (the gun still exists, on a different stock, and presently measures only about 7 ft long). The three shots killed 7 indians ... the effects of a fowling piece that would today be classified as a cannon. So you might revise your statement to even longer guns, but account for the effects of a handful of "buck and ball".
http://www.tomligon.com/Toms.html
Last edited by Tom Ligon on Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skipjack,
You have made a major glaring error of conflating guns in the hands of criminals with guns in the hands of good citizens. More guns in the hands of good citizens reduces crime in the USA. Of course Austrians are made crazy by handguns and will do despicable things with them without much prompting so you have a point. The people of your country are unfit for small arms such as pistols.
I assure you we in the US can handle it and have been handling it for quite some time. There used to be two States in the US with extremely restrictive gun laws. Now there are none.
Have time to look up John R. Lott yet?
One irony I like is that our conservatives who like liberal gun laws also like drug prohibition, except for the violence it creates, which then causes agitation against liberal gun laws. Talk about mashing the brake and the accelerator at the same time.
Rational politics is an oxymoron.
You have made a major glaring error of conflating guns in the hands of criminals with guns in the hands of good citizens. More guns in the hands of good citizens reduces crime in the USA. Of course Austrians are made crazy by handguns and will do despicable things with them without much prompting so you have a point. The people of your country are unfit for small arms such as pistols.
I assure you we in the US can handle it and have been handling it for quite some time. There used to be two States in the US with extremely restrictive gun laws. Now there are none.
Have time to look up John R. Lott yet?
One irony I like is that our conservatives who like liberal gun laws also like drug prohibition, except for the violence it creates, which then causes agitation against liberal gun laws. Talk about mashing the brake and the accelerator at the same time.
Rational politics is an oxymoron.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Msimon, please explain to me again what purpose a hand gun does fullfill for a righteous person that a rifle can not? Why does anybody have to own a handgun?
Rifles are perfect for hunting. They are perfect if you have to go to war against your evil government (in case of the last one, I am in full agreement, gggggg) and they do a good enough job when it comes to defending your home. So why do you need a handgun?
The fact that it can be concealed only makes it more usable for criminals that want to hide the fact that they are armed (which may prevent them from entering certain places).
On the knife argument. I am quite handy with a sabre. I would prefer people wearing those instead of handguns.
Rifles are perfect for hunting. They are perfect if you have to go to war against your evil government (in case of the last one, I am in full agreement, gggggg) and they do a good enough job when it comes to defending your home. So why do you need a handgun?
The fact that it can be concealed only makes it more usable for criminals that want to hide the fact that they are armed (which may prevent them from entering certain places).
On the knife argument. I am quite handy with a sabre. I would prefer people wearing those instead of handguns.