ARGH!!!!!!!!!i!!!! RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[reaper239]

does anybody else just get angry when they look at their LES? because i do. almost a third of my salary taken out in taxes, a third and they want to take MORE? for what? so the fed can borrow money from china, just to turn around and send a little back free of charge? so they can send money to support egypt, the new iran? so they can buy guns to send to mexican drug cartels, cartel which terrorrize and kill american citizens, and guns which my government now wishes to prevent me from owning? or maybe it's so they can pay people to sit on a couch and pop out babies. i'm sick and tired of my money being stolen by my government. i say stolen because they certainly don't have my consent to use it the way they are.

[Mograppler]

does anybody else just get angry when they look at their LES? because i do. almost a third of my salary taken out in taxes, a third and they want to take MORE? for what? so the fed can borrow money from china, just to turn around and send a little back free of charge? so they can send money to support egypt, the new iran? so they can buy guns to send to mexican drug cartels, cartel which terrorrize and kill american citizens, and guns which my government now wishes to prevent me from owning? or maybe it's so they can pay people to sit on a couch and pop out babies. i'm sick and tired of my money being stolen by my government. i say stolen because they certainly don't have my consent to use it the way they are.
I agree with 100% of what you said here. The other forum I go to Is almost completely liberal, so it's nice to see at least 1 other conservative.

[Osiris]

F.W.P in full effect.

[Ordinary12]

I agree completely!!! The US Government is the biggest crime boss I've ever seen. They take our money but don't let us decide what projects we want to support with it. Taxation without Representation! Our government doesn't listen to us so they don't represent us.

[yarri]

does anybody else just get angry when they look at their LES? because i do. almost a third of my salary taken out in taxes, a third and they want to take MORE? for what? so the fed can borrow money from china, just to turn around and send a little back free of charge? so they can send money to support egypt, the new iran? so they can buy guns to send to mexican drug cartels, cartel which terrorrize and kill american citizens, and guns which my government now wishes to prevent me from owning? or maybe it's so they can pay people to sit on a couch and pop out babies. i'm sick and tired of my money being stolen by my government. i say stolen because they certainly don't have my consent to use it the way they are.

So how do you think it needs to be used?

[reaper239]

So how do you think it needs to be used?

well first i would eliminate all of the above uses, and then i would

:mad:RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

[Luna Guardian]

So, you would rage if the government acts as it does now and you would rage if they "fix" everything to your preferences?

People are weird

[reaper239]

So, you would rage if the government acts as it does now and you would rage if they "fix" everything to your preferences?

People are weird


:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[yarri]

well first i would eliminate all of the above uses, and then i would

:mad:RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Ahem... So if you eleminate food stamps. So what do you do with kids that miss meals and go with out cause their parents are poor ? Let them starve? Put them in foster care? We do have a problem with hungry kids in this country ? As well as obesity.. I really am curious as I know you are a fan of "personal responsiblity "

[yarri]

Reaper, what do you feel is a good thing to spend taxes on?

[Luna Guardian]

Reaper, what do you feel is a good thing to spend taxes on?
Didn't you read what he wrote? He'd use it on rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAGE_%28receptor%29)

[yarri]

Didn't you read what he wrote? He'd use it on rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAGE_%28receptor%29)

I did read it..... He's going to rage......

[Solanine]

You know why the govt wants to implement gun control Reaper?
Because every so often arms bearers like yourself go :mad: :mad: :mad: !
The most sensible suggestion I've heard so far is limiting clip sizes. And also a better background check on those people buying guns.
Hell maybe even do a psych test on them?

[reaper239]

You know why the govt wants to implement gun control Reaper?
Because every so often arms bearers like yourself go :mad: :mad: :mad: !
The most sensible suggestion I've heard so far is limiting clip sizes. And also a better background check on those people buying guns.
Hell maybe even do a psych test on them?

yeah, except that when i :mad::mad::mad: i do it at a keyboard, or at the range, not at people.

[reaper239]

Reaper, what do you feel is a good thing to spend taxes on?

well, let me start by giving you what i feel is the purpose of law as established by the founding fathers: law exists (or should anyway) for the sole purpose of protecting the liberty of the individual against transgress. here's an example: in the late 20's early 30's, the fed passed a law banning alcohol. for your own good. this resulted in an explosion of gang activities, a sharp and defined increase in the number of fatalities from bath tub hooch, and the eventual repeal of the law. now i ask you, what was the purpose of that law? in order to ban something, it must, by it's very existence, violate the rights of others. the only thing i can think of that's so egregious is a michael moore movie, or anything from al gore. who invented the internet. let's look at a law on the books, the fed currently has legislation on the books that makes a number of drugs illegal, but to what end? when you make something illegal, you instantly make that thing more dangerous by moving transactions of that substance from open air markets, to the black market (not an actual place, i've tried to find it). that's one unintended consequence, but let's move this discussion from the realm of consequence to a more philosophical one, and it's the same question i posed to nick in the gun control thread: what right do you have to tell me what i can put into my body? (ok, so a little different) in order to enforce this violation of liberty, a mammoth organization was created, the DEA, the DEA regularly goes after people with prescriptions from their doctor, their doctor, saying they have to much of a controlled substance, even though the physician who controls it gave it to them. does that make any sense? so rights are being violated in many ways. then, let's look at the health care bill, obamacare. i ask you again, what right do you have to take money from me for something you want? it's theft, it's unconstitutional, and it's unethical. welfare, same thing, i work for a living, but these people don't have to? now before everyone get's bent, i understand a lot of people have been laid off, but that's a result of fucked up regulation anyway, so the fed is fucking us from both ends. but this isn't a discussion on free markets, i'm just trying to make the point, if you pass legislation "for their own good" then anything is on the table. cars are dangerous, let's ban those, and of course people can't manage their own food consumption, just look at them, so all food will be replaced with a nutritionally balanced flavor neutral paste that will be dispensed to you three times a day. people also can't be trusted with their own money, so we'll be taking that too, but it's only because it's for their own good. and of course the internet has to be censored ** ***'* **** ****** ******* ******** ** **** *** *** ** *** ********. well that sucks, maybe we'll hold off on censorship until i'm done posting. but censoring the internet is still a good idea, after all, we can't have people become offended. and no more of this zombie podcast nonsense, there's no way that can be good for you.

the only fair way to establish law is to use liberty as a guide post, making sure that only laws that protect the individual liberty are passed. as you saw above, "the common or public good" could be construed to mean anything you want, and so it could mean anything anyone else wants as well.

[Solanine]

well, let me start by giving you what i feel is the purpose of law as established by the founding fathers: law exists (or should anyway) for the sole purpose of protecting the liberty of the individual against transgress. here's an example: in the late 20's early 30's, the fed passed a law banning alcohol. for your own good. this resulted in an explosion of gang activities, a sharp and defined increase in the number of fatalities from bath tub hooch, and the eventual repeal of the law. now i ask you, what was the purpose of that law? in order to ban something, it must, by it's very existence, violate the rights of others. the only thing i can think of that's so egregious is a michael moore movie, or anything from al gore. who invented the internet. let's look at a law on the books, the fed currently has legislation on the books that makes a number of drugs illegal, but to what end? when you make something illegal, you instantly make that thing more dangerous by moving transactions of that substance from open air markets, to the black market (not an actual place, i've tried to find it). that's one unintended consequence, but let's move this discussion from the realm of consequence to a more philosophical one, and it's the same question i posed to nick in the gun control thread: what right do you have to tell me what i can put into my body? (ok, so a little different) in order to enforce this violation of liberty, a mammoth organization was created, the DEA, the DEA regularly goes after people with prescriptions from their doctor, their doctor, saying they have to much of a controlled substance, even though the physician who controls it gave it to them. does that make any sense? so rights are being violated in many ways. then, let's look at the health care bill, obamacare. i ask you again, what right do you have to take money from me for something you want? it's theft, it's unconstitutional, and it's unethical. welfare, same thing, i work for a living, but these people don't have to? now before everyone get's bent, i understand a lot of people have been laid off, but that's a result of fucked up regulation anyway, so the fed is fucking us from both ends. but this isn't a discussion on free markets, i'm just trying to make the point, if you pass legislation "for their own good" then anything is on the table. cars are dangerous, let's ban those, and of course people can't manage their own food consumption, just look at them, so all food will be replaced with a nutritionally balanced flavor neutral paste that will be dispensed to you three times a day. people also can't be trusted with their own money, so we'll be taking that too, but it's only because it's for their own good. and of course the internet has to be censored ** ***'* **** ****** ******* ******** ** **** *** *** ** *** ********. well that sucks, maybe we'll hold off on censorship until i'm done posting. but censoring the internet is still a good idea, after all, we can't have people become offended. and no more of this zombie podcast nonsense, there's no way that can be good for you.

the only fair way to establish law is to use liberty as a guide post, making sure that only laws that protect the individual liberty are passed. as you saw above, "the common or public good" could be construed to mean anything you want, and so it could mean anything anyone else wants as well.

The role of the law (and therefore the government) can be defined in a lot of ways.

But my belief and one that is supported in at least some parts by history is that it has three main roles:

The maintenance of the economy (maintaining growth, limiting inflation, correction of slumps etc)

Maintaining the production of merit (eg Education) and public (things that are difficult to make money from without a taxation system eg defence, street lighting)

Protecting the consumer from those negative externalities caused by producers (eg pollution of water supplies, control of substances such as heroin which can cause crime and huge damage to society).

2. Ok lets talk ethics. I have no right to tell you what you put in your body. You want to kill yourself with heroin thats fine.
But if your doing so becomes a problem for other people in society (eg your breaking the law in order to fuel your habit) then you lose the right to heroin.
At some point the use of some drugs was so damaging to society that it was more efficient to ban use altogether and ask the minority of users (not breaking the law due to the drugs) to give up there right in order to preserve those of the many. I wasn't politically active at the time so I can't say whether the motivation for the war on drugs was just a politically motivated move or an informed decision but I can say this, it ISN'T working.

Obama care? We've been here before. Ask yourself this though, if it was optional and you were asked whether you'd give up a small % of your wage so that those less well off than you could have basic healthcare, would you say no, knowing that because of it some of them would be denied life saving treatment?
Ok I assumed you said yes after all you've talked before about how people used to help each other without the government intervening.

It sucks that ordinary people are being billed for it rather than moving the tax burden to the super rich. The fact is that in order to be part of society you have to pay some entrance fee's. Your not having your money taken from you, the fee has gone up. Surely its worth it though to live in America?

This legislation isn't "for there own good" its to give them the choice to live. And as far as anything being on the table, look at Britain. Do we set peoples diet? Or tell people who to vote for? No. We provide people with information and support if they want to get fit, quit smoking, breast feed their children etc but nothing is forced on anyone. Other than tax. And there's an option there too. Just being born in a country doesn't give you any right to any of it. You can leave just as fast as pay the tax. I hear in victorian Britain you didn't have to pay for children's healthcare. Hell in victorian Britain the children worked for you.

Censorship? I completely agree with you about that, their should be absolutely no such thing. But if there isn't going to be censorship we do need to be sure that we can prevent it becoming the home of the black market, pedophiles and a place where people like Amanda Todd can so easily be destroyed.

And back to gun control, we dis agree about it. We know that BUT surely you can see that something needs to be done about the problem. What about the proposal to limit clip sizes? It would slow perpetrators down and prevent mass killings to some degree. The NRA's suggestion of armed guards seems a little big brother-ish for my liking. Shooting don't just take place in schools but in cinema's and even on the street. Next time there's a shooting some place thats not a school will they be suggesting armed guards everywhere? What happens about escalation? What happens when due to armed guards the perpetrator feels the need to buy something bigger and better than he would of before?

Just to re-iterate I didn't in any way mean to imply you would ever use you gun on anything other than a target or assailant, but with such flimsy background checks somebody less balanced might. And have, repeatedly.

[reaper239]

The role of the law (and therefore the government) can be defined in a lot of ways.

But my belief and one that is supported in at least some parts by history is that it has three main roles:

The maintenance of the economy (maintaining growth, limiting inflation, correction of slumps etc)

Maintaining the production of merit (eg Education) and public (things that are difficult to make money from without a taxation system eg defence, street lighting)

Protecting the consumer from those negative externalities caused by producers (eg pollution of water supplies, control of substances such as heroin which can cause crime and huge damage to society).

ok, so i already gave the examples of how using law beyond the most basic forms of legislation can go overboard and history has borne that out in many countries.


2. Ok lets talk ethics. I have no right to tell you what you put in your body. You want to kill yourself with heroin thats fine.
But if your doing so becomes a problem for other people in society (eg your breaking the law in order to fuel your habit) then you lose the right to heroin.
At some point the use of some drugs was so damaging to society that it was more efficient to ban use altogether and ask the minority of users (not breaking the law due to the drugs) to give up there right in order to preserve those of the many. I wasn't politically active at the time so I can't say whether the motivation for the war on drugs was just a politically motivated move or an informed decision but I can say this, it ISN'T working.

no, you lose the right to break the violate the rights of your fellow citizens, which you don't have anyway.


Obama care? We've been here before. Ask yourself this though, if it was optional and you were asked whether you'd give up a small % of your wage so that those less well off than you could have basic healthcare, would you say no, knowing that because of it some of them would be denied life saving treatment?
Ok I assumed you said yes after all you've talked before about how people used to help each other without the government intervening.

if i'm given the choice, then i am all about helping my fellow man, i will help people in any way i can, but not in ways that violate my personal beliefs. i also don't appreciate a gun to my head as uncle sam takes my money to give it to someone else.


It sucks that ordinary people are being billed for it rather than moving the tax burden to the super rich. The fact is that in order to be part of society you have to pay some entrance fee's. Your not having your money taken from you, the fee has gone up. Surely its worth it though to live in America?

the super rich thing is a crock and always has been, if they took all the money from the wealthiest one percent (who pay roughly 30% of the taxes anyway) it would run the government for about 8 days, and that may be an overestimation. as far as the fee, yes government is not free, and government is necessary, but i'm tired of my money being taken to pass laws that treat me like a criminal and give my money to people that haven't earned theirs


This legislation isn't "for there own good" its to give them the choice to live. And as far as anything being on the table, look at Britain. Do we set peoples diet? Or tell people who to vote for? No. We provide people with information and support if they want to get fit, quit smoking, breast feed their children etc but nothing is forced on anyone. Other than tax. And there's an option there too. Just being born in a country doesn't give you any right to any of it. You can leave just as fast as pay the tax. I hear in victorian Britain you didn't have to pay for children's healthcare. Hell in victorian Britain the children worked for you.

and died in sweatshops. and again, over 7,000 britons went abroad in 2008 to get healthcare that they were told they weren't allowed to have in britain.


Censorship? I completely agree with you about that, their should be absolutely no such thing. But if there isn't going to be censorship we do need to be sure that we can prevent it becoming the home of the black market, pedophiles and a place where people like Amanda Todd can so easily be destroyed.

that's where we have to step up and be active, you see someone getting bullied? step up and support them, find some way to help them out. as far as pedophiles, there is already legislation regarding the exploitation of minors, having it on the internet is the same as having it on a tape, and the owner can be arrested and the material confiscated. and that's legislation i do support as it protects the rights of minors.


And back to gun control, we dis agree about it. We know that BUT surely you can see that something needs to be done about the problem. What about the proposal to limit clip sizes? It would slow perpetrators down and prevent mass killings to some degree. The NRA's suggestion of armed guards seems a little big brother-ish for my liking. Shooting don't just take place in schools but in cinema's and even on the street. Next time there's a shooting some place thats not a school will they be suggesting armed guards everywhere? What happens about escalation? What happens when due to armed guards the perpetrator feels the need to buy something bigger and better than he would of before?

limiting magazine size will do nothing to slow down anyone who has spent three hours practicing reloads at the range. and, here's something for you, all the shootings have happened in gun free zones. you don't hear about shootings at gun shows do you? no, because there is countervailing force. so let's let the people arm themselves. arm teachers, let them protect themselves and their students. it works in israel and utah and texas. i already went into this in the gun control thread.


Just to re-iterate I didn't in any way mean to imply you would ever use you gun on anything other than a target or assailant, but with such flimsy background checks somebody less balanced might. And have, repeatedly.

that is ok, i accept your apology. now let me say this too, background checks will not stop someone motivated from getting a gun, just ask any criminal.

[yarri]

You know why the govt wants to implement gun control Reaper?
Because every so often arms bearers like yourself go :mad: :mad: :mad: !
The most sensible suggestion I've heard so far is limiting clip sizes. And also a better background check on those people buying guns.
Hell maybe even do a psych test on them?

It would have to be a written test administered by a shrink as a true diagnosis would take many hours of psychoanalysis by a doctor to come to a diagnosis.
Written Psych tests are not 100% accurate and anyone with decent reading comprehension can answer those in such a way to alter them to appear in anyway they wish.

Clip size frankly I don't care as long as I have at least 10 shots. We have laws about background checks. We have very good laws about obtaining a weapon they just need to be enforced we don't need new laws.

[Blues_127]

The show really needs to come back. WAY TOO much politics here. Now we are left to discussing the real life zombies running this country (that's D and R IMO)!!! We are skirting an issue close to my heart here. In this country, it is nearly impossible to get someone the help they need. Let's say we impliment a psyche test, they don't buy the gun. Now you have a frustrated nut without a gun. I doubt the violence ends there, circa 1920's Bath School bombing, China & Japan School stabbings.... How do we make it easier to help people who need it? I advise everyone to read the book January First, to see an example of how hard it is to help those who need it.

[Solanine]

The show really needs to come back. WAY TOO much politics here. Now we are left to discussing the real life zombies running this country (that's D and R IMO)!!! We are skirting an issue close to my heart here. In this country, it is nearly impossible to get someone the help they need. Let's say we impliment a psyche test, they don't buy the gun. Now you have a frustrated nut without a gun. I doubt the violence ends there, circa 1920's Bath School bombing, China & Japan School stabbings.... How do we make it easier to help people who need it? I advise everyone to read the book January First, to see an example of how hard it is to help those who need it.

Run for cover man. Seriously when me and reaper have "discussions" its like the scene in the Hobbit with the giants (im talking about a seventy something year old book so fuck spoiler warnings).
Don't get in the middle.

You know here has next to no gun violence? Britain.
We have the occasional knife problem but our murder rate is WAY down.
America won't and can't do what Britain does because the guns are already in circulation.
Also because why should you, gun culture is part of your culture, for good or bad.
But it could be controlled effectively to minimise deaths.

Reaper I'll reply in the morning since its nearing midnight and I'm pissed off at Peter Jackson because he came so close to making a good Hobbit movie.

[reaper239]

Run for cover man. Seriously when me and reaper have "discussions" its like the scene in the Hobbit with the giants (im talking about a seventy something year old book so fuck spoiler warnings).
Don't get in the middle.

You know here has next to no gun violence? Britain.
We have the occasional knife problem but our murder rate is WAY down.
America won't and can't do what Britain does because the guns are already in circulation.
Also because why should you, gun culture is part of your culture, for good or bad.
But it could be controlled effectively to minimise deaths.

Reaper I'll reply in the morning since its nearing midnight and I'm pissed off at Peter Jackson because he came so close to making a good Hobbit movie.

but britains other violent crime stats are way higher than the US.

[LiamKerrington]

Solanine and Reaper: Actually - I 'enjoy' you trading 'blows', i.e. opinions and arguments on such hard'n'heavy topics. Basically your spar evolves on topics where neither "right" nor "wrong" really exist, while you argue around questions about things, how they might be more right or more wrong ...
Helps me - to some degree - to define my personal understanding of things ...

[Solanine]

But Reaper total violent crime is WAY down in Britain.

(Reported) Violent crimes in England and wales in 2012: 1977 crimes in a population of around 60 Million
(Reported) Violent crimes in America in 2011: an estimated 6 million violent crimes.

Thats a population only five times the size with 3000X the number of violent crimes.
I did the figures twice because I couldn't believe them (Included are the two reports to show I'm not pulling the figures out of my ass).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales UK figures

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/violent-crime-bureau-justice-statistics_n_1974123.html

Again I left my post too late so I won't get back to your proper points. Tomorrow I promise.

[scbubba]

But Reaper total violent crime is WAY down in Britain.

(Reported) Violent crimes in England and wales in 2012: 1977 crimes in a population of around 60 Million
(Reported) Violent crimes in America in 2011: an estimated 6 million violent crimes.

Thats a population only five times the size with 3000X the number of violent crimes.
I did the figures twice because I couldn't believe them (Included are the two reports to show I'm not pulling the figures out of my ass).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales UK figures

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/violent-crime-bureau-justice-statistics_n_1974123.html

Again I left my post too late so I won't get back to your proper points. Tomorrow I promise.

Just a couple of things that stuck out to me regarding the US stats:

- From the linked article: "The annual report compiles data from a nationwide survey and captures many crimes not reported to police."
That leaves any lot to the imagination, IMO.

- the 6 million is the number of victims of violent crimes, not necessarily the number of crimes. Probably close since I think that most crimes have a single victim.

I'm not saying that the US has less violent crime than the UK, just saying that these stats for the US may not be very reliable. But then again, when are they ever - you know the old saying - There are 3 kinds of liars: liars, damn liars, and statisticians....

[reaper239]

i'll sum up my whole argument with the same question i posed to nik: what right do you have to tell me what i can and cannot own? let's remove guns from the equation, what this boils down to is personal property, you're telling me that there is certain property i cannot own, and that is wrong. let's substitute cars for guns, more people are killed by cars every year than by guns, so i say the average citizen cannot be trusted to own their own auto, only highly skilled heavily regulated individuals can be trusted and those people will drive busses for the rest of us. i'm telling you that you can't own a piece of private property because i say so.

[LiamKerrington]

i'll sum up my whole argument with the same question i posed to nik: what right do you have to tell me what i can and cannot own? let's remove guns from the equation, what this boils down to is personal property, you're telling me that there is certain property i cannot own, and that is wrong. let's substitute cars for guns, more people are killed by cars every year than by guns, so i say the average citizen cannot be trusted to own their own auto, only highly skilled heavily regulated individuals can be trusted and those people will drive busses for the rest of us. i'm telling you that you can't own a piece of private property because i say so.

The answer to this question is hard to tell.
Let me put it this way: Why then it is forbidden to own bombs, especially nuclear, bio, or chemical versions of it? Or to take a more 'delicious' example: drugs. But such questions are not fair; and actually I am not convinced about the 'message' behind questions like these.

More interesting, though, is the question about who or what defines property or private property. In the end both terms are "legal terms"; thus their meaning and understanding is not what a more or less likely "common sense" defines, but what on the one side the State decides by laws and decrees and judicial court decisions, and on the other side what lawyers make of it. At least this is the legal and political tradition in many European countries. But, if you remember my huge wall of words about the legal situation for Germany in the other threat, the State-theory and the theory of authority might be different in the USA (as a reminder: In Germany political and legal tradition is that private persons may not own guns without permit by the authority, while the permits have very steep or high requirements to be met by private persons). Simplified: Who defines "poperty" or "private property" in the USA? And the one doin' so might be the one who may put restrictions on property as well, right?

All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

The answer to this question is hard to tell.
Let me put it this way: Why then it is forbidden to own bombs, especially nuclear, bio, or chemical versions of it? Or to take a more 'delicious' example: drugs. But such questions are not fair; and actually I am not convinced about the 'message' behind questions like these.

More interesting, though, is the question about who or what defines property or private property. In the end both terms are "legal terms"; thus their meaning and understanding is not what a more or less likely "common sense" defines, but what on the one side the State decides by laws and decrees and judicial court decisions, and on the other side what lawyers make of it. At least this is the legal and political tradition in many European countries. But, if you remember my huge wall of words about the legal situation for Germany in the other threat, the State-theory and the theory of authority might be different in the USA (as a reminder: In Germany political and legal tradition is that private persons may not own guns without permit by the authority, while the permits have very steep or high requirements to be met by private persons). Simplified: Who defines "poperty" or "private property" in the USA? And the one doin' so might be the one who may put restrictions on property as well, right?

All the best!
Liam

those are very good questions, what right does someone have to tell you what you can put in your body? if you want to shoot up heroine, go ahead, i don't care, that's your choice. as long as it is lawful for all people to own nukes, why not? now, that may come across as a bit extreme, but the principle remains, law abiding citizens will not misuse these things and criminals have them already (not nukes but drugs and certain chemical weapons).

as for who defines personal property: there is a certain principle called natural law upon which all other law is based. man made laws often go beyond natural law, but ultimately if you boil down any society you will find at the core a set of universal laws that everyone acknowledges as being true laws. one of those is the law of personal property, and personal property can be defined as private property that is movable. basically, personal property is anything that can be owned, that is not land. and everyone believes in personal property, communists, socialists, americans, indians, american indians, chinese, russians, polish, brazilian, south african, zambian, left, right, everyone acknowledges the law of personal property. my two year old godson understands personal property (granted, he thinks it's all his, but he's getting it, slowly). now, as for what can be defined as personal property, it is anything capable of being owned. communists believe that the means of production should be public property, therefore they are acknowledging that it is capable of being owned and therefore qualifies as personal property. anything is elligible of being considered personal property.

[yarri]

Liam and Solinine the U.S.A isn't Europe and our situations are not the same nor is our traditions and history. We can not be compared to you and yours and you can not be compared to us. I may disagree with Reaper on health care I do not disagree with him on much else. Any repeal on the second amendment is an attack on the bill of rights and leaves my people open for loses of freedoms the rest of the world doesn't enjoy for the most part.
In your country and many other gun banned locations you still have rape and crimes of violence against women and children. How is this acceptable to you?

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,

@yarri: Well, that is exactly why I ask how things are in the US. And I agree with reaper that "natural law" is a very fundamental and philosophical principle which is the source of many (legal) things. In fact most European legal systems are based or rooted in the principles of "natural law" afaik.
Another reason why I emphasize the "European" (or better: German) perspective is to make anyone, who reads my words, understand or at least see that my perspective is or may be different, because I am not from the USA; I just want to prevent misunderstandings of any kind, because someone might assume that I could be one of the few weirdos from the USA.

As for crimes and rapes and stuff ... Well, let me put it this way: The moral and ethical understanding of any criminal act is to no degree different here in Germany or the EU from how things are acknowledged in the USA. Crimes and rape are not acceptable and are to be punished by all means necessary. Regardless of that I feel inclined to simply neglect the simple logic: "Because there is crime/ rapes, I speak up in favor of more guns for anyone." In my humble understanding both don't necessarily connect. Just consider all the different kinds of criminal actions which do not need to involve the harm of individuals - like anything happening in economy (corruption), involving money or valuable stuff (fraud, scams, theft, IT-based crimes).

Too many people are being shot because of a "good cause" in the wake of revenge or self-defense, and in the aftermath his death is too be considered "need- and senseless", because he was assumed to be a certain criminal or rapist, but in fact he was not (reminds me of those death-sentences in which the death-sentenced was not responsible, because the real convict was found later). It is like what Gandalf asks Frodo: To take a life is easy, but could you give it back as easily?
In other cases you shoot your gun in self-defense - a 100% proper cause, no need to argue about it-; but for whatever reason your aiming is poor and instead of the villain you wound or even kill someone else - a so-called 'aberatio ictus'. And if the one being shot feels threatened by you although you act in self-defense against another one, maybe he starts shooting you because he depicts you as an attacker and threat instead of a defender ... This is spiraling towards epic fail on all sides.
That things like these are not as "paranoid" or "weird" as they may seem at first, is obvious, if you just consider the many, many cases in which police-men (everywhere in the world) misunderstand situations and act - more or less violent - in good faith with all their force available; NYPD is a good (arguable) example, or in Germany any police-officer using his gun against individuals as a means of "finaler Rettungssschuss" (finale rescue-shot), although this was avoidable. And if trained personell like police-forces is not safe from getting into or performing such crazy situations, then the 'normal guy' around with his gun is just as well in danger of getting things wrong and acting, though accordingly, still failing - maybe even horribly.

But to be frank: I don't want to get lost in details like those (extreme) cases, because they happen in a minority of cases; this is why I don't connect with the different statistics, because statistics either point towards prevention of extremes or over-emphasizing things, which actually are not a real problem at all. I'd rather stick with principles. And here - in all honesty, and although I did not grow up with guns in anyway and thus have no understanding or feeling for them - I actually tend towards supporting private ownership or private property of guns, maybe with some restrictions set up by public authorities (certain age; maybe kind of a test or a licensing system, maybe registration, whatever ...). The reason for this is the - very idealistic - understanding that people living a responsible life won't use guns in order to harm others - like what madmen, criminals, or people with 'self-justic-missions' tend to do ... As far as this I think I am totally on par with reaper here, right?

All the best!
Liam

edit: Sorry for me butchering English so hard'n'heavy. I tried to streamline it a bit ...

[yarri]

As I'm stuck on mobile my cut and paste skills are limited so bear with me as I go through you lengthy post
You asked how things were in the states? Dangerous depending on where you live. My father and step mother used to live in a nice neighborhood. Gangs have moved in and now car windows are broken nightly and vandalism has escalated. They've been robbed twice and an elderly couple down the street who as my step mother put it " had nice things" were subject to a home invasion and beaten half to death. My father invested in home security and an AR.... They haven't as of yet been robbed again but I can tell you average police response time is 7 to 15 minutes.

[reaper239]

Hi there,

@yarri: Well, that is exactly why I ask how things are in the US. And I agree with reaper that "natural law" is a very fundamental and philosophical principle which is the source of many (legal) things. In fact most European legal systems are based or rooted in the principles of "natural law".
Another reason why I emphasize the "European" (or better: German) perspective is to make anyone, who reads my words, understand or at least see that my perspective is or may be different, because I am not from the USA; I just want to prevent misunderstandings of any kind, because someone might assume that I could be on of the few weirdos from the USA.

As for crimes and rapes and stuff ... Well, let me put it this way: The moral and ethical understanding of any criminal act is to no degree different here in Germany or the EU from how things are acknowledged in the USA. Regardless of that I feel inclined to simply neglect the simple logic: "Because there is crime/ rapes, I speak up in favor of more guns for anyone." In my humble understanding both don'T necessarily connect. Just consider all the different kinds of criminal actions which do not involve the harm of individuals - like anything happening in economy (corruption), involving money or valuable stuff (fraud, scams, theft, IT-based crimes).

Too many people are being shot because of a "good cause" in the wake of revenge or self-defense, and in the aftermath his death is too be considered "need- and senseless", because he was assumed to be a certain criminal or rapist, but in fact he was not (reminds me of those death-sentences in which the death-sentenced was not responsible, because the real convict was found later). It is like what Gandalf asks Frodo: To take a life is easy, but could you give it back?
In other cases you shoot your gun in seld-defense - a 100% proper cause, no need to argue about it-, but for whatever reason your aiming is poor and instead of the villain you wound or even kill someone else - a so-called 'aberatio ictus'. And if the one being shot feels threatened by you although you act in self-defense against another one, maybe he starts shooting you because he depicts you as an attacker and thread instead of a defender ... This is spiraling towards epic fail on all sides.
That things like these are not as "paranoid" or "weird" as they may seem at first, is obvious, if you just consider the many, many cases in which police-men (everywhere in the world) misunderstand situations and act - more or less violant - in good faith with all their force available; NYPD is a good (arguable) example. And if trained personell like police-forces is not safe from getting into or performing such crazy situations, then the 'normal guy' around with his gun is just as well in danger of getting things wrong and acting, though accordingly, still failing - maybe even horribly.

But to be frank: I don't want to get lost in details like those (extreme) cases, because they happen in a minority of cases; this is why I don't connect with the different statistics, because statistics either point towards prevention of extremes or over-emphasizing things, which actually are not a real problem at all. I'd rather stick with principles. And here - in all honesty, and although I did not grow up with guns in anyway and thus have no understanding or feeling for it - I actually tend towards supporting private ownership or private property of guns, maybe with some restrictions set up by public authorities (certain age; maybe kind of a test or a licensing system, maybe registration, whatever ...). The reason for this is the - very idealistic - understanding that people living a responsible life won't use guns in order to harm others - like what madmen, criminals, or people with 'self-justic-missions' tend to do ...

All the best!
Liam

so you're saying that people don't have a right to self defense? i'm asking because that is also a principle of natural law. and what about the thousands of defensive gun uses every day that do not involve fireing a shot? low estimates are almost 2,000 a day. the decision to use deadly forces is not a simple one, and should by no means be taken lightly, and you are absolutely responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, but does that mean that we make people defenseless? conneticut made every school in the state a gun free school zone and it worked so well it cost the lives of 20 children, utah, meanwhile, has no restrictions on carry in the classroom, and there have been exactly 0 (zero) school massacres. similarly, israel had a problem with school massacres and decided to issue their teachers galil assault rifles. guess what stopped in israel? it's this whole concept of a gun free zone, that somehow a sign will magically make the bad guys leave their guns at the door. it doesn't work that way, as i've said on numerous occasions, laws only affect the law abiding, not the criminals. do german gun laws disarm german criminals? what about the fact that germany has 2 of the 4 worst school massacres recorded between the US and EU?

[yarri]

You mentioned too many people are being shot in the wake of revenge or self defense. I don't understand this statement. Please clarify? As revenge and self defense are two very unrelated things

[yarri]

Liem, you quoted the hobbit.... Really? ok yes I could easily take a life in defense of my own or of the three lives I "gave" to the world. In a heart beat I would pull the trigger without a second thought and put down a rabid monster threatening my family.

[LiamKerrington]

As I'm stuck on mobile my cut and paste skills are limited so bear with me as I go through you lengthy post
You asked how things were in the states? Dangerous depending on where you live. My father and step mother used to live in a nice neighborhood. Gangs have moved in and now car windows are broken nightly and vandalism has escalated. They've been robbed twice and an elderly couple down the street who as my step mother put it " had nice things" were subject to a home invasion and beaten half to death. My father invested in home security and an AR.... They haven't as of yet been robbed again but I can tell you average police response time is 7 to 15 minutes.

7-15 minutes response-time is bad. Is really, really bad. And in all honesty: the response time in Germany is not really better. In theory most police-stations would be able to deploy police-forces within less then three minutes; but once I called the police because of an alarm going off at a bank-institute; and the police did not show up within 15 minutes, although the police-station was only about half a mile away ... Not kidding here.

Were your parents not attacked because the gangs now know about the AR? Or is it just coincidence?

About safety here in Germany: A main strategy of police-activities in Germany is to kind of 'control' criminal areas by marking areas. In those the rate of criminal actions is much higher then in most (all?) other areas; the police has partially retracted from those areas, doin' some razzias every now and then to let the criminals know they'd still be around; also the police only focuses on the heavy stuff like hard drugs, crime overlords etc. To some degree it is similar to what happens in the third season of "The Wire", but not as extreme. The general advice for normal people is to stay away from those areas; this advice is not spoken out loudly by the police, but it is general consensus in each town with such areas. It is like saying: "You want to go there??? You better think twice about it, it'S the place with all the scum around ...". And actually this kind of strategy works pretty well.

Just for the better understanding: Not one commissioner or politician would openly acknowledge strategies like those; yet it is good (old) practice.

All the best!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

so you're saying that people don't have a right to self defense? i'm asking because that is also a principle of natural law.

I wrote this, but I am not saying this. I just say: In a minority of cases even self-defense may go horribly wrong. There is no reason to question self-defense in general, though. That's why I clarified that I don't like sticking with "extreme" examples. They may be able to emphasize certain problems; but they won't help answering fundamental questions of principle.

What I do here is no less then testing the different borders of this topic.



You mentioned too many people are being shot in the wake of revenge or self defense. I don't understand this statement. Please clarify? As revenge and self defense are two very unrelated things

You are right. Self-defense and revenge are two very different things. And I am sorry that I put them both together, although they have nothing to do with each other. And truth is, some people tend to act irrationally out of misunderstandings to avenge their hurt or false pride - maybe even with guns. It is needless to say that this kind of action is shit. Meanwhile other people act in self-defense. And in both situations things may get out of control; this is what I intended to say.

As for quoting The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. Yes, it is a fantasy-fiction; it is nothing else but a huge fairy tale. But it is written by a J.R.R. Tolkien, who was more then just a fairy-tale-storyteller and who did more then just write a fantasy-novel. And although Gandalf, who I recited, is as fictitious as the tale, there is much truth in the words Tolkien gave him and I recited.

All the best!
Liam

[reaper239]

7-15 minutes response-time is bad. Is really, really bad. And in all honesty: the response time in Germany is not really better. In theory most police-stations would be able to deploy police-forces within less then three minutes; but once I called the police because of an alarm going off at a bank-institute; and the police did not show up within 15 minutes, although the police-station was only about half a mile away ... Not kidding here.

Were your parents not attacked because the gangs now know about the AR? Or is it just coincidence?

About safety here in Germany: A main strategy of police-activities in Germany is to kind of 'control' criminal areas by marking areas. In those the rate of criminal actions is much higher then in most (all?) other areas; the police has partially retracted from those areas, doin' some razzias every now and then to let the criminals know they'd still be around; also the police only focuses on the heavy stuff like hard drugs, crime overlords etc. To some degree it is similar to what happens in the third season of "The Wire", but not as extreme. The general advice for normal people is to stay away from those areas; this advice is not spoken out loudly by the police, but it is general consensus in each town with such areas. It is like saying: "You want to go there??? You better think twice about it, it'S the place with all the scum around ...". And actually this kind of strategy works pretty well.

Just for the better understanding: Not one commissioner or politician would openly acknowledge strategies like those; yet it is good (old) practice.

All the best!
Liam

so, the strategy i'm getting here is, run and hide, you can't defend yourself so you are at the mercy of the criminals. that is unacceptable to me.placing myself at the mercy of criminals is never an option, which is why even though i can't carry a gun in maryland, i always have my knife and flashlight, and i always have other options nearby, like a machette in my emergency bag (the machette serves multiple purposes in an emergency, not just self defense.)

[yarri]

I don't honestly know if its the AR, the security alarms or the 100 targets with bulls eyes in the recycle bin that have kept them safe either way for now they are safe and not victims of violence. Liem, I've never seen the wire so I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm sorry.

[LiamKerrington]

I don't honestly know if its the AR, the security alarms or the 100 targets with bulls eyes in the recycle bin that have kept them safe either way for now they are safe and not victims of violence. Liem, I've never seen the wire so I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm sorry.

The Wire: You missed something. ;)
Ok, let me rephrase: Think about a town with ten streets. In the beginning the level of crime is equal in each street. Then the police starts controlling nine of ten streets more thoroughly, while the last remaining street remains less controlled. The criminals start feeling better there; they establish kind of "their" own sub-culture in this street. And the police let's them do so. Every now and then, though, the police makes a razzia in the street - especially if they observe raised activities in drugs, dealer-activities, crime-overlord-stuff etc. After such razzias things remain the same - nine well protected streets, one not so well.
Streets like this earn a certain "reputation", and less adventurous people simply stay away.
Again: No official strategy, and politicians wouldn't give any statement on things like this; streets like this are not really accepted, but simply lived with ...

All the best!
Liam

[yarri]

I wrote this, but I am not saying this. I just say: In a minority of cases even self-defense may go horribly wrong. There is no reason to question self-defense in general, though. That's why I clarified that I don't like sticking with "extreme" examples. They may be able to emphasize certain problems; but they won't help answering fundamental questions of principle.

What I do here is no less then testing the different borders of this topic.




You are right. Self-defense and revenge are two very different things. And I am sorry that I put them both together, although they have nothing to do with each other. And truth is, some people tend to act irrationally out of misunderstandings to avenge their hurt or false pride - maybe even with guns. It is needless to say that this kind of action is shit. Meanwhile other people act in self-defense. And in both situations things may get out of control; this is what I intended to say.

As for quoting The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. Yes, it is a fantasy-fiction; it is nothing else but a huge fairy tale. But it is written by a J.R.R. Tolkien, who was more then just a fairy-tale-storyteller and who di more then just right a fantasy-novel. And although Gandalf, who I recited, is as fictitious as the tale, there is much truth in the words Tolkien gave him and I recited.

All the best!
Liam
Those that act in revenge are criminals. A broken heart, loss if property etc are no reasons to use a gun.


And I know who Tolkien is

[yarri]

The Wire: You missed something. ;)
Ok, let me rephrase: Think about a town with ten streets. In the beginning the level of crime is equal in each street. Then the police starts controlling nine of ten streets more thoroughly, while the last remaining street remains less controlled. The criminals start feeling better there; they establish kind of "their" own sub-culture in this street. And the police let's them do so. Every now and then, though, the police makes a razzia in the street - especially if they observe raised activities in drugs, dealer-activities, crime-overlord-stuff etc. After such razzias things remain the same - nine well protected streets, one not so well.
Streets like this earn a certain "reputation", and less adventurous people simply stay away.
Again: No official strategy, and politicians wouldn't give any statement on things like this; streets like this are not really accepted, but simply lived with ...

All the best!
Liam

I'm sure the families on street number 10 appricate the lack of police protection. Criminal behavior should never be tolerated

[LiamKerrington]

I'm sure the families on street number 10 appricate the lack of police protection. Criminal behavior should never be tolerated

In Germany we have a saying for total agreement: You beat the path to my open door.
About Tolkien: Sorry, no offense intended; I just hoped to emphasize that "Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" are more then just fairy-tales. In fact they include many at least interesting philosophical ideas and thoughts - some being arguable, though -, which makes them pieces of fine literature. (And with that I contradict my earlier statement. Sorry.) :)

[yarri]

The A I owe you cause auto correct is a bitch on my phone...:/

[LiamKerrington]

The A I owe you

What does that mean?

[yarri]

What does that mean?

It kept spelling your name as LiEm

[LiamKerrington]

Ah, no problem with that. No offense taken, especially not from your cell. Also this is nothing in relation to what I do with the poor English language ALL THE TIME ... ;) I am sorry.

[yarri]

Ah, no problem with that. No offense taken, especially not from your cell. Also this is nothing in relation to what I do with the poor English language ALL THE TIME ... ;) I am sorry.

Lol me too Liam so no worries

[Blues_127]

Great discussion guys. I am in a simular situation as your parents Yarri. After the downturn a tweeker moved in down the street from me. I didn't know this until my house got burgled; tapping a kid I believe was involved, who felt beholdant to me due to the school clothes, food and other things we had provided for him, I gained contacts who knew who & where stolen property was being sold. I investigated using a fedora, concealed shoulder harnss, and hidden tape recorder (lagal for only 1 party to know they are being recorded in NV). I recovered a neighbor's stolen property who was burgled around the same time. Police followed up based on the recordings I made. Taking a family walk I met the tweeker down the street when he attacked us with a knife calling me a 'rat' and a 'narc'. I had a .38 and he learned knife fighting from west side story, so he lived. An already long story shortened, he is in prison until April, a member of the 'Aryan Brotherhood' and a little more than angry at me and my family. Why does a citizen need an AR? Because good guys sometimes need to stand against organized bands of armed bad guys. Between the alarm, camera system, two dogs, and my armed family (my son can hit anything he aims at with his .22 rifle) - and the tendancy for the criminal element to rely on fear to do most of thier work, I am confidnet my friend won't accomplish much when he gets out. I am thinking about calling the Sherriff's office closer when he gets out, and ask them to keep an eye on things as well. I highly recomend the use of the fedora and the shoulder harness though. I think that has had a greater affect of them going "who the heck is this guy?!?!?" compared to anything else.

[LiamKerrington]

Why does a citizen need an AR? Because good guys sometimes need to stand against organized bands of armed bad guys.

Ok, here I got the answer to a question I raised somewhere else.
Man, I am very sorry for the situation you live in; and I feel hard pressed to start hating this dude - simply for living the "Aryan" philosophy. Those people are dead for me ... But since they often are quite 'well' organized, they, too, may have access to bigger guns. Not sure what to think of this. But reading your description about the condition of your family, I rest assured that you will stand your ground.

All the best!
Liam

[Blues_127]

Update a year later. Dude moved, his friends are gone. We have taken our neighborhood back without a shot fired :)

[scbubba]

Update a year later. Dude moved, his friends are gone. We have taken our neighborhood back without a shot fired :)

Good to hear!