Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 17, 2020, 09:40:10 AM »Quote from: Dave Champion
Quote from: 1019 10/17
There is a saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If this legally sanctioned myth is correct, then as far as I am concerned, this goes triple for office holders given authority and responsibility to uphold and enforce the laws. How can you uphold the Constitution if you don't understand what you are upholding?
The Constitution is to be read and understood in the light of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Inherent in the right to Life, is the right to defend and protect it. Inherent in the right to Liberty, is the right to choose what tools, tactics, and techniques will be used to defend and protect one's Life.
United States Constitution, Amendment 2 states:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This very short sentence is packed with information, history, and context. I'll leave it to the reader to do the homework of reading the 107 page memorandum opinion for the attorney general found on the USDOJ web site and cited below. I have read it, and various other Liberty focused text, so I'll just sum up what the amendment means.
1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, just like the right of the people to engage in free speech, and right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.
2. The right to keep arms means the right to own and possess arms.
3. The right to bear arms means exactly that: The right to BEAR arms. The right to carry arms on or about one's person.
4. The militia referred to is citizens with their own arms, not members of the national guard of any state bearing the state's arms.
5. There are several reasons that the right to keep and bear is individual and essential.
5a. To kill tyrants.
5b. To kill invading armed forces.
5c. To defend one's life.
5d. To defend one's liberty.
5e. To defend one's property.
5f. To acquire food to stay alive.
I'll be using my own definition of tyrant to quickly portray the concept: A tyrant is a criminal who holds a State office and/or uses the office to make and use the law to make his criminal acts "lawful". Tyrants use law to take lives, liberties, and property.
This pdf file is a long read. It is 107 pages.
http://www.justice.gov/.../2004/08/31/op-olc-v028-p0126.pdf
Quote from: 0944
If you NEED a gun to survive, you're a coward.
Quote from: 1018
🤐
Quote from: 1023
gun owner as well. but I don't need one in order to survive. guns are strictly designed to kill. They do not provide any form of defense. You cannot stop a bullet with one, you cannot stop a sword with one . The only thing you can stop is somebody else's life.
Quote from: 1034
I'm of the opinion that you should spend some time thinking about this topic... Of which I only grok that it's about "guns".
➽ The only thing you can stop is somebody else's life.
This is why I strongly suggest you think about this some more.
⚠
Curable or Incurable?
(an introduction by Kirby Ferris)
There is a way to test the sanity of your family, friends, and neighbors. You simply observe their reaction to this essay written by Marko Kloos (pronounced “close”).
If they “get it”, they are “curable”, or were mentally healthy in the first place. They may deserve the freedom that has been delivered to them on the blood of our forefathers.
A while back I sent this essay to eight friends. Two of them actually mocked the essay. Sadly, those two people are “incurable”. Their common sense, their very self respect as human beings, has been bred out of them by our perverse, victim factory culture. (I’ve dropped them both from my life.)
Are you “curable”, or “incurable”. See whether you agree or disagree with Marko’s essay.
(This essay first appeared in print in the Dillon Blue Press in 2007. Ted Nugent later mis-attributed the essay in his book “Ted, White and Blue”. Ted made right with Marko, and the paperback version of Ted’s book gives credit where credit is due.)
------------
Why the Gun is Civilization.
By Marko Kloos
Reproduced by permission of the author.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
------------
Original material on JPFO is copyright, and so it cannot be used or plagiarized as the work of another. JPFO does however encourage article reproduction and sharing, providing full attribution is given and a link back to the original page on JPFO is included.
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm/
⛔
Image text that says 'Seems to me that there are three ways to use a gun for defense... 1. Shoot the aggressor if they continue with intent to harm you after you say DON'T! 2. Aim gun at the aggressor without pulling the trigger. 3. Simply present that you are carrying a gun. Do not aim. Do not fire. It also seems to me that every defensive use starts with 3 and works to the top of the list. Who and how are statistics being kept on the number 3 defensive use of guns?'
Quote from: 1037 10/17
The gun was designed specifically for war. by applying a gun to somebody's forehead and not pulling the trigger and telling them if you do not listen to me I will kill you but if you listen to me I will kill you period there is no reasoning with the person holding the gun period you are 100% using the gun as a force to scare and to kill. Plain and simple it was designed to kill. Nothing else period a gun does not service purpose if it is not being fired, you cannot dig with a gun period you cannot build a house with a gun. You can provide food by killing something period but you cannot use a gun as a tool for any other means other than to kill.
Quote from: 1141 10/17
➽ The gun was designed specifically for war.
So was splitting the atom.
> 2,500 terrawatt hours of electric produced.
➽ by applying a gun to somebody's forehead and not pulling the trigger and telling them if you do not listen to me I will kill you but if you listen to me I will kill you.
I'm not sure I can follow you into that fantasy world. I don't understand what you are attempting to project, nor present.
All by its self, that collection of your words suggests anybody with a gun intends to kill another. Maybe you better get rid of your gun(s) before you kill somebody.
➽ Plain and simple it was designed to kill.
And baseball bats were designed to hit baseballs. That doesn't mean somebody could not re-purpose that game piece into a murder weapon.
➽ Nothing else period [.] a gun does not service [serve its] purpose if it is not being fired,[...]
I am assuming that your typo's are because your speech to text isn't any better than mine.
Now if I've assumed correctly what you are saying... You DID NOT read what I posted. You have just made an unsupported, that is, you have just made a claim without proof. Contrary to the proof I did present.
➽ you cannot dig with a gun[.]
Why would I want to?
➽ you cannot build a house with a gun.
Not quite true. I could remove the bullets and use the grip as a hammer.
➽ You can provide food by killing something[.]
On that I agree.
➽ but you cannot use a gun as a tool for any other means other than to kill.
But you cannot use a nuclear missile as a tool for any other means other than to kill.
Ever hear of MAD?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mutual+assured+destruction&t=ffcm&ia=web
You are in error.
I get the sense that my posts "triggered" you.
I am truly confused as to where you are coming from.
Quote from: 1148 10/17
what can you use a gun for other than to shoot at an object? It is designed to kill, that is all.
Quote from: 1149 10/17
thanks for arguing that nuclear arms and nuclear power should be eliminated as well.
Quote from: 1200 10/17
What can you use a nuclear missile for other than to annihilate a city?
Second presentation: Ever hear of MAD?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mutual+assured+destruction&t=ffcm&ia=web
Quote from: 1238
Thanks for ignoring the point & showing me how smart you are in the process.
⚠
A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
[...]
Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying “If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?”)
[...]
● Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.
[...]
● Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises, in violation of fact-value distinction; e.g. making statements about what is, on the basis of claims about what ought to be. This is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy.
[...]
● Straw man fallacy – misrepresenting an opponent's argument by broadening or narrowing the scope of a premise and refuting a weaker version (e.g.: saying “You tell us that A is the right thing to do, but the real reason you want us to do A is that you would personally profit from it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies
⛔
⚠
The contradiction of a belief, ideal, or system of values causes cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by changing the challenged belief, yet, instead of effecting change, the resultant mental stress restores psychological consonance to the person by misperception, rejection, or refutation of the contradiction, seeking moral support from people who share the contradicted beliefs or acting to persuade other people that the contradiction is unreal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Belief_disconfirmation
⛔
Quote from: 1240 10/17
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE NUCLEAR ARMS!
Quote from: 1241 10/17
lol you use duckduckgo to hide your IP yet share shit on Facebook with it lol.
Quote from: 1315 10/17
Or should I say TrollBot?
Who, specifically, is this "WE"?
Ever hear of the lawyers paradox?
If it wasn't for lawyers, you wouldn't need one.
MAD Mutual Assured Destruction.
If it wasn't for nuclear arms countries wouldn't need any.
So you just keep pretending you no understand defensive use of weapons.
Quote from: 1319 10/17
so essentially what you're saying is that we need weapons so we can hold people hostage so that they do what we tell them to do period oh we have these weapons and if you don't do exactly what we tell you to do then we are going to blow you the fuck up? Okay that's not fucking freedom that's dictatorship. You anti-American bitch.
Quote from: 1425 10/17
➽ lol you use duckduckgo to hide your IP yet share shit on Facebook with it lol.
"lol" You've never read about the Google Search Bubble have you? "lol".
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Google+Filter+Bubble&t=ffcm&ia=web
➽ so essentially what you're saying is that we need weapons so we can hold people hostage so that they do what we tell them to do[.]
Who, specifically, is this "WE"?
So essentially, that is your straw man because you can't or won't understand defensive use of weapons.
➽ oh we have these weapons and if you don't do exactly what we tell you to do then we are going to blow you the fuck up?
Who, specifically, is this "WE"?
Oh we have these weapons and if you don't stop attacking me, I will fight back.
➽ Okay that's not fucking freedom that's dictatorship.
Dictatorship is the reason for owning guns. Something you are continuing to refuse to address.
You wouldn't know dictatorship if it bit you in the ass, told you to pay your taxes, and don't examine your government indoctrination.
➽ You anti-American bitch.
Calling me by your maiden name. Why?
Quote from: 0721 10/18
Where'd you go TrollBot™?
Quote from: 0906 10/18
lol I've got a life, children, and dogs to take care of.
Quote from: 0906 10/18
but I bet your grandkids never see you.
Quote from: 0953 10/18
Fair 'nuff.
However, I did see that you posted under another Champion post AFTER you didn't reply to me.
So how many days do you want before I remind you of our ongoing discussion?
I bookmark the permalinks to discussions I'm having and I keep an archive copy of all my interesting discussions online, with only the other person's initials to anonymize.
Quote from: 1004 10/18
I don't HAVE to reply to you sir. You're obviously an ammophilliac
Quote
And obviously you're a coward that doesn't like your opinions examined.
Quote from: 1035 10/18
No, I've just got better things to do with my weekend. I've already stated my case and stood my ground, you just keep running around in circles.
Quote
➽ I've already stated my case and stood my ground[...]
Well then... For my purposes, I'll just review your case as you have presented it.
Words of OP meme:
⚠ "If you need 30 rounds to hunt, you suck at hunting." & "If you need a disarmed society to govern, you suck at governing."⛔
➽ If you NEED a gun to survive, you're a coward.
➽ gun owner as well. but I don't need one in order to survive. guns are strictly designed to kill. They do not provide any form of defense.
This shows an opinion, supported by another opinion. The second being the claim, easily disprovable, that guns don't provide any form of defense.
And I provided the disproof. Apparently reading is not the opinion spewer's strong suit, so I'll just present the snippet already shown:
⚠ The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.⛔
I'll add something I wrote before that emphasizes the other writer's point:
⚠ You've never considered the fact that if a 250 pound, muscle bound bad guy accosts a 98 pound female while swinging a baseball bat in an aggressive and threatening way, he will stop the moment that 98 pound female presents, not aims, not fires, but presents a hand gun with the self assurance of a woman who knows she can hit what she aims for.⛔
My words in context: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-4209-post-29370.html#pid29370
The first opinion, that guns = cowardice... That was also addressed in the Marko Kloos writing.
⚠ I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.⛔
➽ Plain and simple it [a gun] was designed to kill.
So folks, you can clearly see this... person, chose to ignore the force equalization ability of something designed to kill.
➽ a gun does not [serve its] purpose if it is not being fired,
Another spew of opinion ignoring evidence contradicting this spew.
➽ but you cannot use a gun as a tool for any other means other than to kill.
Spewed opinion, just keeping on spewing AFTER contradictory proof was provided.
➽ what can you use a gun for other than to shoot at an object? It is designed to kill, that is all.
More deliberate, ignorant, opinion spew.
➽ so essentially what you're saying is that we need weapons so we can hold people hostage so that they do what we tell them to do[.]
No. That's what he pretended I said. Maybe he plugged his ears with his spew.
Reply to another:
Quote from: 0953
I always love the comparison of the Second Amendment to hunting. I don't remember it reading "The Right of the people to keep and bare arms for the purposes of hunting shall not be infringed". His argument is fucked anyway since when hunting mag capacity is usually limited to a certain number of rounds, in Kansas its five rounds total when deer hunting if I remember correctly. Haven't been hunting in years.