dcjs wrote:
To me, a statement that endorses the violation of fundamental rights of other people is offensive
jcolwell wrote:
Could you please review those fundamental rights for us? Briefly and concisely.
dcjs wrote:
In a nutshell, the individual right to self-ownership and the right to property. Everything else follows.
Since every human has these rights, logic dictates that noone may violate these rights of other people. Since experience tells us that there are people that do -illegitimately- violate these rights, forcefully denying an individual the right to possess means to fend off an attack on their person is inherently immoral.
I know this is an unusual look at things in a world that is largely collectivist in practice and also in thought, but deep down, when we think about our own persons, we all know that human rights are individual rights that are not negotiable and that ultimately, there is no \"institution\" that cares as much about your right to life as yourself, especially if that institution has for example calculated that your right to life has to take a back seat to the \"greater good\" of the collective.
douglasf13 wrote:
I\'m curious where you\'d draw the line. Is there no line? Do you think that citizens should be able to own any type of weapon? Should I be allowed to purchase a fighter jet, missiles and other high tech weaponry, if I can afford it (or if I can build it?) The dialogue in this country seems to be more about the types of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, and what kind of measures these citizens have to take in order to own these weapons, rather than a simple black and white issue of \"yes\" guns or \"no\" guns.
I\'m genuinely curious. I\'m not trying to provoke you or anything.
p.s. Nice image.
I think we should be able to own any kind of gun, most hand-held rockets, grenades, and so on!
I think there should be local (no state of federal ties) community organizations which oversee training for storage, use and handling which carries out periodic meetings and on-site inspections of sites with more than x amount of arms.
Violent crime and gun related crime in the USA declines with increased gun sales and ownership. This is a fact that\'s not arguable but from ignorance or twisted statistics.
I also think whoever said \"Since every human has these rights\" in the post above is completely out of touch with reality and doesn\'t know what property rights actually are. American\'s for example do not own property in most cases where they think they do. A few places in a few states still respect something similar to actual property rights - but it\'s rare. No one in the UK but the Queen owns property. The free world people so often refer to is often less free than the states they demonize for the lack of freedom. The USA as a \"free country\" is long gone! These days it\'s edging down toward just how much slavery and dictatorial power we\'re willing to subject ourselves to. And that is a direct correlation in buffer with gun ownership!
The US was founded with one of the main ideas being that we the people ARE the militia and therefor standing armies are NOT needed! When/as that changed that\'s when the shite started. The last 50 wars we\'ve been in are illegal wars for the expansion of a corporate fascist Empire almost no American actually wants. And in great part because of a run-away military industrial complex (standing army) we\'re not even supposed to have.
At one point in WWII Japan was strategically positioned for an invasion of California with a good chance for success - militarily. Later when the generals were asked why they didn\'t attack they said it was for the single reason that they knew every American owned guns and the Japs were not prepared to wage urban warfare on such a large scale. Of course back then many Americans were owning 50cal. machine-guns and canons too!
Today the threat is not so much from countries outside our boarders like Japan but rather from within. From those with a socialist agenda, from those in the UN, CFR and the global banking community who \"want to have it all\" or want to have control over it all in any case. For the past 100 years or so they have been using the methods of Fabianism to achieve their goals and with great success I might add. Today and since the OCB and 9/11 or there abouts some factions of power have been wanting to \"go hot\" so to speak. Disarming the American people is one of the hurdles which must be undertaken in order for that to occur.
dcjs wrote:
To me, a statement that endorses the violation of fundamental rights of other people is offensive
jcolwell wrote:
Could you please review those fundamental rights for us? Briefly and concisely.
dcjs wrote:
In a nutshell, the individual right to self-ownership and the right to property. Everything else follows.
Since every human has these rights, logic dictates that noone may violate these rights of other people. Since experience tells us that there are people that do -illegitimately- violate these rights, forcefully denying an individual the right to possess means to fend off an attack on their person is inherently immoral.
I know this is an unusual look at things in a world that is largely collectivist in practice and also in thought, but deep down, when we think about our own persons, we all know that human rights are individual rights that are not negotiable and that ultimately, there is no \"institution\" that cares as much about your right to life as yourself, especially if that institution has for example calculated that your right to life has to take a back seat to the \"greater good\" of the collective.
douglasf13 wrote:
I\'m curious where you\'d draw the line. Is there no line? Do you think that citizens should be able to own any type of weapon? Should I be allowed to purchase a fighter jet, missiles and other high tech weaponry, if I can afford it (or if I can build it?) The dialogue in this country seems to be more about the types of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, and what kind of measures these citizens have to take in order to own these weapons, rather than a simple black and white issue of \"yes\" guns or \"no\" guns.
I\'m genuinely curious. I\'m not trying to provoke you or anything.
p.s. Nice image.
I think we should be able to own any kind of gun, most hand-held rockets, grenades, and so on!
I think there should be local (no state of federal ties) community organizations which oversee training for storage, use and handling which carries out periodic meetings and on-site inspections of sites with more than x amount of arms.
Violent crime and gun related crime in the USA declines with increased gun sales and ownership. This is a fact that\'s not arguable but from ignorance or twisted statistics.
I also think whoever said \"Since every human has these rights\" in the post above is completely out of touch with reality and doesn\'t know what property rights actually are. American\'s for example do not own property in most cases where they think they do. A few places in a few states still respect something similar to actual property rights - but it\'s rare. No one in the UK but the Queen owns property. The free world people so often refer to is often less free than the states they demonize for the lack of freedom. The USA as a \"free country\" is long gone! These days it\'s edging down toward just how much slavery and dictatorial power we\'re willing to subject ourselves to. And that is a direct correlation in buffer with gun ownership!
The US was founded with one of the main idea being hat we the people ARE the militia and therefor standing armies are NOT needed! When/as that changed that\'s when the shite started. The last 50 wars we\'ve been in are illegal wars for the expansion of a corporate fascist Empire almost no American actually wants. And in great part because of a run-away military industrial complex (standing army) we\'re not even supposed to have.
At one point in WWII Japan was strategically positioned for an invasion of California with a good chance for success - militarily. Later when the generals were asked why they didn\'t attack they said it was for the single reason that they knew every American owned guns and the Japs were not prepared to wage urban warfare on such a large scale. Of course back then many Americans were owning 50cal. machine-guns and canons too!
Today the threat is not so much from countries outside our boarders like Japan but rather from within. From those with a socialist agenda, from those in the UN, CFR and the global banking community who \"want to have it all\" or want to have control over it all in any case. For the past 100 years or so they have been using the methods of Fabianism to achieve their goals and with great success I might add. Today and since the OCB and 9/11 or there abouts some factions of power have been wanting to \"go hot\" so to speak. Disarming the American people is one of the hurdles which must be undertaken in order for that to occur.
dcjs wrote:
To me, a statement that endorses the violation of fundamental rights of other people is offensive
jcolwell wrote:
Could you please review those fundamental rights for us? Briefly and concisely.
dcjs wrote:
In a nutshell, the individual right to self-ownership and the right to property. Everything else follows.
Since every human has these rights, logic dictates that noone may violate these rights of other people. Since experience tells us that there are people that do -illegitimately- violate these rights, forcefully denying an individual the right to possess means to fend off an attack on their person is inherently immoral.
I know this is an unusual look at things in a world that is largely collectivist in practice and also in thought, but deep down, when we think about our own persons, we all know that human rights are individual rights that are not negotiable and that ultimately, there is no \"institution\" that cares as much about your right to life as yourself, especially if that institution has for example calculated that your right to life has to take a back seat to the \"greater good\" of the collective.
douglasf13 wrote:
I\'m curious where you\'d draw the line. Is there no line? Do you think that citizens should be able to own any type of weapon? Should I be allowed to purchase a fighter jet, missiles and other high tech weaponry, if I can afford it (or if I can build it?) The dialogue in this country seems to be more about the types of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, and what kind of measures these citizens have to take in order to own these weapons, rather than a simple black and white issue of \"yes\" guns or \"no\" guns.
I\'m genuinely curious. I\'m not trying to provoke you or anything.
p.s. Nice image.
I think we should be able to own any kind of gun, most hand-held rockets, grenades, and so on!
I think there should be local (no state of federal ties) community organizations which oversee training for storage, use and handling which carries out periodic meetings and on-site inspections of sites with more than x amount of arms.
Violent crime and gun related crime in the USA declines with increased gun sales and ownership. This is a fact that\'s not arguable but from ignorance or twisted statistics.
I also think whoever said \"Since every human has these rights\" in the post above is completely out of touch with reality and doesn\'t know what property rights actually are. American\'s for example do not own property in most cases where they think they do. A few places in a few states still respect something similar to actual property rights - but it\'s rare. No one in the UK but the Queen owns property. The free world people so often refer to is often less free than the states they demonize for the lack of freedom. The USA as a \"free country\" is long gone! These days it\'s edging down toward just how much slavery and dictatorial power we\'re willing to subject ourselves to. And that is a direct correlation in buffer with gun ownership!
The US was founded with one of the main idea being hat we the people ARE the militia and therefor standing armies are NOT needed! When/as that changed that\'s when the shite started. The last 50 wars we\'ve been in are illegal wars for the expansion of a corporate fascist Empire almost no American actually wants. And all because of a run-away military industrial complex (standing army) we\'re not even supposed to have.
At one point in WWII Japan was strategically positioned for an invasion of California with a good chance for success - militarily. Later when the generals were asked why they didn\'t attack they said it was for the single reason that they knew every American owned guns and the Japs were not prepared to wage urban warfare on such a large scale. Of course back then many Americans were owning 50cal. machine-guns and canons too!
Today the threat is not so much from countries outside our boarders like Japan but rather from within. From those with a socialist agenda, from those in the UN, CFR and the global banking community who \"want to have it all\" or want to have control over it all in any case. For the past 100 years or so they have been using the methods of Fabianism to achieve their goals and with great success I might add. Today and since the OCB and 9/11 or there abouts some factions of power have been wanting to \"go hot\" so to speak. Disarming the American people is one of the hurdles which must be undertaken in order for that to occur.
dcjs wrote:
To me, a statement that endorses the violation of fundamental rights of other people is offensive
jcolwell wrote:
Could you please review those fundamental rights for us? Briefly and concisely.
dcjs wrote:
In a nutshell, the individual right to self-ownership and the right to property. Everything else follows.
Since every human has these rights, logic dictates that noone may violate these rights of other people. Since experience tells us that there are people that do -illegitimately- violate these rights, forcefully denying an individual the right to possess means to fend off an attack on their person is inherently immoral.
I know this is an unusual look at things in a world that is largely collectivist in practice and also in thought, but deep down, when we think about our own persons, we all know that human rights are individual rights that are not negotiable and that ultimately, there is no \"institution\" that cares as much about your right to life as yourself, especially if that institution has for example calculated that your right to life has to take a back seat to the \"greater good\" of the collective.
douglasf13 wrote:
I\'m curious where you\'d draw the line. Is there no line? Do you think that citizens should be able to own any type of weapon? Should I be allowed to purchase a fighter jet, missiles and other high tech weaponry, if I can afford it (or if I can build it?) The dialogue in this country seems to be more about the types of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, and what kind of measures these citizens have to take in order to own these weapons, rather than a simple black and white issue of \"yes\" guns or \"no\" guns.
I\'m genuinely curious. I\'m not trying to provoke you or anything.
p.s. Nice image.
I think we should be able to own any kind of gun, most hand-held rockets, grenades, and so on!
I think there should be local (no state of federal ties) community organizations which oversee training for storage, use and handling which carries out periodic meetings and on-site inspections of sites with more than x amount of arms.
Violent crime and gun related crime in the USA declines with increased gun sales and ownership. This is a fact that\'s not arguable but from ignorance or twisted statistics.
I also think whoever said \"Since every human has these rights\" in the post above is completely out of touch with reality and doesn\'t know what property rights actually are. American\'s for example do not own property in most cases where they think they do. A few places in a few states still respect something similar to actual property rights - but it\'s rare. No one in the UK but the Queen owns property. The free world people so often refer to is often less free than the states they demonize for the lack of freedom. The USA as a \"free country\" is long gone! These days it\'s edging down toward just how much slavery and dictatorial power we\'re willing to subject ourselves to. And that is a direct correlation in buffer with gun ownership!
The US was founded with one of the main idea being hat we the people ARE the militia and therefor standing armies are NOT needed! When/as that changed that\'s when the shite started. The last 50 wars we\'ve been in are illegal wars for the expansion of a corporate fascist Empire almost no American actually wants. And all because of a run-away military industrial complex (standing army) we\'re not even supposed to have.
At one point in WWII Japan was strategically positioned for an invasion of California with a good chance for success - militarily. Later when the generals were asked why they didn\'t attack they said it was for the single reason that they knew every American owned guns and the Japs were not prepared to wage urban warfare on such a large scale. Of course back then many Americans were owning 50cal. machine-guns and canons too!
Today the threat is not so much from countries outside our boarders like Japan but rather from within. From those with a socialist agenda, from those in the UN, CFR and the global banking community who \"want to have it all\" or want to have control over it all in any case. For the past 100 years or so they have been using the methods of Fabianism to achieve their goals and with great success I might add. Today and since the OCB and 9/11 or there abouts some factions of power have been wanting to \"go hot\" so to speak. Disarming the American people is one of the hurdles which must be overtaken in order for that to occur.
dcjs wrote:
To me, a statement that endorses the violation of fundamental rights of other people is offensive
jcolwell wrote:
Could you please review those fundamental rights for us? Briefly and concisely.
dcjs wrote:
In a nutshell, the individual right to self-ownership and the right to property. Everything else follows.
Since every human has these rights, logic dictates that noone may violate these rights of other people. Since experience tells us that there are people that do -illegitimately- violate these rights, forcefully denying an individual the right to possess means to fend off an attack on their person is inherently immoral.
I know this is an unusual look at things in a world that is largely collectivist in practice and also in thought, but deep down, when we think about our own persons, we all know that human rights are individual rights that are not negotiable and that ultimately, there is no \"institution\" that cares as much about your right to life as yourself, especially if that institution has for example calculated that your right to life has to take a back seat to the \"greater good\" of the collective.
douglasf13 wrote:
I\'m curious where you\'d draw the line. Is there no line? Do you think that citizens should be able to own any type of weapon? Should I be allowed to purchase a fighter jet, missiles and other high tech weaponry, if I can afford it (or if I can build it?) The dialogue in this country seems to be more about the types of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, and what kind of measures these citizens have to take in order to own these weapons, rather than a simple black and white issue of \"yes\" guns or \"no\" guns.
I\'m genuinely curious. I\'m not trying to provoke you or anything.
p.s. Nice image.
I think we should be able to own any kind of gun, most hand-held rockets, grenades, and so on!
I think there should be local (no state of federal ties) community organizations which oversee training for storage, use and handling which carries out periodic meetings and on-site inspections of sites with more than x amount of arms.
Violent crime and gun related crime in the USA declines with increased gun sales and ownership. This is a fact that\'s not arguable but from ignorance or twisted statistics.
I also think whoever said \"Since every human has these rights\" in the post above is completely out of touch with reality and doesn\'t know what property rights actually are. American\'s for example do not own property in most cases where they think they do. A few places in a few states still respect something similar to actual property rights - but it\'s rare. No one in the UK but the Queen owns property. The free world people so often refer to is often less free than the states they demonize for the lack of freedom. The USA as a \"free country\" is long gone! These days it\'s edging down toward just how much slavery and dictatorial power we\'re willing to subject ourselves to. And that is a direct correlation in buffer with gun ownership!
The US was founded with one of the main idea being hat we the people ARE the militia and therefor standing armies are NOT needed! When/as that changed that\'s when the shite started. The last 50 wars we\'ve been in are illegal wars for the expansion of a corporate fascist Empire almost no American actually wants. And all because of a run-away military industrial complex (standing army) we\'re not even supposed to have.
At one point in WWII Japan was strategically positioned for an invasion of California with a good chance for success - militarily. Later when the generals were asked why they didn\'t attack they said it was for the single reason that they knew every American owned guns and the Japs were not prepared to wage urban warfare on such a large scale. Of course back then many Americans were owning 50cal. machine-guns and canons too!
Today the threat is not so much from countries outside our boarders like Japan but rather from within. From those with a socialist agenda, from those in the UN, CFR and the global banking community who \"want to have it all\" or want to have control over it all in any case. For the past 100 years or so they have been using the methods of Fabianism to achieve their goals and with great success I might add. Today and since the OCB and 9/11 or there abouts some factions of power have been wanting to \"go hot\" so to speak. Disarming the American people is one of the hurdles which must be overtaken in order for that to occur.
dcjs wrote:
To me, a statement that endorses the violation of fundamental rights of other people is offensive
jcolwell wrote:
Could you please review those fundamental rights for us? Briefly and concisely.
dcjs wrote:
In a nutshell, the individual right to self-ownership and the right to property. Everything else follows.
Since every human has these rights, logic dictates that noone may violate these rights of other people. Since experience tells us that there are people that do -illegitimately- violate these rights, forcefully denying an individual the right to possess means to fend off an attack on their person is inherently immoral.
I know this is an unusual look at things in a world that is largely collectivist in practice and also in thought, but deep down, when we think about our own persons, we all know that human rights are individual rights that are not negotiable and that ultimately, there is no \"institution\" that cares as much about your right to life as yourself, especially if that institution has for example calculated that your right to life has to take a back seat to the \"greater good\" of the collective.
douglasf13 wrote:
I\'m curious where you\'d draw the line. Is there no line? Do you think that citizens should be able to own any type of weapon? Should I be allowed to purchase a fighter jet, missiles and other high tech weaponry, if I can afford it (or if I can build it?) The dialogue in this country seems to be more about the types of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, and what kind of measures these citizens have to take in order to own these weapons, rather than a simple black and white issue of \"yes\" guns or \"no\" guns.
I\'m genuinely curious. I\'m not trying to provoke you or anything.
p.s. Nice image.
I think we should be able to own any kind of gun, most hand-held rockets, grenades, and so on!
I think there should be local (no state of federal ties) community organizations which oversee training for storage, use and handling which carries out periodic meetings and on-site inspections of sites with more than x amount of arms.
Violent crime and gun related crime in the USA declines with increased gun sales and ownership. This is a fact that\'s not arguable but from ignorance or twisted statistics.
I also think whoever said \"Since every human has these rights\" in the post above is completely out of touch with reality and doesn\'t know what property rights actually are. American\'s for example do not own property in most cases where they think they do. A few places in a few states still respect something similar to actual property rights - but it\'s rare. No one in the UK but the Queen owns property. The free world people so often refer to is often less free than the states they demonize for the lack of freedom. The USA as a \"free country\" is long gone! These days it\'s edging down toward just how much slavery and dictatorial power we\'re willing to subject ourselves to. And that is a direct correlation in buffer with gun ownership!
The US was founded with one of the main idea being hat we the people ARE the militia and therefor standing armies are NOT needed! When/as that changed that\'s when the shite started. The last 50 wars we\'ve been in are illegal wars for the expansion of a corporate fascist Empire almost no American actually wants. And all because of a run-away military industrial complex (standing army) we\'re not even supposed to have.
At one point in WWII Japan was strategically positioned for an invasion of California with a good chance for success - militarily. Later when the generals were asked why they didn\'t attack they said it was for the single reason that they knew every American owned guns and the Japs were not prepared to wage urban warfare on such a large scale. Of course back then many Americans were owning 50cal. machine-guns and canons too!
Today the threat is not so much from countries outside our boarders like Japan but rather from within. From those with a socialist agenda, from those in the UN, CFR and the global banking community who \"want to have it all\" or want to have control over it all in any case. For the past 100 years or so they have been using the methods of Fabianism to achieve their goals and with great success I might add. Today and since the OCB and 9/11 or there abouts some factions of power have been wanting to \"go hot\" so to speak. Disarming the American people is one of the hurdles which must be overtaken in order for that to occur.
dcjs wrote:
To me, a statement that endorses the violation of fundamental rights of other people is offensive
jcolwell wrote:
Could you please review those fundamental rights for us? Briefly and concisely.
dcjs wrote:
In a nutshell, the individual right to self-ownership and the right to property. Everything else follows.
Since every human has these rights, logic dictates that noone may violate these rights of other people. Since experience tells us that there are people that do -illegitimately- violate these rights, forcefully denying an individual the right to possess means to fend off an attack on their person is inherently immoral.
I know this is an unusual look at things in a world that is largely collectivist in practice and also in thought, but deep down, when we think about our own persons, we all know that human rights are individual rights that are not negotiable and that ultimately, there is no \"institution\" that cares as much about your right to life as yourself, especially if that institution has for example calculated that your right to life has to take a back seat to the \"greater good\" of the collective.
douglasf13 wrote:
I\'m curious where you\'d draw the line. Is there no line? Do you think that citizens should be able to own any type of weapon? Should I be allowed to purchase a fighter jet, missiles and other high tech weaponry, if I can afford it (or if I can build it?) The dialogue in this country seems to be more about the types of weapons citizens should be allowed to own, and what kind of measures these citizens have to take in order to own these weapons, rather than a simple black and white issue of \"yes\" guns or \"no\" guns.
I\'m genuinely curious. I\'m not trying to provoke you or anything.
p.s. Nice image.
I think we should be able to own any kind of gun, most hand-held rockets, grenades, and so on!
I think there should be local (no state of federal ties) community organizations which oversee training for storage, use and handling which carries out periodic meetings and on-site inspections of sites with more than x amount of arms.
Violent crime and gun related crime in the USA declines with increased gun sales and ownership. This is a fact that\'s not arguable but from ignorance or twisted statistics.
I also think whoever said \"Since every human has these rights\" in the post above is completely out of touch with reality and doesn\'t know what property rights actually are. American\'s for example do not own property in most cases where they think they do. A few places in a few states still respect something similar to actual property rights - but it\'s rare. No one in the UK but the Queen owns property. The free world people so often refer to is often less free than the states they demonize for the lack of freedom. The USA as a \"free country\" is long gone! These days it\'s edging down toward just how much slavery and dictatorial power we\'re willing to subject ourselves to. And that is a direct correlation in buffer with gun ownership!
The US was founded with one of the main idea being hat we the people ARE the militia and therefor standing armies are NOT needed! When/as that changed that\'s when the shite started. The last 50 wars we\'ve been in are illegal wars for the expansion of a corporate fascist Empire almost no American actually wants. And all because of a run-away military industrial complex (standing army) we\'re not even supposed to have.
At one point in WWII Japan was strategically positioned for an invasion of California with a good chance for success - militarily. Later when the generals were asked why they didn\'t attack they said it was for the single reason that they knew every American owned guns and the Japs were not prepared to wage urban warfare on such a large scale. Of course back then many Americans were owning 50cal. machine-guns and canons too!
Dec 21, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #11209628 « Best Alt Images, EVER! (before we all die) »
