Maine Town to 'Require' gun ownership?

Dr Kynes said:
the constitution is NOT a fucking contract. it is a Compact, a Covenant, but NOT a contract.

the union has failed to hold to it's stated ideals, but that does not invalidate those ideals, nor does the failure to be perfect invalidate the constitution.

the compact of the constitution is not in any way similar to a civil contract save that rights and responsibilities of the various parties are spelled out.
pretending you dont understand this is just an example of begging the question.

spooner's consensual "do as you may" fantasy would inevitably result in the collapse of society and real somalia style anarchy because everybody is NOT NICE.

in spooner's fantasyland the first time some freak tires to touch on your kid's penis or steal your cow you would be forced to "initiate violence" and thus become the villain in your own story. theres a million things that can be done to you without "initiating violence" much like everybody with a kid brother knows how much he can do to piss you off while still being able to chant "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!".

without the authority of the social compact and the uniformed peacekeepers and courts to handle the violence for us, every dispute between neighbors would be settled like grownups, or would devolve into a generational violent feud of escalating violence and revenge. without the cops and courts as a source of mediation every serious dispute would be settled by the sort of violence that america hasnt seen outside the inner city gang wars of the 80's or the war between the states.
eventually all semblance of civilization would vanish, and those who have arms and the willingness to use them against others would become the new rulers over the pacifist peasantry.
then, anything you have, from livestock, to food stores to crops in the field, to a particularly attractive daughter would be a commodity vulnerable to "collectivization" by whatever minor warlord declares himself the Overdog of your particular patch of ground and without meeting his violence with your own, you could only submit.

the social structure of our nation, the several states, their counties, and their municipalities is the hierarchy that provides the illusion of security which allows us to work, engage in commerce and live our lives without constantly preparing for the dystopian nightmare future which will arrive as soon as the illusion of security fails.

once anarchy reigns, there are literally NO RULES (thats why they call it anarchy) save those you can enforce with arms, and your willingness to blow a malefactor's head off.

and yes, national sovereignty is tribal. and theres nothing wrong with that, it is a fundamental part of human nature, it's why we care what happens to our other villagers, but not so much for the people from the hill tribe whoi live in a far off land many day's walk from our forest homes.

the post-modern fascination with being "objective" and rejecting "bias" is an affectation to which i do not subscribe. we all have biases and our own perspectives, pretending we do not have them is self-delusion.
Click to expand...

Anarchy? Is that the box you've prepared for me? I believe in the absence of a central authority that has a monopoly on force. I have a bias, when did I say I don't?

Your bias appears to be to a system that has coercion at its core, mine does not, my bias is towards peace.
 
Rob Roy said:
The price of tea in China should be set by mutual agreement between buyer and seller, uninterested parties should stay out of it.

Which points that you made supersede the idea that we all own ourselves as long as we respect the rights of others?
Click to expand...


Is this a difficult question to answer?????????
 
kpmarine said:
I do agree that changes need to be made, how does one actually make those changes though? It does seem that states are trying to restore their authority a bit more. I won't dispute that the commerce clause has been shoehorned to justify everything from drug laws to legitimate issues of commerce. It seems a lot of this is the sins of our fathers coming back on us. It's been running amok for so long, I don't think your ideal is attainable any time soon.

As far as the BAR association; how do you feel that should be dealt with? What's wrong with it? I've only known it as a certifying agency for lawyers, which seems like an important service.
Click to expand...

the constitution wa written and worked good for 130 years before the endless re-imaginings started changing what the words mean.

the courts could clear the decks and demolish the constructs which are cluttering washington as easily as i scrape dogshit off my boot. but unfortunately the courts are complicit in the corruption. and that brings us to the Bar....

the bar association is NOT a certifying agency for lawyers any more than the Screen Actors Guild can certify that a card-holder is a good actor. (see the Gilmore Girls for evidence that SAG cards do not ensure good acting)

the bar association is just a union for lawyers. they have created a fiction that they are essential but only 3 states include the bar association in their constitution of which california is one, and the bar association is not mentioned in any way in the constitution

the federal Bar is created as a corporation (lulz) under 36 USC chapter 705

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/subtitle-II/part-B/chapter-705

read this and tell me this sounds like a government agency for certifying legal professionals with OUR best interests in mind.

the federal bar, and the state bars are just unions for lawyers, and like all unions they want to ensure that everyone working in the field is a dues paying member, and they wish to control the opinions and thoughts of their members to prevent rebellions within the ranks.

compare the above link's contents to this one, which establishes the medical licensing board for california (there is no federal medical licensing board or i would use that one)

http://www.mbc.ca.gov/laws/laws.html

while this is the secion of the california code which creates ANOTHER private corporation which is little more than a members only club for lawyers and unlike the federal bar, or most state's bars actually givves them powers and responsibilities rather than the lawyers unions simply seizing these powers for themselves.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=05001-06000&file=6000-6009.7

the medical boards test prospective doctors on their medical knowledge and skill, maintain disciplinary records and ensures the ethics of physicians as a government agency.
bar associaitions are corporate entities which do little more than decide who may or may not call themselves a lawyer based on whether they graduated from an approved law school and took their certification test. most of their actions are geared towards suppression of various legal defenses (like jury nullification) and ensuring that only Bar Approved lawyers become judges, despite the fact that there is no requirement that a supreme court justice or most other judges be members of any bar association. hell, they dont even have to be lawyers. but the bar wont approve any non-lawyer, since the indoctrination of law school is essential to preserve their groupthink.

i know whta youre thinking, these are the same sort of arguments used by quacks and "alternative medicine" nutjobs to disparage the real practice of medicine, but in the case of lawyers and their bar, it's true.

read a bit on jury nullification and youll see that the legal profession despises the jury's willingness to think for themselves rather than simply do as they are told by one or another member in good standing of the bar. they get all butthurt over jury nullification, and in most jurisdictions the bar association will throw you out if you mention it to the jury. and sometimes the judge will declare a mistrial and bring contempt charges against any lawyer who dares cross the rubicon and tell the jury they get to decide on law themselves. that is the ultimate betrayal in lawyerland.

yeah, i hate lawyers. who doesnt?
 
Rob Roy said:
Anarchy? Is that the box you've prepared for me? I believe in the absence of a central authority that has a monopoly on force. I have a bias, when did I say I don't?

Your bias appears to be to a system that has coercion at its core, mine does not, my bias is towards peace.
Click to expand...

so you do not advocate the lack of all heirarchy and the dissolution of all government in favour of voluntary associations in a new smurf village type utopia?

if there is no government there ius no governance and without governance society WILL devolve into anarchy.

only the power of government restrains the malefactors and without that power we will have to fight these bastards on our own, which will result in Vigilance Committees or street gangs and mafias, until society ultimately collapses, then it will be all about local warlords and their roving warbands.

i have prepared no box for you, you constructed that coffin yourself.

spoonerism can only work in Smurf Village, or Equestria


my_little_pony_wallpaper_by_brokenmessiah-d4xp2dd.jpg
 
Rob Roy said:
Is this a difficult question to answer?????????
Click to expand...

Kynes and I both touched on it: Because anarchy. You want all the rainbows and puppies without the bad part of humanity, but that's not life. The only thing keeping the big bad men at bay, is the fact that gov. is there paying folks to respect your right not to be raped, killed, robbed, et-cetera. If you want some people to respect your right to do what you want, you have to be willing to shoot them in the face over it, plain and simple. People don't start playing nice when there's no consequences for being bad; look at any news reports on events in the US where a natural disaster has struck or there is rioting. People only play nice because there's a threat of force.
 
Rob Roy said:
No initiation of force...my core philosophy. All people have right to defend themselves. Do we agree there?
Click to expand...

You're dancing around it, but if your gov. can't apply force, it's nonexistent effectively. Rules without enforcement are just suggestions. People have a right to defend themselves, but they're also prone to serve their own interests, which tends to prevent actual justice.
 
kpmarine said:
You're dancing around it, but if your gov. can't apply force, it's nonexistent effectively. Rules without enforcement are just suggestions. People have a right to defend themselves, but they're also prone to serve their own interests, which tends to prevent actual justice.
Click to expand...

Do people have a right to defend themselves against a coercive government?
 
Rob Roy said:
Do people have a right to defend themselves against a coercive government?
Click to expand...

do murderers have the right to defend themselves against the coercion of the police when they are caught mid-stabbing?

or should that 12 year old girl he is stabbing have taken the responsibility for defending herself against her attacker?

it is a sad reality that all people are not well equipped to defend themseleves, and all persons are not dedicated to non-violence and respecting other people's rights.

the government and their armed and uniformed agents are there primarily to defend the helpless (women, children, small people, old people, people without guns, etc...) from the actions of the malefactors who are generally well equipped for violence since they are the instigators.

i sometimes carry my pistol, but if it were my intention to commit criminal assault or robbery, the chance of me carrying my gun goes from ~30% to 100% instantly. meanwhile my potential victims are most likely NOT prepared to engage me in gunplay, but the cops are. and thats why they are there.

in a perfect world, the cops would not have any law to enforce save those that are directly related to the defense of our rights, and apprehension of persons who violate the rights of another, but we do not live in a perfect world, so cops have to enforce laws about seatbelts, and smoking weed, and parking on the wrong side of the street on tuesday and other such bullshit. if you want to end the interference in your life you have an option, you can vote, and agitate and rabble rouse, and commit civil disobedience so you can fight these laws in court, or you can lobby your representatives with a fistful of sweaty money.

simply declaring yourself outside the laws because you didnt sign anything is just dumb. if that theory were to hold then every child murderer would be immune from any restrictions on child murder, every burglar would be entitled to steal all your shit any time he wants, and an dickhead on the planet could just poke his ass out a third floor window and drop his turds right on the heads of people walking below, because none of them voluntarily accepted any laws against their personal favorite activity.

spoonerism is not a political theory or a societal system, it is petulance and childish self-indulgence. is a community college level version of "You're Not The Boss Of Me!!!"
 
Doc,

I don't think you've read much Spooner, except his bio.

He advocated treating wrong according to their needed response. He is truely the bizzaro Buck.

Unlike Buck, he thought criminals must be held accountable. Unlike Buck, those who think they've been wronged don't have the moral ground to right these fictitious wrongs, no matter how much they pretend to suffer.

Also, Spooner didn't believe in the 1,000 plant rule.

Spooner just believed in stopping wrongs. He hated pre-crime. Punishment should fit the crime. When force isn't warranted, there's no need to threaten us with it.

Why do you have to pull an Ayn Rand and take your ball home just because there's a few things you disagree with about his opinions?

There's lots I agree with and disagree about Spooner's thoughts. Like I think he's wrong on this:

"No man loves vice, because it is
vice, although many strongly love the
pleasure which it sometimes affords."

That's untrue. There are many who try and seek out all the vices and violate them. If Spooner had met The Occupy movement, he would've never wrote that. He would've instead pre-cluded that statement with, "Except for the mentally ill liberal who sits in a circle beating a drum like a retard."
 
Canna Sylvan said:
Doc,

I don't think you've read much Spooner, except his bio.

He advocated treating wrong according to their needed response. He is truely the bizzaro Buck.

Unlike Buck, he thought criminals must be held accountable. Unlike Buck, those who think they've been wronged don't have the moral ground to right these fictitious wrongs, no matter how much they pretend to suffer.

Also, Spooner didn't believe in the 1,000 plant rule.

Spooner just believed in stopping wrongs. He hated pre-crime. Punishment should fit the crime. When force isn't warranted, there's no need to threaten us with it.

Why do you have to pull an Ayn Rand and take your ball home just because there's a few things you disagree with about his opinions?

There's lots I agree with and disagree about Spooner's thoughts. Like I think he's wrong on this:

"No man loves vice, because it is
vice, although many strongly love the
pleasure which it sometimes affords."

That's untrue. There are many who try and seek out all the vices and violate them. If Spooner had met The Occupy movement, he would've never wrote that. He would've instead pre-cluded that statement with, "Except for the mentally ill liberal who sits in a circle beating a drum like a retard."
Click to expand...

i read a lot of spooner on rob's recommendation, and he was simply thoreau without the eco-lunacy.

a proto-communist (attendant to the first Comintern) who felt that what he wanted was his by right provided it did not disturb anyone else's rights (as he viewed them)

his rambling screeds made me go a big rubbery one, and i was not impressed with his ideas, his ideology, his penny novel fronteirsman pretensions or his prose which was heavy handed and stilted.

his reasoning always came back to the same point, "You're Not The Boss Of Me!" and often came perilously close to "Do What I Want Or I'll Run Away And Join The Circus!" his personal bio is rather hilarious, since he was a 19th century boomerang kid, the forerunner to that asshole who writes those books containing all the information "THEY Dont Want You To Know" and the self-aggrandizing munchhausian delusions of Alex Jones. spooner was born 190 years too soon. today he would be screaming into a megaphone at an Occupy Rally about how he's being oppressed because nobody is paying him $150k a year to write his blog and wear KISS Army T-shirts from the thrift store (but he does it ironically).
 
cannabineer said:
Is that what stayed foremost in your mind?

images


Oh do continue. cn
Click to expand...

yes, it stayed formeost im my mind because it was foremost in my face.

it jus thung there limply and i kept yelling for the fluffer to get back to work.

if im gonna have to see some dude's cock, i want to see it erect, and goin into something.

otherwise im just looking at some dude's dick and thats not how i roll.

and sometimes a cigar really is just a big thick juicy long hard shaft going into siggy's mouth.

no homo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lifegoesonbrah
stories about people protecting themselves and others with guns
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Winter Woman
Winter Woman
mr2shim
Damn good gun control article
Replies
0
Views
661
mr2shim
mr2shim
S
texas town allowed teachers to carry guns!YES!
Replies
5
Views
971
ClaytonBigsby
ClaytonBigsby
squarepush3r
Why there are no "good cops"
Replies
7
Views
2K
canndo
canndo
RC7
Kid Makes 38 Million Selling Marijuana
2
Replies
30
Views
10K
Bombur
B
Back
Top