Domestic gun grab. Real threat or BS?

self preservation · Oct 28, 2013

Primus said:
This "threat of violence" has been around since man first made a tribe about a billion years ago (i know a couple million but jsut making a point). When we first made tribes there was a dominant person. You messed up he clubbed you. Then there was "civilizations". They were always based on some form of .gov. And it's always worked that there is a "threat of violence" if you refuse to contribute. Actually, today's .gov has an extremely LOW level "threat" then previous .govs (around the world). Civilization wouldn't work unless there was someone to keep us civilized. We are animals and tend to act like it.

Look at children. Do they pop out perfect little beings with natural manners? Negative. They are slapped by adults when they get out of line and don't follow rules. Well when you become an adult and get out of line, you get slapped. The issue is where is that "line".

I'm glad that you are for the Government "clubbing" and "slapping" us until we are nice compliant animals. As far as the U.S. Government having a "low threat level" to freedom loving folks like us, exactly how long have you been living under your rock?

Maverick9 · Oct 28, 2013

Primus said:
Guys say "your infringing upon my 2a, 4a, 1a, rights. So I will arm myself more and fight you to the death!!"

I'm pretty sure they say 'you're infringing...'. Just sayin'...

Primus · Oct 28, 2013

Last time I checked, .govs have progressed from beheading for political opposition (France) to being able to post anything you want on a forum or rallying and saying literally anything you want about the President. Do you know what would have happened in Rome if you posted a picture mocking the Ceaser? Death.

My point is that's progression as a people, as a planet. The .gov principle has always been the same, we don't just meld together and be happy. There has always been some larger entity that "controls" the population.

Remember guys, the Articles of Confederation gave us exactly that, no .gov and it failed horribly.

Again, not saying anything or anyone is perfect. Just saying this "threat of violence" idea is a bit far fetched. Want to see threat of violence? Look up what Stalin did, Hitler, Castro, etc. etc. Those were threats of violence.

And anyone who's actually been involved in true violence isn't so quick to jump to want to causing it.

Brace · Oct 28, 2013

Nightmare said:
The 'tribe' continues as the government. It maintains its 'civilization' against the individual and Open Society.

The Open Society and Its Enemies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies

That man is inherently evil is the foundation of conservatism. The contrary statement, that man is inherently god-like is the fundamental principle of progressivism.

What of those who hold that man is inherently free and thus inherently nothing?

Primus · Oct 28, 2013

Brace said:
What of those who hold that man is inherently free and thus inherently nothing?

Man is always either. The one's who aren't just haven't been tested by life yet.

Brace · Oct 28, 2013

Primus said:
Man is always either. The one's who aren't just haven't been tested by life yet.

So once a person has done evil they can never do good again, or vice versa? It seems that at any given place and time a person has not only the ability to choose but the necessity of choice. Character has no inertia, you don't just build it once and leave it. There are no good and evil people, just people who do good or evil. When you suppose that a person could be, in themselves, good or evil, you absolve them of responsibility once a verdict has been rendered. They accept the label conferred upon them and then make their actual decisions based on expediency, which doesn't even rise to the nobility of evil because it constitutes a retreat from self-awareness and responsibility. It represents living your life by accident and accounting for it after the fact with easy labels. It's easy to imagine a criminal who authentically chooses crime because they value their freedom more than other people's rights. While these people can be said to do harm, the world isn't what it is because of people like them but because of those who lack any shred of authenticity at all.

Grapeshot · Oct 28, 2013

Primus said:
--snipped--
And anyone who's actually been involved in true violence isn't so quick to jump to want to causing it.

Don't see this thought as actively portraying people at all. Typically people will ultimately use the means most effective in reaching their goals.

I am reminded of the not so trite options for conflict resolution:

Logic/reason - Attempting to talk the other person into a satisfactory conclusion. May involve deception, distortion of facts, even outright lying. Use of truth/facts is more easily justified though, especially if time and circumstances permit.
Use of force - Compelling the other side into a position of capitulation or outright removal from the field. This may include a graduated level of such force.
Also considered were submitting, fleeing, and freezing but IMHO not considered as "resolution(s)" - they avoid the conflict w/o resolving it (not automatically a bad thing). The resolution is avoided, delayed, or transfered to someone else for a solution.

........http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/resolution-not-conflict/201211/what-makes-conflict-how-are-conflicts-resolved

Bringing this back to the point of the thread (Domestic Gun Grab) insofar as the other side is involved in a war of words we have the ability and responsibility to respond in kind....including use of the legislatures and courts.

Entertaining physical responses directed at an entity in power is beyond the scope, intention, and mandate (see Forum Rules) of OCDO. Individually, there are exceptions when faced with an armed BG whose designs include physical harm to you or your loved ones.

Citizen · Oct 28, 2013

Primus said:
Last time I checked, .govs have progressed from beheading for political opposition (France) to being able to post anything you want on a forum or rallying and saying literally anything you want about the President. Do you know what would have happened in Rome if you posted a picture mocking the Ceaser? Death.

My point is that's progression as a people, as a planet. The .gov principle has always been the same, we don't just meld together and be happy. There has always been some larger entity that "controls" the population.

Remember guys, the Articles of Confederation gave us exactly that, no .gov and it failed horribly.

Again, not saying anything or anyone is perfect. Just saying this "threat of violence" idea is a bit far fetched. Want to see threat of violence? Look up what Stalin did, Hitler, Castro, etc. etc. Those were threats of violence.

And anyone who's actually been involved in true violence isn't so quick to jump to want to causing it.

Oh?

So, my employer doesn't hold back 1/4 of my pay and forward it to the government because of a threat of violence? People don't pay their property taxes because of a threat of violence?

I can't buy a decent new car without paying vast sums for all kinds of electronic safety gizmo's because of a threat of violence. I'd better stop at that police roadblock for a DUI fishing expedition, or else I'll receive violence.

The list is endless. What is far-fetched is your failure to connect the endless regulations, confiscatory taxation, etc., etc., etc. with threats of violence.

eye95 · Oct 28, 2013

Nightmare said:
...That man is inherently evil is the foundation of conservatism. The contrary statement, that man is inherently god-like is the fundamental principle of progressivism.

I would say that you have that backwards. Those who believe in less government trust the People more, and therefore must believe in their general goodness. Those who believe in more government feel that the people need to be controlled because they can't be trusted. The irony of the second position is that "people" end up running things either way, so if people are inherently evil, a few evil people will have all the power.

The wonderful irony of the less government belief is that even if some people are evil, less government means that evil people in government have less ability to do their evil.

OC for ME · Oct 29, 2013

Missed the inherently evil statement.....

Folks are inherently flawed, not evil, in my view. I have only read about "evil" people. Most folks try to do the "right thing" given the opportunity. Sometimes, doing the right thing appears to go against the "prevailing view point."

America is still a God-fearing nation, one ready to listen to the Almighty and do as ordered, according to a new poll.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-76-believe-in-god-38-do-what-god-asks/article/2537977

Liberty is the cure for evil.....and liberalism.....God told me so.

eye95 · Oct 29, 2013

OC for ME said:
...Liberty is the cure for evil...

Excellent way to put it.

Trusting the People generally to do the right thing is the surest way to protect ourselves from folks doing the wrong thing. When we take the trust away from the People, by putting power in the hands of the few, we render ourselves defenseless from the evil that the few do. Even if they can do far less evil than the large numbers of People can do, they will be able to do so with relative impunity.

This, to me, is the core of conservative (classical liberal) thinking and is the antithesis of modern "liberal" (progressive) thinking. Progressives believe that we are typically evil and need to be controlled by the few good, smart, and all-knowing, completely ignoring the reality that those few are, on average, at least as evil (probably more so, since power corrupts) as we are!

sudden valley gunner · Oct 29, 2013

Citizen said:
Oh?

So, my employer doesn't hold back 1/4 of my pay and forward it to the government because of a threat of violence? People don't pay their property taxes because of a threat of violence?

I can't buy a decent new car without paying vast sums for all kinds of electronic safety gizmo's because of a threat of violence. I'd better stop at that police roadblock for a DUI fishing expedition, or else I'll receive violence.

The list is endless. What is far-fetched is your failure to connect the endless regulations, confiscatory taxation, etc., etc., etc. with threats of violence.

+1 The insistence by some to say our government is good because it didn't go as far as such and such government makes me scratch my head. Of course I am not a member of the religion of national jingoism.

Murder is murder, rape is rape , theft is theft......does it matter what weapon was used or how long it was done?

Primus · Oct 29, 2013

Citizen said:
Oh?

So, my employer doesn't hold back 1/4 of my pay and forward it to the government because of a threat of violence? People don't pay their property taxes because of a threat of violence?

I can't buy a decent new car without paying vast sums for all kinds of electronic safety gizmo's because of a threat of violence. I'd better stop at that police roadblock for a DUI fishing expedition, or else I'll receive violence.

The list is endless. What is far-fetched is your failure to connect the endless regulations, confiscatory taxation, etc., etc., etc. with threats of violence.

What threat of violence? Am I missing something? If you don't pay your taxes, someone may or may not show up at your house and arrest you. They don't summarily bring you on the lawn and shoot you.

Where is the threat of violence in buying a car?? There are mandates the manufacturers have to follow. If Toyota doesn't put (insert part) in your car, they get FINED. Not shot, beat, killed, or even arrested.

The absolute WORST thing anyone can do is arrest you. I'll respond for you "well getting arrested I might get shot, etc.". Not if you didn't resist. If you just go to COURT (set up by the same document) then you'd have a trial and may go to jail.

When you go to Dunkin Donuts do you pay for your coffee under a threat of violence? How about people do stuff because they don't want to go to jail which happens on a daily basis without any violence.

notalawyer · Oct 29, 2013

Primus said:
What threat of violence? Am I missing something? If you don't pay your taxes, someone may or may not show up at your house and arrest you. They don't summarily bring you on the lawn and shoot you.

Where is the threat of violence in buying a car?? There are mandates the manufacturers have to follow. If Toyota doesn't put (insert part) in your car, they get FINED. Not shot, beat, killed, or even arrested.

The absolute WORST thing anyone can do is arrest you. I'll respond for you "well getting arrested I might get shot, etc.". Not if you didn't resist. If you just go to COURT (set up by the same document) then you'd have a trial and may go to jail.

When you go to Dunkin Donuts do you pay for your coffee under a threat of violence? How about people do stuff because they don't want to go to jail which happens on a daily basis without any violence.

More correctly the word should be force. But of course force is just a polite interpretation of violence.

ETA: Your comparisons are ridiculous. The government uses the threat of force (violence) to compel folks to do what they want them to do.

Primus · Oct 29, 2013

notalawyer said:
More correctly the word should be force. But of course force is just a polite interpretation of violence.

ETA: Your comparisons are ridiculous. The government uses the threat of force (violence) to compel folks to do what they want them to do.

I can get behind, maybe, the word force. Have you ever seen someone arrested on a traffic stop? or at all? Have you ever been arrested? (don't need to answer). Alot of the time it's completely non violent. "Sir, please turn around and place your hands behind your back, thank you." Click click. "sir please watch your head getting into the car. Thank you".

Now please don't throw a million videos of all the crazy beatings and shootings etc. The abuse (it DOES happen) is a very small percentage.

There is a huge difference between FORCE and VIOLENCE. If you refuse to comply, yes you and I would be FORCED to comply. Force is grabbing someones hand and forcing it behind their back (sucks I know). Violence is just shooting or beating you because you didn't tip the waitress.

Force is when you tell your kid "put that toy down and sit down". Violence is when you summarily beat them bloody.

Citizen · Oct 29, 2013

Primus said:
What threat of violence? Am I missing something? If you don't pay your taxes, someone may or may not show up at your house and arrest you. They don't summarily bring you on the lawn and shoot you.

Where is the threat of violence in buying a car?? There are mandates the manufacturers have to follow. If Toyota doesn't put (insert part) in your car, they get FINED. Not shot, beat, killed, or even arrested.

The absolute WORST thing anyone can do is arrest you. I'll respond for you "well getting arrested I might get shot, etc.". Not if you didn't resist. If you just go to COURT (set up by the same document) then you'd have a trial and may go to jail.

When you go to Dunkin Donuts do you pay for your coffee under a threat of violence? How about people do stuff because they don't want to go to jail which happens on a daily basis without any violence.

Oh, man. Is this guy for real????

If you don't pay your taxes, you can go to jail. Resist even the tiniest bit, and you will get more than a threat of violence--you will get the actual violence. Try to repel those arresters when they first come to your home and see if you don't get a SWAT team dumping magazines into your home.

The threat of violence looms behind the enforcement of every law, regulation, and rule. You must comply. If you resist, you will get violence.

Now, stop being absurd. Just because people avoid violence by complying doesn't mean the threat of violence isn't there.

Grapeshot · Oct 29, 2013

Its all a matter of degree.

A voice command hardly constitutes Use of Force - physical. Neither does a letter or summons fall within the definition. Is there a threat of force or violence inherent in these - not really.

Can circumstances occur that would escalate the potential for physical force to be introduced? Of course, but these are not the norm.

Some people will see dramatic negatives in the most mundane of conditions - they have that right, as I enjoy the prividge of paying them little mind.

Grapeshot · Oct 29, 2013

If you recognize that there are 2 ways to settle a confrontation, then you will see the application here:

1) Use of logic - reasoned conversation.

2) Application of force on a sliding scale.

Here is one model as an example:

Citizen · Oct 29, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
+1 The insistence by some to say our government is good because it didn't go as far as such and such government makes me scratch my head. Of course I am not a member of the religion of national jingoism.

Murder is murder, rape is rape , theft is theft......does it matter what weapon was used or how long it was done?

Agreed.

He's trying to assert an arbitrary--and fallacious--distinction between threats of violence perpetrated by the likes of Mao/Castro/Stalin and threats of violence of "our" government towards us.

Yet, the threat is just as criminal. A dictator sets himself up and orders people around. Or, a bunch of my neighbors decide to vote (secretly, of all things) some other guy to bury me under laws and taxes. In both cases, the threat of violence for non-compliance looms over my head.

Primus · Oct 30, 2013

Grapeshot said:
Its all a matter of degree.

A voice command hardly constitutes Use of Force - physical. Neither does a letter or summons fall within the definition. Is there a threat of force or violence inherent in these - not really.

Can circumstances occur that would escalate the potential for physical force to be introduced? Of course, but these are not the norm.

Some people will see dramatic negatives in the most mundane of conditions - they have that right, as I enjoy the prividge of paying them little mind.

+1

Domestic gun grab. Real threat or BS?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Founder's Club Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Legendary Warrior

Legendary Warrior

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member