PEOPLE OR MONEY WHATS MORE VALUBLE?

imported post

In Australia, odinary law abiding citizens have been dissarmed and no longer are able to defend themselves. Weare continuallybeing told that police are here to protect us and in fact since the gun ban crime has decreased, which has been proved to be incorrect.The anties are now screaming for a total hand gun ban including registered licenced legal law abidingsporting target pistol shooters.

However, security guards distributing money to various banking institutions throughout Australia are armed, OC. I personally took the time to ask several security guards during the course of their duties why they are OC, armed?

The answerI was given from each security guard I spoke to was, "To prevent the money from being stolen by criminals during its delievery."

Criminals know that people value their lives more than money, so what usually happens when they rob, as they often do,security guards delivering money to the banks? The security guards arealways over poweredand have several illegal firearms including shotguns pointed in their faces by hardened criminals demanding the money or they will be shot.

Any security guard resisting is usually shot as happened this week, and some do die. Another who went after a criminal and fired back recently was charged by police for acting after the event with undue force,and had a long, expensive, and hard time defending herself.The news article covering the recent Chubb robery and shooting is postedin the "Who needs a gun in Australia" thread.

The ridiculous thing is this. Our government has banned guns and left ordinary people unarmed and defenceless. Our government allows banks to hire armed security guards not to protect customers, but to protect MONEY, far less valuable than a human life. If criminals knew that ordinary citizens, going about their daily business as well as security guards,were armed and able to defend themselves, they would be less likley to commit such brazen attacks, andpeople would not be leftrunning about like chooks withtheir heads cut off screaming and cowering in fear as these felons blast away at all and sundry killing security guards, stealing their firearms, whilst we stand by and watching them drive away.

I just had to vent after learning that the shot security guard had died yesterday. God bless his family.

Haz.

imported post

While your concerns and analysis is valid, it was the citizens of Australia that allowed this to take place by marching down and turning them in when told to like good little sheeple. And as I feel for the sheeple of Australia, they did bring it on themselves.

Should this happen in the U.S. there will be many that refuse to do such. I being one of them. "It is better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees". I forget who said it.

My wife once asked me what Iwould do if this came to pass in the U.S. I replied, "Nothing". See asked what I meant. I told her that I would definitely NOT turn my guns in. She then asked what I would do if they came to confiscate them. I told herit would be her decision that mattered, not mine. She asked what I meant by her decision. I told her she would need to decide if she was going leave and live or stay and load.

imported post

I've noticed that people in a lot of countries tend to view government and that which it provides, such as a police force and public order, as a given constant.

In the United States, we can imagine our country as "bare metal," that is to say, something akin to anarchy, or what Locke called the "State of Nature." At least, those who have really thought about their relationship to the state can.

We can imagine rights in this bare context. That government may be (depending on your viewpoint) "nice to have," but it doesn't really get down to the essence of existence, which is each man as an individual.

Therefore when regarding government, we in the United States (of certain political and philosophical backgrounds) tend to view government as something that is less omnipresent and more like something we graft onto our civilization and tolerate for the benefits it provides. But the "real America" isn't the government, so much as what the government is in place to supposedly protect. If the United States government fell tomorrow, our rights would still be our rights and, I hope, we'd still act according to what should be our principles: a respect for the rights of other individuals.

This is why I don't describe myself primarily as a Constitutionalist (I sort of am, as a consequence of my focus on rights. The structure of government is interesting to me only that it provides the best basis for restraining government.) I like the Constitution, but only because it enumerates rights of the individual. I think it's a great document, but if you can offer something which makes me even more free and restrains government more effectively, I'd certainly consider it.

But we can imagine taking government out back, should it become like a rabid dog, and doing what has to be done.

In its absence, we are no less American. In fact, I know I can't be the only guy who, when really out in the wilderness beyond the reach of law, feels particularly American. It isn't so much being beyond the easy grasp of government as it is the fact that I carry civilization in my heart. That is to say, strangers meeting in rural Alaska need not be any less civil to each other than strangers meeting in a town hall under the watchful eye of security. I trust this is the case with people I occasionally meet off the beaten path, and it tends to be true.

It is important that we never lose this.

In other countries, it is as if the natural state of things is a paternal government, like an omnipresent parent who lets us have the car keys provided we stick to our curfew and do our homework. It may be upsetting or inconvenient when rights are "taken away" in their context (infringed in ours, which is a different concept entirely), but it is just as normal as losing car privileges as a teenager. And - they think - sometimes, well, that's for the best. Rights really are earned privileges in most countries. A lot of people, in my experience, do not understand the distinction we make in the United States: "No, seriously, a cinematic bloody battle royale would not impact the right of individuals to own and carry weapons, one bit." This is something some abroad grasp, but most do not.

But again, we Americans get down to bare metal and the relationship between the individual and state (or collective) is different. And the government really is like the family dog, rather than like the parent. It alerts us to trouble, patrols the perimeter of the yard, but if it assaults one of the kids, we could imagine putting it down, because priorities are priorities. Our family is about us and the kids -- not the dog. The dog is nice to have, but not if it creates problems for the humans in the house.

This is where the disconnect between the US and much of the world is. I don't think most people abroad get this, or, if they do, think it fairly quaint, uniquely American thinking.

The idea of inalienable rights is not something a lot of foreigners quite understand. It is a radical concept, especially for those who are used to thinking that authority, most of the time, knows best.

I have long felt that it is in our interest to be advocates for this way of thinking, because I feel that in most protracted conflicts around the globe, only individual rights has any chance of solving, for example, intratribal or sectarian warfare and feuds.

Inverting the relationship between the individual and the state in foreign countries also has direct payoffs to ourselves. Weakened states pose less of a threat to us than strong ones do. Individualists pose no threat to us. And the lack of danger to our country provides less of a pretext for those who believe that an attack on our coastlines or cities is nascent, and therefore we must have a gigantic state as a countervailing influence.

The question at this point is not even how to look at other countries, starting with our friends in Europe and the Commonwealth countries, and say, "well, how do we get this principle enshrined in their respective constitutions and governments," so much as, "how do we convince them that they want this?"

It is because we haven't answered this question that gun control debates (to pick the most obvious and on-topic example) tend not to go very far when they involve Americans and foreigners. The entire way they perceive the role of government is different.

Many will want the soft, paternal (or maternal in many cases) state and will make compromises to stay within its comforting - but smothering - embrace. But I know there are those abroad who think differently.

You need not be some kind of anarchist to fully appreciate this. It is merely enough that you regard the state in its proper context: that which serves you, in protecting your rights, as a just and peaceful (by which I mean, not infringing the rights of others) citizen. And that when it endeavors to do the opposite, you have every right to say no.

It would be appropriate and even inspiring, I think, to see Gadsden flags flying on the poles of every individual in every country on earth who understands this. The Gadsden flag, however perhaps ubiquitous it has become in the United States, is one of the few flags which can be properly understood with no historical context whatsoever. Its meaning is clear.

And we are all - or should be - coiled snakes. Let the state walk on the narrow paths we have set aside for it.

imported post

crisisweasel wrote:

<<<snip>>>

Click to expand...

An excellent post!!!

I'm in about 99.96% agreement with you (all but your (very slight) dismissal of the Constitution).

I'm very comforted when I see such intelligent, thought out, and freedom loving statements.

imported post

People are more valuble! Its's time to ban all guns!!:cuss:

imported post

Guns dont kill people, people kill people

Ban all people!!!!!:banghead:

imported post

bigdaddy1 wrote:

Guns dont kill people, people kill people

Ban all people!!!!!:banghead:

Click to expand...

Now that's funny.:lol::celebrate

imported post

Hope the MODS do something about this runaway troll soon!!:banghead:

imported post

CrossFire wrote:

Hope the MODS do something about this runaway troll soon!!:banghead:

Click to expand...

No, no, no. Let her stay. This getting to be real fun.

imported post

MILLIONMOMMARCH wrote:

People are more valuble! Its's time to ban all guns!!:cuss:

Click to expand...

Yes, people are more valuable; however, since a criminal...by definition...is someone that does not obey the laws...they will NOT obey any kind of law banning guns. So go back and burry your head in the sand like the good little ostrich you are :banghead:!!!

imported post

All kidding aside (and ignoring the weird lady), of course people are more valuable. That is why we merit protection with guns.

imported post

MILLIONMOMMARCH wrote:

People are more valuble! Its's time to ban all guns!!:cuss:

Click to expand...

My daughter read your post and immediately changed her t-shirt, got me to take a pic and post it for your benefit.