What did we do wrong?

stealthyeliminator · Dec 23, 2013

Primus said:
2. Is exactly what I was referring to. You put it better then I did I guess. Those are the guys that the media quotes and twists against US. Those are the guys they purposely find and post on TV . Like Alex Jones.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

As if Alex Jones represents the open carry movement? No, no matter how much he supports it. Even in this case, where one might say he "falsely represents" open carry, it's still the ******* ignorance of the opposition, willful or otherwise (not addressing the purely evil), that is ultimately the reason they oppose us, not because of something Alex Jones did or said! So many are just looking for a reason to 'prove' their emotional, ration-less response correct. They WILL find someone and some excuse, not matter how much "false representation" you squelch.

No one person represents the open carry "movement." If there was any legitimate opposition to the open carry movement it would apply to the movement itself, not some wildcard individual who happens to support the movement.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 24, 2013

Whitney said:
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It would appear Alex Jones is on the same side of the fence as you and I. Alex has his way and I have mine, we disagree on a lot of things yet the basis of the arguments are the same.

Are you a terrorist or a freedom fighter? (rhetorically speaking, not intended as interrogative)

The differences in answers are mostly philosophic.

~Whitney

I don't like Alex Jones, I don't watch him, I much rather have him on my side than a boot licker, government does no wrong guy.

Primus said:
Is statism a bad thing? Your using like an insult. Every person who believes there should be a government no matter how small they want it to be is a statist. So I guess we are evil?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Statism is a bad thing. It has been explained to you before, if you would just "listen" that not every person who believes there should be a government no matter how small is a statist. A statist puts the state above individual liberties. A statist puts government rules above natural law and freedom, a statist believes that people living in and from a geographical region are consenting to an intrusive government because they don't leave their homes?

eye95 · Dec 24, 2013

Statism is a bad thing. As the term is often bandied about here, it is nothing.

To some here, if you are not an anarcho-libertarian, you are a statist. Meh. Their assessment is so flawed as to be laughable.

mdak06 · Dec 24, 2013

Primus said:
I do to both. I open carry to and from range normally and to or from work. All of those times I'm.not in uniform nor do I show any kind of badge. Just be being Joe citizen going to range to shoot with my gun. I will make a few stops here or there as needed. Usually fuel. I do not go out of my way open carrying such as stores or dinner. I support open carry like I support all firearms ownership. We should be able to if we want to.

<snip>

Primus, if you open carry, I do not understand why you decline to open carry to "stores and dinner" while you are out and about. That doesn't make any sense to me. Open carrying while shopping and eating out helps to serve as an example of what open carry is - doing normal stuff while visibly armed.

The way to counter the misconception that some persons have of open carry is to show that their impression is wrong, not to hide from it.

stealthyeliminator said:
As if Alex Jones represents the open carry movement? No, no matter how much he supports it. Even in this case, where one might say he "falsely represents" open carry, it's still the ******* ignorance of the opposition, willful or otherwise (not addressing the purely evil), that is ultimately the reason they oppose us, not because of something Alex Jones did or said! So many are just looking for a reason to 'prove' their emotional, ration-less response correct. They WILL find someone and some excuse, not matter how much "false representation" you squelch.

No one person represents the open carry "movement." If there was any legitimate opposition to the open carry movement it would apply to the movement itself, not some wildcard individual who happens to support the movement.

True. The ignorance of the opposition (brought on in part by a slanted media) is the problem, not the few "wildcards" that may be a bit overaggressive. This ignorance is partially because of too much of the media declares that "bad guys with guns" make national news, and "good guys with guns" only make the local news. But we can help to counter their misconceptions.

And ... for every "in your face" Alex Jones there are plenty of "in your face" folks on the other side. Look at the university professor in Kansas who wished death to NRA member's children. Look at the MDA lady who spouts such crap as "we are all Claire's mother" while those of us who have not lost a child can have no idea of what she's going through, and meanwhile she utterly ignores the fact that a "good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun" in Colorado.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 24, 2013

eye95 said:
Statism is a bad thing. As the term is often bandied about here, it is nothing.

To some here, if you are not an anarcho-libertarian, you are a statist. Meh. Their assessment is so flawed as to be laughable.

Cite?

In my previous post I explained that you don't have to be anarcho-libertarian to not be a statist. All you have to do is put the state above individual liberty, if you don't believe the function of the state exists to protect liberties and rights then you just might be .....a statist......(imagining a Jeff Foxworthy voice)

eye95 · Dec 24, 2013

In that post, you may make the distinction.

I have just been called a "statist" here way too often to give the slight (or the slighter) any respect at all.

The term has been rendered meaningless by its misuse and overuse here.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 24, 2013

eye95 said:
In that post, you may make the distinction.

I have just been called a "statist" here way too often to give the slight (or the slighter) any respect at all.

The term has been rendered meaningless by its misuse and overuse here.

I don't think it's misuse or overuse can render it meaningless. I think really we are at a tipping point in history, people are drawing lines and taking a stand we either go the way of the state and doom our progeny to chains that bind them or we reverse the rise of the state, to many it is becoming an all or nothing scenario.

eye95 · Dec 24, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
I don't think it's misuse or overuse can render it meaningless. I think really we are at a tipping point in history, people are drawing lines and taking a stand we either go the way of the state and doom our progeny to chains that bind them or we reverse the rise of the state, to many it is becoming an all or nothing scenario.

It may be meaningful to you, but is it meaningful to the readers of what you write? I assert not.

Its overuse here has rendered it all the meaning of "poopyhead."

stealthyeliminator · Dec 24, 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
"In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.[5][6][7][8] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.[5][6][7][8] Welfare state adepts and other such options make up more statist territory of the scale of statism.[9][10] Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.[11][12][13][14][15]"
^ Jump up to: a b Levy, Jonah D (2006). The State After Statism: New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 469. ISBN 978-0-674-02276-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Obadare, Ebenezer (2010). Statism, Youth, and Civic Imagination: A Critical Study of the National Youth Service Corps Programme in Nigeria. Dakar Senegal: Codesria. ISBN 978-2-86978-303-4.
^ Jump up to: a b Kvistad, Gregg (1999). The Rise and Demise of German Statism: Loyalty and Political Membership. Providence [u.a.]: Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-57181-161-5.
^ Jump up to: a b Bakunin, Mikhail (1990). Statism and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-36182-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Machan, T (2002). "Anarchism and Minarchism: A Rapprochement". Journal Des Economistes et Des Etudes Humaines 12: 569–569–588. ISSN 1145-6396.
^ Jump up to: a b Block, W (2007). "Anarchism and Minarchism No Rapprochment Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan". The Journal of Libertarian Studies 21 (1): 61–61–90. ISSN 0363-2873.
^ Jump up to: a b Long, Roderick (2008). Anarchism Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6066-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Parker, Martin (2010). The Dictionary of Alternatives Utopianism and Organisation. London, England: Zed. ISBN 978-1-84972-734-1.
Jump up ^ Friedrich, Carl (1974). Limited Government: a Comparison. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-537167-1. OCLC 803732.
Jump up ^ Marx, Herbert (1950). The Welfare State. New York: Wilson.
Jump up ^ Arendt, Hannah (1966). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.
Jump up ^ Cernak, Linda (2011). Totalitarianism. Edina, MN: ABDO. ISBN 978-1-61714-795-1.
Jump up ^ Friedrich, Carl (1964). Totalitarianism. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
Jump up ^ Gleason, Abbott (1995). Totalitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505017-2.
Jump up ^ Schapiro, Leonard (1972). Totalitarianism. New York: Praeger.

Edit: So yes, even minarchists may qualify as "statists" to some degree. Perhaps you could flip the coin and say that a something less than totalitarian has an anarchist streak in them, I don't know. So the argument of a minarchist would be that a little bit of statism isn't a bad thing, or that it's a necessary evil. I believe that no evil is ever necessary, or that even when it seems necessary to reach a certain goal, the necessity doesn't justify it, which is why I don't subscribe to minarchy. That is beside the point, though... The point is that, while calling you a statist may be over-done and intended with malice or as an insult, it technically is correct. You're just a statist "to some degree." It may be a small degree.

sudden valley gunner · Dec 24, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
"In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.[5][6][7][8] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.[5][6][7][8] Welfare state adepts and other such options make up more statist territory of the scale of statism.[9][10] Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.[11][12][13][14][15]"
^ Jump up to: a b Levy, Jonah D (2006). The State After Statism: New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 469. ISBN 978-0-674-02276-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Obadare, Ebenezer (2010). Statism, Youth, and Civic Imagination: A Critical Study of the National Youth Service Corps Programme in Nigeria. Dakar Senegal: Codesria. ISBN 978-2-86978-303-4.
^ Jump up to: a b Kvistad, Gregg (1999). The Rise and Demise of German Statism: Loyalty and Political Membership. Providence [u.a.]: Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-57181-161-5.
^ Jump up to: a b Bakunin, Mikhail (1990). Statism and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-36182-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Machan, T (2002). "Anarchism and Minarchism: A Rapprochement". Journal Des Economistes et Des Etudes Humaines 12: 569–569–588. ISSN 1145-6396.
^ Jump up to: a b Block, W (2007). "Anarchism and Minarchism No Rapprochment Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan". The Journal of Libertarian Studies 21 (1): 61–61–90. ISSN 0363-2873.
^ Jump up to: a b Long, Roderick (2008). Anarchism Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6066-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Parker, Martin (2010). The Dictionary of Alternatives Utopianism and Organisation. London, England: Zed. ISBN 978-1-84972-734-1.
Jump up ^ Friedrich, Carl (1974). Limited Government: a Comparison. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-537167-1. OCLC 803732.
Jump up ^ Marx, Herbert (1950). The Welfare State. New York: Wilson.
Jump up ^ Arendt, Hannah (1966). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.
Jump up ^ Cernak, Linda (2011). Totalitarianism. Edina, MN: ABDO. ISBN 978-1-61714-795-1.
Jump up ^ Friedrich, Carl (1964). Totalitarianism. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
Jump up ^ Gleason, Abbott (1995). Totalitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505017-2.
Jump up ^ Schapiro, Leonard (1972). Totalitarianism. New York: Praeger.

That definition of statism was created long after the invention of the term. Constitutionalist and minarchist of the late 19th century used that term to describe the rise of the centralized state and it's supporters in the rise of the progressive era.

stealthyeliminator · Dec 24, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
That definition of statism was created long after the invention of the term. Constitutionalist and minarchist of the late 19th century used that term to describe the rise of the centralized state and it's supporters in the rise of the progressive era.

Well, in that case, I invite you to cite a more original definition. I'd genuinely be interested in learning it... and the history of the term...

SouthernBoy · Dec 24, 2013

It really boils down to one thing.

There are people who do not like firearms. They don't like them and they don't want them. But it's not enough that they don't like them and don't want them... they don't want you to have them, either.

MAC702 · Dec 24, 2013

It's not the gun so much.

It's the gun without a badge.

The brainwashing is more about the badge than the gun.

Primus · Dec 24, 2013

stealthyeliminator said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
"In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4] Statism can take many forms from minarchism to totalitarianism. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.[5][6][7][8] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.[5][6][7][8] Welfare state adepts and other such options make up more statist territory of the scale of statism.[9][10] Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state.[11][12][13][14][15]"
^ Jump up to: a b Levy, Jonah D (2006). The State After Statism: New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 469. ISBN 978-0-674-02276-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Obadare, Ebenezer (2010). Statism, Youth, and Civic Imagination: A Critical Study of the National Youth Service Corps Programme in Nigeria. Dakar Senegal: Codesria. ISBN 978-2-86978-303-4.
^ Jump up to: a b Kvistad, Gregg (1999). The Rise and Demise of German Statism: Loyalty and Political Membership. Providence [u.a.]: Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-57181-161-5.
^ Jump up to: a b Bakunin, Mikhail (1990). Statism and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-36182-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Machan, T (2002). "Anarchism and Minarchism: A Rapprochement". Journal Des Economistes et Des Etudes Humaines 12: 569–569–588. ISSN 1145-6396.
^ Jump up to: a b Block, W (2007). "Anarchism and Minarchism No Rapprochment Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan". The Journal of Libertarian Studies 21 (1): 61–61–90. ISSN 0363-2873.
^ Jump up to: a b Long, Roderick (2008). Anarchism Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-6066-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Parker, Martin (2010). The Dictionary of Alternatives Utopianism and Organisation. London, England: Zed. ISBN 978-1-84972-734-1.
Jump up ^ Friedrich, Carl (1974). Limited Government: a Comparison. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-537167-1. OCLC 803732.
Jump up ^ Marx, Herbert (1950). The Welfare State. New York: Wilson.
Jump up ^ Arendt, Hannah (1966). The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.
Jump up ^ Cernak, Linda (2011). Totalitarianism. Edina, MN: ABDO. ISBN 978-1-61714-795-1.
Jump up ^ Friedrich, Carl (1964). Totalitarianism. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
Jump up ^ Gleason, Abbott (1995). Totalitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505017-2.
Jump up ^ Schapiro, Leonard (1972). Totalitarianism. New York: Praeger.

Edit: So yes, even minarchists may qualify as "statists" to some degree. Perhaps you could flip the coin and say that a something less than totalitarian has an anarchist streak in them, I don't know. So the argument of a minarchist would be that a little bit of statism isn't a bad thing, or that it's a necessary evil. I believe that no evil is ever necessary, or that even when it seems necessary to reach a certain goal, the necessity doesn't justify it, which is why I don't subscribe to minarchy. That is beside the point, though... The point is that, while calling you a statist may be over-done and intended with malice or as an insult, it technically is correct. You're just a statist "to some degree." It may be a small degree.

Thanks for the cite..... this is why is asked why is statism a bad thing. Statism isn't a worshipping of the state. Its merely believing it needs to exist in SOME form. Even a very small one.

Statism is a sliding scale as most political beliefs are. Around here it gets used as a black and white definition. That just shows the hate and the attempt to force the line to be drawn by some.

Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. The very guys who talk about the "line in the sand" so much are the very guys using labels incorrectly to put then on a side said individual isn't on.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Dynamike · Dec 24, 2013

MAC702 said:
It's not the gun so much.

It's the gun without a badge.

The brainwashing is more about the badge than the gun.

Are you suggesting if we (the Winners) wear blue outfits when we leave our house, the Spectators are going to be more relaxed?

MAC702 · Dec 24, 2013

Dynamike said:
Are you suggesting if we (the Winners) wear blue outfits when we leave our house, the Spectators are going to be more relaxed?

Look at a jewelry store or bank or sometimes just a convenience store that has an armed guard. This guard is not a sworn LEO, but he has a distinctive uniform and patch. He is usually less proficient with his firearm than the average armed citizen. He is also usually a lower-wage worker (if you think that is a meaningful statistic) than the average armed citizen.

Yet, no one minds him being armed in the room.

Primus · Dec 24, 2013

MAC702 said:
Look at a jewelry store or bank or sometimes just a convenience store that has an armed guard. This guard is not a sworn LEO, but he has a distinctive uniform and patch. He is usually less proficient with his firearm than the average armed citizen. He is also usually a lower-wage worker (if you think that is a meaningful statistic) than the average armed citizen.

Yet, no one minds him being armed in the room.

No one minds because he's supposed to protect those in the building. Whether he will or not you don't know. Its a psychological thing that's built up since Leo were formed. Whether its good or bad who knows but its there.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

stealthyeliminator · Dec 24, 2013

Primus said:
Thanks for the cite..... this is why is asked why is statism a bad thing. Statism isn't a worshipping of the state. Its merely believing it needs to exist in SOME form. Even a very small one.

Statism is a sliding scale as most political beliefs are. Around here it gets used as a black and white definition. That just shows the hate and the attempt to force the line to be drawn by some.

Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. The very guys who talk about the "line in the sand" so much are the very guys using labels incorrectly to put then on a side said individual isn't on.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

There is a black and white definition.

Just like there is a black and white definition of "bank robber." That some bank robbers steal more than others doesn't mean that the definition of bank robber is any less black and white. You rob a bank, even if it is just a dollar, you're a bank robber. You support a state monopoly on the use of force, even if it's only for national security, or only for courts, or whatever, you're a statist. You deny this?

MAC702 · Dec 24, 2013

Primus said:
No one minds because he's supposed to protect those in the building. Whether he will or not you don't know. Its a psychological thing that's built up since Leo were formed. Whether its good or bad who knows but its there...

Actually, no, he's there to protect the jewels, or the bank, or MAYBE the cash register (mostly by his presence), and in many states he is probably less vetted than the average armed citizen. But yes, it is a psychological thing that the uniformed guy with a gun is okay.

Fuller Malarkey · Dec 25, 2013

MAC702 said:
Actually, no, he's there to protect the jewels, or the bank, or MAYBE the cash register (mostly by his presence), and in many states he is probably less vetted than the average armed citizen. But yes, it is a psychological thing that the uniformed guy with a gun is okay.

He's there most likely to qualify the business for lower insurance rates. Other than to serve as a deterrent, I suspect his employer has a low expectation of performance, and I seriously doubt the business morally feels the need to "protect" those passing through their doors. I'm sure you know most of the post you quoted was just statist rhetoric delivered with theatrics.

What did we do wrong?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

New member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member