Sorry, but I just can’t see these ‘striking parallels’ between 1776 and today. I understand the original intent of the second ammendment but I see it today as just an excuse for ‘fun, hobby (and) hunting’.
[/quote]
The parallels will never evaporate because man’s propensity for evil - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - will never go away. The 18th century principles and ethos that precipitated the 2nd Amendment are alive, well and…very much applicable in the 21st.
[/quote]
My take:
a) The US federal government is not going to degenerate into dictatorship in the foreseeable future in my opinion.
and
b) Assuming the US federal government degenerates into dictatorship and it becomes necessary to wage a guerrilla against the US military(eyes roll), you’re going to need a lot more than small arms that are obtainable under the laws of your state.
I know that this issue goes to the heart of American national identity as do revolutionary sentiments and ‘republicanism’. My own opinions on things like constitutional monarchy vs a ‘republic’ are difficult for an Australian to understand let alone an American so I won’t get into it as it’s so complex, relates to my own family history, British/Irish/Australian history and has nothing to do with gun control.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
ruled by Gaelic monarchs …[/quote]
Huh huh…huh…you said GayLick![/quote]
Listen, prodding someone in the chest with your forefinger is assault. You are committing interwebz assault. I’ve a good mind to post a picture of a fist in a minute. And I’d be within my rights too.
If there were ‘National Guard units commanded by rebellious state governors and possessing many of the most modern weapons in the US arsenal’ then basically you’ve got a conventional army of confederate states right there and thus no need for guys with hunting/civilian assault rifles to wage a guerrilla from the mountains of Montana.
Now the first ammendment IS extremely relevant today obviously as it protects freedom of religion(whilst providing separation from state), speech, association etc. But I just can’t get my head around this right to bear arms except as an excuse for being able to hunt, target/skeet shoot and protect yourself from crazed gunmen/armed criminals. Now I’m in favour of the right to bear arms, not to protect yourself from tyranical governance as originally intended, but to allow people to protect themselves and their families and engage in sport and hunting.
Here in Aus we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. They became a lot stricter after this fucking guy:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A phrase I was not familiar with. Thank you for explaining what you meant. So basically, a ‘stateless society’ is the most primitive form of society on earth right? Where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes described. Sounds great.[/quote]
Life is nasty and brutish where ever people don’t have the means for their own survival – and even when living under governments, too.
Hobbes was too simplistic of a thinker.[/quote]
Right, so what you’re saying is that you’ve actually read Leviathan and you disagree with Hobbes’ assertion that men existing in a ‘state of nature’(A) are worse off than when they form societies and enter into ‘social contracts’(B)?
(A)‘State of nature’, i.e. definition (1) of ‘anarchy’ that I used in my initial post:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A phrase I was not familiar with. Thank you for explaining what you meant. So basically, a ‘stateless society’ is the most primitive form of society on earth right? Where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes described. Sounds great.[/quote]
Life is nasty and brutish where ever people don’t have the means for their own survival – and even when living under governments, too.
Hobbes was too simplistic of a thinker.[/quote]
Right, so what you’re saying is that you’ve actually read Leviathan and you disagree with Hobbes’ assertion that men existing in a ‘state of nature’(A) are worse off than when they form societies and enter into ‘social contracts’(B)?
(A)‘State of nature’, i.e. definition (1) of ‘anarchy’ that I used in my initial post:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A phrase I was not familiar with. Thank you for explaining what you meant. So basically, a ‘stateless society’ is the most primitive form of society on earth right? Where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes described. Sounds great.[/quote]
Life is nasty and brutish where ever people don’t have the means for their own survival – and even when living under governments, too.
Hobbes was too simplistic of a thinker.[/quote]
Right, so what you’re saying is that you’ve actually read Leviathan and you disagree with Hobbes’ assertion that men existing in a ‘state of nature’(A) are worse off than when they form societies and enter into ‘social contracts’(B)?
(A)‘State of nature’, i.e. definition (1) of ‘anarchy’ that I used in my initial post:
Then if you ever emigrate to the USA you can feel free to join and support an organization that calls for an amendment to the Constitution that repeals the “quaint” and “anachronistic” 2nd Amendment and redesigns it to reflect that it’ all about hunting, shooting and protection from crazed gunmen.
[/quote]
Ah, no way because those people want to take my guns away from me. So basically I’d go along with the ‘we need to protect ourselves from the government’ nonsense.
Exactly. Now you’re getting it.
I never suggested that a ferocious guerrilla could not be waged indefinitely in North America. I said that a state/s that seceded could put up conventional forces against the military of the hypothetical tyrannical regime. I also pointed out that more than rifles are needed to wage a guerrilla. Historically guerrillas have needed the following things to be sustained for long periods:
Outside support by a nation state/s.
A porous border and ideally a border shared with the nation/s aiding the guerrilla.
A rural peasant population that largely supports the guerrilla and can aid the guerrillas(i.e. safe houses, fighters)
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A phrase I was not familiar with. Thank you for explaining what you meant. So basically, a ‘stateless society’ is the most primitive form of society on earth right? Where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes described. Sounds great.[/quote]
Life is nasty and brutish where ever people don’t have the means for their own survival – and even when living under governments, too.
Hobbes was too simplistic of a thinker.[/quote]
Right, so what you’re saying is that you’ve actually read Leviathan and you disagree with Hobbes’ assertion that men existing in a ‘state of nature’(A) are worse off than when they form societies and enter into ‘social contracts’(B)?
(A)‘State of nature’, i.e. definition (1) of ‘anarchy’ that I used in my initial post:
I’ve heard of it but I’m not going to read it. I haven’t even bothered reading most the enlightenment era or 18th century philosophers so I’m hardly going to bother with this guy. Haven’t read Marx/Engels either. Have read some Hegel though.
You certainly have the terrain for it and with the gun…um…enthusiasts and the bible belt you could form a guerrilla and raid the hypothetical conventional tyrannical military’s depots/magazines/dumps and TAKE their weapons…which is something else that has been historically done by guerrillas. One example, for instance was the IRA raid on the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers Depot in Omagh, County Tyrone in 1954 taking every single weapon in the place and leaving them tied up and gagged like silly buggers.
EDIT: Actually I made a mistake, it wasn’t the Omagh raid. That was the one that fucked up. It was the Armagh raid earlier the same year. Anyway, they left the guard and several other British soldiers hog tied and gagged and made off with ‘340 rifles, 50 Sten guns, 12 Bren light machine guns (most of which were deactivated), and a number of .22 mm arms’.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A phrase I was not familiar with. Thank you for explaining what you meant. So basically, a ‘stateless society’ is the most primitive form of society on earth right? Where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes described. Sounds great.[/quote]
Life is nasty and brutish where ever people don’t have the means for their own survival – and even when living under governments, too.
Hobbes was too simplistic of a thinker.[/quote]
Right, so what you’re saying is that you’ve actually read Leviathan and you disagree with Hobbes’ assertion that men existing in a ‘state of nature’(A) are worse off than when they form societies and enter into ‘social contracts’(B)?
(A)‘State of nature’, i.e. definition (1) of ‘anarchy’ that I used in my initial post:
I’ve heard of it but I’m not going to read it. I haven’t even bothered reading most the enlightenment era or 18th century philosophers so I’m hardly going to bother with this guy. Haven’t read Marx/Engels either. Have read some Hegel though.[/quote]
Yeah well, 20 pages is practically a novel.
Not that anybody would need to rip Rousseau apart, he is quite capable of doing that on his own.
Not that anybody would need to rip Rousseau apart, he is quite capable of doing that on his own. [/quote]
I can’t take Marxism or any form of Anarchism seriously because:
Marxism asserts that all human conflict has been class based(historical materialism) and that’s utter nonsense basically.
Both Marxism and Anarchism aim to destroy class systems in society which is ridiculous for many reasons including these:
a) Not all people are equal so it’s impossible.
b) We need people to clean toilets as well as people to design buildings for instance.
and most importantly:
History proves over and over again that there will always be a class system and attempts to radically alter that class system via revolution quickly spiral into dictatorship.
A ‘practical’ and ‘realistic’ political ideology should aim to unite these classes and provide each with a say in the political process. Britain was most successful at this in European history. The House of Lords system allowed the landed gentry and aristocracy to exercise paternalistic power over the lower classes.
For an historical example of a class warfare failure see the 100 years of revolution in Rome that began with the murder of the Gracchi after their attempts to pass agrarian reforms through the Senate and led to the rise of Marius, Sulla, the Catiline conspiracy, the rise of Pompey, Julius Caesar(and Crassus if you want to include him) and after the assassination of Caesar more civil war between Brutus/Marc Antony and Octavius. Basically a century of civil war and bloodshed.
Another example; French revolution. Granted the ancien regime was incredibly degenerate but the revolutionary forces unleashed led to civil war, then the Napoleonic Wars.
Another example; Russian revolution(Of course, like with any other revolution the most brutal faction wins out(Bolsheviks)
Other examples; Any of the dozens of other countries across the globe that have had Marxist/Communist revolutions in the 20th Century.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
2) Both Marxism and Anarchism aim to destroy class systems in society which is ridiculous for many reasons including these:
[/quote]
Marxism creates two classes – the political class and everyone else.
Anarchism is not concerned with class. It is concerned only with voluntarily organized societies. Out of that an unlimited number of “classes” can be formed but it doesn’t really matter because how we adopt them into our own lives would be voluntary.
So, basically, you are speaking out of your ass yet again.
Marxism creates two classes – the political class and everyone else.
[/quote]
Depends what you mean. In practice or theory. Marxism is supposed to destroy class structures. In reality it does not do this as this is impossible.
[quote]
Anarchism is not concerned with class. It is concerned only with voluntarily organized societies. Out of that an unlimited number of “classes” can be formed but it doesn’t really matter because how we adopt them into our own lives would be voluntary.
So, basically, you are speaking out of your ass yet again.[/quote]
See, this is what I meant by different ‘branches’ of anarchism. There is actually a branch of Anarchism called ‘Class Struggle Anarchism’ so basically it is you who is talking out of your arse. Most forms of anarchism stress the importance of ‘class struggle’ and closely resemble Marxism for the most part.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
See, this is what I meant by different ‘branches’ of anarchism. There is actually a branch of Anarchism called ‘Class Struggle Anarchism’ so basically it is you who is talking out of your arse. Most forms of anarchism stress the importance of ‘class struggle’ and closely resemble Marxism for the most part.[/quote]
But these people do not understand anarchism.
It refers to only to how free associations organize society much better than central planning.
The term “free association” as well as its implications need to be fully understood in order to get the full picture.
