It's Time to Speak the Truth...

[mertdawg]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Chris, sorry if I missed it, but what system would be in place for the redress of grievances?[/quote]

We already have a system in place for that. Basically what I’m advocating here is that we ditch the opinion man on capital hill, and have a Monarch who is still bound by the constitution and we resolve the power of the federal (monarch) government. See the problem now, is that our current Monarch gets released every 4-8 years so to point to one man and say, this is your fault. You have Bush people saying it’s not Bush it’s Clinton and Obama, you have Obama and Clinton people saying it’s not them it’s the Bush family. Back and forth and nothing gets done. So, obviously the past couple administrations haven’t been working out, so let’s roll back to 1774 and let’s have a constitutional Monarch. We can still have the same document, change it around a little. Heck maybe we can find a Washington or an Adams to be King.

As well, the monarch will be kept in check by the threat of succession and nullification. Just like America did with King George III. [/quote]

Well we were “that close” to having our own King George.

Anyway there have been somewhat serious discussions about having the president go for 1 term of 6 or 8 years only. Then again FDR was closest to being a Monarch.

Also keep in mind that many historians believe that Jimmy Carter would have lost to Ford had Dord not pardoned Nixon, and Clinton would never have been elected without Perot. Could easily have had 40 straight years of a Republican leading up to '08.

Also I do think its strange that perhaps the most qualified man in America (a 2 term president) can not even run for his party. I think it occurred to avoid having men die in office.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

Ok so your saying that if I dont have arms, my house aint my even do a law says it is. Am I understanding you right?

And if so, wouldt that meen that the army owns the government?

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The current system? Yes, the traditional system? No.
[/quote]

The ‘current system’ is a complete mess, you have big business in the middle of government,

If this is a problem, why not change the system, so that it is impossible for individuals to
monopolize economic power. Then you wouldnt have the problem with big business. I dont see how a king would sort this out. In the feudal society you did have a strong aristocratic class that had influence on how the nation where run and the king could not ignore them, he had to make compromise with them or the country would fell into civil war. The owners of big business is the modern aristocrats and they would still have great influence in a system with a president or a king. Its not democracy that are to blame for this, but your former love - capitalism.

[/quote]

Poppycock.

[/quote]

what does poppycock meen?

[smh23]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

In a democracy no one owns anything. Oh, the overlords lie to you and tell you otherwise but they are nothing but lies – or at best they misunderstand what ownership actually entails.

I prefer that everyone owns his or her own life and be able to be secure in his or her own property. Neither democracy nor monarchy can provide that. As institutions they both require the violation of natural law.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.[/quote]

Now its my turn: poppycock.

Who is the American military made up of?

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

Ok so your saying that if I dont have arms, my house aint my even do a law says it is. Am I understanding you right?

And if so, wouldt that meen that the army owns the government?[/quote]

What I am saying is that you claim that the people own the government.

“The people” in most nations do not even have the rights to own weapons, the true mark of a souvereign, and are told what toilets, showerheads and lightbulps they can use.

They they do appear to be the masters, in fact they do appear to make even pitiful servants.

[orion]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.[/quote]

Nonsense.

The US forces cannot even hold downtown Baghdad without ethnic cleansing and massive bribes, let alone a few goat herders with AK 47 in a country that is pitifully small.

Now try imagining them holding Texas, when they do not know who is friend or foe and with at least one third of the military sympathizing with the insurgents.

And California and Minnesota and Florida and Vermont, Wisconsin, Idaho, Kansas…

Also, the American forces fought nothing like the British forces, they fought a guerilla campaign and in the cases they did not they usually lost.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The current system? Yes, the traditional system? No.
[/quote]

The ‘current system’ is a complete mess, you have big business in the middle of government,

If this is a problem, why not change the system, so that it is impossible for individuals to
monopolize economic power. Then you wouldnt have the problem with big business. I dont see how a king would sort this out. In the feudal society you did have a strong aristocratic class that had influence on how the nation where run and the king could not ignore them, he had to make compromise with them or the country would fell into civil war. The owners of big business is the modern aristocrats and they would still have great influence in a system with a president or a king. Its not democracy that are to blame for this, but your former love - capitalism.

[/quote]

Poppycock.

[/quote]

what does poppycock meen?[/quote]

It is a reasonably close synonim for tomfoolery.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The current system? Yes, the traditional system? No.
[/quote]

The ‘current system’ is a complete mess, you have big business in the middle of government,

If this is a problem, why not change the system, so that it is impossible for individuals to
monopolize economic power. Then you wouldnt have the problem with big business. I dont see how a king would sort this out. In the feudal society you did have a strong aristocratic class that had influence on how the nation where run and the king could not ignore them, he had to make compromise with them or the country would fell into civil war. The owners of big business is the modern aristocrats and they would still have great influence in a system with a president or a king. Its not democracy that are to blame for this, but your former love - capitalism.

[/quote]

Poppycock.

[/quote]

what does poppycock meen?[/quote]

It is a reasonably close synonim for tomfoolery.

[/quote]

good will hunting clip 2

ca. 13sec in. Its so funny when that posh shrink says it… LOL

[smh23]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.[/quote]

Now its my turn: poppycock.

Who is the American military made up of?[/quote]

You are implying that the American military is the American citizenry and therefore would be complicit in an overthrow of the government. (obviously this is not a given, there are a thousand instances in history in which a populist uprising was mercilessly crushed by the military. But lets assume you’re right about this).

Which is to say that the military would turn its own guns on the State.

Which says absolutely nothing about having an armed CIVILIAN population as a safeguard for political power. In your scenario it is the military whose apparatus is lifted and pointed at the State. This is in no way an argument in support of the original claim with which I took issue, which was that civilians without guns have no political power.

[smh23]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.[/quote]

Nonsense.

The US forces cannot even hold downtown Baghdad without ethnic cleansing and massive bribes, let alone a few goat herders with AK 47 in a country that is pitifully small.

Now try imagining them holding Texas, when they do not know who is friend or foe and with at least one third of the military sympathizing with the insurgents.

And California and Minnesota and Florida and Vermont, Wisconsin, Idaho, Kansas…

Also, the American forces fought nothing like the British forces, they fought a guerilla campaign and in the cases they did not they usually lost.

[/quote]

Ok man give that a try, what could possibly go wrong right?

[orion]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.[/quote]

Nonsense.

The US forces cannot even hold downtown Baghdad without ethnic cleansing and massive bribes, let alone a few goat herders with AK 47 in a country that is pitifully small.

Now try imagining them holding Texas, when they do not know who is friend or foe and with at least one third of the military sympathizing with the insurgents.

And California and Minnesota and Florida and Vermont, Wisconsin, Idaho, Kansas…

Also, the American forces fought nothing like the British forces, they fought a guerilla campaign and in the cases they did not they usually lost.

[/quote]

Ok man give that a try, what could possibly go wrong right?[/quote]

This is the option for when everything else already has gone wrong.

Which is why you need guns in the first place but my point still stands, if you are not even allowed guns you are in the very same position as a Japanese serf in the 17th century and for the very same reasons, no matter what you call yourself.

[smh23]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.[/quote]

Nonsense.

The US forces cannot even hold downtown Baghdad without ethnic cleansing and massive bribes, let alone a few goat herders with AK 47 in a country that is pitifully small.

Now try imagining them holding Texas, when they do not know who is friend or foe and with at least one third of the military sympathizing with the insurgents.

And California and Minnesota and Florida and Vermont, Wisconsin, Idaho, Kansas…

Also, the American forces fought nothing like the British forces, they fought a guerilla campaign and in the cases they did not they usually lost.

[/quote]

Ok man give that a try, what could possibly go wrong right?[/quote]

This is the option for when everything else already has gone wrong.

Which is why you need guns in the first place but my point still stands, if you are not even allowed guns you are in the very same position as a Japanese serf in the 17th century and for the very same reasons, no matter what you call yourself.

[/quote]

Look I’m not taking issue with the proposition that citizens have a right to gun ownership.

I’m taking issue with the notion that political power is exclusively the product of an armed citizenry.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.[/quote]

Now its my turn: poppycock.

Who is the American military made up of?[/quote]

You are implying that the American military is the American citizenry and therefore would be complicit in an overthrow of the government. (obviously this is not a given, there are a thousand instances in history in which a populist uprising was mercilessly crushed by the military. But lets assume you’re right about this).

Which is to say that the military would turn its own guns on the State.

Which says absolutely nothing about having an armed CIVILIAN population as a safeguard for political power. In your scenario it is the military whose apparatus is lifted and pointed at the State. This is in no way an argument in support of the original claim with which I took issue, which was that civilians without guns have no political power.[/quote]

Are you really suggesting the US military (even if the American citizens enlisted in the military were willing to go along with it) would be able to occupy the entire US with any better results than Iraq or Afghanistan?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’m taking issue with the notion that political power is exclusively the product of an armed citizenry.[/quote]

No. Political power is the product of an armed government.

Directly in opposition to that is freedom which requires the citizenry the right to arm and defend themselves.

[smh23]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’m taking issue with the notion that political power is exclusively the product of an armed citizenry.[/quote]

No. Political power is the product of an armed government.

Directly in opposition to that is freedom which requires the citizenry the right to arm and defend themselves.[/quote]

True freedom in the idealistic sense doesn’t exist, but through political power we can exert pressure in hopes of winning the tangible ‘freedoms’, privileges, rights etc. that we desire.

There seems to be a consensus among many Americans that guns are a primary force in the exertion of political power among the citizenry. They aren’t. Money is above all the most politically valuable capital. The shotgun in your closet is never, never going to win you a political battle in modern America. The millions of dollars in a CEO’s bank account, however, will.

[orion]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Monarchy is better than democracy only because there is an actual owner of the governmnent.

In a way you could call anarchy (or rather the natural order) a form of monarchy in that everyone owns him or her self.[/quote]

are you serious?

arent the government owned by its citizens and shouldt it be like that. or do you
really prefer that the government should be owned by one guy? [/quote]

R U serious?

Lets say the people were the souvereign, who often do you think the souvereign was forbidden to bear arms while their servants were armed to the teeth and how long do you think it took on average until the roles were reversed?

[/quote]

Sorry orion, but I dont understand what your point is.( its not an insult ), could you explain your point farther.

[/quote]

Well, you claimed that the government is owned by its citizens, I claim that you can perform a simple test to see where the political power lies:

Who has the guns?

If the answer is, not you, you do not own anything.

As a sidenote, there is reason to believe that the true driver of a more egalitarian society were not grand ideas but the invention and further improvement of the firearm which allowed average men to kill the most experienced of warriors with relative ease.

If that is so, an unarmed population is cause for grave concern.

[/quote]

An armed population is literally nothing in the face of American military power, so before we start walking around like fucking peacocks with out feathers preened lets just say that the presence or absence of a 12-gauge in your closet has absolutely nothing to do with the political power you wield. Maybe in some fantasy world it does, but in reality in modern America that kind of thinking is either stupid or dangerous (Arizona shootings)

In 1776 we took political power by force because our army was a (less organized/disciplined) carbon copy of theirs. Muskets and cannons.

For contrast: today, the US Navy disabled a ship off the coast of California with a laser gun. There is nothing an armed population could do in the face of the American State’s wrath.[/quote]

Nonsense.

The US forces cannot even hold downtown Baghdad without ethnic cleansing and massive bribes, let alone a few goat herders with AK 47 in a country that is pitifully small.

Now try imagining them holding Texas, when they do not know who is friend or foe and with at least one third of the military sympathizing with the insurgents.

And California and Minnesota and Florida and Vermont, Wisconsin, Idaho, Kansas…

Also, the American forces fought nothing like the British forces, they fought a guerilla campaign and in the cases they did not they usually lost.

[/quote]

Ok man give that a try, what could possibly go wrong right?[/quote]

This is the option for when everything else already has gone wrong.

Which is why you need guns in the first place but my point still stands, if you are not even allowed guns you are in the very same position as a Japanese serf in the 17th century and for the very same reasons, no matter what you call yourself.

[/quote]

Look I’m not taking issue with the proposition that citizens have a right to gun ownership.

I’m taking issue with the notion that political power is exclusively the product of an armed citizenry.[/quote]

Well, I am arguing that a distinctive lack of power of a federal government is the product of an armed citizenry.

Also, his point was that the population “owned” the government, which is quite a claim that he probably is not even allowed a pocket knive in his country.

Quite the master he is, begging his servants to do his bidding and with no means of making them do anything but incessant whining.

Now a company, ya know, big evil undemocratic entities that they are, he can punish quite effectively, by, wait for it, simply doing nothing, i.e. not spending his money there.

Try that with the governments he owns and we wont hear from him for some time, though I would not discount the possibility that Norwegian jails have high speed internet.

[smh23]

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, his point was that the population “owned” the government, which is quite a claim that he probably is not even allowed a pocket knive in his country.

[/quote]

The majority of the people in his country want weapons strictly controlled. Therefore, the strict control of weapons–which you are arguing is a sign of the people’s weakness–is actually quite contrarily evidence of the power of the citizenry.

[orion]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, his point was that the population “owned” the government, which is quite a claim that he probably is not even allowed a pocket knive in his country.

[/quote]

The majority of the people in his country want weapons strictly controlled. Therefore, the strict control of weapons–which you are arguing is a sign of the people’s weakness–is actually quite contrarily evidence of the power of the citizenry.[/quote]

Well I would not deny that everybody most definitely has the power to become a serf, that is totally up to him.

That however was pretty much the last decision he was free to make.