Can guns save you from suppression?

As some people might know I’ve been discussing guns recently, but it has been mainly from a crime perspective which has to a large extent ignored the government suppression justification for guns.

Here are a few musings on the subject that I hope might stimulate some debate.

**

To start, a bit about a theory I have.

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

**

I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**


What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

**

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?
As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.


This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

(And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).
The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

The thing is are they still?


If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.
Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).


The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.



**

 

Lumping all gun owners in the same boat as those who complacently accept repressive government policy is itself misleading or presumptuous. I know of quite a few gun owners who don't fit the mold of the typical NRA card carrying, gun toting, beer swilling, Republican. Because I own a gun does not necessarily mean I see it as an excuse to ignore the ills of society, and that the gun itself is the only defense against those ills.

It is clear what the founder's original intent was with passing the 2nd Amendment, and that was as an insurance policy against tyranny and secondly as a means to protect life and property from those who would do harm. I will agree that too many otherwise well meaning Americans have accepted the status quo as a good thing. But this is mostly as a result of an irresponsible education focus on the almighty ""free market"". Too many of the sheeple in this country don't have the interest or background to pursue the knowledge necessary to contribute and strive towards a truly free society based on progressive ideals, much less even realize that their is a problem.

I would consider myself an anarcho capitalist in that I don't agree with strict government control, but I do believe that capitalism to a certain degree can work, as long as those who are more able and adept at surviving in a truly free market make sure to take care of those who dont share those same abilities. Also the portions of the pie shared by everyone must remain reasonable, so perhaps what I am describing is not capitalism but I hope that explains somewhat (i.e...top 85% of the wealth in the hands of small number of people is categorically wrong on many levels) . Otherwise I would err on the side of a more collective society, but championing the achievements of someone like Stalin or Lenin as great contributions to society does no more good than praising the goodness of actions taken by the likes of Bush (Iraq) or Reagan (arms deals with totalitarians, etc...) in the pursuit of dirty economic policies meant to fatten the wallets of few.

 

Under current laws, I wouldn't give much hope to one lowly citizen trying to stand up to the system with his twenty two. He'd probably find himself cut off from family and friends in Guantanemo.

 

I don't think guns would necessarily prevent personal enslavement in a martial law situation, but I think the fact that 60-90 million people in this country own guns has pushed their plans back, which is why we are seeing more and more gun legislation.

The point shouldn't be about guns and their effectiveness, but the real reason behind public disarmament. Any person who has even a slight understanding of history knows how gun confiscation and the abolishment of the right to own guns has been the precursor to every dictatorship of the past 100 years. Today, governments use the guise of gun control being in the public's best interests so the people will voluntarily give up their guns (and their right to personal protection), believing the government is their daddy and will protect them.

 

Rat

Lumping all gun owners in the same boat as those who complacently accept repressive government policy is itself misleading or presumptuous. I know of quite a few gun owners who don't fit the mold of the typical NRA card carrying, gun toting, beer swilling, Republican. Because I own a gun does not necessarily mean I see it as an excuse to ignore the ills of society, and that the gun itself is the only defense against those ills.

But that is the problem what are the ‘ills of society’ and what ways are seen as the cure?

As pointed out many thought that the repression of left wingers and left wing ideas was a good thing, many viewed such people and ideas as a disease and the repression the cure.

What I’m pointing out is that if the political establishment is allowed to get away with it, it can manipulate people’s ideas of what is an illness that needs eradicating.

(I mean Rat you are one of the people that has called me a communist, and you spread unfounded conspiracy theories about left wing ideas been the invention of Satan worshipers as a means of taking over the world)

The thing is that there may be some 40% of American household armed but what are the political views of those people?

There might be socialist gun owners but most pro-gunners I’ve talked to seem to lean to the right and there is a lot of evidence that there are many extreme right wings are very pro-gun.

For example in the 1990’s right wing Militia groups attracted many people with an anti-left wing message. Many of them believed in wild ‘new world order’ conspiracy theories that socialists were trying to take over the world and that there job was to protect America from this by force of arms if necessary.

The thing is that I think these people could even today be manipulated into supporting repression as long as those being repressed fitted their idea of what are the enemy.

You see it seems to me that many pro-gunners are not really defenders of liberty and freedom they are defenders of what their vision of what is the ‘American way’ which among other things is right wing in nature

**

 

Excuse me, Balbus, but you really need to look at who and what you are quoting. I never said what you are quoting me as saying. That's what 'evsride' said. That is another person -- not me. If you cannot even quote the right people, why should anyone listen to a word you say?

Here is what I said:

I don't think guns would necessarily prevent personal enslavement in a martial law situation, but I think the fact that 60-90 million people in this country own guns has pushed their plans back, which is why we are seeing more and more gun legislation.

The point shouldn't be about guns and their effectiveness, but the real reason behind public disarmament. Any person who has even a slight understanding of history knows how gun confiscation and the abolishment of the right to own guns has been the precursor to every dictatorship of the past 100 years. Today, governments use the guise of gun control being in the public's best interests so the people will voluntarily give up their guns (and their right to personal protection), believing the government is their daddy and will protect them.

 

Dear Rat

Well first I must apologise for the mix up, not enough sleep and a cold might be to blame but all I can say is sorry.

**

I don't think guns would necessarily prevent personal enslavement in a martial law situation, but I think the fact that 60-90 million people in this country own guns has pushed their plans back, which is why we are seeing more and more gun legislation.


However a lot of what I said does cover your post, I repeat –

As pointed out many thought that the repression of left wingers and left wing ideas was a good thing, many viewed such people and ideas as a disease and the repression the cure.

What I’m pointing out is that if the political establishment is allowed to get away with it, it can manipulate people’s ideas of what is an illness that needs eradicating.

(I mean Rat you are one of the people that has called me a communist, and you spread unfounded conspiracy theories about left wing ideas been the invention of Satan worshipers as a means of taking over the world)

The thing is that there may be some 40% of American household armed but what are the political views of those people?

There might be socialist gun owners but most pro-gunners I’ve talked to seem to lean to the right and there is a lot of evidence that there are many extreme right wings are very pro-gun.

For example in the 1990’s right wing Militia groups attracted many people with an anti-left wing message. Many of them believed in wild ‘new world order’ conspiracy theories that socialists were trying to take over the world and that there job was to protect America from this by force of arms if necessary.

The thing is that I think these people could even today be manipulated into supporting repression as long as those being repressed fitted their idea of what are the enemy.

You see it seems to me that many pro-gunners are not really defenders of liberty and freedom they are defenders of what their vision of what is the ‘American way’ which among other things is right wing, capitalist and market driven.

**

 

I will be honest Balbus I'm not quite sure I understand everything you posted here.

But I wonder do the people actually believe that law abiding private citizens could ever have enough gun power to stop the government? Do you guys realize how many and what kinds of weapons this government actually has? I think it is naive to believe that the people could ever rise up against the government and protect ourselves from a so called suppression.

That being said, I don't think that it is a good idea to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I haven't been convinced that it will solve any problems at all. And I do agree with Rat that it will only give the government more power. But the government isn't stupid, they aren't going to come right out and just start taking guns away, they are going to make something happen to get people to agree to give up their guns. It's already in the works.

I think enforcing the laws that are already on the books would be a good start. We don't need more laws or stricter laws, we need citizens who abide by the few laws that are established and we need non corrupt people to enforce those laws fairly. LOL but that is just a fantasy of mine, I know it will never happen in reality.

 

Balbus.....whats so "wild" and unfounded about the New World Order. The phrase itself comes directly from the horse's mouth.

As for fighting government tyranny, our only hope is that we are able to sway the opinion of the military and police onto our side......hah...right. We're fucked.
Oh well, solidarity anyways!!

 

Up again from another angle.

Do I believe guns can save me from all suppression, NO since that is already been done against me and my beliefs.

Do I think my belonging to a large group owning a firearm has in anyway changed the course the US goverment is going, Yes I firmly believe it has kept the actions from running far faster then they already are

Do I believe in the end that my owning a firearm will be able to stop what the goverment is doing, NO becuase there is far less backbone in this country then in the past. Too many want freebies, handouts, and to be cared for then to stand up against.

Am I a republican, LOL I dont believe in parties but rather the merrits of the person.

Do I enjoy my firearms, YES

Do I believe the author of this thread has good points, YES

Do I believe in the author of this threads views, SOME

Sorry best I can do for ya!

 

Cute

This was just some absentminded musings and so not thoroughly worked out (which was the reason for putting them forward for debate), so the fault is all mine but it would help me a great deal if you can tell me what bits you didn’t understand.
Cheers Balbus

**

“I don't think that it is a good idea to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I haven't been convinced that it will solve any problems at all. And I do agree with Rat that it will only give the government more power. But the government isn't stupid, they aren't going to come right out and just start taking guns away, they are going to make something happen to get people to agree to give up their guns. It's already in the works”

I haven’t actually being proposing that guns be taken away from law abiding citizens – here is synopsis of my view –

“The gun regulation element would be aimed at trying to reduce harm by trying to stop guns getting into the hands of people that might do damage with them. Such things as mandatory gun safes, so people’s guns would be less likely to be stolen or get into the hands of children and mandatory psychological testing to try and weed out those with emotional and mental problems” problems.http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3658946&postcount=186

**

As to giving the ‘government’ more power, I was trying to point out that many pro-gunners basically support the political elite which is right wing and if anything the pro-gunners are a bulwark against change in the US’s political system as they are themselves as right wing or even want something even more right wing.

For example Rat is a right wing libertarian who thinks the Republican Party is too left wing and tries to convince people that all left wing thought is the invention of an ancient conspiracy of Satanists who wish to use it to take over the world.


**

I think enforcing the laws that are already on the books would be a good start. We don't need more laws or stricter laws, we need citizens who abide by the few laws that are established and we need non corrupt people to enforce those laws fairly. LOL but that is just a fantasy of mine, I know it will never happen in reality.

The question then becomes – why do you believe the laws are not been enforced and why do you believe the system is corrupt?

The follow up being – what can be done to improve things?

It seems to me that if people just shrug their shoulders and say it will never happen they are just allowing it to happen.

And that was one of my points I was trying to make - many Americans seem to accept the situation believing that in the end somehow gun owners would stop things if they went ‘too far’. The thing is that many pro-gunners support the present system or in my view would want something even worse.

What I’m implying is that many pro-gunners may not be part of the solution but be part of the problem.

**

 

Evsride

Balbus.....whats so "wild" and unfounded about the New World Order. The phrase itself comes directly from the horse's mouth.

As for fighting government tyranny, our only hope is that we are able to sway the opinion of the military and police onto our side......hah...right. We're fucked.
Oh well, solidarity anyways!!

To sway the people into doing what, what would you want to bring in, what policies would you support or like to see in place?

And as pointed out many pro-gunners actually support the present system they support the soldiers and the cop on the street. They may not have a high regard for politicians but they do have for a largely mythical ‘American way’.

**

 

Yank

Do I think my belonging to a large group owning a firearm has in anyway changed the course the US goverment is going, Yes I firmly believe it has kept the actions from running far faster then they already are

What actions?

The thing was that many pro-gun Americans have in the past supported suppression (giving the precedent for it happening again) and many of them I believe would support such suppression in the future.

**

Do I believe in the end that my owning a firearm will be able to stop what the goverment is doing, NO becuase there is far less backbone in this country then in the past.

But that is my point it doesn’t seem to have happened in the past.

**

Too many want freebies, handouts, and to be cared for then to stand up against.
Am I a republican, LOL I dont believe in parties but rather the merrits of the person.

But what does that actually mean what kind of policies would you support or want in place?

**

Do I enjoy my firearms, YES
Do I believe the author of this thread has good points, YES
Do I believe in the author of this threads views, SOME
Sorry best I can do for ya!


Well thanks, but from this post it seems clear you haven’t picked up on many of the points I was trying to make.
As I say this is my fault, this was just some musings, rough ideas I’d had during the recent gun debates and printed as a way of working them out.

So please if something was not clear could you say why, thanks in advance, Balbus.

**

 

There you go again, saying stuff I never said. But this is rhetroic you seem to like to repeat over and over and over again, as a way to get me going. I have already made it clear I am not a Left or Right winger, because at the top there are no sides and both wings are attached to the same bird. I am not a "libertarian," either. You ignore this, however, and continue calling me a "Right wing libertarian," despite the fact I do not associate myself with such -- or any -- labels.

Why do you find it necessary to tell people what others are and what they believe?

And if I said the Republican party veers mostly to the Left, that's because it does. BOTH parties are largely socialistic, but that's what their entire system is based on.

 

Wow, Rat I didn't know these things about you! So let me get this straight, you are a Satan worshiper who rips the wings off birds. LOL.

Sorry, I can't help but be a smart ass today.

 

sigh... I wrote my post and then it timed me out. Perhaps someone was trying to tell me something.

I guess what I got out of what you were saying Balbus is that you think that the reason guns can't help us "rise against the government" in the way that some people argue we could if we had guns is because the only people that want guns are "right wing" and that is what government currently is. Is that what you are saying. So, if all the left wing people wanted guns, and it was the republican government that we were overthrowing, then it would be ok, but because it is the conservatives that want guns and we have a republican administration then it can't work. Am I really confused here, because that can't be what you are saying. (see why labels are so silly and confusing).

I have always thought until very recently that no one should have guns, that it wasn't necessary. Then within the past year I started to think, well yeah, what if we did want to start a revolution sometime? Why should we let the government control us like this and we don't have any way to defend ourselves? Then even more recently I realized that there is no way in hell that the people of this country could do anything about the government even if we wanted to (which I have trouble believing these people want to). I'm sorry I've grown so cynical, but all of this has been in the works for years. That is what I'm just now realizing.

I look back at things that have happened in history and all of this has already been written. The government already has a plan and there isn't anything, even if every single one of us had bunches of guns that any of us could do about it. The military is still going to have more guns, and the government, or should I say the corporations are still going to have all of the money and all of the power and they won't even need the weapons to convince people to submit to them. People are already doing it willingly. I don't know why. Maybe they really have succeeded in brainwashing the majority.

You ask though why I believe that laws are not being enforced. They aren't. Certain laws for certain people are enforced at certain times to suit the needs of whomever is in power at the time. (and by power I mean whoever is paying the bills) But there are plenty of laws, we don't need more laws. More laws will only create more criminals, not stop crime. It is ironic I just started writing a paper on this very topic. There are already laws that make it more difficult to get a gun. There is paperwork that needs to be filled out, and permits that need to be gotten, and waiting periods. And someone who wants a gun to do something legal, like "protect" him/herself, or hunt or whatever the hell people do with guns legally, are going to go through the proper channels to get one. But someone who wants a gun to do something illegal, probably isn't going to do all of that. Mentally unstable people who get turned down for a gun, will still find a way to get one. They aren't really that hard to find on the street. Not to mention I don't know too many mentally stable people, so then you have to weigh that issue. You have to have someone deciding who is "ok" enough to have a gun, and who isn't. Someone who is truly crazy, could convince people that they are perfectly sane, it isn't hard to do, I do it every day (that part was a joke). So who's fault is it then when they kill a bunch of people?

What can be done to improve things? There is a place in Wilmington, DE where I'm from. The cops know that within this 2 square block radius much crime happens. Prostitution, drugs, guns, dog fights, gambling, neglected children, rapes, murders. They know where these things happen. But the cops refuse to do anything about it. The would rather keep it contained to that area than to arrest these people. The reason behind that is probably because the way the system works. They would no sooner arrest them and they would all be out on bail/bond back to doing what they were previously. But by ignoring them where they are, they keep them from moving over into the wealthy neighborhoods, a few blocks away. It is just something that is known by everyone who lives in the area. An unspoken agreement between the police and the criminals. It also keeps the gangs from Philly and New York from coming down and making things worse. Meanwhile, you have the jails crowded with people who have grown some pot, or some other (in my opinion) minor offense, and there is no room for these real criminals. The system simply doesn't work. I do not know how to fix it and I can't fix it alone, nor can anyone else. All I know is that I start Basic Law Enforcement Training next year. I'm not giving up, but I also know that there is only so much one person can do, and I also know that I can't expect or wait for anyone else to do anything. I can't wait for the system to get better and work like it should. I can't wait for people to write to their governors and wait for someone in congress to make a tough decisions. I don't have any faith in people any more. I just don't.

 

Oh Rat, this is me, others might fall for you deceptions but I’ve known you too long and if you want to go into this again I can always bump up all those threads you have left hanging?

For those that might not know I’ll explain.

Rat once openly called himself a libertarian, he only stopped when he discovered he couldn’t defend that ideology against its critics, so he then came up with the wheeze of saying he was neither of the left nor right.

Problem is that as far as I know he has only ever praised libertarian viewpoints and policies in fact whenever he has talked about polices it has always been right wing, libertarian and often nationalist in nature.

He also seems incredibly cagey about his supposed third way that is neither the left nor right ask him straight out and he usually goes quiet.

Problem is he seems to attack anyone that is to the left of this extreme rightwing viewpoint (usually with unfounded accusations that they are fellow conspirators or dupes of the Satanists).

 

cute

I guess what I got out of what you were saying Balbus is that you think that the reason guns can't help us "rise against the government" in the way that some people argue we could if we had guns is because the only people that want guns are "right wing" and that is what government currently is.

This is not about the current administration but the political establishment this isn’t a Republican/Democrat thing, to me they are both right wing parties. The political establishment are the forces that have power and influence in a society and use that to protect their position, that means they are most likely to be opposed to progressive ideas especially those that might limit their power and influence (such as the redistribution of wealth).
The thing is that they have used their power and influence to manipulate the way many Americans think, so that they also seem to oppose progressive ideas as been ‘anti-American’.

**

“Why should we let the government control us like this and we don't have any way to defend ourselves? Then even more recently I realized that there is no way in hell that the people of this country could do anything about the government even if we wanted to (which I have trouble believing these people want to)”

That is it, do the American people want change?

To me many seem to be waiting and doing little (or nothing) others seem to have withdrawn into myths and conspiratorial nightmares and yet other don’t even seem to be giving their society much thought at all. The thing is that a lot of all these people seem to be putting their faith in citizen owned guns to change thing ‘if they go too far’.

What I’m trying to say is I don’t think those guns are going to help them so they better begin thinking about what’s going on.

**

You ask though why I believe that laws are not being enforced. They aren't.

Sorry but you don’t go on to explain why they are not, only that they are selectively and we don’t need more.

You do seem to imply that there is some type of “unspoken agreement between the police and the criminals” that stops them tackling “Prostitution, drugs, guns, dog fights, gambling, neglected children, rapes, murders” in some areas.

But to me those things are not just a matter for the police they are questions that should be the concern of the whole of society.

And this is the thing many see this as a matter of suppression, arresting the law breakers or containing them in prison or a neighbourhood.

But what about dealing with these things differently?

What about reforming the drugs laws to something more realistic? How about regulating prostitution? Bringing in universal healthcare, clinics, counsellors and childcare places for all that need them?

The police are there to keep the peace not deal with failures in the social, economic and political structure.

**

I don't have any faith in people any more. I just don't.

But that is all there is, people, and actually giving up on your fellow citizens, on your community is exactly what the establishment wants. If people only act for them selves for their own selfish interests then they don’t unite but only united can they overcome the power and influence of the wealthy few?

**

 

Balbus,

This is the last time I will address your idiocy.

I am not a libertarian, though I might have referenced the term YEARS ago. If you want to dredge up posts from 3-4 years ago and play silly games, then by all means do so.

I know it's convenient for you to rely on labels and play the game of lumping all into one ideology. However, it's not going to work here. Unlike people who call themselves libertarians (which is another name given from the top), I don't believe in the money system, which goes hand and glove with government and religion, and has always existed soley for control. Libertarians believe in the capitalist system. I don't. Nor do I believe in the FALSE alternatives that were also bankrolled by the big banks, such as socialism and communism.

The problem with you is that you only envision the world based on your own indoctrination. You can't see things as existing in a way other than you have been conditioned to believe. That's why you cling to labels so much. I am no idealist, but I know the current system does not work, nor do any of the "alternatives" offered.

 

Oh Rat

You didn’t ‘reference’ the term libertarian you said very clearly and forthrightly –

“I am a libertarian”
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75059&page=2&pp=10

and it was not the only time back then, only two years ago, but as I pointed out you only seemed to stop calling yourself a libertarian when you found you couldn’t defend the libertarian viewpoint but you carried on seeming to support the libertarian way for quite a bit longer. And most recently you have been giving your support to that well known libertarian leaning politician Ron Paul.

But since you began claiming you were neither of the right or left you have been very cagey about explaining your political viewpoint, you are known more for what you are against than what you are for.

So please enlighten us – what do you want, what would your ideal state be like, how would it work and please explain this third way of yours?

Thing is I have a feeling you can’t, because you don’t really have a third way that is just a smoke screen to hide behind while you attack the left.

Go on man prove me wrong.