or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 10

post #361 of 1058
I'd also like to point out that that story doesn't even come close to supporting the libertarian anarcho capitalist agenda nor does it support the "arm the general populace" whacko Wild West agenda. The hero in the story was a trained police officer. You know... the government.
post #362 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


The comments following that "story" are far more illuminating than the story itself.
Simply sick. Just goes to show what kind of websites appeal to folks like Jazzy. He'll attack liberals for "hating freedom" but where's the outrage at the disgusting blatant racism? Crickets from those guys toward the worst of the right wing whackos. That, my friends, is what's wrong with this country. Complete tolerance of so much sickening hate.
post #363 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I would argue that you are extrapolating with insufficient historical data and insufficient consideration of other variables. There have not been enough cycles to conclude that they are inevitable despite other changes, and those cycles themselves were to dissimilar to be definitively classified as part of a longer pattern. In particular, "religious dictatorships", as you characterized them, thrived primarily by fear predicated on ignorance, and, as our knowledge has advanced, religion in the western world has both waned in popularity and changed from being a ubiquitous, mandatory doctrine to a personal choice. I cannot see how that process of marginalization would be easily reversed.

Maybe I am seeing a pattern in too little data, I have been known to do that.

post #364 of 1058
The American Revolutionary War "officially" started on April 19, 1775 when the British government sent 700 armed troops to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. When the British troops arrived in Lexington, they were met by 77 armed minutemen who had the courage to defend themselves and their property against aggression from their own government.
 
Those 77 minutemen - outnumbered almost 10 to 1 - weren't able to halt the advance of the British troops. Many of them lost their lives.
 
However, when the British reached Concord, they were engaged and routed by 500 armed minutemen.
 
We all know the eventual outcome of what came to be known as the American Revolutionary War.
 
The ushering in of the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known began when an overbearing, oppressive government tried to disarm its own citizens and was met with resistance by those who had the capability and desire to defend themselves, their property, and their freedom.
 
History is rife with examples of governments disarming their own people, many times under the pretense of "promoting peace and safety", only to turn around and commit horrendous atrocities against the people they had rendered defenseless.
 
Here are a few examples of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
 
1911 – Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
 
1929 – Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
 
1935 – China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
 
1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
 
1956 – Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million educated people.
 
1964 – Guatemala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
 
1970 – Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
 
What would have happened if the American colonists had allowed the British government to disarm them?
 
Think about it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #365 of 1058

Cherry Picking and you know it.

 

Edit:  Nor have you established a causal relationship.


Edited by BR - 1/1/13 at 5:54pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #366 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post
 
Here are a few examples of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
 
1911 – Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
 
...
 
1970 – Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

 

I wouldn't say there is causation between the guns being taken away and the people being massacred. The massacares were caused by evil ideas such as ethnic cleansing, racism and communism. But what all these ideas have in common is the idea that it's OK to throw some minority, or some individuals, under the bus for the greater good, whether that greater good be the Turkish People, the Proletariat or the Aryan Race. 
 
But the thing is, it's also a greater good argument being made to take the guns away in the first place. That's why I think you get that historical correlation: you are seeing the society go through gradual steps/stages of putting the Greater Good above Individual Rights.
post #367 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The American Revolutionary War "officially" started on April 19, 1775 when the British government sent 700 armed troops to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. When the British troops arrived in Lexington, they were met by 77 armed minutemen who had the courage to defend themselves and their property against aggression from their own government.
 
Those 77 minutemen - outnumbered almost 10 to 1 - weren't able to halt the advance of the British troops. Many of them lost their lives.
 
However, when the British reached Concord, they were engaged and routed by 500 armed minutemen.
 
We all know the eventual outcome of what came to be known as the American Revolutionary War.
 
The ushering in of the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known began when an overbearing, oppressive government tried to disarm its own citizens and was met with resistance by those who had the capability and desire to defend themselves, their property, and their freedom.
 
History is rife with examples of governments disarming their own people, many times under the pretense of "promoting peace and safety", only to turn around and commit horrendous atrocities against the people they had rendered defenseless.
 
Here are a few examples of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
 
1911 – Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
 
1929 – Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
 
1935 – China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
 
1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
 
1956 – Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million educated people.
 
1964 – Guatemala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
 
1970 – Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
 
What would have happened if the American colonists had allowed the British government to disarm them?
 
Think about it.

 

The British Government, along with many other democratic governments, disarmed its own citizens long ago without any disastrous results. Your examples are fascinating but do not permit a generalized conclusion.

post #368 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

The British Government, along with many other democratic governments, disarmed its own citizens long ago without any disastrous results. Your examples are fascinating but do not permit a generalized conclusion.

Even without guns the British government are afraid of their people, just too many geniuses.

post #369 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

.......
 
1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
 
........

Ummmm.... you absolutely SURE about THAT number....

 

And then there's the whole lack of causation etc....

post #370 of 1058

8 million Jews were exterminated not 16 million. This is a sure fact in history.
 

post #371 of 1058
Yes, it was 6 million Jews + 10 million others deemed "threats" to the State.

I borrowed that list from someone's blog post and didn't catch that error.

You can't dismiss my entire post based on that or on some silly causation argument.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #372 of 1058

You mean you plagiarized without citing your source?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #373 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The American Revolutionary War "officially" started on April 19, 1775 when the British government sent 700 armed troops to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. When the British troops arrived in Lexington, they were met by 77 armed minutemen who had the courage to defend themselves and their property against aggression from their own government.
 
Those 77 minutemen - outnumbered almost 10 to 1 - weren't able to halt the advance of the British troops. Many of them lost their lives.
 
However, when the British reached Concord, they were engaged and routed by 500 armed minutemen.
 
We all know the eventual outcome of what came to be known as the American Revolutionary War.
 
The ushering in of the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known began when an overbearing, oppressive government tried to disarm its own citizens and was met with resistance by those who had the capability and desire to defend themselves, their property, and their freedom.
 
History is rife with examples of governments disarming their own people, many times under the pretense of "promoting peace and safety", only to turn around and commit horrendous atrocities against the people they had rendered defenseless.
 
Here are a few examples of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
 
1911 – Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
 
1929 – Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
 
1935 – China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
 
1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
 
1956 – Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million educated people.
 
1964 – Guatemala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
 
1970 – Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
 
What would have happened if the American colonists had allowed the British government to disarm them?
 
Think about it.

Do you honestly think that if the American public are disarmed that the Government will start mass killing them?  Delusional.  That you even put this forward as an argument says a lot about you as a person.  And I don't care if this is considered to b a personal attack, but your argument is bat shit fucking crazy.

The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
post #374 of 1058

Comparing the USA to Uganda?  In 1970?  The more I digest your post the more ridiculous it reads.

 

Bat Shit Crazy Town.

The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
The devils that drive us do not discriminate
Reply
post #375 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega View Post

Comparing the USA to Uganda?  In 1970?  The more I digest your post the more ridiculous it reads.

Bat Shit Crazy Town.
Don't expect sanity to have a role in their position. They draw plenty of batshit crazy examples as long as it supports their ideas. They think the USSR is a good example of why socialism fails. They think that just because some governments are bad, all governments are bad. They think that an off duty trained police officer who thwarted a planned gun attack is a good example of why we should arm everyone for greater safety.
post #376 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The American Revolutionary War "officially" started on April 19, 1775 when the British government sent 700 armed troops to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. When the British troops arrived in Lexington, they were met by 77 armed minutemen who had the courage to defend themselves and their property against aggression from their own government.
 
Those 77 minutemen - outnumbered almost 10 to 1 - weren't able to halt the advance of the British troops. Many of them lost their lives.
 
However, when the British reached Concord, they were engaged and routed by 500 armed minutemen.
 
We all know the eventual outcome of what came to be known as the American Revolutionary War.

 

The militia were...you know, actual militias.  Not random guys with guns.  The modern day equivalent would be the regular US army moving to disarm a national guard armory.

 

The militia at Lexington was the local militia and not a minuteman company.  Kinda like the difference between regular police and SWAT.  The whole thing was a confused mess on the part of both sides and not either an organized defense of the town or an organized attack but a show of force.  The Lexington Militia was simply standing in parade ranks in the commons.  The regulars were marching through.  Then some asshat with a gun, firing from cover, got a bunch of his friends killed.

 

If the Lexington Militia HAD been in battle ranks they still would have gotten creamed but they'd have done more than one minor injury against the regulars and frankly the regulars probably would have turned around and gone back given their mission would already be a failure.

 

The Concord Militia were outnumbered by the British column and wisely vacated the town until help could arrive (aka the Minuteman companies from other towns).  The Brits, in the meantime destroyed three hidden 24 pounders.  This would be like the Army showing up and destroying three National Guard M1 tanks.  Not something you keep in your basement for home defense.

 

When help arrived the militia advanced on three companies of regulars guarding the bridge and again the battle was both a mess and a surprise to both sides. Neither had intended to kill each other that day.  Only this time three light companies of regulars were on the receiving end of stupidity (in this case a poor tactical command) and got routed.  After which the militia resumed defensive positions and the Brits ate lunch before belatedly marching home with moderately disastrous results from getting ambushed all the way back until a relief column met up with them.

 

This is hardly the picture you wish to paint or individual homeowners banding together to heroically defend their town.

 

The eventual outcome of the American Revolutionary War was that regular troops of the Continental Army, trained by a Prussian and aided by 5,500 French troops, defeated the regular troops of the British Army at Yorktown ending the war.  The Brits didn't get beat by the militia.  No more than South Vietnam fell to the VC but actually to NVA armored divisions.

 

 

Quote:
The ushering in of the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known began when an overbearing, oppressive government tried to disarm its own citizens and was met with resistance by those who had the capability and desire to defend themselves, their property, and their freedom.
 
History is rife with examples of governments disarming their own people, many times under the pretense of "promoting peace and safety", only to turn around and commit horrendous atrocities against the people they had rendered defenseless.
 
...
 
What would have happened if the American colonists had allowed the British government to disarm them?
 
Think about it.

 

The British people are disarmed today.  I'm going to guess they are not going to get murdered en masse any time soon.  

 

What would have happened if the American colonists had allowed the British government to disarm them?  We'd be Canadians.

 

That said, yes, it is harder for a government to mistreat an armed populace.  On the other hand you need to take the bad with the good where a heavily armed populace engages in sectarian violence.  The body count there is pretty high as well.

 

And in many of those cases you cited, when the secret or not so secret police come to get you, being armed doesn't do you a whole lot of good other than maybe taking a few of the foot soldiers with you because the majority of your neighbors are either cheering them on or turning a blind eye and keeping their heads down.

post #377 of 1058

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #378 of 1058

Lol. That's the funniest thing I've read in this thread. Are you practicing for a stand-up routine?
post #379 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

They think the USSR is a good example of why socialism fails.

 

So? You think Somalia is a good example of why libertarianism fails.

 

 

Quote:
They think that just because some governments are bad, all governments are bad.

 

Government is the embodiment of violence. Taking money and property away from people under threat of violence ("taxation") is wrong. That the plunder is systemized and deemed "legitimate" because a group of individuals voted for it does not make it right.

 

 

Quote:
They think that an off duty trained police officer who thwarted a planned gun attack is a good example of why we should arm everyone for greater safety.

 

You willfully ignore the countless other examples of armed individuals thwarting crimes or successfully defending themselves.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #380 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post


Lol. That's the funniest thing I've read in this thread. Are you practicing for a stand-up routine?

 

Perhaps you should write a letter to the FBI disputing their statistics.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #381 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega View Post

Do you honestly think that if the American public are disarmed that the Government will start mass killing them?  Delusional.  That you even put this forward as an argument says a lot about you as a person.  And I don't care if this is considered to b a personal attack, but your argument is bat shit fucking crazy.

 

Ignore historical precedent at your own peril.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #382 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

The militia were...you know, actual militias.  Not random guys with guns.  The modern day equivalent would be the regular US army moving to disarm a national guard armory.

 

I disagree:

 

 

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

 

 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
 
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
 
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

 

 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
 
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

 

I could cite more, but it is quite clear what the founders meant when they ratified the Second Amendment.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #383 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The British people are disarmed today.  I'm going to guess they are not going to get murdered en masse any time soon.

 

Guess away. I haven't made any claims that the British government has any immediate plans to do so. Of course, governments eventually change, don't they?

 

The British people certainly are lucky, aren't they? And that's all they really have to rely on at this point. Luck.

 

All they can do is hope that people who have guns - foreign or domestic - don't decide to use them against those who have been rendered defenseless by their own government.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #384 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Perhaps you should write a letter to the FBI disputing their statistics.

Don't need to. This is like saying that hammers kill more people than nuclear bombs in the US therefore folks should be allowed to have their own nuclear arsenal.

Besides it's a completely counterproductive argument for the pro-gun camp because if you look at the stats you'll see that handguns are responsible for more murders than anything else.

Which means that they should be highly regulated using hammers as the lethality litmus test.

This is called an own goal. So this is hilarious on two levels: abject stupidity and self inflicted wound.

Out of 12k murders firearms are responsible for 8k.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11#disablemobile
post #385 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I disagree:

I could cite more, but it is quite clear what the founders meant when they ratified the Second Amendment.

Disagree all you want but the militia at Lexington was not a bunch of random guys but a well regulated (aka trained) militia. This is historically documented.

As for your quotes that would imply that you believe that every terrible implement of the soldier (including tanks, nukes, etc) is the birthright of every citizen.

Given that they are not AND the fact that the American military is so much larger than the founders envisioned then the argument that firearm possession keeps tyranny at bay because the larger balance of military power in the US is held by the people is already void. Should the federal government wish to force you into FEMA death camps and the military supported it could compel you to go (or at least simply kill you) by overwhelming force of arms.

Regardless of what they meant two centuries ago the balance of military power shifted after WWII and we became a superpower. That was over 60 years ago.
post #386 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So? You think Somalia is a good example of why libertarianism fails.
No. I think of it as the only example of libertarianism without established socialism. Can you name any other? I didn't think so. Can you explain how Somalia differs from a "true" example of libertarianism without socialism? I didn't think so. It's a good example of what can happen under libertarianism, and you know it. Meanwhile, the USSR was not a social democracy. Nether Maoist China or North Korea nor modern capitalist China after Deng are examples of socialist democracies. Can you name any countries that are examples of socialist democracies? I can.
Quote:
Government is the embodiment of violence. Taking money and property away from people under threat of violence ("taxation") is wrong. That the plunder is systemized and deemed "legitimate" because a group of individuals voted for it does not make it right.
Again, I know you vehemently disagree with the idea of the "social contract", but it is legitimate. Every citizen benefits greatly from services rendered by the government. To benefit from those services without paying for them is theft. What you want is the freedom to commit that theft by not paying back your share of the social contract. How does one defend against theft?
Quote:
You willfully ignore the countless other examples of armed individuals thwarting crimes or successfully defending themselves.
And you willfully ignore that all those examples are hugely outnumbered by the examples of where people were needlessly killed thanks to the public's easy access to firearms or because of accidental discharge or stolen weapons. Let me paraphrase what Jefferson said... security in the face of increased danger and lawlessness is not security at all. I'm far more secure in Hong Kong than you are anywhere in the US, and it's not simply because people are more peaceful and don't commit crimes here.
Edited by tonton - 1/5/13 at 2:17pm
post #387 of 1058
It may have been a botched operation but all the people in Waco died, and it wasn't because they didn't have enough guns. Ted Kaczynski was arrested (by force) and it wasn't because he didn't have enough guns. No amount of guns can protect citizens from modern government. Period. That aspect of the second amendment is undeniably, irrevocably obsolete, and can no longer be used as an excuse.
post #388 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Well, my kids are in elementary school and given you stated you don't shoot my opinion is you're in no position to tell other folks they know nothing and that they should take their opinion and shove it.

 

I work in the environment we are discussing, and understand the security and safety issues.  You do not.  You speak in theory.   

 

 

 

Quote:
Who are you to say this?

 

An experienced teacher who has worked in 4 elementary schools and two high schools in 3 different districts.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Yet another entitled union teacher who thinks they know everything?  

 

I fail to see the correlation between entitled union teachers (whatever that means) and them "knowing everything," nor do I see why you'd launch such an attack.  It doesn't even make sense.  

 

 

 

Quote:
You and your ilk give teachers a bad name.

 

You know nothing.  You have no idea who I am.  You simply don't like that my opinion is far more qualified than yours.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Edit:  I know Bergermister or someone is going to ping me on hypocrisy but it's one thing to tell judgmental outsiders to bugger off and another to tell other stakeholders (aka parents) to bugger off in an appeal to authority. 

 

You are not a stakeholder, not to me.  You are simply someone with an opinion.  And even if you were a stakeholder, that doesn't make your opinion equally qualified to mine.  Do you tell your teachers what their curriculum should be?  Would you presume to lecture me on the subject I teach?  Would you tell a principal how to go about her job?  Do you tell your school custodian how to maintain the HVAC system?  If you do, you're unfortunately like several parents I've met in my career.  You having children does not make you an expert in education, nor does it give you a solid understanding of what the security situation is in most schools.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #389 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Again, I know you vehemently disagree with the idea of the "social contract", but it is legitimate. Every citizen benefits greatly from services rendered by the government. To benefit from those services without paying for them is theft. What you want is the freedom to commit that theft by not paying back your share of the social contract. How does one defend against theft?

 

And again with the "social contract" - the justification given for systemized plunder.

 

You have to go through a twisted bit of reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that not wanting a group of individuals calling themselves a government to take my property without my consent is theft on my part.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #390 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


No. I think of it as the only example of libertarianism without established socialism. Can you name any other? I didn't think so. Can you explain how Somalia differs from a "true" example of libertarianism without socialism? I didn't think so. It's a good example of what can happen under libertarianism, and you know it. Meanwhile, the USSR was not a social democracy. Nether Maoist China or North Korea nor modern capitalist China after Deng are examples of socialist democracies. Can you name any countries that are examples of socialist democracies? I can.

 

You apparently do not understand what libertarianism is. Until you have a desire to educate yourself about it, you'll go on believing that Somalia is a good example of it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #391 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And you willfully ignore that all those examples are hugely outnumbered by the examples of where people were needlessly killed thanks to the public's easy access to firearms or because of accidental discharge or stolen weapons. Let me paraphrase what Jefferson said... security in the face of increased danger and lawlessness is not security at all. I'm far more secure in Hong Kong than you are anywhere in the US, and it's not simply because people are more peaceful and don't commit crimes here.

 

Conjecture.

 

A madman kills school children and it's all the mainstream media talks about for a month.

 

You rarely hear about ordinary people using firearms responsibly to defend themselves or thwart crimes because the mainstream media usually buries such stories.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #392 of 1058

Could the problem be lead?

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

 

 

 

I recall gas stations serving up leaded and unleaded gasoline. And I remember being told to run the tap a while before using the water.  And buying leaded paint.  The list goes on.


Edited by Bergermeister - 1/5/13 at 7:12pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #393 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And you willfully ignore that all those examples are hugely outnumbered by the examples of where people were needlessly killed thanks to the public's easy access to firearms or because of accidental discharge or stolen weapons. Let me paraphrase what Jefferson said... security in the face of increased danger and lawlessness is not security at all. I'm far more secure in Hong Kong than you are anywhere in the US, and it's not simply because people are more peaceful and don't commit crimes here.

Conjecture.

A madman kills school children and it's all the mainstream media talks about for a month.

You rarely hear about ordinary people using firearms responsibly to defend themselves or thwart crimes because the mainstream media usually buries such stories.
Question: Do you think that there aren't any madmen in Hong Kong? There are. Plenty. Difference is, they don't have access to firearms. So I'm inherently safer, even though I don't have a gun strapped to my hip (perhaps because I don't).
Edited by tonton - 1/5/13 at 9:00pm
post #394 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No. I think of it as the only example of libertarianism without established socialism. Can you name any other? I didn't think so. Can you explain how Somalia differs from a "true" example of libertarianism without socialism? I didn't think so. It's a good example of what can happen under libertarianism, and you know it. Meanwhile, the USSR was not a social democracy. Nether Maoist China or North Korea nor modern capitalist China after Deng are examples of socialist democracies. Can you name any countries that are examples of socialist democracies? I can.

You apparently do not understand what libertarianism is. Until you have a desire to educate yourself about it, you'll go on believing that Somalia is a good example of it.
I know a lot more about libertarianism than you apparently know about socialism. And you still haven't told me how Somalia differs. So tell me or shut up.
post #395 of 1058

Libertarian Principles                        Somalian "Government" (outside of warlord controlled zones) as of 2002

No income tax                                                             Yes

No tax on business                                                      Yes

No sales tax or GST                                                    Yes

No taxes at all                                                              Yes

Free trade with other countries                                    Yes

Road building handled by the private sector               Yes

Security handled by private sector                              Yes

Education handled by private sector                           Yes

Public can legally own firearms                                   Yes

Public can legally own anything                                  Yes

Freedom to eat anything, or take any drug                 Yes

Freedom to choose whether to vaccinate                   Yes

Freedom of religion                                                     Yes*    *=so much as society allows

Freedom of sexuality                                                   Yes*

 

Fits in with Libertarian Anarcho-capitalist

utopian prediction of what would happen

under a system free of government control                  No

 

Oh, you're right. What was I thinking?

 

On a serious note, you'll notice that the areas in Somalia with the most government control -- Somaliland, for instance -- have the most prosperity and stability.

post #396 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Libertarian Principles                        Somalian "Government" (outside of warlord controlled zones) as of 2002

No income tax                                                             Yes

No tax on business                                                      Yes

No sales tax or GST                                                    Yes

No taxes at all                                                              Yes

Free trade with other countries                                    Yes

Road building handled by the private sector               Yes

Security handled by private sector                              Yes

Education handled by private sector                           Yes

Public can legally own firearms                                   Yes

Public can legally own anything                                  Yes

Freedom to eat anything, or take any drug                 Yes

Freedom to choose whether to vaccinate                   Yes

Freedom of religion                                                     Yes*    *=so much as society allows

Freedom of sexuality                                                   Yes*

 

Fits in with Libertarian Anarcho-capitalist

utopian prediction of what would happen

under a system free of government control                  No

 

Oh, you're right. What was I thinking?

 

On a serious note, you'll notice that the areas in Somalia with the most government control -- Somaliland, for instance -- have the most prosperity and stability.

 

 

Laughably ridiculous.  You're using SOMALIA to make a point in support of government control?   lol.gif

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #397 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Libertarian Principles                        Somalian "Government" (outside of warlord controlled zones) as of 2002
No income tax                                                             Yes
No tax on business                                                      Yes
No sales tax or GST                                                    Yes
No taxes at all                                                              Yes
Free trade with other countries                                    Yes
Road building handled by the private sector               Yes
Security handled by private sector                              Yes
Education handled by private sector                           Yes
Public can legally own firearms                                   Yes
Public can legally own anything                                  Yes
Freedom to eat anything, or take any drug                 Yes
Freedom to choose whether to vaccinate                   Yes
Freedom of religion                                                     Yes*    *=so much as society allows
Freedom of sexuality                                                   Yes*

Fits in with Libertarian Anarcho-capitalist
utopian prediction of what would happen
under a system free of government control                  No

Oh, you're right. What was I thinking?

On a serious note, you'll notice that the areas in Somalia with the most government control -- Somaliland, for instance -- have the most prosperity and stability.


Laughably ridiculous.  You're using SOMALIA to make a point in support of government control?   lol.gif
And?
post #398 of 1058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And?

 

There is no "and."  There is just the hilarity of your post.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #399 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And?

 

There is no "and."  There is just the hilarity of your post.  


Riiight. Got it. You really are great at presenting your argument. Now tell us again exactly how the USSR is a good example of why Socialism never works.

post #400 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Riiight. Got it. You really are great at presenting your argument. Now tell us again exactly how the USSR is a good example of why Socialism never works.

 

The same reason Somalia is a good example of why libertarianism never works.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut