In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
The End Is Near...
dsmith
Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
The gun rights issue is soon going to become a moot point. I believe this country is going to have very bad problems and it could, in effect, become an anarchist state.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
Every paycheck, I am buying a few more boxes of ammunition, some more fishing hooks, gun oil and solvent and other things I will need if a hunter/angler/defensive society is what we get. I hope to have enough of these supplies to last the rest of my life before this is all said and done.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
Every paycheck, I am buying a few more boxes of ammunition, some more fishing hooks, gun oil and solvent and other things I will need if a hunter/angler/defensive society is what we get. I hope to have enough of these supplies to last the rest of my life before this is all said and done.
Comments
CP
Reference T-Hawk's post over in GD as just one thing that needs fixed with a judicious application of gunsmoke.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=466559
Listen to T Boone Pickens, and invest in LPG.
Could be. But as of right now, we don't have the infrastructure (or time and resources) to make the switch. Also, natural gas is peaking in the near future if it isn't there already.
The gun rights issue is soon going to become a moot point. I believe this country is going to have very bad problems and it could, in effect, become an anarchist state.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
Every paycheck, I am buying a few more boxes of ammunition, some more fishing hooks, gun oil and solvent and other things I will need if a hunter/angler/defensive society is what we get. I hope to have enough of these supplies to last the rest of my life before this is all said and done.
Stock up on guns, ammo, toilet paper, and non-perishables and you can batter for what you don't have and protect what you do have when the SHTF![;)]
Yep, you could be right. Personally I don't see why a lot of people freak out when anarchy is mentioned. A period of anarchy will do this country good as there are some problems that need to be fixed that would be impossible, or take too long with our current legal system(we have no justice system).
Reference T-Hawk's post over in GD as just one thing that needs fixed with a judicious application of gunsmoke.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=466559
Amen Brother HPD!
Yep, you could be right. Personally I don't see why a lot of people freak out when anarchy is mentioned. A period of anarchy will do this country good as there are some problems that need to be fixed that would be impossible, or take too long with our current legal system(we have no justice system).
Reference T-Hawk's post over in GD as just one thing that needs fixed with a judicious application of gunsmoke.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=466559
I'll third that!! I stopped calling it a 'justice' system 30 years ago!!! Yes a little 'cleansing' is in order. [}:)]
Anarchy is the conditon where armed people not in any legal capacity take it upon themselves to "enforce" their interpertaion of the law. It sound like the very thing you are railing against is what you are intending to participate in. Get a grip!
What you have described is not anarchy. I think what you have described is more like insurrection.
It is obvious that the Federal Government has been ignoring the limits placed upon it by the Constitution for decades. Legislation is passed and signed, and programs are implemented that have no basis in what once was the law of the land.
If lawlessness = anarchy, we are living it today.
Brad Steele
Is a government operating outside its proscribed limitations also anarchy?
It is obvious that the Federal Government has been ignoring the limits placed upon it by the Constitution for decades. Legislation is passed and signed, and programs are implemented that have no basis in what once was the law of the land.
If lawlessness = anarchy, we are living it today.
I think that would be tyranny
Anarchy has resolved exactly what in the past ?
There are several anarchists in these forums, and all they end up doing is yelling and throwing tantrums.
Well, for those lacking in the deifinition department.....
quote:-noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
What you are squawking about, seems to be from the FIRST definition.
I have not heard ANYONE say that we need NO government. I am consistantly hearing, we need a CONSTITUTIONAL governance.
Then again, smoke and mirrors IS a progressive's tactic.
No, there is also moral anarchy, as noted in #4.
Anarachy, however, may also refer to the literal definition as "without a head (leader), as in a strong individualist approach.
Like when "every man did what was right in his own eyes."
I think my earlier post is sufficient.
No matter what clothes you think you can dress your desires in, Freemind.
That's just funny right there. Even if it IS just more smoke and mirrors.
So Barz, what are you suggesting? That no matter the dictate from government, we should follow it? Anything less would be anarchy, you know.
Absolutely.
And He does not take rebellion well, at all.
While this poster pretends that he is speaking about rebellion against his 'Head'...the REAL thrust of this statement is directed at those refusing to pretend this is a just, good government.
He would have fit right in with the redcoats that attempted to enforce the despotism of an inbred Monarch....
Well, no, Freemind, of course not. I do not know where you got that notion.
But, rather, "Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's..."
There are higher laws.
There is another Head, whom all men should obey.
Absolutely.
And He does not take rebellion well, at all.
That is why anarchy is idolatry.
And individualists should take particular note of that.
All I care to take note of is your regular opposition to individualism, your roundabout advocacy of acceptance and obedience to predatory government and your often long-winded and always convoluted defense of collectivism.
A clear picture has developed and what I see is as common as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean, regardless of your attempts to repackage it.
quote:There is another Head, whom all men should obey.
Absolutely.
And He does not take rebellion well, at all.
While this poster pretends that he is speaking about rebellion against his 'Head'...the REAL thrust of this statement is directed at those refusing to pretend this is a just, good government.
He would have fit right in with the redcoats that attempted to enforce the despotism of an inbred Monarch....
Agreed.
I will also note, that the founders were doing what they belived to be the work of the 'head'.
Even the 'head' led the people long ago, from tyrants.
One statement, that I like to poke at these types, is "If you have no sword, then sell your cloak, so you may buy one".
I don't need someone in neat garb to "interprit" that for me. That one very statement, from the person it came from, tell me all I need to know.
The tenatants of freedom, have nothing to do with man's greedy desires, as one poster would like us to belive. The are comandments from the 'head'.
They ignore the fact that ONLY just government are to be obeyed..the Founders told us so..then demonstrated what needed to be done.
Sad, sad thing..but then there were men back in those days preaching a perverted word, also.
There is also no surprise about the unending diatribes from persons like Barzillia...the 'long' piece posted earlier today explains what he is doing nicely...the internet is entirely to open and 'free'...therefore...there must be an attempt made to 'guide' it in the direction needed by those in control.
That 'guiding' will come at all levels...this one pretends to be from a spiritual angle.
And He does not take rebellion well, at all.
I disagree 100%.
He does not take rebellion against Him well.
If you are going to quote the the Book of Mark, Barz, how about you do it completely;
"...and to God the things that are God's." Mark 12:17
I believe there are times where rebellion is not only taken well by Him, but has His blessing as well. Read much history? Ever hear about the War for Independence?
Good question, Barzillia. WHY do you continue to support an evil government...instead of the Founding documents ?
Do you TRULY think that the Founders went to war with a Bible..ONLY ??
What the hell do you think they killed the British with...forcing them to eat massive doses of Bible paper ?
You call familiarity with weapons 'idolatry', you call demands for Liberty 'anarchy'...
you are going to get the total lack of respect you deserve around any man that loves Freedom and Liberty.....
Please connect your though with something I have said about the Revolutionary War.
If you cannot find fault with what I say, must you make something up so that you can find fault with that ?
Not making up anything, Barz.
YOU stated;
"And He does not take rebellion well, at all."
I refuted that statement by using the American Revolution as an example.
Again, I will poke YOU Barz, with "If you have no sword, then sell your cloak so you may buy one".
What did He mean? SURELY you will not suggest that He was telling everyone to be a pacifist?
While praying IS part of following, and the walk, I take that statement to mean "only an idiot relies on faith alone". If it were not your DUTY, then there would be no need to be armed.
Right?
He NEVER sets out his OWN position...except for castigating others with his 'religion'..a perverted form of the original.
By not doing so, he can weasel about at will...
He insists upon documentation of every thought that disagrees with 'obey government'....while denying it stridently..
He puts me in mind clearly of the caricature of the typical shrink, with the patient on the couch, murmuring bland nothings, urging the patient to question himself, to cure himself...
In this case...you the patient are being urged to cure yourself of Liberty, Freedom and the American Ideal..something I believe Barzillia has no comprehension of.
The deceivers path of ignorance and darkness is the path of the unbeliever however not of our doing as they were at some point shown the truth and rejected it as for only the fool has said in their heart that there is no GOD as there is only one and by HIS word and all will give account to the same at their knee, willingly or un-willingly so be it.
Did Jesus advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes (Luke 22:36-38)?
Jesus is well known for His continued emphasis on love, forgiveness, and "turning the other cheek." It is therefore surprising to find Jesus advising the disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Did Jesus in this verse advocate the use of a sword for self-defense purposes?
This is an issue over which Christians have vehemently disagreed for many centuries. Following is a summary of the two basic views of how Christians have interpreted Jesus on this issue.
THE PATH OF NONRESISTANCE. Christian pacifists believe it is always wrong to injure other humans, no matter what the circumstances. And the same principles supporting pacifism carry over to nonresistance--the belief that any form of self-defense is wrong. This view is usually based on the exemplary life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ's teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to "turn the other cheek" when encountering violence (Matthew 5:38-48).
In Yoder's view, the way to victorious living is to refrain from the game of sociopolitical control. Jesus exposed the futility of the violence engrafted in the present world system by resisting its inclinations even to the point of death. Hence, Christians are to refuse the world's violent methods and follow their Savior to the cross (Matthew 26:47-52). When Jesus told the disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36), pacifists suggest He was only speaking figuratively.
"TURN THE OTHER CHEEK" ALWAYS? It is true that Jesus said to turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:38-42. However, many scholars do not believe pacifism (or nonresistance) is the essential point of His teaching in this passage. These scholars do not believe Jesus was teaching to "turn the other cheek" in virtually all circumstances. Even Christ did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (see John 18:22-23).
The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."
The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.
In terms of following Christ's example, one must remember that His personal nonresistance at the cross was intertwined with His unique calling. He did not evade His arrest because it was God's will for Him to fulfill His prophetic role as the redemptive Lamb of God (Matthew 26:52-56). During His ministry, however, He refused to be arrested because God's timing for His death had not yet come (John 8:59). Thus, Christ's unique nonresistance during the Passion does not mandate against self-protection.
THE BIBLICAL CASE FOR SELF-DEFENSE. It is noteworthy that the Bible records many accounts of fighting and warfare. The providence of God in war is exemplified by His name YHWH Sabaoth ("The LORD of hosts"--Exodus 12:41). God is portrayed as the omnipotent Warrior-Leader of the Israelites. God, the LORD of hosts, raised up warriors among the Israelites called the shophetim (savior-deliverers). Samson, Deborah, Gideon, and others were anointed by the Spirit of God to conduct war. The New Testament commends Old Testament warriors for their military acts of faith (Hebrews 11:30-40). Moreover, it is significant that although given the opportunity to do so, none of the New Testament saints--nor even Jesus--are ever seen informing a military convert that he needed to resign from his line of work (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 3:14).
Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.
Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14). When protecting one's family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.
Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight."
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Well, no, Freemind, of course not. I do not know where you got that notion.
But, rather, "Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's..."
There are higher laws.
There is another Head, whom all men should obey.
Absolutely.
And He does not take rebellion well, at all.
That is why anarchy is idolatry.
And individualists should take particular note of that.
All I care to take note of is your regular opposition to individualism, your roundabout advocacy of acceptance and obedience to predatory government and your often long-winded and always convoluted defense of collectivism.
A clear picture has developed and what I see is as common as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean, regardless of your attempts to repackage it.
Coming from the man who states he has no value for honor in these forums ?
My "regular opposition to individualism", as noted in my post above, is nothing more than an opposition to anarchy, the final end of the spectrum of peoples' ideas about what individualism is, and what they want it to be.
If that's where you are, lt, then yes, you should be dismayed.
And again, all you now do is post nonsense about what I do not say, and insults about me.
Does that make you feel better ?
[xx(]
You see this as a personal insult? quote:All I care to take note of is your regular opposition to individualism, your roundabout advocacy of acceptance and obedience to predatory government and your often long-winded and always convoluted defense of collectivism.
A clear picture has developed and what I see is as common as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean, regardless of your attempts to repackage it.
Not surprising...
Where did I misstate anything, as I see it? Where is the insult?
Are you insulted that I succinctly and bluntly state that I view your consistent twisting, turning, vague position 'references' as definitively devious?
Is it my flat statement that the picture that your consistent postings draw, for me, is one of common collectivism, always put up as a roadblock when discussions of liberty and predatory government are being bantered or discussed?
Is it the comment I made about what I see as your attempts to 'repackage' common collectivism and to hide it amidst your torturous references and non-definitive reasoning's?
Is that the personal insult, barz, or, rather, is it merely me making a definitive, flat assessment of how I see your liberty-crapping propensity?
You do what you do based on your ethic & philosophy, one of collectivism.
I post what I post based on my ethic & philosophy of individualism.
Those who read will weigh our words and their thrust and will draw their conclusions, just as I drew mine about you.
So, there we have it.
I lack honor in your eyes.
You lack that which I respect and find desirous in an American, that being rugged-individualism and love of liberty.
So be it and a rousing whoopty-doo.
Very cunning, and extremely clever. His 'stuff' could be written in the bowels of some dark building somewhere....
He NEVER sets out his OWN position...except for castigating others with his 'religion'..a perverted form of the original.
By not doing so, he can weasel about at will...
He insists upon documentation of every thought that disagrees with 'obey government'....while denying it stridently..
He puts me in mind clearly of the caricature of the typical shrink, with the patient on the couch, murmuring bland nothings, urging the patient to question himself, to cure himself...
In this case...you the patient are being urged to cure yourself of Liberty, Freedom and the American Ideal..something I believe Barzillia has no comprehension of.
Why would he? He has probably never known it..
How many here can say they have?
We live in a reality distinct and seperate from the one layed out by the constitution and have for atleast two generations, more like four generations.
Great post Werwolf.
Why thank you sir, cant remember quite where I found it but it inspired me enough to copy it some time ago.
Is a government operating outside its proscribed limitations also anarchy?
It is obvious that the Federal Government has been ignoring the limits placed upon it by the Constitution for decades. Legislation is passed and signed, and programs are implemented that have no basis in what once was the law of the land.
If lawlessness = anarchy, we are living it today.
Very good point Don.
No, there is also moral anarchy, as noted in #4.
Anarachy, however, may also refer to the literal definition as "without a head (leader), as in a strong individualist approach.
Like when "every man did what was right in his own eyes."
I think my earlier post is sufficient.
No matter what clothes you think you can dress your desires in, Freemind.
Wrong! The "head" or so called "leader" in THIS nation is the US Constitution...NOT any person, group of people, or the gov't.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Well, no, Freemind, of course not. I do not know where you got that notion.
But, rather, "Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's..."
There are higher laws.
There is another Head, whom all men should obey.
Absolutely.
And He does not take rebellion well, at all.
That is why anarchy is idolatry.
And individualists should take particular note of that.
All I care to take note of is your regular opposition to individualism, your roundabout advocacy of acceptance and obedience to predatory government and your often long-winded and always convoluted defense of collectivism.
A clear picture has developed and what I see is as common as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean, regardless of your attempts to repackage it.
I couldn't agree more...
So simple to understand yet so powerful in and of itself and having the ability of both a sword and shield.
A sword to smite down our enemies and traitors (which are one in the same) of the Republic being granted us by the Constitution and a shield to protect us as true valiant patriots from those that would destroy our Republic and its Constitution.
How can that not be so important enough that any true patriot would die to protect it if necessary and not compromise it away for any reason.
Wrong! The "head" or so called "leader" in THIS nation is the US Constitution...NOT any person, group of people, or the gov't.
Most definitely.
Those we argue with are the very people demanding new laws about weapons;
They are the people voting for open borders, endless wars, more bail-outs;
They are the strong groundswell of support for corrupted leaders and ever more invasions of the privacy of individuals and less accountability for elected officials.
Those'leaders' could not last a DAY in office without corrupted PEOPLE supporting them...not one day.
Don't make the mistake of believing that you are arguing with decent, honest men. You simply are not...for an honest man cannot hold the views of many of the opponents of the Constitution and BOR we witness every day on these forums.
We have entirely too much 'tolerance' here in America...we tolerate people holding socialist/fascist views , elect them to office...and that is going to be OUR death...in the end.
Those people should be shunned by decent folks everywhere...they should not be able to walk into a business and buy a thing, or show their face in public. Naturally...we have a government FORCING you to treat them like they were actually human beings..instead of the garbage they are.
ThAT should be...and WAS..the freedom we had for 150 years in this country
Kind of amusing, but not really nice.
And you join Highball and lt in adding nothing to a discussion but personal abuse.
What has gotten into you ?
Once again, barzillia, where is the personal abuse or insult in my post. Please point to it, since you have made multiple references to it over the following post... quote:All I care to take note of is your regular opposition to individualism, your roundabout advocacy of acceptance and obedience to predatory government and your often long-winded and always convoluted defense of collectivism.
A clear picture has developed and what I see is as common as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean, regardless of your attempts to repackage it.
Blunt, direct, accurate assessment.
No insult. No personal abuse.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Is a government operating outside its proscribed limitations also anarchy?
It is obvious that the Federal Government has been ignoring the limits placed upon it by the Constitution for decades. Legislation is passed and signed, and programs are implemented that have no basis in what once was the law of the land.
If lawlessness = anarchy, we are living it today.
No, that can be tyranny, despotism, or oligarchy, to name a few.
Anarchy is not imposed upon others, it is an individual decision.
Many claim anarchy means no law, or lawlessness, but that is really not at the heart of the matter.
It does imply, however, no common social law, but that does not prevent the existence of multiple people with their own individual laws.
Just look around.
There are a number of definitions of the word, Barzillia.
The most common is:
'A state of society without government or law.'
A government that operates outside its charter is a state of society without law, and thus meets this definition. This definition is useful when those that promote Constitutional Governance are accused of striving for anarchy.
It is instructive to note that those that promote Constitutional Governance do not even come close to the individual definition you seem to hang your hat upon, as we do promote a common social law. It is beyond reasonable to suggest that we promote any form of anarchy, as we willingly yield to government that control which is expressly given in the Constitution.
It is that extra-Constitutional governance being imposed, a government operating outside of the law, (an anarchal government, as it were) to which we object.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
No, there is also moral anarchy, as noted in #4.
Anarachy, however, may also refer to the literal definition as "without a head (leader), as in a strong individualist approach.
Like when "every man did what was right in his own eyes."
I think my earlier post is sufficient.
No matter what clothes you think you can dress your desires in, Freemind.
Wrong! The "head" or so called "leader" in THIS nation is the US Constitution...NOT any person, group of people, or the gov't.
Wrong, the head of any man, anywhere, is either God, or his own mind, or the Adversary.
In any case, the last two options are essentially the same.
Every man has a master.
Even rugged individualists.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills man...but then again, you wouldn't be able to keep dancing around the issues if you actually stayed on topic and addressed them, would you.