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
Inconsistency in the gun rights commununity
Wehrwolf
Member Posts: 38 ✭✭
I have noticed that most people in the gun rights community here in the U.S. (to which I belong) seem to favor popular government, whereby the people vote for their leaders. I think that this is an extremely flawed form of government, something that even Plato knew nearly 24 centuries ago. Let's face it, humans, on average, are shallow, stupid, easily manipulated, herd-like, fickle, with short attention spans. When the masses are allowed to have a say in how a country is run, the elites who control the media will then manipulate them accoridng to their own selfish ulterior motives.
So you love your right to own guns. Well so do I. I also think that it's a bit bizarre that so many of you are enamored with a form of government that has led to this mess, this literal nightmare that we are in (in more ways that one). The fact that control was given to the masses ~ 220 years ago is why we're in this mess. We're going to end up no better than a left wing totalitarian country. I think that the only answer is a fascist dictatorship, where the head of state is limited in what he can and cannot do (one of them being taking our guns). The idea of a powerful head of state who is still limited in what he can do domestically is in fact an old idea (think Magna Charta).
I believe in meritocracy, where the best and brightest lead. With representative democracy (which is certain light years away from meritocracy), the slickest, most dishonest lead.
P.S. I am baffled at how so many gun rights folks are "proud Americans", with the anti-gun, tyrannical government that we have. The thugs who butchered people at Ruby Ridge and Waco had U.S. flags somewhere on their apparrel, and the ones who were killed in self-defense were lauded as patriots who died for their country. Hating what the government does but being a "patriotic American" seems contradictory to me, and don't give me any B.S. about the current government and our form of govenrment being two different things, because the former is a direct result of the latter (as well as the failings of human nature).
So you love your right to own guns. Well so do I. I also think that it's a bit bizarre that so many of you are enamored with a form of government that has led to this mess, this literal nightmare that we are in (in more ways that one). The fact that control was given to the masses ~ 220 years ago is why we're in this mess. We're going to end up no better than a left wing totalitarian country. I think that the only answer is a fascist dictatorship, where the head of state is limited in what he can and cannot do (one of them being taking our guns). The idea of a powerful head of state who is still limited in what he can do domestically is in fact an old idea (think Magna Charta).
I believe in meritocracy, where the best and brightest lead. With representative democracy (which is certain light years away from meritocracy), the slickest, most dishonest lead.
P.S. I am baffled at how so many gun rights folks are "proud Americans", with the anti-gun, tyrannical government that we have. The thugs who butchered people at Ruby Ridge and Waco had U.S. flags somewhere on their apparrel, and the ones who were killed in self-defense were lauded as patriots who died for their country. Hating what the government does but being a "patriotic American" seems contradictory to me, and don't give me any B.S. about the current government and our form of govenrment being two different things, because the former is a direct result of the latter (as well as the failings of human nature).
Comments
Liberty is a lamb armed to the teeth contesting the vote.
The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in a democracy, you vote now, and take orders later. In a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting to decide what to eat.
Liberty is a lamb armed to the teeth contesting the vote.
The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in a democracy, you vote now, and take orders later. In a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.
But in a meritocratic, enlightened dictatorship, you are not subject to tyrrany from individuals like those who participate in the "Million Mom March".
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting to decide what to eat.
Liberty is a lamb armed to the teeth contesting the vote.
The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in a democracy, you vote now, and take orders later. In a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.
But in a meritocratic, enlightened dictatorship, you are not subject to tyrrany from individuals like those who participate in the "Million Mom March".
I know some VERY smart people. IQ's above 138 and even some that would be genius level.
SMART and common sense is not necessarly related. Some smart folks are so damn dumb they can't figure out how to change a tire. Some Dumb people, IQ's in the 90's can fix just about any broken machine in mere minutes.
Thinking smart people have the correct answers and are good leaders is folly. Smart people with poor interpersonal skills are normally called mass murderers. Folks with the gift of leadership can change the world.
Something tells me that if smart was good leadership for others the nations college campuses would not be a bastion of communiust rabble left wing pinkos.
A dictatorship......Your kidding, right?
Kidding about what exactly???
A dictatorship......Your kidding, right?
If you're asking if I favor a wise, benevolent dictator, limited in his domestic powers by a Magna Charta-like document, over the current system of mob rule by the room temperature IQ masses, then yes, I do prefer the former.
In case you haven't noticed, gun rights under the system that you favor have been steadily eroded for decades.
In contrast, contrary to ignorant myths, the Third Reich actually expanded gun rights, relative to its predecessor, the Weimar Republic.
SMART and common sense is not necessarly related. Some smart folks are so damn dumb they can't figure out how to change a tire. Some Dumb people, IQ's in the 90's can fix just about any broken machine in mere minutes.
This sounds like anti-elitism, which, as we all know, is intimately associated with Communism.
On a side note, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. have some really eerie similarities:
1) Emphasis on loyalty to some racially heterogenous, abstract concept state (wherein the "nation" is defined as people living in a given territory, who are not related, who are all expected to profess the same ideology---as opposed to a blood-based, or ethno state). This goes against human nature.
2) The U.S. has followed the U.S.S.R.'s lead in feminism (with the first woman in space being a Soviet citizen, women fighting in the Soviet army in WWII decades before women were put into quasi-combat roles in the U.S. army).
3) The five-pointed star exists on both empire's flags.
4) Concentration of the means of production in the hands of a few (in the U.S., a small number of competing corporations who essentially collude in strongly influencing the government, and in the U.S.S.R., it was concentrated in the hands of the government itself).
5) Worldwide ideological crusades ("We must spread freedom and democracy to the oppressed of the world" vs. "We must break the chains of the workers of the world"). Anyone who does not see the striking similarities between so-called Neoconservatism and Communism, has cognitive problems.
quote:Thinking smart people have the correct answers and are good leaders is folly.
I beg to differ. The best leaders in history did have high IQs.
quote:Smart people with poor interpersonal skills are normally called mass murderers.
Oh B.S. "Normally", eh? This sounds like the kind of slanderous drivel that those of lesser intelligence hurl at intelligent people who mind their own business, in order to make themselves feel better ("well, I got my GED, but damn it, I have street smarts and people smarts!"). Did it ever occur to you that it is usually the mediocre and the stupid who start crap with the intelligent? Do you realize how badly hardworking, intelligent people are stigmatized in mainstream U.S. culture?
If a highly intelligent person is happy with 3-4 high quality friends, rather than having 20 drinking buddies over every Sunday to watch a football game, then who are you to label such "smart people with poor interpersonal skills" as mass murderers when they have done nothing wrong, and have merely been selective in their choice of friends?
quote:Something tells me that if smart was good leadership for others the nations college campuses would not be a bastion of communiust rabble left wing pinkos.
There are plenty of intellectual Fascists. Do not paint college educated folks with a broad brush. I went to college for seven years, and I am as far from a "communiust rabble left wing pinko" as a man can get.
Ideologically, "right-wing" Neocon American flag wavers are much closer to the Communists than they are to the Fascists (see above). Many Neocons are actually ex-hippies. I have a bit more respect for Paleocons, because they have enough brains to favor Isolationism (and they don't compromise with Liberals the way the Neocons do), but I am still turned off by their pro-American B.S.
In contrast, contrary to ignorant myths, the Third Reich actually expanded gun rights, relative to its predecessor, the Weimar Republic.
Ohhhhh....I get it now. Is it slow over on Stormfront today?
Back on point: You seem to advocate giving up "Tyranny of Many" for "Tyranny of One".....How exactly does this help things?
Ad hominems are the last resort of those who have lost an argument. Liberals and Neocons, both inhabitants of the wasteland known as the American mainstream political spectrum, use them often.
quote:Back on point: You seem to advocate giving up "Tyranny of Many" for "Tyranny of One".....How exactly does this help things?
1) Because a meritocratic dictator is chosen not only according to intelligence, but also according to character, and other relevant traits.
2) Because, in a worst-case scenario where a bad apple slips through the cracks, and becomes head of state (though, as technology and science progress, this becomes a more remote possibility---I think that the most capable leader in a given population could be selected by scientific means some day), there is a Magna Charta-like document that guarantees the citizenry's fundamental rights (one of them being unrestricted possession of arms).
Dictator.....
1. A person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2. An absolute ruler.
3. A tyrant; a despot.
*********
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Given time, there would be no such thing as a "benevolent" dictator. He would not allow himself to be limited in his domestic powers by any Magna Charta-like document.
Not saying what we have now is working, neither is totalitarianism my choice, but your proposal is just as inconceivable.
But then, you're here, just to stir things up. [;)]
Carry on.
Definition,
Dictator.....
1. A person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2. An absolute ruler.
3. A tyrant; a despot.
*********
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Given time, there would be no such thing as a "benevolent" dictator. He would not allow himself to be limited in his domestic powers by any Magna Charta-like document.
It has happened before with hereditary dictators (e.g., kings). Why could it not happen with non-hereditary, meritocratic dictators?
quote:Not saying what we have now is working, neither is totalitarianism my choice, but your proposal is just as inconceivable.
But then, you're here, just to stir things up. [;)]
Carry on.
Are you accusing me of insincerity?
That gov't which governs least governs best!!!
2) Because, in a worst-case scenario where a bad apple slips through the cracks, and becomes head of state (though, as technology and science progress, this becomes a more remote possibility---I think that the most capable leader in a given population could be selected by scientific means some day), there is a Magna Charta-like document that guarantees the citizenry's fundamental rights (one of them being unrestricted possession of arms).
Yeah, nothing like the power of words on a piece of paper to keep a ruler in check....
If you read the History Of Brazil (1889-1930) the similarity is stunning.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, (Clinton?).
Military leadership divided, taking a major and long term role in the legislative processes. Disenfranchised voters. Strengthened military and the state police. In the larger states, the state police were soon turned into small armies.
A concentration of landownership with the elite. (Practically every elected official has a land deal scandal under their belt.)
A retarded/outsourced domestic industrial base.
With the great masses of immigrants, came the communist and anarchist ideas, internal troubles (such as corruption), social problems. Eventually the Indigenous full-blooded Indians constituted less than 1% of the population.
History of Brazil (1889-1930) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And to check the nationalizing tendencies of the army, this oligarchic republic and its state components strengthened the navy and the state police. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil_(1889-1930) - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
And this is the "Rest Of The Story":
Politics of Brazil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Brazil
Actually, I think we were fighting the wrong commies during the Cold War. We should have been killing them here on our own soil.
Of course cavemen would just kill each other in order to mate with a desirable woman, hunters would chase game for hundreds of miles and tow their tribe with them, superstition was relied upon to explain the unknown. Such is the simple way of primitive and child-like thinkers.
Two hundred and thirty years ago (like enlightened men did two millenia before them) a group of men decided to change things. They decided that tradition was no longer an excuse for persecusion, and heredity was no longer a qualification for leadership. But even today we find ourselves still fighting the same battle that they did against the same types of simple thinkers.