Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 2491

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383

    Pro Or Anti Gun Control ?

    Think before you post
    Daniel Bell is waiting for you

  2. #2
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    lol..

    I'm extremely against gun control. It is ultimately each man and womens responsibility to protect his life, liberty and property. The government has no right to remove this right.

    Gun laws only remove guns from the law abiding citizens, criminals still have them, why don't we?

    And to support Axiom in a way, maybe even more dangerous is perhaps the fact that the government is armed, the citizens are not. This is a dangerous situation IMHO.
    All Blacks for the Rugby World Cup 2011!

    http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/DanielBell
    Challenge me to a game at Chess.com!

    http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/
    LibertariaNZ

    http://www.theadvocates.org/
    Advocates for Self-Government - Libertarian Education


  3. #3
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,204

    Wink Should this question not be a poll?

    Should this question not be a poll?

    Your possible answers:
    Yes: this question should not be a poll... or taking a contrary view...
    No: this question should not be a poll.
    "On my chess set, all the pawns are Hamburglers" ~ Homer Simpson.

  4. #4
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by ElevatorEscapee
    Should this question not be a poll?

    Your possible answers:
    Yes: this question should not be a poll... or taking a contrary view...
    No: this question should not be a poll.
    or
    should this question be obfuscated by introducing the question of a poll
    or no this question should not be obfuscated by introducing the question of a poll
    Last edited by Axiom; 19-10-2007 at 11:12 PM.

  5. #5
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,204
    Should this thread be hijacked by people correcting the spelling of the word "obfuscated", or should people who attempt such a pedantic spelling correction have their obfuscation rights confiscated?

    (In answer to everyone else's query, I don't know what my above sentence is supposed to mean either...)
    "On my chess set, all the pawns are Hamburglers" ~ Homer Simpson.

  6. #6
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,928
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    It is ultimately each man and womens responsibility to protect his life, liberty and property.
    Prove it.

    I'm serious. I want you to show me from what empirical fact or uncontentious logical assumption the conclusion above follows, through a series of formally logically valid statements.

    Alternatively, if you're simply voicing a personal advocative view, then that's fine, but why should I take any more notice of it than of that of someone who believes it is ultimately each "man and womens"[sic] responsibility to own 97 chihauhas?

    Or alternatively I could agree with you, and say that my idea of protecting my life, liberty and property is to agree with the government that I shall pay them taxes if they do a reasonable job of keeping nutters who might otherwise shoot me unarmed.

    Gun laws only remove guns from the law abiding citizens, criminals still have them, why don't we?
    I'm surprised slogans as weak as this still surface in public debate, but I suppose they are catchy.

    In removing guns from the "law abiding citizens", gun control laws remove them from those "law abiding citizens" who may at any moment, through insanity (of which there have been many examples) cease to be law abiding. I am also far from convinced that their ownership among criminals is the same in places where guns are controlled as in places where they are not.

    Of course, the whole "if you outlaw guns" line is a complete furphy anyway because governments do not do so. Gun control laws typically restrict the types of guns that can be used and the experience necessary to use them. They do not mean that a person who would like to have a gun in their house will not be able to do so.

    In the 1990s, slightly before gun control in this country was improved in the wake of Port Arthur, I lived with a gun owner who had serious mental problems (so serious that he was expelled from the university for threatening to kill the Vice-Chancellor). Even though he never made me feel personally threatened, I would not recommend this experience to anyone and I would like all those who are completely opposed to gun control to state whether they have lived in such circumstances, and to state how they would deal with living with an unbalanced person who owned guns if they had to do so.

    And to support Axiom in a way,
    Which is rarely advisable on issues of this type.

    maybe even more dangerous is perhaps the fact that the government is armed, the citizens are not. This is a dangerous situation IMHO.
    Only because of its potential for spawning bad Hollywood movies. The government isn't out to strip you all of your weapons and herd you into camps; it is not in their advantage whatever people writing for those silly websites Axiom reads may think otherwise.

  7. #7
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Only because of its potential for spawning bad Hollywood movies. The government isn't out to strip you all of your weapons and herd you into camps; it is not in their advantage whatever people writing for those silly websites Axiom reads may think otherwise.
    This statement is born of total naivety.
    why?
    1.Because it completely ignores history, ie. that tyranny is the NORM NOT the exception.
    2.Because it falsely assumes governments have our best interests at heart.refer to point 1. and a basic understanding of reality.
    3.Because, no doubt such naivety was exhibited by 1930s germans and pre stalinist Russians.refer to point 1.
    4.Because it assumes that it is not in the best interests of govts to exert such control, even tyrannical camp herding type control. refer point 1. and 3.
    5.Because the so called silly websites i read emphasise the truth of point 1.
    6.Because all tyrants agree gun control works !

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom
    This statement is born of total naivety.
    why?
    1.Because it completely ignores history, ie. that tyranny is the NORM NOT the exception.
    History prior to the last 50-100 years does not have advanced western democracies with global instant media coverage in it so history is irrelevant. You cannot judge modern politics by the politics of the 16th century.

    2.Because it falsely assumes governments have our best interests at heart.refer to point 1. and a basic understanding of reality.
    Wrong. I specifically and explicitly assumed the government had its own best interests at heart as the basis for my comments.

    3.Because, no doubt such naivety was exhibited by 1930s germans and pre stalinist Russians.refer to point 1.
    Both societies in severe economic and logistic hardship. Not comparable.

    4.Because it assumes that it is not in the best interests of govts to exert such control, even tyrannical camp herding type control. refer point 1. and 3.
    I don't assume that, I argue it. What point would it serve?

    5.Because the so called silly websites i read emphasise the truth of point 1.
    This only further shows that they are silly!

    6.Because all tyrants agree gun control works !
    Whoopy-do. All tyrants might agree that brushing teeth reduces the risk of tooth decay, would that make that statement false?

    Ax, we're talking politics here. Calling me totally naive in any field related to politics is, well, totally naive; I have qualifications, what are yours? Excuse me while I have a little chuckle.

    Oh, and please do answer my question about how you would deal with living with a dangerously insane gun nut.

  9. #9
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    History prior to the last 50-100 years does not have advanced western democracies with global instant media coverage in it so history is irrelevant. You cannot judge modern politics by the politics of the 16th century.
    How is history irrelevant when discussing the dynamics and implications of an armed or unarmed populace?
    Regardless lets just look at the last 50-100yrs, the same principles apply.
    Tyranny is still the norm, and history teaches us that to be unarmed in light of this is very dangerous


    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Wrong. I specifically and explicitly assumed the government had its own best interests at heart as the basis for my comments.
    they sure do have their best interests at heart when they disarm us, and if you think its for our benefit, then sorry, that is IMO naive.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Both societies in severe economic and logistic hardship. Not comparable.
    please explain why not comparable.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I don't assume that, I argue it. What point would it serve?
    ask a stalin,hitler ceaucescu or pol pot. Its about quashing dissent and asserting control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    This only further shows that they are silly!
    oh silly like this one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745761/posts with all those silly people quoted there ?



    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Whoopy-do. All tyrants might agree that brushing teeth reduces the risk of tooth decay, would that make that statement false?
    huh?? no, all tyrants agree gun control works for THEM,as well as brushing their teeth !

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Ax, we're talking politics here. Calling me totally naive in any field related to politics is, well, totally naive; I have qualifications, what are yours? Excuse me while I have a little chuckle.
    i call you naive because of your position on this.
    there are many naive persons with many qualifications, to thnk otherwise is naive !

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Oh, and please do answer my question about how you would deal with living with a dangerously insane gun nut.
    depends how insane/dangerous he is he may have brought himself to the attention of the authorities on these grounds alone.....assuming he hasn't and
    i had absolutely no choice but to live with such a person, i would arm myself and learn how to shoot and tell him of such!
    Last edited by Axiom; 20-10-2007 at 03:17 AM.

  10. #10
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Prove it.

    I'm serious. I want you to show me from what empirical fact or uncontentious logical assumption the conclusion above follows, through a series of formally logically valid statements.
    If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?

    It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Alternatively, if you're simply voicing a personal advocative view, then that's fine, but why should I take any more notice of it than of that of someone who believes it is ultimately each "man and womens"[sic] responsibility to own 97 chihauhas?
    Because believing that you are responsible for your own life makes sense. Believing you are responsible for owning 97 dogs does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Or alternatively I could agree with you, and say that my idea of protecting my life, liberty and property is to agree with the government that I shall pay them taxes if they do a reasonable job of keeping nutters who might otherwise shoot me unarmed.
    If you believe that your taxes are protecting those things then that is fine. However, even though I pay taxes, yet I have still had property stolen. I have been harassed and have been defenseless.. The government didn't do a single thing. Police take time to turn up, in certain situations you need to be able to defend yourself immediately.. Yes, 'arms' can mean many things, but often a gun would be the most efficient. Most people I talk to in the states who have needed to use their gun only needed to make it visible to deter a criminal who otherwise would have (at least attempted) robbed them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I'm surprised slogans as weak as this still surface in public debate, but I suppose they are catchy.

    In removing guns from the "law abiding citizens", gun control laws remove them from those "law abiding citizens" who may at any moment, through insanity (of which there have been many examples) cease to be law abiding. I am also far from convinced that their ownership among criminals is the same in places where guns are controlled as in places where they are not.

    Of course, the whole "if you outlaw guns" line is a complete furphy anyway because governments do not do so. Gun control laws typically restrict the types of guns that can be used and the experience necessary to use them. They do not mean that a person who would like to have a gun in their house will not be able to do so.

    In the 1990s, slightly before gun control in this country was improved in the wake of Port Arthur, I lived with a gun owner who had serious mental problems (so serious that he was expelled from the university for threatening to kill the Vice-Chancellor). Even though he never made me feel personally threatened, I would not recommend this experience to anyone and I would like all those who are completely opposed to gun control to state whether they have lived in such circumstances, and to state how they would deal with living with an unbalanced person who owned guns if they had to do so.
    I understand guns are not outlawed, but you cannot own a gun for your personal protection. Guns need to be stored in a way which would make it hard to use it for defense.

    I wouldn't live with someone who I thought would be irresponsible with their weapon. The problem here however is the person not their choice of weapon.
    All Blacks for the Rugby World Cup 2011!

    http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/DanielBell
    Challenge me to a game at Chess.com!

    http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/
    LibertariaNZ

    http://www.theadvocates.org/
    Advocates for Self-Government - Libertarian Education


  11. #11
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,574
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?

    It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.
    Very few people are ever in that situation. People who break into houses are generally there to remove property, not take lives. Saying that the citizens should self arm is fallacious as guns in the hand of the so-called law abiding citizens present a greater danger to themselves and the general public than do armed burglars.

    I don't believe a citizen has the right to endanger the life of someone who is threatening to steal their property. Guns for self protection against others wanting to take your life is not a realistic scenario, therefore there is no need for the general public to own firearms.

    I have no problem with people using firearms for "peaceful" purposes such as sport shooting. But those trying to justify firearm ownership by self-defense are dangerously deluded and present a greater danger to public safety then the criminal straw-bogeyman they are putting forward.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  12. #12
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,928
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?
    Obviously, anyone who you wish to assist in that defence has the power to do so. So paying taxes to support a government that restricts gun use hence reducing the risk of the armed intruder getting in in the first place is one way. Not having such government control but having a gun under your bed is another. Neither is necessarily superior.

    It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life.
    If that is the case and state control of guns turns out to be the best way to reduce the risks of such life-threatening situations claiming your life, then your argument becomes an argument for state control of guns.

    In a trivial sense what you say about "responsibility" is true - there are many ways you can act to further your own protection and if you take none of them then there are risks involved that you may not be able to stop. But this doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to protect yourself to the max and to be armed at all times. Life would be very tedious if minimising risk in that manner was the paramount goal of all activities.

    The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.
    Are you saying that as a statement about the law or as a statement about morals? Because if it's a statement about the law, you're incorrect, at least in my state where there is compensation available for victims of violent crime.

    Because believing that you are responsible for your own life makes sense. Believing you are responsible for owning 97 dogs does not.
    Given the choice between owning 97 dogs and having to permanently carry a gun and live in fear of being shot by nutters or obsessives in a nation with no gun control, I would find owning 97 dogs far more sensible, even if they were all chihauhas. And I don't even like dogs much, my avatar notwithstanding!

    I should add that I once had an obsessive pet stalker who would physically attack me (never doing any real harm) every time he saw me, unless there were witnesses who weren't his mates. This individual had drug problems that meant he could not control his propensity to attack me, except where he knew he would get caught. If he had had ready access to guns there is a substantial chance I would be dead by now. That my having a gun as well would have created a high chance that he would be dead instead isn't really much consolation.

    If you believe that your taxes are protecting those things then that is fine. However, even though I pay taxes, yet I have still had property stolen. I have been harassed and have been defenseless.. The government didn't do a single thing. Police take time to turn up, in certain situations you need to be able to defend yourself immediately..
    All this is true but in none of these situations were you shot dead. I too have been harassed and been defenseless (as described above) but rather than wishing I had had a gun to ward off the attacker, I am instead glad he did not have a gun with which to kill me.

    Yes, 'arms' can mean many things, but often a gun would be the most efficient. Most people I talk to in the states who have needed to use their gun only needed to make it visible to deter a criminal who otherwise would have (at least attempted) robbed them.
    That may be true, yet home invasion situations where the defender holds a gun may be more likely to end in the death of the defender, simply because most home invaders actually don't want to kill, but will do so to prevent the defender from killing them.

    I understand guns are not outlawed, but you cannot own a gun for your personal protection. Guns need to be stored in a way which would make it hard to use it for defense.
    My flatmate was required to keep his guns in a secure locked container, but so what? Secured locked containers can be unlocked if needed. I believe this is still the legal situation - if you keep a firearm in secure locked storage you can have it in the home. Who is going to check if it is in that storage all the time or not?

    I wouldn't live with someone who I thought would be irresponsible with their weapon. The problem here however is the person not their choice of weapon.
    I had very little choice in the matter for financial reasons. I was living in a student shared housing scheme which the individual moved into. I could not afford to move out. Of course, I could have decided to get work and quit university so that I could move out (assuming I could find any) but no-one should have to go to such lengths to get away from a potential nutter.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 20-10-2007 at 12:07 PM.

  13. #13
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    928
    The whole problem is that the intruder needs a better weapon than what the home owner has

    1. No weapon - Use knife
    2. Has Knife - Use gun
    3. Has gun - Use better gun
    etc.

    They found that when stores started defending themselves with bats, robbers started using guns to overcome this, instead of knives. Your just asking to be attacked by a more deadly weapon by defending yourself with a weapon.

    Having guns in the populace will mean that people will break in with a gun instead of a knife;/bat, making the situation way worse.

  14. #14
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Obviously, anyone who you wish to assist in that defence has the power to do so. So paying taxes to support a government that restricts gun use hence reducing the risk of the armed intruder getting in in the first place is one way. Not having such government control but having a gun under your bed is another. Neither is necessarily superior.
    Statistically, between 1995 and 2001 break and enters rose at a steady rate, and since then they've dropped at a fast rate. Gun laws have had no impact on your risk at having your home invaded. However, statistically, violent crime has continued to rise (even before gun control). If you actually look at the specific armed robbery statistics they are decreasing until 1995 then shoot right up after 1996.. Unarmed robbery doesn't start to drop until 2001. There seems to be an overall decrease in crime in 2001, anyone know what happened in 2001 some of these decreases are huge!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    If that is the case and state control of guns turns out to be the best way to reduce the risks of such life-threatening situations claiming your life, then your argument becomes an argument for state control of guns.
    I can't find anything that shows gun control reduces the chance of life threatening situations.

    I definitely do not feel safe checking out the yard if there's a strange noise or something without some kind of weapon (knife, bat, anything..) I might just be a wuss but it's the truth, in this area people will attack you with used syringes and all sorts of junk. My girlfriend definitely does not feel safe while I'm at work at night and people are being idiots outside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    In a trivial sense what you say about "responsibility" is true - there are many ways you can act to further your own protection and if you take none of them then there are risks involved that you may not be able to stop. But this doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to protect yourself to the max and to be armed at all times. Life would be very tedious if minimising risk in that manner was the paramount goal of all activities.
    We all accept a little bit of risk in order to live our lives. We use the road even though there is a risk that someone might t-bone you and possibly kill you.. It's not like I want to walk around with a protective bubble that ensures I can not be negatively effected in any way by anything. Owning a weapon for personal protection is just an easy means of self defense. I would still lock my house up at night etc, even if I had a gun in my home, because I don't WANT to shoot anyone, and my hope would be that just letting an intruder see the weapon would be enough to deter them (which has been the case with a couple yanks I used to speak with on another forum).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Are you saying that as a statement about the law or as a statement about morals? Because if it's a statement about the law, you're incorrect, at least in my state where there is compensation available for victims of violent crime.
    Apparently there is a victims of crime compensation program in NSW however it does not cover property nor any injury that does not receive a medical bill higher than $7,500. I actually spoke to a friend who recieved a pretty bad beating about 6 months ago by a group of guys who must have been bored, and asked if he made a claim but he couldn't due to the threshold.

    So really, you can't sue the government for failing to protect you. It shouldn't matter if you are injured or not, if you pay your taxes so the government will keep you safe, then they should do that. I pay taxes (and would even contribute to a voluntary system) that support the police and military to assist in my self defense, but I do so knowing that I am solely responsible for my own life. The police are only useful for apprehending criminals after they have committed a crime, most of the time they do not stop a crime from taking place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Given the choice between owning 97 dogs and having to permanently carry a gun and live in fear of being shot by nutters or obsessives in a nation with no gun control, I would find owning 97 dogs far more sensible, even if they were all chihauhas. And I don't even like dogs much, my avatar notwithstanding!
    I just think you place too much emphasis on this idea that all these nutters would own guns.. To some of my friends when I talk about this stuff they think I'm some nut job that is just aching to shoot someone but I really am not. I do understand your concern with some people owning guns, of course I have this concern too, and I do not see why even without gun control you could not seek assistance from the police if someone is threatening the safety of another individual with their firearm -- abusing their rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I should add that I once had an obsessive pet stalker who would physically attack me (never doing any real harm) every time he saw me, unless there were witnesses who weren't his mates. This individual had drug problems that meant he could not control his propensity to attack me, except where he knew he would get caught. If he had had ready access to guns there is a substantial chance I would be dead by now. That my having a gun as well would have created a high chance that he would be dead instead isn't really much consolation.
    You're assuming that he would have 1) wanted to own a gun, and 2) wanted you dead. You say that he never did any real harm.. A man can do alot of harm with his hands (or a knife).. if he wanted you dead, I'm sure you'd know about it. Regardless, you should have contacted the police.. You don't have to put up with aggression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    All this is true but in none of these situations were you shot dead. I too have been harassed and been defenseless (as described above) but rather than wishing I had had a gun to ward off the attacker, I am instead glad he did not have a gun with which to kill me.
    With my point above, if someone wants you dead that bad you'd know about it. My aggressors did not want me dead, they just wanted me to feel inferior to them, or, they wanted my property. Neither of which I am prepared to accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    That may be true, yet home invasion situations where the defender holds a gun may be more likely to end in the death of the defender, simply because most home invaders actually don't want to kill, but will do so to prevent the defender from killing them.
    I wouldn't pull a gun on someone and start yelling that I am going to kill them, I'd make sure they understand if they simply leave I would not hurt them. People I have talked to who have pulled weapons on an intruder say that they ALWAYS have complied and just left, of course there would be times that someone is prepared to fight it out, but someone willing to attack someone armed with a gun is someone I don't think would kindly leave if you asked (without a gun). If you run at an intruder with a gun or a knife then of course they will attempt to defend themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    My flatmate was required to keep his guns in a secure locked container, but so what? Secured locked containers can be unlocked if needed. I believe this is still the legal situation - if you keep a firearm in secure locked storage you can have it in the home. Who is going to check if it is in that storage all the time or not?
    The point is the law says I cannot own a gun for self defense. It's quite explicit about that. I know that I could buy a gun if I want and just tell the registrar that I am a hunter or a target shooter.. And keep the gun under my bed and not tell anyone, the point is I'd be a criminal for doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I had very little choice in the matter for financial reasons. I was living in a student shared housing scheme which the individual moved into. I could not afford to move out. Of course, I could have decided to get work and quit university so that I could move out (assuming I could find any) but no-one should have to go to such lengths to get away from a potential nutter.
    Everyone's a potential nutter

    Look I get your point with the whole nutter thing, however a nutter is a nutter, if they own guns or not. So long as he doesn't threaten the life of another individual he has not committed a crime.
    All Blacks for the Rugby World Cup 2011!

    http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/DanielBell
    Challenge me to a game at Chess.com!

    http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/
    LibertariaNZ

    http://www.theadvocates.org/
    Advocates for Self-Government - Libertarian Education


  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.
    That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true. If you start brandishing weapons when someone is trying to make off with your DVD player you are highly likely to make yourself a gun crime statistic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Melbourne Chess Club Calendar 2007
    By Bereaved in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-01-2007, 05:08 PM
  2. Melbourne Chess Club Calendar for 2006
    By Bereaved in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 30-07-2006, 10:08 PM
  3. Minimum time control for standard rating
    By Rincewind in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 24-04-2004, 10:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •