|
There's been some lag, but I just wanted to comment after reading the majority of this thread (heck, I signed on here because I found a forum thread about an occasional difficulty I have with yawning): this thread has been dormant a while, so I figured I'd take the liberty to throw in my 2 cents:
Anytime there is political volatility, I worry. I worry that an armed revolution would take place in this country. Not because I think any armed revolution is bad in any circumstance (such as a theoretical internal armed revolution against NAZI Germany), but I worry about the outcome. I'm not a socialst by any means (I'm practically an anarco-capitalist), but a conservative armed revolution does worry me, primarily because of what would follow. Any time that the left side of a (pseudo) two-party system is in power and things go awry, the tendancy of the masses is to elect the extreme polar opposite. As much as I dislike the Obama administration, the Bush administration was worse in other ways. Both are seeking to reduce their citizens freedom, only in different ways. And what's really sick about it, is that the 4 or 8 year cycle fools the majority into crying out for more of their freedoms being taken away (either through survelance and police state tactics ala "security" and anti "terrorism" or through increased property confiscation and redistribution through socialist programs). The people who aren't pleased with the present administration (such as myself) may end up with a right-wing dicatator-tyrant for the next term. Yikes!
It was said earlier in the thread that the outrage at referring to recent policies as "socialistic" in nature is unjustified. I would agree. But not because I don't think they're socialistic, but because they're no more socialistic than most other policies pursued in the last 100 years or more, regardless of the right or left-wing status of the administration. It's nothing new at all.
My whole issue that some don't seem to understand about gun ownership is that each person owns him or herself. And therefore each person has a right not to be harmed by others. When one is not harming others, and yet is still aggressed upon by anyone (whether or not they wear a badge or government uniform), then an injustice has been done. If I am not harming another person, no one, regardless of the uniform they wear or the "authority" they claim to possess, has a right to do any harm towards me. When man A has lethal firepower and man B doesn't, it is morally wrong for man A to use his lethal firepower to threaten man B to do anything against his will. It makes no difference if man A is a woodsman at Ruby Ridge or if man A has a fancy badge and government uniform. Unless and until weapons are no longer in existence, the only way to prevent those with weapons from aggressing upon you is to be able to pose a significant counter threat. Can a counterthreat be posed without the posession of weapons? I'm not sure how.
James
Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner. --Oliver North
|