The political block — Bitter Crank

Bloc.

Bloc, as in "porc chops". Vive le français.

That’s good to hear! : D My apologizes on the later response. I’ve been a bit busy the last few days. I’ve been fairing ok, albeit feeling a bit cold with this weather. >__>/ My family is doing very well! : )

I’m not sure if it’s a personality trait or not but I’ve had these feelings for a while now. Probably since I was a teenager. The recent events have just intensified those feelings, to the point where I feel as if just not caring at all would be the best course. I’ve tried this actually before, to little effect. Maybe practicing mindfulness would help me. Reading some more books? I don’t know. Haha

$3 dollars a pint???? O__O wow… (stares at my somewhat moldy blueberries, mumbles to self) haha Moments like this make you wonder why you would buy blueberries only to forget about them… I guess I wouldn’t feel as bad if they were only $3 though. : D I can’t believe they got it to that price and it came from Chile.

I have read 1984! Excellent book! I only brought up Brave New World because I think it was a more likely outcome for our world. I guess I would agree with Huxley that humans are more easily manipulated through preying on their pleasure circuits, then their fears. I’ll have to read those ones he wrote, along with the other suggestions you had! : D Thanks a bunch by the way! Always looking for new books to read! Also… On the kitchens in Paris… ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Hahaha Couldn’t really think of anything to say on that, except that humans are weird sometimes. Very strange indeed.

If you’ve ever heard about the video game series, Fallout, it is about a world where humanity never developed computing technology as it is now and instead used nuclear energy. They eventually run out of oil and China invades America for their reserves, triggering a nuclear war. In that series you play as a character living out the post nuclear fallout world in different parts of the Americas. I’ve been into that type of fiction (and hopefully it stays fiction : /) for a long time.

Quick question: In The Dispossessed. What type of anarchist model is used for the society? It is a form of anarcho-syndicalism/capitalism/communism or is it something else entirely? Thanks again! Look forward to your response and seeing you around these forums!

Good question. I was mainly hoping to avoid that type of world but if it were like that I would feel it would be best to have those guns against that government. I guess, “give me liberty, or give me death” type of thing. It would be better to have guns and be that world then to not in my honest opinion.

Yeah. That is probably the biggest point against it. Again, I feel like it would be better than nothing and the government might as well be shooting themselves in the foot. They will be hard pressed to try and maintain any form of civility while also claiming a higher ground. They would be actively killing members of their own state. The very people they need for the society to function properly. Killing is a lot less tolerable than just imprisoning then, at least in the eyes of the people. They would have to respond with violence because they people have a way to shoot at them. Without weapons of any sort they could basically squash any resistance without having to kill that many people. With guns, I would find that very difficult. They would have to switch to a fully totalitarian regime, which would not bode well for them or the people. I don’t know what they would say if they knew about current technology. They might agree with me or you, I’m not really sure. Maybe they would arm the citizens even more? I don’t know honestly.

Very good point, although I didn’t say that it was the exclusive reason. I meant it was the primary reason I would accept in reference to guns vs lives. In so far as I thought protecting the citizens from a future regime might possibly be worth the lives lost. I wouldn’t say about hunting or just collecting guns, as I don’t believe those are even slightly worth considering in regard to the shootings. Even still, you make a great point in context of what I know about that time period and the writers of those documents. Thanks for bringing that up, I honestly hadn’t considered it as a reason. I’ve seen similar fears to those that the southerners had, in Korea namely ( right around the time of the second king of Joseon, King Taejong). The generals of the region were hesitant about giving up their local militias, but eventually were forced into it, centralizing the military to strengthen the Monarchy. It’s a common theme by those in power to destroy competitors, in this case other militia. Like I said to Bitter Crank above… Apologizes on the late response. xD

Yeah. It's strange. People just have those built in biases or contradictions. What can you do? : / (shrugs)

This is all based on the idea that we even have a democracy in the first place. We used to have a representative democracy and now we have representative oligarchy. Any system based on representation will most likely lead to an oligarchy. That is the danger. The slow corruption and striping of values to the point where people become indifferent or accustomed to their lack of rights, mainly through the degradation of the standard of living, education and the concentration of capital. The size of the federal government and the control it holds over our lives makes democratic institutions a formality at a certain point. Until of course those checks and balances become overwhelmed by the need to “represent the oligarchs”. The fact that we have a 2 party system is testimony to the fears the founding fathers had about pure democracy, the fact that we don’t have a % based electoral distribution is also another reason to be skeptical about this supposed “democracy”. My worries stem from the fact that we are in the second form government you are talking about, the slow but steady manipulation of consent through acceptance, and that we are about to lose the only source of power we might have. The fact that humans are starting to forget where we came from is exactly their power. Humans have always held arms, not because they don’t want to talk and hold diplomacy but because it helps assure equal talking grounds. There is no better way to stop people from cheating you then to have a gun pointing at their back. If the population doesn’t have their guns they don’t really have much guarantee of anything and are at the whims of a corruptible checks and balances system and a corruptible leadership. The brutality and desperation of human need for power does not disappear just because we want it to or because “we agreed to it” implicitly via a social contract. It would be nice if that were the case, but like I said earlier, all of hopes of diplomacy and “talking it out” are held together by the fear of mutual understanding of violence by both sides, if anyone side tries to pull something. Unfortunately, the government has gotten way too big and powerful on the military front to beat at this point, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some ability to force their hand in the end. Diplomacy will always be first and should be the way we try and fix our issues, but I see it as an insurance policy (albeit a weak one). I agree that they do get more credit than they deserve but they still put together one of the best documents in human history. Based on humans had acted throughout history it’s really remarkable that anyone would go so far to try and form a secular state. I’m sorry if it went on and I repeated myself. I’m feeling a bit tired. Take care.

As a youth, banning guns outright seemed like such an obvious solution to violent shootings, such as those at Columbine. Leftist propaganda films, such as those by Michael Moore, only entrenched my beliefs more.

While I don't personally own guns of any sort, I've since self-taught myself enough about history to see the validity of the second amendment. As a result, I'm often surprised by how often those who say they understand the second amendment don't really know it beyond the phrase "the right to bear arms".

Arguments about AR15s being a fun pastime or a concealed handgun being needed for self defense at a dance club leave me questioning whether the correct debate is being had.

Anyways, years ago I wrote up a theoretical solution that I thought might stay true to the constitution, while tackling gun violence. It would never be adopted though, as everyone seems to hate the idea.

Briefly, the idea works like this. Virtually all non-discriminatory weapons would be banned from ownership, such as nuclear weapons, but virtually all other weapons could be owned. This includes fully-automatic, missiles, and even tanks. The catch is these weapons would need to be stored at organized militia depots, regulated armories, and police stations. The government would have very limited control over these facilities: generally just enough access to monitor.

Use or transport of such weapons however would need permits, which would be obtained on-demand by those already registered in an intelligent government database. Generally, you'd still need to demonstrate a need to obtain a free permit (hunting/occupation/gunrange), and even then the permit would be constrained by location, duration, and weapon. Ammunition would be tied to the permit as well, so generally unused ammunition would need to be returned when the permit expires. Machine learning is pretty powerful these days, so I'd trust it to red flag those in a database with odd permit requests.

While there would be some permits that would allow for extended at-home carry, mainly rifles out in country or for police officers, the vast number of permits would have limitations that exclude at-home defense. As a result, the second aspect of this all would be to allow for a second class of permit issuance that is for smart weapons. These are weapons that either lockup/alarm if taken off of the premise they are restricted to; also they may alarm if used or tampered with, and perhaps come fitted with a non-removable 10-round magazines, etc.

Such weapons would need to be developed, but if there were no other allowable options for home defense, they perhaps could see adoption. Government incentives would likely be needed to ensure the R&D into these weapons is seen as a low-risk investment by gun manufactures. Permits for such weapons could require the weapons be given maintenance yearly, to ensure they were not tampered with and to ensure they are still functional.

Anyways, that's the general idea; I wrote several pages more with added details. Ultimately, I believe if the goal is to given the population the means to defend itself from an evil government, it needs more than AR15's; the government doesn't just use muskets anymore -- it has drones and tanks. Smart weapons for personal defense I feel fills in a gap that made this idea a bit weak previously, but I also know that people really hate smart guns. Overall then, I doubt this idea would ever stick.