Questions from HelgeS, part 2.

LawDog · Jul 27, 2000

To continue my lecture from here: http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=28153

It is not the duty of the Federal Government to provide me with money, a house, holidays, or food. I can handle those on my own, thank you very bloody much.

The duty of the Federal Government is to handle relations between nations, provide for the defense of the United States, handle interstate commerce and to allow me life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--as long as those last three do not conflict with anyone elses' life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness.

The Federal Government is not the babysitter of fully-grown people. It is not our father, nor our guardian. It is our servant.

If a fully-grown, competent adult cannot feed himself, nor clothe himself nor find a place to live, the Federal Government does not have the duty to do those things for him.

People survived, and even prospered, from the birth of our Nation, right up until the 1930's, without the help of the Federal Government. Let me repeat that: the Federal Government did not provide for anyone until 70 years ago, and we did just fine.

I see no reason why this should be any different now.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 27, 2000).]

Ledbetter · Jul 27, 2000

Helge S.: "Aha, the constitution again. But that's just a piece of paper with writing on it, right?"

Farmer: "La, la, la."
Pig: "Oink, oink, oink."

ds1973 · Jul 27, 2000

HelgeS,

I'm a grad student working in a laboratory with chemicals that can kill you at 2 parts per million. The threshold limit value is 0.05 parts per million. I'm at more danger in my lab than I am each time I handle a firearm properly. The only training I have is from the student before me and my professor. You have to be careful, think and use common sense. These chemicals could kill more people in a major accident than my handguns and rifle can. The University has regular OSHA safety courses, but again, it's mostly common sense (excluding stupid OSHA rules). Similarly, as gun owners, we learn from people who came before us. Friends, relatives, gun store clerks, range officers, etc..

As for defending oneself, the government can be just as dangerous, if not more, than a criminal (see Stalins Russia and Hitlers Germany). You need to be able to defend against tyranny, which is a criminal government violating your human rights.

Finally, with concern to licensing maybe the secret to stopping AIDS would be to outlaw sex without a license. There's no right to sex gauranteed anywhere in the constitution. You could argue that sex to reproduce is a natural right, but sex is not necessarily done purely for reproduction. You'd need to get an STD test before being granted that license. You'd only be able to have sex with a person who has a sex license and that person would have to be listed on your license. You'd have to have annual STD testing to renew your license. When it comes to stopping AIDS, we're told the key is education, not legislation. Similarly, the key to stopping accidents with firearms is more education.

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.

Keiller TN · Jul 27, 2000

LawDog, I think too few people agree with your definition of government anymore. The politicians and media have convenced so many that the government is our way of getting from others what they would not willingly give of their own accord.

------------------
Alexander Solzhenitzyn:
"Freedom is given to the human conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility."

John/az2 · Jul 27, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
Use of guns:

- sport
- hunting
- self defence

I can see those 3. I can't see:

- protection against the government

The government is a small group of unarmed old men. Who can they attack??? The only way for them to attack anybody would be if the military sides with them. Yet, all the military people here have vigerously assured me that the military would never side with the government, in fact cannot side with the government.
Please explain how the government can attack you in a way that you could prevent by having guns... thanks[/quote]

Oh, boy. HelgeS we've got a LONNNNNNGGGGGGG way to go to get you up to speed.

You are conveniently excluding the unconstitutional organizations of the government.<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>FBI
<LI>BATF
<LI>FEMA
<LI>IRS
<LI>EPA
<LI>NSA
<LI>any other 3-4 letter combination you care to think of...

</UL>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2nd:
To all the folks who do the following derivation:
Premise: There is the 2nd
Conclusion: We are allowed to have guns

shouldn't it rather be:
Premise: There is a need for guns
Conclusion: So we write down that need in the 2nd and thus allow everybody to have a gun.
[/quote]

Almost. The Bill of Rights enumerates unaliable human rights. It does not grant them.

Even without the 2nd Amendment, the right to self-defense would still exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is not like the 2nd was handed down to earth by some divine being. It was written by folks based on the need for guns at that time.[/quote]

GONG! No. Try, "based on the right of the people.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Consequently, it should be completely easy to revise it should that need cease to exist. That is what all these "rules" are subject to. In every field the rules are changed the very moment the need is different.[/quote]

GONG! No, again. This is amounts to recess games in school, where the rules change because the biggest, strongest, and/or most influential says that they change.

As Lawdog has said, there are provisions to change or amend the Constitution by the will of the people.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Even the bible has undergone countless revisions to adapt it to the need.[/quote]

Well, then. That would make the Bible a false book, wouldn't it? Truth does not change. If it did, it would not be truth, would it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't think that it is any good to derive a conclusion from a piece of paper. Derive the conclusion from a need, then make the piece of paper to proclaim the need.[/quote]

We don't. We derive conclusions based on truth written on paper. Either way, it's a "Which came first, the paper or the conclusion?" argument and is pointless.

BTW, this "paper" thing comes up quite a bit. Have you seen a doctor about your "paper" fixation, or are you just low on fiber?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Function of the Government:

Well, first of all, the government is elected by the people in a democratic way. Thus, if the majority of the people wants it to get rid of a law that "oppresses" them too much, they can easily do that. Why is it that so many people here talk of the government as if it is some kind of powerful institution?[/quote]

Because it is. (another truth.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is merely the representation of the people. Everything the government does is what the people want, what the MAJORITY of the people wants.[/quote]

No. What they deserve through inaction (laziness and apathy), irresponsibility, and immorality.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have done a fair share of politics and I can tell you one thing: A politician is ENTIRELY at the whim of the people. You don't make a single step without considering the desires of the people.[/quote]

To which end?<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>What it is the people want?
<LI>What action will reassure my re-election?
</UL>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But that aside, yes, I believe that the government has a primary function to serve the people. The ENTIRE people. That is, it has to attempt to grant every citizen the means to lead a good life. And such means are:
- money
- residence
- food
- holidays
- human rights
- safety
- education

without having to:
- work excessively much if not desired
- violating any of the human rights
[/quote]
HOW does a government "grant" these things without taking them from the people first?

Government's job is to secure the rights of the people and to enforce contracts. Not dole out "priviledges" or welfare. They do not "grant" us holidays, food, residence, money, human rights (government grants no rights), or education.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If a country manages that then its government is doing a very good job in my opinion.
If achieving that requires certain restrictions, well, as long as these restrictions make sure that the real needs are met, they are just fine. Case in hand:
In germany if you have a company and one of your employees gets pregnant, then she has the right to go home and stay with the kid for 2 years, paid half by the company and half by the government (ie, by society). I think in the US you get 2-6 weeks, depending on the place you work at. Yes, that restricts the company, some companies don't like it, they tend to leave to third world labour places, but most stay. And the result is that every mother can spend the most important years with her child, severely reducing the risk of producing a "screwed up child". There are countless such restrictions that benefit the people more than restricting them.[/quote]

So, it's the RIGHT of a mother to go home for 2 years to raise her child? It sounds like a "priviledge" granted by the government and paid for by the people (both the company and the government) by robbing them of their hard-earned money.

How about the father doing his duty to support the family so the wife can stay home and do her job? OR do they BOTH work in order to pay for someone else taking their 2 years off?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The result of all these restrictions is a society where those basic needs are met, and more important, the result is a solid middle class, vastly bigger then the lower or upper class.[/quote]

This is "wealth redistribution". Or government sanctioned theft through taxes.

Tell me what happens when you tell the government that you have chosen NOT to pay any more taxes, and that you will do just fine without their "benifits".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>On the other hand, there is the US where social control is taken from the government and handed over to the industry (don't tell me that you have absolute freedom here. You are just controlled by the industry instead of the government.. the only difference is that you can't democratically influence the industry).[/quote]

Wrong. The goverment controls industry, therefore controls the people.

Either way it's still government control.

In a truly free capitalistic society it's "supply and demand". We vote with our dollars and our commerce.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And the result is the absolute lack of a middle class. The system has a very good scientific, financial and social upper class and then a huge lower class (I guess the lower class calls itself "middle class" here, but compared to other societies it isn't. Most members of the european "lower class" receive more money, better education, more holidays, etc than the US "middle class".
Is that a bad system? Well, that depends where you are. When I came here I was lucky to be surrounded by the upper class, people that provided and enormous intellectual challenge. I am the first to admit that due to the lack of equalising force from the government the upper class group here is able to do things that wouldn't be possible for them to do in europe (ie: make much more money since they don't have to pay for the poor). That part is really neat.[/quote]

Ooops. Who said that the rich don't have to pay for the poor? I know very wealthy people that pay 3-5 times in taxes the amount that I gross in a year.

Taxes effect everyone, rich or poor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>On the other hand, if you are in the lower class... well... down there it sucks. Back form my time in the US I have a bunch of friends who live in the lower class. They work like crazy, two jobs most of the time, doing 60-80 hours a week.[/quote]

Four words to explain this:<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>Inflation,
<LI>taxation,
<LI>interest, and
<LI>insurance.
</UL>
All government regulated programs.

If these people are working 2 jobs and 60-80 hours a week, they are obviously NOT lazy.

Could it be how they were trained? See below.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>They have no social benefits whatsoever, a ridiculous 2 weeks of holidays per year, they spend 12 years in school getting the equivalent education of 10 years in a european education system (when I came here they gave me the first 2 years of the bachelor degree right away simply because I had done all the stuff in highschool already way back when). And for all that effort they get less money then a welfare receiver in europe. Hey ho... way to go.[/quote]

Again we are talking about PUBLIC, government regulated, tax funded schools.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Obviously, this results in the overall industrial power of europe being smaller than the one in the US (they generate about the same, but give vastly different amounts back to the people). And that does of course generate the rather common: "Hah, but we are richer!!" attitude... Well... I have said it before... I would rather have my government provide the best for every single member of society than have my people forced to work like slaves with no benefits just to get less money than anybody who doesn't work at all in the other place. I mean, if you are one of the millions that lives like a slave (enslaved by the industry), what does it help you that your country is rich? But this is a very common pattern. The worse the situation is for the individual, the more do they focus on the power of the system (or social group). All throughout human history this has been the case, we as humans seem to be very easily pleased with stuff like that.
[/quote]

That is a fundmental difference between those that want freedom and those that want only security. Only the lazy and irresposible want the security that the government has to offer.

True freedom takes effort.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 27, 2000).]

Johnny Got His Gun.1 · Jul 27, 2000

HelgeS,

Do you really need the government to tell you what to do? Do you WANT the state to tell you what to do? If you can think for yourself and believe others have that ability as well, then liscensing/mandatory training is not an issue. It's a right to be exercised under the liberty, free will, and responsibility of the individual.

Perhaps you should be trained how to speak and write by the government. Do you have a liscense in keyboard operation? Maybe you need one. If you're a religious individual, perhaps you should have your right to pray and worship liscensed as well. Maybe, if you want to publically protest one day, you'd better let the government train you how to peaceably assemble yourself and others.

Thank you for keeping TFLers on their toes. Your rhetoric is a wonderful way for others to exercise their skills of debate.

Whatever,

Johnny Got His Gun.1

deanf · Jul 27, 2000

This has been a facinating peek into the mind of a socialist.

HelgeS, you asked about training. "Don't do anything with the gun that might tend to injure or kill an innocent." There, we're all trained. Class dismissed.

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz

[This message has been edited by deanf (edited July 27, 2000).]

Scott Evans · Jul 27, 2000

HelgeS and the rest of us acknowledge the right of self-defense.

That right extends to any scenario where by an aggressor would threaten us unlawfully with serious bodily harm or death.

By limiting the types of weapons available you limit the types of scenarios in which you can effectively defend yourself.

By limiting shotguns and rifles to the home only (as erroneously suggested in part one) removes the best tactical response available for certain scenarios. This would thereby remove the right of self-defense.

Now if I chose to use a pistol when a rifle would be better that is a matter of personal choice or preference and I bear the consequences of my own choices. If you make that choice for me then you’re out of line.

The tactical appropriateness of the rifle for self-defense can not be ignored.

------------------
“This is my rifle, there many like it but this one is mine …”

buzz_knox · Jul 27, 2000

Why are you all responding to this troll? He's just coming in to rouse up tempers and hopefully get people riled up enough to make threats, stupid remarks, etc., that he can cut and paste into an article showing "typical" reactions to "reasonable" suggestions.

LawDog · Jul 27, 2000

*sigh*

HelgeS is asking the same questions that are in the minds of a lot of our fence-sitting lurkers.

We're not trying to convert HelgeS--we're working on those who are caught in the middle and are lurking here. The ones that are too nervous to post because they don't want to get hammered by the locals.

At least, that's how I'm operating.

LawDog

HelgeS · Jul 27, 2000

Lets ignore the "social system" debate, since we all seem to have different views on the issue.

Back to the guns:

YES, I firmly believe that the vast majority of human beings are NOT capable of making "the right decisions all the time". Lets face it: We are a rather stupid race, with so many errors build in that is it a nightmare to watch. Take 10 random people from the street and ask them about the name of the current general secretary of the united nations and you will see what I mean.

With regards to guns this means that I truly believe that without training many many people are mentally and socially incapable using a gun "wisely". Just look at the "shoot to kill" thread. There we had about half the people postulating to execute a criminal after neutralizing him. Well... that is not a wise use of a gun. It violates the law, it violates the concept of ethics, it violates the concept of self defence, etc. And it is a VERY easy thing to decide. It is written right there in the criminal code of the US. Everybody can read it. Yet, still, half the people were mentally or socially incapable of following that very simple principle. Now, if even that very basic concept of "wise usage" is already missing, how should I assume that in more complicated issues those people are capable of making the "right" decision??? I can't, because people, ALL people, are full of imperfections. I know people, good people, friends of mine, who couldn't even read a manual for a gun, have no clue about the law and got their "how to use a gun" instructions from bad hollywood movies. I won't believe for 1 seconds that those people are, on their own, capable of using their guns wisely.

To the chemist:

Dude, you have a BSc in Chemistry. That's 4 years of training to handle chemicals! It is also 4 years of training to make "the right decision in the field of chemistry" and it is a training of your brain.
Remember first year university? They would send a TA to look over your shoulder when you use ACETONE!! Then slowly you get trained and eventually you are allowed to use all the bad stuff.

With guns this would mean that we take high school students, give them a water pistol for a year to train with, then a gas pistol to do some more training. And finally after 4 years of intensive study of ballistic, mechnics, medicine and law they "graduate" as "Bachelor in Gunning" and then they can use their guns...

cheers

Helge

Brady · Jul 27, 2000

John/az

That was an excellent rebuttal! Just wanted to say thanks.

Buzz_knox, I'm sure you're right that this is wasted on HelgeS, but I am impressed with the well-reasoned arguments and they give me ammunition for the 'HelgeS's I have to confront in my life.

------------------
Brady
(No relation to that $%#$ bill)

RickD · Jul 27, 2000

Sorry Helga, but that sounds like a scheme designed by someone who didn't want anyone having a gun, let alone kids. Guns are simple devices. No need for post-graduate work.

When I was in highschool back in the 70s it was common for my classmates to bring their rifles and shotguns to school during hunting season. This was in a community of 240,000 at the time, mixed race. Nobody blinked. I took my hunting bow to school to teach the girl's gym class in archery technique. If someone did that today they would be expelled.

"I'm a grad student working in a laboratory with chemicals that can kill you at 2 parts per million"

When I was going to Ohio State, my roomie had a fellow inorganic chem major buddy who worked with cyanide in dissolved in DMSO. Can you say "rubber suit"?

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788

416Rigby · Jul 27, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:

YES, I firmly believe that the vast majority of human beings are NOT capable of making "the right decisions all the time". Lets face it: We are a rather stupid race, with so many errors build in that is it a nightmare to watch. Take 10 random people from the street and ask them about the name of the current general secretary of the united nations and you will see what I mean.

[/quote]

Here's the typical elitist attitude of someone who:

1) Judges humanity (minus self) en masse from the height of his lofty armchair;

2) Thinks that intelligence is actually directly proportional to one's knowledge of the U.N. body;

3) Thinks that, for the good of all of us poor imbeciles, a deus-ex-machina-like chessmaster in charge of reingeneering society is an absolute necessity;

4) Contradicts himself by saying that humanity is stupid, but that Governments (made up by the most "human" of humans) are actually intrinsecally good and sage;

5) Thinks that individuals are worthless and expendable, but that Society is a goddess on whose altar we must all sacrifice ourselves;

6) Makes me thank God that I live in this Country, regardless of who runs it at the moment.

I'm unabashedly proud of not knowing who the U.N. general secretary is, and I don't give a hoot if it's my next-door neighbor either. I just know he's bad news whoever he is.

------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

Get some real news at www.worldnetdaily.com

Scott Evans · Jul 27, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:

YES, I firmly believe that the vast majority of human beings are NOT capable of making "the right decisions all the time". Lets face it: We are a rather stupid race[/quote]

HelgeS

Are your capabilities less, equal to, or superior to most?

How do you know?

LawDog · Jul 27, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>YES, I firmly believe that the vast majority of human beings are NOT capable of making "the right decisions all the time". Lets face it: We are a rather stupid race, with so many errors build in that is it a nightmare to watch. Take 10 random people from the street and ask them about the name of the current general secretary of the united nations and you will see what I mean.[/quote]

Umm, I fail to see how remembering the name of a politician in a foreign country has a thing to do with 'making the right decision'. The answer would be, at best, a rote response and has little or nothing to do with the mores and morals of the people you're asking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>With regards to guns this means that I truly believe that without training many many people are mentally and socially incapable using a gun "wisely".[/quote]

Define training. If by training you mean being taught moral issues, right from wrong, and so forth, you are right.

That sort of training is, however, best done by a persons family--not the Government.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Just look at the "shoot to kill" thread. There we had about half the people postulating to execute a criminal after neutralizing him.[/quote]

So, let me get this straight--you're using anonymous statements made in response to a controversial hypthetical situation to make a snap judgement about an entire class of people?

I would think that someone of the worldy experience that you seem to have had would have realized by now that what people say, and what they do are oft times two entirely different things. Especially when those things are said in anonymity.

LawDog

ds1973 · Jul 27, 2000

HelgeS,

First off, I am in Chemical Engineering, NOT Chemistry... Big difference in some cases.
As for the chemicals I use, my point was mainly that we use chemicals that are more dangerous than guns.

As to the training aspect, it doesn't take much training to learn how to use a gun.. In fact one half year course in high school on firearms would be wonderful. A course where they actually handle and fire a gun and learn proper range technique. Not a course where the teacher says "guns are evil and should be outlawed".

The point I'm making is that without government training, people who use firearms are still safe with guns because the knowledge is passed down from parents or the friend who shows you how to use a gun. And most people who have never owned guns and are getting their first one, have the sense to take a course on gun safety and handling. Keep the government out of it.

Criminals most likely throw gun safety to the wind as they do with all the laws on the books.

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.

TBeck · Jul 27, 2000

The world fought a war to decide whether the elites had the right to deal with the "untermensch" as they saw fit. I see some people never learn. Who are you to decide that "the vast majority of citizens are NOT capable of making the correct decisions?" Well, heck, why not just put them into a camp and make those decisions for them? You know, decisions like when to shower...

Sir, you have to right to hold your opinions and express them. You do NOT have the right to arbitrarily strip others of their freedoms become you look upon them with sneering condescension.

Most of us here just want to be left alone to pursue our interests and lives as we see fit. We neither want nor need government "assistance" and the price it entails. You ask why Americans want to own guns. The answer is right there in the mirror.

Don Gwinn · Jul 27, 2000

Helges, you've brought up some interesting points but have still not told us what training you've personally had with firearms, from which you derived the experience and knowledge to tell all of us (6000 people in thousands of different locations in several different countries) what is "sufficient" for us to use to keep our families alive--i.e., that pistols are just fine for us.

BTW, although the shotgun is mainly my house gun, I have brought it in the car on long trips. As I said, handguns are barely adequate in terms of power and accuracy for self-defense, and you've already been told that several members here carry shotguns and rifles in their vehicles.

But you fail to grasp the central point. You cannot just twist my words around until you have a list of the things I don't personally have need to do at the moment and then ban all those things! The point is that I don't enjoy the privilege of keeping and bearing arms, I was born with the right to keep and bear arms. You seem to think we should stand by and let you destroy the rights of others as long as you don't infringe on the things that I personally like to do. So as long as you don't ban shotguns in the house (what I do,) I shouldn't care that you want to oppress people like Jedi Oomodo and Jeff OTMG on this forum, who choose to use submachine guns for recreational shooting and have never harmed anyone? That's disgusting.

HelgeS · Jul 27, 2000

The "people are stupid" issue:

That is just a fact and it sure includes me. We are biologically not fit for the challenges we face, not alone. The human being uses only a minute part of its brain power, we are largely governed by insticts and emotions. That makes us very subjective to bad decisions.

That's the biological background we all share.

The next step is the lack of education. Somebody who for example does not know principles of the united nation (or thinks of it as a "foreign government" for that matter) is not qualified to make any statements concerning the UN. He is allowed to make statements, but not qualified. Now, the vast majority of the population does not have the level of education required to make life and death decisions (such things require knowledge of the ethics of life, the law of the country, the principle of moral, etc). Add this to the biological problem and you already get a bad mix. Personally, I don't think that I am capable of making such decisions either. And I have a degree in Philosophy... Yet, I am certain that I lack a lot of knowledge in the "law" part of the issue.

The third problem is something we all share too: Irrational behavior patterns. Even if you take an intelligent person with all the knowledge required, as soon as the first bullet flies adrenalin takes over (for some folks testosteron takes over too...) and common sense is switched off. A very good training can overcome that. Untrained people seldom overcome it.

We are biologically, intellectually and emotionally not made this time, we are set up for a stone age scenario.

Now, how do we overcome that problem? Everybody who has ever worked in a team can tell you: Take MANY imperfect people, have them exchange their opinions, let them learn from each other and then agree on the best decision they can find. And THAT is what we call a government. All people in the US gather, consider what decision they would make, vote somebody out of their middle who they regard as the best to represent their cause. Those elected people meet again, exchange their opinions again and decide which of the decisions is the best one. This is the most reliable way we have to prevent bad decisions. It doesn't make the single politician any smarter, but as a collective the action becomes smarter.

My gun training:

- NATO Infantry School Hammelburg
- Acedemi Militarisk Kiew
- Fliegerhorst Jever, Luftlandeschule der Bundeswehr

That's were I got the big part of the training. The time we spend with philosophy and ethic was sadly limited.

Questions from HelgeS, part 2.

Staff Emeritus

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Staff Alumnus

New member

Staff Emeritus

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

Staff Alumnus

Staff Emeritus

New member

New member

Staff Emeritus

New member