Gun ownership in Thailand

[johnh101 0]

Bloodyhell,

 

"Skytrooper,

 

This will be my last post to you on this subject.I'm sure the members here will sigh with relief.

 

Of all your posts on this forum about pattaya, 90% are of a political nature and nothing about Pattaya or the night life. I have fallen for this trap as well. It will not continue."

 

 

"You represented yourself for most your District court appearance, firing your court-appointed lawyer after she requested a psychiatric evaluation without your consent "

 

 

Ignore SpaceCadet, everyone else agrees with his Lawyer.

 

[Skytrooper 0]

Originally posted by johnh101:

Ignore SpaceCadet, everyone else agrees with his Lawyer.

 

"Everyone else" except the U.S. District Court judge that dismissed her, the South Dakota Bar Association who sanctioned her, and "everyone else" familiar with the facts. Not that facts have ever mattered to an amoral twit like yourself.

 

It's no mystery why you self-abasing, craven blokes are British "subjects" rather than citizens. I'm sure you'd eagerly agree to become an informant for the vile BATF and even sell out your mother to save your own worthless hide.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We are now involved in a war in this nation, a last-ditch struggle in which the other side contends only the king’s men are allowed to use force or the threat of force, and that any uppity peasant finally rendered so desperate as to use the same kind of armed force routinely employed by our oppressors must surely be a “lone madman†who “snapped for no reason.†— Vin Suprynowicz, The Ballad of Carl Drega (2002)

 

We find it perplexing that there are people who do not realize that a right may be neither granted nor withdrawn by the State. If the Bill of Rights were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist, since it was to defend that right that the Constitution was established. (See the Declaration of Independence.) Thus the state may destroy me, but it may not rescind my right to self-defense. This all seems pretty clear, but frequently I find people who do not understand it. — Jeff Cooper, LTC, USMC (Ret).

[Babepecker 0]

...

 

Originally posted by Babepecker:

RWB,

I shall add my "2 lipas worth" on "what is it that keeps the people free(?)":

1st and foremost, proper education and awareness of what is happening in the country they live in, directly coupled with the willingness to act in order to preserve their own and their fellow citizens' freedom.

 

IMO, firearms are definitely not essential, around Europe nowadays, should the above be the case.

 

Rather than work on increasing your English comprehension, I suggest you concentrate on history and improving your character and reasoning ability. Many of the German and other Jews who walked into Nazi extermination camps were highly educated. Ignoring the small detail of vicious hoodlums (as you invariably do), having a "willingness to act in order to preserve their own and their fellow citizens' freedom" is of scant value if you're unarmed and helpless in the face of armed oppressors.

 

I know you're not stupid, so I wish you'd cease ignoring reality solely to promote your statist political agenda (which is contemptuous of genuine human liberty). The Armenians had a "willingness to act," but that only benefited the small minority who disobeyed Turkish laws disarming them; "law abiding" Armenians are a footnote in history under "genocide victims."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...

Skytrooper,

I am sorry to notice that you are experiencing some form of, to put it mildly, "attention deficit", lately.

 

I have written:

"IMO, firearms are definitely not essential, around Europe nowadays, should the above be the case."

 

In your next post, you came up with the examples of Nazi Germany mass-killing the Jews and Turkish slaughter of Armenians?

 

Please, get well soon. -jump

 

Sincerely Yours (chum? )

 

 

[Babepecker 0]

...

 

VikingInOz,

 

Yes, really.

 

How many times do I have to repeat this for you? You profess to being Norwegian. You've admitted Babepecker is your "chum." The content of many of your posts reveal you to be a socialist. How, therefore, is it a lie to refer to you as Babepecker's Norwegian socialist chum? You've been particuarly dense lately. I surely wouldn't object to you calling me your American libertarian enemy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...

Skytrooper,

now, that is a lie.

 

Of course, you might check the meaning of the words "chum" and "to admit" in your M. Webster Dictionary and, subsequently, post a correction of your above quoted statement, along with some much needed apologies.

 

A link to check, should you need a reminder :

http://www.pattayatalk.com/forums/index.ph...30entry148919

 

 

 

[Babepecker 0]

VikingInOz,

 

If you're not Norwegian, you might want to change Oslo, Norway from the location you cite in your member profile, remove the Norwegian flag from your member ID, and delete your many past posts about Norway and Norwegians, especially your Viking ancestors. You called Babepecker your "chum" (which I'm sure you regret now) so don't try to obfuscate that admission.

 

"Merely a citizen of the USofA?" People risk their lives and many die all the time in trying to get here to live. I don't believe that to be the case with Norway.

 

I am most definitely your enemy. I am an enemy to every oath-breaking minion of tyranny on Earth and every statist such as yourself who spits on the concept of unalienable individual rights for the sake of a vile political agenda. Oh, yes. I am your enemy. I derive great comfort from that fact. At one time NVA regulars were also my enemy. The principal difference, however, is that they, unlike you, were worthy of a measure of respect. Not that this interfered with my killing them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...

 

I must admit it: the subject/member has definitely lost it:

 

enemies all around him, waiting to be killed...

 

 

Should I be worried?

 

 

I believe that an apology from you, Skytrooper, to anyone who might have read this post of yours, is due.

 

 

[johnh101 0]

Ground control......come in please ! !

 

The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead

The lights are on but there is nobody at home

Two sandwiches short of a picnic

A few beers short of a six-pack

A few bricks short of a full load.

A few clowns short of a circus.

A few French fries short of a Happy Meal.

A few planes short of an Air Force.

A few yards short of the hole.

A photographic memory, but the lens cover is glued on.

A victim of retroactive birth control.

As bright as a tulip bulb.

As quick as a corpse.

As sharp as a marble bowl of Jello, and twice as smart.

Attic's a little dusty.

Blew the hatch before the lock sealed.

Born a day late and like that ever since.

Both oars in the water, but on the same side of the boat.

Bright as Alaska in December.

Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

Doesn't have all his groceries in the same bag.

Easier to count the bricks left than the bricks missing.

Echoes between the ears.

Elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor.

Four cents short of a nickel.

Full throttle, dry tank.

Gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming.

Has a full six-pack but lacks the plastic thing to hold them together.

Has the attention span of an overripe grapefruit.

Has the brains of a very small fish

Has the mental agility of a soap dish.

His antenna doesn't pick up all the channels.

If he were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice a week.

Knitting with only one needle.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Pressure's up, but there's a slow leak somewhere.

Skating on the wrong side of the ice.

Skylight leaks a little.

Smoke doesn't make it to the top of his chimney.

Some drink from the fountain of knowledge, but he just gargled.

[johnh101 0]

Just found a little article in today's press......

 

"While half of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1776, were of Scottish descent, two were actually born in Scotland. John Witherspoon, who represented the state of New Jersey, was born in the parish of Gifford in East Lothian. A successful scholar, he became a fully ordained minister at 20. He came to America in 1768 to take up the role of the first President of New Jersey College, which was later to become Princeton, one of America's finest Universities. James Wilson, Pennsylvania, was born near St Andrews, in 1742. He sailed for the New World in 1765 and became a tutor with the College of Philadelphia. "

 

I presume most of the other 50% were of English / Irish descent.

[Skytrooper 0]

Originally posted by johnh101:

Just found a little article in today's press......

 

"While half of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1776, were of Scottish descent, two were actually born in Scotland. John Witherspoon, who represented the state of New Jersey, was born in the parish of Gifford in East Lothian. A successful scholar, he became a fully ordained minister at 20. He came to America in 1768 to take up the role of the first President of New Jersey College, which was later to become Princeton, one of America's finest Universities. James Wilson, Pennsylvania, was born near St Andrews, in 1742. He sailed for the New World in 1765 and became a tutor with the College of Philadelphia. "

 

I presume most of the other 50% were of English / Irish descent.

 

What a surprise! Now you know what every American third grader with an IQ above room temperature knows: that most of the USA's Founding Fathers, or their ancestors, emigrated from Great Britain. Next, you just have to learn that they successfully waged a revolution to avoid living under British tyranny and to enjoy unalienable individual rights; personal liberties your ilk has long since rejected and abandoned.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,†because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. — Thomas Jefferson

 

We shall tax and tax, spend and spend, and elect and elect. — Harry Hopkins, close advisor to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933

 

Liberty is defended in three stages: The ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. — Ambrose Bierce

[Guest impy mac]

Greetings to All. Long time reader, first time poster!

 

I've followed this thread with great interest & can see both sides of the arguments, even if some individuals appear to be a little over-excited when making their point.

 

As a British 'Subject', I would be interested in finding out just what liberties have been denied me, excluding of course any Laws that have been passed by a democratically elected Government (e.g. The possession of weapons which is a matter of personal preference for the individuals and Country concerned. Isn't the right to choose your own laws part of the process?). Also, does it matter what form the description of the individual takes as long as the liberties concerned, freedom of speech for example, remain available to all. Let's face it, being a 'citizen' didn't save you, Skytrooper, from years of incarceration without a fair trial did it? I suspect the inmates of the Guantanemo Bay concentration camp may have something to say about oppression, tyranny and unalienable individual rights in the 'Land of the Free' if anyone asks them. These are of course exceptions in what is a wonderful country, but they make a point; no country is perfect.

 

I was also interested to read of the Revolutionaries (ie British Colonists) who started the fight against the tyranny of their Mother country. (They were absolutely right to do so of course. They were fighting against a mad King and a Parliament of unrepresentative bullies, but that's not the point here). Were these fighters of oppression & tyranny the same people who started a Civil War killing thousands of their countrymen because half the population refused to give Negroes the rights of free individuals and freedom from slavery? The same people who went on to slaughter thousands of Native Americans & steal their lands? Please don't retort with a tirade against the British Empire. We know, we've apologised loads of times and it's not the point being discussed. Anyway, part of it lead to the founding of America so it wasn't all bad was it?

 

As I've already stated, the USA is a wonderful country with great people. It does act as the World's policeman but some one has to for God's sake and at least the intention is right even if they sometimes get it wrong. America has had it's dark moments in history, just like everyone else, but these are the exception, like most of the other countries represented on this board. None of us lives in a Utopia or probably ever will because Mankind will always spoil it.

 

Regards to All of you.

[Bazle 1,481]

As I've already stated, the USA is a wonderful country with great people. It does act as the world's policeman but someone has to for God's sake, and at least the intention is right - even if they sometimes get it wrong.

Sure!! But under GWB there's very little chance of them getting it right .

[Skytrooper 0]

Hello, impy mac, and welcome to the board.

 

I’ve already thoroughly discussed each of the questions you raised and, since I’m routinely castigated for repeating myself, I’m only going to give you brief replies. You may review my past posts in the Off Topic and General Chat forum for additional information.

 

1. The fact you asked what liberties you’re denied “excluding†those restricted or prohibited by “Laws that have been passed by a democratically elected Government) reveals that you (and, lamentably, most people) have a seriously-flawed fundamental notion as to what constitutes a “right†vs. a “privilege.†A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. Only individual human beings have rights and those rights are unalienable (that which cannot be taken away). Our rights come from our existence (what some folks refer to as “natural lawâ€); they were not created nor conferred by any government. A government may protect and preserve individual rights (which is the only legitimate function of any government) or it may usurp powers and infringe and/or abrogate rights. It cannot destroy the principle of individual liberties.

 

2. You, I, and every other human being have certain fundamental, unalienable, individual rights. Among these are the rights of free speech, possession of arms, self-preservation, assembly, etc. As a British subject, your government forbids you at the threat of death or imprisonment from possessing most types of firearms. To possess any firearm at all in the UK is a difficult process involving you begging permission from your political masters and agreeing to conditions that would offend the intellect of a cretin. If you use your “legally possessed†firearm to defend your life from attack by vicious criminals then you face a longer term of incarceration than your attackers.

 

3. Your belief in democracy is both naive and irrational. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were democratically elected. The worst tyrants to ever occupy the White House were democratically elected. Ancient Athens was destroyed by democracy. In the 2,389 pages that comprise The Debate on the Constitution, which contains all relevant published writings during the period of the debate and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the word “democracy†appears three times. In each instance, the Framers used it as a term of derision. They recognized the evils of majoritarian tyranny (or mob rule) and sought to save their progeny from having to live under it. Slavery is not inconsistent with democracy. If a majority of an electorate approves of slavery then it’s codified in law as a cursory review of history will reveal.

 

4. The War for Southern Independence was not merely a war over slavery. It was a war of secession over the principle of self-determination. The USA touts self-determination to other countries, but we don’t practice it here at home. In case it escaped your attention, some Northern states that sent troops invading the South also practiced slavery. When General John Fremont freed slaves as the military governor of Missouri, Lincoln immediately rescinded his order and relieved Fremont from command. While not one American in a hundred today is aware of it, despite constituting a minority of the population, Southerners had to pay the bulk of federal taxes due to tariffs which penalized them for the benefit of Northern manufacturers. If you have a problem with “tyranny and oppression†then you need to study objective history books about the odious Lincoln regime.

 

5. I happen to be a “Native American.†I was born in California. If you mean American Indians, I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it was OK for Indians to attack and massacre neighboring tribes, yet immoral for European immigrants to engage in less egregious behavior than was customary among aborigines. A few years spent living among American Indians (as I was forced to in federal gulags) would do wonders for your opinion of cultural diversity. As a result of my experiences, I curse George Armstrong Custer for not bringing his Gatling guns along with him to the Little Big Horn. If you read the history of the Lewis & Clark expedition, you’ll see that most Indian tribes they encountered promptly wanted them to join forces in exterminating the neighboring tribes.

 

6. What you refer to as a “mad King and a Parliament of unrepresentative bullies†happened to be the legally-constituted British government. There was substantially more genuine individual liberty in England under that “Parliament of unrepresentative bullies†than you have now under your Parliament of representative statists. No, being a “citizen†rather than a “subject†(which is actually a better term for most contemporary Americans) didn’t save me from prison. When you live in a country where the vast majority of the populace is ignorant, docile, and apathetic over the piecemeal loss of their freedom (as are you) then you live precariously and subject to the whims of the minions of tyranny and majoritarian caprice.

 

7. You wrote that American colonists were right to fight against tyranny. How do you propose to ever fight against tyranny when you've willingly allowed yourself to be disarmed and rendered harmless?

 

Originally posted by Bazle:

Sure!! But under GWB there's very little chance of them getting it right

For someone who piously claims to believe in democracy, you display precious little respect for the president a majority of American voters selected. But then you really have scant regard for democracy when it fails to implement your vile political agenda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man. — Thomas Jefferson

 

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the rights of the people at large... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. — Albert Gallatin, 7 October 1789

 

Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of non-objective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim—so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. — Ayn Rand

[Guest impy mac]

Hi Skytrooper & thanks for the welcome

 

I fully appreciate your point on rights Vs privliges, it's excellent in fact. However, who decides the list of what constitutes a 'right'? You? me? For example, you think of the right to possess arms as unalienable, yet this right was given to you by the US Government. Do I have the right to live in a society without fear of intimidation through violence or weapons? (Not the UK obviously, but as a principle). I suspect the UN has a charter similar to the one we're debating, do I have a right to disagree with it & live my life the way I want to or will a gun be forced into my hand? I think I have and luckily for me (unlucky for others) the Government agrees. I can assure you I will not be threatened with death should I change my mind as Capital punishment was abolished long ago.

 

Yes, I agree my faith in democracy is probably naive. So what? It does not weaken my resolve should it be needed. I happen to believe that in the majority of cases, for the majority of people it is the best of the political systems. The weak point is, as you correctly observe, the idiots at the top. Yes, Hitler was elected, he then removed the ability of the people to remove him from office under threat of murder if anyone disagreed. Not democracy. How long were the White House tyrants in power before they were voted out? (Or are they still there?) What system of Government did the newly established USA use to rule the country? When did Democracy American style subvert it's way into the system? The fact that elected Governments do remove rights is not great news, but they do it for a reason. People cannot be trusted. If the populus of the affected country disagree they can vote for someone who will change the law in their favour and restore their rights. Democracy is not perfect & never will be and if anyone has ideas for a better system let's hear it please. I don't know what it's like in the US but the thought of some individuals running around the UK exercising their 'rights' without the restraint of Law scares the hell out of me.

 

The American Indians may well have been an unsavoury bunch, always at each others throats, you have the advantage over me there. Please explain how slaughtering them, stealing their lands and denying them unalienable rights as human beings was correct. Doesn't everyone have these rights or are they only applied to selected individuals?

 

Slavery is wrong, pure and simple. If a people vote to introduce slavery they deny a section of the population the right to vote and therefore no longer live in a democracy. The point I was trying to make was that the 'fighters of oppression & tyranny' that won the Revolution were no angels and not adverse to a bit of it themselves. The British Government at the time of the Revolution may have been legally constituted but they were unrepresentative as they were not democratically elected. The majority of UK citizens (subjects?) at that time did not have the right to vote and yet this system was changed for the better even though the populus didn't revolt, arm themselves and kill the lot of them (As happened in France). If you're pissed off with the current US Government I dread to think what you'd be like if that system returned.

 

I hope I never live in a country where I have to fight the kind tyranny we're discussing, I hope we've moved beyond that. I'm lucky enough to live in a country, whilst far from perfect has nearly always managed to maintain free speech for its citizens without having to fight a politically motivated Army or the masses resorting to armed uprisings. If that is removed and we can't fight back then you will have been right, only time will tell. In the meantime I choose not to live in fear of someone pulling a gun on me just because they can.

 

To be honest, I find myself agreeing with a lot of your points. In an ideal world these would be great. Unfortunately that is not the case and the fact is some people just cannot be trusted. If the UK Government removes firearms in an attempt to make life safer for the majority of people, I think that's price worth paying as long as I maintain the right to vote for the law to be changed back should I wish it. You don't, that's your opinion. Where do we draw the line between trusting people to self-discipline & not abuse these rights (yeah, right) and protecting those who aren't strong enough to do it themselves. Disagreeing with you does not make me ignorant, docile or apathetic, I spent 16 years in the Military defending the right to do just that. I have treated you & your points of view with great respect, if you can't debate without resorting to name calling we should agree to disagree and call it quits.

 

Regards

[Skytrooper 0]

impy mac,

 

Your last post may place you in contention for the largest number of fallacies and misconceptions contained in a single post on this board. I’ll attempt to address these points without offending your delicate sensibilities:

 

1. Once again, governments do not create or confer rights. When the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights they enumerated certain individual rights then known to exist (before the USA was even a nation) and prohibited the newly-created central government from infringing or abrogating these liberties. They enacted the Ninth Amendment to allow for the fact it would be difficult or impossible to list all such rights. The Declaration of Independence recognized individual rights as unalienable. The RKBA existed in England long before the USA became a separate country.

 

2. You have the right of self-preservation. You do not have a “right to live in a society without fear of intimidation through violence or weapons.†In case it escaped your attention, there are plenty of armed criminals in the UK. The “hot†burglary rate in the UK and Australia has skyrocketed since you folks adopted your victim disarmament laws. By enacting laws which disarm only decent people, you’re insuring only criminals and government minions are armed. If rendering yourself unarmed and effectively helpless makes you “feel safer†(as is typical among many American women) then you’re both seriously mistaken and irrational. The violent career criminals I was confined with for nine years just love your anti-gun laws. Such absurd laws make their lives much safer. There’s nothing they fear (and hate) more than armed private citizens.

 

3. The fact the UK abolished capital punishment doesn’t mean its subjects who refuse to surrender their firearms will not be killed by armed police in the process of disarming people unwilling to be disarmed. It was resistance by Americans who refused to be disarmed on 19 April 1775 that started our War for Independence.

 

4. The “weak point†of democracy is not “the idiots at the top.†To the contrary, the weak point of democracy is the ignorance, stupidity, and avarice of much of the electorate (the “idiots at the bottom†if you like). It was Winston Churchill who said: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.†Not only were Adolf Hitler and other Nazi politicians elected, their popularity among most Germans increased after democracy was largely abolished. The worst tyrants in U.S. history were elected and then reelected again. FDR, the worst of the bunch, died during his fourth term as president.

 

5. Once again, the USA was never intended to be a democracy. The Framers created a constitutional republic with carefully limited government powers (those expressly delegated in Article I, Section 8) and written guarantees of individual liberty. The Framers established a system of federalism with powers spread between the states and a modest central government, no direct election of senators or the president, no income taxes, and safeguards for personal freedom. Unfortunately, thanks to duplicitous politicians and a dull-witted populace, the ink on the Bill of Rights was barely dry before members of Congress betrayed their sworn oaths by enacting the Sedition Act of 1798. Things have grown steadily worse ever since. I’ve discussed this at great length on this board (and been vilified for doing so).

 

6. Once again, there is nothing incompatible about democracy and slavery. In a democracy, if a majority of the electorate wants to enslave or steal the property of a minority there’s nothing to stop it. That’s the essence of a democracy; the majority gets whatever it wants. You have the bizarre notion that democracy equals freedom or individual rights. That’s not true by definition and is only a result of wishful thinking on your part. What’s a better system than democracy? While a seriously-flawed document, the U.S. Constitution after incorporating the Bill of Rights, offered the best system of government in the world. However, when politicians and judges betray the written limitations on government power and circumvent the written safeguards for liberty and a populace of dullards allows such usurpations to occur then the result is tyranny.

 

7. The only legitimate purpose of a government (and “Lawâ€) is to protect and preserve individual rights. Laws (at least "just" laws) do not “restrain†individual rights. Why does someone exercising free speech, assembly, religion, possession of arms, trial by jury, having an attorney, being safe from warrantless searches and seizures, etc. “scare the hell out of†you? Your eagerness to render yourself helpless against private or government orcs would, however, “scare the hell out of me.†Your assertion you “choose not to live in fear of someone pulling a gun†on you would be amusing if you didn’t take it seriously. If the prospect of an armed hoodlum bothers you, then please be aware that, by definition, criminals do not obey laws. A person inclined to rob or murder you is unlikely to adhere to an anti-gun law. The fact you’ve irrationally substituted “fear†with an illusion of safety will be of utterly no use to you if you’re ever confronted by a single armed thug or a group of unarmed, but still dangerous, malefactors. In that event, it will be interesting to see how your wishful thinking and enlightened views on victim disarmament preserve your life and/or property. Does not carrying a jack and spare tire in your vehicle eliminate your “fear†of ever getting a flat tire?

 

8. Most Americans during the early decades of the USA couldn’t vote. Unless they happened to be slaves, they still lived in the freest nation in history. Since the Nazis were lawfully elected to power (therefore “representative†of the people’s wishes) and their popularity increased after they effectively destroyed most personal freedom in Germany then I guess what they did was OK with you. Since you possess less genuine liberty than a Brit did a century ago, I wouldn’t say your “system was changed for the better.†When Britain first imposed anti-gun laws in 1919, your rulers didn’t do so “to make life safer for the majority of the people.†They enacted such laws out of fear common British peasants would follow the example of the Russian Revolution and start executing aristocrats (the chaps who wrote the laws). Politicians at the time admitted “fear of crime†was merely a pretext (just as their vile counterparts in the USA do).

 

9. I’m still waiting for you or some other European to explain why it was OK for American Indians to “slaughter†one another and steal their neighbors' lands yet immoral when European settlers and their descendants engaged in generally less egregious conduct. The largest number of deaths among American aborigines occurred as a consequence of diseases they had no immunity against. The concept of unalienable individual rights didn’t exist among Indians until they became, partially, assimilated as U.S. citizens, and is still not widely endorsed among them. They’ve got the notions of welfare and ignorance down pat, however. I’m not sure which group is more ignorant about the history of American Indians; Europeans or the Indians themselves. I’ve yet to encounter an American Indian aware that his ancestors arrived in North America from Asia or that horses didn’t exist here until Europeans brought such animals with them.

 

10. I haven’t “resorted to name calling†with you (BTW, if you can’t handle being called “names,†usually vulgar ones, you really joined the wrong board). When I wrote that most people (including yourself) are ignorant, docile, and apathetic about their eroding liberty, that’s merely a recognition of objective reality. It was not intended as an insult. When I tell a board member who claims to have two graduate degrees (yet can’t spell “graduate degrees") that his spelling skills are inferior to many third graders, that’s not an insult, but a statement of fact. Your idea of what “democracy†actually means is an example of typical ignorance. Democracy is nothing more than “rule of the majority†(Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition). History is replete with examples of majoritarian tyranny. The fact you served 16 years in the military has no connection with your present condition of docility and apathy regarding your government’s deprivation of Britons’ individual liberties. Military personnel are often clueless about freedom and are frequently used to suppress or eradicate individual liberty. Again, history is replete with such examples.

 

11. In the 1920s and 1930s, most “law-abiding†British subjects allowed themselves to be disarmed by a government that didn’t trust them with weapons. In 1940, you folks paid for advertisements in American magazines begging Yanks to send their privately-owned firearms to England to arm yourselves against an anticipated German invasion. After World War II, you not only failed to return these firearms to their original owners, you destroyed them so they’re no longer available if the Germans, Russians, or any other nation’s soldiers decide to pay you a visit. I realize you don’t think it can happen again. That’s what your countrymen in the 1920s and 1930s thought, too. You may choose to live as a defenseless serf armed only with wishful thinking and those privileges your rulers and a dull-witted majority allow you; I do not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. — Benjamin Franklin, 1759

 

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. — H. L. Mencken

 

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. — Ayn Rand

 

Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic. — Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

[Guest impy mac]

Well Gentleman

 

I tried, I really tried. I was polite, courteous and respectful but still the arrogance and scorn pour forth.

 

Skytrooper

 

You trumpet on about unalienable Human rights and freedom of speech, yet denigrate anyone who attempts to use these rights to argue against you for one ridiculous resaon: They don't share your point of view. The rights you eulogise are nothing more than the written opinions of a group of men. Apparently no-one else is allowed to have their own point of view. Your mind closed tight to others ideas years ago and yet you call others ignorant, the ultimate irony.

 

I won't reply to your last novel apart from one point:

 

You say the American Indians slaughtered each other. So what?

 

"You, I, and every other human being have certain fundamental, unalienable, individual rights. Among these are the rights of free speech, possession of arms, self-preservation, assembly, etc." YOUR WORDS.

 

They didn't believe in Human rights, your Nation did, it's a cornerstone of the Constitution, yet still they denied them these 'Human rights' & slaughtered them. You still haven't told us where their rights disappeared to.

 

"A few years spent living among American Indians (as I was forced to in federal gulags) would do wonders for your opinion of cultural diversity. As a result of my experiences, I curse George Armstrong Custer for not bringing his Gatling guns along with him to the Little Big Horn." YOUR WORDS.

 

Fine words indeed for someone who claims one of his hobbies to be 'resisting tyranny'. Herr Hitler would have been proud of you.

 

This thread ends for me now. One of my rules is not to converse with Tyrants who advocate mass murder & denying sections of society their unalienable Human rights. And that Sir, as everyone can plainly see, is most definately you.

[Skytrooper 0]

impy mac,

 

1. There’s nothing unusual about people (especially Brits) abandoning the field of civil discourse after insulting me when they’re unable to defend their positions with reason and facts. Gee, I was really hoping to read how you planned to defend yourself and/or your family from vicious thugs after you’ve willingly allowed yourself to be rendered unarmed and helpless. I guess your scheme is to call your assailants “arrogant†and turn your back on them.

 

2. I’ve never contended “no-one else is [not] allowed to have their own point of view.†If you enjoy accusing other people of writing things they never wrote (or even thought), you surely joined the right board. Your notion that all opinions are worthy of equal (or any) respect, however, is not only wrong, but downright bizarre. If you think I’m going to accord any respect to the opinions of Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, FDR, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, et al. or consider them as worthy as the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, Lysander Spooner, Ayn Rand, Vin Suprynowicz, Claire Wolfe, et al. then you’re seriously mistaken. Do I have “scorn†for people who’ve willingly sacrificed their personal freedom in exchange for an irrational illusion of safety? Yes, indeed. BTW, that makes me “rational,†not “arrogant.â€

 

3. How did the descendants of John Locke and William Blackstone become so confused and/or contemptuous of unalienable individual rights? My opinions which you callously disdain were formed by many years of study, reason, personal experience, and empirical evidence. Your opinions which you demand other people blindly “respect†were clearly formed on the basis of wishful thinking, inadequate research, and flawed reasoning.

 

4. Let’s see if I understand this right. In your opinion, it was perfectly OK for American Indians to “slaughter and steal†because they neither understood or believed in individual rights (or capitalism, science, civilization, etc.). However, it was immoral for European immigrants (most of whom also didn’t believe in individual rights, especially for persons with different skin pigmentation) to engage in less egregious conduct. The largest number of deaths of American Indians (mostly from disease and some from retaliation against Indian attacks) occurred before the USA even existed. After the USA was created, there was nothing unusual (then or now) about Americans (particularly politicians and judges) ignoring the Constitution. If not sharing your apparent high opinion of the vile, ignorant, amoral American Indian murderers, robbers, rapists, child molesters, etc. I was confined with makes me a “Tyrant†in your uninformed opinion then I can live with that. Contrary to a widespread misconception, being a libertarian doesn’t mean I don’t live in the real world. With one exception, the American Indians I’ve encountered (in and out of prison) make many black criminals seem like praiseworthy people by comparison.

 

5. I fought against tyranny in wars in six countries on two continents. I contributed thousands of dollars to political candidates and organizations in a futile effort to stem the rising tide of statism, usurpation, and tyranny in America. It was while "seeking a peaceful redress of grievances," writing published articles trying to warn my countrymen of their eroding personal liberty and the criminal misdeeds of federal agents, that directly led to my imprisonment. If it’s any comfort to you, great civil libertarians such as Janet Reno, Louis Freeh, Bill Clinton, et al. share your opinion about my “arrogant writings.†They stepped on me like a bug. BTW, contrary to your specious claims, I’ve never violated any person’s individual rights. A human being, whether a government goon or a private criminal, who initiates the use of force to deprive other people of their rights (life, liberty, property, etc.) have voluntarily sacrificed his or her right to life or liberty. If you cannot grasp this then perhaps that’s why Britons who defend themselves from assault are often punished more harshly than their attackers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. — Ayn Rand

 

... in a free society government uses force only in retaliation against those who violate individual rights, while under tyranny the state initiates the use of force against those who have violated the rights of no one. — R. W. Grant, The Incredible Bread Machine (1999)

 

Every drone who “just follows orders†has made a choice to do so. Every brute who enforces bad laws makes a choice to be brutal and a choice to enforce those laws. Every person who becomes a TV zombie rather than an active human being makes a choice to do so every time he turns on the TV set. Every bureaucrat who practices taxation without representation because it’s safe, easy and lucrative, chooses to perpetuate tyranny. Every bureaucrat who practices taxation without representation because he gets his jollies from control also makes a choice, for his own pleasure. Every lawyer who goes along with a corrupt system is personally responsible for her cooperation with evil. Every clerk in the county courthouse who willingly looks the other way while citizens are abused is, at best, a parasite and at worst, an abuser.

 

And yes, the police officer who staffs the roadblock or joins in the raid is as fully, personally, powerfully responsible for every moment of his participation, and every single harm that results. He actively gave his moral sanction to illegal and abusive activity and she should be held fully accountable. To claim that the individual cop or the individual bureau-cog isn’t responsible smacks of elitism. Do you mean to say there is one class of human beings incapable of responsibility of choice, and another, superior, class that makes all the world’s decisions and simply moves the lesser human beings around as pawns? Bullwah. I will no more excuse the cop at the roadblock that I will excuse the guard at the Nazi concentration camp. The BATF**k who kicks in your door because you’re a gun owner is as responsible as the storm trooper who came to haul away the Jews. The FBI sniper who shoots the mother is as morally reprehensible and legally responsible as the freelance sniper who gets up in a tower and blasts at strangers.

 

As long as we make it comfortable for the “little guys†by failing to hold them fully responsible for their actions, then the “big guys†will always be able to find people willing and eager to make the choice to be pawns. If we, en masse, as communities of free individuals, make it uncomfortable for so many “little guys†that they refuse to conduct the roadblocks, gon on the raids, make the drug busts, confiscate the guns or otherwise take away our freedom—our moral choices just might stymie the “big guys†plans. We might also—oh wonder of wonders—win some newly conscious moral human beings to our side. — Claire Wolfe, I Am Not A Number (1998)

[Babepecker 0]

impy mac,

 

1. There’s nothing unusual about people (especially Brits) abandoning the field of civil discourse after insulting me when they’re unable to defend their positions with reason and facts. Gee, I was really hoping to read how you planned to defend yourself and/or your family from vicious thugs after you’ve willingly allowed yourself to be rendered unarmed and helpless. I guess your scheme is to call your assailants “arrogant” and turn your back on them.

 

2. I’ve never contended “no-one else is [not] allowed to have their own point of view.” If you enjoy accusing other people of writing things they never wrote (or even thought), you surely joined the right board. Your notion that all opinions are worthy of equal (or any) respect, however, is not only wrong, but downright bizarre. If you think I’m going to accord any respect to the opinions of Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, FDR, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, et al. or consider them as worthy as the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, Lysander Spooner, Ayn Rand, Vin Suprynowicz, Claire Wolfe, et al. then you’re seriously mistaken. Do I have “scorn” for people who’ve willingly sacrificed their personal freedom in exchange for an irrational illusion of safety? Yes, indeed. BTW, that makes me “rational,” not “arrogant.”

 

3. How did the descendants of John Locke and William Blackstone become so confused and/or contemptuous of unalienable individual rights? My opinions which you callously disdain were formed by many years of study, reason, personal experience, and empirical evidence. Your opinions which you demand other people blindly “respect” were clearly formed on the basis of wishful thinking, inadequate research, and flawed reasoning.

 

4. Let’s see if I understand this right. In your opinion, it was perfectly OK for American Indians to “slaughter and steal” because they neither understood or believed in individual rights (or capitalism, science, civilization, etc.). However, it was immoral for European immigrants (most of whom also didn’t believe in individual rights, especially for persons with different skin pigmentation) to engage in less egregious conduct. The largest number of deaths of American Indians (mostly from disease and some from retaliation against Indian attacks) occurred before the USA even existed. After the USA was created, there was nothing unusual (then or now) about Americans (particularly politicians and judges) ignoring the Constitution. If not sharing your apparent high opinion of the vile, ignorant, amoral American Indian murderers, robbers, rapists, child molesters, etc. I was confined with makes me a “Tyrant” in your uninformed opinion then I can live with that. Contrary to a widespread misconception, being a libertarian doesn’t mean I don’t live in the real world. With one exception, the American Indians I’ve encountered (in and out of prison) make many black criminals seem like praiseworthy people by comparison.

 

5. I fought against tyranny in wars in six countries on two continents. I contributed thousands of dollars to political candidates and organizations in a futile effort to stem the rising tide of statism, usurpation, and tyranny in America. It was while "seeking a peaceful redress of grievances," writing published articles trying to warn my countrymen of their eroding personal liberty and the criminal misdeeds of federal agents, that directly led to my imprisonment. If it’s any comfort to you, great civil libertarians such as Janet Reno, Louis Freeh, Bill Clinton, et al. share your opinion about my “arrogant writings.” They stepped on me like a bug. BTW, contrary to your specious claims, I’ve never violated any person’s individual rights. A human being, whether a government goon or a private criminal, who initiates the use of force to deprive other people of their rights (life, liberty, property, etc.) have voluntarily sacrificed his or her right to life or liberty. If you cannot grasp this then perhaps that’s why Britons who defend themselves from assault are often punished more harshly than their attackers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...

Skytrooper,

it is not always about the length of someone's posts - impy mac quoted you without spinning anything and you could not answer (but tried to put your own spin on the matter, IMHO ).

 

 

"Sorry seems to be the hardest word..."

 

 

 

[nidnoyham 30]

Yaaaaaaahhhhhhhwnnn

 

Never mind about all that history stuff ! Tommorow, was to be my departure day to Pattaya and the back problem pesists. It's a pain in the arse ! Well nearlly

Good job I was only going to stand-by and didn't buy a ticket.

[Skytrooper 0]

nidnoyham (aka Stan),

 

If I were a Brit (shudder) and embarrassed over how much my people had degenerated, I might say "Never mind about all that history stuff!," too. Come to think of it, things aren't much better on this side of the pond.

 

Today makes seven days since I mailed your birthday present. Please let me know if it arrived safely or whether it was pocketed by a thieving limey postal worker. I'm sorry to hear about your back problem spreading to your derriere. It's possible your condition may be psychosomatic. Perhaps your conscience is bothering you for not being nicer to a certain Yank.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There is only one thing which gathers people for sedition, and that is oppression. — John Locke

 

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or the revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. — Abraham Lincoln (he changed his tune after becoming president)

 

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. — Edmund Burke

 

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. — Thomas Jefferson

[nidnoyham 30]

SKY'

 

My postman, is a great bloke, his name is Nathan and he pops a card, from him, through my door every Christmas. I think he likes people who take the time to say hello, when we see each other. No it isn't here yet. I expect it to be delivered by a bloke in a dark suit, sunglasses, with a camera hidden in his buttonhole.

 

History, I'm surrounded by it, Hampton court, Windsor Castle, Runnymede, are all just a bike ride from here. The thing is, they were in existance, before your Gaff was even heard of. I remember Ronny Regan- bless him, taking a horse ride with the Queen at Windsor. A Jumbo Jet was taking off from Heathrow as they posed for the cameras. Ron looked up as it went overhead. I can immagine him thinking " Why build a castle, so close to an airport ?"

 

Hey, this is as nice as I get.

[Eneukman 1]

History, I'm surrounded by it, Hampton court, Windsor Castle, Runnymede, are all just a bike ride from here. The thing is, they were in existance, before your Gaff was even heard of. I remember Ronny Regan- bless him, taking a horse ride with the Queen at Windsor. A Jumbo Jet was taking off from Heathrow as they posed for the cameras. Ron looked up as it went overhead. I can immagine him thinking " Why build a castle, so close to an airport ?"

 

Hey, this is as nice as I get.

Hey, Nidnoyham,

 

That makes 2 of us surrounded by history. Edinburgh Castle and Holyrood Palace are both a short walk from where I stay. There can't be many main shopping streets anywhere in the world where you have a clear view of a castle.

 

Robert Louis Stevenson lived not far from my home. The statue of Greyfriars Bobby is also within a short walking distance. And so on.

 

Sorry to hear that you've had to cancel your trip to LOS. Hope your back's better soon.

 

Alan

[Skytrooper 0]

Originally posted by nidnoyham:

Hey, this is as nice as I get.

 

Now, that's a sad development. I was hoping if you'd get laid it might improve your dour outlook.

 

First, it's "never mind about all that history stuff!" and now you're surrounded by crumbling edifices of your lost empire. BTW, with your delicate physical condition, I trust you have training wheels on your bike.

 

I'm starting to wish I'd paid extra money for insurance on your gift. I thought $4.80 in postage was enough for a pom that pokes fun at me. Don't try to claim you never receive your pendant in order to try and con me out of my last one. Even Yanks aren't quite that gullible. You might want to check and see if Nathan is wearing it.

 

Reagan was probably wondering why a country with (American-made) jumbo jets had him riding on a horse instead of touring in a motor vehicle as in more civilized, advanced nations.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

He had every quality that morons esteem in their heroes. — H. L. Mencken’s epitaph for FDR

 

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. — Frederic Bastiat

 

Every collectivist rides in on a Trojan horse of “emergency.†It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And “emergency†became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains. — Herbert Hoover