Who should own the means of violence?

[Synobun]

Disagree.

What is it about poverty that makes someone fundamentally better than someone who doesn't live in squalor?

 

[inthesomeday]

What is it about poverty that makes someone fundamentally better than someone who doesn't live in squalor?

Poor means more than lifestyle, it means not owning property. People who don’t own property are morally superior because property ownership is violence itself.

 

[Synobun]

Let me guess, taxation is theft too?

 

[inthesomeday]

Yeah, don’t see how the two topics are related

 

[Hygro]

Disagree



Agree.

If the goal is nonviolence, however, decentralizing the means of violence is an absolutely necessary step.

So we should all own guns.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yeeeeep

 

[Cutlass]

Me. I trust no one else.

 

[cardgame]

If there is genuine rule of law you can't actually ask for either forgiveness or permission. There is a (probably intentional) misrepresentation that courts and judges and juries are supposed to be deciding things like "was this killing okay because self defense." The truth is that they are only there to decide "was this a violation of the law as written?" It isn't up to them to say "it's okay that you broke the law because <reasons>."

It sure is; jury nullification, baby! If I get drawn to jury against a morally objectionable use of the state's power I'm using it for sure.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It sure is; jury nullification, baby! If I get drawn to jury against a morally objectionable use of the state's power I'm using it for sure.

If that happens then you were too late, and the citizenry was derelict. If a law should be nullified by juries then the law has failed. If laws can be nullified hit or miss by juries then the system has failed. In either case the citizens, probably through apathy, are to blame.

 

[poundjd]

Disagree

Agree.

Being Poor has nothing to do with Morality, it does have a lot of influence on your emotions, and emotions are the MAJOR tool that progressive liberals use to fool many of those poor to vote for them.

If the goal is nonviolence, however, decentralizing the means of violence is an absolutely necessary step.

Completely agree with you, every time that gun ownership is publicized as going up, if believed, causes the crime rate to go down

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Poor means more than lifestyle, it means not owning property. People who don’t own property are morally superior because property ownership is violence itself.

Are you confusing "poor" and "homeless" here? It must be a pretty small minority of poor people who own literally nothing. And an even smaller minority of them who don't aspire to owning more and see no problem with that.

 

[inthesomeday]

Property ownership is much more limited than you think but listen I’m not much trying to get into this in this thread. I can link you some literature if you want?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well I mean... it seems fairly relevant to this thread. I don't think it would be considered to be a derail.

 

[BenitoChavez]

So we should all own guns.

Yeeeeep

What do you mean to "own" a gun? As in everyone gets a gun for Christmas? Or only a relatively small group of trained individuals physically has the guns but everyone else gets to decide what that group does with them?

It seems to me that there are problems either way you go.

 

[BenitoChavez]

I see 3 basic categories of answers to the thread topic.

1) Everyone owns the means of violence. This seems good from an equality perspective. The issue is that the capability for violence is at an all time high that if everyone gets an assault rifle, a tank, a missile silo, etc, then all it takes is a couple of crazies to end the world.

2) Only some own the means of violence. If the group that owns the means is well trained and has oversight this is a relatively good option. The issue is that when one group gets the power, they like to keep the power for themselves and keep everyone else down. It's a human nature thing and human nature is a hard habit to kick.

3) Nobody owns the means of violence. This eliminates the potential destructive capabilities and brings everyone to an equal level which sounds nice. However convincing everyone to get rid of their weapons is unrealistic because again, there are currently groups with the power and convincing them to give up their power isn't going to happen.

Short answer: I dunno

 

[inthesomeday]

Transition from 2 (now) to 1 to 3

 

[Hygro]

Yeeeeep

I agree with you.

However, the only guy I knew growing up who was both a (pro-revolutionary) antifa and (pro guns) gun owner just got arrested for murdering a (no-property) homeless kid about your age.

 

[inthesomeday]

Sick anecdote

 

[Farm Boy]

I dunno. I always tred a bit more lightly around the pro-revolutionary guys around here. They weren't "antifas" in the California sense though, they were more the "leave me the eff alone" sort. Which was a little nice, they tended to have better manners when out and about from what they considered theirs.

 

[Berzerker]

We have open carry in Kansas... the first time I saw some young guy at Walmart with a side arm gave me pause. But then upon further reflection I realized if some nut started shooting the place up, I'd rather be near the guy with the gun on his hip.