The myth is, that they work for you. They don't.
You just pay them to fuck you over.
When Congress critters start to disappear,
Then, and only then will freedom be possible.
When governments fear the people, there is freedom.
When people fear their government, there is enslavement.
Calling your congress critter is slave think.
Why Do Governments Fail? (The Exponent Problem)
"Government is someone imposing rules on someone else, and backing them up with repression, fraud, and violence when necessary. The governed always outnumber those governing, which means the latter face the exponent problem..."
Streamed live 21 hours ago
Jim delivers a nearly 2 hour deep dive of his February Hat Trick Letter where he maps out the central banks move to gold as the massive holds of debt is not sustainable. Jim explains BIS Chairman Zijlstra announcement expecting to see gold prices rise in order to put the gold oil ratio back in order.
"Guns haven't done one thing to protect the people from overarching government simply because those who are run it are a bit smarter than the people they run. To suggest that's the way it will be in the future is a bad arguement unless you can demonstrate how to get from here to there. It's the same problem anarchists have. How to get from our current dysfunctional state to a more perfect state? No easy way. "
I agree that the government has been treating us like frogs put into a cool bucket of water 100 years ago, and have turned up the heat a little bit each year (in reverse of the dollar's value). Yes, us stupid people have abided their criminality for oh, so long.
However, there is evidence they mean to eliminate the nation state, decimate the U.S. population, etc. (see Deagel.com, Georgia Guidestones, HRC, Soros, etc., ad infinitum.
I do not advocate marching on DC, or fomenting a violent insurrection. We would quickly be toast.
However, much like having a nuclear arsenal, guns can act as a deterrent that might help us win at the local level, as the gestapos may take pause when told to start storming peoples' homes, if they suffer their own losses (they have families, homes, and their own lives, too).
We have a corrupted government, and it seems there are several, if not many factions within it fighting for supremacy. I hope there are a few factions that are righteous, and mean to dig out the corrupt. When a nation's people have the ability to fight back, it can be encouraging to those who fight for the people.
But I agree--there is on easy way.
"Guns are a deterrent"
That's the most persuasive arguement repeated over and over again to the mass mind. It's mostly true because bad people will do bad things anyway.
Unfortunately telling people that something is against natural law is worthless unless they ready to accept it.
That's the most persuasive arguement repeated over and over again to the mass mind. It's mostly true because bad people will do bad things anyway."
Yes, because it is true. "Gun free zones" like schools are pretty easy targets.
I think most muggers/rapists/murderers would admit they'd prefer to knock over an unarmed person as opposed to one carrying a gun.
Don't you agree?
Bad graphic but news is hard to come by.
As you read this tweet, Turkey has surrounded, with its navy, a large part of the Cyprus and is threatening to launch another military invasion of the island. Despite that, there is silence from the world.
British "C" company and Royal Angilian airforce deployed on "extreme readiness"
ancientmoney wrote: "Guns are a deterrent" That's the most persuasive arguement repeated over and over again to the mass mind. It's mostly true because bad people will do bad things anyway." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, because it is true. "Gun free zones" like schools are pretty easy targets. I think most muggers/rapists/murderers would admit they'd prefer to knock over an unarmed person as opposed to one carrying a gun. Don't you agree?
It is better to be in a gun fight with a gun than not have one. It is better to have superior force over somebody with the intention to do harm.
i'm only pointing out the fallacious, non-persuasive arguments even by pro-gun holders. There are an equal amount on the other side.
You can't defend from a rogue government with superior force. So I noted it was a bad argument. And in certain scenarios guns aren't deterrents. You might think so, and hope so but not the case. How many people were packing in Las Vegas including police.
Gun owners sometimes say banning any weapon leads to banning all of them. That's a bad argument. Like saying marijuana eventually leads to sniffing glue. One thing doesn't lead to another.
Saying you should be able to own any weapon under natural law is a bad argument. If you're going to invoke natural law as a rationale (which is good) then I'm obligated to point out all the things that you supported that weren't natural law under Trump.
I am agreeing with you in general because we aren't talking specifics. My point was the conversation that appears in public are two sides throwing out illogical postulates. There are good arguments on both sides
Laws and guns are not designed to stop criminals. If laws stopped criminals, we wouldn't have crime.
If you're posts about how Florida was a false flag, and not a true school shooting, than it's likely that a teacher with a gun won't be a deterrent. They'll either adopt another strategy, or send somebody in that is disposable. If Farrell is correct and they use mind control techniques, the teacher with a gun is at risk of becoming a fall guy.
So all I am saying here, is the best argument is the least amount of words, that somebody can't poke a whole through.
My bigger point is the same as Farrells at Sandy Hook. There is a larger motivation at hand than taking your guns. I don't even see that conversation happening.
Ah, I remember those beasts. Long before debit/charge cards were invented they were fed by coins of the realm. In the UK the shilling (12 pence) was completely out of circulation since it was the sole coin that would feed the meter. Not only did neighbours visit each other to borrow a couple of eggs but also a couple of shillings.
"Laws and guns are not designed to stop criminals. If laws stopped criminals, we wouldn't have crime. "
I think both guns and laws are indeed designed to stop criminals, among other outcomes.
Do they always work? Obviously, no.
But again, at the personal level, I would rather have a gun to stop a criminal from killing me or my family, than trying it with my bare hands.
I again agree that the gun issue is too complicated to make a definitive argument, one way or the other, as to what guns are legal to be owned, by whom. As a law abiding person (mostly), I would not use my gun to harm another, unless warranted by their actions.
I did not argue that guns will be a deterrent from a government determined to annihilate everyone at once.
I think they can be a deterrent from a government that wants to appear as righteous, but is not. Again, you can pick this apart, as it is complicated, I agree.
I think guns can be protection against those who would go on the prowl if/when the government cannot or will not provide food/money to those who now receive their sustenance from the state.
While this is not currently a big problem, an urban population dependent on the state for everything, by-and-large will do what it thinks it must to survive, legal or not.
This interviewee has an interesting perspective of SJWs, church education, sleazy clergy, clergy working for agencies, social engineering, Hollywood, the state. Candid about his early innocence. Plenty of back material too, if you look for it:
I'd seen the post from GL earlier re Cyprus.
Longtime Turdite James Gibson lives on Cyprus so I thought I'd email him for some boots-on-the-ground perspective. Here's his response:
There have been a significant number of NATO Russian and Chinese naval vessels in the vicinity of Cyprus for several years. The map showing the disposition of naval ships around Cyprus is pretty much as it has been in recent years, and not a recent development.
The current situation alluded to in that post, probably relates to the Turkish navy very recently preventing a drill ship from proceeding into an area of sea in dispute between Turkey and Cyprus; all to do with conflicting claims over the oil/gas fields. This has been an issue for several years and is nothing new and no biggie.
Russia and China have interests in Cyprus and IMO Turkey would not risk doing anything too silly, and risk upsetting its gradual pivot east and eventual membership of the SCO.
IMO, in the fullness of time, both Greece and Cyprus are also likely do a gentle pivot to the east and the SCO.
So, IMO, it must be a slow day for the media in the west.
My family and friends are completely relaxed, and there is nothing out of the ordinary happening locally in Cyprus.
With my best regards,