Are you planning on shooting government workers? Is that what you're trying to communicate with this?
Note: this discussion started from a proposed Molon Labe bumper sticker.
Molôn labe is Greek for "come and take them." It's merely a rather eloquent way of saying "I'll defend myself if you attempt to steal my property."
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 12:14 PM NHFT
Are you planning on shooting government workers? Is that what you're trying to communicate with this?
sorry but
what the fuck?! where did you even get that from?!
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 08, 2009, 01:33 PM NHFT
Molôn labe is Greek for "come and take them." It's merely a rather eloquent way of saying "I'll defend myself if you attempt to steal my property."
The Greek phrase Molon labe! meaning "Come and take them!",
is a classical expression of defiance reported by Plutarch in response to the Persian Army's demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons. It corresponds roughly to the modern equivalent English phrase "over my dead body", "bring it on" or, most closely, "come and get it". It is an exemplary use of a laconic phrase.
What was the molon labe book about?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 02:02 PM NHFT
What was the molon labe book about?
I havent read it, nor did it have anything to do with the sticker, or the classical expression. I would be willing to imagine that is it
NOT about ...
Quote... planning on shooting government workers? Is that what you're trying to communicate with this?
Oh, I was thinking of the Unintended Consequences book. What does that mean, anyway? Come and get them? Doesn't it mean you're going to shoot someone who comes to get your guns? How is what I asked a "WTF" situation?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 02:18 PM NHFT
Oh, I was thinking of the Unintended Consequences book. What does that mean, anyway? Come and get them? Doesn't it mean you're going to shoot someone who comes to get your guns? How is what I asked a "WTF" situation?
The Greek phrase Molon labe! meaning "Come and take them!", is a classical expression of defiance reported by Plutarch in response to the Persian Army's demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons. It corresponds roughly to the modern equivalent English phrase "over my dead body", "bring it on" or, most closely, "come and get it". It is an exemplary use of a laconic phrase.
The WTF came in because it was rather random for you to think that and also because i didnt want people to get the wrong idea about me, the stickers, or my intent. I'm not pissed or anything but it was a genuine wtf lol
But what you're saying doesn't contradict my question. I looked up what "over my dead body" is supposed to mean (cause it means to me 'willing to do violence') and the dictionary said "if you say that something will happen over your dead body, you mean that you will do everything you can to prevent it". If you don't actually mean to say that you're going to shoot whoever comes for your gun, I'd suggest a different motto.
Going from a willingness to defend oneself to "
planning on shooting <anyone>" is a stretch.
If you say beforehand that you're willing to defend yourself with a gun, how is that not planning on shooting someone? I guess I'm just dense here, because you guys are making no sense to me. If you're going to shoot policemen who come for your guns, why not put that on the bumper sticker? Why try to hide it in cute little greek phrases?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 12:14 PM NHFT
Are you planning on shooting government workers? Is that what you're trying to communicate with this?
This is the kind of questioning I would expect to come from a statist, fed, or other government thug in an attempt to make the right to keep and bear arms look like an extremist nut-job view. Molon Labe is an expression of the right to defend ones life.
I would also infer that the phrase is a statement that provides a choice to those who wish to steal guns or whatever from the person who displays it. The choice is either to:
1) violate the property rights of the person in an attempt to commit theft of a person's belongings and while doing so open themselves up to righteous protection initiatives by the victim
OR
2) Mind your own business, Don't Steal, Stay Away, Do the Right thing.
Quote from: shyfrog on April 08, 2009, 03:47 PM NHFT
This is the kind of questioning I would expect to come from a statist, fed, or other government thug in an attempt to make the right to keep and bear arms look like an extremist nut-job view. Molon Labe is an expression of the right to defend ones life.
Defending one's life from the government, you mean? Because they're the ones who "come and take them." So you'd be shooting cops or US soldiers - they'd be the ones to come and take your guns.
You guys throw around phrases like molon labe
without really thinking about what you're saying. "Over my dead body" and "from my cold dead hands" are other examples. I'm just pointing out what you're saying actually means: "if the government comes to take away my guns I will shoot them." I have no interest in making you look like a whack job. You guys are the ones saying these things. I'm guessing you don't really mean it. Do you? If you don't mean it, why do you say it? If you do mean it, why do you all seem to be upset by my questions?
Quote from: shyfrog on April 08, 2009, 03:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 12:14 PM NHFT
Are you planning on shooting government workers? Is that what you're trying to communicate with this?
This is the kind of questioning I would expect to come from a statist, fed, or other government thug in an attempt to make the right to keep and bear arms look like an extremist nut-job view. Molon Labe is an expression of the right to defend ones life.
+1
Quote from: shyfrog on April 08, 2009, 03:47 PM NHFT
Molon Labe is an expression of the right to defend ones life.
I agree. Defend one's life against who: the government who might take away your guns. How: by using said guns. Is this really what you
want to are willing to do? How come none of you answer this question?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 06:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on April 08, 2009, 03:47 PM NHFT
This is the kind of questioning I would expect to come from a statist, fed, or other government thug in an attempt to make the right to keep and bear arms look like an extremist nut-job view. Molon Labe is an expression of the right to defend ones life.
Defending one's life from the government, you mean? Because they're the ones who "come and take them." So you'd be shooting cops or US soldiers - they'd be the ones to come and take your guns.
You guys throw around phrases like molon labe without really thinking about what you're saying. "Over my dead body" and "from my cold dead hands" are other examples. I'm just pointing out what you're saying actually means: "if the government comes to take away my guns I will shoot them." I have no interest in making you look like a whack job. You guys are the ones saying these things. I'm guessing you don't really mean it. Do you? If you don't mean it, why do you say it? If you do mean it, why do you all seem to be upset by my questions?
ok i really cant believe this is coming from a member of this board. unless i am mistaken we support gun owners and their rights to bear arms do we not? I cant believe this is the direction that this has gone in. I am actually VERY disappointed in this ...
Molon Labe quite simply means to me at least that if someone, anyone, tries to take away my 2nd amendment rights that I will not be a willing participant. i.e. if tomorrow Obama decides to pass a "law" stating that all American citizens are to turn in any and all firearms by sunset next Friday, I will not comply. If he then sends someone, anyone, plural or not, to come and TAKE them from me then I will still not comply.
Would you?"Come and take them" is a statement of defiance. "You can't take what is mine and not yours!" and "You cant steal from me!" would be similar. Not the variations you have come up with here.
Do you know the story of The 300 or Sparta?
Actual and REAL History:Molon Labe was reportedly the defiant response of King Leonidas I of Sparta to Xerxes I of Persia at the onset of the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC). Xerxes, whose forces vastly outnumbered the Spartans and their allies, offered to spare the lives of Leonidas and his few thousand warriors if they would only surrender and lay down their weapons.
Instead, the Spartans held Thermopylae for three days and, although they were ultimately annihilated, they inflicted serious damage upon the Persian army, and most importantly delayed its progress to Athens, providing sufficient time for the city's evacuation to Salamis Island. Though a clear defeat, Thermopylae served as a moral victory and inspired the troops at the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Plataea.
The source for this quotation is Plutarch, Apophthegmata Laconica, 225c.11. This work may or may not be by Plutarch (ca. 46 - 127) himself, but it is included among the Moralia, a collection of works attributed to him but outside the collection of his most famous works, the Parallel Lives.
Modern usage:
Molon labe has been repeated by many later generals and politicians in order to express an army's or nation's determination to not surrender. The motto Molon Labe is on the emblem of the Greek First Army Corps, and is also the motto of United States Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT).
In the Anglosphere, both the original Greek phrase and its English translation are often heard from pro-gun activists as a defence of the right to keep and bear arms. It began to appear on pro-RKBA web sites in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In the wake of firearm seizures during Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent defiance of Federal court orders by the New Orleans government to return seized weapons, the phrase has again gained popularity among Second Amendment supporters.Molon labe has been recently used in the 2007 feature film 300 in which Leonidas speaks this famous line in English in response to "Spartans! Lay down your weapons!" as "Persians! Come and get them!" In the 1999 comic book of the same name, upon which the film is based, the phrase becomes "Come and get it", with no exchange concerning the laying down of arms.[5] In the earlier 1962 film The 300 Spartans Leonidas says the phrase both in Greek and English to the Persian general Hydarnes. The same exchange contains Dienekes' remark about "fighting in the shade" (as Persian arrows would "blot out the sun"), assigned to Leonidas.
Whether or not you are going to shoot the government agents who come to take your guns is an important question to me. It'd be nice to know if the guy standing next to you at a party or rally or such is going to start shooting if the gov't starts confiscating guns. I don't think we can win a violent revolution against the US government. I don't think it's RIGHT to use violence to get what we want. Too many innocent people die. I want to use peaceful means. Maybe your molon labe phrase has nothing to do with revolution or why we're all here together. But then why use the porcupine in the picture?
Quote from: AntonLee on April 08, 2009, 04:22 PM NHFT
I would also infer that the phrase is a statement that provides a choice to those who wish to steal guns or whatever from the person who displays it. The choice is either to:
1) violate the property rights of the person in an attempt to commit theft of a person's belongings and while doing so open themselves up to righteous protection initiatives by the victim
OR
2) Mind your own business, Don't Steal, Stay Away, Do the Right thing.
exactly. spouting off about intent mine or others being "shooting cops/government employees" or ANYONE for that matter bringing those topics into the situation is ridiculous. it wasnt said it wasnt implied. dont you defend your rights - isnt that one of the probably many reasons you are on this board and a member of the FSP and NHUnderground?
Quote from: leetninja on April 08, 2009, 06:31 PM NHFT
Molon Labe quite simply means to me at least that if someone, anyone, tries to take away my 2nd amendment rights that I will not be a willing participant. i.e. if tomorrow Obama decides to pass a "law" stating that all American citizens are to turn in any and all firearms by sunset next Friday, I will not comply. If he then sends someone, anyone, plural or not, to come and TAKE them from me then I will still not comply. Would you?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Would I not comply if the gov't came to take my guns? I wouldn't hand them over willingly. I wouldn't shoot them over it.
Quote
"Come and take them" is a statement of defiance. "You can't take what is mine and not yours!" and "You cant steal from me!" would be similar. Not the variations you have come up with here.
Are they empty statements of defiance? Maybe you could describe what you would do if they came to take your guns? I'm not sure what you mean by saying you wouldn't comply.
Do I think that you should be able to own guns? Yes. I thought the intent of the Second Amendment was as a last resort to protect oneself from the government. Do I think this is a good strategy for the Free State Project (since you brought the porcupine into it) - absolutely not. Was this not the intent of the Second Amendment? If so, why are you so unwilling to say whether or not this is what you meant by molon labe?
I answered your question. How about answering mine? Would you shoot US cops/soldiers who came to take away your guns?
Quote from: AntonLee on April 08, 2009, 04:22 PM NHFT
1) violate the property rights of the person in an attempt to commit theft of a person's belongings and while doing so open themselves up to righteous protection initiatives by the victim
OR
2) Mind your own business, Don't Steal, Stay Away, Do the Right thing.
What does "righteous protection" by the victim mean? Are you saying it
doesn't mean protecting yourself with that gun? If so, what is the gun for?
Quote from: leetninja on April 08, 2009, 06:43 PM NHFT
exactly. spouting off about intent mine or others being "shooting cops/government employees" or ANYONE for that matter bringing those topics into the situation is ridiculous. it wasnt said it wasnt implied. dont you defend your rights - isnt that one of the probably many reasons you are on this board and a member of the FSP and NHUnderground?
What does "defending your rights" include? How far do you go to defend your rights?
Do you think violent revolution is the way to go with the Free State Project?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 06:34 PM NHFT
Whether or not you are going to shoot the government agents who come to take your guns is an important question to me. It'd be nice to know if the guy standing next to you at a party or rally or such is going to start shooting if the gov't starts confiscating guns. I don't think we can win a violent revolution against the US government. I don't think it's RIGHT to use violence to get what we want. Too many innocent people die. I want to use peaceful means. Maybe your molon labe phrase has nothing to do with revolution or why we're all here together. But then why use the porcupine in the picture?
Again, cant believe a member of this board is taking this in this direction but oh well ...
so ...
if someone tried to unlawfully steal my gun - a tyrant such as Xerxes or Hitler or WHOEVER, I would rather defend myself than blindly comply. I would hope that there would be people intelligent enough to back me up on that decision.
The American Revolution was something that happened because it had to. At least they had the foresight to give us the right to bear arms in order to prevent tyranny. I believe Ron Paul said it best:
"The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny."As for why use the procupine - because we are porcupines - i believe someone posted once the reason the porcupine was chosen as the mascot but i cant seem to find that post again - if someone has it and knows what im talking about please post it! - something about how it is odd, reclusive, intelligent, and basically doesnt put up with BS if its backed into a corner. It thought it was a decent design for people to put on their rear windows or bumpers etc ...
so - you would just hand over your guns even though you have the right to have them? Really?
personally I would use shooting someone as a last resort but if I am threatened with violence I will respond accordingly. It takes a lot to get me riled up to the point where i would be willing to pull the trigger but if it was them or me i would rather live to see another day. if there were absolutely no other options on the table other than hand my gun over to a thief or shoot the thief the only thing that the thief would get is a few rounds of lead at a few thousand feet per second.
Quote from: leetninja on April 08, 2009, 06:57 PM NHFT
if someone tried to unlawfully steal my gun - a tyrant such as Xerxes or Hitler or WHOEVER, I would rather defend myself than blindly comply. I would hope that there would be people intelligent enough to back me up on that decision.
The American Revolution was something that happened because it had to. At least they had the foresight to give us the right to bear arms in order to prevent tyranny. I believe Ron Paul said it best: "The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny."
So your answer is yes, you would kill government workers rather than give up your guns. My answer is no, I don't want to kill rather than give up my gun. Was that so hard?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on June 04, 2008, 07:43 AM NHFT
This forum is mostly made up of people associated with the Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org if you don't know what it is.) The mascot of the Free State Project is the porcupine - since it is a creature that's harmless unless you mess with it too much. So we refer to ourselves as porcupines or just porcs for short.
there was a better one explaining "why" in depth but i cant find it. i just found it funny that this was you ...
how 'bout : What part of KEEP AND BEAR do you not understand? ;D
"I would rather be a freeman in my grave,
than living as a puppet or a slave." - Jimmy Cliff - The harder they come
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 06:57 PM NHFT
Quote from: AntonLee on April 08, 2009, 04:22 PM NHFT
1) violate the property rights of the person in an attempt to commit theft of a person's belongings and while doing so open themselves up to righteous protection initiatives by the victim
OR
2) Mind your own business, Don't Steal, Stay Away, Do the Right thing.
What does "righteous protection" by the victim mean? Are you saying it doesn't mean protecting yourself with that gun? If so, what is the gun for?
You can protect yourself with a gun without shooting it for one. For two, the phrase "come and take it" does not directly imply that you'll shoot. If you want to take the words as they stand. . . it could very well mean "I'm giving you permission to come and take these off my hands". This would be why I don't care for the phrase much.
As I've said before, I wish upon a star that I never ever in my life have to shoot another human being. I do not want anyone to misinterpret my clear hope that I will never have to fire upon someone with a thought that I would not in defense of myself, or the extension of my life, my property.
this topic didnt go according to plan at all lol ... i just wanted to make some neat vinyl decals lol
Quote from: leetninja on April 08, 2009, 08:51 PM NHFT
this topic didnt go according to plan at all lol ... i just wanted to make some neat vinyl decals lol
From a voyeuristuc nonparticipating point of view it was actually kind of an interesting read.
All right. I assume not shooting them when they come for the gun you probably don't have anyway means you won't resist getting on the bus.
It may come on the same day.
Just some thoughts from the litterbox...
quotes:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Ghandi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." (Noah Webster, 1787)
"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." St. Augustine A.D. 354-430
===============================
Contrary to certain sentiments (and a recent Ridley Report video), many "peaceful" movements that saw success were either not so peaceful or were forced into the choice by government disarming the people. Ghandi did not start out as an advocate of civil disobedience, but was left no other choice once the British government disarmed him and others seeking their freedoms. Ghandi said that he thought their cause could have been completed years earlier had they not been disarmed and equated their cause against the British with the American Revolution. Speaking of which, the American Revolution wasn't started on a whim. They had spent years trying "civil disobedience" before the last straw... The last straw came when General Gage attempted to confiscate the arms of the colonists. The Boston Massacre had already occurred (Minutemen were practicing on Boston Commons when the British troops... and remember, they were ALL still British at that point... were ordered to fire on the minutemen). Because of the open defiance of the minutemen colonists, the government decided to confiscate the colonists firearms. The colonists had already gone through a long series of asking politely for redress of grievences, then civil disobedience (the Boston Tea Party is but one example), and open defiance of the government (crown). There are numerous examples where peaceful acquiescence or civil disobedience has not worked. Just ask the Jews living in the Warsaw Ghetto.. Oh wait... you can't... they're all dead. Even then, a small group, armed with only a few pistols, were able to hold off the German Army intent on murdering them for well over a month. To wit...
"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees." - (variously attributed to: Charles Houston, Zapata, FDR and a few others... regardless, the sentiment remains the same)
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt, (Nov. 18, 1783)
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster, Jun. 17, 1825 - from a speech at the foundation of the Bunker Hill monument commemorating the soldiers of the American Revolution.
===============================================
I applaud the pacifists, the non-violent civil disobedience believers. You can claim that you will never use a firearm against someone "of authority", and that certainly is everyone's belief to exercise or not as they see fit, but if it is your child(ren) who will be forced into a life sentence of slavery, are you not willing to sacrifice yourself for their future, freedom, liberty, and very life? Granted, spending time away from family while incarcerated for some civil disobedience is a sacrifice, but is that only as far as you're willing to sacrifice for the future of your loved ones? No one who is truly a freedom loving person wishes to cause another harm, but isn't it an abrogation of your sacred duty not to do whatever it takes to protect and defend you loved ones from the murderous hands of others (whether common criminal or tyrant)? Make no mistake about it, for history has proven that, every genocide (almost universally promulgated by governments against their own subjects... ummm, citizens) has been preceded by the government disarming those very same subjects! It is hard to have it both ways... You can not say in one breath that if they come to take your guns, you will give them up rather than take a stand, and then say in the next that you will defend your life, rights/property if they are in imminent danger because that is somehow different than giving up the means to defend that life, rights/property. Thus the relevance of the phrase "Molon Labe". It states unequivocally to anyone wishing to deprive one of the means to defend and protect their life (and those of their loved ones), liberty, rights and property, that you wish them no harm; but that you are ready, willing and able to take a stand to defend and protect your life (and your loved ones), liberty, rights and property. It is basically an open declaration of a "line in the sand". I am certainly no one to criticize either position on this... The non-violent civil disobedience, willing to go to jail, stand that people have taken is nothing less than admirable. The non-initiation of force, but willing to take whatever measures are necessary to protect and defend their family and loved ones, stand that others have taken is no less admirable... and deserves as much credibility for the sacrifices of those (willing to back up their "line in the sand") who chose to follow that path. At least in the foreseeable short-term, the two are not that different, as neither wishes for there to be violence and both hope for a peaceful resolve to the redress of grievances which both share in common... and is that not what the FSP movement is all about? Getting to a (hopefully peaceful) resolution of the redress of grievances?
Take care...
I'm sorry for hassling you, leetninja. Carry on about your stickers. You want me to split off everything after your initial post?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 06:34 PM NHFT
It'd be nice to know if the guy standing next to you at a party or rally or such is going to start shooting if the gov't starts confiscating guns.
This is a very important point, and one I try to gauge my friends by. The world we live in, at least around here, is no where close to being a place where shooting the government people is the right decision. If you shoot a cop, you'll be dead, the press will eat whatever's left of you and anyone who you've associated with, and ultimately government will create more laws because of it. I'm with you Kat, I don't want to associate myself with anyone who has itchy trigger fingers for government bureaucrats. I won't be going to any "partys or rallys" and end up shooting cops. If I ever shoot government people, the world will be a much bleaker place and it will be because I went to a gunfight. Everyone that comes with me to that gunfight will know what they're getting their selves into beforehand.
I wouldn't be likely to put a sticker like that on my car and I'll let Claire Wolfe explain why:
Quote
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
Molon Labe was originally a battle cry, it is a threat, and it should be reserved as such. Strapping it to my car is telling the whole world that I will shoot them if they try and touch my guns. Not the perception I want people to have of me.
However, I think I know exactly where you're coming from leetninja, and I'm not accusing you of anything. The sticker's probably harmless, so you do what you want. Certainly most people won't take it the same way I have, and most people won't even know what it means. I just like to be precise in my language and let people know where I stand, so that's my analysis.
QuoteAmerica is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
True enough... for now.
But if the government would send armed agents to disarm the People, then those agents would stand in
res ipsa loquitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur) violation of the Constitution, and their oaths to defend it. They would be traitors against the People. They should therefore expect, and receive, armed resistance in the defense of law and liberty.
Defense against armed illegal action does not constitute the initiation of violence. Armed illegal action does.
Quote from: erisian on April 09, 2009, 06:57 PM NHFT
if the government would send armed agents to disarm the People, then those agents would stand in res ipsa loquitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur) violation of the Constitution, and their oaths to defend it. They would be traitors against the People.
I don't think that anyone alive today can violate the constitution. No one alive has signed it. Even those government people who have sworn an oath to it, have in no way entered into any agreement with me. One does not betray me by violating the constitution, but rather by agressing against me.
Other than that, I don't disagree with anything you said.
Quote from: Ryan McGuire on April 09, 2009, 07:12 PM NHFT
I don't think that anyone alive today can violate the constitution. No one alive has signed it. Even those government people who have sworn an oath to it, have in no way entered into any agreement with me. One does not betray me by violating the constitution, but rather by agressing against me.
The United States Constitution is "the supreme law of the land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)", so I would argue that it can be violated like any other law.
The betrayal is against the
People collectively, as they are Sovereign. (At least in theory) ;)
Quote from: erisian on April 09, 2009, 06:57 PM NHFT
QuoteAmerica is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
True enough... for now.
But if the government would send armed agents to disarm the People, then those agents would stand in res ipsa loquitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur) violation of the Constitution, and their oaths to defend it. They would be traitors against the People. They should therefore expect, and receive, armed resistance in the defense of law and liberty.
Defense against armed illegal action does not constitute the initiation of violence. Armed illegal action does.
It might be a better plan to not answer armed illegal action with violence. How about trying noncooperation since it's "not time to shoot the bastards" yet? Stop paying them. (Not meaning you in particular erisan, talking to people in general.) Stop cooperating as much as you can. They can't deal with 10 million people not cooperating with them.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 10, 2009, 06:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: erisian on April 09, 2009, 06:57 PM NHFT
QuoteAmerica is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
True enough... for now.
But if the government would send armed agents to disarm the People, then those agents would stand in res ipsa loquitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur) violation of the Constitution, and their oaths to defend it. They would be traitors against the People. They should therefore expect, and receive, armed resistance in the defense of law and liberty.
Defense against armed illegal action does not constitute the initiation of violence. Armed illegal action does.
It might be a better plan to not answer armed illegal action with violence. How about trying noncooperation since it's "not time to shoot the bastards" yet? Stop paying them. (Not meaning you in particular erisan, talking to people in general.) Stop cooperating as much as you can. They can't deal with 10 million people not cooperating with them.
Yea that non-cooperation seems to go *REALLY* well right? Stop paying them (taxes, speeding tickets, fines, town fees, registration for vehicles, etc?) - lose your home, probably lose your job, and go to jail, media makes you out to be a "nutty activist" and then you lose everything. Good plan ...
Just let them come into your home, search and seize as they see fit without justification and then try to fight back through the system that they designed to stop you at every turn in hopes you will get your property back ... right?
Werent people just evicted from their home for this kind of thing? voted out by their own city council, people that they appointed, their "peers" that make up that council ...
Remember if the Kop comes to your house and you tell him "no i wont let you in" he will point the gun in YOUR face, cuff you, and then do as he pleases anyhow. if you resist that then you will be arrested and charged. if you hold a job at a reputable company you will lose it, you can be charged with a felony if he wants to be a dick and then you will have something that will pop up on all background checks preventing you from getting a new or better job and god forbid you try to get a firearm - if you lie on the check its another felony and if you dont you are sent on your way!
I think it would be better said: They can't deal with 10 million people who are
armed and ready to die for their rights and what they truly believe in and not cooperating with them.
So you are saying non-violent non-cooperation doesn't work?
Quote from: leetninja on April 10, 2009, 07:24 AM NHFT
Yea that non-cooperation seems to go *REALLY* well right? Stop paying them (taxes, speeding tickets, fines, town fees, registration for vehicles, etc?) - lose your home, probably lose your job, and go to jail, media makes you out to be a "nutty activist" and then you lose everything. Good plan ...
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 10, 2009, 06:41 AM NHFT
It might be a better plan to not answer armed illegal action with violence. How about trying noncooperation since it's "not time to shoot the bastards" yet? Stop paying them. (Not meaning you in particular erisan, talking to people in general.) Stop cooperating as much as you can. They can't deal with 10 million people not cooperating with them.
I'm all for nonviolent noncooperation... to a point. But if the government initiates armed illegal action such as gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, against the People, in violation of the Constitution, then the responsibility for protecting and defending the supreme law of the land falls to the People.
Nonviolence tends to be ineffective against armed criminals who have no intention of respecting your rights, your life, or the law.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 10, 2009, 07:45 AM NHFT
So you are saying non-violent non-cooperation doesn't work?
erisian said EXACTLY what i was going to say to this ...
QuoteI'm all for nonviolent noncooperation... to a point. But if the government initiates armed illegal action such as gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, against the People, in violation of the Constitution, then the responsibility for protecting and defending the supreme law of the land falls to the People.
Nonviolence tends to be ineffective against armed criminals who have no intention of respecting your rights, your life, or the law.
Can't really say much more ...
Quote from: erisian on April 10, 2009, 07:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 10, 2009, 06:41 AM NHFT
It might be a better plan to not answer armed illegal action with violence. How about trying noncooperation since it's "not time to shoot the bastards" yet? Stop paying them. (Not meaning you in particular erisan, talking to people in general.) Stop cooperating as much as you can. They can't deal with 10 million people not cooperating with them.
I'm all for nonviolent noncooperation... to a point. But if the government initiates armed illegal action such as gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, against the People, in violation of the Constitution, then the responsibility for protecting and defending the supreme law of the land falls to the People.
Nonviolence tends to be ineffective against armed criminals who have no intention of respecting your rights, your life, or the law.
This makes me think of Hurricane Katrina when "our boys" went home to home, taking away people's guns (when they needed them the most) and the people just handed them over. I understand this was under the "emergency" umbrella, in one isolated area, but still, people just handed them over.
If it was announced "All weapons, in 50 States, shall be turned in on May 1st," then I would think there would be a number of those who wouldn't oblige, and would have to be "dealt" with. Seems like the Dissenters would do well to ban together, in such a scenario.
Shortly after that, I think the USA should change it's name to the United Socialists of America (USA) and the title President, be replaced with the title: King.
Quote from: Peacemaker on April 10, 2009, 01:33 PM NHFT
Shortly after that, I think the USA should change it's name to the United Socialists of America (USA) and the title President, be replaced with the title: King.
Haven't you been following the news? :P <- smiley captioned for those who need it...
so since the cops are armed and violent ... non-violent opposition cannot work?
I am asking this because I really don't want to hang out with folks on this forum who think my way of living is useless ... I am attempting to attract those non-violent non-cooperators with evil out there. I don't have the time or inclination to hang out with or call friends those that make violent threats against wrongdoers.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 10, 2009, 01:44 PM NHFT
so since the cops are armed and violent ... non-violent opposition cannot work?
I am asking this because I really don't want to hang out with folks on this forum who think my way of living is useless ... I am attempting to attract those non-violent non-cooperators with evil out there. I don't have the time or inclination to hang out with or call friends those that make violent threats against wrongdoers.
This sound a litle like previouse dictator speech "either you are with us or you are with terrorists..."
Quote from: Ryan McGuire on April 09, 2009, 05:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 06:34 PM NHFT
It'd be nice to know if the guy standing next to you at a party or rally or such is going to start shooting if the gov't starts confiscating guns.
I wouldn't be likely to put a sticker like that on my car and I'll let Claire Wolfe explain why:
Quote
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
That was over a decade ago. However we may feel, I'm pretty sure that Boston and Claire would agree (with each other) that confiscation would be a sure sign that it was no longer too early.
I thought it was wrong to take things that didn't belong to you.
The big problem I see with the sticker is that I doubt more than .0001% of the population knows what it means.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 11, 2009, 06:11 AM NHFT
The big problem I see with the sticker is that I doubt more than .0001% of the population knows what it means.
Nothing wrong with sending your readers to a dictionary or encyclopedia once in a while.
most people won't go. I still think someone besides myself will interpret that as a request. Requesting cops come to my house is not cool.
I went ahead and split the vinyl bumper sticker thread.
I don't think Russell should make leetninja leave.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 11, 2009, 09:39 AM NHFT
I don't think Russell should make leetninja leave.
what?! make me leave!?
Quote from: leetninja on April 10, 2009, 02:27 PM NHFT
im really not sure where you are going with this ... i didnt say that i think your way of life is useless. in the right circumstances it is great. dont you get pushed too far at some point?
if someone decided to come to your home and just search and seize your belongings with the intent to take what they want how exactly would you non-violently not co-operate when that person pulls a gun and says "sit down and shut up or ill shut you up" and proceeds to take your money, firearms, etc? Lets go with double scenario even ...
first person that does that is a Kop ... how do you non violently not cooperate with him? how are you planning on preventing him from taking your belongings that he had no right to take to begin with?
the second is just a jackass that also decides to throw in raping your wife while you watch ... so really how do you remain non violent through something like that? same questions as above plus the obvious add in question about him and your wife.
maybe if it hits closer to home you will think differently?
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=4640.0
Russell and Kat are on record with their policy of complete non-violence towards thugs with guns if those thugs happen to be wearing government uniforms. So I mostly don't talk about that here.
But to answer Kat's question, if a thug with a gun came to my door, and demanded ANYTHING of me, especially that I turn over my guns, I would consider myself to be justified in shooting it, feeding its liver to my dogs, and burying or burning it in my yard. Whether or not it was wearing a fancy uniform, funny hat, and shiny badge.
As a practical matter, actually doing that, if the thug WERE wearing a badge, is not likely to work out well for me, given that the police are members of a large, well-organized, heavily-armed, and extremely vindictive gang, but I might decide to die fighting rather than live on my knees. And I have great respect for anyone else who makes that decision. I personally think that if the police start going door to door confiscating "illegal" guns, that it's going to go very badly for them. And for the legislators that authorized them to do it. I hope it never comes to that, because it will be ugly.
As for whether meeting home invasion with defensive violence would reflect poorly on the freedom movement, I doubt I would give it a thought at the time. The thugs will be at my door. The freedom movement will not.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make legislators, cops, and judges fear for their lives if they venture outside the narrow confines of their constitutional cage.
Mike Vanderboegh (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/) says it much better than I.
Having said that, I have great respect for all Russell and Kat do in an attempt to thwart the thugs without violence. Good luck to you.
III
Quote from: Pat McCotter on April 11, 2009, 10:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on April 10, 2009, 02:27 PM NHFT
im really not sure where you are going with this ... i didnt say that i think your way of life is useless. in the right circumstances it is great. dont you get pushed too far at some point?
if someone decided to come to your home and just search and seize your belongings with the intent to take what they want how exactly would you non-violently not co-operate when that person pulls a gun and says "sit down and shut up or ill shut you up" and proceeds to take your money, firearms, etc? Lets go with double scenario even ...
first person that does that is a Kop ... how do you non violently not cooperate with him? how are you planning on preventing him from taking your belongings that he had no right to take to begin with?
the second is just a jackass that also decides to throw in raping your wife while you watch ... so really how do you remain non violent through something like that? same questions as above plus the obvious add in question about him and your wife.
maybe if it hits closer to home you will think differently?
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=4640.0
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=4584.0
like i said there are scenarios where noncompliance and non cooperation are wonderful tools. especially in a victimless crime circumstance i.e. handing out flyers.
what i am trying to say pretty much the scenario where the rights of many are violated. such as "By May first all firearms must be turned in to yur local PD"
The non violent non cooperation would work at first but what happens when they start sending their people to our homes?
isnt this what our forefathers meant by the right to keep and bear arms, and armed militia?
Would you all just hand them in? or would you stand up and be willing to sacrifice if necessary?
Personally if a scenario like this arose i would not be willing to give up my firearms. i would not unlock my safe or hand anything to them. I would be willing to die for the same things that my forefathers were willing to die for so many years ago.
I am still confused about the comment about Russel making me leave ... someone want to explain that?
Just to weigh in with my 2 cents.
First off the assumption that non-violent resistance is only for pacifists is in error.
Check out some of the resources on this thread
REVOLUTION, Ya Say Ya Want A (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8273.0)
As others have already mentioned, violence only grows the power of the government.
Many seem to have the fantasy view of jackboots going door to door confiscating weapons, yes they did that in New Orleans, but the most likely situation is the incremental tightening and expanding of laws. They won't make some big line in the sand move, that would work against them.
Most of the gun crowd already have bowed to the laws ie. 1968 how you can transfer, what types you can own.
I find it interesting that some of the same folks who won't even anonymously protest or chance a misdemeanor arrest are going to fight to the death. I mean let's play out the scenerio... 5 am asleep, in your underwear, a dozen trained men in body armor with automatic weapons burst into your home... I don't see many taking that on with the pistol from the night stand.
I have to say that I don't imagine that there isn't many of the same ideas and feelings I have had myself... but, when you "game" them out in your head they don't lead to the outcome you are after.
Non-violent resistance are the only techniques that have succeeded in the last 50 years, against brutal totalitarian regimes. But, it takes, letting go of your prejudice to study the subject. It seems that the saying "to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." applies here.
The mistake that is made is thinking that you should counter what the government does by trying to overpower them. It is an asymmetrical situation.
A small number of people can have significant effect... if the government looks like the thug bullies.
You sure are smart for a sickly lil guy.
Indeed, a rather insightful post Tom Sawyer. A bit off topic but I gotta ask...what the heck is a "Leetninja" ? Ever since I saw the name it's been bugging me. No really, it has. :P
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 11, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
Indeed, a rather insightful post Tom Sawyer. A bit off topic but I gotta ask...what the heck is a "Leetninja" ? Ever since I saw the name it's been bugging me. No really, it has. :P
Probably a tongue-in-cheek reference to the oldschool BBS days when warez and r0dentz abounded, and being "L337" (elite) was kewl.
Someone mentioned Katrina. That is the most likely scenario for the government going after firearms-- an "emergency" declared by the president, by decree, with zero democracy involved. To my mind, though, anything under color of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_law#Color_of_law) which gives the government powers which are not enumerated in the Constitution is clearly in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is a creature of the Constitution, and as such it has no power to suspend the Constitution. If it does so, then it has just supended itself as well, and is therefore no longer legitimate.
So when they come to take away your guns, I suppose that the nonviolent noncooperation thing to do would be to approach them, under a flag of truce if necessary, but preferably with an open carry, since they are packing too, and politely explain to them that they have been given illegal orders. Remind them that the Constitution they have sworn to protect is the supreme law of the land, and the order to disarm the People is a violation of it. You might point out that since the US Constitution has been suspended, that your fallback position is the NH Constitution, which specifically guarantees your individual right to defend your life, liberty, property, and the state by force of arms. Tell them that the federal government is the outlaw here, and try to get them to turn from protecting the government to protecting the Constitution and the People.
If that doesn't work, then they are traitors to the US Constitution, enemies of the state of NH, and an imminent threat to your life, liberty, and property. Shoot them if necessary.
Quote from: erisian on April 11, 2009, 09:37 PM NHFT
Someone mentioned Katrina. That is the most likely scenario for the government going after firearms-- an "emergency" declared by the president, by decree, with zero democracy involved. To my mind, though, anything under color of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_law#Color_of_law) which gives the government powers which are not enumerated in the Constitution is clearly in violation of the Constitution. The federal government is a creature of the Constitution, and as such it has no power to suspend the Constitution. If it does so, then it has just supended itself as well, and is therefore no longer legitimate.
So when they come to take away your guns, I suppose that the nonviolent noncooperation thing to do would be to approach them, under a flag of truce if necessary, but preferably with an open carry, since they are packing too, and politely explain to them that they have been given illegal orders. Remind them that the Constitution they have sworn to protect is the supreme law of the land, and the order to disarm the People is a violation of it. You might point out that since the US Constitution has been suspended, that your fallback position is the NH Constitution, which specifically guarantees your individual right to defend your life, liberty, property, and the state by force of arms. Tell them that the federal government is the outlaw here, and try to get them to turn from protecting the government to protecting the Constitution and the People.
If that doesn't work, then they are traitors to the US Constitution, enemies of the state of NH, and an imminent threat to your life, liberty, and property. Shoot them if necessary.
I mentioned Katrina/emergency earlier. Great job of breaking it down and explaining the dialogue/method one could use to peacefully resist them!
Quote from: Moebius Tripp on April 11, 2009, 09:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 11, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
Indeed, a rather insightful post Tom Sawyer. A bit off topic but I gotta ask...what the heck is a "Leetninja" ? Ever since I saw the name it's been bugging me. No really, it has. :P
Probably a tongue-in-cheek reference to the oldschool BBS days when warez and r0dentz abounded, and being "L337" (elite) was kewl.
so when did this become a pick on me thing? really??? this is how you handle opinions you dont happen to agree with?
and still would love to know what kat meat by
QuoteI don't think Russell should make leetninja leave.
is that to say that i will be deleted and removed any minute now for voicing an opinion and belief? if that is the case, believe me you dont need to force me to leave ...
There is a very, very, very good reason why govt. Inc does what it wants. They're not afraid of you.
So for as long as they're not afraid, so long as there are no consequences for their crimes, and for as long as you're unwilling to stand up and defend your rights by force when necessary, things will get worse for people who should be free.
Quote from: leetninja on April 12, 2009, 09:03 AM NHFT
is that to say that i will be deleted and removed any minute now for voicing an opinion and belief? if that is the case, believe me you dont need to force me to leave ...
He seemed annoyed that you were calling me stupid. I thought he posted something or I wouldn't have mentioned it.
i never called anyone stupid ...
and now that i think about it ... SO WHAT IF I DID?! Call someone stupid or dont agree with them and he is going to forcibly make a member leave? Wow, that is really mature ...
I guess the Constitution and out freedoms granted by it only apply when the King and Queen want them to and when they see fit ... real nice
I don't think you've been mistreated here. Even though I think kicking someone off the forum over an insult, whether perceived or real, would be an over-reaction, the constitution does not apply here, nor on any other private property. The constitution is a limitation on government (or would be, if they paid any attention to it), not on private individuals.
QuoteSo when they come to take away your guns, I suppose that the nonviolent noncooperation thing to do would be to approach them, under a flag of truce if necessary, but preferably with an open carry, since they are packing too
Flag of truce?? lot's of luck, they are dishonorable pieces of shit and they won't respect a white flag. If you don't immediately surrender they will open fire with automatic weapons.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 12, 2009, 05:44 PM NHFT
I don't think you've been mistreated here. Even though I think kicking someone off the forum over an insult, whether perceived or real, would be an over-reaction, the constitution does not apply here, nor on any other private property. The constitution is a limitation on government (or would be, if they paid any attention to it), not on private individuals.
i agree that kicking someone off for an insult perceived or real would be an over-reaction ... id like to point out that in this particular instance i never called Kat or Russell idiots - i simply didnt agree with their point of view. then again i do agree with their point of view its just they seem to have no cut off point at which the non violent noncooperation ends and i well ... quite simply ... i do have one.
i dont think i am being mistreated per say but i do think that a simple and innocent sticker idea thread has turned into a pig pile on me i.e. my forum name somehow being picked on!? Not that I care but ... whatever. Also the half/not/possible/perhaps a/mistaken/potential/passive-aggressive threat of removal of a member (me) for speaking their mind is a bit odd to me. Actually I would go as far as to say that I truly believe that forcibly removing/deleting/SILENCING a member WOULD be stupid. I dont think it would be right - regardless of who it is. Sure there are instances where people need to be shut up i.e. trolls. that is about it. someone voicing their opinions or beliefs? no, sorry just no. not enough.
i think if one believes in the Constitution, that one believes in al of it, and therefore believes in freedom of speech as well. I also believe that it should be a universal belief.
i dont go around trying to censor everything that everyone says that i dont happen to agree with. if someone thinks i am an idiot then they are entitled to their opinion. opinions are like assholes ... everyone has one. not everyone will agree with everyone elses opinions. usually discussion would take place or debate about the differences of opinion. not exiling someone or forcibly removing them just because you can and are in a position to do so. if that is how this board, group, and movement etc are then i really dont wish to be a part of it any longer.
Quote from: leetninja on April 12, 2009, 05:19 PM NHFT
I guess the Constitution and out freedoms granted by it only apply when the King and Queen want them to and when they see fit ... real nice
Quote from: leetninja on April 12, 2009, 07:32 PM NHFT
i think if one believes in the Constitution, that one believes in al of it, and therefore believes in freedom of speech as well. I also believe that it should be a universal belief.
I think you need a reality check about what the constitution is all about. You seriously believe in the whole thing? Even the part where it implies that slavery is OK and that slaves should be considered as 3/5ths of a person? The reality is this: the constitution's only purpose is to give pseudo-legitimacy to the use of violent force over non-consenting people. It doesn't grant
you anything. I know some people around here like to cling to some of the (marginally) better parts of the constitution (eg. the first 10 amendments), but someone who believes in the whole thing as being some inerrant manifesto on life is not thinking very critically.
Quote from: leetninja on April 12, 2009, 07:32 PM NHFT
forcibly removing [someone from this forum] just because you can and are in a position to do so. if that is how this board, group, and movement etc are then i really dont wish to be a part of it any longer.
This forum is completely outside the US constitution, it is privately owned and operated. At all times, you are free to post here only at the pleasure and with the permission of the owners. This board focuses on voluntaryism and civil disobedience. The owners have been known to ban people on occasion who go in the complete opposite direction from that goal, but for the most part have been extremely tolerant of a lot of views, including yours. No one has threatened to ban you. Russel didn't say anything on this board about it. Kat specifically said that you should NOT be banned and has actively engaged in discussion/debate with you in this thread. You're the only one here who keeps bringing up the banning issue. Self fulfilling prophecy?
im done.
The US Constitution was written at a time when a slave was considered a domesticated animal.
The 3/5th provision was for national Census, and most likely the downfall of slavery. Very hard to suggest that slaves were property then should be accounted for in the division of representation... unlike other domesticated animals of the day.
As for the Katrina situation... not that I agree with it... but if one reads the main body of the US Constitution, it gives grounds for the action of the government. It falls back into the same problem as the slave issue.
If a right is protected from infringement by the US Constitution, and then in another part that protection of infringement is removed under circumstance... its unwise to use the document as the basis for your position.
come back soon Leetninja.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 12, 2009, 09:00 PM NHFT
if one reads the main body of the US Constitution, it gives grounds for the action of the government.
In what Article and Section?
I'm not finding anything that says that the president may, at his sole discretion, selectively suspend any part of the Constitution that he finds inconvenient.
All I found was this:
Quote from: Article 2 Section 2The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
But that says nothing about suspending rights.
Quote from: wolf on April 12, 2009, 06:42 PM NHFT
Flag of truce?? lot's of luck, they are dishonorable pieces of shit and they won't respect a white flag. If you don't immediately surrender they will open fire with automatic weapons.
Most likely. That's why nonviolent noncooperation probably wouldn't work. But soldiers would eventually get sick of killing citizens, and realize that they had been lied to by their commanders. I think it would just be a matter of time before they started switching sides and protecting the people against the government. It's just a question of how many bodies it would take to smarten them up, and whether or not one of those bodies is yours. Of course, if they hire Blackwater again, all bets are off.
Quote from: leetninja on April 12, 2009, 09:03 AM NHFT
Quote from: Moebius Tripp on April 11, 2009, 09:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 11, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
Indeed, a rather insightful post Tom Sawyer. A bit off topic but I gotta ask...what the heck is a "Leetninja" ? Ever since I saw the name it's been bugging me. No really, it has. :P
Probably a tongue-in-cheek reference to the oldschool BBS days when warez and r0dentz abounded, and being "L337" (elite) was kewl.
so when did this become a pick on me thing? really??? this is how you handle opinions you dont happen to agree with?
and still would love to know what kat meat by QuoteI don't think Russell should make leetninja leave.
is that to say that i will be deleted and removed any minute now for voicing an opinion and belief? if that is the case, believe me you dont need to force me to leave ...
I don't think you understand. I REALLY did wonder what a Leetninja was. Not picking on ya, so don't leave on my account. I never said I don't agree with you or not. And if I did disagree with you I'd respect your right to disagree.
Quote from: erisian on April 12, 2009, 10:22 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 12, 2009, 09:00 PM NHFT
if one reads the main body of the US Constitution, it gives grounds for the action of the government.
In what Article and Section?
I'm not finding anything that says that the president may, at his sole discretion, selectively suspend any part of the Constitution that he finds inconvenient.
All I found was this:
Quote from: Article 2 Section 2The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
But that says nothing about suspending rights.
Article Four Section Four.
Its activated with a request for physical federal assistance.
Quote from: tony on April 10, 2009, 01:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 10, 2009, 01:44 PM NHFT
so since the cops are armed and violent ... non-violent opposition cannot work?
I am asking this because I really don't want to hang out with folks on this forum who think my way of living is useless ... I am attempting to attract those non-violent non-cooperators with evil out there. I don't have the time or inclination to hang out with or call friends those that make violent threats against wrongdoers.
This sound a litle like previouse dictator speech "either you are with us or you are with terrorists..."
I am wondering if you think that non-violent opposition cannot work when the government is very bad.
I am interested in being around people who live non-violently every day. It is a lifestyle, a frame of mind, and the means to a non-violent society.
If you are thinking something differently, I would prefer if you were not hanging out on this forum, since we do not have some critical things in common. I am not threatening to do something bad to you. I might ignore you, or delete offensive posts that i see. I am sure you can find a forum full of people that more closely share your motives and actions.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 12, 2009, 09:00 PM NHFT
The 3/5th provision was for national Census, and most likely the downfall of slavery. Very hard to suggest that slaves were property then should be accounted for in the division of representation... unlike other domesticated animals of the day.
I've never a view like yours before. Legalized slavery ended because lots of pressure coming from lots of directions tried to end it.
Quote from: leetninja on April 11, 2009, 11:01 AM NHFT
like i said there are scenarios where noncompliance and non cooperation are wonderful tools. especially in a victimless crime circumstance i.e. handing out flyers.
isnt this what our forefathers meant by the right to keep and bear arms, and armed militia?
I think non-violence is the right method in all the situations I am in. How much I resist or cause trouble for the bad guys changes with the situation.
I do not agree with the violent american revolution. I am not interested in repeating it.
Quote from: leetninja on April 12, 2009, 09:03 AM NHFT
is that to say that i will be deleted and removed any minute now for voicing an opinion and belief? if that is the case, believe me you dont need to force me to leave ...
I am not interested in have any and all opinions or beliefs posted on this forum. I didn't think I would have to "force" you to leave. I am sure you will be happier somewhere else.
Quote from: slave_3646 on April 12, 2009, 10:19 AM NHFT
So for as long as they're not afraid, so long as there are no consequences for their crimes, and for as long as you're unwilling to stand up and defend your rights by force when necessary, things will get worse for people who should be free.
So are you saying that I am hurting your situation or everyone else's because I will not use force, since never find it necessary?
Quote from: leetninja on April 12, 2009, 05:19 PM NHFT
and now that i think about it ... SO WHAT IF I DID?! Call someone stupid or dont agree with them and he is going to forcibly make a member leave? Wow, that is really mature ...
I guess the Constitution and out freedoms granted by it only apply when the King and Queen want them to and when they see fit ... real nice
I try not to use force. I also try not to hang around people who are calling me stupid. I do not think it is a sign of maturity that I willingly put up with written abuse.
The US Constitution is not about freedom. It was created by kingmakers to rule over others.
I have found I have very little in common with those that clutch a constitution in one hand and a gun in the other. Is it a problem that I am choosing my companions? This forum was not meant to be a big tent for everyone to join. I am sure there is another one that will fit you.
Quote from: leetninja on April 12, 2009, 07:32 PM NHFT
i think if one believes in the Constitution, that one believes in al of it, and therefore believes in freedom of speech as well. I also believe that it should be a universal belief.
... if that is how this board, group, and movement etc are then i really dont wish to be a part of it any longer.
I don't think you have a right to freedom of speech with no limits.
This forum has at least one moderator who does hope you will leave. I don't know what group or movement you think this forum embodies. For me I am part of a non-violent revolution. Maybe you are in a different movement.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 13, 2009, 02:10 PM NHFT
I do not agree with the violent american revolution. I am not interested in repeating it.
So is there any part of this that you disagree with?
Quote from: The Declaration of IndependenceWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Quote from: erisian on April 13, 2009, 08:06 PM NHFT
So is there any part of this that you disagree with? [meaning the Declaration of Independence]
For me, most of it.
I had long held that the declaration of independence was a virtuous and moral creed. I used to send it to all my friends and coworkers on independence day in the hopes that they would see the true spirit of America and how much America had fallen. The DOI was one of the very last vestiges of government that I parted ways with, once I realized that it was full of statist and aggressive propaganda. There's still an awful lot in there that I agree with, but its so mixed up with the (often unseen) violence of the state that I don't rely on it for any of my arguments for liberty any more.
Quote from: The Declaration of IndependenceThat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I'm all for overthrowing governments, but I'd stop there. Once the state was overthrown, I wouldn't replace it with another one. The DOI makes the assertion that you can only replace government with government, and not just any government, but one based on whatever principles will make "the people" (a pluarlity, non-individual, mob-like group) safe and happy. This reinforces the concept of democracy, which is abhorrent to me.
If the DOI really wanted to drive the point home that a person, individually, has personal liberty it would have said that an individual person has the right to
ignore government entirely. Instead of this, it implies that an individual does not have this right, that they must instead suffer government and go through some formalized process of altering or abolishing the government as a collective. Both altering and abolishing require groups of people to act, not individuals, which in the context of government, always harms individuals. In contrast, a stalwart individual,
who of his own volition, refuses to obey the state, can persuade others to do the same, and over time render government irrelevant and ineffectual without resorting to any aggressive acts of altering or abolishing government.
Quote from: The Declaration of Independence
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government
So I don't have the right to stop the violent thugs from stealing, manipulating, and killing me as long as they're only doing it a little bit? This clause reinforces the concept that people should indeed suffer a little, or even moderate amounts, of violent intrusion in their lives. Only if the government controls some extreme percentage of your life are you then supposed to throw them off. But even then you're supposed to re-institute government through collective means.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 13, 2009, 02:10 PM NHFT
I do not agree with the violent american revolution. I am not interested in repeating it.
Neither am I. All of the statist principles found within the DOI, no matter how well intentioned, have led people to justify violence against otherwise free and peaceful individuals.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 13, 2009, 01:16 PM NHFT
Article Four Section Four.
Its activated with a request for physical federal assistance.
Thanks for the citation.
But that still requires a request from the state. The federal government is not given the authority to act on its own to defend a state against "domestic violence". Of course, if no one is getting violent, then there is no cause to call in the feds. If they show up uninvited, they should expect to encounter noncooperation of various forms.
Quote from: Ryan McGuire on April 13, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
it would have said that an individual person has the right to ignore government entirely. Instead of this, it implies that an individual does not have this right, that they must instead suffer government and go through some formalized process of altering or abolishing the government as a collective. Both altering and abolishing require groups of people to act, not individuals, which in the context of government, always harms individuals. In contrast, a stalwart individual, who of his own volition, refuses to obey the state, can persuade others to do the same, and over time make government irrelevant and ineffectual without resorting to any aggressive acts of altering or abolishing government.
wow, amen. +1
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 06:06 PM NHFT
You guys throw around phrases like molon labe without really thinking about what you're saying. "Over my dead body" and "from my cold dead hands" are other examples. I'm just pointing out what you're saying actually means: "if the government comes to take away my guns I will shoot them." I have no interest in making you look like a whack job. You guys are the ones saying these things. I'm guessing you don't really mean it. Do you? If you don't mean it, why do you say it? If you do mean it, why do you all seem to be upset by my questions?
I don't go around saying stuff like this because I understand the psychology, and I'm sure they (the government) do too. People who make threats are in many cases the least likely to carry them out. The threat itself is an attempt to ward off danger, because the threat-maker is, in actuality, unwilling or unable to carry them out. Bark instead of bite.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 06:34 PM NHFT
It'd be nice to know if the guy standing next to you at a party or rally or such is going to start shooting if the gov't starts confiscating guns.
My own thresholds for when I'd be willing to use violence to defend myself—against anyone, government thug or private thug alike—would be "will I get away with it?" and "do I have nothing to lose?". As many other people have pointed out, defending oneself against government thugs with deadly force, in the current reality, is only going to result in one going to jail for a very long time, or even being executed. Defending oneself against private thugs is often a "will I get away with it?" scenario (New Hampshire's laws fortunately recognize self-defense as an affirmative defense) so I'd certainly be willing to do so.
The second scenario is "do I have nothing to lose?". If we reach a point where the government was going around rounding people up to be put in death camps or somesuch, would I defend myself with deadly force then? Why not? What have I got to lose? I might as well take a few of them down with me. Maybe it'd slow them down a bit and allow a few other people to escape.
And one important note here: None of this is about violence as an activism method. You're absolutely right that violence will never work to fix or eliminate the government. I'm speaking about violence purely as a self-defense tactic to protect oneself or others.
Question—would
you be unwilling to shoot someone if they were actually coming to kill you? And if so, do you honestly think everyone else should live by this same standard?
I'm new to this thread, to this forum, and to this discussion about guns, violence, the Second Amendment, etc as a whole.
I've long been a very distant observer and, for a very long time, did not think guns were necessary or socially useful.
However, recent personal awakenings, recent events, and recent (well, actually, the political waters in which we frogs have been boiling) have made me re-think and re-consider.
I am a student of Morihei Ueshiba and the art of aikido which is unarmed or lightly-armed self-defense... the spirit of harmony with the universe... a very spiritual art and discipline. It is really a way of being, understanding, self-carriage, etc.
I have also read extensively about situation awareness and tactical decision-making in a crisis, and about the OODA loop (which in some circles is brought into training about the use of weapons).
That said, I offer up to this discussion the following:
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/ has two articles of interest:
Monday, April 13, 2009
Self-Defense is Futile
20/20 and 60 Minutes would like us to think so.
Is the Anti-gun personality backing down or being brought down?
by John Longenecker
---
Myths of armed self-defense: 'If I only had'...the truth
by Paul Valone
"[Active killers] strike stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves." –
Force Science Research Center
Cleverly aimed at undermining growing calls for arming concealed handgun permit-holders in schools and other allegedly "gun free" zones which attract active killers, Friday's hit piece on ABC's "20/20," entitled "If I only had a gun," claimed to demonstrate that mere citizens are incapable of preventing mass murders like Virginia Tech. What "20/20" avoided mentioning, however, is that the personality characteristics of active killers actually make them more vulnerable to armed intervention than common criminals..."
More at the link.. http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/
Quote from: kickinandtickin on April 14, 2009, 05:26 AM NHFT
That said, I offer up to this discussion the following:
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/ has two articles of interest:
Monday, April 13, 2009
Self-Defense is Futile
20/20 and 60 Minutes would like us to think so.
Is the Anti-gun personality backing down or being brought down?
by John Longenecker
---
Myths of armed self-defense: 'If I only had'...the truth
by Paul Valone
"[Active killers] strike stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves." –
Force Science Research Center
Cleverly aimed at undermining growing calls for arming concealed handgun permit-holders in schools and other allegedly "gun free" zones which attract active killers, Friday's hit piece on ABC's "20/20," entitled "If I only had a gun," claimed to demonstrate that mere citizens are incapable of preventing mass murders like Virginia Tech. What "20/20" avoided mentioning, however, is that the personality characteristics of active killers actually make them more vulnerable to armed intervention than common criminals..."
More at the link.. http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/
Propaganda to keep the masses believing that there's no way that they can defend themselves. We simply can't have a society of people that believes that they can defend themselves, can we? What would happen when they figure out that the govt. assaults them daily?
Gun ownership and nonviolence are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
What is arguably one of the least violent societies in the world also has one of the best defended populations. In Switzerland, every adult male, who are all militarily trained, owns, and is required to maintain, a gun and a supply of ammo. They are also required to qualify on a shooting range once a year, with their own rifle. Their utilities are all underground, and every house has a bomb shelter. They are long way from being a free society in the libertarian sense, but in case you hadn't noticed, nobody fucks with the Swiss.
(http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/LikeWhatYouLike.jpg) (http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/)
that's disgusting Leetninja. . . this is not your property and threatening to destroy someone else's property simply because they don't want you on it is beyond reprehensible.
I was hoping you would come back and follow the owner's rules. Now I have to ignore you because you obviously have no problem fucking with someone else's property.
Quote from: erisian on April 14, 2009, 12:14 PM NHFT
Gun ownership and nonviolence are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
What is arguably one of the least violent societies in the world also has one of the best defended populations. In Switzerland, every adult male, who are all militarily trained, owns, and is required to maintain, a gun and a supply of ammo. They are also required to qualify on a shooting range once a year, with their own rifle. Their utilities are all underground, and every house has a bomb shelter. They are long way from being a free society in the libertarian sense, but in case you hadn't noticed, nobody fucks with the Swiss.
(http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/LikeWhatYouLike.jpg) (http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/)
I love that image!
really? youre just going to remove my posts now? this is post number 7 you have removed without cause. maybe someone will read it before you remove it this time.
this is really pathetic.
i have done nothing wrong.
I never called anyone "stupid"
I merely have my own opinion which last i checked i was entitled to
you banned my IP (futile) because i didnt 100% agree with your view?
you remove posts where i defend myself against accusations of BS?
Really!? This is how this is going to go down???
are you going to ban everyone and remove all posts that you dont agree with? im surious. will you?
perhaps if i bow to your majesty you wont remove them?
Quote from: AntonLee on April 14, 2009, 07:13 PM NHFT
I love that image!
If you liked that, you'll enjoy where it came from. It's a link too!
Quote from: leetninja on April 14, 2009, 08:42 PM NHFT
perhaps if i bow to your majesty you wont remove them?
You should be aware that multiple people have the power to remove posts etc.
Kind of seems like you wigged out and flipped into troll mode, seemed like a little bump in the road that you over reacted and swerved into the ditch.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 15, 2009, 05:56 AM NHFT
You should be aware that multiple people have the power to remove posts etc.
Kind of seems like you wigged out and flipped into troll mode, seemed like a little bump in the road that you over reacted and swerved into the ditch.
this is the second time i have had to post this since my posts continue to be deleted with no cause ... Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 15, 2009, 05:56 AM NHFT
You should be aware that multiple people have the power to remove posts etc.
Kind of seems like you wigged out and flipped into troll mode, seemed like a little bump in the road that you over reacted and swerved into the ditch.
not being a troll at all. i decided to not take part in a conversation that i thought was going nowhere - i dont see how that is "wrong" - in fact i basically was just trying to remove myself from the conversation
i never called russell "stupid" i didnt even mean to offend him and i tried to tell him that here multiple times.
i go home and try to log in and my IP is blocked ... to me that is a rather ridiculous thing to have happen to me. blocking me from the entire site and forum without any real cause and after saying that i wouldnt be forced away. the only way i can sign on now is by trickery that i have done on my end at home - i have no problem doing but it does get rather old and annoying after a while ...
maybe i assume to much in thinking that its russell specifically but that is based off of the comment that kat made earlier about him "making me leave" which i also thought was odd. if it is someone else that has some sort of problem with me for what amounts to nothing perhaps they should a) get over it and/or b) discuss it with me rather than trying to silence and censor me
i have been an active member, i have defended people on here, people here have helped me when i needed advice or just someone to speak to and i really felt like i found a decent group of people but this is quickly becoming beyond nightmarish and it seems to have gotten out of control ...
i dont think that i broke any rule here that deserves a punishment of this caliber ...
I haven't deleted any posts...not sure who did. I was blocking someone else, you were blocked by accident.
Oh, Russell says he deleted your post when you said, what if I raped your wife in front of you? I can't say that I sympathize with your "plight".
He also bragged about doing you the favor of not bringing your system down.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 15, 2009, 08:13 AM NHFT
Oh, Russell says he deleted your post when you said, what if I raped your wife in front of you? I can't say that I sympathize with your "plight".
i never said that! holy crap ...
what i asked was what happens when they come to search and seize as their please in your home without cause - how would you remain calm - and then gave a double scenario
scenario one being if it was just a kop - comes in you try to reason with im he pulls his weapon cuffs you tells you to shut up etc - what is the reaction -
the second scenario is not a kop - just a jackass who decides to come to your house do what they want and take what they want and then decides its a good idea to rape your wife ...
that second scenario has happened in the world MANY times ...
i was saying it because russell seemed to be saying that no matter who it is or what they did that he would be non violent ...
I DID NOT SAY THAT I WOULD DO THAT!
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 15, 2009, 08:41 AM NHFT
He also bragged about doing you the favor of not bringing your system down.
actually - i didnt ... what i said was that if i were a vindictive person, less honorable, or a jackass etc. I didnt threaten nor would i bring anything down. Do I have the skills to do so? yes. Would I?
No
It is and continues to be an implied a threat.
For the record, I don't recall leetninja ever saying he would rape anyone, merely he was asking if someone would use armed defense against a rapist. It didn't come across to me as a threat at all, and completely on topic. I for one, would shoot someone attempting to rape someone.
As for the comment leetninja said about bringing down the forum, deleting databases, deleting backups etc, THAT came across to me as a threat. Are you in the habit of making detailed lists of things that you are NOT going to do leetninja?
This thread is beyond destroyed. oh well.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 15, 2009, 08:58 AM NHFT
It is and continues to be an implied a threat.
well gee - saying
I DID NOT MEAN IT THAT WAY AND WOULD NOT DO THAT - SEVERAL TIMES - would seem to imply that it is not an effing threat! Maybe if my post explaining that hadnt been
REMOVED SIX TIMES this wouldnt be an issue or thrown in my face in such a twisted way?
Quote from: Ryan McGuire on April 15, 2009, 09:07 AM NHFT
For the record, I don't recall leetninja ever saying he would rape anyone, merely he was asking if someone would use armed defense against a rapist. It didn't come across to me as a threat at all, and completely on topic. I for one, would shoot someone attempting to rape someone.
As for the comment leetninja said about bringing down the forum, deleting databases, deleting backups etc, THAT came across to me as a threat. Are you in the habit of making detailed lists of things that you are NOT going to do leetninja?
This thread is beyond destroyed. oh well.
quite simply i was pissed when i wrote the comment and didnt realize until a while later how it may have come across ... i apologized - i explained that i wouldnt ever do that - i explained how it was meant ... that *SHOULD* be enough ... i dont know why it is being held onto so tightly ...
it wasnt a very detailed list ... but i can come up with some detailed lists of what i do not intend to do if necessary yes ... i mean what do you want me to say to this that i havent already said*
*some posts have been removed ...
Or maybe, leetninja, despite the content of what you said, you said it in the same tone as so many of your recent of your posts, which comes across to me as very rude. You're seeming like a jerk, to me. I do realize that people have an online persona that is often very different from their real one (I do). I also know very well that reading someone's words misses a lot of information (e.g., vocal tone, body language, gestures, facial expressions) and thus a lot of what is intended to be communicated does not get communicated well or at all. Knowing that, I think that what I've read of your posts makes me think you're acting like a jerk (again, I'm not referring to the content of what you're saying, just how you're saying it). Russell, for example, seems to me to be very calm and polite, as do some others in this thread.
Quote from: Ryan McGuire on April 15, 2009, 09:07 AM NHFT
For the record, I don't recall leetninja ever saying he would rape anyone...
that is because I DIDNT. I have even messaged Kat to let her know that is not what i said and gave her the details of that post
it was a scenario a scenario b thing in reference to russell basically saying that nonviolence was the solution to all problems - to which i posed two scenarios and asked him doesnt he have a limit before he reacts n a potentially violent way?
Quote from: Mike Barskey on April 15, 2009, 09:41 AM NHFT
Or maybe, leetninja, despite the content of what you said, you said it in the same tone as so many of your recent of your posts, which comes across to me as very rude. You're seeming like a jerk, to me. I do realize that people have an online persona that is often very different from their real one (I do). I also know very well that reading someone's words misses a lot of information (e.g., vocal tone, body language, gestures, facial expressions) and thus a lot of what is intended to be communicated does not get communicated well or at all. Knowing that, I think that what I've read of your posts makes me think you're acting like a jerk (again, I'm not referring to the content of what you're saying, just how you're saying it). Russell, for example, seems to me to be very calm and polite, as do some others in this thread.
so i cant really say anything you just said about readying words misses a lot of information vocal tone, gestures, etc ...
if someone, anyone wants to read into my words and see hostility they will - if they want to see calm and polite they will, if they want to see anger and frustration they will, if they want to read comedic relief they will and the list goes on ...
who am i to tell anyone how to read things? quite simply - i cant. i have explained, and re-explained things but i can not make people read a certain way. i dont tend to use a lot of emoticons or *lol*s on forums.
i certainly didnt mean to come off as an ass here. i just cant change how people
CHOOSE to read emotionless text.
WHAT IF I raped your wife in front of you? What Russell said leetninja posted was a hypothetical, not that he was about to do it. I never saw the post. I don't know what happened to the other post leetninja says has been deleted.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 15, 2009, 09:58 AM NHFT
WHAT IF I raped your wife in front of you? What Russell said leetninja posted was a hypothetical, not that he was about to do it. I never saw the post. I don't know what happened to the other post leetninja says has been deleted.
i did NOT say WHAT IF
i messaged you about this ...
i have posted what the comment was several times.
i gave him two scenarios
i specifically had one scenario with a cop and then i said something like ... lets say the other one is just some jackass that does the same thing and decides to rape your wife in front of you ...
i never said what if, i never said i would, is this post recoverable because having words shoved in my mouth that i would never say is really starting to piss me off
Quote from: Pat McCotter on April 11, 2009, 10:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on April 10, 2009, 02:27 PM NHFT
im really not sure where you are going with this ... i didnt say that i think your way of life is useless. in the right circumstances it is great. dont you get pushed too far at some point?
if someone decided to come to your home and just search and seize your belongings with the intent to take what they want how exactly would you non-violently not co-operate when that person pulls a gun and says "sit down and shut up or ill shut you up" and proceeds to take your money, firearms, etc? Lets go with double scenario even ...
first person that does that is a Kop ... how do you non violently not cooperate with him? how are you planning on preventing him from taking your belongings that he had no right to take to begin with?
the second is just a jackass that also decides to throw in raping your wife while you watch ... so really how do you remain non violent through something like that? same questions as above plus the obvious add in question about him and your wife.
maybe if it hits closer to home you will think differently?
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=4640.0
FOUND ITand now that i have ... seriously ... come on ... i cant scream WTF loud enough right now ...
( Martok, Head of the Klingon Empire) "How can we fight the Borg if we are feeding on ourselves".
If we are to be assimilated, do we resist or become borg, good question.
If we fight with bows and arrows, are we as bad as them who use flashbands and an entry team of 5 highly trained police officers of spec. ops. troopers?
If we throw stones, will we be able to say we resisted tyranny?
If we do not risist, aren't we agreeing with the tyrant?
There is one way to get political power, and that is by the barrel of a gun. I do know 1 thing though. It will be the police officers and the military fighting amongst themselves first before it comes to door to door confiscation of firearms. If I have to, as a porquepine, I'll use my quills if I have to, for I don't want to feed the wolves with my flesh or freedom.
If it comes to violence, the only way to win a fight is to "become" the federal government as we are supposed to be. As for war plans? it is not something I know about or want to know about. If you are recruting fighters for your revolution, keep me out of it, I'll do my part, praying.
Ed
Quote from: leetninja on April 15, 2009, 10:07 AM NHFT
FOUND IT
and now that i have ... seriously ... come on ... i cant scream WTF loud enough right now ...
Didn't you ever play 'telephone' when you were a kid? Same shit, different day.:shithitsthefan:
The blame for the misunderstanding here goes to whoever deleted the original post(s), IMO.
Quote from: erisian on April 15, 2009, 02:07 PM NHFT
Didn't you ever play 'telephone' when you were a kid? Same shit, different day.:shithitsthefan:
The blame for the misunderstanding here goes to whoever deleted the original post(s), IMO.
Agreed. in every which way. i found a quote as you can see of the post that i actually made. i did not do any of this stuff i am being accused of ... its pretty much spun out of control at this point. im really not sure what else i can do or say here that will make any difference.
my posts being removed, my name being smeared, and the ridiculousness of this situation really has me rather pissed off. i havent really decied 100% what to do about it so i dont really have much more to say right now.
Quote from: leetninja on April 15, 2009, 02:39 PM NHFT
i havent really decied 100% what to do about it so i dont really have much more to say right now.
Ignore it, and it will go away?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 15, 2009, 08:11 AM NHFT
I haven't deleted any posts...not sure who did. I was blocking someone else, you were blocked by accident.
I'm still blocked at home (where i am now) by IP. I can work around it to log into here as you can see but i would like to be unblocked if this was accidental ...
Wow, what a way to treat someone who came here looking for help originally, and then got involved.
leetninja:—
https://www.nhteaparty.org/
If you do something offensive, someone might ask you to stop or leave, but we don't delete posts or actually ban users. Whatever gets said gets left there so anyone and everyone else on the board can see it and make their own judgments.
When did that start?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 08, 2009, 06:34 PM NHFT
Whether or not you are going to shoot the government agents who come to take your guns is an important question to me. It'd be nice to know if the guy standing next to you at a party or rally or such is going to start shooting if the gov't starts confiscating guns. I don't think we can win a violent revolution against the US government. I don't think it's RIGHT to use violence to get what we want. Too many innocent people die. I want to use peaceful means. Maybe your molon labe phrase has nothing to do with revolution or why we're all here together. But then why use the porcupine in the picture?
Ask the porcupine to hand over his quills, he'd likely say, "Come and get them!"
no one has EVER "won" anything using "peace" you have to fight or you will lose.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 15, 2009, 08:33 PM NHFT
Wow, what a way to treat someone who came here looking for help originally, and then got involved.
leetninja:—
https://www.nhteaparty.org/
I was never impressed or interested in the scenarios that brought leetninja to this forum and I really don't like him hanging around.
So ... looks like another forum wants you leetninja ... wanna take them up on the offer?
Quote from: cyne on April 15, 2009, 09:24 PM NHFT
Ask the porcupine to hand over his quills, he'd likely say, "Come and get them!"
seems like they run from danger
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 16, 2009, 12:37 AM NHFT
no one has EVER "won" anything using "peace" you have to fight or you will lose.
I am not looking to win and have someone lose.
I want to live in peace and so I have to live peacefully.
If that is not what you are focused on, I would rather not hang out with you and might even need to oppose your activities.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 04:37 AM NHFT
My own thresholds for when I'd be willing to use violence to defend myself—against anyone, government thug or private thug alike—would be "will I get away with it?" and "do I have nothing to lose?".
Question—would you be unwilling to shoot someone if they were actually coming to kill you? And if so, do you honestly think everyone else should live by this same standard?
Why not ... only when it is right? Why refrain only because the thugs is bigger or has backup?
Yes
If everyone lived that way, there would not be killing. If many people live that way, then your have very little killing. We live in a mostly murder free society because most people are not willing to kill.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 16, 2009, 05:53 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on April 15, 2009, 09:24 PM NHFT
Ask the porcupine to hand over his quills, he'd likely say, "Come and get them!"
seems like they run from danger
Yet, they still have quills and use them when cornered. :icon_pirat:
Burning Dove, Burning Field Mouse, Burning Moose, Burning Llama
None of these seem to say the same thing as Burning Porcupine.
Quote from: shyfrog on April 16, 2009, 05:58 AM NHFT
Burning Dove, Burning Field Mouse, Burning Moose, Burning Llama
None of these seem to say the same thing as Burning Porcupine.
I understand Lou has been ill lately :P
The right to defend oneself is a right I would defend...try saying that real fast 3 times. :P
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 16, 2009, 06:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: shyfrog on April 16, 2009, 05:58 AM NHFT
Burning Dove, Burning Field Mouse, Burning Moose, Burning Llama
None of these seem to say the same thing as Burning Porcupine.
I understand Lou has been ill lately :P
Ill, sick, bad, nasty, down, raunchy, etc...
positives or negatives depending on the usage ('sup, yo...check out these nasty tunes. Ill as shit. I'm down.)
I am, however, feeling under the weather :icon_pirat:
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 16, 2009, 05:52 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 15, 2009, 08:33 PM NHFT
Wow, what a way to treat someone who came here looking for help originally, and then got involved.
leetninja:—
https://www.nhteaparty.org/
I was never impressed or interested in the scenarios that brought leetninja to this forum and I really don't like him hanging around.
So ... looks like another forum wants you leetninja ... wanna take them up on the offer?
this is an honest question. what exactly is your problem with me? have i somehow done something to harm you? my original reason for coming here was because i peacefully stopped someone from burning down my neighbors home! Am i to assume that if someone was trying to burn down your home that you wouldnt want someone to stop them peacefully? or that if you caught someone trying to burn down a neighbors home you would just watch out the window?
Please dont delete my post and then go say that i somehow threatened to burn your house down or something.
So what is the problem with what originally brought me here? Or with me personally? Obviously there is something bothering you about me but i have no idea what it is and it seems as though neither does anyone else ...
and yes, i might sign up with another forum - does that somehow equal you banning me again/still via IP or that i can not be a member of this forum for some reason?
i guess i could be "ok" with this whole thing if there were a reason for it and you werent twisting my words so horribly, banning my IP address, and deleting my posts. it obviously stems from some kind of issue you have with me which is why i am asking why. i just dont get it.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 16, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 04:37 AM NHFT
My own thresholds for when I'd be willing to use violence to defend myself—against anyone, government thug or private thug alike—would be "will I get away with it?" and "do I have nothing to lose?".
Question—would you be unwilling to shoot someone if they were actually coming to kill you? And if so, do you honestly think everyone else should live by this same standard?
Why not ... only when it is right? Why refrain only because the thugs is bigger or has backup?
Yes
If everyone lived that way, there would not be killing. If many people live that way, then your have very little killing. We live in a mostly murder free society because most people are not willing to kill.
i think that you should take a look here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)
There is a pretty significant amount of violence in this country. We do not live in a murder free society. I think that more than likely the reason that there isnt more killing is simply because people are afraid of getting caught and suffering the consequences. crimes of passion usually cloud judgement and are far more common that someone just walking up to someone else and killing them. i guess my point is that this leads back to my original question to you which was: dont you have a point at which you would take action or do you just stand by idly and watch the chaos around you unfold?
I guess I just don't like the way you do things. Can you leave this place and hang out somewhere else?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 16, 2009, 05:53 AM NHFT
Quote from: cyne on April 15, 2009, 09:24 PM NHFT
Ask the porcupine to hand over his quills, he'd likely say, "Come and get them!"
seems like they run from danger
Porcupines do not run. They amble. They go peaceably on their way. They don't bother anyone who doesn't bother them. But if you fuck with them... well, you brought the injury on yourself. Go grab one by the tail and see what happens. Take pictures. It would make a great YouTube video! One for "
Jackass III"?
Any Volunteers? ;D
Wait...
Why are we having to explain the symbolism of the porcupine
here, of all places??? ::)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 16, 2009, 08:17 AM NHFT
I guess I just don't like the way you do things.
the feeling is mutual to say the least.
yes i will probably be a lot less active when it comes to this forum and supporting some of the people here to be honest. based on you alone for the most part. i do have people here that i would like to continue to support and help out and one of the only ways to keep up on things that happen here is unfortunately to deal with something that is in your domain (pun intended)
i still feel like you have no reason for disliking me - i dont know how i do things incorrectly and you cant seem to provide any answers which is rather confusing to me since as far as i know i have done things that are peaceful and noncooperative which is the same thing you seem to speak about right? more than anything i am legitimately bothered by someone disliking me for what seems to amount to nothing.
if men didn't fight this country would've never been founded.
i'm curious what model you are following where "live and let live" has ever worked in securing peace?
I don't have a problem with you or how you do things, and if you were truly a live and let live person you wouldn't care if people like me wanted to do things in a different way
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 16, 2009, 11:04 AM NHFT
if men didn't fight this country would've never been founded.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that this country was founded?
Quote from: Mike Barskey on April 16, 2009, 11:18 AM NHFT
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 16, 2009, 11:04 AM NHFT
if men didn't fight this country would've never been founded.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that this country was founded?
I think it was a good thing at the time, and for many years after.
I do not think we need a state to live, and I would be happy with a strictly constitutional government, or no state at all.
but, without a fight, we would be ruled over by a king.
you can pretend you're free by living "peacefully" until men will guns come and kill you. because there will always be someone with ill intentions that is willing to use force against you. in this day and age it is much more difficult to simply live where no one else is, and never be discovered.
that being said, i really don't care what other people do, and you can fight the good fight in anyway you choose to do so.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on April 11, 2009, 12:59 PM NHFT
I find it interesting that some of the same folks who won't even anonymously protest or chance a misdemeanor arrest are going to fight to the death. I mean let's play out the scenerio... 5 am asleep, in your underwear, a dozen trained men in body armor with automatic weapons burst into your home... I don't see many taking that on with the pistol from the night stand.
what about an akm with a 75rnd drum on the night stand?
but you are correct in your assumption, the person in that situation would be blow away, whether or not he took out a few thugs in the process.
that is not the time to fight, the time to fight would be after that, on your terms.
if you're going to fight you need to pick your battles and never corner yourself, because if you corner yourself superior numbers will always win.
i live in a small town, with 10 or so cops, less than half on duty at anytime. maybe 3 cars. a small group of people could kill these criminals in short amount of time with little effort.
real nice - move this out of the main forum so to one where it will be less visible ... why didnt i see this coming?
Quote from: leetninja on April 16, 2009, 12:39 PM NHFT
real nice - move this out of the main forum so to one where it will be less visible ... why didnt i see this coming?
I guess that's so he doesn't have to answer any questions or defend his position. I see from another source that you weren't the first one to ask, and the reaction was the same.
I was hoping Leetninja that you'd drop this whole thing in the spirit of liberty (or whatever reason you want)
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 15, 2009, 08:58 PM NHFT
When did that start?
[Not sure if this was a reply to my post or not, since nothing's quoted. But if it is:—]
The NH Tea Party policy on not banning users or messing with posts went into effect when Michael stopped running the forum and handed it over to me, in September of 2008. I've never liked the idea of memory-holing what's been written to begin with. I also decided it would be more effective in dealing with libertarians to simply tell them, "I don't like what you're doing—go away," rather than banning them. Banning someone lets them walk away feeling they've been treated unfairly. One has used force to stop an argument, and even if one is entitled (the forum being private property and all), it's still not the way to win an argument. On the other hand, if an offensive user is asked to leave, and they don't, it lets every other private property–respecting libertarian on the board see how childish they're behaving and hopefully their reputation would be affected appropriately.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 16, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 04:37 AM NHFT
My own thresholds for when I'd be willing to use violence to defend myself—against anyone, government thug or private thug alike—would be "will I get away with it?" and "do I have nothing to lose?".
Why not ... only when it is right? Why refrain only because the thugs is bigger or has backup?
Practical concerns? I'm not particularly interested in getting into a fight I know I'm not going to win.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 16, 2009, 05:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 14, 2009, 04:37 AM NHFT
Question—would you be unwilling to shoot someone if they were actually coming to kill you? And if so, do you honestly think everyone else should live by this same standard?
Yes
If everyone lived that way, there would not be killing. If many people live that way, then your have very little killing. We live in a mostly murder free society because most people are not willing to kill.
Problem is, it's impossible to get everyone to live that way (or any way, in fact). In a society where everyone but a few people practiced pacifism, those few who didn't would quickly take over.
In a society that accepts that force is going to happen, and where there is a
sufficiency of people who are only willing to use force in response to aggression (initiation of force), one can have a free society without
everyone agreeing on the same principle. Those who choose to initiate force would be quickly put down by those who only use force in self-defense.
There are always going to be problematic people in society. There are always going to be people who lose their temper and kill, or people who are just outright sociopaths. A society trying to practice pacifism is helpless against this. On the other hand, a society that follows the NAP can deal with these people quite easily. One doesn't need to try and convince the hot-headed or the sociopathic to behave. His own self-interest will eventually convince him to do so, and if it doesn't, he won't cause problems for other people for very long.
Going back to the first part of this post, right now we're stuck in a situation where too many people are willing to engage in aggression, and too many people are willing to tolerate it. Until that changes, using self-defensive force against the big aggressor in our society, the State, is simply a losing proposition.
Quote from: AntonLee on April 16, 2009, 03:02 PM NHFT
I was hoping Leetninja that you'd drop this whole thing in the spirit of liberty (or whatever reason you want)
I tried that. Ignored up to the point where russell decided to say (through kat) that i had posted "what if i raped your wife" blah blah blah
i was the one who went out of my way to prove my innocence in the matter and find someone who had randomly quoted my original post.
one that was done there was deafening silence.
then i just got agitated by russell passively aggressively conveying that he just plain doesnt like me and has some sort of problem(s?) with me on some level(s?)- and doesnt have any real reason for that. which is sad to me because it really does bother me that this is a man that i have defended in the past. also because i really just dont like when people seem to dislike me for nothing.
its one thing if i do something wrong or whatever and someone doesnt like me because of that but to just not like me with no reason and be unwilling to make amends, discuss a problem, or put forth any effort what so ever into acting like a normal adult is just ridiculous.
i understand it is his property - i agree that it is his property - and kat said my banning was accidental and that i was not banned.
i would like to understand russell's point of view on me - maybe it will help me think differently about myself. i tend to learn a lot from constructive conversations regarding myself. maybe that is rare for someone to be able to take a step back and look at themselves from someone elses point of view - but it is a quality i possess.
if the only thing that he hates/dislikes me for is because i have a point where i break and he doesnt then really; that isnt much of a reason at all and it is childish.
he took it a step further by continually lying about what i had said, twisting my words, and then moving or removing my posts and threads.
when he did that i became noncooperational and i have remained nonviolent - which seems to be what he preaches.
great, now you've had your say. . . can we let it die now?
I've just been IP blocked too.
Now all you have to do to get banned is to mention the existence of the question.
You don't even need to ask it or quote it.
None Dare Speak Its Name,
For They Will Incur
The Wrath of the Almighty!
:worship:
Pretty aggressive for a pacifist.
Way to go. ::)
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 07:47 PM NHFT
I've just been IP blocked too.
Now all you have to do to get banned is to mention the existence of the question.
You don't even need to ask it or quote it.
...
Pretty aggressive for a pacifist.
I don't know or care whether your claim is true - I've not been paying much attention to this aspect of this thread - but can you tell me where the aggression is? What is aggressive about the owner of a forum banning you for any reason they want?
no one here is coming into your house to take a dump on your pillow. It's an internet forum for god sakes. This reminds me of AOL 3.0 back in 1993.
Reported.
You don't have to like being banned from someone's house. Frankly, as I believe strongly in freedom, if someone entered my property and started spouting off about their statist ideals. . . I'd most likely ask them to leave.
If you're here spouting off about something that might or might not offend the owner, you can be asked to leave. I think that has already happened, read above posts.
My suggestion to Leetninja stands, as it does to anyone else. . . just drop it.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on April 16, 2009, 07:53 PM NHFT
can you tell me where the aggression is? What is aggressive about the owner of a forum banning you for any reason they want?
The use of authority to stifle opinions that he disagrees with. Or something... He won't say. I was banned without comment.
- He refuses to participate in the discussion.
- He has refused to answer several perfectly valid and reasonable questions, both in the discussion, and related to his actions.
- He plays judge, jury and executioner without evidence or a trial.
- His actions are destructive rather than constructive.
Certainly he has the right to do whatever he wants to here, but his actions paint him as a petty dictator rather than a liberty-loving individual.
Nice community-building work, isn't it? ::)
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
The use of authority to stifle opinions that he disagrees with. Or something... He won't say. I was banned without comment.
Your opinion hasn't been stifled. J'raxis invited you to another forum, Russell suggested you'd be happier participating at another forum, you could find your own forum, you could start your own forum, you could express your opinion via another medium, etc.
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
- He refuses to participate in the discussion.
This is not aggression.
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
- He has refused to answer several perfectly valid and reasonable questions, both in the discussion, and related to his actions.
This is not aggression.
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
- He plays judge, jury and executioner without evidence or a trial.
This is hyperbole, or perhaps a metaphor that doesn't fit. Everyone is entitled to judge what they like or don't; this is not aggression. What do you mean by "jury and executioner?" Do you mean that he decided what people he wants to consider friends and allow to use his forum, and then acted to prevent people whom he asked to leave but they didn't leave, from participating? This is not aggression.
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
- His actions are destructive rather than constructive.
What was destroyed? Was he was "supposed to" create something according to your demands?
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
Certainly he has the right to do whatever he wants to here, but his actions paint him as a petty dictator rather than a liberty-loving individual.
Dictators threat and apply force to make people act against private property (e.g., they cannot keep their property, they are forced to act so that other's get the fruits of their labor); dictators are the antithesis of private property, yet Russell's actions seem in complete accordance with private property.
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 08:18 PM NHFT
Nice community-building work, isn't it? ::)
I think I'll like the community better with you not it, so in my opinion it is indeed nice community-building. But good community building or bad, this is not aggression.
You can call it what you like. I call it childish behavior.
At least I'm willing to air some evidence.
Oh, the comments about leaving were directed at someone else, not me.
All I did was to speak in defense of the other person.
You can look it up if the posts haven't been deleted yet.
If want to call yourself an independent thinker,
Then you have to respect independent thought.
That has not happened here.
What has happened here is bigotry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry).
Congratulations on painting the Freedom Movement with that brush.
I have had erisian on ignore for a long time and now he or she is joined by leetninja. This thread got better. :)
I have only deleted one post by leet. I have not banned anyones ip. Kat told ivy to not come on our forum again ... and she did, so kat banned her. There might have been colateral damage even though we tried to use precision bombing during our peacekeeping nation building mission.
I of coarse agree with Mike. if you don't like our methods it is easy to escape our tyranny. You can go live in another country ... or even easier ... visit a different website.
erisian, you said "Pretty aggressive for a pacifist," referring to Russell's (or Kat's?) actions. I asked what was aggressive and you listed a number of things. Of those things, most were not aggression, and the others were unclear to me what you meant. Now you're changing the topic by saying I can call it what I like, and "at least [you're] willing to air some evidence."
I don't want to call it anything. I wanted you back your statement that Person A banning Person B from Person A's forum was aggression. You haven't.
Quote from: Mike Barskey on April 16, 2009, 09:00 PM NHFT
I wanted you back your statement that Person A banning Person B from Person A's forum was aggression. You haven't.
It may not be aggression by your definition, but bigotry it remains.
just a couple of things.
Mike, all of your comments seem like you wanted to address me which i dont understand why you now have some problem with me. i have defended you as well, made phone calls when you were arrested and alerted the forum to what was happening with your arrests and police encounters yet you say that the community will be better off without me... If that is the way you really feel about me, someone you have never personally met but has been there and accepted you for who you are and tried to help you as much as they can, then you are entitled to your opinion. i am just as curious about how i have done you "wrong" as i am about russell.
erisian and i are in fact NOT the same person.
russell mentions not banning anyone and it somehow relates to another person that was banned (Ivy?) which i have no idea what happened with her - my IP was banned days ago - erisian's was banned today it seems - so that said id like for at least one person to take a bigg whiff of the horse shit that is all around russell's statement that he hasnt banned anyone's ip etc.
if i am on ignore then why has russell passively agressively responded to what he deems worthy ...
and as much as i care about russell's opinion of me (i mean that) i have come to the conclusion that he is nothing but a large hypocrite. he preaches live and let live but then bans people from an open forum anyone can join and post on (his words) that is his simply because he can grasp onto the "i own it! its mine ill do what i want!" argument and garner support from some sheep.
seems like most people dont agree with king russell's actions but are either afraid to speak about them or just already banned
you see his actions as non agressive - i see them as passive agressive.
he has flat out LIED about me and what i have said. MORE THAN ONCE. so you agree with/justify the lying somehow?
i think the comments and twisting words and lies and then banning people left and right is a pretty aggressive way to silence people who have opinions. maybe you and some others are all ok with the king laying down his law but then again look at the way you view the govt. at this point what makes russell any different than the "government thugs?" they like to shut people up too.
whatever.
and erisian - thank you for saying EXACTLY what i have tried to say/convey/wanted to say on SEVERAL occasions.
all done now?
Quote from: AntonLee on April 16, 2009, 09:25 PM NHFT
all done now?
i doubt it - im rather pissed about this whole thing now.
Why does this forum turn into a soap opera every few weeks?
First, a couple clarifications. I invited leetninja to the Tea Party forum, not erisian. Not that erisian is disinvited—anyone's invited to sign up; I'm just clarifying whom I was speaking to when I posted the link. Also, I think those accusing Russell of being aggressive mean it in the sense of belligerent, not the term of art that libertarians use to mean immoral initiated force.
I imagine one of the admins are trying to do a netblock-wide ban in order to block the dynamic IPs that one or more of these users are using, which is catching random people under the same IP range. Advice to anyone trying to use an IP-based ban to remove someone from a forum: Don't bother. With all the open proxies available nowadays, things like Tor, and similar, there is absolutely no reliable way to connect an individual to an IP address for the purposes of blocking. If the bannee is insistent, it just descends into a tit-for-tat until one side gets tired, or the banner does something silly like ban a /24 or a /16, knocking out hundreds or thousands of innocent IP addresses.
I should also point out that the IP address that Ivy is most likely posting from is the restaurant's wireless: Presuming that it's not a dynamic IP to begin with, blocking that is going to interfere with all sorts of freestater-attended events, including Jack's monthly nine-eleven presentations there.
I don't think leetninja and erisian are the same person. When I had comments for you, I addressed them to you. When I had comments for him/her, I addressed them to him/her.
I don't have a problem with you, but your attitude on this thread has been, to me, as I've said, not very friendly. I appreciate your support, I appreciate your stance regarding liberty, I may not want to be friends with you (I don't know that for sure, but appreciating some things about you and not liking others is not an impossibility).
I'm not convinced Russell lied. Do you know how many admins there are on this board? Did you know that I'm an admin here? I don't recall anyone asking who deleted posts or banned IPs; instead, assumptions seem to have been made.
I also don't see this particular case of banning (if indeed banning occurred!) as being passive aggressive, or as aggressive, yet those claims keep coming up with only opinion as backing. Aggression is not an opinion.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 16, 2009, 10:24 PM NHFT
Also, I think those accusing Russell of being aggressive mean it in the sense of belligerent, not the term of art that libertarians use to mean immoral initiated force.
That could be. It makes more sense to me. I'm confused, then, why they'd use the word aggression. I don't think such an act would be belligerent, either - maybe rude or blunt or cold (I don't think so, but I could understand that perspective).
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 16, 2009, 10:24 PM NHFT
I imagine one of the admins are trying to do a netblock-wide ban in order to block the dynamic IPs that one or more of these users are using, which is catching random people under the same IP range.
Yes, that makes sense to me. I wonder, if this turned out to be the case, would leetninja and/or erisian apologize?
Quote from: Mike Barskey on April 16, 2009, 10:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 16, 2009, 10:24 PM NHFT
Also, I think those accusing Russell of being aggressive mean it in the sense of belligerent, not the term of art that libertarians use to mean immoral initiated force.
That could be. It makes more sense to me. I'm confused, then, why they'd use the word aggression. I don't think such an act would be belligerent, either - maybe rude or blunt or cold (I don't think so, but I could understand that perspective).
In the common usage, "aggressive" doesn't just imply "force"; it also means assertive, emphatic, bold, overbearing, etc.
In the interest of openness and honesty, I propose that whichever admin and/or moderator is deleting posts and/or banning IPs, speak up and explain what they're doing.
Property owners (and their agents) are free to do as they please with their property, but if their intent is to address a certain behavior, they're not going to be effective unless they explain what they're doing, and why. If they do explain, then those affected can at least know what they're doing "wrong", and either change what they're doing, or decide they'd rather go elsewhere.
Moderation without explanation pretty much fits the definition of passive aggressive behavior: "keep changing until you figure out what I want you to do different."
Quote from: Mike Barskey on April 16, 2009, 10:27 PM NHFT
I don't have a problem with you, but your attitude on this thread has been, to me, as I've said, not very friendly. I appreciate your support, I appreciate your stance regarding liberty, I may not want to be friends with you (I don't know that for sure, but appreciating some things about you and not liking others is not an impossibility).
I'm not convinced Russell lied. Do you know how many admins there are on this board? Did you know that I'm an admin here? I don't recall anyone asking who deleted posts or banned IPs; instead, assumptions seem to have been made.
I also don't see this particular case of banning (if indeed banning occurred!) as being passive aggressive, or as aggressive, yet those claims keep coming up with only opinion as backing. Aggression is not an opinion.
Good to know - like i said before I cant make people read emotionless text a certain way. i did not mean to have attitude in my posts or some negative tone to them. i am a relatively calm and laid back person - a bit of a wiseass on occasion but more often than not im joking around and pretty light hearted about life as a whole. I'm not going to try and make anyone be friends with me my whole view on that is that i get along with 98% of the people i meet and know. of that 98% i would consider a small %age of them real friends where as probably 97.5% view me as their friend - i am a friendly guy all in all but to each their own.
as for convincing you or anyone that russell has lied ... well ... i will let kat and russell do the talking here ...
it started with this:
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 12, 2009, 03:54 PM NHFT
He seemed annoyed that you were calling me stupid. I thought he posted something or I wouldn't have mentioned it.
That is russell saying i called kat stupid ... which i didnt do.
then it escalated ... i was IP banned "accidentally" even though my IP range is nowhere near Ivy's.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 15, 2009, 08:11 AM NHFT
I haven't deleted any posts...not sure who did. I was blocking someone else, you were blocked by accident.
so im not banned according to her.
-------------------
then:
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 15, 2009, 08:13 AM NHFT
Oh, Russell says he deleted your post when you said, what if I raped your wife in front of you? I can't say that I sympathize with your "plight".
so according to russell i said i would rape his wife ... when i tried to explain in thread that it was not the case etc my posts were removed by someone. i got one through and kat must have noticed it. at that point russell (he removed my original post) decided change my words again.
also worth noting that this is the post that russell has admitted to removing - so i wonder if he or someone else removed my 8 other missing posts trying to explain what i had said. as soon as i posted them they were removed within a couple of minutes or less.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 15, 2009, 09:58 AM NHFT
WHAT IF I raped your wife in front of you? What Russell said leetninja posted was a hypothetical, not that he was about to do it. I never saw the post. I don't know what happened to the other post leetninja says has been deleted.
with this i dug through a couple pages of the threads and found someone who quoted me. no one has brought it up since.
Quote from: leetninja on April 15, 2009, 10:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: Pat McCotter on April 11, 2009, 10:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: leetninja on April 10, 2009, 02:27 PM NHFT
im really not sure where you are going with this ... i didnt say that i think your way of life is useless. in the right circumstances it is great. dont you get pushed too far at some point?
if someone decided to come to your home and just search and seize your belongings with the intent to take what they want how exactly would you non-violently not co-operate when that person pulls a gun and says "sit down and shut up or ill shut you up" and proceeds to take your money, firearms, etc? Lets go with double scenario even ...
first person that does that is a Kop ... how do you non violently not cooperate with him? how are you planning on preventing him from taking your belongings that he had no right to take to begin with?
the second is just a jackass that also decides to throw in raping your wife while you watch ... so really how do you remain non violent through something like that? same questions as above plus the obvious add in question about him and your wife.
maybe if it hits closer to home you will think differently?
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=4640.0
FOUND IT
and now that i have ... seriously ... come on ... i cant scream WTF loud enough right now ...
with this the entire thread - which if you remember was a simple innocent sticker idea thread - was moved to the bottom of a long list of sub forums, that no one really frequents from what i can tell (judging from post views of other topics here and lack of replies to them) called "Endless Debate and Whining" - which begged the question ... why?!
I think erisian hit the nail on the head saying:
Quote from: erisian on April 16, 2009, 02:58 PM NHFT
I guess that's so he doesn't have to answer any questions or defend his position.
I have also heard anyone who dares to speak against russell is treated this way and that he bans people all willy nilly. and here i thought he was against tyrannical control over people ...
so yea - honestly i am a tad pissed off - i dont like nor do i have to like the way russell decides to run the forum - at the same time i think that treating anyone this way and acting this way is not the way someone should act towards someone who has not harmed or hurt or really done anything all all "wrong" to them.
i keep trying to just let it go away or die off but then it just gets dragged up again and things that have already been addressed (by me especially) seem to need to be re-addressed or passive agressive comments are made such as . i.e. all of this above me. i personally dont like when my words are twisted and i am accused of things i havent done or said in this case it just happens to be a member of a group instead of some jackass kop. and here i thought we were all on the same side ...
Quote from: KBCraig on April 17, 2009, 12:33 AM NHFT
In the common usage, "aggressive" doesn't just imply "force"; it also means assertive, emphatic, bold, overbearing, etc.
In the interest of openness and honesty, I propose that whichever admin and/or moderator is deleting posts and/or banning IPs, speak up and explain what they're doing.
Property owners (and their agents) are free to do as they please with their property, but if their intent is to address a certain behavior, they're not going to be effective unless they explain what they're doing, and why. If they do explain, then those affected can at least know what they're doing "wrong", and either change what they're doing, or decide they'd rather go elsewhere.
Moderation without explanation pretty much fits the definition of passive aggressive behavior: "keep changing until you figure out what I want you to do different."
Thank you for being rational.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 17, 2009, 12:33 AM NHFT
In the common usage, "aggressive" doesn't just imply "force"; it also means assertive, emphatic, bold, overbearing, etc.
True, although I'm not common. :) When I speak of aggression, I'm almost always referring to the initiation of force, so perhaps I'm biased. The the use of "aggression" I was addressing was "Pretty aggressive for a pacifist." In that sentence, "assertive," "emphatic," "bold," and "overbearing" don't make as much sense as "initiating force" - none are polar opposites of "pacifist," but "initiator of force"
is. But apparently I was wrong.
Quote from: leetninja on April 17, 2009, 07:33 AM NHFTwith this the entire thread - which if you remember was a simple innocent sticker idea thread - was moved to the bottom of a long list of sub forums, that no one really frequents from what i can tell (judging from post views of other topics here and lack of replies to them) called "Endless Debate and Whining" - which begged the question ... why?!
Because you keep posting on a subject that they don't want to discuss?
Quote from: leetninja on April 17, 2009, 07:33 AM NHFTso yea - honestly i am a tad pissed off - i dont like nor do i have to like the way russell decides to run the forum - at the same time i think that treating anyone this way and acting this way is not the way someone should act towards someone who has not harmed or hurt or really done anything all all "wrong" to them.
The Tea Party was created because some of us disapproved of the way that Russell and Kat dealt with certain situations. This is, however, their property. Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.
I think it's rather important in life to try and understand other positions. For example, I might explain "Molon Labe" to a Christian pacifist like Russell in terms of "turning the other cheek," or otherwise expressing defiance without acting violently. There are many who think of the term in that manner (ie, "if you demand that I turn over my guns, I won't do it; you can come and get them, but I won't act as your slave and bring them to you"). I'm
not a Christian pacifist, but I choose to play by their rules when I'm in their house, so that I can learn how to discuss things with them and find common ground.
Think of it like a foreign language. You speak a different language, so you can't communicate effectively. If you are willing to take some time to learn their language, you will be able to communicate and (potentially) find those commonalities. There are no guarantees that you will find many (or any) with any given individual, but if you aren't able to communicate, then you are guaranteed to find none. I believe that force should not be initiated. So does Russell. Russell also believes that force shouldn't be used in self-defense, which I disagree with. If I focused solely that disagreement, I wouldn't be able to discuss the things we do agree on. In some cases, the few areas of agreement aren't worth the trouble, but I expect that's not the case, here.
So, to sum up what my rambling point is, I hope that you will discuss different topics in the venues appropriate to those topics. I hope that you will continue to read and even participate here, keeping in mind what topics are considered appropriate by the owners of this forum. If you are willing to keep an open mind, I expect that you may find that you have a lot of common ground to discuss.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 17, 2009, 08:41 AM NHFT
Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.
Then it is helpful to know what the rules are, in order to avoid breaking them.
But when the enforcer(s) of the rules refuse to explain them, and instead only issue punishments for perceived transgressions, nothing is accomplished besides the creation of bad feelings and schisms between people who
should be trying to find common ground.
Quote from: erisian on April 17, 2009, 12:47 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on April 17, 2009, 08:41 AM NHFTLibertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.
Then it is helpful to know what the rules are, in order to avoid breaking them.
But when the enforcer(s) of the rules refuse to explain them, and instead only issue punishments for perceived transgressions, nothing is accomplished besides the creation of bad feelings and schisms between people who should be trying to find common ground.
Indeed. That is a point of contention which many of us have with the administration of those forum. But it's still their right to run it that way, if they prefer. They could ban members by random selection, and it would still be their right to do so.
I don't think that aspect of this forum is helpful to discourse, but the situation is what it is, so those of us who disapprove can choose to deal with it, or leave, or some combination (ie, participate in only certain ways on certain forums). They've made it clear that this is how they intend to use their property, and that they have no desire to change the way they use it. Moaning about it is not beneficial.
Joe
little joe's got it
I hope you don't mind my nickname for you. I always picture you like the cool youngest brother on Bonanza with the hat and leather vest and sidearm. :)
maybe if the "rules" were laid out and if i had actually broken one i wouldnt have said anything.
kat has said numerous times that my IP ban was accidental. yet im still blocked and there are a million excuses why.
as much as i agree that someone who owns something can do what they want - that doesnt make them right. hitler ran/owned germany for a little while and well i think we all know how that went. i refuse to bow to the king but the rest can feel free to enjoy their gold stars ...
:worship:
remember folks. . . it's just the internet. The internet.
Quote from: erisian on April 17, 2009, 12:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on April 17, 2009, 08:41 AM NHFT
Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.
Then it is helpful to know what the rules are, in order to avoid breaking them.
But when the enforcer(s) of the rules refuse to explain them, and instead only issue punishments for perceived transgressions, nothing is accomplished besides the creation of bad feelings and schisms between people who should be trying to find common ground.
Maybe it should be written at the top of the forum or something, but threatening gov't people either specific individuals and generic threats has been not appreciated for quite some time. The Kannings have asked others to leave when they have done these things.
It is ironic, that many here profess to believe in the right of private property, but when something happens that they don't like, they violate the right of property.
If you want to yell out generic threats to gov't people, please go elsewhere.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 17, 2009, 03:34 PM NHFTlittle joe's got it
I hope you don't mind my nickname for you. I always picture you like the cool youngest brother on Bonanza with the hat and leather vest and sidearm. :)
Never watched it, but with a name like "Joe," I've had more nicknames than I can count.
Joe
Quote from: David on April 18, 2009, 01:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: erisian on April 17, 2009, 12:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on April 17, 2009, 08:41 AM NHFT
Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.
Then it is helpful to know what the rules are, in order to avoid breaking them.
But when the enforcer(s) of the rules refuse to explain them, and instead only issue punishments for perceived transgressions, nothing is accomplished besides the creation of bad feelings and schisms between people who should be trying to find common ground.
Maybe it should be written at the top of the forum or something, but threatening gov't people either specific individuals and generic threats has been not appreciated for quite some time. The Kannings have asked others to leave when they have done these things.
It is ironic, that many here profess to believe in the right of private property, but when something happens that they don't like, they violate the right of property.
If you want to yell out generic threats to gov't people, please go elsewhere.
quite simply: no one threatened anyone government or otherwise.