Armed defense?

[leetninja]

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

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? 

[Russell Kanning]

I guess I just don't like the way you do things. Can you leave this place and hang out somewhere else?

[erisian]

   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?

Wait...
Why are we having to explain the symbolism of the porcupine here, of all places???

[leetninja]

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.  

[akmisrmaadi]

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

[Mike Barskey]

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?

[akmisrmaadi]

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.

[akmisrmaadi]

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.

[leetninja]

real nice - move this out of the main forum so to one where it will be less visible ... why didnt i see this coming?

[erisian]

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.

[AntonLee]

I was hoping Leetninja that you'd drop this whole thing in the spirit of liberty (or whatever reason you want)

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

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.

[leetninja]

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.

[AntonLee]

great, now you've had your say. . . can we let it die now?