You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Elephant in The Room: The Failures of The Government
All of these shootings are the result of someone thinking it is acceptable to use a firearm as an offensive weapon. This is a moral failure, and if there were Zero guns, a different weapon would be used. Guns are not the problem, moral relativeism is the source! As long as people can slide their substitute for morals to include harming innocents, we will face similar violence.
As a side note, this kind of violence has been reduced significantly since the high in 1993. Ironically, this reduction is opposite the increase in legal firearms, used for defensive purposes.
I guess, the point I was making, again and again, is to dispell the belief that the Government is to blame when it's individuals themselves.
I agree, government is NOT and has never been the solution. However, they are a contributor; by liberal policies, they steer us towards violence. While we still have the ability to respond with force, we the people, can be the first layer of defense. As long as people feel that they have the right to hurt others, we will face violence in some manner. This is a moral failure, aggrevated by government tolerance of the intolerable, and public acceptance of same.
The American government is literally Anarchy or Self-Rule. The government you're talking about is not even government, it's only a corporation. The Federal Government is not the American Government, the Federal Government is the agent of the King to Rule over his subjects, who the Free, Sovereign, and Independent people are not part of as they went to war with the king over it. When you say "government" this and that you fail to mention the nature of the government, which is neither Public and as a consequence nor Lawful Actual Government. The point I was making is not that government isn't the solution to gun violence, but that government isn't to blame for the failures of people. I should have said that: the moment someone abuses the powers vested into them or usurps the position of power by reaching outside their authority, that moment is when they stopped being Government and became Lawlessness, and that is not to ever be mistaken with Government itself, but let it be perfectly clear that the person in charge of the office, the one who swore to never to abuse, not the institution they were part of, is to blame. The institution is no more the moment it acts against its directives. Then by the function, it is something else that is only there in name or pretending.
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-Ig65tnTGOlAxofs0/free%20sovereign%20and%20independent_djvu.txt
That's a good start.
I would argue that you misunderstand the definition of "anarchy" as it is not at all synonymous with "lawlessness".
If the institution that the despot in question is a part of tolerates their despotic actions, maintains their office, and has established a system wherein they maintain their power, is the system to blame then?
I didn't insinuate let alone hint anywhere that anarchy was lawlessness and in fact went at length to tie in anarchy with lawfulness as our government is Self Rule as the people expressly reserve their right to Self-Rule, which is the definition of Anarchy isn't it, to govern oneself.
I also explained clearly how any institution once it stops acting outside it's published directives and counter to those it stops being that institution, regardless the fact that they chose to call themselves such and such, and all on the fact that they have gone against their own directives and words, and in the case of governance, at all levels and in all forms it stops being so the moment it acts outside its limits.