Gangbangers vs. Militia's Who side would you take?

[Mr. Shaman]

So lets see the hands of those on who side you would take? I'm sure some of you would put the gang bangers in prison camps while others including myself want to see the militias put in prison camps. Being a former gang banger I will always take the side of the streets before I pledge allegiance to some right wing extremist group that wants to put my family in gas chambers for not being in the right frame of mind according to them. So lets see who you people side with.

I'd (long-ago) come up with a concept that'd "kill" two "birds"!!

*****​

First...we'd need an island...possibly 50 acres.

Second...we'd need organization & a brand. I'd suggest X-treme World War.

Third...it's gotta be profitable! It would require all monitoring/production/transmission-capabilities, for worldwide-consumption; preferably pay-per-view.

Fourth...we'd need voluntary-contestants. This Planet's over-loaded with people who have some need to prove how "bad" they are....and, a lot o' these clowns have a bad-habit of trashing/intimidating/threatening people they don't (even) know.

We've got the contestants!!

Fifth...We need two teams!!!! EVERYONE'S invited (especially those people who feel their life isn't complete, until the entire world sees them on some "monitor", somewhere.)

These teams would represent any-and-all orgs on The Planet; Nationalists, Racist Orgs, Religious Orgs, etc.

Sixth...we need Rules!! Actually, there's only one rule. Each team would be dropped on opposite sides of the island. They would be required to initiate competition, 1 hour after landing; allowing for strategy-planning & sponsorship-advertising.

Each team-member would be provided a baseball-bat. The last-man-standing, ALIVE, would represent the Winning Team!!! (...And win $3M)

Conclusion...All o' those folks who can't wait to kill someone (typical gun-as-protection owner) would have an outlet; up-close & personal....the way ALL WARS should be fought!!

All o' those folks who insist War is inevitable would get their carnage-fix.

All o' those voyeurs/cowards, who love to see other people gettin' screwed-up, would get their fix.

******

It's a Win/Win for Progressives.

All o' those Kill-Or-Be-Killed folks would slowly eliminate themselves, while the rest of us can proceed with cleaning-up the mess those folks (typically) leave behind....and, it's ALL PAYED-FOR!!!!!!!!!​

 

[Dante the Marxist]

And one more time: I am not a member of any militia. Nether am I some pubescent high school kid so pimply and homely that cannot attract females, so I hang out on a political forum meant for adults.

And you proved that you are no better than any high schooler by resorting to personal insults on a political forum meant for adults.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I disagree. My values and principles are important to me and worth fighting for.

Hey....get your TEAM together!!!!

Let's SEE how "bad" you are!!!!

​

 

[dahermit]

And you proved that you are no better than any high schooler by resorting to personal insults on a political forum meant for adults.

Another teenager.

 

[top gun]

shoot them both

And from the kill 'em all let God sort 'em out school of hard knocks... pocket comes up with a compromise.

OK I'll jump in as I see this is getting a little heated and I think we mainly just have definition & interpretation problems here between intelligent well meaning people.

First I'll look the LooseChange side:

He was in a gang as was I (myself an outlaw motorcycle gang). So he knows first hand the danger of gangs or any radical, antisocial, anarchist or revolution by force groups and guns. He's drawing a comparison of how both gangs and militias have similarities. And some absolutely do.

Now I'll look at dahermit's side:

He has a great belief & respect for the 2nd Amendment (I know I have the scars from fighting some points with him on this before). He sees the gun issue as a none starter because of the right to bear arms. And he furthermore sees that there are real militias that by definition have some standing. And some absolutely do.

So in general I think my conclusion would be that for the most part A WELL REGULATED MILITIA (emphasis on REGULATED) is a better side to be on than a common gang.

However the truth is there are many hate groups that use the code word "militia" to cover their hate activities or wanton government overthrow. These would be no better than any other outlaw gang IMO.

Hope I didn't offend anyone with my observation. I just happen to like both posters and thought possibly looking at the good in both perspectives might be helpful.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'd (long-ago) come up with a concept that'd "kill" two "birds"!!

*****​

First...we'd need an island...possibly 50 acres.

Second...we'd need organization & a brand. I'd suggest X-treme World War.

Third...it's gotta be profitable! It would require all monitoring/production/transmission-capabilities, for worldwide-consumption; preferably pay-per-view.

Fourth...we'd need voluntary-contestants. This Planet's over-loaded with people who have some need to prove how "bad" they are....and, a lot o' these clowns have a bad-habit of trashing/intimidating/threatening people they don't (even) know.

We've got the contestants!!

Fifth...We need two teams!!!! EVERYONE'S invited (especially those people who feel their life isn't complete, until the entire world sees them on some "monitor", somewhere.)

These teams would represent any-and-all orgs on The Planet; Nationalists, Racist Orgs, Religious Orgs, etc.

Sixth...we need Rules!! Actually, there's only one rule. Each team would be dropped on opposite sides of the island. They would be required to initiate competition, 1 hour after landing; allowing for strategy-planning & sponsorship-advertising.

Each team-member would be provided a baseball-bat. The last-man-standing, ALIVE, would represent the Winning Team!!! (...And win $3M)

Conclusion...All o' those folks who can't wait to kill someone (typical gun-as-protection owner) would have an outlet; up-close & personal....the way ALL WARS should be fought!!

All o' those folks who insist War is inevitable would get their carnage-fix.

All o' those voyeurs/cowards, who love to see other people gettin' screwed-up, would get their fix.

******

It's a Win/Win for Progressives.

All o' those Kill-Or-Be-Killed folks would slowly eliminate themselves, while the rest of us can proceed with cleaning-up the mess those folks (typically) leave behind....and, it's ALL PAYED-FOR!!!!!!!!!​

Not a bad idea, but it would only work for those with the guts to participate. Many of the really bad people WANT to pick on innocent, non-violent, or helpless people, besides what would we do with all our fun weapons of war?

 

[GenSeneca]

One can hold dear one's values without demonizing others who may not share them..

If anyting, I'm the one demonized for being of the opinion that I should not be forced to conform with the will of others. The only obligation that I ask of anyone is to respect my individual rights and not violate them.

Now if someone has a gun to my head and is forcing me to conform to their morality, I don't think its demonization of that person to tell people, "Hey, this guy has a gun to my head!", I'm simply stating facts. Now whether the individual himself holds the gun to my head, or he elects a politician to do it for him, makes no difference to me... I still have a gun to my head forcing me to conform to their morality.

You can live your ideals without trying to force others to bend to your will.

I agree, that is why I am a Capitalist. Capitalism respects the rights of individuals and bars the use of force as means of coercing others to bend to your will. Government is entrusted with a monopoly on the use of legal force with the understanding that it can only use that force to protect individual rights and nothing else.

The idea that other ideologies are competing may not in fact be true.

There is a difference between "may not be true" and your earlier statement about how such divisions were entirely fabricated. As someone who supports and defends individual rights, any ideology that threatens, or in any way infringes upon, individual rights is necessarily a competing ideology to be defeated.

It may very well be that the goals are the same but the way to achieve them is what's in contention.

That is true and precisely why ideology plays such a critical role. If you're one that thinks the ends justify the means, then how you achieve an objective is not important, just so long as you reach the goal. You said that your ideology is "do no harm", if that is your goal, then you probably wouldn't support "doing harm" as a means to reach that end. So even if another ideology had your same goal, you would likely oppose their means of "doing harm" in order to achieve it.

Starting fights is no way to find peace.

I have no interest in "starting fights", I'm trying to start a dialogue when asking people about their ideology. However, you have to know what ideology you believe in and be able to explain and defend your positions to have a dialogue...

So the problem is, I know what I believe, I am able to explain and defend my positions but when those who disagree with me are unable, or unwilling, to identify their ideology and unable, or unwilling, to explain and defend their positions, they resort to attacks against me or my positions as a substitute for rational dialogue... Sometimes its name calling, sometimes its employing logical fallacies and sometimes they just stick with their talking points and stereotypes while avoiding the actual substance of any given issue.

Regardless, you seem to think such attempts at opening dialogue to be nothing more than picking a fight but if its so important for us to "talk" to our enemies in other countries and so important to "start a dialogue" with those who seek our destruction, I don't think its unreasonable to seek civil discourse with fellow Americans.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Another teenager.

You are probably a teenager as well, judging by your arrogant posts, your obvious superiority complex, your use of personal insults, and the fact that your entire argument is based on the grammer errors of other users.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not a bad idea, but it would only work for those with the guts to participate. Many of the really bad people WANT to pick on innocent, non-violent, or helpless people.....

'Tis true.....​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I agree, that is why I am a Capitalist. Capitalism respects the rights of individuals and bars the use of force as means of coercing others to bend to your will.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......


​

 

[top gun]

If anyting, I'm the one demonized for being of the opinion that I should not be forced to conform with the will of others. The only obligation that I ask of anyone is to respect my individual rights and not violate them.

Good. Then you know EXACTLY how women feel when lunatic Religious Right groups want to strip away their personal & individual right to choose.

That's excellent progress.

Now if someone has a gun to my head and is forcing me to conform to their morality, I don't think its demonization of that person to tell people, "Hey, this guy has a gun to my head!", I'm simply stating facts. Now whether the individual himself holds the gun to my head, or he elects a politician to do it for him, makes no difference to me... I still have a gun to my head forcing me to conform to their morality.

You miss the entire point here my friend. WE ALL HAVE A VOTE. You have as much of a voice as anyone else. This always kills me about Righties. The proselytize about patriotism and democracy but as soon as a vote doesn't go their way... they want anarchy or at the very least scream they should be exempt from the will of the people. But only for the votes they disagree with.

It doesn't work that way...

 

[GenSeneca]

Good. Then you know EXACTLY how women feel when lunatic Religious Right groups want to strip away their personal & individual right to choose.

Women do not have a "right" to end the life of another human being. Abortion is unquestionably a situation where the rights of two individuals are in conflict but I choose to side with the individual that has no choice and stands to permanently lose all his rights by being denied his right to live.

You miss the entire point here my friend. WE ALL HAVE A VOTE. You have as much of a voice as anyone else.

That is the morality of a thug or a brute, tyrants think that so long as their gang is bigger than mine, their gang is permitted to do as they please and take what they want without regard for the individual rights of their victims.

The morality of Altruism and Collectivism declares that mans only moral purpose in life is to serve others, the collective, society, a greater good, but never serve himself for the sake of his own happiness and well being, and your only means of carrying out your morality is through force and fraud.

Whether its a gang of muggers that beats me with sticks in order to steal money from my wallet or a politician, hired by a gang of thugs, that passes laws to accomplish the same act, makes no difference to me, I'm still the victim of force.

Should I be grateful if a mugger only takes half my money, or a quarter of my money, by his use of force? Then why should I be grateful when politicians use the force of government to take 30% of my income? The collectivist will say that its my "moral obligation" to submit to the will of "others" and allow them to take more than I'm willing to offer by my own volition, more than is necessary to maintain the government I'm willing to give my consent to support, a limited government with its only legitimate function as protector of my rights.

This always kills me about Righties. The proselytize about patriotism and democracy but as soon as a vote doesn't go their way... they want anarchy or at the very least scream they should be exempt from the will of the people. But only for the votes they disagree with.

"Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members." - Ayn Rand

You have never heard me "proselytize" about patriotism or democracy and you have never heard me advocate for Anarchy. In short, you have lied. You need to lie... You need to create such strawman at which you can strike because you are rendered impotent when limited to using facts and reality.

Democracy is simply a tyranny of the majority and Patriotism is "the virtue of the vicious", so said Oscar Wilde. Its the Collectivist that preaches Patriotism in order to convince people to sacrifice their own happiness and well being to a sense of duty... to the duty of whom? Others. Whether its Bush claiming that the sacrifice of our soldiers and treasure in an unnecessary war is an act of patriotism or its Joe Biden claiming that sacrifice of our earnings to the state is an act of patriotism is no different... They are both operating on the collectivist morality that sacrificing ones self to the state is in the best interest of society.

Democracy is equally the province of Collectivists, and the vicious. To the Collectivist, the "will of the people" is a magical formula by which they can deny the fact that reality exists and in doing so, deny individuals their rights, as if they too did not exist. Gay marriage was banned in California by what? "The will of the people", it was the will of the people that denied gays their right (a freedom of action) to marry one another.

"Just as the notion that 'Anything I do is right because I chose to do it,' is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality—so the notion that 'Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,' is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues." - Ayn Rand

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Gen/Seca,
I'm not ignoring you, I wrote a response to your post #22 but it got wiped out in the server collapse. I have to go to work now, but I'll try to reconstruct my reponse later.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen/Seca,
I'm not ignoring you, I wrote a response to your post #22 but it got wiped out in the server collapse. I have to go to work now, but I'll try to reconstruct my reponse later.

Don't sweat it.. I know your frustration, I had the same thing happen to me.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Women do not have a "right" to end the life of another human being.

....And, it's your option to believe that (that a First-Tri is a human being).

Ya' ever consider allowing others to believe what they want to believe??

You folks, who believe you have some Divine Right to ride-"herd" over other people's beliefs...in-order-to get your Pass (thru the "Pearly Gates") punched, need to find something-else to do, with your time....unless, of course, you've got proof o' those "Pearly Gates".​