Covid-19 - How does it affect your kite-life?

[Matteo V]

There's almost no situation in which it IS applicable. The Hatteras situation is actually an excellent example: do the residents have the right to an armed defense against the incursion of "non-resident homeowners"? Do the non-resident homeowners have the right to use armed force to enforce their ownership rights? Which side does the "government" ie. local, state or federal police forces come down on? Does upping the ante with more powerful weapons help in anyway? The person with the biggest gun wins? Is there any realistic way to counter the armed power of the state in any case? It's just a delusional fantasy to think that societal disputes can be solved effectively or fairly with armed force. Other countries have moved away from that fantasy.

Under threat of violence, the inability to oppose that threat with violence, results in those unable to defend themselves death. It's clear and simple, and I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this.

When out-of-staters show up to take what you have and murder you for good measure, because you had it, violence in defense is 100% acceptable. It is called self-defense. The reason that it is not applicable in this specific case is that these out-of-staters are showing up as refugees from the virus. Funny how Democrats love refugees when they can get their vote, but then Democrats despise them when they're actually threatening those Democrats. None of these people coming to their vacation homes are committing violence against their neighbors. Certainly there can be no comparison of bringing a disease with a 1% death rate, to actual violent intentions of theft and murder.

However, I am pro-choice with regards to self defense. You are well within your rights to choose to die by not standing up for yourself against a violent aggressor. Others are well within their rights to choose to stand up to a violent aggressor with deadly force. This is a human right which precedes all other rights. Because under the threat of violence, inability to fight back effectively means that you have no rights whatsoever.

If there is no violent intent against you, then you are not within your rights to commit violence against anyone else.

[Matteo V]

Nah, I haven’t conflated anything. You chose to drop the idea that when you show up with your gun, the government will shut off your power, water and access to food with tanks and drones and whatever electronic weapons they chose. You can always pick lots of ways to fight them but a gun is one of the worst against big brother. Ask Orwell.

I am unfamiliar with Orwell's military experience. Did he have some experience with guns not being a good defense against other guns?

And for question 2, what other ways are there to fight those with guns which would be better then with guns? Would a sit-in work? How about creating your own Independent newspaper or website? Or possibly you could go door-to-door exposing those with guns as having a monopoly on violence that those without guns cannot oppose? I bet that would stop that pesky little high-speed projectile from entering the back of your head after leaving your executioners gun!

[Flyboy]

There's almost no situation in which it IS applicable. The Hatteras situation is actually an excellent example: do the residents have the right to an armed defense against the incursion of "non-resident homeowners"? Do the non-resident homeowners have the right to use armed force to enforce their ownership rights? Which side does the "government" ie. local, state or federal police forces come down on? Does upping the ante with more powerful weapons help in anyway? The person with the biggest gun wins? Is there any realistic way to counter the armed power of the state in any case? It's just a delusional fantasy to think that societal disputes can be solved effectively or fairly with armed force. Other countries have moved away from that fantasy.

Under threat of violence, the inability to oppose that threat with violence, results in those unable to defend themselves death. It's clear and simple, and I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this.

When out-of-staters show up to take what you have and murder you for good measure, because you had it, violence in defense is 100% acceptable. It is called self-defense. The reason that it is not applicable in this specific case is that these out-of-staters are showing up as refugees from the virus. Funny how Democrats love refugees when they can get their vote, but then Democrats despise them when they're actually threatening those Democrats. None of these people coming to their vacation homes are committing violence against their neighbors. Certainly there can be no comparison of bringing a disease with a 1% death rate, to actual violent intentions of theft and murder.

However, I am pro-choice with regards to self defense. You are well within your rights to choose to die by not standing up for yourself against a violent aggressor. Others are well within their rights to choose to stand up to a violent aggressor with deadly force. This is a human right which precedes all other rights. Because under the threat of violence, inability to fight back effectively means that you have no rights whatsoever.

If there is no violent intent against you, then you are not within your rights to commit violence against anyone else.

Nobody said anything about "Democrats", or any other political affiliations & how exactly are "refugees" voting?

You bring up typical libertarian strawman arguments. Stick to reality & the example at hand. If out-of-Hatteras property owners (don't have to be out-of-staters) show up & want to go to their Outer Banks homes & locals block their access, what happens if the non-resident property owners insist on proceeding? Can the locals use force to obstruct them? Can the non-residents respond with force to the force used against them?

The obvious answer is to take it to the courts, which is what appears to be happening. The presence of guns would be a counter-productive to a reasonable resolution. Relying on guns is not going to "protect rights" - its' more likely to lead to escalation. Of course, if your life is actually directly threatened, using a firearm to defend yourself is entirely reasonable, but restricting what firearms are available to the public also seems entirely reasonable. Defending yourself with firearms against "the government" is completely unrealistic in the present era, no matter what weaponry you are able to arm yourself with.

George Orwell fought for the Republican side against Franco's fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War. In fact, in the real world, as opposed to the gun-nut fantasy world, civil war is the likely outcome of any serious armed struggle with "the government", as the government is inevitably going to represent one faction of society against another. It's what happened in Spain ... & it's what happened in the United States. In the Spanish Civil War the fascists won, not because they were "protecting rights", but because they were able to able to muster superior military force (with the help of Hitler).

[knotwindy]

Made it to Goodwin’s !

[BenBen]

For europeans it's always so weird to hear you americans discuss. Freedom, weapons, best way to deal with nearly everything. There s something that went wrong somehow deep within the american soul.
Anyways: I m really sorry to see how hard it hits the states right now. It s going to be some tough times for all of us. Take care and stay safe!

[matth]

For europeans it's always so weird to hear you americans discuss. Freedom, weapons, best way to deal with nearly everything. There s something that went wrong somehow deep within the american soul.
Anyways: I m really sorry to see how hard it hits the states right now. It s going to be some tough times for all of us. Take care and stay safe!

That guns and freedom thing has worked out pretty well for us last time I checked...Guns are not the best way to deal with everything, and that is simply not true...
We find it weird that throwing acid in peoples faces is a thing in Europe.

[pākihiroa]

He's trolling you and you took the bait. This is how he won the last election. Look what he has to face now..... A senile old man . The debates are going to be epic ,EPIC, bring on the debates ! I bet Biden forgets his own name on multiple occasions before this is over.

Hitler initially had a lot of support too. Unfortunately, demagoguery and racism always has a certain appeal.

Finally Godwin's law has been invoked.

Godwin's law. Thank you. I actually learnt something new from this thread.

But just as someone who has paranoid tendencies might really have someone out to get him, per Godwin himself, 'In December 2015, Godwin commented on the bad person and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician."' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).

[pākihiroa]

That guns and freedom thing has worked out pretty well for us last time I checked...

The 14,542 Americans who died from gun-related homicides in 2017 might beg to differ with you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viole ... ted_States). Well, actually, they they lost their freedom of speech, so they can't. But their loved ones and dependents left behind might have something to say on the subject.

A specious conflation of guns and freedom BTW.

[revhed]

12:38
"everyday were doing it exponentially"
20:44
" we have sent billions and billions and billions of dollars"
21:30
"probably might be able to do that"
R H

[Flyingseb]

That guns and freedom thing has worked out pretty well for us last time I checked...Guns are not the best way to deal with everything, and that is simply not true...
We find it weird that throwing acid in peoples faces is a thing in Europe.

acid in people faces? This century? In Europe?