Why do we even entertain the loss of freedoms

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Nothin

Oh wow, thank you.

Beyond this simplicity?

Don't mean to thrift DBC's thread but I think it would still be on topic. First of all we need to just forget about the US constitution and their bill of rights. Not saying they are bad, there were actually damn good for there time, but you are not asking about something framed around them.

The fact of the matter is, and I'm hoping our american friends read this, is that there are about 100 democratic republics in the world and about 30 Parliamentary republics which come to mean the same. They don't all function at the same level but the idea is similar and seeing the incarceration rate in the US...

Your questions are really deep and I don't know if you will like what I have to say, they are not answers, they can be but they will not seem that way.

Your need to survive means that you are not free. You are bound by that need, but only if you need to go on. You cannot be free from that as long as you are alive.

Rights are a social construct that depend on the society you live in. As long as you are in that place you are also not free. In some places you cannot drink but you can beat your wife, she would definitely not be free in that circumstance. In other places you are free to imbibe in alcohol but you cannot beat your wife.

I know they are extreme examples but I think you might grasp what I'm getting at. One society has their rules and another might have the same basic rules but there is some difference. As long as you are living in either you are expected to live by those rules.

I know that some people talk about inalienable rights. There is no such thing. Someone decides to shoot up the place you are shopping at you might just lose your life, liberty and your right to a pursuit of happiness. Sounds nice on that piece of paper but nobody can guarantee that you will have it.

Don't know what to reply, as my ideas seem to be mostly off-topic.

'Needing to', or 'having to' survive: are these not human constructs?
Animals and plants just survive, no?

Mostly agree with your points about freedom, and rights.

Is person that lives alone in a remote area free, even though they are still subjected to the laws of the land?
Are homeless people more free than a regular citizen whom needs permits for that and permissions for this?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Nothin

Oh wow, thank you.

Beyond this simplicity?

Don't mean to thrift DBC's thread but I think it would still be on topic. First of all we need to just forget about the US constitution and their bill of rights. Not saying they are bad, there were actually damn good for there time, but you are not asking about something framed around them.

The fact of the matter is, and I'm hoping our american friends read this, is that there are about 100 democratic republics in the world and about 30 Parliamentary republics which come to mean the same. They don't all function at the same level but the idea is similar and seeing the incarceration rate in the US...

Your questions are really deep and I don't know if you will like what I have to say, they are not answers, they can be but they will not seem that way.

Your need to survive means that you are not free. You are bound by that need, but only if you need to go on. You cannot be free from that as long as you are alive.

Rights are a social construct that depend on the society you live in. As long as you are in that place you are also not free. In some places you cannot drink but you can beat your wife, she would definitely not be free in that circumstance. In other places you are free to imbibe in alcohol but you cannot beat your wife.

I know they are extreme examples but I think you might grasp what I'm getting at. One society has their rules and another might have the same basic rules but there is some difference. As long as you are living in either you are expected to live by those rules.

I know that some people talk about inalienable rights. There is no such thing. Someone decides to shoot up the place you are shopping at you might just lose your life, liberty and your right to a pursuit of happiness. Sounds nice on that piece of paper but nobody can guarantee that you will have it.

Don't know what to reply, as my ideas seem to be mostly off-topic.

'Needing to', or 'having to' survive: are these not human constructs?
Animals and plants just survive, no?

Mostly agree with your points about freedom, and rights.

Is person that lives alone in a remote area free, even though they are still subjected to the laws of the land?
Are homeless people more free than a regular citizen whom needs permits for that and permissions for this?

Now I have officially seen what they call soft doxting ..

Oops meant doxing...as doxting was what it was called over a decade ago

What logical use does a 556 762 mm round serve in society? It is a weapon of war and has no use. You want to sit here and cry about your rights to own it. For what? so you can shoot tin cans or paper targets meanwhile it's the weapon of choice for mass shooters. You want to shoot a weapon of war join the military. I have no problem with these weapons being banned again. Sure you could do a lot of damage with just a 22 but it will be a lot less damage. I'm fed up with the mass shootings it's time to do something about it. Cry all you want about your right to bear arms. Our founding fathers didn't foresee every ding dong with a chip on their shoulder mowing down as many innocent people as they can. I'm a sportsman and I hunt but I don't use a AR or AK to do it.

originally posted by: Nothin
Don't know what to reply, as my ideas seem to be mostly off-topic.

They are not that off-topic. I mean the topic is people entertaining the loss of freedoms.

'Needing to', or 'having to' survive: are these not human constructs?
Animals and plants just survive, no?

I think the way we think about and discuss these topics are a very uniquely human thing but the instinct, at least in animals, to go after something to eat or get away from something trying to eat you is something they/we are a slave to. The same with seeking shelter or procreating.

Is person that lives alone in a remote area free, even though they are still subjected to the laws of the land?

Nobody is ever free from the basic necessities, unless they decide to just lie down and die, which goes against our instinct.

Now, someone living in a remote area would be free from some of the rules imposed on those living in a housing development but they might be burdened with the chore of chopping wood for heat, weeding a garden or something like that.

Are homeless people more free than a regular citizen whom needs permits for that and permissions for this?

This is along the same line as the above and I think it is really on-topic. Is the homeless person free from worrying about what the weather is going to be that day/night or about being attacked or harassed by the authorities while they sleep?

Does the the home owner have more freedom because, even though he still owes the mortgage on his house and someone can still break into his home, he can be free from the worries of the homeless person?

People like to throw out the Franklin quote about security and freedom a lot but the truth is that most people choose a certain level of security in exchange for some freedoms, following the T&C /laws of a building/condo/society, being at work on time and putting in the required time, spending a morning chopping wood or sitting in a deer stand because you need to stock that freezer.

Does one situation offer more or less freedom over the other or is it just that person trading security for freedom in a way they feel comfortable?

originally posted by: wantsome
What logical use does a 556 762 mm round serve in society? It is a weapon of war and has no use. You want to sit here and cry about your rights to own it. For what? so you can shoot tin cans or paper targets meanwhile it's the weapon of choice for mass shooters. You want to shoot a weapon of war join the military. I have no problem with these weapons being banned again. Sure you could do a lot of damage with just a 22 but it will be a lot less damage. I'm fed up with the mass shootings it's time to do something about it. Cry all you want about your right to bear arms. Our founding fathers didn't foresee every ding dong with a chip on their shoulder mowing down as many innocent people as they can. I'm a sportsman and I hunt but I don't use a AR or AK to do it.

When someone doesn't like what you say or represent and decides to silence you forever....which is a reality in our world on every Continent in every Country.....how to you express your wish to continue to live?.....you defend yourself of which you have a Universal birthright to do....surrendering this is akin to suicide or self-immolation to giving up control of your destiny.

a reply to: wantsome

5.56 & 7.62 are not "weapons of war". They are a bullet caliber.

That's like saying 17"+ tires are used on armored vehicles, and therefore have no place on the streets as they are an instrument of war... What about pre-packaged foods ? The military uses pre-packaged food (MRE's), clearly pre-packaged food is an instrument of war, and has no business in our stores.

I bet you don't even know what AR & or AK are anachronyms for.

Sure you could do a lot of damage with just a 22 but it will be a lot less damage

You know a 22 is caliber .22 ? That big scarey 5.56mm Nato designation you're so worried about ? It's a .223 caliber.....

a reply to: DBCowboy

We were never free to begin with.

We are born into a world of Slavery.

We are slaves to money which is borne from trees.

But soon we will just be slaves to electronic money which comes from a few people hitting their keyboards and placing electronic money into a bank account.

Without hard cash, we won't be able to survive, unless we have some electronic money on that chip (which will be here soon, already taking over Sweden).

Not sure if I've gone off topic but yes, we have and are giving away our freedoms.

Years ago back in the 80s, I met a Nazi. One of Hitler's own. He wasn't wearing the uniform or surrounded by SS but, he was a Nazi working for our space program. A Nazi is a Nazi even without all the bells and whistles. A killer is a killer, with or without a gun. When I had to run a mission in Rwanda, the killing was massive, dead children and babies piled up around trees and they weren't killed with guns. We can allow guns to be banned but we will still have murder. Look at the Manson gang, no guns in the Tate murders. When I was a kid some nut put poison in Tylenol, a lot of people died and it scared the hell out of everyone. Last time I looked, Tylenol was still on the shelf. See my point? Murder and violence will continue with or without guns. A sick mind will find a way. Taking away guns will not cure us of violence. Read some of the accounts of the Crusades, no guns but massive killings. This argument is moot. We have a mental health problem, period.

Oh you want freedoms now?

Is it freedom o oclock?

originally posted by: kingsquirel

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Nothin

Oh wow, thank you.

Beyond this simplicity?

Don't mean to thrift DBC's thread but I think it would still be on topic. First of all we need to just forget about the US constitution and their bill of rights. Not saying they are bad, there were actually damn good for there time, but you are not asking about something framed around them.

The fact of the matter is, and I'm hoping our american friends read this, is that there are about 100 democratic republics in the world and about 30 Parliamentary republics which come to mean the same. They don't all function at the same level but the idea is similar and seeing the incarceration rate in the US...

Your questions are really deep and I don't know if you will like what I have to say, they are not answers, they can be but they will not seem that way.

Your need to survive means that you are not free. You are bound by that need, but only if you need to go on. You cannot be free from that as long as you are alive.

Rights are a social construct that depend on the society you live in. As long as you are in that place you are also not free. In some places you cannot drink but you can beat your wife, she would definitely not be free in that circumstance. In other places you are free to imbibe in alcohol but you cannot beat your wife.

I know they are extreme examples but I think you might grasp what I'm getting at. One society has their rules and another might have the same basic rules but there is some difference. As long as you are living in either you are expected to live by those rules.

I know that some people talk about inalienable rights. There is no such thing. Someone decides to shoot up the place you are shopping at you might just lose your life, liberty and your right to a pursuit of happiness. Sounds nice on that piece of paper but nobody can guarantee that you will have it.

Don't know what to reply, as my ideas seem to be mostly off-topic.

'Needing to', or 'having to' survive: are these not human constructs?
Animals and plants just survive, no?

Mostly agree with your points about freedom, and rights.

Is person that lives alone in a remote area free, even though they are still subjected to the laws of the land?
Are homeless people more free than a regular citizen whom needs permits for that and permissions for this?

Now I have officially seen what they call soft doxting ..

Oops meant doxing...as doxting was what it was called over a decade ago

Can't see it, sorry.
Could you point it out a little clearer please.
Thanks.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Nothin
Don't know what to reply, as my ideas seem to be mostly off-topic.

They are not that off-topic. I mean the topic is people entertaining the loss of freedoms.

I think the way we think about and discuss these topics are a very uniquely human thing but the instinct, at least in animals, to go after something to eat or get away from something trying to eat you is something they/we are a slave to. The same with seeking shelter or procreating.

Hmmmm... Am trying to get you to see an angle, where the animals just survive, without the 'need-to', but am not so good at explaining things.
They just survive. Surviving just occurs, albeit with environmental, biological, and other 'limitations'.
There is a way to see this as freedom, as opposed to slavery.

Nobody is ever free from the basic necessities, unless they decide to just lie down and die, which goes against our instinct.

Now, someone living in a remote area would be free from some of the rules imposed on those living in a housing development but they might be burdened with the chore of chopping wood for heat, weeding a garden or something like that.

This is along the same line as the above and I think it is really on-topic. Is the homeless person free from worrying about what the weather is going to be that day/night or about being attacked or harassed by the authorities while they sleep?

Does the the home owner have more freedom because, even though he still owes the mortgage on his house and someone can still break into his home, he can be free from the worries of the homeless person?

People like to throw out the Franklin quote about security and freedom a lot but the truth is that most people choose a certain level of security in exchange for some freedoms, following the T&C /laws of a building/condo/society, being at work on time and putting in the required time, spending a morning chopping wood or sitting in a deer stand because you need to stock that freezer.

Does one situation offer more or less freedom over the other or is it just that person trading security for freedom in a way they feel comfortable?

Why is everybody chopping wood all of a sudden ? (Heech-heech-heech).

If we can get by the animals being free thingie, then perhaps we could move-on to the crazy hairless apes ?

originally posted by: Nothin
Hmmmm... Am trying to get you to see an angle, where the animals just survive, without the 'need-to', but am not so good at explaining things.
They just survive. Surviving just occurs, albeit with environmental, biological, and other 'limitations'.
There is a way to see this as freedom, as opposed to slavery.

What I think you are trying to say is that they don't worry or maybe think too much about it, they just do it.

That does not free them from the need to find prey, form packs when they need to take down a larger animal, or the need to be alert when grazing out in nature.

Why is everybody chopping wood all of a sudden ? (Heech-heech-heech).

If we can get by the animals being free thingie, then perhaps we could move-on to the crazy hairless apes ?

Well, the example was of someone living in a remote area. The area were they are living means they will have to do whatever is needed to survive, which, in a remote area, might include having to chop wood.

There is no difference between the animals and the human. We are all slaves to these basics needs.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's kind of ironic how the left have used in the past Star Wars to differentiate the left and the right, but in fact the left wants an empire, a global empire, while those of us in the right want to stay as a "Republic" which is what the rebels fight for in Star Wars.

Those words from Samuel Adams were powerful and still resonate today. Pity schools today don't teach just how incredible it was to fight for and win this country and then to have these political giants and thinkers at its founding be able to create a country that has thrived and prospered for some 200 years. Now its declining and we have dwarfs and idiot children in office trying to tell us we need to change it to better serve those who do nothing to maintain it.
The founding fathers wanted citizens armed so as to provide an immediate deterrent to foreign invaders as well as to ensure their freedom from tyranny that might arise domestically. Citizens had the rough equivalent of military grade firearms, maybe even better in some ways. Benjamin Franklin would be considered the Qanon or Breitbart of his day, would he be branded as a potential domestic terrorist? Don't be so quick to embrace insanity or ignorance just because you're bored with the day to day struggles of reality.

Banning guns or revoking the 2nd Amendment sounds simple on paper and in debates. Roughly 400 million firearms are personally owned in the United States. In order to recover them for destruction, most of the Constitution would have to become null and void to do so. The U. S. has the highest concentration of personal weapons ownership, no one matches that. No one. The United States is listed as the highest potential for armed partisan activities during a possible invasion. What about internal security? Our police forces are designed to function in a passive state with the hope that the average citizens that are armed could at least mitigate a crises before it becomes out of the scope of law enforcement. I don't think the American psych will do well with a dynamic armed police force. Fact, police are poorly underpaid. By removing the Citizen from the situation, the financial cost to replace this culture would be enormous. In just one generation, who will even know how to operate a weapon if they are not former military, police or real old? So much for posse's. Not to mention the greater cost. The U. S. spends billions on national defense, get ready to spend trillions annually. The U. S. is virtually invasion proof for a reason. Take away guns and we become vulnerable to border incursions and even outright invasion. Personally, if I was some dictator with nukes and guns I would be shy of tackling a population of armed pissed off Americans. However, with an unarmed population, I would take the U. S. in a heartbeat. No one is looking at the deeper issues, lets put our emotions up and get back to being realistic.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

We give up our freedoms because the government has way better armaments than the citizenry. The government is not afraid of its citizens.

some people also feel that the government is better equipped to deal with certain threat, for example the state intelligence network is far superior to anything that ordinary citizens have.

Personally, I pay my taxes so I expect the state to give me services in return. Like cops patrolling my neighborhood. Otherwise they should give me my money back.