Re: safety and politics
 

Thanks.. people have also called me the boogeyman, beezlebub, and I hide in your closets at night.



Boo.

Re: safety and politics
 

Any examples? Quite frankly, I can't think of any which can honestly be summed up so tidily, much less with such an abstract explanation as "being willing to accept where one's beliefs lead".

Re: safety and politics
 

Lebanon might be considered an example. I don't think gun control is very widespread there, which must be why it is so safe and why opinion of people outside the government is so respected. Hezbalah, for example, gets a lot of respect and is perfectly responsible.

Re: safety and politics
 

ALL examples (barring natural disasters).

Civilization collapse begins when its members aren't concerned about where their actions lead... exactly as fatalsaint was saying.

Of course it takes more than one... but it can start with one. Do I really need to provide examples? If so I'm stunned. Abstract or not, philosophies do have concrete consequences.

Re: safety and politics
 

If you are afraid of where your belief will take you... why believe in it?? If you are unsure or unwilling to follow through with your beliefs then what is the point of having them??

That's like believing in God.. and leading your life the way you think God wants you too - only to be unsure if you ever actually want to meet the man (or woman :)).. or even worse: Fear the day it comes to pass.

That's akin to starting a small fire in your living room for fun.. and then trying to absolve yourself of the consequences when your house burns down.

If you go down the road of gun control - be prepared to realize that the road may not end until all gun's are controlled. It's a very likely outcome.. whether you want it to or not..

It's like rolling a ball.. if you kick a ball straight it's going to keep rolling until something or someone kicks it into an alternate direction (or it reaches the end of it's course). If no one is able to shift that ball, or in this case - the gun legislators - from traveling down the seek for control and power.. then what we likely end up with a tightly controlled society.

Be careful what you wish for.. as they say.

So before I dare take a stance for, or against something - I must be prepared to not only defend my stance on the immediate issue at hand.. but the people that are exactly like half the people in this thread screaming about armed prisoners and the magical nukes that are going to appear in our children's cribs.

But.. don't get me wrong.. Being compared to the Roman Emperors and Hitler was an awesome ego boost. I went to bed smiling.

Re: safety and politics
 

I can see that signal is not getting through static, and that hyperbole is used to respond to sober objectivity. Maybe I'll dive back in when the ion storm has cleared. ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

Let me try this approach then:

I didn't say I wasn't concerned about where it leads.. I said I had already considered it - before performing the action. No one person can know everything, true.. but I must make the decision the way I can foresee it going from this point forward.

Following the two trails of thought.. I prefer anarchy over dictatorship/tyranny. To make a decision now.. only to worry about consequences later.. will always lead to the failure you are describing. I considered the consequences as I see them to both arguments.. and chose the one I'd prefer to accept.

eta: to stick with my hyberbole above (as I love extremes): Before I even bothered to light the match, to start the fire in my living room.. I would have already decided burning my house down was worth whatever it was I planned to gain from lighting said fire in my living room. I opt to not light the fire.. and then go "OH CRAP" when my house falls down around me. Granted, there's still "OH CRAP" moments in life.. but objectively looking and considering every decision you make, and what possible outcome it has in it's extreme, at least in my opinion, is the best way to establish a belief in anything.

Re: safety and politics
 

Anarchy is a transient state.

Re: safety and politics
 

For the most part, correct. From Anarchy one can re-build a society as it needs be. There is no control and no government, so one is formed. (Granted there are different views on what/how anarchy is/operates).

From an established Tyranny or Dictatorship it would be a little more difficult since the power and control are already held.. and thus must first be dismantled; before new power or control can be formed.

No government or empire in history has withstood the test of time.. ours is no different. At some point, it will crash, and a new system be implemented by the people whom remain.

All government have both Power and Control. It's how much you want to GIVE them that's the question.

Re: safety and politics
 

I'm amazed nobody has quoted Benjamin Franklin yet, regarding this issue:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

That is: If you let your government take away your freedoms, with the promise that it will be safer for you, you don't deserve the freedoms nor the safety.

This applies equally to letting your government confiscate your water bottles at airport security and purchasing a handgun. Don't elect a government that scares you with talk of terrorists. And just as important, don't let fear or a desire for safety be your first guide in your decisions. If you want to buy a gun, ask yourself, "Why am I doing this? When do I think I'll need this? Who am I planning to shoot?" If you are doing it to protect yourself against thieves or terrorists or something, you're letting fear win.

(EDIT: If you're doing it because you like guns and you're into target practice, but you don't really have any plans to use it to stop home invaders, then that's a different story. I don't plan on owning any guns, but I respect the "geek factor" of liking guns just for their inherent coolness, without any interest in hurting anything with them)