The general lesson is that if some part of government fails in its function, it will most likely be given greater funding and power. Of course, the purpose of this is not to reward failure; the thinking would be that more money and power will enable the agency to solve the problem. But the effect is that government grows when social problems grow, and thus it is not in the government’s interests to solve society’s problems.
― Michael Huemer
Irony: Taking a 170-year-old envy-based "philosophy," which has led to the murder of several hundred million human beings and the oppression of billions more, and calling it "progressive".
― Larken Rose
Reddit really doesn't like it when you highlight who their admins are:
Remember Duncan Lemp
In the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
― Lysander Spooner
It may seem that my position is extreme – as of course it is, relative to the current spectrum of opinion. But current mainstream attitudes are also extreme, relative to the spectrum of opinion of earlier centuries. The average citizen of a modern democracy, if transported back in time 500 years, would be the most wild-eyed, radical liberal on the planet – endorsing an undreamt-of equality for both sexes and all races; free expression for the most heinous of heretics, infidels, and atheists; a complete abolition of numerous standard forms of punishment; and a radical restructuring of all existing governments. By current standards, every government of 500 years ago was illegitimate.
― Michael Huemer
And that's the same sort of thinking that will be applied to the assault weapons ban....
They aren't banned, you just need to pay for insurance and a psych eval and register them etc.....
It doesn't fucking matter, a criminal's actions should not deprive the peaceful of their rights.
If there is any point to government AT ALL it is to prevent aggressive people from interfering with the rights of peaceful people.
If these people cared about evidence of reality they wouldn't be socialists.
They are driven by emotion, greed, and a desire for power.
That's why they (usually) don't take the guns, they prevent their transfer and disarm the next generation.
This has already happened with the effective ban on fully automatic weapons and the bills in the house that aim to ban "assault weapons" operate under a pretext that you can keep your weapons if you jump through enough hoops.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
― Thomas Jefferson
Good luck with that:
Source on her being hired by reddit?
Edit: NM I see that now
Cops wear a uniform that screams "Hey look at me, I have a gun"
Concealed carry can provide a herd immunity to mass gun violence.
All of this guys potential targets and the actual target he chose are places where his victims were systematically disarmed.
All gun laws are infringements.
They sleep in beds we are forced to pay for, guarded by men we are forced to pay for wielding guns we are not allowed to own.
Our out-of-control welfare state also helps account for the scope of our illegal immigration problem. When you subsidize something, you get more of it, and by offering free medical care and other services, as well as the prospect of amnesty, we get more illegal immigration
...
There would be far less hostility toward immigrants if the perception did not exist that they were getting something for nothing, while the rest of America struggles to make ends meet.
― Ron Paul
1 in every 3 citizens of the Soviet Union was an informant.
Taken from you and your progeny under threat of violent kidnapping.
Don't worry though, your unborn children consented to this non-sense by choosing to live in this country.
I'd sell my guns to the government, but they failed my background check.
Wanting to abolish the State is oppositional defiant disorder.
Wanting to force people to pay for those who seek to mutilate their genitals is healthy.
It's a classic feedback loop.
Just as the microphone picks up a sound that is amplified by a speaker that the mic picks up again....
Government points to a problem to grow its power, it ends up amplifying that problem whether intentionally or inadvertently, and that failure is seized on as a justification for the government to grow more power.
If not interrupted, this cycle continues until the speaker blows up, or society/the government collapses and forces the audio engineer or citizenry to rebuild.