Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Yep, wrong forum I've learned. Well, unless your opinion is shared by others. Better not be one of those socialist liberals, though, eh?

It's been real.

Organizations, unless well managed, with a laser focus, become corrupt under their own weight. Religious, civic, governmental - it doesn't matter. Once an organization becomes too large it will adopt a cultural megalomania and instill it into its members.

I do believe we, as a nation, have an ethical imperative to offer some help to those less fortunate. I do not believe charities and religious groups offer assistance on the scale to do so, and their moral action often runs counter to the right action. I do not believe corporations have a mandate to take care of people unless they can make money from it, since that is part of their ethical reason for being. At the same time, I do not believe that the government can do it right, either, as it has become too large and the politicians too entrenched.

So what's the answer? I do not know what we can do. I believe we need a mixed system to make it work, but a plan needs to be written by those not mired in Congress or in the White House.

I do not think all politicians are evil. I do believe some got into politics with beautiful dreams of Making the World a Better Place™. They realize that one can't make anything happen in this term, so start making the compromises to ensure re-election. Soon too much time on the Hill and they've lost sight of that original vision, and now believe they know what's "best for us."

So, TL;DR - we need to vote everyone out of office, put smart, moderate* people into office that are willing to stay for only 1 or two terms, and repeat every few years.

*My definition of moderate may be right wing or left wing, depending on your POV.

chfaunce wrote:I have an opinion, I've voiced my opinion, I don't really owe you any other explanation.

You don't owe me anything. I provided my opinion and backed it up with logic and rational. If I have error (and I'm sure I have somewhere) I want to know about because then I can learn and grown intellectually. I thought you were interested in the same.

I did point out that an opinion statement was not very sound without the logic and rational to back it up. The following are two opinions (with the smallest iota of support):

1. Guns are evil and kill people, thus we should ban them.
2. Guns are fundamental to a free society as they keep the government in check, and thus no restrictions should be put on them.

Both are valid opinions, but which is correct or incorrect (or both). We must explore the rational and assumptions built into those statements to determine which, if any, is valid. That is all I asked of you, to back it up.

An opinion without reason is nothing at all.

chfaunce wrote:I'd say this would be something worth discussing over a beer rather than going back and forth like this, but I'm getting the feeling we'd probably not get along. Again, that's cool. I don't expect to agree with many people here politically, and I don't expect that we'll ever agree, no many how many times we go back and forth. , is right.

SgtBill and I have had a few scraps and we get along just fine. Same with others. We can agree to disagree, but don't expect me or anyone else to value your opinion if you can't back it up.

Generally, I can respect those who hold well reason opinions, but come to very different conclusions than I. That doesn't make them right and we would then argue about our assumptions because clearly they differ. I tried to help you out by pointing out the basic assumption of statism. Statism covers a vast ideological spectrum.

The term is purely a characterization or binning of many ideas that start with similar assumptions. In of itself, the term statism or statist is nothing but a term. I suspect you reacted to it negatively because it is generally ingrained in the American conscience that the state is a necessary evil and needs limited. This is contrary to the European thought which views the state as a benevolent benefactor. I posted a nice piece on this discussing the differences between the ideologies (I didn't write it).

http://vagunforum.net/general-discussio ... compliance

chfaunce wrote:I think it's kind of ridiculous that you see me as such a threat to society for daring to have a viewpoint which counters yours, however.

It isn't you, it is the statist ideas. Just as it really isn't the Marxist, but rather their failed ideas that are an issue. Ideas have consequences and I explained how yours concerning the use of force/government for social programs were immoral and unethical. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Ironic that you have no compunction sending politicians to DC who will use the force of government, literally the barrel of a gun, to steal my money, but take offense that I say your ideas are dangerous.

chfaunce wrote:I still stand on my opinion that it's not the system which is faulty...

Your opinion has been noted and I suspect most people who read this thread will ignore it because you have offered no defense of it, while I have shown it to be what it is. Theft under the guise of benevolence, which is causing real harm to the American people and should be stopped immediately.

Mindflayer wrote:Organizations, unless well managed, with a laser focus, become corrupt under their own weight. Religious, civic, governmental - it doesn't matter. Once an organization becomes too large it will adopt a cultural megalomania and instill it into its members.

Exactly.

The problem is that government has the power of the sword, unlike all other private organizations. If you don't like the policies of a charity or Church or business, you leave it and find another you like better. You have no such option with the government. With this democracy we now have, if 51% of those who voted say it is so, that force will be directed at you to make it so.

This is why even a mixed solution (isn't that what we have today?) can not work. The government destroys any industry or charity is competes with because only the government can force you to continue supporting it.

Mindflayer wrote:I do believe we, as a nation, have an ethical imperative to offer some help to those less fortunate. I do not believe charities and religious groups offer assistance on the scale to do so

Yes, I agree that society should care for those less fortunate. The problem with government programs is that you must first violate your citizens rights by forced coercion before distributing those funds. Check the Declaration out, isn't that contrary to the whole concept of American government? At least with violent felons you have the pretext that they harmed someone before removing their rights. What have average citizens done to deserve that kind of treatment?

I have covered the underlined part three times now. The government takes so much money from the people that they can no longer provide for the needy sufficiently through private charity like was done in the past. Also, this assumes the size of the need, which I would suggest is considerably less than what the government doles out today. Abuse of the system essentially plus the bureaucracy overhead.

Take education as an example. Even if you wanted to pull your kids out of public education, many people can not afford private or home schooling because they already are paying the taxes for public education. Paying for your own kids education becomes much easier if the government doesn't take that money from you in the first place.

Mindflayer wrote:I do not think all politicians are evil. I do believe some got into politics with beautiful dreams of Making the World a Better Place™. They realize that one can't make anything happen in this term, so start making the compromises to ensure re-election. Soon too much time on the Hill and they've lost sight of that original vision, and now believe they know what's "best for us."

Neither do I. I said some were because of the policies they push. I'm not doubting their intentions (most of them), but their methods. I would suggest that even some of the most evil men in the history of human civilization thought they were doing "good," but that doesn't make it so. Think of it like manslaughter. Just because you didn't intend to do it doesn't make it good or absolve you of the consequences. So it is with political policies. Just because your intentions are "good," doesn't make the policy good. I think a lot of them are generally ignorant of history, philosophy, etc. They often pose these issues as if they are something new and novel, when in fact they aren't. Generally, they think they are doing good and know what is best for us, but that is because they never have had to really defend those ideas. No one does what I did here and call them on the carpet for it.

It is possible with the best of intentions to cause great harm.

chfaunce wrote:Yep, wrong forum I've learned. Well, unless your opinion is shared by others. Better not be one of those socialist liberals, though, eh?

It's been real.

Seems like it was a fair and challenging discussion that was going on. We don;t all have to agree on everything, and discussions such as these are healthy for everyone involved. I know I have had plenty of differences of opinion with some of the people here, but I'm not just going to hang it up because of that.

Everyone's opinion is welcome here, and yours is no exception. Just expect that if you air your opinion, there will likely be someone on here who will have a different opinion and won't mind sharing it with you.

Good luck in your travels, wherever they may take you.

allingeneral wrote:

chfaunce wrote:Yep, wrong forum I've learned. Well, unless your opinion is shared by others. Better not be one of those socialist liberals, though, eh?

It's been real.

Seems like it was a fair and challenging discussion that was going on. We don;t all have to agree on everything, and discussions such as these are healthy for everyone involved. I know I have had plenty of differences of opinion with some of the people here, but I'm not just going to hang it up because of that.

Everyone's opinion is welcome here, and yours is no exception. Just expect that if you air your opinion, there will likely be someone on here who will have a different opinion and won't mind sharing it with you.

Good luck in your travels, wherever they may take you.

+1

For clarification:

The founders were not uniform either. Hamilton was a huge supporter (wrongly I might add) of a central bank. Jefferson (correctly) said:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/in ... otation%29

Clearly Jefferson thought the idea of a central bank was very dangerous, would destroy liberty and generally was incompatible with a free society. Jefferson lost that debate, not because he wasn't right (I think history and his rational have been proven), but rather because his opponents got the votes. With the best intentions, his opponents cause massive harm.

Like Jefferson, I think I am simply calling a spade, a spade. If your opinion is so defendable, then do so.

gunderwood wrote: Take education as an example. Even if you wanted to pull your kids out of public education, many people can not afford private or home schooling because they already are paying the taxes for public education. Paying for your own kids education becomes much easier if the government doesn't take that money from you in the first place.

I'll lighten the mood here.

Recently at a party where I was complaining about getting out of the neighborhood due to all the parents driving their kids to school. I wondered aloud why I was paying taxes for public transportation of these kids when all of these parents were just going to drive their fancy SUVs on the roads for which my taxes paid, requiring crossing guards for which my taxes paid, to go to a school for which my taxes paid, and probably have some $DISORDER for which my taxes will pay for a school nurse. I made a few of the "soccer moms" with their luxury SUVs parked out front kinda mad. "BUT I DRIVE MY CHELSEA TO SCHOOL!" "Uhhh... then you're the person I'm complaining about!"

In any case, I enjoy a good debate, gunderwood.

Mindflayer wrote:

zephyp wrote: So, the moral of the story is this...if I invite a bunch of people over to my house who have been there before and left a big mess and they leave a big mess again whos fault is it...

Well, you are clearly out of touch. You should sue the home builder for building a home with ingress and egress points; the bank for allowing you to buy the home; the vacuum builder for not printing in the manual that you may have to use it sometimes; and lastly, the gun manufacturers just because.

Come on, man! BE AN AMERICAN!

Indeed. How can I possibly be so stupid...

gunderwood wrote: 1. Guns are evil and kill people, thus we should ban them.

Wow...Garrett actually said that...I missed a good one here. Makes me sorry we went away for a week...

zephyp wrote:

gunderwood wrote: 1. Guns are evil and kill people, thus we should ban them.

Wow...Garrett actually said that...I missed a good one here. Makes me sorry we went away for a week...

Yes, I have been in a very sarcastic mood the last couple of weeks.