: SDF: Armor-piercing bullets? Machine guns? Antitank weaponry? Biological weapons? Chemical weapons? Nuclear weapons? You said ANY means...
See my discuission with Rd for what this might mean, without pretense that its some simple dividing line.
: , namely guns. Why? Well the last thing a social engineer wants is a populace whom, if they
disagree with what they call 'the good of the people' could actually offer genuine resistence.
: "The last thing a social engineer wants is a populace whom, if they disagree with what they call 'capitalism', could actually offer genuine resistance." Funny, this sounds like what the US, the Trilateral Commission, the WTO, the IMF want, it's why they crushed the governments in Nicaragua, Chile, etc.,
I would agree with you. You shall recall I am not a fan of the above bodies, their goals or means.
: SDF: The statists now in power are all in favor of "free trade" -- please consult the above WTO page...
They mean 'free trade' as long as its done by their rules. They are not legitimate rule makers.
: SDF: By any REAL logic of "vested interests," the vested interests of the police bureaucracy would love for everyone to own guns, and to commit crimes with them as well,
Except they dont hold up the second part of the deal. The huge majority stop after self defence.
: SDF: I'd love to see what Gee would have done had he advised David Koresh on the eve of his shootout with the US Government on that dark day in Waco, Texas, or the Montana Militia amidst their confrontation with the FBI. Let's run it from the top -- "when one is attacked"...
There is no better evidence that American state has lost any moral credibility than in attacking Koresh et al. In what way does this constitute a criticism of self defence?
: SDF: When law-abiding citizens shoot each other, are they still law-abiding? Gee would have us believe that there is a clear distinction between "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals," as if one could distinguish the former from the latter by their uniforms or something...
A banned item when held criminalises a person. the fantasy that more guns make more deaths is still a fantasy beloved of critics.
:SDF: It's amusing to hear what Gee calls a fallacy -- stories that don't support his case are fallacies, as well as omitting stories that do support his case. However, the idea that we shouldn't examine the whole truth should still be, for the rest of us, a fallacy.
See my thread with RD for the research.
SDF: And such a violent means of controlling others is the special preserve of the statists that control the US government, the most weaponry-ridden of all governments. Yep, the US defends itself all right, it spends half my tax money on self-defense. It's an amusing thing, that my "means of self-defense" also serves as my "means of controlling you."
I thought you were a govt employee (teacher)? If so how are you taxed? Why are you confusing the right of an individual to self defence with the armament of a corrupt state?
: SDF: Excuse me? No state, no law, yet criminals? How defined?
Are you suggesting that a rapist in a commune (there being no laws) would not be a legitimate person to defend oneself from?