RE: Come and Take It!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The purpose of licenses and permits aren't to pay governments for access... the purpose is to prove competency. Lots of permits and licenses don't carry any cost.
You don't get a driver's license by paying the DMV, you have to pass a series of tests.
A gun permit shouldn't be provided to someone who knows how to handle a firearm safely.
Ideally you would want a licensed electrician, plumber, accountant, mechanic, etc to provide their expertise instead of some random who has no experience but is filled with unearned confidence they can do the job for you.
When flying interstate, I'm confident that the people in charge of the 787 are all appropriately licensed. Same if I need surgery.
Licenses aren't a revenue stream, they are the way that people can find an expert they need without needing to do all the background work themselves.
The way to resist governments isn't with firearms - it's with collective action. Physically fighting the entire US military will just end in lots and lots of death. Governments are there to represent you and your wishes, if they're not doing that then the people need to collectively change that. Shooting someone isn't productive, it takes organizing and protesting and getting representatives in that will look after your interests to make actual meaningful change.
There is a whole ecosystem in the United States to keep people divided, to keep people scared... fearful of other groups or anyone different, fearful of the government, fearful of criminals, etc... all to keep people in the US buying more and more weapons and accessories. It's obviously a huge business and extremely profitable, especially since fear also helps get clicks and views too. Keeping people divided is extremely profitable for so many reasons... but the solution to that is for people to unite and work together. A united people is an unstoppable force.
You are conflating licenses with certificates. A certificate is usually a prerequisite for a license, I am aware, but licenses expire; certificates don't. I don't need to prove I know how to hunt (or even how to shoot straight) in order to get a hunting license. All I needed to do was pass a safety/regulation exam and pay a small fee.
To hire, yes. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in another house built by one; electricians and electrical engineers understand the principles well enough to know what they can get away with doing, regardless of code. Ask any building inspector what sorts of illegal shit they've seen licensed electricians do in their own houses... I'll wait.
Yes, they are. Fees that pay for hunting licenses and game permits support state-funded wildlife conservation efforts. Likewise, public transportation infrastructure is paid for by drivers' license fees, vehicle registration fees, and petrol taxes.
"Коллективные действия"? Пффффт ХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХА!!!
Right... and if the work of Jordan Shanks-Markovina is anything to go by, those are rare, even in Australia. People who go into politics do so to make money, and they get elected on empty platitudes and false promises; Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the ultimate example of that.
Yes, and literally every single organisation that you have cited as a source thus far is part of that ecosystem. Throughout this entire discussion, you've been projecting your own propaganda-induced fear and paranoia onto us. I do not fear criminals precisely because I am armed. Almost everyone in my neighbourhood is... and so far, the only house that has been broken into has been one with no guns in it.
Remember, division is only one layer of propaganda, its ultimate purpose is demoralisation, and that's what makes it so evil.
I was a loyal Soviet citizen until the age of twenty. What that meant was to say what you were supposed to say, read what you were permitted to read, vote the way you were told to vote, and at the same time, to know it was all a lie. - Natan Sharanskii
I think you're right... but in the situation of obtaining your driver's license... I don't think you get a certificate first. Apologies if I don't have the semantics right... but my point was that you often have to prove something in order to be allowed to do it.
In the example of your hunting license, you had to prove that you knew some rules on safety before you're allowed to hunt.
My understanding is that in some states of the USA, you can purchase a high-powered firearm and ammunition at a gun show, with cash, and take it home the same day without anyone knowing you have it nor having to prove to an expert that you know how to use it safely.
If I'm trying to solve the problem of the high number of school shootings in the USA, that might be a scenario to tackle. You're not allowed to drive a car in the USA without proving to an expert that you can, I don't see any reason a high-powered weapon should be all that different.
Sorry, I should have said that licenses don't exist for the sole purpose of only being a revenue stream.
Politicians in the UK and Australia and many countries in Europe don't go into politics to make money... the public service is usually paid lower than corporate pay. This does often mean that the only people who can afford to go into politics are already independently wealthy or they are chasing power... but all that aside... the use of deadly force by the people shouldn't be the only way to make change. The people change governments in many countries without a deadly coup all the time.
In the case of dictatorships, yes, violence might be necessary, but hopefully a politically engaged population can prevent a dictatorship from occurring.
My intention wasn't to project my fears onto you.
My intention was to that I think the idea of banning books and weed is stupid, but the idea of banning guns is far more complex, and a problem like US school shootings can't be solved if people are against even discussing changes in firearm ownership.
You don't fear criminals because you are armed... but the majority of parents in the US fear for their children's safety in school. That is not usual in developed countries and I'd love for the US to try something to address that.
I agree with competency. Why do you believe a government monopoly is the best, or even only, way to train people? You clearly have zero experience with firearm culture in the US, just distorted media representations. What if trade unions offered guarantees for the work of union members instead of outsourcing to governments and insurance corporations? You appeal to the status quo and just assume it is right and proper without any examination.
I am not advocating civil war. I am advocating the same deterrence for the individual against trespassers you believe threat of legal action from government will impose on people who fail to comply. You, however, are advocating for open war against non-criminals because you believe in arbitrary laws enforced by men with guns.
People like you demanding government violence against peaceful people are divisive. However, unity is not inherently proper. Progress always comes through deviation from the norm, and appeals to popularity and consensus are irrational.
If I refuse to obey new laws, but do not violate the life, liberty, or property of others, how am I a criminal, and how is violence against me justified? Just answer that simple question.
I don't believe a government monopoly is the best.
I'm not advocating for open war against non-criminals.
I'm definitely not demanding for government violence against peaceful people.
The problem is the number of school shootings in the USA.
The solution, I think, is increased mental health services, increased resources into lower-income communities, increased gun regulations and police reform.
They're all complicated and expensive solutions but I think the number of mass shootings and school shootings is worth the increased effort and expenditure.
For school shootings in particular, I believe part of the issue is the ease and speed in which people can legally get themselves a high-powered weapon and then use that weapon on the innocent.
You think that the solution is to deter the shooters by increasing the number of guns in schools. I don't agree with that solution.
I personally think that limiting who can access those weapons (ie, people with a history of domestic abuse) and increasing the requirements so that people have to prove their competency would help reduce the numbers of school shootings. If a non-government agency is in charge of that process, that's fine, as long as there are results. It may take years to work out the systems and processes, which is unfortunate but understandable.
I know this answer is frustrating... but I think this is too simple a question.
All of our actions affect others.
Let's say you're choosing to purchase a pair of shoes.
There's two that you like... and you don't know anything about them.
One pair is made by child slavery overseas and the other is made by an American shoemaker.
You probably don't think you're violating the life, liberty or property of others... you're just buying a pair of shoes! People do exactly that all the time.
But buying the pair made by child slavery provides incentives, which forces more children into shoe-making slavery and you have actually, unknowingly, violated the liberty of someone else.
I see this in a similar way.
You having the freedom to buy an AR-15 in a private sale with no records whatsoever and no checks on your safety knowledge or intentions, also means someone with ill intent can do the same. By voting for representatives that push for unlimited access to firearms you do end up affecting the lives, liberty and property of others, even if that's not what you intended.
Living in a society is amazing. We don't have to do literally everything ourselves for ourselves. We can share resources and specialize and look after each other, but for society to work we do have to make small sacrifices in personal freedoms for the health and wellbeing of the group. From a purely selfish perspective, the healthier the group is, the better it can look after us.
Just curiously, how do you know you'll never violate the life, liberty or property of another? What stops you from snapping one day and shooting hundreds of people? What if you get drunk and accidentally shoot your neighbor's house? How can you be sure you won't develop dementia, get confused and shoot a girl scout in the face? What happens if someone breaks into your house when you're not home, steals all your guns and ammo and shoots up into a crowd?
If I had a mental health crisis, I'm probably pretty limited in the damage I could do... but if you had a crisis you could potentially destroy thousands of lives. That's a lot of responsibility.