Fantastic and quick read bro. I’m with you on most of that. And that’s coming from a gun owner and former enthusiast.
My 2 counter points would be that the US gov hasn’t technically been able to win wars since WW2. They demolish the area but the cost of occupation wears down the resolve. People can only be governed for so long if the people don’t view them as legitimate. (Flip side being that insurrections have a very poor batting average throughout history).
Second is that physical violence has always been the finality for conflicts of ideas. If the gov decided not to follow the rights you outline, then what? Riots? But when they kill rioters, then what?
I guess I’m saying I 100% agree with the premise, but do still feel like the threat of physical violence serves a purpose. JP discusses that in a few of his lectures actually.
Thanks Brandon, glad you enjoyed it. Point well taken about violence as a last resort, and another good point that militias with AK-47s have a had a great history of kicking America's ass these past ~70 years.
I haven't heard JP talk about the threat of violence but he puts out so much bloody content that I only can ever listen to 10% of it.
Haha it is a type of economic exchange that's very difficult to argue with... My argument would simply be that the most lethal violence today is an auto-targeting suicide drone the size of a deck of computer mouse, not so much an Ar-15
Wait until somebody figures out that Homeowner Associations can regulate firearm ownership within their privately governed communities.
Since H.O.A.s are corporations, the limitations that the Second Amendment imposes on governments do not apply to them. An H.O.A.-burdened homeowner has the same rights at home as he does at work. I don't hear even the most ardent of R.K.B.A. (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) advocates claiming that you have a right to bring a gun to work if your employer forbids it.
So what will their argument be if/when their H.O.A. tells them "no guns allowed"?
Maybe (probably) it speaks to my immaturity but the first thing I thought of is this great line from an episode of Archer: "We'll turn this fruity flat into a killing field."
But seriously, you would expect people to either surrender their guns or move right? I just don't anticipate most Americans are ready to pump a few rounds into the chairman of the local HOA
"HOA and condo boards really do have the power to ban guns, unless the laws of their state say they can't. And there are reasons they might want to ban guns, such as liability for accidental shootings and fear that the local angry owner will take up arms against perceived private tyranny -- which has already happened a few times. Maybe in states with strong gun cultures, BODs [board of directors] will be less likely to interfere with gun owners' rights, but in Chicago guns were banned until recently, so I can see boards freaking out and enacting gun bans."
- Evan McKenzie, former H.O.A. attorney and author of 'Privatopia' (1994) and 'Beyond Privatopia' (2011), on his personal blog April 05 2014
1A as well, but separation of church and state is so 1975. See, e.g., Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Totally based on Christian theology. Freedom of expression? Maybe in the town sqaure. Not on the cancel culture of all tribes, as described by the late, Great Ted Stevens: “The Internet is a series of tubes,” in a 2006 speech on net neutrality. I'm a Jew. When TSHTF I know it's them or me.
Fantastic and quick read bro. I’m with you on most of that. And that’s coming from a gun owner and former enthusiast.
My 2 counter points would be that the US gov hasn’t technically been able to win wars since WW2. They demolish the area but the cost of occupation wears down the resolve. People can only be governed for so long if the people don’t view them as legitimate. (Flip side being that insurrections have a very poor batting average throughout history).
Second is that physical violence has always been the finality for conflicts of ideas. If the gov decided not to follow the rights you outline, then what? Riots? But when they kill rioters, then what?
I guess I’m saying I 100% agree with the premise, but do still feel like the threat of physical violence serves a purpose. JP discusses that in a few of his lectures actually.
Anyway, good stuff man enjoyed it.
Thanks Brandon, glad you enjoyed it. Point well taken about violence as a last resort, and another good point that militias with AK-47s have a had a great history of kicking America's ass these past ~70 years.
I haven't heard JP talk about the threat of violence but he puts out so much bloody content that I only can ever listen to 10% of it.
"violence is the most respected form of economic exchange" Fred Burton; my international business lecturer at MBS (Manchester Business School)
Haha it is a type of economic exchange that's very difficult to argue with... My argument would simply be that the most lethal violence today is an auto-targeting suicide drone the size of a deck of computer mouse, not so much an Ar-15
Wait until somebody figures out that Homeowner Associations can regulate firearm ownership within their privately governed communities.
Since H.O.A.s are corporations, the limitations that the Second Amendment imposes on governments do not apply to them. An H.O.A.-burdened homeowner has the same rights at home as he does at work. I don't hear even the most ardent of R.K.B.A. (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) advocates claiming that you have a right to bring a gun to work if your employer forbids it.
So what will their argument be if/when their H.O.A. tells them "no guns allowed"?
Maybe (probably) it speaks to my immaturity but the first thing I thought of is this great line from an episode of Archer: "We'll turn this fruity flat into a killing field."
But seriously, you would expect people to either surrender their guns or move right? I just don't anticipate most Americans are ready to pump a few rounds into the chairman of the local HOA
"HOA and condo boards really do have the power to ban guns, unless the laws of their state say they can't. And there are reasons they might want to ban guns, such as liability for accidental shootings and fear that the local angry owner will take up arms against perceived private tyranny -- which has already happened a few times. Maybe in states with strong gun cultures, BODs [board of directors] will be less likely to interfere with gun owners' rights, but in Chicago guns were banned until recently, so I can see boards freaking out and enacting gun bans."
- Evan McKenzie, former H.O.A. attorney and author of 'Privatopia' (1994) and 'Beyond Privatopia' (2011), on his personal blog April 05 2014
1A as well, but separation of church and state is so 1975. See, e.g., Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Totally based on Christian theology. Freedom of expression? Maybe in the town sqaure. Not on the cancel culture of all tribes, as described by the late, Great Ted Stevens: “The Internet is a series of tubes,” in a 2006 speech on net neutrality. I'm a Jew. When TSHTF I know it's them or me.