Dogs are dangerous and should be illegal to own
Lets imagine something. OK? Lets dust off our brains to create this scenario using nothing but our minds. Here we go.. We should make owning all types of dogs illegal. No one needs a dog, right? So why do we buy them? For entertainment? For protection? For sport? No one needs any of that! Just think of how dangerous they are, there was that video a while back of that kid getting bitten and dragged into the street by one. That sounds pretty dangerous. Don't we want to protect our children? Just think of all the children that have died from dog attacks. Think of how many dog attack victims we would save! Some claim they can train their dog to behave. But how many people don't train their dogs? Not to mention some dogs are much larger and more powerful than others. What would happen if one of these stronger dogs went loose in a public area? These are things we have to think about. I understand some people say they have dogs because they live alone and want to protect their home. But they can just call the police, right? And dogs make me very nervous. Being around them, you can't tell if one is just going to start biting. I guess dogs could remain in the police force, as they sniff out bombs, drugs and such. But not in the hands of the people... We need to ban dogs, and make their being owned illegal to citizens, as they are far too dangerous to be in hands other than the police...
Do you see now? Do you see how truly stupid, pathetic, incoherent and flimsy the idea of gun control is? This is honestly how stupid it looks to us gun owners. Banning guns is no different than banning dogs. They both can kill, they both can save lives, they both can be used in the right and the wrong hands. But the media will have you seeing these adorable fluffy animals to be mans best friend. (except for the pit-bull, which is the M4 of the dogs, the one the media loves to hate) If you trade the word of what you want banned, you very quickly learn how ridiculous it really is. Ban all knives as some have been used to kill. Ban cars! The death toll by cars outweighs the death by guns a million times over. And don't politicians care about those poor hit and run victims? Don't they want justice for the families and protection for the kids? Why not ban the zoo from owning all of those dangerous animals? I mean, that's essentially a militia in animal terms, right? A group of people that collect things that may be dangerous in the wrong hands. If we're banning things lets get serious here. Guns don't kill. HANDS kill people. Hands are attached to every killer there has ever been. Hitler had hands. Hands pull the triggers of guns. They swing the ax to lop off someones head. They turn the steering wheel into the playgrounds, they even text and drive! BAN HANDS. I actually have a YouTube video called, "Public Service Awareness Announcement" on the channel "rymakechannel" where I say ban hands as they kill everyone.(its a spoof) But really, ban water! How many people drowned last year? OK I know, that one was dumb, lets get serious...ban vehicle wheels...
I cannot even begin to list how many things are wrong with banning a form of self defense. To take the right to defend yourself away from the individual is absolute tyranny. Don't they care about women's rights? Gay rights? Why would they not want handicapped people to be allowed to defend themselves? Banning guns makes it illegal for black lesbian transsexual cripples to defend their Muslim adopted liberal children that attend public schools after smoking medical marijuana. Sounds like the democrats hate those that are different. How racist of them. To tell someone, "I understand this is the most efficient way to defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors, but you are not allowed to". Or to say "I know you have chosen this way to defend yourself because as a woman living alone in a bad neighborhood with broken door locks you want to feel safe, independent, and strong on your own. It is now illegal for you to do that, please call a strong male cop to save you when you are in danger, as you are incapable of properly defending yourself" That is disgusting, shameful and completely immoral to remove someones right to defend them self from harm. It makes me sick to watch these politicians, surrounded in guards armed with fully automatic weapons tell me I don't need protection like he has, as I am insignificant compared to him.
The mere suggestion that gun control works... I refuse to even give you a long explanation to why you're wrong. But just know Chicago and Mexico have some of the strictest gun laws/bans/control out there. And they have the worst crimes out of anywhere else. Think of this. If owning a gun for self defense was bad, ineffective, and unsafe. Why do we protect the most important person in this country with guns? Why do police have guns if guns are bad for self defense? Why does every nation on earth defend their nation with guns? Instead of calling the cops, I would rather cut out the middle man, and instead of hoping the police get to my house (police arrive time is usually 5 minutes) before the guy in my house kills me with a gun, I would rather have equal rights and defend myself with a gun. You do know that a gun ban doesn't take guns away from criminals right? It takes away guns from the list of people that own the guns. Do you know how you get on that list? YOU LEGALLY BUY ONE. Criminals do not use this method to obtain guns. They get them without getting listed. I guess politicians do not agree with equal rights. As legal law biding citizens loose their guns, but criminals get to keep them...
And don't get me started on how police are trained to use guns. Last month, some baby had a stun grenade thrown into his crib by police, the child's face is scarred and burned. The police have shot more dogs than I wish to name. Stop believing politicians! These people lie to you. I'm sick of not being able to live my life how I see fit because some disagree with it. Gay people should be all for gun rights! But no, they don't want me to have equal rights. Only their lifestyle, not mine. I get angry because this affects me. It changes my life and how I live it. I bother no one and obey the law. (the law being the N.A.P) I have never hurt anyone in my life, so they want to take away my right.. This is wrong. Self defense should be a universal standard. Even animals defend them self when under attack.. What does that make us? Protect the second amendment. If you believe in banning self defense, which is what gun control is. I want you also actively trying to ban dogs from having teeth and nails. As that is their form of self defense, and you better be trying to ban vehicles as well. They kill people ten times more than people with guns. And are WAY easier to get. Otherwise you are a no good, simple minded, lacking the function of rational thought, don't believe in self defense, hate equal rights, hate women's rights, are a one sided, bigot, racist, ignorant, rotten snake hypocrite. And one more thing, the next time someone is beating the life out of you. You better lie down and accept that entire beating no matter how long it lasts. As you don't believe in the right to self defense. Just use your socialist healthcare and get patched up "for free" afterword...
The government needs people to survive. People do not need a government to survive.
Live free.
-Ryan
Laws affect nothing, people that want to commit crimes break the laws to do so
Can we take a moment to imagine a world without laws? What are your first thoughts? Murder? Thievery? Monopolies? Why is the first place we think of is crime?
Fear tactics, fear is used to create laws, meaning the law will not be respected, as cooperation built out of fear only creates followers as long as the fear lasts. Look at gun control, common debate points are, "If we don't ban all weapons, our children will continue to die". (When perhaps the people dying would not have died if they had been armed and capable of defending them self) But laws prevent that from happening, gun laws prevent people from using self defense, if the law were honest, it wouldn't say "preventing criminals from obtaining guns", when they're criminals. They wont obey the laws. If the laws were honest, they would say what they really do. "This gun ban law will remove guns from all who legally obtained a gun through the state verification process as they are listed in the state, criminals will keep their guns as their weapons are not registered with the state". Laws restrict those only living according to the law. Meaning those obeying the law have less rights than criminals. Laws restrict forms of self defense, you are allowed to defend your self if defense is on your property, within your home, if you have taken a significant amount of physical damage, if threats were made against you, if you do not use a firearm, if you hit the attacker only while he face you, if he broke into your home, if there are witnesses that see the fight based in your favor, and if the court agrees with your stance against the criminal. If those are met, you are then allowed to defend yourself, where if you don't obey the law, if you're being attacked, you defend yourself, its that simple. Looks like the criminals have more freedoms than citizens abiding by the law.
Now, what happens if someone in power becomes corrupt? They now not only have all the power, they can create corrupt laws that law biding citizens must follow. Look at the laws Hitler passed. It was illegal to hide or assist Jews. Or that blacks may not get an education. The idea of having corrupt laws passed is one of my biggest fears, I live according to the law and obey it, making bad laws forces individuals to break the law and become criminals. If an unjust law were set by a corrupt official, presented it as moral and mislead the majority to fall for it, we then have corrupt laws that punish those who once followed the law. Its far too easy to get caught with your pants down by stupid meaningless laws that do nothing but complicate things, raise the states income by catching someone standing in the wrong place, (which is real and called loitering) drinking unprocessed milk that you got from your cow on your farm is illegal, drinking a beer in the doorway of a bar is legal, lean one inch out and its public intoxication, hey in some states its illegal to create a user ID with a fake name and email! But you would never know, no one looks up their states laws every month to make sure article C of subsection 74-1 hasn't been modified to make an every day act illegal.
This leads me to question the true nature of laws, with each years brings only more laws, more restrictions and more regulation ON PEOPLE, these laws do not affect those putting them in place. Why would we need so many unnecessary laws that are so small such as standing, to big laws that allow the state to define how someone may defend them self? Killing someone has over 20 versions. That's wrong, killing someone outside of self defense is murder. But we place some murder above other, was it pre meditated? Or in cold blood? Did he know the person? Or was he a stranger? There is so much wrong with classifying some killing to be not as bad as other ways. "Well he killed that guy, but in cold blood, lets lighten his punishment", no, that doesn't make sense. To kill someone is to kill someone. But maybe its because I believe that hypocrisy is bad, and that corruption should be avoided.
While bringing up hypocrisy, laws ironically created the black market. Let me tell you what the black market is. It is true capitalism, real free markets, and zero regulations.
- Lets start with capitalism, you make money in a transaction, you keep it. Well that seems fair. Competition that lets more than one company enter the fold at making money. Meaning even you communists will get a kick out of this, as by government not taxing the mom and pop stores land, lights, power, water, sales, permits and income, there would be Wal-Marts, and mom and pop stores, because everyone is welcome in it. Meaning everyone gets an equal shot. What we see in America is NOT capitalism, its a disgusting nearly unrecognizable form of it, where the government helps only the largest companies. Meaning no one gets an equal shot.
-Now, onto real free markets. The black market is run on trade and supply and demand. Meaning if someone needs something, someone will see that need, meet it by providing said service, and will then make money. Making all involved better off. The seller wants money, so he makes something someone wants, that someone has money he wants to give for what the seller has, they make a voluntary trade, both parties win, its simple and beautiful! Also, if someone steals something, the seller will warn the other sellers to avoid that potential threat. Discouraging acting unlawful without placing any laws! And no, this can not be abused as they will have a database of transactions to check and see if its true or not. If a business wont pay a wage that seems fair, his workers may leave and find work ANYWHERE, as the government does not hold them back with paperwork and permits, the business will either allow work for the poor which will pay homeless to work, then giving them the money they need, allow kids to get jobs (if they want) and make money for that new Xbox coming out, while teaching them a lesson in responsibility, will force the business to pay more by lack of production, or even further use free markets by finding someone selling a service to help his! Which creates endless jobs, endless jobs! No government bureaucracy preventing all new comers. Not to mention the third party system that will track transactions like Bitcoin does, which will quickly show who is trust worthy and who isn't, thus losing their customers and naturally shutting down corrupt work places, and because it isn't of centralized origin, each place will have their own list to further prevent hacking.
-Here we go, regulations..."Well, they aren't great, but we need them!" No we don't... We need common sense laws like the NAP. Pollution? That's against human rights, no go. Slave labor? That's against human rights, no go. Monopoly? That's against human rights, no go. Buying out a business and forcing them to close? Not voluntary? Against human rights, no go. Forcing someone to buy your product? Not voluntary? Against human rights, no go. False claims to ownership or copyright infringement? Lying is an immoral act. Against human rights, no go. See? The world naturally takes care of itself with very basic laws that promote individual human rights. The black market is FLOURISHING ALL THE TIME. Why? No laws, no regulation, no government.
The more I study politics, the more I find myself agreeing with anarchists. "Oh they want no cops", no, it allows the free market to create jobs for private security firms that will make police and create jobs. "I don't like the idea of privatized cops, its just some guys with guns that stop crime", what makes regular cops any different? Nothing. Anarchism seems to be true freedom, true equal justice, and true forward progression for a society. The idea of giving one man power to run a country, and the strength of a military is utopian. "Anarchy will have people killing each other in the streets" why? Whats stopping them now? If you haven't noticed, laws are broken every day, if someone wants to commit a crime they are going to. A law will not stop them. And lets be completely honest, in this modern society, where every person in America understands the basic fundamentals of the concept to not hurt someone, why would a soccer mom begin killing toddlers with a baseball bat because there is no law telling her not to? She knows that killing will result in her own death, or loss of freedom and rights. If a criminal wanted to kill someone, do you think he would not kill them because the law? If that's true, why do people still kill? They break the law, the law does not stop criminals, it removes the human right to self defense and freedoms. What stops criminals is them knowing that they may be hurt, punished or killed, the only way to do that is to let people defend themselves in the same way as the police protect the president, the most efficient way, with a gun. Otherwise we are declaring that some human life is better than others. Laws are simply used to better control people, why can't we place laws over the government? In the free market, its immoral for a company to force you to buy their product, where government is allowed to force you, what if Wal-Mart forced you to buy their product? Not to mention that makes it impossible to gain truthful statistics. Saying government run anything is or can be successful is a lie. You cannot say a business is doing well if it forces everyone to buy from it or they will arrest them. Those are false statistics, show me a voluntary based government, then tell me your stats, until then, quit waving your Canada in my face. The wait times there are so horrendous people die waiting. People go in because their arm fell asleep, if you can see a doctor for anything, every hypochondriac would be wasting time seeing them for an eyelash in their eye while they force 300 people to wait for their arthritis to be checked. Forced participation is not participation. The government uses force because without forced participation, it would cease to exist, meaning it is not needed. The government needs people to survive. People do not need government to survive. That is a fact.
I'm not an anarchist yet... But I do believe in a zero government controlled economy, "anarcho-capitalism". Now remember. If it isn't voluntary, its force, if its force, its immoral, and if you agree with immoral actions, I then have the right to break your nose, as immoral actions are acceptable to you.
The government needs people to survive. People do not need a government to survive.
Live free.
-Ryan
