Leviathan on March 12, 2009, 03:28:05 am
Frank,
It's the question of responsibility.  The question of whether the kind of activities the banks took are similar in terms of lack of responsibility to the kinds of side-effects of not being exposed to anything like responsibility from childhood on.  I say, gov simply laid down a mandate, directly and indirectly, in order to advance an agenda.  That agenda is either the front-end of saying "See?  We gave you homes!  We saved the economy, and made it work better than it does on its own!" or the back-end of watching anybody who was getting anywhere at all in life end up all the way at the shit end of serfdom status again.  Mercantilism, after all, has been about re-establishing the privileged nobility and merchant classes and leaving everyone else in the mud.  Essentially, I was saying it was irrelevant to the question of guns, kids, and such responsibility, heh.

Mike,
What you're observing is the coercive monopoly phenomena.  Government is the meta-monopoly, the first coercive monopoly that creates the others.  The fact that even the Mafias are better at many of the legitimate tasks they take on than the government is shows that even initiators of force aren't that incompetent when they don't have said monopoly.  But when government creates other monopolies?  No matter what the topic, those monopolies take on the same characteristics.  Because they're the same thing, really.

terry_freeman on May 12, 2009, 08:18:22 am
Today, we greatly underestimate the degree of responsibility of which children are capable. But in our rural areas, children do things which would astonish most city-dwellers. I often hear of children as young as six driving trucks and tractors on the farm, for example. It is common for young children to use guns, to hunt squirrels and other small rodents. It is common for young children to ride horses. If your experience consists of riding a tame school horse in a small circle at a fair, you may think that riding horses is easy; in the real world, most horses require much more active input from the rider, and a bad rider can put himself and others into considerable danger; but there are many skilled children who ride at the age of five or six.

Lysander Spooner, in an essay regarding alcohol prohibition, points out that the age of consent for sex was ten years old; but the prohibition laws prevented anyone, regardless of age, from drinking alcohol. To him, an age of consent of ten was not remarkable. Consider the ramifications; a child was considered old enough to say no, and to make it stick - presumably, by shooting the would-be rapist, if need be. On another front; children in those days were considered rational enough to determine how much education they needed; there were no compulsory attendance laws; literacy was actually more universal then, compared to now. Today's state education supremacists focus on the number of years of education, rather than the substance of that education. In what other field of human endeavor do we not seek to minimize the time required?

To force children to endure a mandatory twelve years in school, we have had to artificially prolong their infancy, to deprive them of the liberty  to make rational decisions on their own behalf. This leads to adults who couldn't find a moral compass with both hands and a map.





Rocketman on May 12, 2009, 09:29:27 pm
Terry:
     I've said somewhere in a different post that a twelve year old from the year 1779 and one from 2009 are totally different.  Back then living on the frontier a young man would get to the age where he would leave his home.  He would have his fathers old flintlock (assuming they could afford two of them) axe, knife some seed to plant and so on.  He would head west and find a patch of ground that no one had laid claim to and build a cabin on it and put in a crop.  Shortly after that he would come home to his parents home and see the young lady that he had been courting, marry her, and they would settle into the cabin.  He would probably be somewhere around 15 or 16 and she would probably be 14 or so.  And no one back then would think that it was unusual.  Today if a 16 year old boy runs off with a 14 year old girl and tries to get married even if she isn't pregnant the you know what hits the fan even if he has a self supporting job and a place to live.

Frank B. on May 13, 2009, 12:00:14 am
Terry:
     I've said somewhere in a different post that a twelve year old from the year 1779 and one from 2009 are totally different.  Back then living on the frontier a young man would get to the age where he would leave his home.  He would have his fathers old flintlock (assuming they could afford two of them) axe, knife some seed to plant and so on.  He would head west and find a patch of ground that no one had laid claim to and build a cabin on it and put in a crop.  Shortly after that he would come home to his parents home and see the young lady that he had been courting, marry her, and they would settle into the cabin.  He would probably be somewhere around 15 or 16 and she would probably be 14 or so.  And no one back then would think that it was unusual.  Today if a 16 year old boy runs off with a 14 year old girl and tries to get married even if she isn't pregnant the you know what hits the fan even if he has a self supporting job and a place to live.

Is it the children or social mores which are different?   A kid today, trained in the safe handling of a gun is just as responsible as one of the same age in 1779. The necessity of hunting for survival is not a requirement, only the small investment in time by someone willing to teach.


Rocketman on May 13, 2009, 07:40:17 pm
>:(
Is it the children or social mores which are different?
Frank:  My honest answer is... both.  Society has emasculated all independance (not to mention common sense) out of the 2009 version while at the same time demanded that the law (no matter how stupid that it might be) must be followed to the letter or suffer severe punishment.  Case in point when I was first in college back in the 1970's my roommate was busted for speeding and the cops found a very small bag of marijuana in the car.  He was ticketed for speeding and if I remember correct was fined about fifty dollars (a week or so wages) for the weed.  Fast forward to today and he would be probably spend 6 months in jail, the car would be confiscated and so on.  My question is what ever happened to the Constitutional Amendment VIII that says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"?  If that's not an excessive fine I don't know what is.  >:(
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 07:46:00 pm by Rocketman »

Frank B. on May 14, 2009, 05:26:15 pm
>:(
Is it the children or social mores which are different?
Frank:  My honest answer is... both.  Society has emasculated all independance (not to mention common sense) out of the 2009 version while at the same time demanded that the law (no matter how stupid that it might be) must be followed to the letter or suffer severe punishment.  Case in point when I was first in college back in the 1970's my roommate was busted for speeding and the cops found a very small bag of marijuana in the car.  He was ticketed for speeding and if I remember correct was fined about fifty dollars (a week or so wages) for the weed.  Fast forward to today and he would be probably spend 6 months in jail, the car would be confiscated and so on.  My question is what ever happened to the Constitutional Amendment VIII that says "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"?  If that's not an excessive fine I don't know what is.  >:(

I'm with you there.  Definitely social mores have become more irrational and fascist.  But how does that support the first half of your "both" contention?  Kids today are just as open to good and bad indoctrination as they were 200 years ago.  I see no evidence of a change in DNA, or the effects of floride in the water (or whatever) making them dummer, or less able to learn, or more likely, as a class of individuals, to go "postal".

A 6 year old today can be as readily taught to safely use a firearm as a 6 year old 200 years ago.  It ain't the kids.  It's what they're taught (or not).  I know many kids who've been taught the safe use of firearms, and I don't worry about any of them.  Of course, they're human, and there's always a chance one may go nuts.  But that sort of thing happened 200 years ago too.  The common attitude towards guns today is wrong headed to say the least.  But that's an educational problem.  And we know why that is.  ;)



Rocketman on May 15, 2009, 09:07:32 am

I'm with you there.  Definitely social mores have become more irrational and fascist.  But how does that support the first half of your "both" contention?  Kids today are just as open to good and bad indoctrination as they were 200 years ago.  I see no evidence of a change in DNA, or the effects of floride in the water (or whatever) making them dummer, or less able to learn, or more likely, as a class of individuals, to go "postal".
Frank:  Yes, it's an educational problem.  But the educational problem stems from a societal problem.   What would have been common sense in 1779 is not common any more and children are not given the opportunity to rationally reason.  Suppose you locked a child away in a bare jail cell for the first 10 years of his life and expected him when he got out to intermix with society and rationaly reason.  His brain when it was growing up was wired for something totally different.  (I'm reminded of the experiment from the movie "Trading Places" where the Duke brothers destroyed Winthorp for a dollar bet.)
This nation has gone from a nation of common sense and decency to a nation of laws that according to the authorities must be strictly obeyed.  I mentioned eariler a 10 year old boy that I would trust to hold a loaded shotgun directly behind me but the law may or may not give him the right to hold that shotgun (I honestly don't know anymore)  I know of another individual who is thirty years old or so and I wouldn't trust him to hold a sharpened stick.  Legally the thirty year old has the right and the ten year old doesn't, but common sense who would I trust not to shoot me in the back?  It's not even close.  We talk alot about the "dumbing down" of the educational standards in this country but we say almost nothing that I consider to be even more destructive to society at large namely the "dumbing down" of common sense.  And that's my rant for today. 8)
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 09:22:05 am by Rocketman »

Scott on July 23, 2009, 11:13:23 pm
Children with guns:

You don't think responsible children should have the means to defend themselves? In the NAC, older children assume many responsibilities we moderns postpone until people reach their 20s -- although more than 70 to 100 years ago, it was not unusual for children to carry rifles and other implements of destruction, and perfectly legal. Or to hold down jobs.

In our "civilized" world, teen-aged bullying is a major problem. In the NAC, it's very rare.

Lawsuits:

In the NAC, lawsuits are no more plentiful than they are here, although they are usually settled more quickly, and less expensively. And lawyers here get paid for dealing with criminal trials, regulatory actions, administrative actions, and other shenanigans foisted on us by the state.

Rocketman on July 24, 2009, 11:00:07 am
Scott:  The way that I'm reading Abigail10's comment is that she's addressing Sultec's comment concerning a "lawyer's paradise" and in essence saying that a step by step procedure is required to satisify the court system in this realm.  She's not making a comment concerning age or responsibility of children using guns, or at least I don't think she is.   ???

terry_freeman on September 27, 2009, 10:04:50 am
The media has a way of taking one or two incidents with children and guns, and making a national issue of it. In reality, even today, millions of young children use guns safely and responsibly - sometimes to defend their families against harm.

Today's educational and legal system wrongly infantalize children who, in an earlier age, were doing enormously productive labor, defending their homes, tilling the soil, putting food on the table.

Rocketman on September 27, 2009, 03:54:52 pm
Terry:
     You don't have to tell me how bias the major news media is in this country.  I've fought them for years.  I would add that it's just not guns, although that and individual liberty has been my focus for most of my political activist life.  Let's take a typical view of any problem that the news media wants to influence, say increased funding for lunch meals for schoolchildren.  They take the most pitiiful example of a situation that they can find, say an unemployed single homeless mother with a child that doesn't get enough to eat and use that as an AVERAGE EXAMPLE of what the people will be like that will be affected if Comgress doesn't pass the legislation that they want.  And then they all give each other a pat on the back and have the nerve to call themselves something like "the most trusted man in news".  Puke a rama.  :P
« Last Edit: September 27, 2009, 03:57:48 pm by Rocketman »

dough560 on October 02, 2009, 09:07:25 am
In the frontier days, it was normal for kids to train with a knife and tomahawk.  About age 12,  they would receive their first long arm.  Before they received their long arm, common practice was to practice loading while standing, then at a run, with cormeal.  Gun pwoder was too expensive to waiste on this basic skill.  Once loading was learned, live fire training began.   :)

My family is living proof you can not child proof the world.  With guns, we take they kids to the range.  Adults shoot grapefruit, melons, oranges, jugs of water etc.  After they adults shoot, a new set of targets are set up.  An adult will hold  the firearm while the child presses the trigger.  When these reactive targets explode from the effects of hollow point bullets; the impact of a load of shot, buck shot or slugs, it drives the point home.  Four generations and counting, no criminal misuse of a firearm and nn one injured due to an accidental discharge.   8)

My daughters are 6 and 8.  They regularly use a Ruger Bearcat .22 Revolver,  a RWS Youth Model 24, .177 caliber Pellet Rifle and a Anchultez Achiever .22  caliber Rifle.  Both girls know the safety rules and the manual of arms for the respective arm.  Both girls are competent with the arms and proud of their ability to shoot groups at any reasonable range for the pistol or rifles.  They are ready to move on from punching holes in paper to reactive targets.  Additionally they have been introduced to Aikido and Karate.  My wife and I strive to teach them they are responsible for their actions.  Additionally, they are also responsible for events around them.  Example: If they know something is wrong and they do nothing, or go along with the act; they are as responsible for the act, as the person comitting it.  Our goal is for our girls to be able to say NO! and make it stick.  Someone who continues an attack, and all they get back is a blooody stump.  Too bad for them.  They both understand my wife and I will defend them to the best of our ability.  They also understand, if they misuse their knowledge and skills, they will suffer the consequences.   As they grow, additional skills will be taught.  Many of which will come as they are physicaly able to particapate.  They also have chores, appropate for their ages.  If the schools does not assign any homework, my wife and I do.  Nightly there is homework and additional study.  All subjects are reviewed and curtiqued.  Each subject mastered, before moving on.  Teaching responsibility is not easy, but necessary.  Being constistant with examples and standards, helps. :)

The educational system has been contaminated by socialist group think, since the early 1900s.  With each year, socialist influence grew.  People were taught to be good little cogs in a machine, controled by their social superiors.  Today the socialists and other eletes in our society believe they have enough influence for a wholesale takeover and restructuring.  They may be right, but there are too many people still alive who have an effective education and knowledge of history.  So the takeover will not be easy as evidenced by the health care situation.  With knowledge comes strength.  With strength freedom.  However, prople need to partake in critical thinking.

I suspect the socialists would have gotten what they are after, if they had waited another 25 years.  With socialist direction, our kids would have become a nation of childish adults, afraid to control their lives.   ;)

Rocketman on October 02, 2009, 11:07:50 am
Very well said Dough.  You might want to consider adding to their training Balisong, which is Filipino knife fighting.  With it an eight year old girl with a 3 inch penknife who knows what she is doing is more than a match for a 20 year old would be rapist/mugger.  I own a couple of books on it and done some practicing in the past.  (Not recently)  What your doing to prepare them for the world to come is very smart.

dough560 on November 09, 2009, 08:48:21 am
Agreed.  Already begun.  Part of my training included Philippine Knife and stick Fighting.  First the kids develop unconscious balance.  Then the weapons forms begin.  I've also had the experience of cleaning up the mess, when someone who knew what they were doing, used a three inch blade against an attacker.  He survived the experience due to two things.  One the mercy shown by his intended victim.  The second;  On patrol I carried (and know how to use) a complete trauma kit.  Kept him alive long enough for the medics to finish the job....   I've had an interesting life.  One I survived due to good training, a knack for doing the right thing at the right time and a better than fair share of luck....  I'm determined my kids will not have to depend on luck.

Rocketman on November 09, 2009, 10:25:21 am
Smart.  Damn smart.  One thing that I was thinking about after I wrote my last entry was that there were a whole lot of different skills that may one day make the difference between living and dying.  For example, learning how to ride a motorcycle, sail a boat or fly a light plane.  First aid concentrating on wound and trama issues, lockpicking and so on.  Maybe learning to some degree another language or two.  (I'm learning Spanish in my spare time).  Even if they never have to use any of it, it will make them stronger and more confident and better equipped to deal with the real world.   ;)

 

anything