Thor

I'm not talking of revolution; you are. What I advocate is more @ restoration. And it should be done about every twenty years or so as a matter of purpose and also immediately, whenever the need arises. It gets rid of the bad blood and the bad seed, as opposed to waiting forever to do the right thing, as we clearly have done, and must now play hell to reel in the evil and get our government back in shape. Better to see a few bad seeds weeded out and hung or shot at the firing squad or their careers ended and their fortunes lost than to protect them and make our children pay for their tyranny. In fact, it is clearly too late already and we aren't going to get it back. The blood that has already been shed and the blood that is to be shed over this is unthinkable and it is not necessary. It was never necessary. But it will happen just the same and we are going to have to start over. "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Jefferson

"especially if one is in security"? Would you care to explain that? Government does not have the final say over the force. The jury, i.e., the people do (yes, there are those these days, particularly judges, who want to be rid of juries -- a matter for another discussion, perhaps). If the government is left unchecked and grows into a dictatorship, what means then will be available to the people to "take the government down by force"? It must be done before government becomes a dictatorship -- long before. Also, I assume you mean that you would want to take the tyrannical government down and install a just government. We can't take government down. You said yourself, and I agree with you, that we need it.

Negative. The people can arrest bad guys and bring them to the courts. In my career, I arrested hundreds of bastards and brought them before the court. The real meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is to empower the citizens to use force against the government when they get out of line. It has nothing to do with "protecting himself in an emergency", though that is a good, perfectly legitimate and logical use of force against others. The government shall not have a monopoly on the use of force, now or in the future. The people, if they have any brains at all, will not surrender such powers to the police or the military. We can't stand around like dummies and watch hoodlums (including cops) violate our rights and wait for the cops to show up and deal with it. Government isn't going to clean itself up or regulate itself. That is the job of the people. The police are under no legal obligation whatsoever to protect you or your property. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty; suspect anyone who approaches this jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will protect it but downright force; whenever you give up this force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry

More genius. The Founders saw this and gave us the Bill of Rights to help make sure the force wielders get in line and stay in line. We've shirked the task, of course and have contracted away most, if not all, our rights to the federal government; but the idea remains... sort-of. "The Great Object is, that Every Man be Armed." -- Patrick Henry

Who cares what anyone says about the music I love? I don't. Loving music is like loving women and vice-versa. So much wonderful stuff to choose from -- and so little time. I love jazz, rock, blues, classical, bluegrass. I even pick guitar and howl and scream myself. Just love it. How can anyone not love at least some every kind of music there is?

Genius. You're catchin' on quick. One of the biggest problems we have with our government today is the various agencies stepping out of their respective jurisdictions and breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold. But out here in the west, there is a growing movement underway that is striking at the very root of this problem and is helping to put the violaters back into their cages -- before it's too late. Learn about coordination and how it is done and educate your local sheriff and community. It is probably the last hope for the United States. Let's hope the people snap out of it before it's too late. It's crunch time, folks. No doubt about it. Educate, motivate and get in the fight -- or kiss this place goodbye.

The sweetheart idea is ideal. But that has its problems, too. All the emotional connection, dating, spending money, being preoccupied and getting to know the person is something I, personally, care not at all for and do not have time to deal with. I prefer to hit it and move on to the next one. When people ask me what kind of women I like, I tell them it would be much easier to tell them what kind of women I don't like. Women. Yummy.

I hang at the brothel because they have a great bar and restaurant and because I frequent the area on business. It is one of the best places in town AND they got the girls. Nothing strange, to my mind anyway, about hanging around with women from time to time. Besides, they're all about business. And so am I. When I was thirty-eight, I had a girlfriend who was twenty-two and had only had intercourse twice in her entire life prior to meeting me. The first few times we had sex wasn't good at all. She didn't know what she was doing at all and didn't know what she was after. I really loved the girl and didn't have a problem being patient and leading the way. Once she caught on to the mutual pleasure idea and got the idea out of her head that she was only there to please her man and started taking pleasure in what we were doing, she was the best in the world. Or, I should say, we were the best in the world. Technique is everything. It leads the way to the rest of it. My case in point is that even when one is really attracted to someone and having sex for the first time, that first time can be awkward no matter how much experience one or the other or both has. They simply don't know each other in a sexual way and the technique has to be worked out before they get to the really good stuff. Sex with a great lover gets better with more experience. Technique is big.

Thankfully, here in America we have The Bill Of Rights. The government shall not have a monopoly on the use of force. They're trying hard to get it, but we have thus prevailed. :-) Oh, Joy!

When it comes down to the use of force, which may only be used in retaliation and is a last ditch effort to save oneself, there is no thinking involved at all. The thinking, i.e., the training, should have been done before the use of force was necessary. Thus, the old saying, "the best use of a gun is simply having one". In other words, if you are not armed now, you won't be when you'll need to be. If you don't know your rights now, you won't know them when you'll need them. If you are hesitating in learning and having these things because you believe your government is going to come to the rescue and protect your rights and your property in the event you need protection... ... you deserve exactly what is coming to you.

Who said anything about armed rebellion against the government? "The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave." That's one of the things I just love about Rand. She spoke not only of slavery in history, but of slavery in its other proper context: the present tense.

Don't look now, but there's government a'plenty every which way one looks -- and plenty of gang warfare to go along with it. Government is in fact its own gang protecting itself from other gangs, including me, the eternally vigilant. Correct. Freedom requires eternal vigilance of those who want to gain and keep their political freedom. It also requires that every man be armed and capable of defending said freedom. The Founders understood this and gave us the Bill of Rights to help us in that effort. Are you armed? Why or why not? Do you know your rights and how to exercise them? Why or why not? Are you capable of and willing to defend them? Why or why not? Yes, the Constitution has flaws, but no other document has even come close to it in the history of mankind in thought and action. I'd be careful of tossing it to the scrap heap. Not saying that you are. But all too often people are willing to talk about the flaws of the Constitution as opposed to its strengths and what it does in fact give us. People are all too willing to claim that we need government and the "protection" that it gives us, but not too quick to talk about what they can do for themselves in that effort. If we stand up and take responsibility for ourselves, government will shrink in proportion to that effort and that fact and will find its proper place in our society by our putting it there. It's not only our right, it is our duty, our job, our moral imperative. But we have shirked the task. And now we are fighting to protect ourselves from government instead of seeing to it that government is doing its job -- and we are very quickly losing this fight.

I can see where you're going with this. "Lead" is a good word to use. Especially with the inexperienced. Some people don't know what they want, for whatever reason, i.e., inexperience, not taking the time or being able to find the right person to help them along, etc., and it would be good for them to have someone strong enough and knowing enough to lead the way. Absolutely.

I won't lead and I won't be led. I just take what I want from her. She can just take what she wants from me. I'll give her what she wants. She must give me what I want. I like being taken care of, too. I love massage, for example. If the woman I am with refuses practicing the art of massage and giving it to me and doing it properly (yes, she can charge me, if she likes and I will happily pay for it), she must not object to my visiting the masseuse of my choice; if she does, I will break off with her immediately. If I sense one shred of phoniness in the woman, I'll be gone in a flash, too. I won't put up with any of that even for a moment. I do as I please. That's one of the reasons I was only married once when I was very young. I'll never get married again. Someone tries placing restrictions on me of any kind and I freak out. If she gets in the way of my doing what I want -- bye, bye.

Agreed. The best sex there is is with someone I've known and have been having it with for a while. A real man or woman doesn't need to display anything. They just are what they are and they are confident in that. The dominance game is fake. If someone is playing the dominant one, the other is consenting to do it, so it isn't really dominance at all. And if it is real dominance, where someone does not consent, it's not dominance and is not sex at all, but rape. The dominance game is merely a form of foreplay. It helps make all concerned very excited before intercourse. It's just an exciting game.