Non Violent Resolution of Disputes

Does any person have a secure right to anything that they do not have the personal power to defend? If the answer is no, preparations in matters of self defense, both armed and unarmed, are necessary to the security of the People's assumed rights. However, those preparations should not be interpreted as an endorsement of violence to resolve a dispute. On the contrary, preparation for violence can actually deter it. "If you wish for peace, prepare for war". As long as our species are not unanimous in the philosophy of non violent resolution of disputes such preparations will be an unfortunate necessity.

I propose that we of the GD declare our intent to do all within our ability to prepare, both as individuals and collectively, to defend our assumed rights, with the understanding that the use of violence to do so is a counter productive failure, although sometimes regrettably necessary.

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” Sun Tsu

" ... to be able to win without fighting you must have excellent Kung Fu" - unknown : ) > -



  • In our country we have laws which if broken subject the offender to police attention and possible prosecution. I don't feel the need to bear arms (which is lucky for me/us) as long as our law enforcement people keep doing a good job and most people abide by the law. Depends where you live of course.

  • @000001041 , when the People protest the policies of the State, who's side are the Police on? The Police obviously serve the State, not the People. The same is true for the Laws you mentioned. If the State is so competent in regard to your well-being, why are you here? You seem to be submitting yourself to an authority that you do not entirely trust, one that historically has proven itself to be a great abuser of the People. I suggest you pick a side and commit. Will you submit yourself to the State of Australia or the People?

    And I've read your idea regarding destruction of guns. The State would simply buy them all. Then the State would have all the guns. I think you missed the point of my idea entirely. Please note, I did say " ... preparations in matters of self defense, both armed AND unarmed ... ". : ) > -

  • That's a sensible aneswr to a challenging question

Similar Ideas: