View Full Version : Why I Chose...
NL CofS Peter van Uhm on why he chose the profession of arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHX5lAslnTc&feature=player_embedded
A talk worth listening to and pondering.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Streck-Fu
12-01-2011, 19:37
Excellent.....passing it along.
I'm not sure about the legitimacy of a monopoly of force by the state nor the certainty that the state employs force for reasons that are always noble.
We have and constantly have to defend the 2nd Am to ensure the state does not have a monopoly of force.
theis223
12-05-2011, 16:46
A pacifist would say the officer is wrong, the pragmatic realist would commend him.
Do you thinks these statements sort of have the same or similar message?
1. Man has become an enemy to his fellow man…
2. Don’t kill the innocent, this is contrary to the golden rule and human dignity
3. Legitimate defense can be not only a right by the serious duty for the one who is responsible for the lives of others.
4. Remember, the act of self defense can have a double affect, the preservation of your life and the killing of the aggressor; the one is intended the other is not
5. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.
6. Respect toward oneself remains a fundamental principle. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow
Either way i enjoyed what he had to say and have passed this along. Good find sir!
alright4u
12-05-2011, 18:25
NL CofS Peter van Uhm on why he chose the profession of arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHX5lAslnTc&feature=player_embedded
A talk worth listening to and pondering.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Speech sounds like a great one , but; it is not factual. His nation surrendered in less the two weeks if I recall. The war hero he wants as a father? -I feel sorry for him. The Blitzkrieg was too much for Dad's old hunting rifle. Those old men were out of their league. We must remember to never be like these folks.
Thanks Richard, as you wrote points to ponder here.
Excellent.....passing it along.
I'm not sure about the legitimacy of a monopoly of force by the state nor the certainty that the state employs force for reasons that are always noble.
We have and constantly have to defend the 2nd Am to ensure the state does not have a monopoly of force.
I don't think what the speaker is saying is necessarily in contradiction to what you are saying.
My take is that a more peaceful civilization results from a society resigning its right to initiate violence to solve disputes to a government, which has its powers limited by a democratically agreed upon constitution.
In the United States I can own firearms but as a society we have agreed that I can not go after someone who steals my car and mete out justice as I see fit. As a part of our social contract we have given up that natural right in favor of a system where we have police, judges, and laws to protect us.
It would be interesting to see him elaborate on what he thinks of the civilian's right to bear arms. From an American perspective I think the 2nd Amendment fits in well with his speech. Though we have allowed the government to own a monopoly of force we have reserved the right, through our constitution, to retain arms and revoke that monopoly by force if needed.
Thank you for the link, Richard.
greenberetTFS
12-07-2011, 11:56
Good post Richard,sure does make you ponder on his message.........:)
Big Teddy :munchin
Very good comments tailored for his audience.
I find the Eurosocialists balance between seeing themsleves as peackeepers limiting their value in the down and dirty.
They need more 'warrior speak' and less 'peacekeeper' in their diet.
Surgicalcric
12-20-2011, 21:53
A pacifist would say the officer is wrong..
Who cares what the pacifist has to say.
Enjoyed the speech...