No.6487
Gun ownership in the past monarchies was not uncommon and much more relaxed than monarchies are today. It is about time /monarchy/ discuss the gun control and gun laws in various monarchs from the past and present, and what your stance is on guns.
>the Good
Gun ownership in Imp. Russia was easier like the Wild West. Accordingly, no problems with gun ownership and very relaxed. Meanwhile, most of Europe back then was relaxed on gun control, as well as under the Qing for a while. This is a stark contrast to the steep rise in regulations and gun control you today. Nowadays you gotta have a loicense. However, Serbia has a high approval rate for a monarchical restoration and they are also a very gun-loving culture.
>The Bad
Japan has a long history of being strict on weapons. The Meji Era is a period that prohibited it strictly.
>The Ugly
It looks like gun control is going to get worse after the shooting in NZ.
<OP, why do you bring this up?
Because I know many monarchists are interested in this topic and likewise care about gun ownership and compulsory military service.
>on military compulsory service
Look up the Assize of Arms of 1181 and other statutes.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6488
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6490
Every subject has their god given right of self defense which should be guaranteed by the god given monarch.
Not only that, but weren’t serfs in England obliged to own atleast a gambeson and spear? I don’t know when that is, I just read it once.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6499
>>6487
Gun-ownership should be universal, to the point where boys should be trained in their use and maintenance in elementary school and be required to own one at that point already.
A monarch has his throne by the grace of God, he has nothing to fear from an armed populace.
>Meji Era
Understandably so. They were just moving from an aristocratic system to a truly monarchic system of government. If they had allowed the aristocrats infinite armies by having an armed population in their territories, Japan would still be in a civil war today. You need an out-time after a change in government system to prevent dissolution.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6506
>>6487
Guns undermine national sovereignty. How can a nation guarantee people the ability to overthrow it? It's like saying a parent can makes rules, EXCEPT the child can choose to kill the parent…It just doesn't make sense. This is literally just here because pr*ts are in schism with the true faith so they hate all authority structures. I am not against weapons, but weapons is the king's choice.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6507
>>6506
>How can a nation guarantee people the ability to overthrow it?
It's the king's job to be so good at his job that it would be idiotic to overthrow him. It is also in the king's benefit to have military service (either active or reserve, literally a levy) a requirement to own said guns. This way loyalty and other virtues are installed in the men that own the guns.
It also helps to have a top notch spymaster to keep tabs on dissent groups (like commies, liberals, republicans, etc) and either neutralize or destroy them preemptively.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6508
>>6506
>Guns undermine national sovereignty.
Well, suppose there is a danger for sovereigns, they will have to notch their security and have smart decisions, but I also admit the rebels face the danger of armed resistance from reactionary militia. As we stated before, the sovereign could recruit peasants for this job. Armed weapons don't pose as much a threat to national sovereignty as someone might think. Monarchs will have good protection services and tactics to handle this security concern like they should have with or without, honestly – the illegal status of firearms doesn't mean the threat will go away.
>armed rebellion
Doesn't happen as often as people would believe. Happeningfags think a civil war is on the horizon, but nothing happens.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6509
>>6499
>Gun-ownership should be universal
<but it's ok to take guns away "temporarily"
Guns are not toys that you let children play with and take away when it's convenient for you. The whole point of guns is that they will be used against you when you try to hurt someone, or when you try to disarm someone first before you can hurt them.
It should be legal to kill any suspicious cocksucker that even talks about taking away guns.
>>6506
>How can a nation guarantee people the ability to overthrow it?
A nation is its people, not its government. Whenever human males are put in the same environment, we always form teams of "us and them" and cooperate with our team and compete for resources with the other teams. Now if you think it's a great idea to surrender your side's (society's) weapons, resources, and manpower to the other side (government) and just depend on their mercy, you're always gonna get cucked hard.
>It's like saying a parent can makes rules, EXCEPT the child can choose to kill the parent…It just doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because the king is not a parent, he is just a stranger you let into your house, he doesn't have any unconditional love for you, he has no obligations to you, he is a human being, the apex predator of this planet, the most dangerous creature we know about, you have to be SCARED of him, and you should be scared of yourself and what you're capable of if you ever end up in a situation where you have some kind of power over others and they are completely vulnerable before you.
>>6507
>It's the king's job to be so good at his job that it would be idiotic to overthrow him.
If a king is good at his job (owning a monopoly on force), he wouldn't be a king, he would be some democratic leftist dictator. The reason we don't have kings anymore is because monarchy is the least efficient way to rob and enslave a population.
>It also helps to have a top notch spymaster to keep tabs on dissent groups (like commies, liberals, republicans, etc) and either neutralize or destroy them preemptively.
<cianiggers
No.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6510
>>6509
>It doesn't make sense because the king is not a parent, he is just a stranger you let into your house, he doesn't have any unconditional love for you, he has no obligations to you
The role of national patriarch is not to treat everyone as children, but to re-affirm the family from the ruling royalty to the ordinary man. The monarch is almost also like the son of a nation, being reproduced on their throne and fulfilling an obligation from birth. This is unconditional love. Being a monarch is a responsibility from above.
>he is a human
Human, yes, but not the average joe on the street. Monarchs should be distant and elusive from their people, to shroud and reinforce their aura of majesty; but when a monarch appears with his people, the monarch should be the pride of the nation. Monarchs ideally have to appear above the average human being.
>you have to be SCARED of him
Fear is a good.
>Guns are not toys that you let children play with and take away when it's convenient for you.
Guns should be a rite of manhood.
National patriarchs should not be taking the role of emasculating children. Although there should be an eminence of manliness surrounding it.
> The reason we don't have kings anymore is because monarchy is the least efficient way to rob and enslave a population.
The critics of monarchy often say, "The royals don't care about us!" I am sure most people don't want to be cared for. This is why I consider the tyranny of monarchy to be soft in comparison to totalitarian regimes. A monarch who becomes wild as an autocrat is more likely to stay isolated from social engineering the rest of the populace than a totalitarian regime that is trying to transform society on the merits of ideology rather than a tyrant's shrewd self-interest and mania. This movement towards a social engineering program begins with the ideological communists.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6511
Honestly, I think a monarch would be wise to more towards loosing gun regulation. The forces of parliament and republicanism claim to be the defenders of liberty and constitutional rights. Imagine how much of a pushback it would be if a monarch turned the tables and allowed people their right of self-defense.
Since politics is the struggle between one, few, and many, the monarch has the benefit when he turns the tables on the few and helps the many. It might even be populist in attempt, but there should be no restraint in balancing the democracy against the representative few: all options must be available in politics, and all shrewdness considered – gun ownership being unrestricted would galvanize the undying support of the peasantry for their monarchy. Really, consider it. The peasants in the countryside are more apt to possess firearms and already find incentives to popular support. If a monarch could do this, it would secure the hearts of the peasants.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6513
Pointless without a racial/ethnic core that ensures homogeneity and oneness in purpose.
>>6490
Serfs were obligated to serve their lieges in war. They were required to have a purpose for it.
>>6509
>A nation is its people, not its government.
>muh wilsonian self-determination
Society more advanced than the Stone Age before Modern Degeneracy has never operated this way.
>Whenever human males are put in the same environment, we always form teams of "us and them" and cooperate with our team and compete for resources with the other teams.
And yet governments with their troops have a habit of winning wars and exterminating/ruling over primitives who have a weaker system (see the Chinese and Japanese both turning the Mongols into puppets).
>Now if you think it's a great idea to surrender your side's (society's) weapons, resources, and manpower to the other side (government) and just depend on their mercy, you're always gonna get cucked hard.
So tell me all the wars you anarkiddies have won.
>It doesn't make sense because the king is not a parent, he is just a stranger you let into your house, he doesn't have any unconditional love for you, he has no obligations to you, he is a human being, the apex predator of this planet, the most dangerous creature we know about, you have to be SCARED of him, and you should be scared of yourself and what you're capable of if you ever end up in a situation where you have some kind of power over others and they are completely vulnerable before you.
The point of the king is to be the face of a higher purpose then just living like an animal (which Modernity encourages). To do what you should, not what you "want".>>6509
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6514
>>6509
>is more than happy to allow republicans and communists proliferate because muh individual liberty
>not allowing a tumor to grow in the body is biggoted to tumors
For a self proclaimed smart guy, you aren't very smart.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6515
>>6514
You're talking to a lolbertarian their kind isn't known for being successful or having knowledge of what actually happens.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6516
>>6510
>Fear is a good
Fear is a signal that something is wrong in the system. The monarch should retain control not through fear, but because the alternative is unthinkable, and I mean that in the literal sense, it's an event that fails to enter the thought process. Imagine you are holding an apple. There are several things you might imagine doing with an apple. You can eat it, cut it up and bake it into a pie, crush it and make cider, and so on. At no point while considering what you may do with an apple, will the thought "I can smash this into my forehead and smear it all over my face" enter your mind–it's a completely foreign concept. That is what the monarch's rule should be–something so satisfactory and so in tune with day to day life that to even comprehend regicide or revolution is as foreign as the idea of smearing an apple over one's own face.
>>6514
>is more than happy to allow republicans and communists proliferate because muh individual liberty
Point for me to where the other poster said or implied such a thing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6517
>>6516
>fear has nothing to do with ensuring how you should behave
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6518
>>6517
Don't put words in my mouth. I was speaking about the monarch specifically, for one, not all behavior. And yes, fear has some component in governing behavior, but it's strictly a short-term motivator. In the long run, it becomes less effective, requiring a progressively-increasing escalation of consequences by the monarch. For reasons I should think obvious, this is not a very stable state of affairs. Instability is against the interest of both the monarch and the realm over which he presides. Therefore, in the name of stability, a system based on fear is to be avoided.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6519
>>6518
Tell me how come the longest lasting societies if only for continuity in civilization are ones like Egypt and China (absolute monarchs with plenty of bloodshed).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6520
>>6519
I don't disagree that absolute monarchs are the least bad sort of government, why do you think I have this flag?
>Egypt and China (absolute monarchs with plenty of bloodshed).
And neither of those dynasties ruled on fear, but exaltation. The chinks thought their emperor had the Mandate of Heaven, and the Egyptians thought Pharaoh was himself a god. And what do you mean by "plenty of bloodshed?" Compared to their republican counterparts, absolutist monarchs have been comparatively less bloodthirsty. They don't arbitrarily execute their own people out of paranoia, and they wage war less often, with less intensity.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6521
>>6516
>The monarch should retain control not through fear
The kind of fear I like is more like awe.
It is said that someone afraid of you poses a greatest danger than someone not. When I suggest fear as a means, I think of two ways of ruling. Fear and love. Reward and punishment. Mercy and wrath. A bit of diplomacy involves being friendly with a scary exterior to frighten others who consider these things.
At least, thinking of Machiavelli. I haven't went through The Prince and I only remember this from an excerpt. I don't know if it's better to be loved or feared. But I understand rewards and punishments is a subtle, but universal tool.
>That is what the monarch's rule should be–something so satisfactory and so in tune with day to day life that to even comprehend regicide or revolution is as foreign as the idea of smearing an apple over one's own face.
>That is what the monarch's rule should be–something so satisfactory and so in tune with day to day life that to even comprehend regicide or revolution is as foreign as the idea of smearing an apple over one's own face.
I guess it is ideal that a monarch is so loved he could walk out in public without fear of being attacked. This is the best goal, and it could probably sometimes work depending on where a monarch goes. King Christian X is a good example of this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6522
On that note, being feared is not the same as being hated.
If everything is done so that people will hate you, a rule won't last very long. Fear is taking the opportunity to prevent revenge when it is still possible and within a means of personal control. But doing something that would cause hatred is giving everyone a good reason to hate you. Like stripping away a title for no reason and keeping it to yourself. There's justified cruelty and unjustified cruelty. I guess if someone tries to assassinate a monarch, it is better to have them hanged than to show mercy in most cases. Assassination is one of those good times to consider this.
However, there are instances where showing mercy has been used. King Charles II had no choice to show mercy to those who signed a death warrant on his father, but only if they showed loyalty to the Restoration. And others have spared conspirators who tried to assassinate them after the attempt. I don't know what advantage this has, other than appearing stronger.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6549
>>6507
>It also helps to have a top notch spymaster to
Calm down on the EU4 there buddy.
>>6508
Armed populaces tend to be an issue for invading armadas.
>>6509
>The reason we don't have kings anymore is because monarchy is the least efficient way to rob and enslave a population.
This gave me pause.
>A nation is its people, not its government.
A nation is its ideas/culture/God/religion or whatever is the name for the amalgamation of those four words.
>>6510
>more likely to stay isolated from social engineering the rest of the populace than a totalitarian regime that is trying to transform society on the merits of ideology rather than a tyrant's shrewd self-interest and mania
This is a good enough point that I want to put it in my list of pro-monarchist arguments.
>>6521
>The kind of fear I like is more like awe.
Like I keep saying on this board, the ceremonial aspect of the monarch is important, dammit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6551
>MUH ARMED NORMIES
Amerimutts couldn't keep their cities from getting filled with Mud. Or prevent desegregation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6556
>>6551
Keep the muttposting on /k/. That board's already gone to hell, I don't care as much if you ruin it more.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6629
>>6556
What the hell is muttposting?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.