- This topic has 1 reply, 11 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It’s always a good idea to ban something. Look how well it’s worked for drugs. More laws to enforce. More criminals to bust. More fines, forfeitures and jail terms. More opportunity to develop our ability to take orders and enjoy humiliation. Everybody wins!
A high tolerance for humiliation is hardly a character trait I’d like my sons to aspire to. But to each his own.
Sprite is correct that it is not “craven” to cooperate with a social contract, but a contract is something to which both sides agree. I gladly honor the contract that says the state will enforce its laws. Unfortunately, enforcing the law has nothing to do with protecting us from people who break them. That’s not part of the deal. The cops have a duty to catch crooks, not to prevent crime or protect anyone from it.
What is craven is to expect someone for whom you have little respect to risk his life to defend yours when you are unwilling to lift a finger on your own behalf. It is, however, perfectly consistent with a low opinion of your fellow man and a belief that the “little people” exist for your convenience.
I’m curious as to how donning a uniform elevates the cop you’re counting on for help from membership in the “inept population” to skilled and courageous defender of his betters. Where’s the magic? The badge? Those snappy Smokie-the-bear hats? The gun? I’d like a little of that.
And while I’m sure libertarians appreciate your tolerant offer of banishment to the wilderness, I’m equally sure they would prefer that you simply left them in peace rather than forcibly disarm them for the supposed benefit of those with less self respect. Libertarians strongly believe in non-agression. They are no danger to anyone who does not threaten them with violence.
The disarming of civilians has nowhere been successful in reducing violence. On the contrary, the greatest crimes in human history have all be perpetrated by government agents against unarmed civilians. The combined crimes of every murderer who ever lived are hardly noticable against those committed by governments in the 20th century, most often against their own people. Thousands of people may be murdered in civil society in any given year, but government murders routinely number in the millions, and always against unarmed populations.
As to the safety to be gained by disarming a country, an unarmed Costa Rica has always had the implied protection of Uncle Sam. Switzerland is a far better model for peaceful, long term prosperity. It’s the libertarian model of an armed and trained militia in a capitalist country that minds it own business. They haven’t had a war since before Lincoln was president. Poverty in Switzerland looks like high living in Costa Rica.
You are being very unfair with your language XavierTico.
You and I as American citizens both know that when we kill someone it’s called ‘murder’ but when our government and it’s various agencies does it abroad and kills millions of people it’s called spreading “freedom and democracy.”
When another government that we consider unfriendly to our ‘interests’ kills millions of people we call it ‘ethnic cleansing’ or simply ‘genocide.’
And yes compadres, our US government with all it’s overt and covert interventions is responsible for killing far more people than Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein ever dreamed of …
But the sad fact of the matter is all these patriotic, democratic, constitution and peace loving, legal gun owners and responsible citizens will be the first ones taken to the camps when martial law breaks out in the US.
Scoff at the idea if you like but there are already camps in the US and there have been concrete plans for quite a while.
Those of you without your head in the sand might want to see Vincent Bugliosi’s opening statements during the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutional limits of executive power.
“The Terrible Reality” Bush Guilty Of Murder Hearing on Limits of Executive Power: Must Watch 6 Minute Video. [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20400.htm ]
this past week, a man on a Greyhound bus in Canada was repeatedly stabbed by a “Rambo style” knife and then decapitated by a fellow passenger without the benefit of alchohol being served.
All the other passengers were glad to get off the bus as fast as possible. Not one of them was able or willing to get involved to save the young man’s life. Had there been time they could have called the police to come and save him but the lunatic wasn’t willing to wait.
We look to outside causes for all our society problems by fail to recognize that many people are simply unglued upstairs. When we look to others to always solve our problems, we find life isn’t a sit-com and we need to take some responsibility for our own actions. When you live in an ideal world in your mind you can be rudely interrupted by reality. I bet the family wishes someone had the ability and the willingness to help out.
When I am confronted by one of the many nut cases in this country, I want to be able to defend my self, my family and yes even someone who doesn’t believe in self protection.
alberto
Hmmm… I’m reminded here of the 4 young men involved with the Catholic Worker who were abducted in Iraq back in 2005 or so. One of them was killed by his captor. The others were freed by American soldiers with guns. While James Lomie, one of the Catholic Workers was grateful for his rescue he also stated that he did not endorse the use of guns or violence as the conditions of his rescue. Do with that as you will, I’m only presenting the facts as I recall them.
Speaking of gun owndership, there have also been several suggestions that another reason that violent crime has been on the decrease in Canada (and I suspect in the US as well) may have squat to do with gun owndership and a lot more with the fact that the population in both countries has been aging since the eighties, and therefore are less likely to engage in violent crime. I have also heard, for that matter, that the part of the brains in young men that are the last to fully develop are certain frontal lobes that govern rational behaviour.
I don’t like guns. I don’t like violence, and I refuse to participate in this dance of fear and paranoia that would oblige me either to take sides in this silly debate about gun-ownersip or to own a gun myself. I would prefer not to live in fear, and for me, not living in fear involves not troubling to carry a lethal weapon on my person for self-defense. Does this imply risk? Of course it does. Risk is part of life. But I am going to continue to engage with others from a position of peace and friendship, whether they are carrying bouquets of daisies or whether they are armed to the teeth, or both. Yeah, go ahead and dismiss me as a naive and coddled Canadian but I live in low-income housing in a rough area of town and I have never been afraid because I try to view each person I see as someone with worth and human dignity. I also happen to be a Christian. Has it always gone well for me? No. In Amsterdam I was robbed at knife point, in other situations at times I have been threatened or stalked. Does this prevent me from moving forward? No, I will not permit it to. My positive experiences with people, here at home, and wherever I have travelled have been largely and overwhelmingly positive, because I try to treat everyone I meet as an icon of Christ. I would say that rather than snarl ourselves in silly debates, perhaps we can all explore ways in which we can become the change that we seek in others and in our societies, including finding ways of teaching our children, particularly our sons, constructive and life-affirming alternatives to violence, to learn how to resolve conflict peacefully and constructively, and even to learn respectfully how to agree to disagree and still find in one another common ground for friendship and mutual cooperation. (eh, Scott?)The question of the right to bear arms nuzzles right down to the essence of human fear and how individuals deal with it. The reason that logic and statistics about the definite connection between crime, violence and firearms don’t sway the gun fanatics is because their problem does not lie outside in the environment. It lies within them. They incorrectly associate personal strength and bravery with their guns. They fail to see where personal strength and true bravery lies. Aaronbz gives a good example of where that strength really exists. It does NOT exist in a mere device you strap to your hip or sling over your shoulder.
Gun fanatics are really the fearful ones. Their distrust and suspicion of others have them backed into a corner, clutching their guns and declaring that we will have to take them from their cold, dead hands. That is fear personified.
However imperfect government has proven to be, it is still the only tool we have which permits us to build societies. Humans are pack animals. We crave social organization and we will always behave this way regardless of how many times our governments fail us. Despite all the horrific evil my own government has committed on the international stage, I still believe in the benefits of human co-operation. Which world view is more likely to make a better world; that of the gun toting loner with a perpetual chip on his shoulder or that of a fearless, trusting individual?
Edited on Aug 03, 2008 14:43
Bravo Scott and XavierTico!
Sprite, Governments are imperfect, as well as people and societies. As an individual, I would like the ability to decide for myself what is reasonable protection.
As an example of government imperfection; remember, Hitler confiscated all the guns in Germany, and we all know how that turned out.
Alfred,
Hitler gave bigger and better guns back to the Germans..as well as some uniforms to go with them. Remember how that turned out?You are not the only individual who desires the ability to decide what is reasonable protection. There are many others who feel an automatic assault rifle is what they need. Once the saturation level of gun ownership is reached, (maybe we are already there?) it will become necessary for all of us to be armed to the teeth. Then your assault rifle will be no better than a stick for protection. I hope you can see how silly this escalation is.
Sprite, not all the Germans got the guns. That’s the point! Either we all have the right, or we don’t. Including elitist elected officials.
In a perfect world, or Utopia, some of us might not see the need for firearms. This however, is unrealistic thinking. No way could you disarm everyone and eliminate crime and violence. This is an ever degenerating world, and moving to CR is NOT going to change that fact.
Most of us may be looking for a better way of life, and a safer one at that. But, as we move to a one world economic and social order, the bad will eventually infect the good. The law of entropy applies to everything. Delaying the inevitable might be possible, though. And, just maybe, we’ll all be dead by then. Still, to think you will escape humanity and all its warts, is not being intellectually honest.
My intention was not to pick on you or single you out. Just wanted to bring my argument to the table.
Talking about the “horrific evil” perpetrated by the US government and a “gun toting loner with a perpetual chip on his shoulder” and being “armed to the teeth.”
From [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7420573.stm ] – “The US has more than 12,000 nuclear weapons; the Soviet Union (sic) has about the same; Great Britain and France have several hundred, and Israel has 150 or more,” he said.
From [ http://www.slate.com/id/2183592/pagenum/all/ ] What’s Really in the U.S. Military Budget? “For the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget, which President Bush released today, the real size is not, as many news stories have reported, $515.4 billion—itself a staggering sum—but, rather, $713.1 billion.”
Yet the US has the balls to criticize China when they announced a 18% increase in their military spending to $59 billion [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7276277.stm ]
Can anyone divide $59 billion into $713 billion? Yup The US spends 12 times more than China does on it’s military …
And the US and Donald Rumsfeld get irritated when Venezuela buys arms?
From [ http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1716 ] “A January 2007 Defense Intelligence Agency report estimated Venezuela had spent $4.3 billion on weapons during the previous two years, more than Iran, Pakistan or even China over the same period.”
From [ http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8KHAS781&show_article=1 ] Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld “I don’t know of anyone threatening Venezuela, anyone in this hemisphere…”
Apart from his own government that is …
From [ http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/800 ] “Now that some of the top-secret documents have surfaced that show the CIA’s complicity and involvement in the April 2002 coup, it leaves one to wonder what is next on the agenda. In September 2001, shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, President Bush unconditionally authorized former CIA Director George Tenet’s “Worldwide Attack Matrix”, which targets leaders and prominent figures in 80 countries around the world for assassination.”
Read “Legacy of Ashes” the new history of the CIA and you will see how these bunglers screwed up nearly every mission they undertook. I just got through the chapters on how we unseated Mossadeq and put the Shah in power. Now I’m in Guatemala with them doing more of the same with Arbenz. To refer to these nimrods as an “intelligence agency” is an oxymoron. It’s such a fascinating read that it’s hard to believe it’s all true and well documented.
I own guns. I like to shoot them. I have never considered killing anyone or anything with one of them. I own golf clubs. I like golf. I have never considered killing anyone or anything with a golf club. Point is, if you don’t like golf, don’t buy clubs. But leave me alone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
