Why do you have guns -- Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe there is a gradual femininization (is that a word?) or rather emasculation of our society. God created them male and female, and both have certain assets that each brings to the betterment of society. When one group tries to insert those qualities where they don't belong, we start getting into trouble.
I read an interesting article about testosterone. The point of the arguement was that without the male hormone for aggression/dominance, human beings would not have survived to the present day. Aggression is still a very vital human response to threat. Without aggression, there would be no jews in Europe, and there would be no United States of America. The aggression response is that which is the heart of the gun control debate. Whether or not a person can respond with deadly force to deadly force. Our society has been imasculated. Thirty years ago, fathers were considered an essential ingredient to raising disciplined children. Now fathers are optional. A lot of women don't understand the way men behave, and the aggression is frightening to them. Fathers are domineering, and generally demand respect. A wise woman realizes that while she may not understand why they act the way they do, it is a vital part of raising a man from a boy. All males will eventually become aggressive. A boy needs to learn the proper manner in which to display his aggression. I will make a bold statement here that will undoubtedly make a whole lotta people mad: A woman cannot raise a boy to be a man by herself. Can't be done. There will always be somthing missing from the adult male. This is why we are seeing so many problems in todays society. At least it is a huge part of the problem.
Why do I buy/own guns? Because I feel a little more free with each gun. I feel a little more able to defend what is mine, and my family. I feel a little more able to defend those who might otherwise be defenseless. I have purchased somthing to pass on to future generations, that will serve them as much as it served me. When I die, there will only be a few things worthwhile from my estate; firearms are one of the few. Owning a firearm is one of the most noble things you can still do as a citizen. It is more of a statement than all the placards at all the marches in the United States. Somewhere, somebody in the governemnt knows that one more firearm is in the hands of a citizen. They also notice that billions of rounds of ammunition are either consumed/stockpiled each year. This gives would be tyrants pause, and is the ultimate check on Federal power. That is why I own firearms.

------------------
Find out just what the people will submit to and you've found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Frederick Douglass, Aug 4 1857
 
I have a problem with any argument that starts with "God", for there are good reasons to KBA without any belief in divinity, other than our own (and you don't want to argue that w/ me: I know my Bible).

FB, I hope you had a chance to read my post in WDYHG-II. I believe in strong role models, but I reject misogynists. "Strong" does not necessarily mean male; in many ways, the female is the stronger of our species. Aggression is by no means the sole bailiwick of the male, and to suggest so is ludicrous. We have need of a society that honestly evaluates itself, understands what it is, and acts appropriately. To deny our predatory nature is to repress thousands of years of genetic training, but again, it is not purely hormone-linked.

As I said earlier, I believe one's decision to protect is based on love, not aggression.

[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited May 23, 2000).]
 
Folkbabe,

Who ever told you that God was a woman? Sorry that is wrong. Don't get me wrong, I love women, I married one. God dosen't come from your head, you are not going to have some divine revalation, and you can't invent your own version of God. Sorry, thats not how it works.

As for your thoughts on Africa and whats going on over there with the slaughter of the white farmers; I find your views disturbing. The Europeans settled Africa kind of in the same way they settled North America. The whites are the reason the African blacks have the wheel. The whites are the reason there is running water and schools. Yes I agree that a certain amount of injustice exsists over there, but those farmers did not steal any land from any nomadic tribe who has been warring with each other for a thousand year. The Europeans brought certain level of civility and order to a savage people. Would you have them just hand over their property, property they have worked hard for, to a people that would not even know how to farm if it hadn't been for the whites. I suspect that you would also have the US pay reparations to American Negroes for past injustices to their "race". You would probably have the US pay reparations or even turn over a portion of the country, displacing white residents, to the American Indians. This whole idea is ridiculous. I'm Scotch/Irish, do you think the British should pay reparations for a couple centurys of abuse to my ancestors? The fact remains that the indigenous people of Africa as well as America would still be in the "stone age" if it wasn't for the Euoropeans.
You will now lable me as a racist, OK been called that before. The fact remains that I feel comfortable with anyone (of color) who acts human.

Arrell
 
Hey Arrell, she said that god wasn't a "Him." Who says that gender even applies to supernatural beings? (If they even exist..)

-z
 
folkbabe, are you a politician? ;)

Well, I think you technically answered my question, but I gather if you had more time you would support the disarming of peaceful Americans.

I found part 2) of your inquiry most interesting - I've seen that issue raised before. The question about gun owners feeling 'insecure' seems to create a paradox. For example, I have friends who were surprised when I acquired a concealed carry permit. Two of them asked why I was 'insecure' or 'afraid'. I explained I was not 'insecure', but saw this precaution as akin to home insurance, or carrying a first aid kit in my car.

The interesting part to me is that this 'insecure' perspective is usually raised by someone concerned about firearms in society - they usually feel we need more infringement / gun control, fewer firearms, ammunition limitations, etc. They indicate they feel this way because of the level of violence in society. So ... they want more infringement because they are 'insecure' about the level of violence in society. However, they see gun owners as 'insecure' because they want to be able to defend themselves.

I find it rather fascinating that anti-self defense activists think that gun owners are 'insecure' or 'paranoid', whereas they see themselves as intelligent people simply seeking 'reasonable' gun control. ;)

I think this comes down to one's perspective on freedom and personal responsibility. Both sides are concerned (rightly so) about violence. The anti-self defense movement believes the answer lies in more governmental control, while people like those on TFL believe more strongly in personal freedom and responsibility.

folkbabe, I think your work to promote peace is laudable and noble. However, the moment you assist those who would disarm the innocent ... well, that is when we part company.

I feel very strongly about this. I assure you, if I was Croatian, and lost my family to Serbs because we were disarmed and herded into 'safe areas' by the UN ... well, I wouldn't have stopped at filing a protest with the Secretary General. I would have gathered other Croatians, and we would have let UN troops know without question that their 'safe area' policy would carry some downside for them. Disarming innocents and leaving them exposed to the depradations of criminals is, IMHO, murder ... plain and simple.

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited May 23, 2000).]
 
Ok, here's the post about non-violent direct action, forms of resistance, pacifism, war, etc. Sorry it's been awile, I've been busy plus it took me awile to figure out how to structure it.

Ok, I'll begin with the theoretical arguements.
First, not using violence does not mean submitting. It is deciding for yourself what tools you will use to resist not allowing someone else to decide for you. One way to look at it is that there are three types of power: power over, power with, and power with-in. Non-violent direct action and civil disobedience means using "power with" other people to resist tyranny instead of trying to use violence or "power over" to control others. By using violence we replicate the structures of the oppressor, by using non-violent direct action we are "living the revolution". We are building the world we want to see in our resistance instead of just repeating the cycle of oppression.

Second, tyranny cannot exist without the cooperation of individuals. Mass non-cooperation means that there is no one to fight in the wars, no one to guard the prisons, no one to pay the taxes. Non-cooperation cannot work however unless the people understand that the enemy is not the people of other countries or individual soldiers. The enemy is the systems and if we all resist the systems and refuse to kill eachother, refuse to oppress our fellow human being there can be no wars and Hitler would have stood alone.

Third, pacifism means an active committment to building a world where there is no place for violence. By working to build a more just world and to build bridges between people we reduce the likelihood that new conflicts will appear. Also, pacifism and non-violent direct action and non-cooperation mean the empowerment of individuals. Non-violence empowers and requires everyone to know that they are strong and to fight for what they believe in. By teaching and acting towards eachother as decent people we break down the attitudes and myths which allow Hitler to get people to "follow orders".

Ok, on to practical arguements.
In the United States today non-violent means are the only way to make real change in society. This is because attempts to use violent means to create change _will_ be stomped by law enforcement and other structures dedicated to defending the status quo. Additionally, the use of violence, whether direct attacks on "the target" or terrorist attacks will result in a turning of public opinion away from the movement.

Non-violent direct action is perhaps the most direct non-violent challenge on the system. Direct action means anything which actually impedes the injustice from continuing. Some examples are: destroying railroad tracks in occupied Europe to prevent the German soldiers from traveling or transporting prisoners to camps, forming a human chain around an area to prevent a meeting from occuring, physically integrating the neighborhood pool (as opposed to just asking for the policy to be changed), burning draft files, refusing to pay taxes, and sailing the Rainbow Warrior into a nuclear test zone area. All of these are things which actually stop or hamper the continuation of injustice (whether you agree that the injustice existed is not the point, the point is that someone took non-violent direct action to oppose it). On a mass scale, direct action could easily shut down almost anything. During the Vietnam War, protesters did succeed in shutting down almost all the east coast draft boards for a time. On a small scale, it is an excellent way to get media attention for your cause while still not loosing large amounts of public support.

Civil disobedience is perhaps the most well-known form of non-violent protest. By saying you feel strongly enough about something you are willing to go to jail for it the public begins to wonder if there isn't something to your position after all. To be blunt, by refusing to respond with violence to violence you get great TV footage. Almost all the major social movements of the past century and a half have used CD to get public support. When activists chained themselves to Parliament's fence in Britain the public realized that maybe women really _should_ get the vote after all. When children marched peacefully to be arrested in the south the public decided that maybe blacks too should get the vote.

By using these methods in our activism we are not only working for real change in the system but we are teaching and learning new structures and new ways of thinking which aren't based on violence. It is by setting the example of non-violence that we will teach people that maybe non-cooperation really is a legitimate theory for resisting tyranny. It is by using the methods of non-violence that we will live the world we want to see.

Using violence as a method of revolution usually leads to further oppression. This is perhaps most effectively proved by the example of China. After the collapse of the dynasty in 1911-1912 the country was basically run by a number of warlords and strongmen. Jiang Jeishi (also written Chiang Chi-Chek(sp)) was one of these. He slowly began to take over more and more country. Following the advice of their Russian advisors, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) decided to help Jiang Jeishi take over the urban areas. (the CCP was primarily an urban organization at the time) However, after they took the last city Jeishi had his erstwhile allies killed. At this point, the CCP decided to stop listening to their Russian comrades. The CCP took to the countryside and starting recruiting and training. Meanwhile, Jiang Jeishi proved himself so monumentally cruel and corrupt that the majority of the country turned against his rule by the end of WWII. However, instead of having a peaceful revolution which might have allowed real participatory democracy and equality the CCP took the opportunity to take over militarily. Because they had been training militarily and fighting a war (or rather, several wars) the structure was very top-down. Mao was in charge and that was that.

Cuba is another example where a regime was so horribly corrupt that a non-violent revolution would have been possible. Instead the progressives choose to support a violent revolution and the result was, predictably, dictatorship.

Note that in neither of these cases am I saying that the second regimes were neccessarily worse than the first but merely that other methods of resistance would have resulted in a better regime. By using a method that we know will just result in the lesser of two evils we reject the possiblity of actually building a better world before we've even tried it.

Alrighty, that's it for now.
in the light, folkbabe

ps - Jeff, I answer a bit ambivalently because that's the only way I can honestly answer. I'm not sure what I would do if I had more time so I give what the situation is. Because my opinion is not entirely made up I stay out of the issue.

[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited May 22, 2000).]
 
folkbabe,

I'm jumping into the discussion pretty late here. I've been observing the mental "volleying" and have decided to answer (finally) your 3 questions.

1)Your statement "It is deciding for yourself what tools you will use to resist not allowing someone else to decide for you" is exactly why I own guns. I choose to protect myself/resist with a firearm, and don't appreciate it when people try to take that choice away from me. Plus, as so many others have said: I just plain like 'em. I am unusual for a woman as I like mechanical things: guns, cars, airplanes, etc. I really enjoy shooting, and would also like to take up hunting. It's also as kjm said: I feel a little more free with each gun I buy.

2)More guns, preferably of the full-auto (ie nasty assault weapon) variety. Oh, and a nice fortified castle with 20 ft thick walls, a water-filled moat infested with alligators and 6ft spikes, a company of Welsh longbowmen, heavy cavalry...etc etc... ;)

3)I believe that the disintegration of the family, in concert with God being relegated to at best last place, is at the core of violence in our culture. We have become a "me" oriented society, concerned only with gaining material possessions and wealth. WE don't, as a society, care for and nurture our children. They are as a whole, considered to be burdens rather than the precious blessings they are. We also don't value human life anymore, as we are considered by many to be just another animal, rather than "God-breathed". (I'll probably catch flak for that statement, but I don't care, so flame away!)

I also have to respectfully say, IMHO, that the pacifistic (is that a word?) notion of a utopian, non-violent world will never happen. There will always be people out to exploit and oppress, who want to gather power unto themselves. It's a noble thought, and one I wish would come true, but due to man's nature (as a species), it will never happen. We can try to limit violence and oppression by learning to understand one another and respect our differences (as men, women, black, white, whatever color), but I don't think that pacifism is the only answer, or the best answer.

------------------
"Liberty or death, What we so proudly hail... Once you provoke Her, rattling of Her tail- Never begins it, NEVER- But once engaged never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage. DON'T TREAD ON ME!!

"Many's the men who've battled foe
many the number slain,
many the lads have fallen though
Scotland shall rise again."

[This message has been edited by Darthmaum (edited May 23, 2000).]
 
OK, folkbabe, tell you what ... let us know what state you're in, and we'll hire you to found a Tyranny Response Team ... ;)

All kidding aside, I find your posts interesting and helpful. We have entered the era of nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience in support of the RKBA. That is, in support of the Bill of Rights, and the fundamental human right to self defense. What human right could possibly be more fundamental than that?

Regards from AZ
 
Food for thought http://www.tv-u.com/china.html

A small excerpt from the above link.

THE RAPE OF TIBET

In 1949, the Chinese Communists occupied Tibet, and began the systematic rape of that tiny, peaceful Buddhist country - ultimately killing millions of its citizens. That rape of Tibet was led by Deng Xiaoping (who later succeeded Mao) and was so ruthless in crushing the Tibetan population and religion, that even his boss, Mao Tse-tung, asked him to ease off. He did not! Since Tibet was invaded by China in 1949, China has effectively outlawed freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. Authorities continue to crack down on Tibetans who question Chinese rule, relying on imprisonment, torture, and executions in an attempt to eradicate the Tibetan religion, culture and nationality. The Tibetan government, exiled to India, is the only organization to keep detailed records of such deaths. According to its records, 1.2 million Tibetans died between 1949 and 1979 as a result of the Chinese occupation. The statistics show:

173,221 Tibetans died after being tortured in prison.
156,758 Tibetans have been executed by the Chinese.
432,705 Tibetans were killed while fighting Chinese soldiers.
342,970 Tibetans have starved to death.
92,731 Tibetans publicly tortured to death.
9,002 Tibetans committed suicide.

Prepare for war to insure peace.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Pacifism:


America was released from the stronghold of tyranny by active guerilla aggression. Just a thought.



Anyway....there is a website that someone here linked once. It is a website for a pacifist group.
This group argues that violence is genetically based. Certain people have the "violence gene" and these savage people see violence as a soltion to problems.
They propose that the more evolved people have done away with the "violence gene" and have found more cerebral ways to handle conflict (tell that to a rapist as you try to cerebrally talk him out of savagely mounting you).
This pacifist group seeks to eliminate violence from our world.

So, what is this pacifist group's solution?
To kill anyone that has a violence gene!
How do they select who has a violence gene? Well, for starters they figure that anyone with a gun has the violence gene because these people see a gun as a solution to some problems.

How do they propose to wipe out the violence gene?
Send in squads of officers with submachine guns to kick down their door, search for guns, and if they find any, to kill the entire gene pool (the whole family) so that they cannot spread their "violence gene" any more.

So, in the end, when people refuse to comply with this group's idea of Utopia, they advocate sending in stormtroopers to kill anyone that does not comply.
Of course, we see the paradox here.

And also, these people never mentioned what they plan on doing with the stormtrooper officers who carry out these orders, since they obviously have to have the "violence gene" in order to fulfill their duties.
Sounds like Facism Hitler-style to me.

I did not make this up, this is a real group of pacifists who feel this way and endorse this. They of course endorse this for the good of society and "for our own good" so that they can bring about their idea of a perfect society.

Do us a favor and just ask yourself, folkbabe, where your beliefs and desires to create a Utopia lead? Are you sure they do not lead to imposing your views onto other people so that you can create YOUR version of Utopia at any cost?

You do not have to answer here, just ask yourself that while on your quest. Pacifist Utopia has not worked yet and we can find example after example. So, how far will you have to go to create your perfect world?


IMO, especially with examples like above, extremist pacifism is tyranny. We see it in forms of Animal Right activists kicking people off their own land in order to impose these values on people etc. Even abortion clinic protestors (no matter how you feel about them) are imposing thier views through passive force by not allowing people to do as they wish. Pacifist aggression is aggression none the less and you are still trying to forcefully impose your views on other people no matter how you candy coat it.
Anytime you try to impose your views on a group, it ends up becoming that you have to use froce of some sort. When you force your views on someone, then that is Tyranny in it's simplist and most basic form.
So, you may just become that which you wish to destroy.




Ps- sidenote: Didn't Ghandi say something like "The worst atrocity that the British ever did was to take firearms away from the people of India"? I would imagine he was a pretty good example of a pacifist but he seemed to see the value in firearms ownership by the people.




[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited May 23, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by folkbabe:
Ok, here's the post about non-violent direct action, forms of resistance, pacifism, war, etc. Sorry it's been awile, I've been busy plus it took me awile to figure out how to structure it.

Ok, I'll begin with the theoretical arguements.
First, not using violence does not mean submitting. It is deciding for yourself what tools you will use to resist not allowing someone else to decide for you. One way to look at it is that there are three types of power: power over, power with, and power with-in. Non-violent direct action and civil disobedience means using "power with" other people to resist tyranny instead of trying to use violence or "power over" to control others. By using violence we replicate the structures of the oppressor, by using non-violent direct action we are "living the revolution". We are building the world we want to see in our resistance instead of just repeating the cycle of oppression.

Second, tyranny cannot exist without the cooperation of individuals. Mass non-cooperation means that there is no one to fight in the wars, no one to guard the prisons, no one to pay the taxes. Non-cooperation cannot work however unless the people understand that the enemy is not the people of other countries or individual soldiers. The enemy is the systems and if we all resist the systems and refuse to kill eachother, refuse to oppress our fellow human being there can be no wars and Hitler would have stood alone.

Third, pacifism means an active committment to building a world where there is no place for violence. By working to build a more just world and to build bridges between people we reduce the likelihood that new conflicts will appear. Also, pacifism and non-violent direct action and non-cooperation mean the empowerment of individuals. Non-violence empowers and requires everyone to know that they are strong and to fight for what they believe in. By teaching and acting towards eachother as decent people we break down the attitudes and myths which allow Hitler to get people to "follow orders".

Ok, on to practical arguements.
In the United States today non-violent means are the only way to make real change in society. This is because attempts to use violent means to create change _will_ be stomped by law enforcement and other structures dedicated to defending the status quo. Additionally, the use of violence, whether direct attacks on "the target" or terrorist attacks will result in a turning of public opinion away from the movement.

Non-violent direct action is perhaps the most direct non-violent challenge on the system. Direct action means anything which actually impedes the injustice from continuing. Some examples are: destroying railroad tracks in occupied Europe to prevent the German soldiers from traveling or transporting prisoners to camps, forming a human chain around an area to prevent a meeting from occuring, physically integrating the neighborhood pool (as opposed to just asking for the policy to be changed), burning draft files, refusing to pay taxes, and sailing the Rainbow Warrior into a nuclear test zone area. All of these are things which actually stop or hamper the continuation of injustice (whether you agree that the injustice existed is not the point, the point is that someone took non-violent direct action to oppose it). On a mass scale, direct action could easily shut down almost anything. During the Vietnam War, protesters did succeed in shutting down almost all the east coast draft boards for a time. On a small scale, it is an excellent way to get media attention for your cause while still not loosing large amounts of public support.

Civil disobedience is perhaps the most well-known form of non-violent protest. By saying you feel strongly enough about something you are willing to go to jail for it the public begins to wonder if there isn't something to your position after all. To be blunt, by refusing to respond with violence to violence you get great TV footage. Almost all the major social movements of the past century and a half have used CD to get public support. When activists chained themselves to Parliament's fence in Britain the public realized that maybe women really _should_ get the vote after all. When children marched peacefully to be arrested in the south the public decided that maybe blacks too should get the vote.

By using these methods in our activism we are not only working for real change in the system but we are teaching and learning new structures and new ways of thinking which aren't based on violence. It is by setting the example of non-violence that we will teach people that maybe non-cooperation really is a legitimate theory for resisting tyranny. It is by using the methods of non-violence that we will live the world we want to see.

Using violence as a method of revolution usually leads to further oppression. This is perhaps most effectively proved by the example of China. After the collapse of the dynasty in 1911-1912 the country was basically run by a number of warlords and strongmen. Jiang Jeishi (also written Chiang Chi-Chek(sp)) was one of these. He slowly began to take over more and more country. Following the advice of their Russian advisors, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) decided to help Jiang Jeishi take over the urban areas. (the CCP was primarily an urban organization at the time) However, after they took the last city Jeishi had his erstwhile allies killed. At this point, the CCP decided to stop listening to their Russian comrades. The CCP took to the countryside and starting recruiting and training. Meanwhile, Jiang Jeishi proved himself so monumentally cruel and corrupt that the majority of the country turned against his rule by the end of WWII. However, instead of having a peaceful revolution which might have allowed real participatory democracy and equality the CCP took the opportunity to take over militarily. Because they had been training militarily and fighting a war (or rather, several wars) the structure was very top-down. Mao was in charge and that was that.

Cuba is another example where a regime was so horribly corrupt that a non-violent revolution would have been possible. Instead the progressives choose to support a violent revolution and the result was, predictably, dictatorship.

Note that in neither of these cases am I saying that the second regimes were neccessarily worse than the first but merely that other methods of resistance would have resulted in a better regime. By using a method that we know will just result in the lesser of two evils we reject the possiblity of actually building a better world before we've even tried it.

Alrighty, that's it for now.
in the light, folkbabe

ps - Jeff, I answer a bit ambivalently because that's the only way I can honestly answer. I'm not sure what I would do if I had more time so I give what the situation is. Because my opinion is not entirely made up I stay out of the issue.

[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited May 22, 2000).][/quote]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top