Gun Rights Post

[Kierkecraig]

I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.

There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
1) Hunting (or recreation)
2) Self-defense
3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)

The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
forming a militia.

It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
possible would be a passive revolution.

So the questions that remain in controversy are:

Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.

Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?

[Vamadevananda]

The question at the crux is : Do arms enable the common individual
better himself, help others, and / or improve the world about him ?

My take is that it does not, in general. That is, except when it used
in sport, in which case it may help one to improve one's concentration
and mind - body coordination skills !

[Pat]

Even in the face of greater technology, a government is less
likely to tyrannize the citizens if they are armed and have the
potential to inflict SOME damage, albeit limited, to the government's
means of tyranny. It becomes a means of self-defense against blatant
tyranny, like what we're seeing in Zimbabwe. There, if the majority
of people had guns, then the government thugs with their batons would
be very hesitant to attempt to rough them up. It follows the old
theory of 'you don't take a knife to a gunfight'. And, I believe the
people have the right to defend against such tyranny. And, Zimbabwe
serves as evidence that passive resistence in the face of blatant
tyranny, just doesn't work.

[Kierkecraig]

I don't think inquiring only into the utility the tool has for one
individual will capture the entire crux of the matter. I think we
have to see what the utility the tool has for society at large as
well. Which is exactly where this discussion has led us. Do arms in
the hands of the citizenry benefit society more than it becomes a
determinant to society? Does the good outweigh the bad? I'm with Pat
on this one that the citizens of Zimbabwe are probably thinking that
they would take all the bad in order to have the benefit of being
armed.

I think that the recreation part of owning guns is the least important
part when it comes to its importance to society. Although it is one
of the most important parts to me personally.

[Kierkecraig]

Pat,
It's been a while since I've read them, but I've read articles about
the disarmament of African countries and the devastation it has had on
the population. All of the holocausts that have taken place could
have been curtailed by an armed citizenry.

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 05:23, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat,
> It's been a while since I've read them, but I've read articles about
> the disarmament of African countries and the devastation it has had on
> the population.  All of the holocausts that have taken place could
> have been curtailed by an armed citizenry.
>

It certainly would have meant a lot fewer corpses in Darfur. Or,
fewer AND a more proportional representation OF them. I understand
Vam's point, but, for me, the main point is self-defense and by self-
defense I mean primarily defense against tyranny not other citizens.
The right to oppose a government whose intent is to kill you if you
don't agree with them is paramount. Of course, that should never be
the first choice. Passively resisting should be attempted, but, as
Jefferson put it, 'when a long chain of abuses and usurpations
pursuing, invariably, the same object, evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute despotism', you have a right and a duty to yourself and
your fellow countrymen to prevent it as best you can. And, without
guns, you simply can't fight back effectively. Assuming, of course,
that the leader of the government isn't whacko enough to nuke his own
country. If he IS, then the the people would have to use chemicals
and biological warfare against the government--assuming there are
enough survivors with the know-how to implement it. God forbid,
anywhere ever blows up to THAT extreme.

> > tyranny, just doesn't work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 05:49, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 05:23, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pat,
> > It's been a while since I've read them, but I've read articles about
> > the disarmament of African countries and the devastation it has had on
> > the population.  All of the holocausts that have taken place could
> > have been curtailed by an armed citizenry.
>
>     It certainly would have meant a lot fewer corpses in Darfur.  Or,
> fewer AND a more proportional representation OF them.  I understand
> Vam's point, but, for me, the main point is self-defense and by self-
> defense I mean primarily defense against tyranny not other citizens.
> The right to oppose a government whose intent is to kill you if you
> don't agree with them is paramount.  Of course, that should never be
> the first choice.  Passively resisting should be attempted, but, as
> Jefferson put it, 'when a long chain of abuses and usurpations
> pursuing, invariably, the same object, evinces a design to reduce them
> under absolute despotism', you have a right and a duty to yourself and
> your fellow countrymen to prevent it as best you can.  And, without
> guns, you simply can't fight back effectively.  Assuming, of course,
> that the leader of the government isn't whacko enough to nuke his own
> country.  If he IS, then the the people would have to use chemicals
> and biological warfare against the government--assuming there are
> enough survivors with the know-how to implement it.  God forbid,
> anywhere ever blows up to THAT extreme.
>
>

My quoting of Jefferson reminded me that, back in 1970, "The 5th
Dimension" came out with a song called "The Declaration", which was
the first paragraph of 'The Declaration of Independence' put to
music. Of course, I have it on a vinyl 45. It was this song that
allowed me to memorise it. Absolutely GREAT track and, of course,
officially banned from Armed Forces Radio.

If you don't mind the 2 minutes for a brief installation of
software, you can listen to it here:

http://www.rhapsody.com/the5thdimension/portrait/thedeclarationachangeisgonnacomepeoplegottabefree

Unfortunately, it doesn't work for those of us who are not IN the
United States. Ex-pats are most annoyed!! ;-)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

Pat, you and Craig have done an interesting job of transfering this
argument to Africa. This follows Craig's universalist reframing of the
argument which does not follow from the question of whether people in
the *States* should carry guns. I think we can all agree that it is
virtually impossible to have a Zimbawean style government develop in
the States (unless the far right keep their guns and menace the rest
of the population...). And while we have had situations similar to
Darfur (autochthonous cultures, African Americans) both populations
were armed--they were outnumbered and in the latter situation, largely
passified by religion.

That does not validate the comparison. African politics do not offer a
comparable political or legal situation.

[Felix Krull]

Tyranny is produced by other citizens, Pat, in both cases you have
mentioned. They just happen to be better armed and in control of the
legal system.

[Felix Krull]

> country. If he IS, then the the people would have to use chemicals
> and biological warfare against the government--assuming there are
> enough survivors with the know-how to implement it. God forbid,
> anywhere ever blows up to THAT extreme.

Which actually works as a counterreason to having small weapons in the
general populace. Revolution, even violent ones, can be generated
using other more effective methods.

On 30 juin, 06:49, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 05:23, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pat,
> > It's been a while since I've read them, but I've read articles about
> > the disarmament of African countries and the devastation it has had on
> > the population. All of the holocausts that have taken place could
> > have been curtailed by an armed citizenry.
>
> It certainly would have meant a lot fewer corpses in Darfur. Or,
> fewer AND a more proportional representation OF them. I understand
> Vam's point, but, for me, the main point is self-defense and by self-
> defense I mean primarily defense against tyranny not other citizens.
> The right to oppose a government whose intent is to kill you if you
> don't agree with them is paramount. Of course, that should never be
> the first choice. Passively resisting should be attempted, but, as
> Jefferson put it, 'when a long chain of abuses and usurpations
> pursuing, invariably, the same object, evinces a design to reduce them
> under absolute despotism', you have a right and a duty to yourself and
> your fellow countrymen to prevent it as best you can. And, without
> guns, you simply can't fight back effectively. Assuming, of course,
> that the leader of the government isn't whacko enough to nuke his own

>

[archytas]

My take on this is that we need a model of democratic involvement in
which we recognise the need for armed and ready democrats, and world-
wide projects in which things are built to encourage local-global
sustainability. The opposite seems almost more likely - we pull out
of Afghanistan, Pakistan collapses and we end up with armed and ready
religious bandits.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Thoughtful Craig - yet as we know, modern arms make it very difficult
to revolt with a few rifles - and perhaps we are missing something
about the need for our standing armies to be democratic here? Burma
is probably in a state of revolution - the Free Burma Rangers are
almost like the Magnificent Seven and the government is just about as
looney and crap as it's possible to be.

On 30 Jun, 03:38, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Felix Krull]

Please let it be noted that I feel 1) is the only reasonable answer in
today's political climate (in the States) and that all of them are to
some extent rationalizations of the primary libidinal interests of gun
owners: i.e. they enjoy guns. I have already stated where this desire
comes from (actually it is regenerated by the very process of
rationalization which makes the individual somehow powerful enough to
change an entire political and social system...)

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 07:40, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > country.  If he IS, then the the people would have to use chemicals
> > and biological warfare against the government--assuming there are
> > enough survivors with the know-how to implement it.  God forbid,
> > anywhere ever blows up to THAT extreme.
>
> Which actually works as a counterreason to having small weapons in the
> general populace. Revolution, even violent ones, can be generated
> using other more effective methods.
>

Depending entirely on the actual situations and not hypothetical
ones. We both have opinions and I don't think either of us want them
proven due to resulting deaths involved.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 08:10, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please let it be noted that I feel 1) is the only reasonable answer in
> today's political climate (in the States) and that all of them are to
> some extent rationalizations of the primary libidinal interests of gun
> owners: i.e. they enjoy guns. I have already stated where this desire
> comes from (actually it is regenerated by the very process of
> rationalization which makes the individual somehow powerful enough to
> change an entire political and social system...)
>

Great opinion and I'm glad you hold one. So long as you realise
others hold differing ones and that THAT'S OK, too. Although I do
find your libido argument to be remarkably laughable; and that, too,
is only an opinion.

> > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?- Hide quoted text -

[Ian Pollard]

If we're arguing for gun ownership rights for America, then, sure, do what you like. I think, given the culture, that might work for you. However, if the argument is meant to embrace all cultures and countries, then I cannot accept it.

What's the scope of this?

Ian

[Felix Krull]

Well, I am sorry, but in this situation the contrary opinion is *not*
okay. Guns should be all but completely eradicated in the States. Gun
violence only happens, strangely enough, with guns. So far, neither
you nor Craig have offered valid reasons for guns, other than
pleasure. Pleasure is regulated in American society and guns should be
as well.

This is not a matter of "opinion" at all, but the necessity of a
reasonable argument for something with so many negatives. And, unlike
the negatives of other "pleasures" the negatives of guns are
collective, produced generally on others, socio-political, and so
forth. I have yet to see cogent counterarguments from Craig or anyone
on this matter, and now it has been reduced to "well, that is your
opinion..." Harumph.

[Felix Krull]

Absolutely. Which is why guns should be eradicated and passive
revolutions taken up. My argument against Craig from the beginning...

[Felix Krull]

> find your libido argument to be remarkably laughable; and that, too,

Well... how profound. *You* have an opinion. *I* have an argument.

On 30 juin, 11:22, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 30 Jun, 08:10, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Please let it be noted that I feel 1) is the only reasonable answer in
> > today's political climate (in the States) and that all of them are to
> > some extent rationalizations of the primary libidinal interests of gun
> > owners: i.e. they enjoy guns. I have already stated where this desire
> > comes from (actually it is regenerated by the very process of
> > rationalization which makes the individual somehow powerful enough to
> > change an entire political and social system...)
>
> Great opinion and I'm glad you hold one. So long as you realise
> others hold differing ones and that THAT'S OK, too. Although I do

[Ian Pollard]

2008/6/30 Pat <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com>:

Great opinion and I'm glad you hold one.  So long as you realise
others hold differing ones and that THAT'S OK, too.  Although I do
find your libido argument to be remarkably laughable; and that, too,
is only an opinion.

The instinctual energies of the id are all very similar. The will to power and the will to fuck are inseparable. There is demonstrable interlocution. Freud knew this and the Marquis de Sade illustrated and lived it beautifully. Psychologically, and symbolically, a gun is, in point of fact, very similar to a cock.

Ian

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 10:35, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we're arguing for gun ownership rights for America, then, sure, do what
> you like. I think, given the culture, that might work for you. However, if
> the argument is meant to embrace all cultures and countries, then I cannot
> accept it.
>

Even though I'm FOR gun ownership, I wouldn't force it on anyone.
It would have to come down to a vote and the people get what they vote
for.

[Felix Krull]

Ian,

this is exactly my issue with the direction of this thread. Craig
offered it as an extension of the guns rights in the States thread,
but posed it such that it has taken on universal implications. As I
stated in a few posts in this thread, the comparison of Zimbabwe and
the States is simply *not* tenable. I am *not* for absolute state
power. But (and this comes through in the other thread) the American
argument that guns are needed to foment possible revolution (read: get
rid of dictators) is built on a myth. There is no way an individual in
contemporary American society can hope to better the weapons of the
military. So many riots, dead nut jobs, and so forth bear evidence to
this. Thus the real underlying reason for believing such nonsense, in
my opinion, is the viceral / emotional appeal of guns. (I think Pat
mistakenly read 'libidinal' as sexual...not my intended meaning, but
there is something to that...)

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 10:43, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > find your libido argument to be remarkably laughable; and that, too,
>
> Well... how profound. *You* have an opinion. *I* have an argument.
>

Your argument IS your opinion. Obviously heartfelt. And I support
you in having yours; shame you can't do the same for me.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 10:40, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I am sorry, but in this situation the contrary opinion is *not*
> okay. Guns should be all but completely eradicated in the States.

If you do that, only the criminals will be armed, as they won't
give them up. Your plan, if implemented would result in MORE
bloodshed, not less.

Gun
> violence only happens, strangely enough, with guns. So far, neither
> you nor Craig have offered valid reasons for guns, other than
> pleasure. Pleasure is regulated in American society and guns should be
> as well.
>
> This is not a matter of "opinion" at all, but the necessity of a
> reasonable argument for something with so many negatives. And, unlike
> the negatives of other "pleasures" the negatives of guns are
> collective, produced generally on others, socio-political, and so
> forth. I have yet to see cogent counterarguments from Craig or anyone
> on this matter, and now it has been reduced to "well, that is your
> opinion..." Harumph.
>

The argument is simply that not everyone would disarm themselves.
If you think you can, without a gun, disarm a person WITH one, then
give it a try. You just better hope he lets you get close. Your
solution would serve the criminal element far more than the general
public.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 10:54, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/30 Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>:

Yet, even Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

[Kierkecraig]

I think you have jumped the gun in thinking you have presented an
argument against guns that should cause us to wave the white flag
felix.
First, you have not presented any argument against any of the other
rationales. You have only presented argument against the revolution
rationale. And that argument, though powerful, isn't non-debatable.
It seems that it is your opinion, not fact, that passive revolution is
better than armed revolution. Passive revolution may be better than
armed revolution in some circumstances, and armed revolution may be
better in other circumstances. Why should we force the people into
only one method, when a more effective revolution could be had when
both options are on the table? I don't think you have addressed that
question properly, and so your position remains an opinion, and not a
impossibly forceful argument that we must accept. I think you are a
bit over confident in your ability to persuade.

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 10:54, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> this is exactly my issue with the direction of this thread. Craig
> offered it as an extension of the guns rights in the States thread,
> but posed it such that it has taken on universal implications. As I
> stated in a few posts in this thread, the comparison of Zimbabwe and
> the States is simply *not* tenable. I am *not* for absolute state
> power. But (and this comes through in the other thread) the American
> argument that guns are needed to foment possible revolution (read: get
> rid of dictators) is built on a myth. There is no way an individual in
> contemporary American society can hope to better the weapons of the
> military. So many riots, dead nut jobs, and so forth bear evidence to
> this. Thus the real underlying reason for believing such nonsense, in
> my opinion, is the viceral / emotional appeal of guns. (I think Pat
> mistakenly read 'libidinal' as sexual...not my intended meaning, but
> there is something to that...)
>

Fair enough. I DID read it that way. Even so, for me, if it is
libidinal, it is in reference to the instinct to defend myself. And,
in a world where others HAVE guns, it's your best defense. As I said,
you don't take a knife to a gunfight.

> On 30 juin, 11:35, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If we're arguing for gun ownership rights for America, then, sure, do what
> > you like. I think, given the culture, that might work for you. However, if
> > the argument is meant to embrace all cultures and countries, then I cannot
> > accept it.
>
> > What's the scope of this?
>

> > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[Kierkecraig]

Ian,
If this is the direction this argument is going then I won't be apart
of it. This is just a silly tactic of embarrassing the other side
into thinking your way. I think its immature, and doesn't lend itself
to producing civil dialogue.

On Jun 30, 3:54 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/30 Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>:
>
>
>

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 11:03, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you have jumped the gun in thinking you have presented an
> argument against guns that should cause us to wave the white flag
> felix.
> First, you have not presented any argument against any of the other
> rationales.  You have only presented argument against the revolution
> rationale. And that argument, though powerful, isn't non-debatable.
> It seems that it is your opinion, not fact, that passive revolution is
> better than armed revolution.  Passive revolution may be better than
> armed revolution in some circumstances, and armed revolution may be
> better in other circumstances.  Why should we force the people into
> only one method, when a more effective revolution could be had when
> both options are on the table?  I don't think you have addressed that
> question properly, and so your position remains an opinion, and not a
> impossibly forceful argument that we must accept.   I think you are a
> bit over confident in your ability to persuade.
>

Thus hearkening back to "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" and,
'Deal from a position of strength'.

> On Jun 30, 3:54 am, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ian,
>
> > this is exactly my issue with the direction of this thread. Craig
> > offered it as an extension of the guns rights in the States thread,
> > but posed it such that it has taken on universal implications. As I
> > stated in a few posts in this thread, the comparison of Zimbabwe and
> > the States is simply *not* tenable. I am *not* for absolute state
> > power. But (and this comes through in the other thread) the American
> > argument that guns are needed to foment possible revolution (read: get
> > rid of dictators) is built on a myth. There is no way an individual in
> > contemporary American society can hope to better the weapons of the
> > military. So many riots, dead nut jobs, and so forth bear evidence to
> > this. Thus the real underlying reason for believing such nonsense, in
> > my opinion, is the viceral / emotional appeal of guns. (I think Pat
> > mistakenly read 'libidinal' as sexual...not my intended meaning, but
> > there is something to that...)
>
> > On 30 juin, 11:35, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we're arguing for gun ownership rights for America, then, sure, do what
> > > you like. I think, given the culture, that might work for you. However, if
> > > the argument is meant to embrace all cultures and countries, then I cannot
> > > accept it.
>
> > > What's the scope of this?
>

> > > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

No, my argument is a reasonable construct. I could make the same
argument believing in guns and enjoying them.

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 11:07, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian,
> If this is the direction this argument is going then I won't be apart
> of it.  This is just a silly tactic of embarrassing the other side
> into thinking your way.  I think its immature, and doesn't lend itself
> to producing civil dialogue.
>

Although it's no reason to take aim. ;-)

> On Jun 30, 3:54 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 2008/6/30 Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>:
>
> > > Great opinion and I'm glad you hold one.  So long as you realise
> > > others hold differing ones and that THAT'S OK, too.  Although I do
> > > find your libido argument to be remarkably laughable; and that, too,
> > > is only an opinion.
>
> > The instinctual energies of the id are all very similar. The will to power
> > and the will to fuck are inseparable. There is demonstrable interlocution.
> > Freud knew this and the Marquis de Sade illustrated and lived it
> > beautifully. Psychologically, and symbolically, a gun is, in point of fact,
> > very similar to a cock.
>

> > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 11:09, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, my argument is a reasonable construct. I could make the same
> argument believing in guns and enjoying them.
>

Yes, it is a reasonable construct; but it's hardly the only one.
That's my point. By the way, I don't own a gun.

[Kierkecraig]

Felix,
When I speak of armed revolution I am not talking about David Keresh
uprisings. I am talking about the rising up of the people. Something
like a Marxist revolution, where the people get so sick of their
government that the entire populous rises up and overthrows the
regime. This is very possible, even with hunting rifles. Look at how
hard it is to take even a country that is divided yet armed like
Iraq. No two groups in that country can get together and form any
sort of master revolution, yet because most of them are armed, even
the United States can't seem to get a hold of the situation. We
should have taken that into consideration before we went into the
place, but now we have mess. Imagine the possibilities if such a
population worked in concert. Imagine what the Chinese Government
would have to deal with if its people were armed. They have had
passive revolutions, and luckily china has been checked due to
international pressure. But imagine what would happen if China wasn't
checked by international pressure. I wouldn't want to imagine the
cruelty China would be capable of.
I'm not advocating the position that all we need is guns, and
everything will be okay. Far from it. I am only saying they are one
very important element in the equation
.

[Felix Krull]

> If you do that, only the criminals will be armed, as they won't
> give them up. Your plan, if implemented would result in MORE
> bloodshed, not less.
>

Not a reasonable argument, Pat, though a common one. Craig, for
example, is not a criminal.

> The argument is simply that not everyone would disarm themselves.
> If you think you can, without a gun, disarm a person WITH one, then
> give it a try. You just better hope he lets you get close. Your
> solution would serve the criminal element far more than the general
> public.

I am not talking of disarmament. The supreme court has already decided
that this is not constitutional. Rather, I would support taxation of
guns into non-existence, the destruction of the industry, the stopping
of future production. Also year long waiting periods or somesuch might
prove effective in preventing some violence (though, of course, not
nearly enough).

My argument, however, is not a pragmatic one on praxis. I am arguing
against the rationalization processes of "we need "guns for...". This
sort of rationalization needs to be addressed so that regulation can
be more effective.

On 30 juin, 12:00, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 10:40, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I am sorry, but in this situation the contrary opinion is *not*
> > okay. Guns should be all but completely eradicated in the States.
>

> Gun
>
> > violence only happens, strangely enough, with guns. So far, neither
> > you nor Craig have offered valid reasons for guns, other than
> > pleasure. Pleasure is regulated in American society and guns should be
> > as well.
>
> > This is not a matter of "opinion" at all, but the necessity of a
> > reasonable argument for something with so many negatives. And, unlike
> > the negatives of other "pleasures" the negatives of guns are
> > collective, produced generally on others, socio-political, and so
> > forth. I have yet to see cogent counterarguments from Craig or anyone
> > on this matter, and now it has been reduced to "well, that is your
> > opinion..." Harumph.
>

>

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 11:15, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felix,
> When I speak of armed revolution I am not talking about David Keresh
> uprisings.  I am talking about the rising up of the people.  Something
> like a Marxist revolution, where the people get so sick of their
> government that the entire populous rises up and overthrows the
> regime.  This is very possible, even with hunting rifles.  Look at how
> hard it is to take even a country that is divided yet armed like
> Iraq.  No two groups in that country can get together and form any
> sort of master revolution, yet because most of them are armed, even
> the United States can't seem to get a hold of the situation.  We
> should have taken that into consideration before we went into the
> place, but now we have  mess.  Imagine the possibilities if such a
> population worked in concert.  Imagine what the Chinese Government
> would have to deal with if its people were armed.  They have had
> passive revolutions, and luckily china has been checked due to
> international pressure.  But imagine what would happen if China wasn't
> checked by international pressure.  I wouldn't want to imagine the
> cruelty China would be capable of.
> I'm not advocating the position that all we need is guns, and
> everything will be okay.  Far from it.  I am only saying they are one
> very important element in the equation
> .

The main reasons to allow gun ownership are for the protection of
individuals, their properties, and their rights from criminals,
armies, and governments. The main reason for banning gun ownership is
for public safety. So, it basically comes down to whether the
political and personal security of gun ownership is greater than or
less than the public safety of gun control. It's really as simple as
that. And people will decide based on their own perceptions of their
needs for safety and security.

> On Jun 30, 3:54 am, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ian,
>
> > this is exactly my issue with the direction of this thread. Craig
> > offered it as an extension of the guns rights in the States thread,
> > but posed it such that it has taken on universal implications. As I
> > stated in a few posts in this thread, the comparison of Zimbabwe and
> > the States is simply *not* tenable. I am *not* for absolute state
> > power. But (and this comes through in the other thread) the American
> > argument that guns are needed to foment possible revolution (read: get
> > rid of dictators) is built on a myth. There is no way an individual in
> > contemporary American society can hope to better the weapons of the
> > military. So many riots, dead nut jobs, and so forth bear evidence to
> > this. Thus the real underlying reason for believing such nonsense, in
> > my opinion, is the viceral / emotional appeal of guns. (I think Pat
> > mistakenly read 'libidinal' as sexual...not my intended meaning, but
> > there is something to that...)
>
> > On 30 juin, 11:35, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we're arguing for gun ownership rights for America, then, sure, do what
> > > you like. I think, given the culture, that might work for you. However, if
> > > the argument is meant to embrace all cultures and countries, then I cannot
> > > accept it.
>
> > > What's the scope of this?
>

> > > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 11:26, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >    If you do that, only the criminals will be armed, as they won't
> > give them up.  Your plan, if implemented would result in MORE
> > bloodshed, not less.
>
> Not a reasonable argument, Pat, though a common one. Craig, for
> example, is not a criminal.
>

Straw man. Craig won't give up his gun(s). I could point you to
neighbourhoods where there ARE criminals, if you doubt their sincerety
in their beliefs.

> >    The argument is simply that not everyone would disarm themselves.
> > If you think you can, without a gun, disarm a person WITH one, then
> > give it a try.  You just better hope he lets you get close.  Your
> > solution would serve the criminal element far more than the general
> > public.
>
> I am not talking of disarmament. The supreme court has already decided
> that this is not constitutional. Rather, I would support taxation of
> guns into non-existence, the destruction of the industry, the stopping
> of future production. Also year long waiting periods or somesuch might
> prove effective in preventing some violence (though, of course, not
> nearly enough).
>

So, the RICH will own guns and you've added to the class divide and
the poor will have no means of defending themselves against them.
Clever...NOT.

> My argument, however, is not a pragmatic one on praxis. I am arguing
> against the rationalization processes of "we need "guns for...". This
> sort of rationalization needs to be addressed so that regulation can
> be more effective.
>

We need guns in order to protect
1) ourselves
2) our loved ones
3) our homes
against
1) criminals who have guns
2) governments that are tyrannical
3) armies, foreign or domestic, that are tyrannical

[Felix Krull]

Craig,

I don't claim to have won... simply that no one is offering reasonable
counterarguments!

I am also not making your universalist claims--which is the only way
you have been able to gain footing. I am referring to the States. You
still have not argued successfully against that situation (which we
got into in the other thread). I am not speaking of revolution in all
socio-political situations. I also presented an argument against the
self-defense myth, which you gave up on in the other thread.

As to the option of both--most every nation which "bans guns" allows
guns for hunting purposes. The states could do that, too, with a
limited list of non-concealable weapons. Gun violence is normally
committed with small, easily conceable weapons... now that I have said
this, I need to back it up with some statistics... in a future post.

Still, I think it is unreasonable to suggest that one can purchase in
the States firepower of a significant degree to win an all out armed
revolution. So, while this may figure into the rationalization of an
armed populace, it is predicated on a specious notion.

Finally, make a cogent argument, Craig, rather than claiming that mine
is nothing but an opinion.

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 10:41, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely. Which is why guns should be eradicated and passive
> revolutions taken up. My argument against Craig from the beginning...
>

Kent State! Need I say more?

[Slip Disc]

In the States guns have become part of the American persona. Most
often the benefit of gun ownership is overridden by the criminal
element and their ever increasing implementation of sophisticated
weaponry. A military coup or engagement of a militia to thwart
tyranny in the states is hardly worth mention. However, without guns
the citizenry would feel vulnerable, even to it's own government, so
the right to be armed remains. The State of Texas has just recently
enacted what is called the Castle Law.
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2007-03-27.0601
Excerpt:
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law Senate Bill 378,
extending Texans’ rights to use deadly force for means of self-
defense, without retreat, in their home, vehicle or workplace. The law
takes effect Sept. 1, 2007.

“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not
only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human
nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law
which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but
to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that
they use deadly force.

“I thank Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Joe Driver and the
Texas Legislature for their dedication to ensuring Texans’ rights to
self-defense.”

NOTE: In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973
statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal
attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat
when an intruder unlawfully entered their home.

So if an elderly couple coming out of a restaurant were approached in
the parking lot by a gun/knife toting low life they would have the
right to use deadly force. This I see as being the main issue in gun
ownership; self defense. Crime stats diminish when criminals start
getting killed by law of protectionism.
If guns were banned people would resort to using knives. If knives
were banned they would resort to using baseball bats. People that
resort to violence in order to make statement will use whatever
weaponry is available. Including but not limited to road side bombs
and biological means.
Personally I feel I would rather have a gun to protect myself against
a knife wielding criminal in a parking lot rather than a knife as the
gun would level out the field should my opponent be stronger than I.
There is a duality in the ownership of guns as they can be for
pleasure and also serve as a means of protection. They should not be
banned or eradicated. In Arizona it is "generally" lawful to carry a
gun without license as long as the gun is in full view and not in
anyway concealed. No state permit is required to possess a shotgun,
rifle or handgun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Arizona
Allowing the citizenry to own or carry firearms does not increase
crime. Criminals commit crimes and crooked governments attain and
maintain power due to an unarmed citizenry. Peaceful, law abiding
citizens with guns are not a danger to society.

[Lee]

I'm with you on this one Felix, and you also Ian.

Gun ownership is so imbred within the American physche that they will
never be rid of it. I do think that anytalk about overthrowing a
corrupt American goverment as a rational to US civilian gun ownership
is frankly rubbish.

Admit it KC, you chaps just love your guns. You don't own them beause
of the unlikely need to overthrow your goverment coz that just
wouldn't work(remeber wako anybody?), there is an argument that can be
made about personal protection from other armed civilians; but really
you want to keep them because you have always had them.

Which is a fair point, and one a whole lot more honest than any other.

On 30 Jun, 10:54, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

Then offer another! ...

[Ian Pollard]

2008/6/30 Kierkecraig <craiga...@gmail.com>:

Ian,
If this is the direction this argument is going then I won't be apart
of it.  This is just a silly tactic of embarrassing the other side
into thinking your way.  I think its immature, and doesn't lend itself
to producing civil dialogue.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Craig; particularly because it is definitely not my intention to embarrass anyone. Indeed, there's nothing to be embarrassed about. No way. We're talking about instinctual energies that we all have and the distinct neurosis that they drive; admitting to them would likely enable progress. There's nothing silly or immature about it. I appreciate this talk of psychology is not "on topic" with your first post, but I didn't start this tangent.

I'll happily stop, but you need to consider -- aside from the politics and ethics of this topic -- why gun ownership amongst the followers of the Abrahamic religions is so high (even though I think it is often philosophically opposed).

Here's the path:

* What happens when a sphere of the id is repressed (given a healthy personality)?
* What happens when this occurs in adolescence?
* How long-lasting is it?

Ian

[Slip Disc]

Further, criminals do not apply for permits, bother with waiting
periods or background checks. Criminals acquire guns through black
market and underground sources which they will continue to do if
firearms were completely banned. Conversely, law abiding citizens
would not seek gun ownership through similar method and therefore
would be render vulnerable to the criminal element.
In the case of passive resistance or revolution it seems clear to me
that the passive approach would initially serve best but only if the
opposition's poise is as well passive. Confrontation by an armed foe
does not usually warrant a passive measure, though I would not exclude
it. Most likely a equally balanced confrontation would result in
passive measures with mutual agreement as the ultimate goal.
Equally armed opponents will keep safe distance while a overly armed
aggressor would more than likely attack it's vulnerable opposition.

On Jun 30, 6:03 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the States guns have become part of the American persona. Most
> often the benefit of gun ownership is overridden by the criminal
> element and their ever increasing implementation of sophisticated
> weaponry. A military coup or engagement of a militia to thwart
> tyranny in the states is hardly worth mention. However, without guns
> the citizenry would feel vulnerable, even to it's own government, so
> the right to be armed remains. The State of Texas has just recently

> enacted what is called the Castle Law.http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRe...

> rifle or handgun.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)...

[Felix Krull]

Pat, it was *your* strawman. You instigated this notion of an armed
criminal population as opposed to some mythical unarmed "innocent"
population. I simply pointed out that such an idea was specious. Craig
is no criminal. Craig would not give up his gun. I am assuming that
you are arguing with the strawman of draconian gun laws, something I
did not mention.

> So, the RICH will own guns and you've added to the class divide and
> the poor will have no means of defending themselves against them.
> Clever...NOT.

You will need to open your eyes, Pat. The rich already own private
armies. Besides, the greater the *perceived* class divide, as Russia
proved, the greater the potential for true revolution. The classes are
already divided, just no one likes to mention it. *That* would be
*commy*!

> We need guns in order to protect
> 1) ourselves
> 2) our loved ones
> 3) our homes
> against
> 1) criminals who have guns
> 2) governments that are tyrannical
> 3) armies, foreign or domestic, that are tyrannical
>

I am sorry, Pat, but most home invasions in the states occur when the
inhabitants are sleeping. If you walk into a store, your gun tucked
into your holster, and there in front of you is the criminal with the
gun aimed at your face, will you manage to pull your gun and shoot him
down? Not very feasible. Truth be known, there is very little evidence
to support the claim that guns or an armed American populace *prevent*
violence. There is lots to show that guns *lead to* violence. The
11,000+ dead due to guns in the states in 2004 (from the Brady
Campaign website) would evidence that.

"Governments that are tyrannical" is a universal claim. This does not
apply to the States. Ergo, since the States do not have a tyrranical
government, you have actually offered a reason why there should *not*
be guns. "Armies that are tyrannical" is based on the myth of
"firepower=firepower". A tyrannical army, somehow slipping past
America's significant defenses, would probably arrive in American
built Bradley's or somesuch. Let's see a shotgun pierce that!

On 30 juin, 12:35, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 11:26, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you do that, only the criminals will be armed, as they won't
> > > give them up. Your plan, if implemented would result in MORE
> > > bloodshed, not less.
>
> > Not a reasonable argument, Pat, though a common one. Craig, for
> > example, is not a criminal.
>
> Straw man. Craig won't give up his gun(s). I could point you to
> neighbourhoods where there ARE criminals, if you doubt their sincerety
> in their beliefs.
>
> > > The argument is simply that not everyone would disarm themselves.
> > > If you think you can, without a gun, disarm a person WITH one, then
> > > give it a try. You just better hope he lets you get close. Your
> > > solution would serve the criminal element far more than the general
> > > public.
>
> > I am not talking of disarmament. The supreme court has already decided
> > that this is not constitutional. Rather, I would support taxation of
> > guns into non-existence, the destruction of the industry, the stopping
> > of future production. Also year long waiting periods or somesuch might
> > prove effective in preventing some violence (though, of course, not
> > nearly enough).
>
>

> > My argument, however, is not a pragmatic one on praxis. I am arguing
> > against the rationalization processes of "we need "guns for...". This
> > sort of rationalization needs to be addressed so that regulation can
> > be more effective.
>

[Felix Krull]

Yes you need to say more. Guns at Kent State would only have led to a
more massive slaughter than the four dead and any symbolic value would
have evaporated. Look at the massive public support for the
protestors--eight million students striking. Also a major shift in
displays of power during sixties protests.

What about the "incident" at Wounded Knee? Both sides were armed.
Where did that get AIM??

[Felix Krull]

> So if an elderly couple coming out of a restaurant were approached in
> the parking lot by a gun/knife toting low life they would have the
> right to use deadly force. This I see as being the main issue in gun
> ownership; self defense. Crime stats diminish when criminals start
> getting killed by law of protectionism.
> If guns were banned people would resort to using knives. If knives
> were banned they would resort to using baseball bats. People that
> resort to violence in order to make statement will use whatever
> weaponry is available. Including but not limited to road side bombs
> and biological means.
> Personally I feel I would rather have a gun to protect myself against
> a knife wielding criminal in a parking lot rather than a knife as the
> gun would level out the field should my opponent be stronger than I.

Slip, this sort of hypothetical but perfectly plausible situation is
often used in such arguments. It is a fea

On 30 juin, 13:03, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the States guns have become part of the American persona. Most
> often the benefit of gun ownership is overridden by the criminal
> element and their ever increasing implementation of sophisticated
> weaponry. A military coup or engagement of a militia to thwart
> tyranny in the states is hardly worth mention. However, without guns
> the citizenry would feel vulnerable, even to it's own government, so
> the right to be armed remains. The State of Texas has just recently

> enacted what is called the Castle Law.http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRe...

> Excerpt:
> AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law Senate Bill 378,
> extending Texans’ rights to use deadly force for means of self-
> defense, without retreat, in their home, vehicle or workplace. The law
> takes effect Sept. 1, 2007.
>
> “The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not
> only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human
> nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law
> which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but
> to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that
> they use deadly force.
>
> “I thank Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Joe Driver and the
> Texas Legislature for their dedication to ensuring Texans’ rights to
> self-defense.”
>
> NOTE: In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973
> statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal
> attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat
> when an intruder unlawfully entered their home.
>

> There is a duality in the ownership of guns as they can be for
> pleasure and also serve as a means of protection. They should not be
> banned or eradicated. In Arizona it is "generally" lawful to carry a
> gun without license as long as the gun is in full view and not in
> anyway concealed. No state permit is required to possess a shotgun,

> rifle or handgun.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)...

[Felix Krull]

> So if an elderly couple coming out of a restaurant were approached in
> the parking lot by a gun/knife toting low life they would have the
> right to use deadly force. This I see as being the main issue in gun
> ownership; self defense. Crime stats diminish when criminals start
> getting killed by law of protectionism.
> If guns were banned people would resort to using knives. If knives
> were banned they would resort to using baseball bats. People that
> resort to violence in order to make statement will use whatever
> weaponry is available. Including but not limited to road side bombs
> and biological means.
> Personally I feel I would rather have a gun to protect myself against
> a knife wielding criminal in a parking lot rather than a knife as the
> gun would level out the field should my opponent be stronger than I.

Slip, I am not sure why that last one was sent... Anyway, while
plausible, it assumes a *well regulated* system, one which the States
do not have and Gun Rights lobbyists work continuously to prevent
becoming law. It is also very difficult to regulate such a system,
especially with all of the perfectly legal guns outside of regulation.
There is no reason to assume that, when the courageous old man pulls
his dear little pistol, the criminal will not pull his perfectly legal
AR15 (a little bit of irony...) and disolve both man and woman into
tiny little fragments of once living flesh.

I would point you, also, to the many statistical facts out there about
the per capita instances of gun violence as opposed to most other
industrialized nations where the tolerance for guns is zero. Japan has
lots and lots and lots of knives and other sharp weapons--not a single
gun related death and a very low crime rate.

> Allowing the citizenry to own or carry firearms does not increase
> crime. Criminals commit crimes and crooked governments attain and
> maintain power due to an unarmed citizenry. Peaceful, law abiding
> citizens with guns are not a danger to society.

These are universalizing claims and thus not valid in this context
(except for the first sentence which is not really supportable by
factual evidence...)

On 30 juin, 13:03, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the States guns have become part of the American persona. Most
> often the benefit of gun ownership is overridden by the criminal
> element and their ever increasing implementation of sophisticated
> weaponry. A military coup or engagement of a militia to thwart
> tyranny in the states is hardly worth mention. However, without guns
> the citizenry would feel vulnerable, even to it's own government, so
> the right to be armed remains. The State of Texas has just recently

> enacted what is called the Castle Law.http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRe...

> Excerpt:
> AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law Senate Bill 378,
> extending Texans’ rights to use deadly force for means of self-
> defense, without retreat, in their home, vehicle or workplace. The law
> takes effect Sept. 1, 2007.
>
> “The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not
> only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human
> nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law
> which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but
> to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that
> they use deadly force.
>
> “I thank Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Joe Driver and the
> Texas Legislature for their dedication to ensuring Texans’ rights to
> self-defense.”
>
> NOTE: In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973
> statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal
> attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat
> when an intruder unlawfully entered their home.
>

> There is a duality in the ownership of guns as they can be for
> pleasure and also serve as a means of protection. They should not be
> banned or eradicated. In Arizona it is "generally" lawful to carry a
> gun without license as long as the gun is in full view and not in
> anyway concealed. No state permit is required to possess a shotgun,

> rifle or handgun.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)...

[Felix Krull]

You make so many suppositions that your argument is not very tenable.
You also divide the world into binary oppositions of "criminal=always
seeks guns throguh illegal measures" and "innocent=never seeks guns
through illegal measures". Such a binary is simply not reasonable.

[Slip Disc]

This is true and I do agree that the Kent State example is not valid.
If the students were armed the post stage of violence would have
indicated and further demonstrated that an armed general populous was
a bad thing.(aside from the increase level of death) Still, even
without guns the students would most likely had been assaulted with
clubs and vicious dogs.
Consider this, a fully armed citizenry does not rule out passive
revolution, the fact of gun ownership does not imply violent
confrontation exclusively. So we cannot draw conclusions based solely
on ownership but have to further evaluate the psychological position
of the owner. The US is armed to the hilt and further spends more on
military power than all the other countries combined, still many
passive attempts have been made to quell problematic aggressors. As I
stated earlier a confrontation is usually the result of armed
provocation. Guns are not the issue as much as the human drive for
power. In the beginning we threw rocks and used clubs, later we made
spears and developed iron weaponry, we forged swords and hacked away.
Later came gun powder and the rest is history. Banning rocks would
not have reduced violence. Only the human condition or the alteration
of it can change the way we communicate. I used to own a couple of
small caliber rifles but currently do not own any weaponry. If crime
increased to an alarming rate, and I imagine that the current economic
downturn will fuel an increase in crime, I would without reserve
purchase at least a shotgun should the potential of a home invasion
seem likely. Further I would not hesitate one instant to use is on a
would be trespasser, as is my right. Ownership is not a priority but
having the "Right to Own" is!

[Kierkecraig]

Felix,
I've made many cogent arguments.

[Kierkecraig]

I thought I already said that I'm talking about a waco revolution.
And I like how instead of saying they are "bred into the American
physche", you said they are "imbred into the American pshche". I
don't know what your trying to prove with this line of rhetoric. I
just as strongly believe that the European's hatred of guns is bred
into them by their Aristocracy. Make the people hate guns so they
won't own them and threaten our rule. I also already said that I love
guns, and I'm not going to hide that. But trying to find some
perverse motive for making the arguments I am is an ad hominem
argument.
I do believe than an armed revolution is a very real reality, and the
possibility of success is real too. When I say revolution I am
talking about a political revolution where a majority of people decide
that they've had enough and decide to throw off their government.
With weapons in hand, the higher technology would quickly become
theirs. Take Bosnia for example. My friend is from there and tells
me war stories all of the time. He told me that when the war first
broke out that the Bosnians had few weapons and were in danger of
being obliterated. They immediately stormed the weapons reserves
before they did anything else. A few victories at a few weapons
reserves and they changed the face of the war. I keep hearing from
you guys that my argument is spurious that an armed populous would
have a chance against such a powerful government. We're at a dead
lock because I think it is your argument that is quite clearly
spurious.

[Kierkecraig]

Just for everyone's information. I'll be out for the rest of the day
so I won't be able to respond to anymore posts today. Maybe tonight.
Later.

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 12:47, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat, it was *your* strawman. You instigated this notion of an armed
> criminal population as opposed to some mythical unarmed "innocent"
> population.

I instigated no such thing. My reasons for wanting access to guns
were listed quite plainly. If you try to take guns away from the
public, you will leave them SOLELY in the hands of criminals, as they
will not give theirs up. If you don't believe that there are
criminals that regularly carry guns, then I suggest you spend a bit
more time down the 'hood.

>I simply pointed out that such an idea was specious. Craig
> is no criminal. Craig would not give up his gun.

You pointed out that Craig is no criminal. This is irrelevant (a
straw man), as it is legal to own guns. I, then, pointed out that it
was also irrelevant in the face of your argument that people shouldn't
own guns as Craig would not give his up. Your 'way' would MAKE him a
criminal.

>I am assuming that
> you are arguing with the strawman of draconian gun laws, something I
> did not mention.
>

No, with your position that guns should not be owned by the populace.

> >    So, the RICH will own guns and you've added to the class divide and
> > the poor will have no means of defending themselves against them.
> > Clever...NOT.
>
> You will need to open your eyes, Pat. The rich already own private
> armies. Besides, the greater the *perceived* class divide, as Russia
> proved, the greater the potential for true revolution. The classes are
> already divided, just no one likes to mention it. *That* would be
> *commy*!
>

Another nice move. But you were going to TAX guns in order to make
them unpurchasable by most people. That would leave them still within
the reach of the rich, as I pointed out. A little Edward De Bono
water logic wouldn't go amiss. So, your solution would create more
problems than it would solve.

> >    We need guns in order to protect
> >     1) ourselves
> >     2) our loved ones
> >     3) our homes
> > against
> >     1) criminals who have guns
> >     2) governments that are tyrannical
> >     3) armies, foreign or domestic, that are tyrannical
>
> I am sorry, Pat, but most home invasions in the states occur when the
> inhabitants are sleeping.

Some aren't. And the whole thing is another straw man, anyway.
You don't know how lightly or deeply I sleep. Or, if there are motion
detectors or any other number of things that reduce this to a steaming
pile.

>If you walk into a store, your gun tucked
> into your holster, and there in front of you is the criminal with the
> gun aimed at your face, will you manage to pull your gun and shoot him
> down? Not very feasible.

Again, I'm not advocating Wild-West gun-toting. And your attempt
to throw another straw man is forming a very sensible pattern, one in
which you turn the case into one more easily argued by altering the
premiss. Besides, If the gun is in my face, then I reckon I stand a
50-50 chance of taking it from him due to martial-arts training. But,
if all he wants is my money, it's not worth my life. And, if we are
IN your gun-toting scenario, I'll throw him my wallet and shoot him
when he turns to pick it up.

>Truth be known, there is very little evidence
> to support the claim that guns or an armed American populace *prevent*
> violence.

That's not the point I was making. Where on that list did you find
that. Or is that another...yes, it is.

>There is lots to show that guns *lead to* violence. The
> 11,000+ dead due to guns in the states in 2004 (from the Brady
> Campaign website) would evidence that.
>
> "Governments that are tyrannical" is a universal claim. This does not
> apply to the States.

Yet. Prove that it never will. The right to bear arms helps to
prevent it from becoming one. You want to open that door, I do not.

>Ergo, since the States do not have a tyrranical
> government, you have actually offered a reason why there should *not*
> be guns.

Rather, ergo, you have created another straw man. I'll repeat, the
right to bear arms helps to prevent the government from becoming
tyrannical.

>"Armies that are tyrannical" is based on the myth of
> "firepower=firepower". A tyrannical army, somehow slipping past
> America's significant defenses, would probably arrive in American
> built Bradley's or somesuch. Let's see a shotgun pierce that!
>

One of the reasons that America is NOT attacked is because the
people are armed. When it has been attacked, it's often been in an
unconventional way, Pearl Harbour, 9/11...

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 12:12, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then offer another! ...
>

I did, above.

[Slip Disc]

Criminals seek illegally=true
Some criminals seek illegally=true
All who seek illegally are criminals=false/true........Problem being
definition of legal ownership.
If guns are against the law without permit and possession/ownership of
guns by convicted criminals are illegal.
People own guns=true
Some people own legal guns=true
Some people own illegal guns=true
All people who own legal guns are non criminals=true (ditto) state
law applicable.
Some people who own legal guns are criminals=false
All people who own illegal guns are criminals=false
Some people who own illegal guns are non
criminals=true...........Failure to comply with permit law

Must go, be back later!
Have a great day!

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 12:55, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes you need to say more. Guns at Kent State would only have led to a
> more massive slaughter than the four dead and any symbolic value would
> have evaporated. Look at the massive public support for the
> protestors--eight million students striking. Also a major shift in
> displays of power during sixties protests.
>
> What about the "incident" at Wounded Knee? Both sides were armed.
> Where did that get AIM??
>

You missed the point, though. The supposedly responsible armed
people fired on innocent unarmed people. Would they have fired had
they thought they may have been fired upon in retaliation? I rather
doubt it. And, of course, there's no way either of can prove our
hypotheticals.
Wounded Knee? If the army had paid for the guns they wanted to
take, it never would have happened. They just wanted them to give
them up and, as I said, some people aren't going to DO that. Asking
people to disarm themselves IS what led to Wounded Knee.

[Lee]

Hey KC,

My usage of the word 'imbred' was nowt more than my dyslexcia once
again asertinig itself, I meant to use the word 'in-bred'.

In a similar vein I guess you meant 'not talking about a waco
revolution'?

You may have somthing when you talk about the European hatred of guns,
I realy don't know enough history to comment futher on that though.

I don't belive I was trying to find a perverse anything, and your
reaction to my post only confirms(in my mind) what I did actualy say.
For how long though has a call for intelectual honesty been considered
an ad hominem?

Although I can see how the percived attacked, would say that. Heheh
consider THAT Ad hominem though if you wish.

I can see what you belive, and I belive it is clear that we do not
share this belife. So back to personal belifes then.

I can of course live with the notion that we shall never agree on
this, and as long as your belife does not impact my life here across
the pond, then you and I have no issue.

I'm happy that I can't get a gun, I do not want one, I do not feel the
need for one, the actual level of gun crime here is tiny, and if I
can't have one, then nor can the majority of civilians here, and I
feel no danger from which I need that sort of protection.

My point was only that gun culture is inherent in the USA, I applogies
if my choie of words upset you, you know I would never do that, as my
targets for that kind of 'sport' are others here, and they know
exactly who I have my sights aimed at! ;¬)

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

You see, Lee, although I'm a believer in the right to bear arms, I
don't think it would work at all in the UK. There IS a mindset, but
there's also the real and present situation you have to look at. If
you start off by having guns, then disarming the populace, I feel,
will cause problems. Alternatively, if you start off by NOT having
guns, ARMING the populace will cause problems. The precedence of gun
ownership is paramount to continuity, in my opinion.

[Lee]

yep yep I agree.

[Felix Krull]

Pat, your strawman. You make your claims by turning my argument into
one about total "disarmament". I never said that, or if I did it was a
flub. I have already addressed how the US Supreme Court's decision was
perfectly valid. Please, pay attention before spouting off.

> You pointed out that Craig is no criminal. This is irrelevant (a
> straw man), as it is legal to own guns. I, then, pointed out that it
> was also irrelevant in the face of your argument that people shouldn't
> own guns as Craig would not give his up. Your 'way' would MAKE him a
> criminal.

This is a continuation of *your* strawman. I pointed out that Craig
would not give up his gun if the production of guns was stopped (which
has been my interest throughout this argument--*not* I repeat *not*
"disarmament"). You have created a really wonderful example of a
strawman. My 'way' is what you clearly, quite clearly, do *not*
*understand*.

> No, with your position that guns should not be owned by the populace.
>

No, since my position is *not* that guns should not be owned by the
populace, you are arguing a strawman. My argument, as I have
explained, is against the seriously flawed "libidinal" rationale
behind having guns in the first place. Please read Slip's post if you
would like to see an actual well-constructed and accurate argument
against me.

> Another nice move. But you were going to TAX guns in order to make
> them unpurchasable by most people. That would leave them still within
> the reach of the rich, as I pointed out. A little Edward De Bono
> water logic wouldn't go amiss. So, your solution would create more
> problems than it would solve.
>

No solution is really a solution. Every solution leads to a new set of
problems. To believe otherwise is rather silly. However, your implied
counterargument, that all rich people would arm themselves to the
teeth, is not a rational one--why would they want to? The industry
would falter as soon as the gun market dried up, at any rate. There
would be no money for RaD.

> Some aren't. And the whole thing is another straw man, anyway.
> You don't know how lightly or deeply I sleep. Or, if there are motion
> detectors or any other number of things that reduce this to a steaming
> pile.
>

You actually make a point, Pat. Wow, I was beginning to think it
beyond you.

> Again, I'm not advocating Wild-West gun-toting. And your attempt
> to throw another straw man is forming a very sensible pattern, one in
> which you turn the case into one more easily argued by altering the
> premiss. Besides, If the gun is in my face, then I reckon I stand a
> 50-50 chance of taking it from him due to martial-arts training. But,
> if all he wants is my money, it's not worth my life. And, if we are
> IN your gun-toting scenario, I'll throw him my wallet and shoot him
> when he turns to pick it up.
>

This is not a strawman, Pat. Get your fallacies straight. It is an
appeal to emotion! However, if you wish to win your little argument,
then offer some factual evidence that an armed populace prevents or
reduces violence. Such evidence would be the only evidence to support
your claim that guns offer safety. You did claim that, didn't you? Or
are you too busy backtracking and seeing straw-boogeymen to keep up?

> Yet. Prove that it never will. The right to bear arms helps to
> prevent it from becoming one. You want to open that door, I do not.
>

Now, that *is* a strawman. Why should I (and to do such a thing is not
feasible)? Besides, you are still twisting my argument into total
"disarmament" which I did *not* suggest. I *am* pointing out the
specious *reasoning* behind having all sorts of weapons. The right to
bear arms does *not* prevent the rise of totalitarian states: Germany
1932, for example. The right to bear arms is supported by this
specious mode of argumentation. There is simply no *evidence* to back
it up. Successful changes of government (revolutions) can and do occur
without a right to bear arms.

On 30 juin, 15:16, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 12:47, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pat, it was *your* strawman. You instigated this notion of an armed
> > criminal population as opposed to some mythical unarmed "innocent"
> > population.
>
> I instigated no such thing. My reasons for wanting access to guns
> were listed quite plainly. If you try to take guns away from the
> public, you will leave them SOLELY in the hands of criminals, as they
> will not give theirs up. If you don't believe that there are
> criminals that regularly carry guns, then I suggest you spend a bit
> more time down the 'hood.
>
> >I simply pointed out that such an idea was specious. Craig
> > is no criminal. Craig would not give up his gun.
>
>

> >I am assuming that
> > you are arguing with the strawman of draconian gun laws, something I
> > did not mention.
>

> > > So, the RICH will own guns and you've added to the class divide and
> > > the poor will have no means of defending themselves against them.
> > > Clever...NOT.
>
> > You will need to open your eyes, Pat. The rich already own private
> > armies. Besides, the greater the *perceived* class divide, as Russia
> > proved, the greater the potential for true revolution. The classes are
> > already divided, just no one likes to mention it. *That* would be
> > *commy*!
>

> > > We need guns in order to protect
> > > 1) ourselves
> > > 2) our loved ones
> > > 3) our homes
> > > against
> > > 1) criminals who have guns
> > > 2) governments that are tyrannical
> > > 3) armies, foreign or domestic, that are tyrannical
>
> > I am sorry, Pat, but most home invasions in the states occur when the
> > inhabitants are sleeping.
>

> >If you walk into a store, your gun tucked
> > into your holster, and there in front of you is the criminal with the
> > gun aimed at your face, will you manage to pull your gun and shoot him
> > down? Not very feasible.
>

> >Truth be known, there is very little evidence
> > to support the claim that guns or an armed American populace *prevent*
> > violence.
>

> >There is lots to show that guns *lead to* violence. The
> > 11,000+ dead due to guns in the states in 2004 (from the Brady
> > Campaign website) would evidence that.
>
> > "Governments that are tyrannical" is a universal claim. This does not
> > apply to the States.
>

> ...
>
> plus de détails »

[Lonlaz]

As it has been mentioned before Gun ownership is just a part of
American culture. Much of us would feel that taking away the right of
gun ownership is a sign of the loss of personal power/responsibility
taken away from us (whether it actually exists currently or not).

Is this worth the loss of life generated by gun accidents and
violence? That is the real question. How much is a human life really
worth? How do you decide?

As mentioned before, it comes down to the value of personal freedom in
an American's mind.

[Felix Krull]

> Rather, ergo, you have created another straw man. I'll repeat, the
> right to bear arms helps to prevent the government from becoming
> tyrannical.

Pat, read your post. You said that the right to bear arms protected
one from tyranical governments. You later add "helps" protect or
prevent... Stay on track.

Give evidence that an absolute right to bear arms (meaning "guns" in
the states), with no restriction since you offer none, helps prevent
the rise of a tyranical government. When has this happened? What
society? What historical situation? And, one more time, I have *not*
advocated the total disarmament of the population. That was *your*
strawman, not mine.

> ...
>
> plus de détails »

[Felix Krull]

No, Pat, 1972 *Incident* at Wounded Knee... I should have been more
specific.

And as to the hypotheticals, that is all you have offered.

[Felix Krull]

Wow, Pat. Wow... I... wow. *shakes his head in befuddlement...*

[Vamadevananda]

On Jun 30, 7:33 pm, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As it has been mentioned before Gun ownership is just a part of
> American culture. Much of us would feel that taking away the right of
> gun ownership is a sign of the loss of personal power/responsibility
> taken away from us (whether it actually exists currently or not).
>
> Is this worth the loss of life generated by gun accidents and
> violence? That is the real question. How much is a human life really
> worth? How do you decide?

Pat has clearly stated : He'd shoot the man as he bends to pick up
his wallet ! No matter what the wallet contains ... perhaps, fifty
cents ... but shoot, he will !

I believe this discussion needs to start afresh ... not through
rationale, which even Mugabe will have, but from the values we
uphold ... as someone said, how much is human life worth ? Or,
rephrased, how much is my freedom and property worth, in terms of
other people's lives ?

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 15:40, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, Pat. Wow... I... wow. *shakes his head in befuddlement...*
>

You see, it's just not that cut and dried. One has to take
history into consideration. And not just the past, but the continuity
including the future. It's a complex issue that involves people and,
in different nations there are different scenarios. What works in one
country, who have a people with a history, won't necessarily work with
another country. Therefore, I would opt for maintaining a balance
rather than upsetting it and, if that means continuing to keep guns,
then fine, and if it means continuing to not have guns, then fine.
Personally, I would prefer to have the right to own one, but I
would gladly yield to democracy. The right for a people to self-
govern is FAR more important than any decision those self-governing
people decide. It's not so much sitting on the fence but being
culturally aware. In the UK, for example, making guns available would
be like letting children free in a candy shop. I don't think it would
work because, culturally, Britain has forgotten what it's like to be
armed and those who would be first to get them would be, as YOU would
agree, those with a hunger for the power it gives them, rather than as
a last resort measure for self-defense.

[Pat]

Okay, there DO seem to be some legitimate misunderstandings.
Perhaps we should start again. This is a rather volatile subject that
people hold very strong feelings about, and BOTH with good
reasoning.

> > > > > > > on this matter, and now it has been- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

It's a tough choice for sure. I don't think two-thirds of the
states would agree to eradicate the second Amendment anyway. And, of
course, other nations should, equally, decide by a free public ballot
what to do.

[Pat]

On 30 Jun, 16:46, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:33 pm, Lonlaz <lonlaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As it has been mentioned before Gun ownership is just a part of
> > American culture.  Much of us would feel that taking away the right of
> > gun ownership is a sign of the loss of personal power/responsibility
> > taken away from us (whether it actually exists currently or not).
>
> > Is this worth the loss of life generated by gun accidents and
> > violence?  That is the real question.  How much is a human life really
> > worth? How do you decide?
>
> Pat has clearly stated :  He'd shoot the man as he bends to pick up
> his wallet !   No matter what the wallet contains ... perhaps, fifty
> cents ...  but shoot, he will !
>

You know me better than that, Vam. It was AFTER he had pointed
HIS gun in my face and threatened my life. But I wouldn't kill him
for the money, it was the threat against my life that I would fight
for. Surely, you'll allow me the right to defend my life in a his-or-
mine situation.

> I believe this discussion needs to start afresh ... not through
> rationale, which even Mugabe will have, but from the values we
> uphold ... as someone said, how much is human life worth ?   Or,
> rephrased, how much is my freedom and property worth, in terms of
> other people's lives ?
>

Exactly, and, as the hypothetical situation that was presented to
me involved my life being threatened, at that point, I value my life
over his. I don't find that unreasonable in the least.

>
>
>
>
> > As mentioned before, it comes down to the value of personal freedom in

> > an American's mind.- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

In the United States, I believe, the right to keep and bear arms has served to preserve democracy, freedom, liberty and so many of the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution of The United States -- including the pursuit of happiness. It is more difficult for a regime, tyrant or dictator to take over the government if the government is armed and what's more, the people are the government. Of course, some compromise is required in the modern age. Laws are needed to be made and enforced to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. Freedom from fear of being shot in a drive-by shooting is a freedom that IMO takes precedence over the right to buy a handgun.

On 6/29/08, Vamadevananda <atewa...@gmail.com> wrote:

The question at the crux is :  Do arms enable the common individual
better himself, help others, and / or improve the world about him ?

My take is that it does not, in general. That is, except when it used
in sport, in which case it may help one to improve one's concentration
and mind - body coordination skills !

[RichardM]

There is no evidence that the right to own guns has ever protected
liberty in the U.S. There have been only three significant instances
of the use of guns in U.S. history--the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays'
Rebellion, before 1800, and the Civil War, in which the South rose
against a democratic government in support of its right to buy and
sell human beings. There were 600,000 people killed in that war, out
of an overall population of 36 million. I don't consider that
inspiring.

On the other hand, there has been no use of guns in U.S. history
against repression, either by the central government or against state
governments. There was no armed resistance to the Alien & Sedition
Acts in 1797, which made it criminal to criticize the central
government; those acts were repealed as a result of a mostly
democratic election in 1800. Similarly, when the Wilson
Administration rounded up socialists (including Eugene Debs, who had
run a strong 3rd in the 1916 presidential election), trade unionists,
and anyone who opposed U.S. entry to World War I, sentencing many to
long prison terms (Debs got 20 years for criticizing U.S. entry into
the war), there was no armed resistance. It was thanks to savage
repression by the Wilson administration--which also ordered racial
segregation in the U.S. armed forces and Washington, D.C.--that there
has never been an effective socialist party in the U.S. There are
other instances of repression throughout U.S. history, such as the
current Administration's use of secret prisons and torture--and the
only resistance has been through the courts and free elections. It is
therefore absurd on the historical record to claim that the right to
bear arms has anything to do with freedom in this country. From what
I can see, civil liberties are better protected in many European
countries that strictly regulate the right to own guns.

[Keith MacNevins]

The fact that the United States is the longest lived government since the dawn of history is proof enough.

[frantheman]

Er, Keith, the genesis of the basic British Constitution is in the
Glorious Revolution of 1689!

Francis

On Jun 30, 8:23 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact that the United States is the longest lived government since the
> dawn of history is proof enough.
>

> --
> Ambassador From Hell
> All rights reserved- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

"The instinctual energies of the id are all very similar. The will to
power
and the will to fuck are inseparable. There is demonstrable
interlocution.
Freud knew this and the Marquis de Sade illustrated and lived it
beautifully. Psychologically, and symbolically, a gun is, in point of
fact,
very similar to a cock. - Ian "

I'm guessing that, in different words, you are implying that 'we' have
sex as a matter of conserving the human race/life AND that having
anything that protects our lives, like a gun, is also used in such
conservation?
IF this is the case, this appears to not address the arguments against
guns overall being protectors of life. And, I no longer have a vested
interest in this fight other than observations and questions.
Again, IF my overview of your view is close to your meaning, perhpas,
other than in shape, pointed posts on Minds Eye are "psychologically,
and symbolically, ...very similar to..." both a gun AND a cock.


On Jun 30, 2:54 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/30 Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>
> > Great opinion and I'm glad you hold one.  So long as you realise
> > others hold differing ones and that THAT'S OK, too.  Although I do
> > find your libido argument to be remarkably laughable; and that, too,
> > is only an opinion.
>

> The instinctual energies of the id are all very similar. The will to power
> and the will to fuck are inseparable. There is demonstrable interlocution.
> Freud knew this and the Marquis de Sade illustrated and lived it
> beautifully. Psychologically, and symbolically, a gun is, in point of fact,
> very similar to a cock.
>
> Ian

[ornamentalmind]

" Your argument IS your opinion. Obviously heartfelt. And I support

you in having yours; shame you can't do the same for me." - Pat

*** guesses all opinions, being egalitarian, are to be embraced
forthwith ***

Oh, wait, the notion of 'shame' has raised its head...sorry, never
mind. The poster doesn't want to accept the opinion of another that
believes their post is superior...apparently.

Oh, wait, it may simply be an expression of populism...

Philosophy is such an interesting subject! :-|

On Jun 30, 2:55 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 10:43, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > find your libido argument to be remarkably laughable; and that, too,
>

> > Well... how profound. *You* have an opinion. *I* have an argument.
>
>   Your argument IS your opinion.  Obviously heartfelt.  And I support
> you in having yours; shame you can't do the same for me.
>
>
>

> > On 30 juin, 11:22, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 30 Jun, 08:10, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Please let it be noted that I feel 1) is the only reasonable answer in
> > > > today's political climate (in the States) and that all of them are to
> > > > some extent rationalizations of the primary libidinal interests of gun
> > > > owners: i.e. they enjoy guns. I have already stated where this desire
> > > > comes from (actually it is regenerated by the very process of
> > > > rationalization which makes the individual somehow powerful enough to
> > > > change an entire political and social system...)
>

> > >    Great opinion and I'm glad you hold one.  So long as you realise
> > > others hold differing ones and that THAT'S OK, too.  Although I do

> > > is only an opinion.

> > > > > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Ian Pollard]

2008/6/30 ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com>:

I'm guessing that, in different words, you are implying that 'we' have
sex as a matter of conserving the human race/life AND that having
anything that protects our lives, like a gun, is also used in such
conservation?

Huh?

Ian

[ornamentalmind]

"I think you have jumped the gun in thinking you have presented an
argument against guns that should cause us to wave the white flag
felix. ..." - Craig

Very very funny Craig! :-D

And, when the debate about revolution is reduced to two options,
active and passive, we are doomed to continued revolution.

And, yes, I do understand that there are only two ways to attain
unity, by force and by agreement.

On Jun 30, 3:03 am, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you have jumped the gun in thinking you have presented an
> argument against guns that should cause us to wave the white flag
> felix.
> First, you have not presented any argument against any of the other
> rationales.  You have only presented argument against the revolution
> rationale. And that argument, though powerful, isn't non-debatable.
> It seems that it is your opinion, not fact, that passive revolution is
> better than armed revolution.  Passive revolution may be better than
> armed revolution in some circumstances, and armed revolution may be
> better in other circumstances.  Why should we force the people into
> only one method, when a more effective revolution could be had when
> both options are on the table?  I don't think you have addressed that
> question properly, and so your position remains an opinion, and not a
> impossibly forceful argument that we must accept.   I think you are a
> bit over confident in your ability to persuade.

>
> On Jun 30, 3:54 am, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ian,
>
> > this is exactly my issue with the direction of this thread. Craig
> > offered it as an extension of the guns rights in the States thread,
> > but posed it such that it has taken on universal implications. As I
> > stated in a few posts in this thread, the comparison of Zimbabwe and
> > the States is simply *not* tenable. I am *not* for absolute state
> > power. But (and this comes through in the other thread) the American
> > argument that guns are needed to foment possible revolution (read: get
> > rid of dictators) is built on a myth. There is no way an individual in
> > contemporary American society can hope to better the weapons of the
> > military. So many riots, dead nut jobs, and so forth bear evidence to
> > this. Thus the real underlying reason for believing such nonsense, in
> > my opinion, is the viceral / emotional appeal of guns. (I think Pat
> > mistakenly read 'libidinal' as sexual...not my intended meaning, but
> > there is something to that...)
>
> > On 30 juin, 11:35, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we're arguing for gun ownership rights for America, then, sure, do what
> > > you like. I think, given the culture, that might work for you. However, if
> > > the argument is meant to embrace all cultures and countries, then I cannot
> > > accept it.
>
> > > What's the scope of this?
>

> > > Ian- Hide quoted text -

[frantheman]

On Jun 30, 3:04 pm, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
 I
> just as strongly believe that the European's hatred of guns is bred
> into them by their Aristocracy.  Make the people hate guns so they
> won't own them and threaten our rule.  

Wow, Craig, comments like this are what fuel common European beliefs
that US Americans are deeply ignorant about the rest of the world, its
history and the way it works!

I was born in a republic, my parents were born in a Republic (Ireland)
and I've lived in two other republics (Italy and Germany). Aristocracy
hasn't been a real issue in Europe since the end of World War I. True,
there are still constitutional monarchies - they offer a lot of
countries a bit of pomp and colour and something for the boulevard
press and the paparazzi to get wound up about but that's it.

Now, if you wanted to look at countries with functioning
aristocracies, in the sense of powerful dynasties handing down
hereditary power, take a look at the USA (Rockefellers, Roosevelts,
Kennedys, Walker/Bushes, etc.).

That said, I agree with Lee and many others here who see the US
preoccupation with gun-possession as something not ultimately amenable
to logic - a national lacuna, like the Spaniards with bull-fighting,
or the Brazilian adulation for plastic surgeons. I have always lived
in societies where private firearm possession has been strictly
controlled and where most citizens do NOT possess arms. I do not feel
myself particularly endangered by criminals, or any more threatened,
screwed and desenfranchised by government - as far as I can ascertain
- than the average US American.

I don't think we're going to reach any kind of consensus on this one -
I still look at the US from a European perspective and think - in so
many ways so magnificent, pity about the gun thing (and the death
penalty)!

Francis

[ornamentalmind]

RE: "When I speak of armed revolution I am not talking about David
Keresh
uprisings. I am talking about the rising up of the people.
Something
like a Marxist revolution, where the people get so sick of their
government that the entire populous rises up and overthrows the
regime...." - Craig

For the record, as I see it, David expressed something that at that
time as well as now DOES run through 'the people's psyches. Most
people (in the US) are quite 'sick of their government...', yet, as
I've addressed elsewhere, ignorance about not only their right and
duty to revolt, but even the possibility of doing so seems to be the
issue, not the motivating forces. Yes, fear may be another mitigating
factor.
So, even though Keresh was portrayed as a psycho in the corporate
'news', it seemed he only wanted to be left alone and the 'uprisings'
were imposed upon his group...similar to the current day bumper
sticker:
Appreciate America or we'll come over there and give you Democracy!

On Jun 30, 3:15 am, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felix,
> When I speak of armed revolution I am not talking about David Keresh
> uprisings.  I am talking about the rising up of the people.  Something
> like a Marxist revolution, where the people get so sick of their
> government that the entire populous rises up and overthrows the
> regime.  This is very possible, even with hunting rifles.  Look at how
> hard it is to take even a country that is divided yet armed like
> Iraq.  No two groups in that country can get together and form any
> sort of master revolution, yet because most of them are armed, even
> the United States can't seem to get a hold of the situation.  We
> should have taken that into consideration before we went into the
> place, but now we have  mess.  Imagine the possibilities if such a
> population worked in concert.  Imagine what the Chinese Government
> would have to deal with if its people were armed.  They have had
> passive revolutions, and luckily china has been checked due to
> international pressure.  But imagine what would happen if China wasn't
> checked by international pressure.  I wouldn't want to imagine the
> cruelty China would be capable of.
> I'm not advocating the position that all we need is guns, and
> everything will be okay.  Far from it.  I am only saying they are one
> very important element in the equation

[ornamentalmind]

"...reasonable counterarguments!" .... = that which I find reasonable.
No one else need apply.


On Jun 30, 3:45 am, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig,
>
> I don't claim to have won... simply that no one is offering reasonable
> counterarguments!
>
> I am also not making your universalist claims--which is the only way
> you have been able to gain footing. I am referring to the States. You
> still have not argued successfully against that situation (which we
> got into in the other thread). I am not speaking of revolution in all
> socio-political situations. I also presented an argument against the
> self-defense myth, which you gave up on in the other thread.
>
> As to the option of both--most every nation which "bans guns" allows
> guns for hunting purposes. The states could do that, too, with a
> limited list of non-concealable weapons. Gun violence is normally
> committed with small, easily conceable weapons... now that I have said
> this, I need to back it up with some statistics... in a future post.
>
> Still, I think it is unreasonable to suggest that one can purchase in
> the States firepower of a significant degree to win an all out armed
> revolution. So, while this may figure into the rationalization of an
> armed populace, it is predicated on a specious notion.
>
> Finally, make a cogent argument, Craig, rather than claiming that mine
> is nothing but an opinion.

>
> On 30 juin, 12:03, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think you have jumped the gun in thinking you have presented an
> > argument against guns that should cause us to wave the white flag
> > felix.
> > First, you have not presented any argument against any of the other
> > rationales.  You have only presented argument against the revolution
> > rationale. And that argument, though powerful, isn't non-debatable.
> > It seems that it is your opinion, not fact, that passive revolution is
> > better than armed revolution.  Passive revolution may be better than
> > armed revolution in some circumstances, and armed revolution may be
> > better in other circumstances.  Why should we force the people into
> > only one method, when a more effective revolution could be had when
> > both options are on the table?  I don't think you have addressed that
> > question properly, and so your position remains an opinion, and not a
> > impossibly forceful argument that we must accept.   I think you are a
> > bit over confident in your ability to persuade.
>

[ornamentalmind]

When one is talking about Texas, one is NOT talking about the American
persona. They are talking about a country unto itself with its own
criminal views.

On Jun 30, 4:03 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the States guns have become part of the American persona. Most
> often the benefit of gun ownership is overridden by the criminal
> element and their ever increasing implementation of sophisticated
> weaponry.  A military coup or engagement of a militia to thwart
> tyranny in the states is hardly worth mention.  However, without guns
> the citizenry would feel vulnerable, even to it's own government, so
> the right to be armed remains.  The State of Texas has just recently
> enacted what is called the Castle Law.http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRe...
> Excerpt:
> AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law Senate Bill 378,
> extending Texans’ rights to use deadly force for means of self-
> defense, without retreat, in their home, vehicle or workplace. The law
> takes effect Sept. 1, 2007.
>
> “The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not
> only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human
> nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law
> which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but
> to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that
> they use deadly force.
>
> “I thank Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Joe Driver and the
> Texas Legislature for their dedication to ensuring Texans’ rights to
> self-defense.”
>
> NOTE: In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973
> statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal
> attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat
> when an intruder unlawfully entered their home.
>
> So if an elderly couple coming out of a restaurant were approached in
> the parking lot by a gun/knife toting low life they would have the
> right to use deadly force.  This I see as being the main issue in gun
> ownership; self defense.  Crime stats diminish when criminals start
> getting killed by law of protectionism.
> If guns were banned people would resort to using knives. If knives
> were banned they would resort to using baseball bats.  People that
> resort to violence in order to make statement will use whatever
> weaponry is available. Including but not limited to road side bombs
> and biological means.
> Personally I feel I would rather have a gun to protect myself against
> a knife wielding criminal in a parking lot rather than a knife as the
> gun would level out the field should my opponent be stronger than I.
> There is a duality in the ownership of guns as they can be for
> pleasure and also serve as a means of protection. They should not be
> banned or eradicated.  In Arizona it is "generally" lawful to carry a
> gun without license as long as the gun is in full view and not in
> anyway concealed. No state permit is required to possess a shotgun,
> rifle or handgun.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)...
> Allowing the citizenry to own or carry firearms does not increase
> crime.  Criminals commit crimes and crooked governments attain and
> maintain power due to an unarmed citizenry.   Peaceful, law abiding
> citizens with guns are not a danger to society.

[ornamentalmind]

To use wacko 'waco (sic)' as an example of "...overthrowing a corrupt
American government..." is in and of itself irrational and 'frankly
rubbish'.

On Jun 30, 4:08 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> I'm with you on this one Felix, and you also Ian.
>
> Gun ownership is so imbred within the American physche that they will
> never be rid of it.  I do think that anytalk about overthrowing a
> corrupt American goverment as a rational to US civilian gun ownership
> is frankly rubbish.
>
> Admit it KC, you chaps just love your guns. You don't own them beause
> of the unlikely need to overthrow your goverment coz that just
> wouldn't work(remeber wako anybody?), there is an argument that can be
> made about personal protection from other armed civilians; but really
> you want to keep them because you have always had them.
>
> Which is a fair point, and one a whole lot more honest than any other.
>

> On 30 Jun, 10:54, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ian,
>
> > this is exactly my issue with the direction of this thread. Craig
> > offered it as an extension of the guns rights in the States thread,
> > but posed it such that it has taken on universal implications. As I
> > stated in a few posts in this thread, the comparison of Zimbabwe and
> > the States is simply *not* tenable. I am *not* for absolute state
> > power. But (and this comes through in the other thread) the American
> > argument that guns are needed to foment possible revolution (read: get
> > rid of dictators) is built on a myth. There is no way an individual in
> > contemporary American society can hope to better the weapons of the
> > military. So many riots, dead nut jobs, and so forth bear evidence to
> > this. Thus the real underlying reason for believing such nonsense, in
> > my opinion, is the viceral / emotional appeal of guns. (I think Pat
> > mistakenly read 'libidinal' as sexual...not my intended meaning, but
> > there is something to that...)
>
> > On 30 juin, 11:35, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we're arguing for gun ownership rights for America, then, sure, do what
> > > you like. I think, given the culture, that might work for you. However, if
> > > the argument is meant to embrace all cultures and countries, then I cannot
> > > accept it.
>
> > > What's the scope of this?
>
> > > Ian- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

RE: ""Governments that are tyrannical" is a universal claim. This does

not
apply to the States. Ergo, since the States do not have a tyrranical
government, you have actually offered a reason why there should *not*

be guns." - Felix

*** guesses Felix is a member of the Ministry of Truth in Oceania ***

On Jun 30, 4:47 am, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat, it was *your* strawman. You instigated this notion of an armed
> criminal population as opposed to some mythical unarmed "innocent"

> population. I simply pointed out that such an idea was specious. Craig

> be guns. "Armies that are tyrannical" is based on the myth of

> "firepower=firepower". A tyrannical army, somehow slipping past
> America's significant defenses, would probably arrive in American
> built Bradley's or somesuch. Let's see a shotgun pierce that!
>

> > > > > on this matter, and now it has been reduced to "well, that is your
> > > > > opinion..." Harumph.
>

> > > > > On 30 juin, 11:22, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 30 Jun, 08:10, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Please let it be noted that I feel 1) is the only reasonable answer in
> > > > > > > today's political climate (in the States) and that all of them are to
> > > > > > > some extent rationalizations of the primary libidinal interests of gun
> > > > > > > owners: i.e. they enjoy guns. I have already stated where this desire
> > > > > > > comes from (actually it is regenerated by the very process of
> > > > > > > rationalization which makes the individual somehow powerful enough to
> > > > > > > change an entire political and social system...)
>
> > > > > >    Great opinion and I'm glad you hold one.  So long as you realise
> > > > > > others hold differing ones and that THAT'S OK, too.  Although I do

> > > > > > find your libido argument to be remarkably laughable; and that, too,

> > > > > > > > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

"...If the students were armed the post stage of violence would have
indicated and further demonstrated that an armed general populous was
a bad thing.(aside from the increase level of death) ..."

How is this so? Do you believe that 'we the people', armed or not-
armed, being slaughtered by an ideological government in fact
demonstrates anything other than the conflict itself? Personally, I
don't see how it would show that being armed was "a bad thing". In
fact, if anything, it appears it would suggest the opposite.

On Jun 30, 5:26 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is true and I do agree that the Kent State example is not valid.
> If the students were armed the post stage of violence would have
> indicated and further demonstrated that an armed general populous was
> a bad thing.(aside from the increase level of death)  Still, even
> without guns the students would most likely had been assaulted with
> clubs and vicious dogs.
> Consider this, a fully armed citizenry does not rule out passive
> revolution, the fact of gun ownership does not imply violent
> confrontation exclusively.  So we cannot draw conclusions based solely
> on ownership but have to further evaluate the psychological position
> of the owner. The US is armed to the hilt and further spends more on
> military power than all the other countries combined, still many
> passive attempts have been made to quell problematic aggressors.  As I
> stated earlier a confrontation is usually the result of armed
> provocation.  Guns are not the issue as much as the human drive for
> power.  In the beginning we threw rocks and used clubs, later we made
> spears and developed iron weaponry, we forged swords and hacked away.
> Later came gun powder and the rest is history.  Banning rocks would
> not have reduced violence.  Only the human condition or the alteration
> of it can change the way we communicate.  I used to own a couple of
> small caliber rifles but currently do not own any weaponry. If crime
> increased to an alarming rate, and I imagine that the current economic
> downturn will fuel an increase in crime, I would without reserve
> purchase at least a shotgun should the potential of a home invasion
> seem likely.  Further I would not hesitate one instant to use is on a
> would be trespasser, as is my right.  Ownership is not a priority but
> having the "Right to Own" is!

>
> On Jun 30, 6:57 am, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > So if an elderly couple coming out of a restaurant were approached in
> > > the parking lot by a gun/knife toting low life they would have the
> > > right to use deadly force.  This I see as being the main issue in gun
> > > ownership; self defense.  Crime stats diminish when criminals start
> > > getting killed by law of protectionism.
> > > If guns were banned people would resort to using knives. If knives
> > > were banned they would resort to using baseball bats.  People that
> > > resort to violence in order to make statement will use whatever
> > > weaponry is available. Including but not limited to road side bombs
> > > and biological means.
> > > Personally I feel I would rather have a gun to protect myself against
> > > a knife wielding criminal in a parking lot rather than a knife as the
> > > gun would level out the field should my opponent be stronger than I.
>

> > Slip, this sort of hypothetical but perfectly plausible situation is
> > often used in such arguments. It is a fea

> > > There is a duality in the ownership of guns as they can be for
> > > pleasure and also serve as a means of protection. They should not be
> > > banned or eradicated.  In Arizona it is "generally" lawful to carry a
> > > gun without license as long as the gun is in full view and not in
> > > anyway concealed. No state permit is required to possess a shotgun,
> > > rifle or handgun.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)...
> > > Allowing the citizenry to own or carry firearms does not increase
> > > crime.  Criminals commit crimes and crooked governments attain and
> > > maintain power due to an unarmed citizenry.   Peaceful, law abiding

> > > citizens with guns are not a danger to society.- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

RichardM, while your view of history may have great accuracy when it
comes to 'significant instances of the use of guns in U.S. history',
what appears to be missing in your analysis is the fact that the US
itself was founded upon a revolution using guns. Further, it would
seem that to have a 'significant instance of the use of guns' at any
point after the original formation of the US, would in and of itself
require the overthrow of some current US government. So, with these
two glaring exceptions, your point is taken.

[ornamentalmind]

*** strongly suggests that the US is moving towards dystopia ***

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

OK Ian, perhaps you could use different words so that I can understand
what you meant by:

""The instinctual energies of the id are all very similar. The will
to
power
and the will to fuck are inseparable. There is demonstrable
interlocution.
Freud knew this and the Marquis de Sade illustrated and lived it
beautifully. Psychologically, and symbolically, a gun is, in point of
fact,
very similar to a cock. - Ian " "

On Jun 30, 1:04 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/30 ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>:

[Ian Pollard]

2008/6/30 ornamentalmind <ornamen...@yahoo.com>:

OK Ian, perhaps you could use different words so that I can understand
what you meant by:

[snip]

Seeking to arm oneself (for protection, for cold-blooded murder, etc) is an expression of a need for power. I'm hardly making a startling new claim by suggesting that sex is fundamentally about power too, am I?

Ian

[Slip Disc]

I'm with you on that but what I intended and failed to express was
that the government and gun control advocates would have pointed to
the incident, purported it to be a bad thing and propagandized it as
the need for gun control. I was pressed for time this morning and
failed to accurately express myself. (excuses, excuses lol) However,
that portion of my comment is inconsistent with the rest of postings
which are all obviously pro gun ownership.
Naturally the general consensus was that the actions of the government
were appalling. It was in violation of our right of free speech and
the right of peaceful assembly within the first amendment. The
unarmed students presented no real threat. It was senseless slaughter
of innocent people and no different from China (tiananmen square
incident) or any other government's actions against it's citizens.

[Felix Krull]

Orn, please reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant

[ornamentalmind]

The function of Power does exist, yes. And, what I was attempting to
express earlier, poorly evidently, was a more basic view. It too is
but a small part of the whole, like power is only one possible
expression of the act of coitus and its correlative found in
homosexuality.

When it comes to 'instinct' (your term), I looked more to what both
sex and wanting to have a gun have in common around the area of
maintaining life. To have a gun can be seen as a way to protect
against attact. While it IS one way, it is not the only way and,
apparently there are other and perhaps more successful arguments about
this. No, I do not have a dog in the fight, just the 'logic' and
clarity used.

To have heterosexual sex, during the few fertile moments we have, can
be seen as a way to maintain life (of the species) too.

An aside about 'few fertile moments' here: as prolific as humans are,
my guess is that the total amount of time in the 'average' woman's
life when conception is possible is quite small when compared to a
full, complete length of life.

I'm guessing that your last question is rhetorical since you appear to
assume you already know the answer. And, I will suggest that using the
term "fundamentally", at best, muddies the waters here.

On Jun 30, 2:17 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/30 ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>

[Felix Krull]

And which arguments do you find reasonable, Orn? Please, do tell...

[Slip Disc]

Very funny but ironically very true. I've always viewed Texas a a
rogue state, which of course is where our rogue president originates
from.

[Felix Krull]

Oh, so *now* it is suddenly complex! My befuddlement comes from your
universal claims about armed revolution when it suits you, then a
definite situationalism when it suits a different 'you'. Either it is
a universal right, as you imply by referring to universal qualities of
revolution, or it is limited to specific socio-cultural and historical
situations. If the latter, (which it is, apparently for Britain) then
it is thus for the States.

What you are really arguing is a continual "status quo" line of
reasoning. Which is fine with me, except that the current system is
anything but that. The industry continues to produce guns more
advanced, lighter, smaller, more deadly, etc. So, the status quo is a
continual progression towards more deadly weaponry available to more
violent criminals and vigilantes (the Minute Men, for example, in
Texas and Arizona).

On 30 juin, 18:25, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 15:40, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wow, Pat. Wow... I... wow. *shakes his head in befuddlement...*
>
> You see, it's just not that cut and dried. One has to take
> history into consideration. And not just the past, but the continuity
> including the future. It's a complex issue that involves people and,
> in different nations there are different scenarios. What works in one
> country, who have a people with a history, won't necessarily work with
> another country. Therefore, I would opt for maintaining a balance
> rather than upsetting it and, if that means continuing to keep guns,
> then fine, and if it means continuing to not have guns, then fine.
> Personally, I would prefer to have the right to own one, but I
> would gladly yield to democracy. The right for a people to self-
> govern is FAR more important than any decision those self-governing
> people decide. It's not so much sitting on the fence but being
> culturally aware. In the UK, for example, making guns available would
> be like letting children free in a candy shop. I don't think it would
> work because, culturally, Britain has forgotten what it's like to be
> armed and those who would be first to get them would be, as YOU would
> agree, those with a hunger for the power it gives them, rather than as
> a last resort measure for self-defense.
>
> > On 30 juin, 15:44, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 30 Jun, 14:36, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hey KC,
>
> > > > My usage of the word 'imbred' was nowt more than my dyslexcia once
> > > > again asertinig itself, I meant to use the word 'in-bred'.
>
> > > > In a similar vein I guess you meant 'not talking about a waco
> > > > revolution'?
>
> > > > You may have somthing when you talk about the European hatred of guns,
> > > > I realy don't know enough history to comment futher on that though.
>
> > > > I don't belive I was trying to find a perverse anything, and your
> > > > reaction to my post only confirms(in my mind) what I did actualy say.
> > > > For how long though has a call for intelectual honesty been considered
> > > > an ad hominem?
>
> > > > Although I can see how the percived attacked, would say that. Heheh
> > > > consider THAT Ad hominem though if you wish.
>
> > > > I can see what you belive, and I belive it is clear that we do not
> > > > share this belife. So back to personal belifes then.
>
> > > > I can of course live with the notion that we shall never agree on
> > > > this, and as long as your belife does not impact my life here across
> > > > the pond, then you and I have no issue.
>
> > > > I'm happy that I can't get a gun, I do not want one, I do not feel the
> > > > need for one, the actual level of gun crime here is tiny, and if I
> > > > can't have one, then nor can the majority of civilians here, and I
> > > > feel no danger from which I need that sort of protection.
>
> > > > My point was only that gun culture is inherent in the USA, I applogies
> > > > if my choie of words upset you, you know I would never do that, as my
> > > > targets for that kind of 'sport' are others here, and they know
> > > > exactly who I have my sights aimed at! ;¬)
>
> > > You see, Lee, although I'm a believer in the right to bear arms, I
> > > don't think it would work at all in the UK. There IS a mindset, but
> > > there's also the real and present situation you have to look at. If
> > > you start off by having guns, then disarming the populace, I feel,
> > > will cause problems. Alternatively, if you start off by NOT having
> > > guns, ARMING the populace will cause problems. The precedence of gun
> > > ownership is paramount to continuity, in my opinion.
>
> > > > On 30 Jun, 14:04, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I thought I already said that I'm talking about a waco revolution.
> > > > > And I like how instead of saying they are "bred into the American
> > > > > physche", you said they are "imbred into the American pshche". I
> > > > > don't know what your trying to prove with this line of rhetoric. I

> > > > > just as strongly believe that the European's hatred of guns is bred
> > > > > into them by their Aristocracy. Make the people hate guns so they

> > > > > won't own them and threaten our rule. I also already said that I love
> > > > > guns, and I'm not going to hide that. But trying to find some
> > > > > perverse motive for making the arguments I am is an ad hominem
> > > > > argument.
> > > > > I do believe than an armed revolution is a very real reality, and the
> > > > > possibility of success is real too. When I say revolution I am
> > > > > talking about a political revolution where a majority of people decide
> > > > > that they've had enough and decide to throw off their government.
> > > > > With weapons in hand, the higher technology would quickly become
> > > > > theirs. Take Bosnia for example. My friend is from there and tells
> > > > > me war stories all of the time. He told me that when the war first
> > > > > broke out that the Bosnians had few weapons and were in danger of
> > > > > being obliterated. They immediately stormed the weapons reserves
> > > > > before they did anything else. A few victories at a few weapons
> > > > > reserves and they changed the face of the war. I keep hearing from
> > > > > you guys that my argument is spurious that an armed populous would
> > > > > have a chance against such a powerful government. We're at a dead
> > > > > lock because I think it is your argument that is quite clearly
> > > > > spurious.

>
> > > > > On Jun 30, 5:08 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm with you on this one Felix, and you also Ian.
>
> > > > > > Gun ownership is so imbred within the American physche that they will
> > > > > > never be rid of it. I do think that anytalk about overthrowing a
> > > > > > corrupt American goverment as a rational to US civilian gun ownership
> > > > > > is frankly rubbish.
>
> > > > > > Admit it KC, you chaps just love your guns. You don't own them beause
> > > > > > of the unlikely need to overthrow your goverment coz that just
> > > > > > wouldn't work(remeber wako anybody?), there is an argument that can be
> > > > > > made about personal protection from other armed civilians; but really
> > > > > > you want to keep them because you have always had them.
>
> > > > > > Which is a fair point, and one a whole lot more honest than any other.
>

> > > > > > On 30 Jun, 10:54, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Ian,
>
> > > > > > > this is exactly my issue with the direction of this thread. Craig
> > > > > > > offered it as an extension of the guns rights in the States thread,
> > > > > > > but posed it such that it has taken on universal implications. As I
> > > > > > > stated in a few posts in this thread, the comparison of Zimbabwe and
> > > > > > > the States is simply *not* tenable. I am *not* for absolute state
> > > > > > > power. But (and this comes through in the other thread) the American
> > > > > > > argument that guns are needed to foment possible revolution (read: get
> > > > > > > rid of dictators) is built on a myth. There is no way an individual in
> > > > > > > contemporary American society can hope to better the weapons of the
> > > > > > > military. So many riots, dead nut jobs, and so forth bear evidence to
> > > > > > > this. Thus the real underlying reason for believing such nonsense, in
> > > > > > > my opinion, is the viceral / emotional appeal of guns. (I think Pat
> > > > > > > mistakenly read 'libidinal' as sexual...not my intended meaning, but
> > > > > > > there is something to that...)
>
> > > > > > > On 30 juin, 11:35, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > If we're arguing for gun ownership rights for America, then, sure, do what
> > > > > > > > you like. I think, given the culture, that might work for you. However, if
> > > > > > > > the argument is meant to embrace all cultures and countries, then I cannot
> > > > > > > > accept it.
>
> > > > > > > > What's the scope of this?
>
> > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

Hmmm... I began to get a bit "hot under the collar" when you claimed I
held an opinion as though it were not a reasonable line of argument
but simply opinion. This is not a "god exists" argument. There is
evidence to support limiting gun rights. There is evidence to support
the notion that guns *produce* gun violence (a tautology) and that gun
violence is severe and disproportionate in the States. There is no
evidence to suggest that guns actually guarantee a free America, and
Craig has even conceeded that they *may* produce a collective
passiveness in the political populace. There is no evidence that the
guns available could *properly* defend a suddenly defenseless American
society--which in itself is a highly improbable situation. There is no
evidence that the States is a Zimbabwe or Darfur style government--nor
that it is "tyrannical"--*oligarchic* definitely, but not tyrannical.
To claim "well, that is what *you* believe..." is hackneyed, flippant,
and not a cogent argument.

On 30 juin, 18:29, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 15:31, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Pat, your strawman. You make your claims by turning my argument into
> > one about total "disarmament". I never said that, or if I did it was a
> > flub. I have already addressed how the US Supreme Court's decision was
> > perfectly valid. Please, pay attention before spouting off.
>
> > > You pointed out that Craig is no criminal. This is irrelevant (a
> > > straw man), as it is legal to own guns. I, then, pointed out that it
> > > was also irrelevant in the face of your argument that people shouldn't
> > > own guns as Craig would not give his up. Your 'way' would MAKE him a
> > > criminal.
>
> > This is a continuation of *your* strawman. I pointed out that Craig
> > would not give up his gun if the production of guns was stopped (which
> > has been my interest throughout this argument--*not* I repeat *not*
> > "disarmament"). You have created a really wonderful example of a
> > strawman. My 'way' is what you clearly, quite clearly, do *not*
> > *understand*.
>
> > > No, with your position that guns should not be owned by the populace.
>
> > No, since my position is *not* that guns should not be owned by the
> > populace, you are arguing a strawman. My argument, as I have
> > explained, is against the seriously flawed "libidinal" rationale
> > behind having guns in the first place. Please read Slip's post if you
> > would like to see an actual well-constructed and accurate argument
> > against me.
>
> > > Another nice move. But you were going to TAX guns in order to make
> > > them unpurchasable by most people. That would leave them still within
> > > the reach of the rich, as I pointed out. A little Edward De Bono
> > > water logic wouldn't go amiss. So, your solution would create more
> > > problems than it would solve.
>
> > No solution is really a solution. Every solution leads to a new set of
> > problems. To believe otherwise is rather silly. However, your implied
> > counterargument, that all rich people would arm themselves to the
> > teeth, is not a rational one--why would they want to? The industry
> > would falter as soon as the gun market dried up, at any rate. There
> > would be no money for RaD.
>
> > > Some aren't. And the whole thing is another straw man, anyway.
> > > You don't know how lightly or deeply I sleep. Or, if there are motion
> > > detectors or any other number of things that reduce this to a steaming
> > > pile.
>
> > You actually make a point, Pat. Wow, I was beginning to think it
> > beyond you.
>
> > > Again, I'm not advocating Wild-West gun-toting. And your attempt
> > > to throw another straw man is forming a very sensible pattern, one in
> > > which you turn the case into one more easily argued by altering the
> > > premiss. Besides, If the gun is in my face, then I reckon I stand a
> > > 50-50 chance of taking it from him due to martial-arts training. But,
> > > if all he wants is my money, it's not worth my life. And, if we are
> > > IN your gun-toting scenario, I'll throw him my wallet and shoot him
> > > when he turns to pick it up.
>
> > This is not a strawman, Pat. Get your fallacies straight. It is an
> > appeal to emotion! However, if you wish to win your little argument,
> > then offer some factual evidence that an armed populace prevents or
> > reduces violence. Such evidence would be the only evidence to support
> > your claim that guns offer safety. You did claim that, didn't you? Or
> > are you too busy backtracking and seeing straw-boogeymen to keep up?
>
> > > Yet. Prove that it never will. The right to bear arms helps to
> > > prevent it from becoming one. You want to open that door, I do not.
>
> > Now, that *is* a strawman. Why should I (and to do such a thing is not
> > feasible)? Besides, you are still twisting my argument into total
> > "disarmament" which I did *not* suggest. I *am* pointing out the
> > specious *reasoning* behind having all sorts of weapons. The right to
> > bear arms does *not* prevent the rise of totalitarian states: Germany
> > 1932, for example. The right to bear arms is supported by this
> > specious mode of argumentation. There is simply no *evidence* to back
> > it up. Successful changes of government (revolutions) can and do occur
> > without a right to bear arms.
>
> Okay, there DO seem to be some legitimate misunderstandings.
> Perhaps we should start again. This is a rather volatile subject that
> people hold very strong feelings about, and BOTH with good
> reasoning.
>
> > On 30 juin, 15:16, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On 30 Jun, 12:47, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Pat, it was *your* strawman. You instigated this notion of an armed
> > > > criminal population as opposed to some mythical unarmed "innocent"
> > > > population.
>

> > > I instigated no such thing. My reasons for wanting access to guns
> > > were listed quite plainly. If you try to take guns away from the
> > > public, you will leave them SOLELY in the hands of criminals, as they
> > > will not give theirs up. If you don't believe that there are
> > > criminals that regularly carry guns, then I suggest you spend a bit
> > > more time down the 'hood.

> > > Rather, ergo, you have created another straw man. I'll repeat, the
> > > right to bear arms helps to prevent the government from becoming
> > > tyrannical.

>
> > > >"Armies that are tyrannical" is based on the myth of
> > > > "firepower=firepower". A tyrannical army, somehow slipping past
> > > > America's significant defenses, would probably arrive in American
> > > > built Bradley's or somesuch. Let's see a shotgun pierce that!
>

> > > One of the reasons that America is NOT attacked is because the
> > > people are armed. When it has been attacked, it's often been in an
> > > unconventional way, Pearl Harbour, 9/11...

> ...
>
> plus de détails »

[Slip Disc]

>>Seeking to arm oneself (for protection, for cold-blooded murder, etc) is an
expression of a need for power. <<

To arm oneself for protection is not necessarily or exclusively an
expression of a need for power. One may purchase a weapon as being
instrumental in overcoming fear. I have always thought that the
larger the weapon the greater the fear.
Perhaps it can be stated in some cases that gun ownership is a
compensation for sexual inadequacy or the need to establish dominance
as in the sexual pursuit.

On Jun 30, 4:17 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/6/30 ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>

[Felix Krull]

> Perhaps it can be stated in some cases that gun ownership is a
> compensation for sexual inadequacy or the need to establish dominance
> as in the sexual pursuit.

Not in all cases, Craig, not in all! ;-) But seriously, I think the
notion of "sexual inadequacy" should be taken, as it is in Freudian
and Lacanian psychoanalysis, as a metaphor rather than actual
substitution. We all (females included) do things, buy things, and
watch things to cover over those little cracks in our psyches which
show through to something we may not want to see...

Clearly consumption in the States masks deep political fears--everyone
has their head in the sand.

On 1 juil, 01:11, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Seeking to arm oneself (for protection, for cold-blooded murder, etc) is an
>
> expression of a need for power. <<
>
> To arm oneself for protection is not necessarily or exclusively an
> expression of a need for power. One may purchase a weapon as being
> instrumental in overcoming fear. I have always thought that the
> larger the weapon the greater the fear.

>

[ornamentalmind]

RE: "> And which arguments do you find reasonable, Orn? Please, do
tell..."

Well, for one, the argument that when one is in a discussion, to morph
into a dialectical debate and then to reject all other differing views
as not being "reasonable counterarguments!" (reasonable = that which I
alone in the debate find reasonable) if not smacking of megalomania,
at least approaches ill will.

For another, the argument that to even respond to a person who
apparently can not appreciate or even perhaps know irony when the use
of the word "I" is being used as a representation of what is being
said by said person appears to be futile.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

" I've always viewed Texas a a rogue state, which of course is where
our rogue president originates from."

Do not forget that the 'real' president, Dick, lived there too until
he had to change his official residency to another state due to US
laws about both pres. and VP not being allowed to reside in the same
state.

> > > citizens with guns are not a danger to society.- Hide quoted text -

[Slip Disc]

As if that really made a difference, Dicky moving like that. Two
Texans in office equals two Texans in office no matter where they
reside. Don't get me started on those two or the result; ad nauseum.

PS: Your not disappointing me anymore. lol