A little extra thing to consider to that inherently complex question is that context matters a great deal.
Do you believe in guns?
- Thread starter Thesemindz
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #22
I don't think any kind of violence fetish is healthy. I think a person can have a healthy respect and appreciation for firearms, just like they can for music, or paintings, or movies. But when it crosses over into an unhealthy obsession, it can be dangerous. Just like any other unhealthy obsession.
I see firearms as a tool. As such, there are situations which may require that tool. So just like I have hammers and screwdrivers and can openers in my home, I also have firearms. In case I find myself in that unique situation which requires the appropriate tool.
-Rob
OP
- Thread Starter
- #23
While I understand the greater point you are making, I have to disagree with your choice of words.
I don't plan on subjugating anyone. I don't practice or approve of oppression of free people in any form. I won't be bothering those who choose to abandon their freedom in favor of some shadowy promise of security, I only wish their choices didn't create such suffering in my life.
If a person chooses to beat their sword into a plowshare, that's fine, just don't come for my swords. I say, plowshares for plowing, swords for swording.
-Rob
I have to add a bit of Guerilla Semantics to what zDom said:
Spoken: "No, your Honor. I have never in my life shot a gun."
Unspoken: "That would be dangerous and expensive. I've FIRED a few, never SHOT one."
Spoken: "No, your Honor. I have never in my life shot a gun."
Unspoken: "That would be dangerous and expensive. I've FIRED a few, never SHOT one."
Yes, I believe in the need of the people to have firearms AND know how to use them for the proterction of themselves, their family, and their countrymen from those that would take their freedom through murder, rape, burglary, or ENSLAVEMENT. It is the right of every man and woman to not have to bow down to another human being for any reason. Our civil rights are ours, because of firearms.
The people who don't like firearms are the sheep that rely on us with firearms to come to their rescue when they are in trouble. These sheeple have a diluted sense of security and they think they are protected by laws. Criminals and tyrants don't care about laws.
"The doorway to freedom is framed with muskets."
The people who don't like firearms are the sheep that rely on us with firearms to come to their rescue when they are in trouble. These sheeple have a diluted sense of security and they think they are protected by laws. Criminals and tyrants don't care about laws.
"The doorway to freedom is framed with muskets."
--Charlton Heston
Never heard of him, I'm afraid.
I can see were your comming from Sam, the guns arn't really nessisary. I live in canada and I've never seen a handgun in person, only a hunting rifle and the last thought on the minds of the people who owned that rifle was self defense. I can understand if your in the states though, if everyone else has a gun you dont want to be the person left defenceless. But if people are not allowed to bear arms like in Canada or Australia, you'll see they are pretty pointless.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #29
What should free people do when the elected republic in which they live becomes a despotic tyranny? Do people have the right to defend themselves from the oppression of the state? If so, what should they use towards that aim? If not, then do you believe that people exist to support any state which claims proprietary ownership over them?
-Rob
He's Hugh Laurie's House) comedy partner, he's also in Blackadder etc he has a way with words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKdGwfMD8u8&feature=related
This may explain why we aren't anxious to have the British public armed lol!
Last edited by a moderator:
KELLYG
2nd Black Belt
YES!
I believe in guns. I feel like with anything, that you can use that has the capability to kill yourself or another person that, that you must educate yourself on how to use it and use it responsibly.
I have several in my house. All of them are loaded and ready to use, in the case of an emergency. I live alone and have no children, so there is no worry about someone getting a hold of them that is under age. If I had small children in my house I probably would not have them. I would worried about them gaining access to them and doing themselves harm.
I believe in guns. I feel like with anything, that you can use that has the capability to kill yourself or another person that, that you must educate yourself on how to use it and use it responsibly.
I have several in my house. All of them are loaded and ready to use, in the case of an emergency. I live alone and have no children, so there is no worry about someone getting a hold of them that is under age. If I had small children in my house I probably would not have them. I would worried about them gaining access to them and doing themselves harm.
I'm not being funny here but the ownership of weapons will not stop a dictatorship or a government being oppressive.
The reason people 'exist' is probably a philosophical argument that again has nothing to do with governments. No one 'exists' to support any type of government! I'm really not sure what you are asking here.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
It helped a bit in the 1700's...
As to the "everybody in America is walking around with guns" statement upthread...have you ever visited the US? Doesnt sound like any place Ive ever been.
For all the "violent America" hype...the VAST majority of US citizens have never been the victim of a violent crime or shot anybody.
well the goverment system in canada is a little different, your guy's states are given quite a of power in comparison to our provinces. we dont have to defend ourselfs from the oppersion of the provinces because they simply don't have enough power to opress us. any laws that are passed that disagree with the charter of rights and freedoms are immediatly stuck down by the supreme court... even so do individual states really have the power to oppress you/ would your goverment let them?..
your general statement confuses me that sounds like nothing I've ever heard of in the states or canada.
oh and sorry if i gave off the impression that I thought in the states everyone has guns, ive been there and I as i said I've never seen a hangun in my life. but when listening to some of the people here I will sometimes make general assumptions.
and about what ive posted right now, i hope i haven't offended anyone because besides some general stuff i learned in law class i don't know too much about your guy's goverment system
OP
- Thread Starter
- #35
Alright, again, I disagree. I believe that an armed populace is the first and most effective check on tyranny. You may not agree, and that's fine, but I feel history bears that out. There are numerous cases throughout history where an oppressive dictatorial state has moved to restrict or deny the people's use and possession of the common weapons of self defense in order to more effectively oppress the populace.
Examples of this include Qin Shi Huangdi confiscating weapons to prevent uprisings when he became the first emperor of imperial China, and the Satsuma clan from Japan doing the same after invading Okinawa, or Hideyoshi's "Great Sword Hunt" designed to regulate "the possession of unnecessary implements [of war] which make difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tend to foment uprisings." The Nueva Planta decrees of 1710 imposed by Charles the Third even required that kitchen knives be strapped to tables. In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed. In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.
You may not agree, and that's fine, but for me the point is made. Governments have not done this in the interests of protecting the people, but rather in the interests of protecting themselves. Many of the martial arts practiced around the world today are the decendants of weapons control legislation by oppressive state authorities.
So yes, I believe that firearms, as well as knives, fists, and minds, are tools with which we can slow the progress of tyranny. You may argue that one man with a gun can't stop an army, and you're right. I hope if it ever comes to that I'm not the only person left who loves freedom.
As to your second point, you have essentially dodged my question, which was do people have the right to defend themselves against state oppression? By turning the question to a rhetorical one about the meaning of life, you fail to address my more concrete question.
Do people have a right to defend themselves against state oppression? Yes, or no. If yes, then how would you propose they do that in the absence of the common means of defense? If no, then do you believe that people exist to support any state which claims proprietary ownership over them?
Let me put it a little differently, do women have the right to defend themselves against rape? If yes, then how would you propose they do that in the absence of the common means of defense? If no, then do you believe that women exist to gratify any man who chooses to rape them?
It's the same question. Either people have a right to defend themselves from oppression, or they don't. If they do, then simply saying, "you aren't strong enough anyway," is unacceptable. Strong or weak, they still have the right to fight for their lives. If they do not have the right to defend themselves against oppression, then you are saying that they must submit to any oppressive force which lays claim to them.
-Rob
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Thats funny. I suppose we in the US are still bowing to your king then? ;P
not that it matters all that much
OP
- Thread Starter
- #38
So you're saying that your provinces can't oppress you because the government won't let them.
And what of oppression at the government level? You have already said that the "people are not allowed to bear arms." What other freedoms do you not possess? What of freedom of expression? Canadian authorities have prevented the importation of literature on the basis of obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada#Print). What of women's rights? It wasn't until 1929 that Canada even recognized women as persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persons_Case) under the law. What of minorities rights? The canadian government has forceably relocated it's own citizens in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment). You may argue that those things happened a long time ago, but states have been oppressing their people for thousands of years. Don't make the mistake of thinking they're suddenly past that.
I'm not saying Canada is a worse country than any other, nor that America is better. I'm saying that states are by the very nature oppressive, and that failing to recognize that fact doesn't change it.
As to your second question, yes, our government allows the states to pass oppressive legislation all the time. In some states, consenting adults can be prosecuted for private acts of intimacy because of their gender. In other states, individuals can be imprisoned for imbibing purely recreational substances purchased in a mutually beneficial manner without fraud and used in the privacy of their homes. In others, a woman can have sex with as many men as she wants in return for a twenty dollar dinner and a ten dollar movie, but if they decide to cut out the middle man and trade sex for thirty dollars, they're both guilty of a crime.
State oppression takes many forms. How much of the fruits of your labor are being confiscated by your government every day to pay for programs you didn't vote for, don't want, and can't participate in?
You argue that your country is free from oppression, I would argue that no man who pays tribute to another man at the point of a gun is free from oppression.
-Rob
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 85
Long time a go a guy asked Gen. LeMay about the awfulness of the Atom Bomb and what happened to Japan.
LeMay said, "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."
And he did not see any difference in moralness of the Bomb .vs. any other type of warfare death. For when you are dead, you are dead.
Well, I know some people here have an aversion for guns, yet train to kill with their hands, feet, bo, sword, stick, tonfa, and other fun instruments. I know of no difference between dying of a gunshot and dying of a knife/sword/club/chain/etc wound. Dead is dead and wounded is wounded.
I believe in weapons to defend oneself. If I have the right to defend myself and those around me, then I have the right to the means of defense. Effective defense. If the miliary and police use them for their basic personal weapons, then I, and other citizens, have the right to use them.
I believe in using the most effective one that is common. The gun today is the most effective basic personal weapon out there. And like or not it's common throughout the world. And thus it's the one I use until 'phasers' become realistic!
Deaf
LeMay said, "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."
And he did not see any difference in moralness of the Bomb .vs. any other type of warfare death. For when you are dead, you are dead.
Well, I know some people here have an aversion for guns, yet train to kill with their hands, feet, bo, sword, stick, tonfa, and other fun instruments. I know of no difference between dying of a gunshot and dying of a knife/sword/club/chain/etc wound. Dead is dead and wounded is wounded.
I believe in weapons to defend oneself. If I have the right to defend myself and those around me, then I have the right to the means of defense. Effective defense. If the miliary and police use them for their basic personal weapons, then I, and other citizens, have the right to use them.
I believe in using the most effective one that is common. The gun today is the most effective basic personal weapon out there. And like or not it's common throughout the world. And thus it's the one I use until 'phasers' become realistic!
Deaf
Hmmm i can see were you are coming from. Although after looking at the censorship page I see no error in the logic of "Most" of the decisions. but I can't argue with the fact that our goverments have made errors in the past, (big ones and i think you missed our treatment of the aborignals) and will probably make them in the future. But I can't help but think that your looking at things a bit on the extreme side.
while it is true we loose alot of our money for programs we didn't vote for and can't use, we also get alot back from it, and each of us are probley entitled to things that others can't use, for example on my farm if we buy a windmill (up to a certain price) the goverment will pay for half of it but if you don't have a farm... also the free health care is a blessing and has saved me during many asthma attacks.
i guess everyone is forced to pay so that people who don't pay can't take advantage of those who do pay in.
but overall I can't refute your arguement, I can just put my trust in the goverment and hope they won't do anything oppresive enough that we need to take action against them
Last edited:
