Why The Gun Is Civilization

[David Eagar]

It should not be every American's right to carry a gun - IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY!!!

The sooner they can escalate the almost weekly school shooting sprees to a daily or hourly occurance, the sooner the rest of the world won't have to put up with this sort of stupidity

The best thing about America is that it is somewhere to keep Americans!!


(Tongue firmly in cheek)

 

[Banana]

I'd like to point out that personal safety or attrition wasn't mentioned anywhere in arguments presented in favor of second amendment at the time it was deliberated.

Founding Fathers and other prominent citizens whom were in favor had presented their argument as a safeguard against tyrannical government by allowing the populace to have the power to rise up and overthrow the despot.

The history has shown again and again that those in powers do not willingly give up power, and seldom can be reasoned with. Already one can see the patterns- so-called 'patriot act' and 'war on terror'. When worse come to worse, and it will, 2nd amendment is pretty much the way out of a corrupt and morally deficit government.

Think it as a reset button. Just don't go around telling it's a God-given right to bear arms because you need to keep those nasty mugger off you, because that was never the issue deliberated.

 

[statsman]

You and Brian are missing the point this is the Twenty First century, America is still of the opinion that might is right

Rich, you must read more of your country's history. I would suggest you start with the Opium Wars, then the Mau Mau wars, then the Malay Emergency.

It may be the 21st Century, but has Mankind changed very much since the British Empire broke up after World War II ?

For a little post graduate study, try the Suez Incident, followed by the Falkland Islands. Was there then, is there now or will there ever be anything of enough value on the Falklands to justify the death and maiming of the British soldiers, sailors and Marines who went there ?

 

[Alc]

- BobLarson
The whole bit about "equalizer" is flat-out true, but without proper understanding of the historical context - AND the original viewpoint of the USA's "founding fathers" - none of our UK cousins will appreciate the situation.

Historical context is irrelevant, here. Using the same logic, the British should still be carrying swords and shields, because there was a point in our history when we needed them. Is the argument that the US has made no societal advances, as regards the necessity of guns, since the days of the wild West? If that's the case, then I genuinely didn't understand 'the situation' and take back everything I've ever said regarding not carrying guns. I was under the mistaken impression that people in the states had progressed beyond that point.

 

[Alc]

Was there then, is there now or will there ever be anything of enough value on the Falklands to justify the death and maiming of the British soldiers, sailors and Marines who went there ?

While the Falklands conflict was undoubtedly started for political reasons. The fact remains that s inhabited by British people and invaded by a foreign power. The concern should never be 'is it worth our while', when it's a question of defending yourself.

What, precisely, is 'of value' in Newfoundland (and I use that as an example purely because it's an island)? Other than the Canadian citizens, I mean (since you clearly don't rate them). If someone invaded St John's would you advocate letting them have it, since it's not 'valuable' enough to risk Canadian military personnel over? I doubt it.

 

[GaryPanic]

Ghandi - never used a gun - and us brits got kick out of there

however, given the modern day extremists I don't think that this would work again .
and as much as I would like to think that the gun is a 20th Century ethos,
I am afraid its not - we are stuck with it , and will be probably until we have another World War, and we learn that killing each other is a pretty stupid idea.

(please note I have not pointed the finger at any nation on this one)

We are at the mercy of other people on this one- if I want your chocolate cake and I've got a gun , and you haven't then I am going to be eating your cake and you will be without, espically (?)if I have no moral scruples.

 

[dan-cat]

Founding Fathers and other prominent citizens whom were in favor had presented their argument as a safeguard against tyrannical government by allowing the populace to have the power to rise up and overthrow the despot.

Well precisely. My point was that the gun, in this case, is used to dominate. First by the tyranny. Then by the usurpers over the tryanny.

There is no 'stand-off' here or 'negotiation'. It's literally beating each over the head until one dominates: Attrition.

 

[dan-cat]

We are at the mercy of other people on this one- if I want your chocolate cake and I've got a gun , and you haven't then I am going to be eating your cake and you will be without, espically (?)if I have no moral scruples.

If I get my gun out and say I want cake no matter what the cost because I need it that bad. Are we forced to negotiate or do you think someone may pull the trigger?

 

[GaryPanic]

its chocolate - you get one chance to give it to me - then Bang!!!!- I got your chocolate

 

[Banana]

Historical context is irrelevant, here. Using the same logic, the British should still be carrying swords and shields, because there was a point in our history when we needed them. Is the argument that the US has made no societal advances, as regards the necessity of guns, since the days of the wild West? If that's the case, then I genuinely didn't understand 'the situation' and take back everything I've ever said regarding not carrying guns. I was under the mistaken impression that people in the states had progressed beyond that point.

This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater because the arguments today for bearing the arms was never in minds of those who drafted the amendment. In fact to do so is to commit a strawman fallacy- because we're now misrepresenting the aim of second amendment from a right to overthrow a government turned bad to a right to personal safety. This runs against those who are pro gun like the author who KenHigg quoted, because that was never the point.

Well precisely. My point was that the gun, in this case, is used to dominate. First by the tyranny. Then by the usurpers over the tryanny.

There is no 'stand-off' here or 'negotiation'. It's literally beating each over the head until one dominates: Attrition.

Are you suggesting that tyrant can be reasoned with without involving the army (which they almost inevitably would have)? I would like to think otherwise, but history show it's just ain't. Not to mention that a tyrant without gun or any means to dominate would be ineffective tyrant. I'd bet that the controversy stems out from the differences in how we view human natures. When we think of human as fundamentally good, the second amendment makes no sense, even in political context. OTOH, when we think of human as fundamentally bad, in sense that they can be corrupted by too much power or consumed by greed, then yes it makes sense.

 

[dan-cat]

Are you suggesting that tyrant can be reasoned with without involving the army (which they almost inevitably would have)? I would like to think otherwise, but history show it's just ain't. Not to mention that a tyrant without gun or any means to dominate would be ineffective tyrant. I'd bet that the controversy stems out from the differences in how we view human natures. When we think of human as fundamentally good, the second amendment makes no sense, even in political context. OTOH, when we think of human as fundamentally bad, in sense that they can be corrupted by too much power or consumed by greed, then yes it makes sense.

No, precisely the opposite. I am opposing the view that two people with guns necessitates "negotiation" and reasonable discourse as argued in a previous post.

The 2nd amendment allows for the abandonment of diplomacy in preference to force. It is based solely on the principle that both opposing parties are not forced into negotiation. In fact, completely the opposite is true. Much like what has been going on in Iraq for the past several years.

 

[Alc]

This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater because the arguments today for bearing the arms was never in minds of those who drafted the amendment. In fact to do so is to commit a strawman fallacy- because we're now misrepresenting the aim of second amendment from a right to overthrow a government turned bad to a right to personal safety. This runs against those who are pro gun like the author who KenHigg quoted, because that was never the point.

That was the point I was making.

Is the argument that the US has made no societal advances, as regards the necessity of guns, since the days of the wild West? If that's the case, then I genuinely didn't understand 'the situation' and take back everything I've ever said regarding not carrying guns.

This was a rhetorical question. Of course the US isn't the same as it was way back then, meaning that providing an historical reason to justify present-day behaviour makes no sense.

 

[Banana]

No, precisely the opposite. I am opposing the view that two people with guns necessitates "negotiation" and reasonable discourse as argued in a previous post.

Except that was never the intent of second amendment. Nobody passed an argument that an individual ought to carry a gun so they wouldn't be dominated. The intent was a last resort measure against a government turned tyrannical.

The 2nd amendment allows for the abandonment of diplomacy in preference to force. It is based solely on the principle that both opposing parties are not forced into negotiation. In fact, completely the opposite is true. Much like what has been going on in Iraq for the past several years.

Bush has done many dumb things. Yet he's not overthrown. Pretty consistent with history; people in general tolerate a tyrant who do not infringe on their way of life. But once the tyrant get more greedy and desire more control to a point that the way of life is drastically changed, then it's all up for grabs.

The quagmire in Iraq has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment- it is a bad state diplomacy.

The controversy will go nowhere because people will keep attacking the strawman, and not the original intent of 2nd amendment.

This was a rhetorical question. Of course the US isn't the same as it was way back then, meaning that providing an historical reason to justify present-day behaviour makes no sense.

Erm, the today's behavior requires no justification simply because 2nd amendment never addressed the topic of personal safety or whether one ought to shoot another. We have murder laws for that.

 

[dan-cat]

Except that was never the intent of second amendment. Nobody passed an argument that an individual ought to carry a gun so they wouldn't be dominated. The intent was a last resort measure against a government turned tyrannical.

I agree. It hinges on the fact that 2 people with guns <> tolerance of one another. It flies in the face of the argument that 2 people with guns = diplomacy.

The quagmire in Iraq has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment- it is a bad state diplomacy.

I only refer to Iraq because it is a current day example of how 2 people with guns <> civilisation.

 

[Alc]

Erm, the today's behavior requires no justification simply because 2nd amendment never addressed the topic of personal safety or whether one ought to shoot another. We have murder laws for that.

Not sure where you're going with this?

I made my comment in response to post #75, which made no mention of the second, third, fourth, or any other amendement. The poster was using historical examples of when guns were useful in an explanation of why people carry them today. My post merely observed that these weren't valid reasons (for the reasons given). Even if the second amendment specifically stated that people should be able to carry concealed weapons or to engage in pitched battles in the street, it would still not be a valid reason to carry a gun today, as present day society is very different from when the amendment was written.

 

[dan-cat]

Not sure where you're going with this?

Isn't it weird that we're managing to stick to the topic?

 

[Alc]

Isn't it weird that we're managing to stick to the topic?

Oh yeah, sorry...erm...bloody yanks...erm...etc., etc.

 

[KenHigg]

Isn't it weird that we're managing to stick to the topic?

Who is missing?

 

[dan-cat]

Who is missing?

I'm not going there, ignorance is bliss

 

[Brianwarnock]

I'm not going there, ignorance is bliss

That's an American for you.

Brian