Why Gun is Civilization...

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

Google "Mcminn County War of 1946". Pay particular attention to the aftermath.

That shows that political power corrupts and an armed population can do something about it, which I agree with. It doesn't show that the power that a gun gives the individual does not corrupt the individual, whilst the power that a political position gives a politician always does.

Personally I would say that both political power and the power that holding a machine capable of killing are capable of corrupting people, but that some people are corruptable and some aren't.

Yeah...can't argue with that.

I've just always thought that the fact that after the veterans overthrew the corrupt politicians in Athens with guns and dynamite, they were like..."Okay. No hard feelings?" was pretty remarkable.

 

[Pingfah]

Yeah...can't argue with that.

I've just always thought that the fact that after the veterans overthrew the corrupt politicians in Athens with guns and dynamite, they were like..."Okay. No hard feelings?" was pretty remarkable.

I read a pretty long article on it, and yes I was pretty damn impressed actually.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I've only ever seen you in the bath/shower.

That was shrinkage!!!

 

[msbae]

It does if you believe that power corrupts; that's what the phrase means. As for other weapons, they would be corrupting, too, to a degree determined by the power and ease of use of each-- if you believe that power corrupts.

But you just said it did. You said that power ALWAYS corrupts.

Do try to keep up with what you yourself are saying

I believe I was talking about political power, which the police department does wield. They aren't above protecting one of their own who might have acted badly in some situations. Fortunately, The Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office doesn't seem to have that kind of corruption but, I prefer not to take the chance. Our late, great sheriff Harry Lee would have agreed with that sentiment.

Presumably then you can explain the difference between political power, and the power that holding a gun gives you (like the one you gleefully described your friend owns that would make anyone who had it pointed at them piss themselves, SO impressed by the way), and exactly why one corrupts and the other doesn't?

If you're not just making it up as you go along of course.

Okay, how about this: Government is evil. People are (usually) good. People should make their own decisions and Government should stay out of their lives as much as possible. If nothing else, an armed/educated citizenry helps ensure this happens.

For those who think Government can do whatever they want since the military is so powerful, I have one question: When was the last time some Gestapo-like organization kicked in your door, dragged your family into the street and shot them?

That hasn't happened and it won't either. You can thank the right to bear arms for this particular blessing of living in the free world. I'd love to see the look on the faces of those jackboot-wearin' thugs when I pistol-whip them and pull the trigger.

Adolf wouldn't have been able to pull that kind of shit if he didn't strip away the right to bear arms first. The reason he gave for the decision to strip German civilians of their weapons? Combating crime. Blaming guns for crime was a Bullshit argument then and it's still just as smelly now. Blame the crook, not the tool he misused.

And YES, it can happen here. It can happen anywhere if people don't protect themselves. Ultimately, YOU are responsible for yourself. If you're waiting for the world to wipe your ass for you, your life is bound to be pretty shitty...

@ RJ:

I'm getting the impression that you think 'the Gun Nuts in all these clubs' are like Dale Gribble from King of the Hill. Somehow, I doubt people like that are really so common, if they exist at all. I've never met any and I live in one of the deepest parts of the Deep South. Shouldn't I be hip-deep in these kind of Rednecks? I doubt that there are a whole lot of Wannabe-Gunslingers, either. There wouldn't be a point. Not many of us can be as bad ass as Clint Eastwood.

 

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

For those who think Government can do whatever they want since the military is so powerful, I have one question: When was the last time some Gestapo-like organization kicked in your door, dragged your family into the street and shot them?

1992 in Ruby Ridge, Idaho...more or less. When's the last time it happened in the U.K?

I'm on your side, but I think you might want to put away the Soldier of Fortune magazines for a bit.

 

[Deckerd]

Nothing springs to mind, UK-wise.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I think Frontline's point might be that even though people like you throw in words like, "usually", "most" (which I've never seen backed up) and "the type of gun owners..." to give yourself an out, it comes across as if you're trying all all gun owners and/or 2nd Amendment supporters look bad.

It's not to give myself an out, it's to give gun owners the benefit of the doubt.

I think pretty much by definition, a whole lot more anti-Second Amendment types are selective about what Rights their fellow citizens can enjoy than pro-Second Amendment types are.

Not even close. The pro-gun lobby is overwhelmingly Right Wing.

@ RJ:

I'm getting the impression that you think 'the Gun Nuts in all these clubs' are like Dale Gribble from King of the Hill. Somehow, I doubt people like that are really so common, if they exist at all. I've never met any and I live in one of the deepest parts of the Deep South. Shouldn't I be hip-deep in these kind of Rednecks? I doubt that there are a whole lot of Wannabe-Gunslingers, either. There wouldn't be a point. Not many of us can be as bad ass as Clint Eastwood.

I'm not familiar with King Of The Hill, but there are certainly many, many gun nuts around; mostly, but not entirely, in the South and Southwest. There are certainly a number of them up here, though; it's kind of a rural phenomenon. My cousin used to be married to one from Arizona. His entire life revolved around guns; couldn't talk about anything else. He even creeped out my Right Wing relatives. In any case, I hardly think the "Gun Culture" is a myth; their lobby is too powerful, for one thing.

 

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

I think Frontline's point might be that even though people like you throw in words like, "usually", "most" (which I've never seen backed up) and "the type of gun owners..." to give yourself an out, it comes across as if you're trying all all gun owners and/or 2nd Amendment supporters look bad.

It's not to give myself an out, it's to give gun owners the benefit of the doubt.

I think pretty much by definition, a whole lot more anti-Second Amendment types are selective about what Rights their fellow citizens can enjoy than pro-Second Amendment types are.

Not even close. The pro-gun lobby is overwhelmingly Right Wing.

Okay...what ever you say.

I think the distain that you have for gun owners in general (i.e. me) is pretty evident though.

 

[Surefire]

Personally I would say that both political power and the power that holding a machine capable of killing are capable of corrupting people, but that some people are corruptable and some aren't.

Bingo!

Agree on this point.

For instance, even the police, whom some in this thread seem to hold up to God levels, can be corrupted.

Everyone is different.

 

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

I've only ever seen you in the bath/shower.

This one's fairly recent....and it re-enforces the negative stereotype quite nicely among the parody challenged.

 

[Vulcan]

I always love reading the Pro-gun vs. Anti-gun arguments on this board. It amuses me. This is coming from a guy who's had to use his gun to 'persuade' 3 would-be criminals out of his bushes on his property who were going to go "start something" with my neighbors (they ended up being 3 out of 9 that were going to mess with my neighbors). The neighbors house to which they were referring housed not only the young man they intended to 'start something' with, but also 2 kindergarten aged children. Can you guarantee that these two children would've been untouched?

So my understanding is that anti-gun owners want to 'ban' guns...take away another person's possession/tool/right/gun because they fear that this person will use it against them? Why is it ok for anti-gun people wanting to strip away rights and freedoms from pro-gun people? I'm a pro-gun person, can I try to strip away rights from anti-gun people? I don't like anti-gun people bashing guns, perhaps I should try and strip away their first amendment right of free speech. But then again, my amusement would be gone too. I like my amusement.

I like guns, that's why I own them. I like to shoot them, I like to build them; it's my hobby. I've never hunted with them yet (but I hope to next year!) and I've never killed a person with them (I hope I NEVER have to). I like being alive. Some people are willing to kill me for my wallet or my car. I don't like they idea of these kind of people deciding if I get to live or not. I take the, "If anyone ever tries to kill you, you try and kill them right back" to heart.

I would also like to point out that I don't like being eaten. My main mode of transportation during the summer is cycling (keeps me healthy!). I live in a very rural area with lots of wildlife, the kind that views me as a tasty treat. I wear my handgun (visibly) on my side (I don't have a conceal carry license yet) when I am cycling. Yes, it has come in handy. I biked right by a lynx one time (it was about 5-7 feet from the other side of the road) and I was incredibly glad I had my handgun on me. It didn't attack and I'm glad it didn't. I just kept on biking right by and it watched me (it didn't run away, it did, however, have a handgun aimed at it's face). Lynx can take down deer, and I'm not too big of a dude, so it could DEFINATELY take me down.

To me, part of owning a gun is about protection. You don't think there's not things in this world that mean you and me harm? Please let me know what kind of pharmecuticals you are taking because I WANT SOME. I'm not paranoid, I'm realistic. What would've happened if those 3 guys (out of 9) in my bushes had intended to "start something" with me and I was unarmed? You think I'd come out unscathed? What would've happened if that lynx came after me to snack on me and I didn't have a gun? I would be typing this.

Some arguing here have insinuated that a person with a gun is likely to use that gun against another person if they get mad. This may be true for some people, but then again, it's not true for just as many. In both sets of people, the punishment is the same for the person that used their gun in anger against another human being, they go to jail/prison, and in some states, are executed.

 

[msbae]

NSFW but, still fun...

* Removed -- links to nudity not allowed *

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Removed, for obvious reasons. But, yeah, that's the sort of obsession with and sexualization of violence that disturbs people.

I think Frontline's point might be that even though people like you throw in words like, "usually", "most" (which I've never seen backed up) and "the type of gun owners..." to give yourself an out, it comes across as if you're trying all all gun owners and/or 2nd Amendment supporters look bad.

It's not to give myself an out, it's to give gun owners the benefit of the doubt.

I think pretty much by definition, a whole lot more anti-Second Amendment types are selective about what Rights their fellow citizens can enjoy than pro-Second Amendment types are.

Not even close. The pro-gun lobby is overwhelmingly Right Wing.

Okay...what ever you say.

I think the distain that you have for gun owners in general (i.e. me) is pretty evident though.

I have disdain for guns, obviously. I treat people as individuals.

 

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

I have disdain for guns, obviously. I treat people as individuals.

Ah...okay. I'll try to remember not to take it personally when you make generalizations about gun owners...at least when they're untrue in my case.

I'm curious though...earlier you said. "I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else."

What did you mean by "need"?

I know that sounds like a stupid question, but what confuses me is the fact that people have needed them in the past, and I'm not aware of anything that would make me think that no one will need one in the future....and I'm not talking about the military or police. I'm talking about regular old civillians.

So when you say that no one needs a gun...are you talking about "in a perfect world" or day to day or something?

or are you trying to suggest that anyone who has ever used a firearm in defense of their life in the past, would have survived whether or not the had a firearm? Sort of like fate? People die when and how they're supposed to die, and there is nothing that they can do to change that?

 

[Deckerd]

or are you trying to suggest that anyone who has ever used a firearm in defense of their life in the past, would have survived whether or not the had a firearm? Sort of like fate? People die when and how they're supposed to die, and there is nothing that they can do about it?

I know RD will answer this for himself but from my POV this question very much depends where you live.

 

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

or are you trying to suggest that anyone who has ever used a firearm in defense of their life in the past, would have survived whether or not the had a firearm? Sort of like fate? People die when and how they're supposed to die, and there is nothing that they can do about it?

I know RD will answer this for himself but from my POV this question very much depends where you live.

I agree for the most part...assuming there are places in this world where there are no violent crimes, but "it depends" and the "nobody" part of "nobody needs a gun"* are mutually exclusive are they not?


*assuming that's what RD meant.

 

[Mallory]

I would also like to point out that I don't like being eaten. My main mode of transportation during the summer is cycling (keeps me healthy!). I live in a very rural area with lots of wildlife, the kind that views me as a tasty treat. I wear my handgun (visibly) on my side (I don't have a conceal carry license yet) when I am cycling. Yes, it has come in handy. I biked right by a lynx one time (it was about 5-7 feet from the other side of the road) and I was incredibly glad I had my handgun on me. It didn't attack and I'm glad it didn't. I just kept on biking right by and it watched me (it didn't run away, it did, however, have a handgun aimed at it's face). Lynx can take down deer, and I'm not too big of a dude, so it could DEFINATELY take me down.

I think you've touched on a big part of the difference and that is the urban/rural divide. There's counties in my state that are bigger than a few eastern states. It can take a couple of hours for a sheriff responding at high speed to reach your location, meaning you're on your own while you wait for law enforcement to arrive. I can't imagine living in one of those counties and NOT carrying at all times.

 

[Moocey]

Some arguing here have insinuated that a person with a gun is likely to use that gun against another person if they get mad. This may be true for some people, but then again, it's not true for just as many. In both sets of people, the punishment is the same for the person that used their gun in anger against another human being, they go to jail/prison, and in some states, are executed.

Normal people typically don't want to shoot anyone and have some understanding of the consequences of doing so. Most people I know wouldn't murder someone and get themselves thrown in prison just because they got angry. Personally, carrying a gun makes me have less of a temper than I otherwise would have. It causes me to be far more cognizant of situations where I might possibly use it, and what the consequences might be if I did.

 

[Man Afraid of his Shoes]

Some arguing here have insinuated that a person with a gun is likely to use that gun against another person if they get mad. This may be true for some people, but then again, it's not true for just as many. In both sets of people, the punishment is the same for the person that used their gun in anger against another human being, they go to jail/prison, and in some states, are executed.

Normal people typically don't want to shoot anyone and have some understanding of the consequences of doing so. Most people I know wouldn't murder someone and get themselves thrown in prison just because they got angry. Personally, carrying a gun makes me have less of a temper than I otherwise would have. It causes me to be far more cognizant of situations where I might possibly use it, and what the consequences might be if I did.

I've never once gotten so mad that, even for a split second, the thought of taking a life entered my mind.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I have disdain for guns, obviously. I treat people as individuals.

Ah...okay. I'll try to remember not to take it personally when you make generalizations about gun owners...at least when they're untrue in my case.

I'm curious though...earlier you said. "I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else."

What did you mean by "need"?

I know that sounds like a stupid question, but what confuses me is the fact that people have needed them in the past, and I'm not aware of anything that would make me think that no one will need one in the future....and I'm not talking about the military or police. I'm talking about regular old civillians.

I was responding directly to the Topic, i.e. the link to the gun owner who is afraid to face life without a weapon. Obviously, the police and military need them, and so do civilians in certain circumstances (note that I say "need," not "worship"). I worked for 22 years in Dorchester and Boston, in very bad neighborhoods (I was at St. Margaret's and BMC) and I often came and went at very odd hours. I never felt the need to carry a gun. Nor was I afraid to cross the street, although statistically I was in greater danger of being hit by a car than being attacked. That's what I meant by "need." The gun owner lives in fear; I don't.

And, yes, in a perfect world there would be no guns. Guns are not civilization. Guns are a lack of civilization, a failure of civilization or the sign of an immature civilization.