Wait, he just *now* reached that point for you? Huh.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh my goodness... I'm glad he and I are seperated by a border and more stringent gun laws. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Oh my - Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
If they only associate with other NRA members, how are they going to increase their membership? Oh well, sounds good to me.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
No court case, huh? So, Nugent gets to decide all by himself who the bad guys are?
Great. So much for the Constitution the NRA keeps saying they're there to defend. Apparently, all they're interested in is the Second Amendment.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I don't think that he speaks for the entire NRA as so much as his own opinion.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:If they only associate with other NRA members, how are they going to increase their membership? Oh well, sounds good to me.
Yeah. let's give them their own state so they don't have to be bothered with the rest of us.
{shakes head} they're getting so weird...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I liked seeing Nugent shaking hands with DeLay and supporting him at the NRA benefit dinner for DeLay. Evil people SHOULD congregate in one place like that, makes them easier to track and eliminate.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I say give 'em their own country, and cut off all relations with them.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Not agreeing with what Nugent said, biut I think it's just another example of the fanatacism, emphasis, and enthusiasm that have become the hallmark of modern political discussion. Noise and style over substance and reason.
You know, comments like "Evil people SHOULD congregate in one place like that, makes them easier to track and eliminate."
In all seriousness, I see no substantive difference in what Lyrhawn said and what Nugent said. The only thing I think you can argue is that Lyrhawn isn't actually seriously suggesting that NRA members should be rounded up and killed, but I think Nugent isn't either, in the sense you all are taking it. (another difference is that Nugent is identifying criminals where Lyrhawn is identifying political opponents, but that's actually in Nugent's favor, so we'll ignore it).
Neither, BTW, do I see much difference between Goody Scrivner's "let's give them their own state" and white separatism. (edit: or Narrativum's statement)
Just wanted to throw those thougts out there before anyone breaks their arm patting themselves on the back in their enlightenment.
*having tossed the hand grenade, Jim-Me now withdraws back to the shadows*
[ April 18, 2005, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Whoa, I'm glad he lives thousands of miles away from me. *wipes sweat off forehead* Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
Sounds kinda like a hard-rock version of Eddie Murphy's satire of Rasta music:
"Kill all the bad guys, Kill all the bad guys, Kill all the bad guys, But let them buy my records first!" Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
[removed my racial/racist rant against the NRA for lack of any real supporting evidence...so far]
[ April 18, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was just being sarcastic. Despite my not liking what Nugent and the NRA stand for, I have no problem really with them actually saying it. I believe in what Voltaire said (well, probably the ONLY thing of Voltaire's I'll buy), 'I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Paraphrased because I don't remember the actual quote, but that's a fair approximation.
Besides, the more inflammatory and outlandish the NRA and Nugent get, the more foolish they make themselves look. I don't have to worry about actually trying to undo them, they will undo themselves in time without any help from me.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Look, I believe that Nugent and anyone else in the NRA can say anything they want. And I can point out in return that he sounds like an idiot for saying it, and also that he sounds like he doesn't value the rest of the Constitution the way he apparently does the Second Amendment. I'm afraid that I think that if he said what he is quoted as saying, he is about as unAmerican as they come. I have my problems with the judicial system as well (I've worked in and around it and know it's shortcomings all too well), but I think it works better than summary executions, which is what Nugent seemed to be advocating.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I always thought he was insane. This only proves my point.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I have no problem with gun owners. I have problems with people who advocate vigilanteism and violent extremism.
And Nugent already wants to segregate himself from me, anyway, so I say let him.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Beanny, were you talking about Nugent, or me?
All I'm saying is that it's entirely possible that he's making the same kind of exaggerations you guys are. Sure, be happy that your political opponent is giving himself a black eye... that's sensible! Just remember that's how *you* might come across, too, on occasion.
[ April 18, 2005, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
There are reason's I'm not NRA member anymore....
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
You and your psycho 2nd amendment. You should force a referendum to have it repealed, or label the NRA a terrorist organization, or something...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
[Can you imagine if they took an amendment out? In decades to come, they'd always be the missing number. Children would learn to count 1,3,4,5... they would ask about the missing two...]
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Does anyone else remember that movie Born Yesterday where she makes up a song about the amendments? It's a parody of the 12 days of Christmas, and all I remember is that number five is "Don't rat on yourself!"
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Teshi : Nah, they'd just have to shift all the amendments down one number. No big deal. "I plead the 4th..."
See? Easy. Now that's Canadian efficiency.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I was going to speculate on that, but I thought the "missing amendment" was funnier ... not that the shifting down isn't funny, or anything, but...
ach.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I have a quick favor to ask. Can someone copy the article into a post and post it in the thread? I cannot open the link Tom gave on my PC at work. I am on an intranet that runs on an older verion of Netscape and is very buggy, especially when I am not supposed to be on the internet in the first place.
Secondly, I would say more if I could read the link, but sadly, you sometimes have to understand the man to understand more than just soundbites and quotables etc...
Ted used to live near where my parents were raised in rural Northwest PA. Now, 99% of these people drive a full-size truck, with a Leer cap on the bed and an NRA sticker in the back window. I would venture that there are more NRA members than PTO members by far. How do I know? I live here.
I am not in any way defending what Ted said or did. My uncle used to play guitar with him and I know he is a bit on the fringe when it comes to guns, archery, or hunting. But when you hang out in the country, play cards, drink beer, and ride ATVs and 4X4s with the poeple he grew up with, the picture is a bit clearer.
I once heard the scary quote that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". And, again, I am not defending Ted or anything he has said. But for every person that is offended for what he is saying, there are whole bunches of people who think he is spot on.
For example:
In Pennsylvania, public schools are closed for Buck Day and Doe Day where virtually everyone goes hunting. Many of us shoot during archery, musketball, and rifle season. Some hunters also gain landowner tags and bonus tags. They typically have to register for these tags months in advance. Seriously, this is very much a way of life where I live.
My co-worker bought her husband camoflage sheets (Mossy Oak to be exact) out of the Cabelas catalog for their new master bedroom suite. All the curtains, towels etc are all in Mossy Oak camo.
For many of these people, this is a way of life...
[ April 18, 2005, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Ted Nugent to Fellow NRAers: Get Hardcore
Apr 17, 8:46 PM (ET)
HOUSTON (AP) - With an assault weapon in each hand, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense."
Speaking at the NRA's annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members.
"Let's next year sit here and say, 'Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'" he said. "No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life."
Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston's downtown convention center.
He drew the most cheers when he told gun owners they should never give up their right to bear arms and should use their guns to protect themselves if needed.
"Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em!" he screamed to applause. "To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em."
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Thanks for the article. Yes he is a bit frightening, isn't he? Well, truth be told, I do not agree with his stance specifically on killing and being "hardcore", but I do agree with the right to bear arms for several reasons.
As far as congregating with other NRA members, this is already a reality here in PA. There are several hunting lodges where you have to be a member to use the facilities. Nearly all of the shooting ranges are the same way And, I might add, they are quite nice in many cases. We just had a family reunion in one such place, and it was gorgeous.
There is a saying among people who might agree with Ted:
"The only people who should fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians."
Now, I personally do not belong to the NRA. But I do own rifles etc..., I do hunt, and I do support and appreciate the right to bear arms. Do I need a gun for self-defense? No, not really. But I do appreciate having a loaded rifle in my locked gun cabinet for critter control and in case my dog gets in a fight with something bigger than herself...
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
The problem is that alot of dishonest people, including criminals and politicians, own gun because of the 2nd amendment. Also, being honest doesn't mean you are to be trusted with a gun. You can be clumsy, jumpy, or just plain insane. Also, someone can take the gun of an honest gun-owner and do things that he couldn't have done had he not had the gun of the honest gun-owner.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
dh, I can make a similar argument about cars, computers, crowbars, and kitchen knives.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote:Also, being honest doesn't mean you are to be trusted with a gun.
DH, You are right.
It takes less than that in PA. You need to be 18, have a valid state-issued ID, and money. They do a background check on the spot, but that does not preclude honesty, either.
Also, I am not trying to support or condone Ted's comments or to support my quote about guns. This is a mentality that many people in rural PA hold dear to them. That is all I am saying.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But none of those are designed purely for killing. There's no peaceful use of a gun.
That said, I'm in favour of everybody being allowed to carry a rifle, as part of a disciplined militia, like Norway has. Handguns, though, are ridiculous. They have zero military power, and very little self-defensive power.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm in favor of allowing people to have the tools to defend themselves if they need to.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'd like to make the comment that the state of mind in Norway is quite different from that that exists in some parts of the United States.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
What kills more people a year? Guns or motor vehicles?
Also, KOM. I can defend my home with a handgun. Very well, actually. But, to be very honest, I prefer a pump-action pistol-grip shotgun for home defense. I own neither, but I have my preferences.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I wonder how often people get shot in actual, valid self-defense, as opposed to by mistake or in aggression? Anyone have statistics on this?
Also, please note that the 2nd Amendment does not, in fact, provide for self-defense, but for a 'well-regulated militia'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wonder how often people get shot in actual, valid self-defense, as opposed to by mistake or in aggression? Anyone have statistics on this?
The good thing about a handgun is that in many situations one can defend oneself without shooting anyone.
quote:Also, please note that the 2nd Amendment does not, in fact, provide for self-defense, but for a 'well-regulated militia'.
Well, maybe the right to self defense is in the penumbra.</sarcasm>
Surely you don't think everything not protected by the Constitution should be prohibited?
Dagonee
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:They have zero military power, and very little self-defensive power.
Neither of these statments is true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
mph, just how does a handgun have any military power? It has an effective range of 20 meters at most, it is horribly inaccurate, and there are so many different models that the ammunition supply is going to be just awful. If it comes right to it, even rifles are of doubtful potential against modern units, but at least they have a certain amount of standoff range. With a handgun you need to get up right close, removing any potential for guerilla action.
On a side note, that's the first time I've called someone by an old login. Does this make me a veteran Hatracker?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The only people who should fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians."
And, see, I have trouble believing that honest people own guns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have trouble believing that people actually want to deny people the ability to defend themselves.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't, I'm saying handguns are not the way to do that.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
But what exactly is that right? I don't own a gun but no one's denying me the right to fight back when attacked. If my house is broken into I can't shoot the thief, but I can call the police, I can make sure the locks on my house are good.
[ April 18, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I have trouble believing that people actually want to deny people the ability to defend themselves."
Straw man, Dag, unless you believe that there's no conceivable situation in which having a tank, nuclear weapon, or vial of toxic gas would also make an effective deterrent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, not a straw man. A handgun is a weapon that can be carried during day-to-day activities and used against personal attackers. Neither a tank, nuclear weapon, or vial of toxic gas can be used as a defensive weapon. Two of them are actually denied to the majority of nations states in the world.
Equating the three to handguns is in itself a straw man.
When you ban handguns, you are condemning people who lack physical strength to be unable to hold off an attacker.
And KoM, who are you to say what's an effective defense for someone else? Is your incompetence with a handgun the determinative factor here?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"When you ban handguns, you are condemning people who lack physical strength to be unable to hold off an attacker."
By the same token, I cannot lift a car. If you do not allow me to own and drive a personal mech, or require me to get some kind of silly license to own a forklift, you are condemning my wife to death if she ever becomes pinned beneath a car.
Seriously, the "handguns are for self-defense" bull is proved false by the very posts in this thread describing the gun culture, in which the handgun is about everything except self-defense, from macho posturing to an assertion of independence.
When somebody takes karate and comes back bragging about how his black belt makes him a "lethal weapon," able to "rip your eyes out with my chin, mutha...," then you can't help wondering whether he really internalized the whole "this is for self-defense schtick." I apply the same logic to what I see of the gun culture.
[ April 18, 2005, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By the same token, I cannot lift a car. If you do not allow me to own and drive a personal mech, or require me to get some kind of silly license to own a forklift, you are condemning my wife to death if she ever becomes pinned beneath a car.
Please, Tom. This is even more ridiculous than the nukes comparison. Unless you can have a forklift with you everywhere your wife happens to go, there's no parallel. Further, you're allowed to own a fork lift. And in a life threatening emergency, there would be no crime if you operated it without a license.
quote:Seriously, the "handguns are for self-defense" bull is proved false by the very posts in this thread describing the gun culture, in which the handgun is about everything except self-defense, from macho posturing to an assertion of independence.
When somebody takes karate and comes back bragging about how his black belt makes him a "lethal weapon," able to "rip your eyes out with my chin, mutha...," then you can't help wondering whether he really internalized the whole "this is for self-defense schtick." I apply the same logic to what I see of the gun culture.
That's a nice, logical attitude there. Find an idiot, apply his view to every gun owner, and enjoy your smug self-righteousness. Should I apply KoM's views on religion to you and condemn you for wanting to send us silly theists to reeducation camps?
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Reasonable gun control isn't a bad idea. Not outright banning them, just at least keeping them out of the hands of ex-cons and people who have restraining orders against them.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
My Kung Fu instructor regularly states that "self defense never wins a fight... you win with self offense."
We view our art as being much like a handgun-- you don't point it at anything you aren't prepared to break. The fact of the matter is that when someone is intent on harming you, the only real way to *prevent* them from doing so is to harm them first.
As for the Military use of a handgun, Sgt. Alvin York was able to put his Colt 1911 to extraordinarily good use... some conflicts, particularly house to house-type stuff, take place well within the effective range of a pistol. Not that they are the best weapon for these situations, but they are not utterly useless.
And there are firearms with purely peaceful purposes... .22 caliber target rifles come immediately to mind.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: When you ban handguns, you are condemning people who lack physical strength to be unable to hold off an attacker.
Dagonee, I've been over this ground before with you about the weakness of people and their right to use a gun in defense and our differing beliefs.
Being a weak person who lacks the physical strength to repel an attacker yet would never consider carrying a gun I feel qualified to say why a gun in most cases is completely unnecessary.
If walking alone, I can protect myself in many ways. I know you've said before that having to walk in lighted areas that may not be the quickest direction is giving into those who may attack me, but there are other ways to think of it. If I had a gun and I knew that walking alone through a certain area was entertaining the possibility of being attacked but I forged ahead because I had I gun to shoot my attacker, am I not going out looking to kill or maim or at least threaten? What does that make me?
If I feel I may be tempting danger and there is NO alternative, I can carry keys or a water bottle. I can wear shoes in which I can move quickly. There are a number of options that would work in a pinch.
I do not need to kill to defend my poor weak female self, and without a gun I am in no way "condemned". There are other ways that do not inconvenience me or inhibit my freedoms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Reasonable gun control isn't a bad idea. Not outright banning them, just at least keeping them out of the hands of ex-cons and people who have restraining orders against them.
I totally agree. I'm in favor of banning private and show sales and better enforcement of the existing rules.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: What kills more people a year? Guns or motor vehicles?
Don't pharmacists kill more people than guns? I mean, so do honeybees, and I don't want to do away with them either.
My first response to this was going to be "so which are you, Tom, a carjacker, rapist or ..." But "bad guys" is troublingly vagzue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I've been over this ground before with you about the weakness of people and their right to use a gun in defense and our differing beliefs.
Being a weak person who lacks the physical strength to repel an attacker yet would never consider carrying a gun I feel qualified to say why a gun in most cases is completely unnecessary.
Here's the thing: I don't feel qualified telling someone else how they should defend themselves. And I'm frankly amazed that other people do. I'm especially amazed that they will tell people how they're allowed to defend themselves.
quote:If walking alone, I can protect myself in many ways. I know you've said before that having to walk in lighted areas that may not be the quickest direction is giving into those who may attack me, but there are other ways to think of it. If I had a gun and I knew that walking alone through a certain area was entertaining the possibility of being attacked but I forged ahead because I had I gun to shoot my attacker, am I not going out looking to kill or maim or at least threaten? What does that make me?
It's good that you can make that choice. Others can't. And I hope you realize that your particular take on how you would act differently with a gun doesn't apply to everyone that has one.
quote:If I feel I may be tempting danger and there is NO alternative, I can carry keys or a water bottle. I can wear shoes in which I can move quickly. There are a number of options that would work in a pinch.
I'm guessing I'm stronger than you, but by no means could I fight off two average size guys. And there are LOTS of single guys who could take me. And I can't run fast - my knees sound like the door to a haunted house.
quote:I do not need to kill to defend my poor weak female self, and without a gun I am in no way "condemned". There are other ways that do not inconvenience me or inhibit my freedoms.
And those means do not suffice for some. Go back and read some of Mrs.M's posts on the subject. You may feel comfortable with your safety precautions. Others don't. Why do YOU get decide for them?
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because why should I permit their insecurity to threaten me? Gun killings from accident and incompetence are, I believe, a lot more common than valid self-defense.
There is no absolute security; the quest for it merely makes everyone else more insecure. If I owned Superman's fortress at the north Pole, and had the power to kill anyone merely by looking at them funny, I'd be pretty safe from assault - but noone else would be, and I suspect you would try to prevent me having such a means of self-defense. (Which would be wise of you, what with our religious disagreements.) Some reasonable compromise between individual and collective security must be reached; I believe that handguns take away much more from the collective than they add to the individual.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's not really what I'm arguing. You said "the weak" are condemned by banned handguns and yet I know this is not the case for me or any of the other millions who inhabit the place where I live.
Just making sure we're all on the same page. Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: "The only people who should fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians."
And, see, I have trouble believing that honest people own guns.
Tom, I own a gun. In your worldview, does this make me somehow not honest? If so, then brace yourself: I own more than one gun. I am sure to blaze a fiery path to Hell for sure!
I hope I am misunderstanding your post. It is late, and I am not awake. Maybe I am taking offense where none is meant. What is sad is that I am trying to illustrate a situation in which I deal with people of the Ted Nugent mentality every day. They would be cheering and firing their rifles in the air right along side Ted. This does not mean I empathize with them or admire them. But I do associate with them and understand them.
What is truly insensitive of many of you (that I still refer to as fellow Jatraqueros) even though I cringe a bit is this:
Some of the most respected and honest people I know own guns and hunt regularly. To somehow equate the ownership of a gun to becoming or supporting fringe "hardcore" lunatics like Ted Nugent is just flawed and spiteful.
In a world that I usually feel quite at home, I suddenly feel a bit alone, with the exception of Dag (thanks ).
So if Tom's comment wasn't a bit disappointing, there is the new galacticly myopic comment:
quote:Don't pharmacists kill more people than guns?
mothertree, at risk of being offensive, I will only say this and then shut up:
No. They do not. If you can somehow show me irrefutably that I somehow kill more people than I help, or even save once in a while, I will quit my job and start walking the earth like David Carridine from Kung Fu , in my best attempt to save the planet. Or hey, taking a page from your avatar, I could be the 21st equivalant of Johnny Appleseed and plant trees wherever I go! Now there's an idea! But now that the shadow of doubt has been cast in my mind, I do not know if I can count and dispense another pill! The horror!
See, I ignored my own warning.
[ April 19, 2005, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Here is an amateur attempt at collating many sources of death and mortality tables.
Ironically, it seems that causalties of war rank near or at the top for deaths caused by fellow human beings.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because why should I permit their insecurity to threaten me? Gun killings from accident and incompetence are, I believe, a lot more common than valid self-defense.
Gun killngs from accident and incompetence are a lot more common than killings from self defense.
Incidents where a gun is used for self defense without killing are far more common than gun killings from incompetence or self defense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't feel qualified telling someone else how they should defend themselves. And I'm frankly amazed that other people do."
And yet you did. You quite specifically made the argument that I couldn't use a vial of poison gas or a tank to defend myself because, in your opinion, these objects are impractical -- even excessive -- for personal defense.
If I disagree with you, what is my recourse? Moreover, if I disagree with you that a handgun is a practical method of personal defense, what distinguishes it from a tank?
-------
"Tom, I own a gun. In your worldview, does this make me somehow not honest?"
It makes you less honest than you would be without a gun, yes.
[ April 19, 2005, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Incidents where a gun is used for self defense without killing are far more common than gun killings from incompetence"
[ April 19, 2005, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OK, could I just note that I feel about TomD's stance on this the way he probably feels about mine on religion? I mean, ok, we agree on the need for control, but come on. This is not a subject for jihads. Reasonable people can legitimately disagree, here, without being dishonest.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:It makes you less honest than you would be without a gun, yes.
I'm not seeing that Tom. Could you elaborate?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Honesty," in this context, really stands for social responsibility. I believe that gun ownership in modern society -- particularly the kind of fetishism that's produced by collectors -- is an indicator of a certain level of reckless selfishness that, by its very nature, is highly socially irresponsible. It means that someone has spent money to acquire something which has as its primary purpose the very essence of Unmaking.
You are, of course, welcome to disagree. But you're wrong.
--------
And as a side-note, I'm such a bigot. Salon's running this article today about this Democratic governor of Montana who may just be a new hope for the party, and all I can think as I read is is "Gee, I hope this slick, down-home shyster falls off a horse and dies before that happens." It's uncharitable, but there's something about cornpone that really ticks me off.
[ April 19, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, so you're doing the old "define a commonly used term in an uncommon way" thing? What's the point of that anyway? Seems like a good way to cloud your meaning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And yet you did. You quite specifically made the argument that I couldn't use a vial of poison gas or a tank to defend myself because, in your opinion, these objects are impractical -- even excessive -- for personal defense.
If I disagree with you, what is my recourse? Moreover, if I disagree with you that a handgun is a practical method of personal defense, what distinguishes it from a tank?
You can't use a tank, vial of poison gas, or nuclear bomb to only kill the person or persons attacking you.
If you can't see the difference between a weapon which can be targeted at individuals and one that can't, then I can't help you.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm using it as it's meant in the original phrase "the only people who need to fear honest people with guns..."
The phrase in that context does not mean "people who do not steal," or "people who do not lie," but rather "people who are socially responsible, and not criminals."
-----
"If you can't see the difference between a weapon which can be targeted at individuals and one that can't, then I can't help you."
Actually, Dag, you probably could use a tank or vial of poison gas to kill just the person threatening you. Would your objections go away if it were possible to demonstrate a single-use vial of poison gas, or is it the mere ability to kill multiple people at once -- like, say, with assault rifles -- that bothers you?
[ April 19, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Go ahead and demonstrate how you can control gas in the atmosphere and I'll bless you're use of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, again, your primary objection is a technical one? That if someone did indeed come up with a single-target poison applicator, you'd be A-OK with that concept?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Tom, do you not differentiate between someone who owns a handgun for self-defense and someone who owns guns for hunting?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, do you not differentiate between someone who owns a handgun for self-defense and someone who owns guns for hunting?"
Should I? What makes one ethically superior to the other?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I'm using it as it's meant in the original phrase "the only people who need to fear honest people with guns..."
The phrase in that context does not mean "people who do not steal," or "people who do not lie," but rather "people who are socially responsible, and not criminals."
Okay, actually, that makes sense. You're right that "honest" wasn't being used in its conventional sense in the original quote, and I can see why you used it the way you did. Objection withdrawn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, again, your primary objection is a technical one? That if someone did indeed come up with a single-target poison applicator, you'd be A-OK with that concept?
Assuming strict liablilty for the one who uses it in case it goes awry, yes.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote: I believe that gun ownership in modern society -- particularly the kind of fetishism that's produced by collectors -- is an indicator of a certain level of reckless selfishness that, by its very nature, is highly socially irresponsible. It means that someone has spent money to acquire something which has as its primary purpose the very essence of Unmaking.
Do you feel this way about all weapons, or just guns?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Should I? What makes one ethically superior to the other?
Are you saying that you're ethically superior because you go to the store and buy meat? People who hunt and kill for their meat are not as honest as you? I think the reverse could be argued pretty easily.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I knew I should have gone into the swords, bows, tasers and knives diversion, Noemon. I thought about it, and then decided against it because I figured it would create complications. *grin* Let me try to come up with a way to articulate my feelings on those items that won't produce half a thread in itself.
--------
"Are you saying that you're ethically superior because you go to the store and buy meat? People who hunt and kill for their meat are not as honest as you?"
In modern society, there are remarkably few people who hunt for their meat. It's certainly not affordable to do so. And in that context, hunting becomes a leisure activity that has a secondary benefit of producing meat. I submit that this knowledge -- the knowledge that the hunt is primarily a sport and a leisure activity, and only incidentally a food-gathering process -- affects the emotional impact of the hunt and the moral calculus involved.
Hunting is a lifestyle nowadays, and not a financial necessity. Even when it's considered an "ethical" necessity -- as with several Indian tribes who use it as a right of passage -- it is clearly an optional recreational behavior.
There is, then, no moral superiority to be had in hunting; the hunter is not starving himself should he be unable to acquire food, and any sorrow or awareness of his action is tempered by his enjoyment. At best, then, hunting is a morally neutral action -- which makes it ethically equivalent to killing someone's who's determined to shoot you, as far as I'm concerned, given that we do not assume that animals have as much of a right to live as humans do.
So I'm not sure where hunting for sport (and a little meat) fits in with owning a gun to protect yourself from rapists. Both have legitimate arguments in their favor, and I think their grey areas overlap enough to make them morally equivalent.
[ April 19, 2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Okay.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I can understand that. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.
For what it's worth, I know several people here are as fanatical about hunting as Alucard's neighbors. Between hunting and fishing, they rarely buy meat in stores at all and generally give away quite a bit.
I've never actually been hunting myself. Not for any moral reasons, but simply because the thought of sitting in a tree stand all day hoping a deer would wander buy would bore me to tears.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
This is completely off the subject of the debate going on here, but I've been thinking for a few months that if I'm going to continue to eat meat I should probably go deer hunting, and have the experience of killing and butchering my prey at least once. I kind of recoil at the idea of doing so (the killing, that is. The butchery would be sort of interesting), and recognize that I might have to go hunting quite a few times to succeed in getting a kill, but it seems like if I'm going to continue eating meat taking responsibility for it, really connecting with the fact that I'm taking another creature's life because I want to consume its body.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
Re: the poison gas analogy.
Actually, I think you have a better chance of killing only the person threatening you with a vial of poison gas than with a gun. After all, to kill another person with poison gas requires that person to be downwind of the assailant, and within a fairly short distance to prevent the gas from disappating.
With a gun, the other person simply needs to be behind the assailant, and within a much larger distance. (Remember the old Mad magazine label on ammunition: "Accurate to 1 mile. After that, who knows what you'll hit." )
Not that I agree with Tom--after you've been terrorized a few times, a means of self-defense is comforting--but I do enjoy his arguments. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Noemon, you could also go to a farm and help with butchering. Or tour a slaughterhouse/packing plant. More accurate to the type of meat you probably eat.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
NO ONE should have the [sarcasm]right[/sarcasm] to own an automatic weapon. A rile for hunting sure! If you live in a wooded or farm area not in a crowed city. Pistols? Only the police and highly responsible people should have them.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's a thought Dana. I doubt they'd just let me volunteer for a day at a meat packing plant, but it's possible I could find a farmer in my area who'd be willing to let me assist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"A rile for hunting sure! If you live in a wooded or farm area not in a crowed city. Pistols? Only the police and highly responsible people should have them."
Let me point out, Sid, that I'm more uncomfortable letting the government decide which "responsible" people get to own guns, especially if that decision is based on whether or not they live in a wooded area, than I am about gun ownership in general. Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
What why would that be? Governments are perefeclty responsible and wouldn't abuse their power at all and of course wouldn't abuse their power in any way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Governments are perefeclty responsible and wouldn't abuse their power at all and of course wouldn't abuse their power in any way."
Ah. I see. You were attempting satire. Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I haven't read every single post in the thread, so I may have missed something, but Tom, are you saying that it's never necessary for anyone in our modern society to own a gun?
My household owns one (well, several; my roommate is a collector, but I don't really understand that mindset). My husband bought it for our girlfriend when her abusive ex and a couple of his friends started stalking her at her work. She later moved in with us, and the gun now resides in a safe place, but where any of us could easily reach it on short notice.
Now, I want to let it be known that I absolutely abhor guns. It may even qualify as an actual phobia. Seeing one out of its case makes my breathing, pulse, and blood pressure spike, handling one makes me feel like throwing up. I hate them and wish they didn't exist. But I asked my husband to show me how to handle and operate it safely, and take me to the range a time or two, until I could be reasonably sure that I could fire it only on purpose, and have a reasonable chance of hitting whatever I was firing at. Doing that made me tense, spiky, and generally freaked out for the rest of the day, but I did it because I need to know that I can have this in the house without bringing harm to my family, yet still use it to defend us should the need arise (god forbid; it hasn't happened yet and I think it's less likely with every passing day--if he was going to come after her, he probably would have by now).
So, even though I hate guns, I still tolerate one in my house, and despite considerable psychological distress, learned what I need to know in order to handle it. Does this make me less than honest, in your estimation?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"My husband bought it for our girlfriend when her abusive ex and a couple of his friends started stalking her at her work."
See, there's a logical leap here that I don't quite trust. I'm sure your husband had his reasons, but I don't think they were particularly good reasons.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: Honesty," in this context, really stands for social responsibility. I believe that gun ownership in modern society -- particularly the kind of fetishism that's produced by collectors -- is an indicator of a certain level of reckless selfishness that, by its very nature, is highly socially irresponsible. It means that someone has spent money to acquire something which has as its primary purpose the very essence of Unmaking.
You are, of course, welcome to disagree. But you're wrong.
Well, Tom I could say much, but to no avail. I will say this, though. The fact that you presume that honesty stands for social responsibility is flawed. I am sure you could argue your point till the end of time, though, and still come up with the same smug conclusion in your quote.
I will give you this. If you believe me to be less socially responsible for owning a gun, then that is your opinion. That is all. Sadly, you have demsonstrated that you are just as extreme as Ted Nugent, although diametrically opposed in each of your beliefs.
What makes me sad is that I expected a more compassionate and understanding person in someone who I consider to be one of the founders and leaders of Hatrack. What is also sad are the others here bouncing off of Tom their moral dilemmas as if his viewpoint is the benchmark for acceptance.
Especially, when by and large, it is not.
[ April 20, 2005, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Hey Noemon,
You could always watch the Simpsons episode where Lisa becomes a vegetarian. If you didnt like meat after that, you'de be an "idiot". Or a "dumbnut". Or some other insulting word that I dont remember...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:See, there's a logical leap here that I don't quite trust. I'm sure your husband had his reasons, but I don't think they were particularly good reasons
Well, instead of casting doubt on the reasoning and intent behind the action-giving the seriously threatened woman the gun for self-defense purposes against a known-aggressor-why not just answer the question?
Is a woman who is being stalked by an abusive ex and his friends dishonest and somehow irresponsible for purchasing a firearm with the intent of owning it for self-defense?
There is really only one answer to that question, and yours is wrong.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I just wanted to reference the original article and come out in favor of killing rapists and child molestors when they're caught in the act. Pull them off their victims and fire a bullet into their brain.
Works for me.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote: What is also sad are the others here bouncing off of Tom their moral dilemmas as if his viewpoint is the benchmark for acceptance.
I'm not doing that, though it may have come across that way. I'm not going to change my actions based on what he says, I was just curious how my situation would fit into his worldview. I guess I got a little carried away with elaborating about it though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree, David. While on almost every issue out there, I don't think you'll find many who disagree that shooting rapists and child molesters while raping or molesting is very radical.
Or at least I don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Sadly, you have demsonstrated that you are just as extreme as Ted Nugent..."
No, not quite. When Ted Nugent was calling people who weren't gun owners "limp-d**ked p**ssies," he was only mildly more extreme than I am. When he calls for the suspension of the process of law and argues for vigilante justice, he's considerably more extreme than I am. I did not comment on his extremism until the latter case.
"The fact that you presume that honesty stands for social responsibility is flawed."
No, it's not. Again, in the quote "the only people who need fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians," "honest" means "socially responsible," not "likely to tell the truth."
"Well, instead of casting doubt on the reasoning and intent behind the action-giving the seriously threatened woman the gun for self-defense purposes against a known-aggressor-why not just answer the question?"
I believe I did. I'm not questioning the woman's intent. I was questioning her friend's -- Stray's husband's -- reasoning. I believe it is socially irresponsible to purchase a gun against a perceived threat of that nature, not least because it implies a tacit surrender to and acceptance of the breakdown of civil protections; I can elaborate if you want on that topic, but I suspect that we're going to get back to unshared premises eventually. But as I've said before in discussions about war, the wrong thing to do is often the most expedient thing to do, regardless.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...not least because it implies a tacit surrender to and acceptance of the breakdown of civil protections...
Not remotely, Tom. All the giving of the gun can be said to imply is the acknowledgement that the cops can't always get there in time, and that the police are reactive in nature, by and large.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"All the giving of the gun can be said to imply is the acknowledgement that the cops can't always get there in time, and that the police are reactive in nature, by and large."
And you wouldn't describe that, were you in a less generous frame of mind, as a recognition of the breakdown of civil protections? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And you wouldn't describe that, were you in a less generous frame of mind, as a recognition of the breakdown of civil protections?
Not really. If you believe in civil liberties at all, you have to accept that the police can't regulate everyone's behavior every second of the day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* Oh, absolutely. And is the purchase of a gun and the assumption of the right to kill a worthwhile substitute for that lack?
This is where we come down to premises again, I'm afraid.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. My premise is that when someone becomes an aggressor, their right to life is forfeit to the extent necessary to protect their potential victim's.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And you wouldn't describe that, were you in a less generous frame of mind, as a recognition of the breakdown of civil protections?
If I ever believed that civil protections were (or should be) as absolute as you are implying, yes, that is how I would describe it.
And the woman with the gun in this situation would not really have assumed the right to kill-it would have been thrust upon her by her assailant and friends, if they attacked her.
Frankly it is reprehensible that you're suggesting that someone willing to kill to avoid being raped, maimed, etc., is somehow immoral or lacking. You've said that this is a moral neutral zone (or grey zone, I forget the term you used), but you are consistently implying otherwise.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: the police are reactive in nature, by and large
I guess the alternative would be that they are proactive, and I don't like the sound of that at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nor do I, mothertree. That's my point.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote:No, not quite. When Ted Nugent was calling people who weren't gun owners "limp-d**ked p**ssies," he was only mildly more extreme than I am. When he calls for the suspension of the process of law and argues for vigilante justice, he's considerably more extreme than I am. I did not comment on his extremism until the latter case.
Sorry, Tom, but if you were given the power to change laws and precedence, I am afraid gun ownership would be a thing of the past, which in my opinion, is just as fanatical as Ted urging the killing of criminals and bypassing due process of law. Not only that, but making gun-ownership a moral issue is just plain wierd to me.
I also wanted to quote the statement that might be causing so much confusion:
quote: There is a saying among people who might agree with Ted:
"The only people who should fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians."
As I stated, I never stated that I subscribe to this viewpoint. But many of my neighbors do. Sure, I own a gun, but for me, it is not an instrument of destruction. I do not plan on using it for self-defense. I will not use it to shoot another human being.
For the record, when I lived in Chicago, there was no need for me to own a gun, so I did not. When I moved back home, I still did own a gun, even though I inherited this beautiful gun cabinet that my grandfather made (he was a carpenter). Not until I moved to the country did I realize that I needed a rifle. I picked up a 30-30 at WalMart. Actually, I had my wife pick it up for me on her way home. For me, it is a tool, an instrument. I also like to hunt. And although your arguments against hunting are noble in a sense of not being an Unmaker, I would be frightened at the loss of something I consider to be deeply rooted in my DNA. Call it savage if you want, but I would still argue that I am a noble savage.
Tom, I carry a knife to work everyday. It is a Gerber that has a 3 inch blade. It is a tool. I use it to open boxes and cut zip-ties all day long. I do not carry it to maim or kill or for self-defense.
I hope you can at least respect the distinction I am trying to convey, even if you disagree with it.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I can't say that I'm in 100% disagreement with Tom over this, actually. My husband made this decision without consulting me, but I'd rather not raise a whole bunch of drama by arguing over it endlessly. I'm of the opinion that, were I in our friend's situation, I wouldn't want to carry a gun (or any other weapon that could be taken and used against me), but I've never been physically attacked ever in my life, let alone lived in an abusive relationship, so I really don't know what my decision would be if I were really in her shoes. My inclination would be to learn a martial art (so that the weapon is my body, which is always with me and can't be turned against me), but that takes a considerable amount of time to do properly, and she didn't really have that option at the time, she needed something right away.
She's since changed jobs and, as I said, moved in with us, and we're pretty sure that he doesn't know where she lives or works now. I've never met her ex, so I don't have anything besides her word to go on in terms of what kind of threat he represents, but I'd rather take her at her word and be overly cautious than underestimate the danger and have a tragedy occur.
I guess I'm just saying that I'm not 100% certain that the gun is necessary now, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. There are no children in the house, nobody who doesn't live there knows where it's kept, and everyone who lives there know show to handle it safely. I think we've minimized the risks as much as possible, and I have to admit I do feel better knowing that we're not completely reliant on the response time of the police should anything happen. Maybe that makes me a less-than-honest person; if so, I can live with that.
[ April 21, 2005, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Stray ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
There is a vast difference between arming oneself against a specific threat from a particular person who has demonstrated a propensity toward violence and arming oneself against boogeymen and bumps in the night.
Just as there is a vast difference between owning a rifle for hunting as opposed to owning a handgun to shoot cops and politicians.
[ April 21, 2005, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: Just as there is a vast difference between owning a rifle for hunting as opposed to owning a handgun to shoot cops and politicians.
Thanks, aspectre.
I feel a bit of vindication and hope that some progress is being made. And for the record, I do not believe there as big a need as is marketed concerning the ownership of handguns. Personally, I do not see the need to own a handgun unless a person intends to use it (which I would not). But this does not mean I would try to enforce my opinion on someone else who has the right to own and carry a handgun.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I am afraid gun ownership would be a thing of the past, which in my opinion, is just as fanatical as Ted urging the killing of criminals and bypassing due process of law.
Really? Why?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:My premise is that when someone becomes an aggressor, their right to life is forfeit to the extent necessary to protect their potential victim's.
Dag, suppose there were a non-lethal form of self-defense with the same "stopping power" as a handgun. Would you then support a ban on guns? That would seem compatible with (and even required by) your premise.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I forget who said it now, but last time we had a second amendment debate, someone pointed out that individual criminals weren't even the intended focus. The amendment was there to protect Americans from their government.
At the time, I felt a ban on assault weapons was appropriate. But if the civilian population has no way to defend itself from its military, it is held hostage by its own government. In that context, assault rifles and armor piercing bullets are more civically responsible than hunting rifles.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, suppose there were a non-lethal form of self-defense with the same "stopping power" as a handgun. Would you then support a ban on guns? That would seem compatible with (and even required by) your premise.
It depends. If it were really equivalent - range, immediacy of incapacitation, number of rounds, price, reliability, ease of self-maintenance etc. - I might support a ban. That assumes that there's no way to remotely disable the new device.
I would say that someone would be morally obligated to investigate and use such a means if it would work. And this moral obligation would extend to paying an increased price or having the more difficult maintenance. But I'm not sure I'd want to legally obligate someone to do so.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
AvidReader, precisely the point I was trying to make. Handguns are utterly useless in that context. Now, if National Guard members were allowed to store tanks in their garages, then you would have a good case for the second amendment. The day is past when army and civilian weapons were even approximately equal in effect.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But if the civilian population has no way to defend itself from its military, it is held hostage by its own government. In that context, assault rifles and armor piercing bullets are more civically responsible than hunting rifles.
Does that extend to shoulder-launched SAMs? Seems like you'd need a few of those to take on the US government.
By the way, my reading of the Second Amendment is that it does extend to all types of weapons. We're talking about the right to "keep and bear arms," no qualifications. People back then just didn't realize how dangerous weapons were going to get. But we're being shady, Constitutionally, every time we withold some form of weapon from the public.
The solution, if we had the stones, would be a new amendment. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It depends. If it were really equivalent - range, immediacy of incapacitation, number of rounds, price, reliability, ease of self-maintenance etc. - I might support a ban.
That's good. I think this is an issue that'll be solved by technology, in time. Once a gun is no longer the single best way to protect yourself, the NRA will no longer be able to "rally 'round the family with a pocket full of shells," to borrow the words of the poet.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Tom, OSC once laid out a beautiful set of parables in one of the Ender books (Xenocide, I believe, but I could MOST LIKELY be incorrect) that was a variation on the stoning of a prostitute and who might be worthy to cast the first stone.
Although it may be bold of me, the fanaticism of gun ownership and your application of moral responsibility preventing gun ownership are similar to the extremes of corruption and rigidity of the parable (in my eyes at least).
The beliefs or attitues of society swing like a pendulum. I suppose this is easier to see when you stand at the middle of an issue instead of at one if its poles.
[ April 23, 2005, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Once a gun is no longer the single best way to protect yourself..."
See, I believe it already isn't. Living a careful, deliberative, and decent life is the single best way to protect yourself. A gun can be a fallback, but it's not nearly as useful as the former option.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
These aren't mutually exclusive methods, I'm afraid. Sounds like the single best way to protect yourself is to be careful and have a gun.
For myself, I accept the risk factor of violent crime that goes along with just being careful -- I am, after all, OK with the much greater danger of driving a car. But some people are very worried about violent crime, either because they live in bad neighborhoods or because they have an unrealistic sense of the risk factor. And I have a hard time telling them that they can't take the extra steps they see as necessary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Sounds like the single best way to protect yourself is to be careful and have a gun."
This is only if you accept that there is no cost inherent to accepting your willingness to kill.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, are you unwilling to kill if attacked in a situation from which you can't retreat? Because a gun isn't really required to do that, and in some situations there is no other choice except die or kill.
[ April 24, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)