Trying to understand gun rights supporters...

[haymarket]

In other words, by asking nicely while they have enough guns on their side. Thanks for playing.

Playing what?

Anytime a person here starts replying to me with "in other words" experience says what inevitably follows will be a perversion and gross distortion of my views resulting in a frankenstein monster that bears no resemblance to reality. And this post proves it yet again.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Playing what?

Stupid, mostly. Power comes from force. Influence just means your ability to persuade others to use force on your behalf. No matter how many removes there are, how many layers of legitimacy and pomp and circumstance you pile on top of it, all power is built upon a foundation of naked violence. You can try to deny this all that you want, but you can not demonstrate how any power in society can be effectively wielded without force or the threat of force to accompany it.

Which means that your repeated denials are nothing more than acts of deliberate ignorance. So as I said, thanks for playing.

 

[haymarket]

Stupid, mostly. Power comes from force. Influence just means your ability to persuade others to use force on your behalf. No matter how many removes there are, how many layers of legitimacy and pomp and circumstance you pile on top of it, all power is built upon a foundation of naked violence. You can try to deny this all that you want, but you can not demonstrate how any power in society can be effectively wielded without force or the threat of force to accompany it.

Which means that your repeated denials are nothing more than acts of deliberate ignorance. So as I said, thanks for playing.

What I find ignorant, as well as intentional brutish rudeness, is this silly "thanks for playing" that you use over and over if it is the be all and end all of the argument. If you wallow in the belief that you are some shuck and jive game show host dismissing contestants with the wave of your magic wand, you are badly mistaken.

I am NOT denying that sometimes power and the rights people have came from violent circumstances. That is undeniable. So please DO NOT intentionally mischaracterize my statements.

What I am saying is that in the USA, the people have power through the various processes that they can exercise both in their abilities as citizens and in the sheer power they wield through numbers in the choices they make and they way they decide to use that power.

YES - that could manifest itself through weaponry. That could be one way. But it does NOT have to be exclusively that way. Gandhi proved that and all change around the world has not happened exclusively through armed violence. Nor does the power of people continue exclusively for century upon century through only armed violence.

That is simple reality.

 

[Federalist]

People obtain rights by making their wishes known to government and are able to wield enough power or influence to compel government to honor those wishes by making certain behaviors acknowledged and protected as rights.

It actually sounds as if we are saying the same thing, which is that ultimately our rights rest upon our power to compel government to honor them. Sometimes that power is acquired through a simple show of force, such as demonstrations or petition. But if the demonstrators are crushed by tanks, they will lose their rights unless they are able to actually fight to retain them.

 

[Sig]

Sorry, I have to add a comment with a smile... :2razz:

There are REALLY 300,000,000 guns in the U.S.? My GOD... at that rate, the people of Duluth, Minnesota could invade all of Canada by themselves!! And the invaders would still be home by dinner. I'm going to be doubly-careful not to piss off anyone on this thread!!!

(That was intended as a joke, everyone!!!)

I got another one:

Guess who is going to be turned out of his home should an apocalyptic disaster ever occur in the U.S.?

 

[H. Lee White]

I got another one:
Guess who is going to be turned out of his home should an apocalyptic disaster ever occur in the U.S.?

Me.
After we expend all our ammunition.

 

[H. Lee White]

Which means that your repeated denials are nothing more than acts of deliberate ignorance.

Tell me you're not shocked.

 

[H. Lee White]

Naysayers aside, rest assured that many Americans appreciate having a stable, peaceable, and reliable ally and friend to our north. We both benefit from this alliance and most of us have no wish to disparage our northern cousins.

Recall the hub-hub in 2003 when Canada refused to side with GWB and go to war with us in Iraq - see! Even our closest ally will not support us!!!
Nothing was said of Canada aslo refusing to support the UK in venture, a county to whom the Canadians are closer to than us.
/liberals

 

[LaMidRighter]

Stupid, mostly. Power comes from force. Influence just means your ability to persuade others to use force on your behalf. No matter how many removes there are, how many layers of legitimacy and pomp and circumstance you pile on top of it, all power is built upon a foundation of naked violence. You can try to deny this all that you want, but you can not demonstrate how any power in society can be effectively wielded without force or the threat of force to accompany it.

Which means that your repeated denials are nothing more than acts of deliberate ignorance. So as I said, thanks for playing.

This actually reminds me of the movie Demolition Man, everything was great when they didn't need to back things up, they had more laws than any society should. But when a super criminal with a love of violence and no morals decided to go on a crime spree their society was unequipped to deal with it because they removed force.

 

[Common]

To me guns are important like H. Lee White said. They're there for insurance. You really don't know when you're going to need it.

I support the right to be able to have guns, even if I'm not hunting. The way I view it is, I might need it one day for protection of myself or family, and if they were outlawed, criminals are going to always find ways to obtain them. So taking them away from the people who use them how they're supposed to be used by law, solves nothing.

 

[Sonic82]

Today, political power comes from our democratic institutions and the role of the American people in using them to retain their political power.

But that could change...we do better than most however, we aren't completely insulated from the tyranny of government.

 

[CalGun]

Well I know this is late to Canadian Joe's party but he's asked politely.

1) As a former police officer I know exactly how long it would take the police to save me and my wife in a tragic time that a gun might save myself. So ranked as #1 on my list and listed as #1 is my personal defense.

2) As a student of history the modern firearm ranks #1 as the final solution to modern government / control conflict in the world since its development. We have tanks, jets, and nuclear missiles but ultimately to control a people one must control them at the end of a gun unless that control is willingly given. I don't willingly give my full control to any government and will keep my gun in case they should ever go too far in taking from me - my rights.

OK, I've been warned that I'm walking into the lion's den by entering this part of the forum, but another thread I started elsewhere began to take on a gun debate theme, and I was told this is the place for it.

So, I come in here, yes, as a liberal, but I am bearing flowers and goodwill!!

My ONLY purpose is to better understand those who have a different opinion than I do, and I am truly SINCERE about saying that!!! The other thread featured a debate about statistics, which I will NOT include here. My mission is only to understand. I think my statistics-based approach on the other thread was the wrong way to engage people in talking about this meaningfully, so I am trying a more open-ended approach.

So, here it is... viewed from afar, those who passionately support the right to bear arms are difficult to understand by those of us who don't. It is true that I am a liberal, and where I come from, guns are used for hunting deer and ducks (which I fully support!), but when I go into the thread entitled "Do you know where your gun is?", I get honestly frightened. I am not trying to be insulting here, I am genuinely baffled and a little bit scared to read that thread. Very few people there seem to be talking about hunting, but everyone is super-enthusiastic about having their guns (MULTIPLE guns for many of them) loaded and "READY TO GO", in the words of one person.

My question is, "Ready to go" for WHAT exactly? Are those of you who feel this way expecting an intruder to break into your house at any moment? Do you spend years waiting for that intruder, or do you live in a place that you actually get people breaking in regularly? Or are you "ready" for something else? Some people in that thread talked about having one of their guns on their person at all times, even inside their home, which they might be able to use (if I understood correctly) to fight their way to get to another gun in the case of need. Have I understood that correctly, or am I missing something? Do some of you actually live every moment walking around your home with a gun on you 'just in case'?

And my related question is what inspires your passion for guns? Many great American leaders (Reagan, Roosevelt, Truman, and others) who certainly proved their toughness as leaders also spoke very eloquently on the issue of pursuing peace. To me, guns are weapons, and weapons are tools that should only be used to maintain peace when necessary. When all is peaceful and the guns are silent, I would personally call that a GOOD thing. Would you agree with that statement? Or are you actually hoping for the opportunity to use your guns against another person? As gun lovers, would you also say you are equally passionate about having a peaceful society around you? (Knowing the answer to that would truly help me to understand you better.)

Comments from any gun-loving person, conservative or liberal, are welcome!! But please don't write me off by saying, "You're just a dumbass Canadian, you'll never understand" or "You liberal nutjobs will never take my gun away from me". I am opening this thread to sincerely try to understand you better. If you take the question seriously, I will listen with an open mind. If you blow me off with dismissive insults, I will come to the conclusion that you can't explain your position.

 

[haymarket]

This actually reminds me of the movie Demolition Man, everything was great when they didn't need to back things up, they had more laws than any society should. But when a super criminal with a love of violence and no morals decided to go on a crime spree their society was unequipped to deal with it because they removed force.

Great point... especially for those of us who live in a science fiction Hollywood movie.

For the rest of us who reside in the real world of the USA ... not so much.

 

[Sonic82]

That argument is in fact the one thing that has made me think about getting a gun in the past. However, the reason I have not done so is simply because the chance of my home being invaded is so remote, and the relative risk of a gun-related accident seems that much greater to me.

As I stated earlier....the odds of a having a fire in your home are slim...I'm willing to bet you have a smoke detector.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Great point... especially for those of us who live in a science fiction Hollywood movie.

For the rest of us who reside in the real world of the USA ... not so much.

You trying to say that half the stupid laws passed in the last century would be followed without threat of force? Please feel free to explain that one.

 

[Goshin]

What I find ignorant, as well as intentional brutish rudeness, is this silly "thanks for playing" that you use over and over if it is the be all and end all of the argument. If you wallow in the belief that you are some shuck and jive game show host dismissing contestants with the wave of your magic wand, you are badly mistaken.

I am NOT denying that sometimes power and the rights people have came from violent circumstances. That is undeniable. So please DO NOT intentionally mischaracterize my statements.

What I am saying is that in the USA, the people have power through the various processes that they can exercise both in their abilities as citizens and in the sheer power they wield through numbers in the choices they make and they way they decide to use that power.

YES - that could manifest itself through weaponry. That could be one way. But it does NOT have to be exclusively that way. Gandhi proved that and all change around the world has not happened exclusively through armed violence. Nor does the power of people continue exclusively for century upon century through only armed violence.

That is simple reality.

Yes, nonviolent protest can alter political situations.... but ONLY when those WITH the armed might choose not to use it, for whatever reason.

For an example of the converse, that is when a popular nonviolent uprising WAS quashed with overwhelming force, See Tianamen Square... and innumerable other examples in history.

 

[Harshaw]

As I stated earlier....the odds of a having a fire in your home are slim...I'm willing to bet you have a smoke detector.

Probably REQUIRED to have a smoke detector, for something which is less likely to happen -- there are about 2500 fire-related injuries in Canada per year, while there are about 6900 home invasions with violent acts.

Now, it's certainly possible -- maybe even probable -- that the fire injuries are much lower because of the smoke detectors, but that kind of makes the case.

 

[Goshin]

Stupid, mostly. Power comes from force. Influence just means your ability to persuade others to use force on your behalf. No matter how many removes there are, how many layers of legitimacy and pomp and circumstance you pile on top of it, all power is built upon a foundation of naked violence. You can try to deny this all that you want, but you can not demonstrate how any power in society can be effectively wielded without force or the threat of force to accompany it.

Which means that your repeated denials are nothing more than acts of deliberate ignorance. So as I said, thanks for playing.

Gold is for the mistress -- silver for the maid --
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade."
"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all."


---R. Kipling

:mrgreen:

 

[Canadian Joe]

Nothing was said of Canada aslo refusing to support the UK in venture, a county to whom the Canadians are closer to than us.
/liberals

As a Canadian, I am frequently able to mistake an American visiting Canada to be a fellow Canadian. I don't make that mistake with Brits. Yes, some of that is the accent, but the fact is that much of it is culture. I simply don't see any plausible argument to say that I am closer as a Canadian to Britain than I am to America. There are many parts of my own country that feel more foreign to me than much of the United States does to me. A lot of that is geographic proximity. Not only do we share a long border, but the vast majority of Canada's population is located near to the border on a chunk of land about the size of Florida (and the rest of them ARE actually IN Florida!) 70% of Canada's population lives within a 500-mile radius of NYC (there's a reason that Toronto is picked as a shoot location for movies set in NYC more often than any American city besides New York itself). I learned two anthems growing up... and God Save the Queen wasn't one of them! We have Super Bowl parties (I can quickly name every team in the NFL but I couldn't name more British soccer teams than Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool... although I figure there must be a "London" team, not sure) and Thanksgiving celebrations (even if we move the date a bit earlier so that our Walmart stores have longer to prepare for the Christmas rush). I'm just one Canadian, but this Canadian has a lot more American blood in him than British.

PS- And I spell the word "color", NOT "colour"!

 

[Canadian Joe]

As I stated earlier....the odds of a having a fire in your home are slim...I'm willing to bet you have a smoke detector.

Actually, that comparison is a very good one. If I did truly believe that the statistical chance of a home invasion in my area were as great as a potential fire in my home, I think I would actually relent and buy a gun. Right now, at least where I live and by the information I am aware of, those odds are still not close. If that started to change, so would my opinion. That's one of the reasons I've stated elsewhere on this thread that I can respect the decision that many people here make; based on what I am reading, I think that those relative odds may look a bit different in their situations.

 

[Harshaw]

there's a reason that Toronto is picked as a shoot location for movies set in NYC more often than any American city besides New York itself

When I lived in Seattle, we used to joke about having to send the tourists to Vancouver for them to see the sights they're expecting.

 

[haymarket]

You trying to say that half the stupid laws passed in the last century would be followed without threat of force? Please feel free to explain that one.

Any time somebody on the right starts off a post to me using their words to pretend to tell me what I said I know what follows will be a perverted strawman which bears no resemblance to anything I posted.

If you want to argue about something I said - simply reproduce it here.

 

[haymarket]

Yes, nonviolent protest can alter political situations.... but ONLY when those WITH the armed might choose not to use it, for whatever reason.

For an example of the converse, that is when a popular nonviolent uprising WAS quashed with overwhelming force, See Tianamen Square... and innumerable other examples in history.

Which simply proves my point that change does NOT have to happen from a gun. Sure it can. Sure it has. But that is not some hard and fast law and history also shows that to be true.

 

[Jerry]

Gold is for the mistress -- silver for the maid --
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade."
"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all."


---R. Kipling

:mrgreen:

[video=youtube;w_urWSSZgwU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w_urWSSZgwU[/video]

Truth in art.

 

[Federalist]

Any time somebody on the right starts off a post to me using their words to pretend to tell me what I said I know what follows will be a perverted strawman which bears no resemblance to anything I posted.

It appeared to me the LaMidRighter was asking you a question in order to clarify his understanding of your position.