I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
1) Hunting (or recreation)
2) Self-defense
3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
forming a militia.
It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
possible would be a passive revolution.
So the questions that remain in controversy are:
Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
The question at the crux is : Do arms enable the common individual
better himself, help others, and / or improve the world about him ?
My take is that it does not, in general. That is, except when it used
in sport, in which case it may help one to improve one's concentration
and mind - body coordination skills !
On Jun 30, 7:38 am, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
> sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
> There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
> 1) Hunting (or recreation)
> 2) Self-defense
> 3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
> 4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
> 5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
> The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
> forming a militia.
> It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
> reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
> entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
> individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
> today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
> possible would be a passive revolution.
> So the questions that remain in controversy are:
> Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
> of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
> revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
> sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
> sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
> all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
> Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
> citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
> enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
> I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
> sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
> There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
> 1) Hunting (or recreation)
> 2) Self-defense
> 3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
> 4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
> 5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
> The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
> forming a militia.
> It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
> reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
> entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
> individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
> today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
> possible would be a passive revolution.
> So the questions that remain in controversy are:
> Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
> of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
> revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
> sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
> sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
> all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
> Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
> citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
> enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
Even in the face of greater technology, a government is less
likely to tyrannize the citizens if they are armed and have the
potential to inflict SOME damage, albeit limited, to the government's
means of tyranny. It becomes a means of self-defense against blatant
tyranny, like what we're seeing in Zimbabwe. There, if the majority
of people had guns, then the government thugs with their batons would
be very hesitant to attempt to rough them up. It follows the old
theory of 'you don't take a knife to a gunfight'. And, I believe the
people have the right to defend against such tyranny. And, Zimbabwe
serves as evidence that passive resistence in the face of blatant
tyranny, just doesn't work.
I don't think inquiring only into the utility the tool has for one
individual will capture the entire crux of the matter. I think we
have to see what the utility the tool has for society at large as
well. Which is exactly where this discussion has led us. Do arms in
the hands of the citizenry benefit society more than it becomes a
determinant to society? Does the good outweigh the bad? I'm with Pat
on this one that the citizens of Zimbabwe are probably thinking that
they would take all the bad in order to have the benefit of being
armed.
I think that the recreation part of owning guns is the least important
part when it comes to its importance to society. Although it is one
of the most important parts to me personally.
On Jun 29, 10:05 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The question at the crux is : Do arms enable the common individual
> better himself, help others, and / or improve the world about him ?
> My take is that it does not, in general. That is, except when it used
> in sport, in which case it may help one to improve one's concentration
> and mind - body coordination skills !
> On Jun 30, 7:38 am, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
> > sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
> > There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
> > 1) Hunting (or recreation)
> > 2) Self-defense
> > 3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
> > 4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
> > 5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
> > The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
> > forming a militia.
> > It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
> > reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
> > entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
> > individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
> > today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
> > possible would be a passive revolution.
> > So the questions that remain in controversy are:
> > Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
> > of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
> > revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
> > sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
> > sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
> > all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
> > Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
> > citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
> > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
Pat,
It's been a while since I've read them, but I've read articles about
the disarmament of African countries and the devastation it has had on
the population. All of the holocausts that have taken place could
have been curtailed by an armed citizenry.
On Jun 29, 10:12 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 03:38, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
> > sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
> > There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
> > 1) Hunting (or recreation)
> > 2) Self-defense
> > 3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
> > 4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
> > 5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
> > The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
> > forming a militia.
> > It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
> > reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
> > entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
> > individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
> > today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
> > possible would be a passive revolution.
> > So the questions that remain in controversy are:
> > Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
> > of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
> > revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
> > sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
> > sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
> > all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
> > Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
> > citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
> > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
> Even in the face of greater technology, a government is less
> likely to tyrannize the citizens if they are armed and have the
> potential to inflict SOME damage, albeit limited, to the government's
> means of tyranny. It becomes a means of self-defense against blatant
> tyranny, like what we're seeing in Zimbabwe. There, if the majority
> of people had guns, then the government thugs with their batons would
> be very hesitant to attempt to rough them up. It follows the old
> theory of 'you don't take a knife to a gunfight'. And, I believe the
> people have the right to defend against such tyranny. And, Zimbabwe
> serves as evidence that passive resistence in the face of blatant
> tyranny, just doesn't work.
On 30 Jun, 05:23, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat,
> It's been a while since I've read them, but I've read articles about
> the disarmament of African countries and the devastation it has had on
> the population. All of the holocausts that have taken place could
> have been curtailed by an armed citizenry.
It certainly would have meant a lot fewer corpses in Darfur. Or,
fewer AND a more proportional representation OF them. I understand
Vam's point, but, for me, the main point is self-defense and by self-
defense I mean primarily defense against tyranny not other citizens.
The right to oppose a government whose intent is to kill you if you
don't agree with them is paramount. Of course, that should never be
the first choice. Passively resisting should be attempted, but, as
Jefferson put it, 'when a long chain of abuses and usurpations
pursuing, invariably, the same object, evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute despotism', you have a right and a duty to yourself and
your fellow countrymen to prevent it as best you can. And, without
guns, you simply can't fight back effectively. Assuming, of course,
that the leader of the government isn't whacko enough to nuke his own
country. If he IS, then the the people would have to use chemicals
and biological warfare against the government--assuming there are
enough survivors with the know-how to implement it. God forbid,
anywhere ever blows up to THAT extreme.
> On Jun 29, 10:12 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 30 Jun, 03:38, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
> > > sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
> > > There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
> > > 1) Hunting (or recreation)
> > > 2) Self-defense
> > > 3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
> > > 4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
> > > 5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
> > > The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
> > > forming a militia.
> > > It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
> > > reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
> > > entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
> > > individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
> > > today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
> > > possible would be a passive revolution.
> > > So the questions that remain in controversy are:
> > > Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
> > > of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
> > > revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
> > > sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
> > > sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
> > > all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
> > > Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
> > > citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
> > > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
> > Even in the face of greater technology, a government is less
> > likely to tyrannize the citizens if they are armed and have the
> > potential to inflict SOME damage, albeit limited, to the government's
> > means of tyranny. It becomes a means of self-defense against blatant
> > tyranny, like what we're seeing in Zimbabwe. There, if the majority
> > of people had guns, then the government thugs with their batons would
> > be very hesitant to attempt to rough them up. It follows the old
> > theory of 'you don't take a knife to a gunfight'. And, I believe the
> > people have the right to defend against such tyranny. And, Zimbabwe
> > serves as evidence that passive resistence in the face of blatant
> > tyranny, just doesn't work.- Hide quoted text -
> On 30 Jun, 05:23, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pat,
> > It's been a while since I've read them, but I've read articles about
> > the disarmament of African countries and the devastation it has had on
> > the population. All of the holocausts that have taken place could
> > have been curtailed by an armed citizenry.
> It certainly would have meant a lot fewer corpses in Darfur. Or,
> fewer AND a more proportional representation OF them. I understand
> Vam's point, but, for me, the main point is self-defense and by self-
> defense I mean primarily defense against tyranny not other citizens.
> The right to oppose a government whose intent is to kill you if you
> don't agree with them is paramount. Of course, that should never be
> the first choice. Passively resisting should be attempted, but, as
> Jefferson put it, 'when a long chain of abuses and usurpations
> pursuing, invariably, the same object, evinces a design to reduce them
> under absolute despotism', you have a right and a duty to yourself and
> your fellow countrymen to prevent it as best you can. And, without
> guns, you simply can't fight back effectively. Assuming, of course,
> that the leader of the government isn't whacko enough to nuke his own
> country. If he IS, then the the people would have to use chemicals
> and biological warfare against the government--assuming there are
> enough survivors with the know-how to implement it. God forbid,
> anywhere ever blows up to THAT extreme.
My quoting of Jefferson reminded me that, back in 1970, "The 5th
Dimension" came out with a song called "The Declaration", which was
the first paragraph of 'The Declaration of Independence' put to
music. Of course, I have it on a vinyl 45. It was this song that
allowed me to memorise it. Absolutely GREAT track and, of course,
officially banned from Armed Forces Radio.
If you don't mind the 2 minutes for a brief installation of
software, you can listen to it here:
> > On Jun 29, 10:12 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 30 Jun, 03:38, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
> > > > sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
> > > > There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
> > > > 1) Hunting (or recreation)
> > > > 2) Self-defense
> > > > 3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
> > > > 4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
> > > > 5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
> > > > The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
> > > > forming a militia.
> > > > It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
> > > > reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
> > > > entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
> > > > individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
> > > > today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
> > > > possible would be a passive revolution.
> > > > So the questions that remain in controversy are:
> > > > Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
> > > > of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
> > > > revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
> > > > sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
> > > > sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
> > > > all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
> > > > Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
> > > > citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
> > > > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
> > > Even in the face of greater technology, a government is less
> > > likely to tyrannize the citizens if they are armed and have the
> > > potential to inflict SOME damage, albeit limited, to the government's
> > > means of tyranny. It becomes a means of self-defense against blatant
> > > tyranny, like what we're seeing in Zimbabwe. There, if the majority
> > > of people had guns, then the government thugs with their batons would
> > > be very hesitant to attempt to rough them up. It follows the old
> > > theory of 'you don't take a knife to a gunfight'. And, I believe the
> > > people have the right to defend against such tyranny. And, Zimbabwe
> > > serves as evidence that passive resistence in the face of blatant
> > > tyranny, just doesn't work.- Hide quoted text -
Pat, you and Craig have done an interesting job of transfering this
argument to Africa. This follows Craig's universalist reframing of the
argument which does not follow from the question of whether people in
the *States* should carry guns. I think we can all agree that it is
virtually impossible to have a Zimbawean style government develop in
the States (unless the far right keep their guns and menace the rest
of the population...). And while we have had situations similar to
Darfur (autochthonous cultures, African Americans) both populations
were armed--they were outnumbered and in the latter situation, largely
passified by religion.
That does not validate the comparison. African politics do not offer a
comparable political or legal situation.
On 30 juin, 06:12, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 03:38, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
> > sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
> > There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
> > 1) Hunting (or recreation)
> > 2) Self-defense
> > 3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
> > 4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
> > 5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
> > The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
> > forming a militia.
> > It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
> > reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
> > entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
> > individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
> > today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
> > possible would be a passive revolution.
> > So the questions that remain in controversy are:
> > Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
> > of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
> > revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
> > sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
> > sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
> > all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
> > Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
> > citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
> > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
> Even in the face of greater technology, a government is less
> likely to tyrannize the citizens if they are armed and have the
> potential to inflict SOME damage, albeit limited, to the government's
> means of tyranny. It becomes a means of self-defense against blatant
> tyranny, like what we're seeing in Zimbabwe. There, if the majority
> of people had guns, then the government thugs with their batons would
> be very hesitant to attempt to rough them up. It follows the old
> theory of 'you don't take a knife to a gunfight'. And, I believe the
> people have the right to defend against such tyranny. And, Zimbabwe
> serves as evidence that passive resistence in the face of blatant
> tyranny, just doesn't work.
> On 30 Jun, 05:23, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pat,
> > It's been a while since I've read them, but I've read articles about
> > the disarmament of African countries and the devastation it has had on
> > the population. All of the holocausts that have taken place could
> > have been curtailed by an armed citizenry.
> It certainly would have meant a lot fewer corpses in Darfur. Or,
> fewer AND a more proportional representation OF them. I understand
> Vam's point, but, for me, the main point is self-defense and by self-
> defense I mean primarily defense against tyranny not other citizens.
> The right to oppose a government whose intent is to kill you if you
> don't agree with them is paramount. Of course, that should never be
> the first choice. Passively resisting should be attempted, but, as
> Jefferson put it, 'when a long chain of abuses and usurpations
> pursuing, invariably, the same object, evinces a design to reduce them
> under absolute despotism', you have a right and a duty to yourself and
> your fellow countrymen to prevent it as best you can. And, without
> guns, you simply can't fight back effectively. Assuming, of course,
> that the leader of the government isn't whacko enough to nuke his own
> country. If he IS, then the the people would have to use chemicals
> and biological warfare against the government--assuming there are
> enough survivors with the know-how to implement it. God forbid,
> anywhere ever blows up to THAT extreme.
> > On Jun 29, 10:12 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 30 Jun, 03:38, Kierkecraig <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm recreating a gun rights post since the other post has gotten quite
> > > > sidetracked. I'll recap where the gun discussion went.
> > > > There are several rationales for finding gun rights:
> > > > 1) Hunting (or recreation)
> > > > 2) Self-defense
> > > > 3) Raising a militia to defend a state against foreign invasion
> > > > 4) Raising a militia to quell internal conflict
> > > > 5) Raising a militia to overthrow the government (state or federal)
> > > > The first part of the second amendment refers to the rationale of
> > > > forming a militia.
> > > > It was argued in the first thread that this rationale is no longer
> > > > reasonable. The weapons that governments have today could never be
> > > > entrusted to individuals and the weapons that could be entrusted to
> > > > individuals wouldn't scratch the technology that the governments have
> > > > today. In such a state of affairs, the only type of revolution even
> > > > possible would be a passive revolution.
> > > > So the questions that remain in controversy are:
> > > > Is the citizenry better off with weapons that are far inferior to that
> > > > of their government? Is it better for the citizenry to passively
> > > > revolt, or is it better for them to resist with arms? Or is it
> > > > sometimes more advantageous for a citizenry to passively revolt, and
> > > > sometimes advantageous for a citizenry to resist with arms? Or is it
> > > > all wrong, and the citizenry should never revolt.
> > > > Even if the citizenry should only passively revolt. Or if the
> > > > citizenry should never revolt. Are the remaining rationales important
> > > > enough to justify finding a right to keep and bear arms?
> > > Even in the face of greater technology, a government is less
> > > likely to tyrannize the citizens if they are armed and have the
> > > potential to inflict SOME damage, albeit limited, to the government's
> > > means of tyranny. It becomes a means of self-defense against blatant
> > > tyranny, like what we're seeing in Zimbabwe. There, if the majority
> > > of people had guns, then the government thugs with their batons would
> > > be very hesitant to attempt to rough them up. It follows the old
> > > theory of 'you don't take a knife to a gunfight'. And, I believe the
> > > people have the right to defend against such tyranny. And, Zimbabwe
> > > serves as evidence that passive resistence in the face of blatant
> > > tyranny, just doesn't work.- Hide quoted text -
