To Arm or to Disarm.

[Patuca 13]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

[DbPhoenix 42]

And a deluded well-armed lamb who thinks he's an action figure is a menace.

[Patuca 13]

From Gun Control:

 

The Second Amendment had more to do with freedom than historical militias. Here’s what the Founding Fathers actually said about arms:

 

 

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

– Thomas Jefferson, 1764

 

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.

– Thomas Jefferson

 

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.

– Ben Franklin

 

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.

–Thomas Paine

 

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

– George Washington

 

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

–Patrick Henry.

 

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

– Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

 

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

–Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

 

The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…

–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

 

(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

–James Madison.

 

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…

– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .

 

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

 

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.

– George Mason

 

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

–Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)

 

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.

– Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[Patuca 13]

And a deluded well-armed lamb who thinks he's an action figure is a menace.

well you cannot totally eliminate that possibility but what is a better option? wolves voting on lunch and an unarmed lamb?

[Patuca 13]

From Gun Control:

 

I was surprised to learn that two of the best-known promoters of nonviolence in history were not opposed to guns. Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi taught that we must first be brave enough to use guns to defend ourselves, and only then can we be qualified to use non-violent methods. For example, Gandhi wrote in his book, An Autobiography (page 446):

 

 

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest … if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.

 

As Gandhi wrote in Doctrine of the Sword:

 

 

I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.

 

***

 

When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.

 

***

 

Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

 

In Between Cowardice And Violence, Gandhi wrote:

 

 

He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully …

 

[When violence] is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.

 

***

 

A man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward.

 

Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one’s life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.

 

Self-defence … is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.

 

As quoted in the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001, the Dalai Lama said:

 

 

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.

[Ingot54 13]

And a deluded well-armed lamb who thinks he's an action figure is a menace.

Gotta love it DB.

 

But who gets to say if the lamb is deluded ... or lucid?

Do they bring in more wolves?

 

[Ingot54 13]

From Gun Control:

 

The Second Amendment had more to do with freedom than historical militias. Here’s what the Founding Fathers actually said about arms:

 

 

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes...

– Thomas Jefferson, 1764

...

 

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the

hands of the People.

– Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The problem with all those quotes, imv ... is that the times have moved on ...

 

Even placing greater and greater weaponry with the lamb ... the wolf will still "win" ... unless ...

 

Unless the lamb is willing to be slain in order to achieve its victory objective.

 

The wolves know that they hold the lamb in subjection through fear.

 

But what happens if the lamb loses his fear?

What happens if the lamb sees that in order to save the rest of the flock, some of the lambs need

to perish in resisting the wolf?

 

It is not done with arms.

 

Mohandas Gandhi worked it out ... and won against the might of the entire British Army ... and achieved

Home Rule for India on 9th May, 1922.

 

Today the American people need to retake their government from the corporations, and boot out the

fascists that have taken over the Federal Reserve and the chambers of law-making.

 

But every man can not do it with the power of the gun, but through the power of the human spirit.

 

If you want your freedom, then every one of you must take it for himself.

 

Violent resistance by the people justifies a violent response from the tyrant - look at Syria today.

 

But playing with ideas and passive resistance - enough people in a sweeping movement of

civil disobedience founded on the principles of truth, will win.

 

They can not shoot an idea, and there is no stronger idea worth fighting for, and being willing to perish

for, than freedom. To die for this is to incite the anger of the people further, and the tyrant will either

back down, or continue to face the resistance of the people until they do.

 

This is the tyrant's biggest fear - not the gun, but the mind.

 

There are better people to quote than Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson on these issues - how are

those ideas working out about now? These men were offering thoughts for the day - this is not 1764,

and they could not have foreseen todays conditions.

 

You can no longer provide a threat to tyranny through arms, but though the application of the peaceful

and compelling ideas of freedom. Nothing would get the population onside more strongly than

this, and from this the tyrant must flee.

[Patuca 13]

damn i was sure you would be beardless by now ingot54

[Ingot54 13]

damn i was sure you would be beardless by now ingot54

I am ... have you checked my profile pic (not the avatar) for the real deal?

 

:rofl::rofl:

[Patuca 13]

ingot please indicate where any major structural fundamental change in society (any society) took place without any violence being involved. i am sure there must be some?

[Ingot54 13]

ingot please indicate where any major structural fundamental change in society (any society) took place without any violence being involved. i am sure there must be some?

Probably none.

 

India in Gandhi's time came close - the violence was still present, but it was not the violence that won them their freedom, but their passive resistance = civil disobedience.

 

And the will to see it through under a leader who kept them on their course.

[MightyMouse 12]

ingot please indicate where any major structural fundamental change in society (any society) took place without any violence being involved. i am sure there must be some?

 

Woman's right to vote. There were no militias.

 

Black equal rights. There were no militias. Martin Luther King

 

Can argue that the embargo against the south African apartheid govt worked.

 

The reunification of East and West Germany in 1990.

 

The independence of the former soviet states.

 

All within the last 100 years and i would say that these are major changes that occurred. If you believe that violence is the only way, then it makes sense that you see no other solution than to use more guns.

 

There are probably a lot more than I can think of without looking them up. Diplomacy does work from time to time. I am not sure of its record, but it does work.

 

There is no quicker way to get a reaction than through the threat of taking life. However, the quickest way to get a reaction is never the shortest way to find a solution and never the least expensive way to bring about change.

[SunTrader 10]

It could be argued that Mainland China, the largest and longest oppressive nation in the world, has undergone a bloodless revolution (excluding small battles like Tiananmen Square & thousands of human rights violations) from fullblown communism to quasi communism-capitalism,

 

The verdict is out whether the transition will complete someday. Done without the GUN.

[Ingot54 13]

It could be argued that Mainland China, the largest and longest oppressive nation in the world, has undergone a bloodless revolution (excluding small battles like Tiananmen Square & thousands of human rights violations) from fullblown communism to quasi communism-capitalism,

 

The verdict is out whether the transition will complete someday. Done without the GUN.

Suntrader - I am surprised to hear you say that.

 

Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years' - News - Books - The Independent

 

I usually understand your posts well, so this one throws me a bit.

 

This is an excerpt from "The Independent":

 

Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years

 

Mao Zedong, founder of the People's Republic of China

qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history,

an expert who had unprecedented access to official

Communist Party archives said yesterday.

 

Speaking at The Independent Woodstock Literary Festival,

Frank Dikötter, a Hong Kong-based historian, said he found

that during the time that Mao was enforcing the Great Leap

Forward in 1958, in an effort to catch up with the economy

of the Western world, he was responsible for overseeing

"one of the worst catastrophes the world has ever known".

 

I'd like you to clarify that a little please.

Nothing bloodless about any of China's history or even the recent "advances."

 

EDIT: here is a bit more on China's "done without the gun" revolutions:

 

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

 

Maybe they'd like the world to believe it.

 

I wasn't there, so I have to rely on what I hear about it, before making up my mind on things.

[Tams 20]

Suntrader - I am surprised to hear you say that.

 

Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years' - News - Books - The Independent

 

I usually understand your posts well, so this one throws me a bit.

 

This is an excerpt from "The Independent":

 

Mao's Great Leap Forward 'killed 45 million in four years

 

Mao Zedong, founder of the People's Republic of China

qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history,

an expert who had unprecedented access to official

Communist Party archives said yesterday.

 

Speaking at The Independent Woodstock Literary Festival,

Frank Dikötter, a Hong Kong-based historian, said he found

that during the time that Mao was enforcing the Great Leap

Forward in 1958, in an effort to catch up with the economy

of the Western world, he was responsible for overseeing

"one of the worst catastrophes the world has ever known".

 

I'd like you to clarify that a little please.

Nothing bloodless about any of China's history or even the recent "advances."

 

EDIT: here is a bit more on China's "done without the gun" revolutions:

 

The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Century

 

Maybe they'd like the world to believe it.

 

I wasn't there, so I have to rely on what I hear about it, before making up my mind on things.

 

The China transition that is currently happening (been happening for the past 20+ yrs) -- from a brutal tyrannic communiist state to a free enterprise state, is a bloodless coup.

[Ingot54 13]

The China transition that is currently happening (been happening for the past 20+ yrs) -- from a brutal

tyrannic communiist state to a free enterprise state, is a bloodless coup.

 

... so far? ...

... that we know of ...

... that we can ascertain ...

 

I used to speak with a Chinese from Northern China via social media.

 

As soon as I asked something about Chinese life - regardless of how trivial - he would find an excuse to sign off.

I could not even find out what sort of house he lived in. It was weeks before I could discover what his job was.

 

During the annual dragon boat races a couple of years back, the river was partly in flood, and the river banks

had some hidden erosion. A section of the bank collapsed into the fast-moving water, and a vast number of the

spectators were swept away to their deaths. I asked him about the incident, and he replied that this happened

"very far away - I not hear this" ... yet I know it was in his own prefecture. I was unable to contact him again.

 

And some people think that we know how many people have been killed in China over the past 20 years.

 

You may be right ... but I wouldn't bet on that even with someone else's money!

 

We really don't know a lot about China ... and that suits them fine I would think. I guess Amnesty International is

a bit confused. Even ONE death is still classed as bloodshed, as far as I know.

 

No ... not an entirely bloodless coup

 

How is what is happening to the ideologically opposed Falun Gong group, not "bloodless?"

 

[SunTrader 10]

Suntrader - I am surprised to hear you say that.

 

 

I usually understand your posts well, so this one throws me a bit....

 

Not talking old history. I'm talking the last 30 years or so.

[Colonel B 10]

time for fessing up

 

Please indicate yes/no to the following question.

 

Do you own or have a gun in your home or premises (work...etc. or otherwise)

 

1) ingot54

2) suntrader

3) zdo

4) tams

5) johnw

6) Cory2679

7) Siuya

8)DbPhoenix

9) Mightymouse (with a name like that you better have one)

10) Predictor

11) SMmatrix

12) jimbo320

13) Colonel B

14) vince50

15) Madmarketscientist

 

NOPE I don't own a gun. But I did play a whole lot of popular video games and so far I haven't gone on a shooting spree. I am still waiting for this ticking time bomb to go off. Oh well maybe it wont ever happen like the so called experts claim.

 

On a side note...

When I was in college I was one of those guys that stood outside for the Halo 3 midnight launch. Apparently that game made more money in that year then all the movie tickets sold. So that game made more then the Hollywood box office. Just one game. There were a few other shooters that were sold that year that were big games. C.O.D. (Call of Duty) released a new one that fall as well.

 

Where are all the "killers" from that? In the state I live in there has been no school shooting since then. So as far as the NRA or any other private group claiming that there is a correlation between violence and video game is just a fallacy. The facts just don't add up. Has the rise in the rate of sales of violent video games caused a rise in school shootings? For every 10,000 copies sold is there another school shooting? Not in my state. Are the teachers armed here? Is there armed guards at every school in my state? Nope. Maybe all the theories of that violent video games "cause" gun violence is just a fallacy.

 

What about our brave service men and women who come back from real conflict? If you subscribe to the "pretend gun violence" causes real violence then what about real gun violence causing real gun violence? Why is it that pretend gun violence causes school shootings? I am so puzzled by that. Is there some sort of secret code in the game that reprograms young adults to be psychopaths?

 

Its all rhetoric.

 

Now for the far left liberals that think they know everything and have all the solutions to all of life's problems. I have no less disdain for them. There were clear reasons as to why the founders believed that the people should be allowed to own guns. I will have to end the rant on far left liberals here because I would rather debunk ideas instead of political parties.

 

In summary...

I don't own a gun however I don't subscribe to either arguments so far put forth in this forum or in the mainstream consensus on the issues. I don't believe that gun games cause more gun violence. Look at Russia with the violence there 5 times higher then the U.S.. Do they play more video games? And I don't subscribe to the notion that no guns equals more safety. How did the allies defeat evil dictators during the second world war? With rubber chickens? Go tell the souls that went to the grave in pits and shallow graves about safety without guns. And as far as the government being this entity that is looking out for my best interest and I should trust them and they should only be the ones that own guns. I don't believe that either. How about the revolutionary war? I bet the people loved that taxes then. And when the people didn't pay then what happened? Funny thing that history stuff. We can go on and on about governments in history and the tyranny of each.

 

This thread has gone off the rails with all sorts of emotions from both sides. Nothing but extreme ides on both sides. The fact is that guns are here to stay. You will never get everyone in the world to get rid of them. If you can convince the majority of the country in the U.S. to get rid of guns doesn't mean the government will disarm. Or that the Chinese government will disarm or that other hostile country's or governments will follow. IMO you are better off learning to live with the consequences of having guns and do your best effort to convince your neighbors to be more responsible.

[zdo 20]

“As long as the right has more guns, the left should oppose guns. …Only when the left has more guns, should they… ” Saul Alinsky

 

... and his example

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet…” Lenin

 

 

 

 

Beware the crap in this link. … because the author looks half white – double the dishonesty etc.

Gun Control’s Racist Origins | Online Library of Law and Liberty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

 

All statistically based ‘science’ / ‘truth’ is biased by the individual scientist. Hold it all suspect. The only sure role is the one of the skeptic.

[MightyMouse 12]

I am going to have sex today for the sake of virginity. It makes perfect sense on this thread.

[Tams 20]

The only way to get tighter gun control in USA is through a referandum; no politician has enough persuasion to bring about a change. There will be more shootings, and there will be more talks of tighter gun control, the law will come only when one of the powerful politician's loved one is shot, then he will introduce the referandum. Until then, have a safe and happy new year.

[zdo 20]

IMO you are better off learning to live with the consequences of having guns and do your best effort to convince your neighbors to be more responsible.

Col B

 

Well put. Great post

 

...

 

For the 'survey'

 

I own guns and plenty of ammo. Legally purchased + I maintain a concealed carry permit AND fortunately, I also did sufficient 'unregistered' purchases long ago.

I practice with them and maintain them about twice a year.

I don't like or enjoy them.

[Patuca 13]

NOPE I don't own a gun. But I did play a whole lot of popular video games and so far I haven't gone on a shooting spree. I am still waiting for this ticking time bomb to go off. Oh well maybe it wont ever happen like the so called experts claim.

 

On a side note...

When I was in college I was one of those guys that stood outside for the Halo 3 midnight launch. Apparently that game made more money in that year then all the movie tickets sold. So that game made more then the Hollywood box office. Just one game. There were a few other shooters that were sold that year that were big games. C.O.D. (Call of Duty) released a new one that fall as well.

 

Where are all the "killers" from that? In the state I live in there has been no school shooting since then. So as far as the NRA or any other private group claiming that there is a correlation between violence and video game is just a fallacy. The facts just don't add up. Has the rise in the rate of sales of violent video games caused a rise in school shootings? For every 10,000 copies sold is there another school shooting? Not in my state. Are the teachers armed here? Is there armed guards at every school in my state? Nope. Maybe all the theories of that violent video games "cause" gun violence is just a fallacy.

 

What about our brave service men and women who come back from real conflict? If you subscribe to the "pretend gun violence" causes real violence then what about real gun violence causing real gun violence? Why is it that pretend gun violence causes school shootings? I am so puzzled by that. Is there some sort of secret code in the game that reprograms young adults to be psychopaths?

 

Its all rhetoric.

 

Now for the far left liberals that think they know everything and have all the solutions to all of life's problems. I have no less disdain for them. There were clear reasons as to why the founders believed that the people should be allowed to own guns. I will have to end the rant on far left liberals here because I would rather debunk ideas instead of political parties.

 

In summary...

I don't own a gun however I don't subscribe to either arguments so far put forth in this forum or in the mainstream consensus on the issues. I don't believe that gun games cause more gun violence. Look at Russia with the violence there 5 times higher then the U.S.. Do they play more video games? And I don't subscribe to the notion that no guns equals more safety. How did the allies defeat evil dictators during the second world war? With rubber chickens? Go tell the souls that went to the grave in pits and shallow graves about safety without guns. And as far as the government being this entity that is looking out for my best interest and I should trust them and they should only be the ones that own guns. I don't believe that either. How about the revolutionary war? I bet the people loved that taxes then. And when the people didn't pay then what happened? Funny thing that history stuff. We can go on and on about governments in history and the tyranny of each.

 

This thread has gone off the rails with all sorts of emotions from both sides. Nothing but extreme ides on both sides. The fact is that guns are here to stay. You will never get everyone in the world to get rid of them. If you can convince the majority of the country in the U.S. to get rid of guns doesn't mean the government will disarm. Or that the Chinese government will disarm or that other hostile country's or governments will follow. IMO you are better off learning to live with the consequences of having guns and do your best effort to convince your neighbors to be more responsible.

i basicaly agree with all most everything you say in your post. i think there might be SOME correlation with video violence but not near as much as advocates claim. i grew up shooting BB guns (at each other sometimes..etc) and playing games where toy guns were involved but it hasn't made me go out and murder piles of people. on the other hand if a person is already sick mentally then such games could perhaps hold some infuence on them.

 

this said i do think it could come to a place where more guns could equal safer. and that has proven out in some cases. i posted a link to. and i also posted where bans didn't actually lower violence. your last sentence sums up about what i think and feel about the matter. i dont think all the assault guns are needed but you have to watch out because i believe they are after getting all the guns not just assault guns. that i would be dead set against.

 

have a good 2013 although i think it will be very trying times economically the next 2 years.

[Patuca 13]

I am going to have sex today for the sake of virginity. It makes perfect sense on this thread.

mm don't you think there shoul be a ban on sex? perhaps institute mandatory castration? or limit the size of testicles males can have? or limit the amount of testicles? it might cut down on violence you know???

 

with that ugly sh$t ass beard of ignot54 he has nothing to worry about. he has nothing to get violent about. on the other hand who knows maybe the gals like his beard??

 

happy new year

Edited December 31, 2012 by Patuca

[Colonel B 10]

I am going to have sex today for the sake of virginity. It makes perfect sense on this thread.

GREAT!!!! Let me be the first to congratulate you in your new choice of having sex today.

Quite a few people don't know this but having sex is a favorite all American past time. I bet if you ask around you will find there are lots of people you never dreamed would be having sex really are having sex. And folks that you suspected all along of having sex are having it too.