Understanding social conservatism

[Black Dog]

Arms are always necessary to protect yourself. Governments have killed more of its own citizens than any war. Examples Russia, China, Africa anywhere, 1300-1800 Europe, Anyone close to turkey, Jews in Nazi Germany, etc etc etc, Civil War USA. Shall i go on? Words never stopped a tank from rolling over your children.

Neither do hand guns or 30 ought sixes.

The state may have more guns but to stand idly by and do nothing while your freedom is revoked is a worse evil. Better to die on you feet then live on your knees in fear of when the government is going to kick down your door and kill you anyways.

Well, you're dead either way, so neither option is really better in any objective way.

[eyeball]

Rightists don't want to ban gay pride parades. Some of us simply object to the term "marriage" being used to describe a union between two homos. That's about the extent of it.

That's not just the extent of it though, many of you insist on using the power of the state to reserve an exclusive right to interpret the English language for your own moral engineering purposes. Its a perversion of the freedom of speech that only a social conservative could swallow and then spit down other people's throats.

[Pliny]

That's not just the extent of it though, many of you insist on using the power of the state to reserve an exclusive right to interpret the English language for your own moral engineering purposes. Its a perversion of the freedom of speech that only a social conservative could swallow and then spit down other people's throats.

Let's not make any laws about gays, alternate lifestyles or same sex marriage. Doesn't that send a chill down your back?

[Pliny]

Agreed, but its silly to imagine that firearms will ever fail to check a bad government that has entire regiments of heavy artillery, fleets of bombers and swarms of missles at its disposal.

Viet Nam was successful and Afghanistan and Iraq are somewhat effective. Imagine what the citizenry of the nation could do. There may not be many soldiers that would fire upon their own citizens.

Americans are different than Canadians. They will fight to the death for ideals, Canadians won't fight for much and definitely not ideals - that's the governments job.

[moderateamericain]

Viet Nam was successful and Afghanistan and Iraq are somewhat effective. Imagine what the citizenry of the nation could do. There may not be many soldiers that would fire upon their own citizens.

Americans are different than Canadians. They will fight to the death for ideals, Canadians won't fight for much and definitely not ideals - that's the governments job.

Not to mention the revolutionary war. Where technically we were fighting our own government. If you simply dismiss an armed population as something that would get steam rolled by its own army you are sorely mistaken about that. First of all, you forget one central thing is that the US military is made of US citizens. Secondly, its been proven time and time again a well armed small arms guerilla warfare can due significant damage to a larger more powerful conventional force. Great examples of this are Afghanistan current and when the Russians occupied it, Vietnam, Revolutionary War, shit anywhere africa and south america. Don't be so quick to dismiss an armed determined population.

Edited September 18, 2008 by moderateamericain

[myata]

Don't be so quick to dismiss an armed determined population.

Somehow this glorious truth never dawns on Americans when they go on their overseas adventures.

Anyways; alert and determined population is the only prevention of threats to democracy. Arms got nothing to do with it, only a fetish blown out of all meaningful proportions. A politician will wave a freedom banner and call for a global quest, and the God loving, gun toting folks will cheer and praise and jump on the bandwagon. Gun won't make anybody one milligram smarter, and to think that by virtue of having 000,000 spread around we're getting some kind of protection against "the evil" is an utmost illusion. Our only protection is keeping open mind, questioning politicians when they embark on adventures like Iraq, resisting fear, and refusing to be drawn into something what's patently wrong, no matter how or what it's wrapped into. Matters what's in the head, not in the pocket.

As a matter of fact, I suspect that if anything, the relation guns - freedom is the reverse one. Of all developed nations US was one of the very few where majority actually supported aventure in Iraq; it is also one of a few with virtually unrestricted gun ownerhip; make your conclusions.

[moderateamericain]

Somehow this glorious truth never dawns on Americans when they go on their overseas adventures.

Anyways; alert and determined population is the only prevention of threats to democracy. Arms got nothing to do with it, only a fetish blown out of all meaningful proportions. A politician will wave a freedom banner and call for a global quest, and the God loving, gun toting folks will cheer and praise and jump on the bandwagon. Gun won't make anybody one milligram smarter, and to think that by virtue of having 000,000 spread around we're getting some kind of protection against "the evil" is an utmost illusion. Our only protection is keeping open mind, questioning politicians when they embark on adventures like Iraq, resisting fear, and refusing to be drawn into something what's patently wrong, no matter how or what it's wrapped into. Matters what's in the head, not in the pocket.

As a matter of fact, I suspect that if anything, the relation guns - freedom is the reverse one. Of all developed nations US was one of the very few where majority actually supported aventure in Iraq; it is also one of a few with virtually unrestricted gun ownerhip; make your conclusions.

I have and the dead Jews Russians and Chinese who had there guns taken away before they got executed by the thousands probably would agree with me.

[myata]

Both China and Russia had long bloody civil wars which did not stop the rise of totalitarianism. Why? Not enough guns? Think better, maybe.

[Pliny]

Both China and Russia had long bloody civil wars which did not stop the rise of totalitarianism. Why? Not enough guns? Think better, maybe.

http://sksparts.com/historical_results_of_gun_contro.htm

In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

This made victory for the Chinese Communist party a possibility.

In 1918, after a short revolution, the Communist party in Russia wrote into it's constitution that every worker had the right to bear arms. All well and good until 1929 when they revoked that right and 20 million more citizens were then easily culled from the ranks over the next several decades.

You just have to think of what a government out of control will do and realize the right for citizens to bear arms is necessary. Having the right does not mean you have to if you don't want to. If I lived in the States I don't think I would own a gun but I would want to be able to get one if I felt it necessary to the safety of my family and community.

[myata]

Very likely (thanks for the data) totalitarian governments won't appreciate its citizens bearing arms. So? The point that was made, whether widespread arms would have prevented totalitarianism from rasing up? Arms were very likely abundant after WWI in Russia. Same in China.

When society is sick bad thing will happen, and no gimmick, tool or trick would make a magical cure. Free citizen as a surer and better protection against abuses, than armed one.

[White Doors]

Very likely (thanks for the data) totalitarian governments won't appreciate its citizens bearing arms. So? The point that was made, whether widespread arms would have prevented totalitarianism from rasing up? Arms were very likely abundant after WWI in Russia. Same in China.

When society is sick bad thing will happen, and no gimmick, tool or trick would make a magical cure. Free citizen as a surer and better protection against abuses, than armed one.

You can only be a free citizen if one of your freedoms is being able to arm yourself....

Ironically, people like you want to take that right away from me.

Ergo, you aren't the best speaker of what freedom really is.

[eyeball]

http://sksparts.com/historical_results_of_gun_contro.htm

This made victory for the Chinese Communist party a possibility.

In 1918, after a short revolution, the Communist party in Russia wrote into it's constitution that every worker had the right to bear arms. All well and good until 1929 when they revoked that right and 20 million more citizens were then easily culled from the ranks over the next several decades.

You just have to think of what a government out of control will do and realize the right for citizens to bear arms is necessary. Having the right does not mean you have to if you don't want to. If I lived in the States I don't think I would own a gun but I would want to be able to get one if I felt it necessary to the safety of my family and community.

It seems to me what should have been written in the Russian constitution was that people had not just the right but the responsibility to bear arms in case the government got out of the people's control. I'd definitely support a constitution that says this. I think we'd also need to see some mention of what out of control actually means. To my way of thinking a government that wants to ram social conservatism down my throat is way out of control.

[myata]

You can only be a free citizen if one of your freedoms is being able to arm yourself....

Ironically, people like you want to take that right away from me.

Ergo, you aren't the best speaker of what freedom really is.

Wow, what a breadth of take - without any substantiation. Let's try to develop these thoughts, e.g.

"One can only be a free citizen if one can store a couple of nukes in case world around me goes crazy - and if you only try to take them away from me I can't wouch for what I'll do". Sounds convincing?

The problem with this argument is that the question is not "where to shoot" - by the time it becomes obvious, for a few remaining dissidents, it's usually way too late. No, its "who to not follow". And that is a much tougher choice because following the trouble also means warm home, secure job and purpose in life - for a while.

[moderateamericain]

Wow, what a breadth of take - without any substantiation. Let's try to develop these thoughts, e.g.

"One can only be a free citizen if one can store a couple of nukes in case world around me goes crazy - and if you only try to take them away from me I can't wouch for what I'll do". Sounds convincing?

The problem with this argument is that the question is not "where to shoot" - by the time it becomes obvious, for a few remaining dissidents, it's usually way too late. No, its "who to not follow". And that is a much tougher choice because following the trouble also means warm home, secure job and purpose in life - for a while.

Mi amigo. The difference between freedom with trouble and a warm home that the cops can kick down and drag you and your family out of the house and shoot you on your front lawn is worlds differences. Me. I always liked a little bit of trouble.

[myata]

You're presuming that you'll always know the difference, but so many of troubled experiences of the past tell us that you (or at least, the great majority) won't. The same trouble that'll later "drag you out of house" will now promise you security and stability, and will show you who was responsible for all your woes.

[Pliny]

The same trouble that'll later "drag you out of house" will now promise you security and stability, and will show you who was responsible for all your woes.

You bet they'll show you!

[White Doors]

You're presuming that you'll always know the difference, but so many of troubled experiences of the past tell us that you (or at least, the great majority) won't. The same trouble that'll later "drag you out of house" will now promise you security and stability, and will show you who was responsible for all your woes.

I see you don't have much faith in your fellow citizen and I think that is the crux of the argument isn't it?

You have more faith in 'government' and I have more faith in the individual.

I think 'group think' can be a very dangerous thing.

[myata]

I see you don't have much faith in your fellow citizen and I think that is the crux of the argument isn't it?

In citizen who's capable of thinking critically, open minded and mentally alert; not in her gun. Crux of the argument has been that no bells, whistles or toys will give magical solution where citizens have relinquished their right (and responsibility) to remain free and alert.

[moderateamericain]

In citizen who's capable of thinking critically, open minded and mentally alert; not in her gun. Crux of the argument has been that no bells, whistles or toys will give magical solution where citizens have relinquished their right (and responsibility) to remain free and alert.

Thats a true statement. But even Free and Alert citizen's can be had. And when even the most observant of us get hoodwinked. Its time for option B. a .223 round.

[myata]

And any superstition, including belief in miraculous powers of certain instrument, is already the first step on the road to lose one's freedom. We're lost, let's no, not think what happened; not reexamine what we did; change our ways; no, let's get out our guns. They're sure to help where our brains are at loss.

[moderateamericain]

And any superstition, including belief in miraculous powers of certain instrument, is already the first step on the road to lose one's freedom. We're lost, let's no, not think what happened; not reexamine what we did; change our ways; no, let's get out our guns. They're sure to help where our brains are at loss.

Sigh...alright Myata if you ever live somewhere and somone confronts you with a gun to your face. Try and talk your way out of it. If you think you can rational with people who have a gun to your head and know it your living in a pipe world. The only response to force is to meet it with force. Talk gets you nothing once your government takes up arms against its citizenship.

[myata]

No, the problem is that you always assume that people with guns will always be on the side of "the right"; or you'll always be; or the majority will. Yet there's no such guarantee, ever. People with guns are as easily swayed or deceived as those without them (hopefully, not easier). There you go. Gun solves nothing. With or without it, society will be free only as long as its citizens are. And citizens falling for near superstisious belief that a thing in their pocket somehow embues them with freedom, immunity from all evil, are actually making the first step to losing it (ie. freedom). Second one is of course succumbing to fear, which is common in the societies with prolific guns. Fear to speak to a stranger, fear of neighbour, coworker etc. So what's on the balance? Pipe dream last stand glory against dripping your freedom drop by drop here and now - make sure you get it right.

[moderateamericain]

No, the problem is that you always assume that people with guns will always be on the side of "the right"; or you'll always be; or the majority will. Yet there's no such guarantee, ever. People with guns are as easily swayed or deceived as those without them (hopefully, not easier). There you go. Gun solves nothing. With or without it, society will be free only as long as its citizens are. And citizens falling for near superstisious belief that a thing in their pocket somehow embues them with freedom, immunity from all evil, are actually making the first step to losing it (ie. freedom). Second one is of course succumbing to fear, which is common in the societies with prolific guns. Fear to speak to a stranger, fear of neighbour, coworker etc. So what's on the balance? Pipe dream last stand glory against dripping your freedom drop by drop here and now - make sure you get it right.

No the problem is you think I view guns as on the side of the righteous. The problem with that line of thought is that there is no righteous in a civil war. theres just those that defend themselves and those who don't.

[myata]

Well, as said everything is a tradeoff. Arm everybody now to make one last glorious stand in that apocalyptic civil war, and watch our everyday freedoms trickle away, so it (war) becomes more likely. Because in the end, after all words, a gun is an instrument of violence. More guns, more attention to guns, more obsessions with guns means more violence. Can't be any other way, logically.

[moderateamericain]

Well, as said everything is a tradeoff. Arm everybody now to make one last glorious stand in that apocalyptic civil war, and watch our everyday freedoms trickle away, so it (war) becomes more likely. Because in the end, after all words, a gun is an instrument of violence. More guns, more attention to guns, more obsessions with guns means more violence. Can't be any other way, logically.

Less guns, Less worry about civil war, more government involvment in are lives, more willingnes to take away are freedoms, more confidence to commit crimes. Can't be any othery way, logically

Edited September 23, 2008 by moderateamericain