HunterGatherer
member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 379
ReadyontheRight... geek!
ROTFLMFAO!
ROTFLMFAO!
The Motives of Those Who Would Disarm Us
- Thread starter Dave R
- Start date
- Status
Maimaktes
member
Well, HunterGatherer, I can see how Kerry et al. might envy a man like Col. Cooper, who, while not so rich as they, certainly has all that he wants or needs.
But what of a loser among losers like myself -- a poor man, whose poverty and isolation are bitter to him, and who is old before his time? What is enviable about me?
One of the few differences I have had with the good Colonel over the decades is this often-implied notion of bearing arms and possessing skill-at-arms as being an outward expression or manifestation of some sort of innate inward superiority over all the huddled, unwashed masses, in a kind of Darwinian sense.
I never carried a gun because I thought I was some sort of superior kind of man, entitled, by divine right, as it were, to demonstrate my supremacy over all the "lesser breeds without the law" at every opportunity. If I had thought myself superior, a giant among pygmies, I would not have bothered with a gun at all. I would have just given all the mangy subhumans the back of my hand, perhaps reserving a heavy walking stick with which to drub the real hard cases.
I think the gun-grabbing politicians and their armed henchmen look upon someone like me much as they would a stray, possibly rabid, dog. A repulsive nuisance at best, a vague menace at worst. In either case, something to be controlled or destroyed.
Maimaktes
But what of a loser among losers like myself -- a poor man, whose poverty and isolation are bitter to him, and who is old before his time? What is enviable about me?
One of the few differences I have had with the good Colonel over the decades is this often-implied notion of bearing arms and possessing skill-at-arms as being an outward expression or manifestation of some sort of innate inward superiority over all the huddled, unwashed masses, in a kind of Darwinian sense.
I never carried a gun because I thought I was some sort of superior kind of man, entitled, by divine right, as it were, to demonstrate my supremacy over all the "lesser breeds without the law" at every opportunity. If I had thought myself superior, a giant among pygmies, I would not have bothered with a gun at all. I would have just given all the mangy subhumans the back of my hand, perhaps reserving a heavy walking stick with which to drub the real hard cases.
I think the gun-grabbing politicians and their armed henchmen look upon someone like me much as they would a stray, possibly rabid, dog. A repulsive nuisance at best, a vague menace at worst. In either case, something to be controlled or destroyed.
Maimaktes
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
STANDING WOLF ..... what - can - I - say?? Pure repetition I guess cos it's been said but .. kudos Sir ... you found all your aces in that post and certainly hit the x ring .. good and proper. Outstanding.
But if one word should stand out it is .... CONTROL - how else can a weak (numerically) minority .. deal with its ''minions'' effectively.
But if one word should stand out it is .... CONTROL - how else can a weak (numerically) minority .. deal with its ''minions'' effectively.
HunterGatherer
member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 379
Well first I would say that you might seek out counciling to help you feel and think a little better of yourself. That said, I think you are personalizing this a little much. Cooper is talking about a clash of ideas. And third, I think you mistake Cooper's position. He doesn't bear arms (and possess skill with them) to be a superior man, nor does he dedicate his life to thwarting the lawless to demonstrate supremacy. He does so - and advocates for others to do so as well - because for him, and me, and a whole lot of other people, it is the very definition of what it is to be a man.
spartacus2002
Member
The strongest human urge is not sex, but censorship -- censorship of thought and action, not speech.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Thank you for your kind words, one and all!
I doubt anything I've written in this post—or any other, for that matter—is noteworthy. I'm currently slugging it out with the Great American Novel, which I do hope will prove noteworthy; here at the High Road, however, I tend just to shoot from the hip, and being afflicted with arthritis, I tend to pull the trigger on a smaller number of words.
I'm sure every anti-Second Amendment bigot is unique in his or her hatred, but have a hunch the shapes of hatred are largely the same. I believe some people are independent thinkers and actors, and others are dependent, fearful souls who fear, hate, envy, and seek to control the independent types. Other than "control," I'm not sure what the verbs ought to be, nor am I sure they can be clearly delineated. Hateful people tend, for example, to be fearful people. Envious people tend to be deeply self-doubtful, in my experience. I don't know how to sort out causes and effects when it comes to deeply unhappy people. I can see and describe what they do readily enough—but what's the source? Where's the root?
One of the most blatantly, obnoxiously controlling people I've ever known turned out to have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse by a father who was heavily inclined toward drinking too much and turning violent. One of the more vociferous opponents of the right to keep and bear arms I've known—we dated a few weeks quite a few years ago—spent a great deal of time in what I later realized could only be called "rage:" at her ex-husband, her children, her parents, her job, many of the people she supervised, and yes, me, too, in due time. I dated another woman a couple times in the late 1980s who relieved herself of assorted snide remarks about the "Neanderthal Reactionary Association" and "slobs who like to shoot deer with substitute penises." She was quite the obsessive individual and a heavy drinker into the bargain.
I don't understand why they're the way they are. I see what they do and how they do it, and it's apparent they're fearful, usually unprincipled people or people with perverse principles, that Kerry individual, for example—but I don't understand why they're the way they are. They're bitter, but I don't comprehend what they're bitter about. All the anti-Second Amendment bigots I've known have had cold, usually arrogant personalities, and those I've known at all well have invariably turned out to be deeply self-doubtful, hence overly assertive and apparently extremely sure of themselves.
Sources? Causes? Roots? I wish I knew. They're as impenetrable to me as communists and child molesters.
I doubt anything I've written in this post—or any other, for that matter—is noteworthy. I'm currently slugging it out with the Great American Novel, which I do hope will prove noteworthy; here at the High Road, however, I tend just to shoot from the hip, and being afflicted with arthritis, I tend to pull the trigger on a smaller number of words.
I'm sure every anti-Second Amendment bigot is unique in his or her hatred, but have a hunch the shapes of hatred are largely the same. I believe some people are independent thinkers and actors, and others are dependent, fearful souls who fear, hate, envy, and seek to control the independent types. Other than "control," I'm not sure what the verbs ought to be, nor am I sure they can be clearly delineated. Hateful people tend, for example, to be fearful people. Envious people tend to be deeply self-doubtful, in my experience. I don't know how to sort out causes and effects when it comes to deeply unhappy people. I can see and describe what they do readily enough—but what's the source? Where's the root?
One of the most blatantly, obnoxiously controlling people I've ever known turned out to have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse by a father who was heavily inclined toward drinking too much and turning violent. One of the more vociferous opponents of the right to keep and bear arms I've known—we dated a few weeks quite a few years ago—spent a great deal of time in what I later realized could only be called "rage:" at her ex-husband, her children, her parents, her job, many of the people she supervised, and yes, me, too, in due time. I dated another woman a couple times in the late 1980s who relieved herself of assorted snide remarks about the "Neanderthal Reactionary Association" and "slobs who like to shoot deer with substitute penises." She was quite the obsessive individual and a heavy drinker into the bargain.
I don't understand why they're the way they are. I see what they do and how they do it, and it's apparent they're fearful, usually unprincipled people or people with perverse principles, that Kerry individual, for example—but I don't understand why they're the way they are. They're bitter, but I don't comprehend what they're bitter about. All the anti-Second Amendment bigots I've known have had cold, usually arrogant personalities, and those I've known at all well have invariably turned out to be deeply self-doubtful, hence overly assertive and apparently extremely sure of themselves.
Sources? Causes? Roots? I wish I knew. They're as impenetrable to me as communists and child molesters.
Maimaktes
member
"Seek counciling"? Gee, thanks, that's tremendously helpful. I'm sure you didn't mean that to sound as condescending and insulting as it did, but every shrink I ever met or heard of was militantly anti-private gun ownership, and my understanding is that the official position of their professional organization is one of opposition to all private gun ownership.
So, I'm supposed to go in there and tell one of these creatures that my guns are literally the only good thing left in my life, the only source of any kind of self-respect or any hope for the future that I have. But it's a shrinking hope just the same, as I have had no place to shoot for over five years, so most of my former skill has fled away from me, and I am not even sure that I can preserve my weapons from rust and corrosion anymore, as my apartment leaks -- sometimes *gallons* in the course of a day -- both from the rain getting in through the roof and from condensation from the roof-mounted air conditioner, which doesn't drain properly, but pours down through my ceiling. No I can't afford to move. I wiped out my savings to get moved into *here* (you don't want to know what the place before this was like), and I've done nothing but go deeper and deeper into the hole ever since.
Besides the aforementioned oil and coolant leaks my car suffers from, the interior (passenger-side front seat) was badly contaminated with *battery acid* last September 26, due to someone else's* carelessness/heedlessness, not mine. No, I cannot afford to get another car, or even to fix this one.
My guns may win me my freedom and preserve it someday, if I live long enough and don't become completely disabled, and can ever get out of here and into some place where I *can* keep and bear them again. But right now I certainly do not enjoy all these blessings of liberty I keep hearing tell of. They jolly well *have* enslaved me, already. What am I but a slave when I comply, under duress, with all sorts of laws and regulations I consider wrong, anti-constitutional, and downright evil, because I have no other choices but prison or death? What am I but a prisoner as I sit there baking in the glare of his deliberately blinding lights as the fat, tobacco-spitting deputy takes twenty minutes to write me a ticket? What would you have me do in that situation? I might *break* free someday, but I'm sure not a free man right now. I'm not even free, much less any kind of Nietzschean superman, striding like a colossus through the teeming multitudes of natural salves (in the Aristotelian sense).
Maimaktes
So, I'm supposed to go in there and tell one of these creatures that my guns are literally the only good thing left in my life, the only source of any kind of self-respect or any hope for the future that I have. But it's a shrinking hope just the same, as I have had no place to shoot for over five years, so most of my former skill has fled away from me, and I am not even sure that I can preserve my weapons from rust and corrosion anymore, as my apartment leaks -- sometimes *gallons* in the course of a day -- both from the rain getting in through the roof and from condensation from the roof-mounted air conditioner, which doesn't drain properly, but pours down through my ceiling. No I can't afford to move. I wiped out my savings to get moved into *here* (you don't want to know what the place before this was like), and I've done nothing but go deeper and deeper into the hole ever since.
Besides the aforementioned oil and coolant leaks my car suffers from, the interior (passenger-side front seat) was badly contaminated with *battery acid* last September 26, due to someone else's* carelessness/heedlessness, not mine. No, I cannot afford to get another car, or even to fix this one.
My guns may win me my freedom and preserve it someday, if I live long enough and don't become completely disabled, and can ever get out of here and into some place where I *can* keep and bear them again. But right now I certainly do not enjoy all these blessings of liberty I keep hearing tell of. They jolly well *have* enslaved me, already. What am I but a slave when I comply, under duress, with all sorts of laws and regulations I consider wrong, anti-constitutional, and downright evil, because I have no other choices but prison or death? What am I but a prisoner as I sit there baking in the glare of his deliberately blinding lights as the fat, tobacco-spitting deputy takes twenty minutes to write me a ticket? What would you have me do in that situation? I might *break* free someday, but I'm sure not a free man right now. I'm not even free, much less any kind of Nietzschean superman, striding like a colossus through the teeming multitudes of natural salves (in the Aristotelian sense).
Maimaktes
HunterGatherer
member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 379
Please spare me your indignation.
Joe Demko
Member
Actually, Maimaktes, I've never bought into the "they envy us" idea either. I don't believe that they even fear us, particularly. We are, I think, repugnant, but useful. When one wants to institute a police state (which both major parties want to do BTW) it is useful to have something to fan the fears of the general populace over. Therefore, it behooves them to keep us around, if in limited numbers. Does anybody really think they live in terror of you and your rifle? KerryBush et. al. aren't coming to your house to take your gun. If you need to be "dealt with" (even just as a publicity stunt) it will be a bunch of uniforms, most of whom earn less than 40k a year, who come to face you and your almighty rifle. If you kill one, or a bunch, BushKerry won't care. In fact, it makes good publicity for tightening restrictions on society in general.
Envy us?
No.
Fear us?
No.
Willing to use us?
Yes.
Envy us?
No.
Fear us?
No.
Willing to use us?
Yes.
longeyes
member
Scarier is that we are WILLING to be used, continuing to believe that their kind and our kind can co-exist when our values and worldviews are diametrically opposed.
All of the theories about The Other Side are right. They do not represent a monolithic force. We represent many different things to the antis, depending on the individual psyche of the critic. They see us as throwbacks, obstacles on the evolutionary path to a state-run utopia. Perhaps on some level they are correct and a fierce desire for freedom is an aberration, an experimental mutation. Time will tell whether our mutation engenders a new species or a political dead-end.
All of the theories about The Other Side are right. They do not represent a monolithic force. We represent many different things to the antis, depending on the individual psyche of the critic. They see us as throwbacks, obstacles on the evolutionary path to a state-run utopia. Perhaps on some level they are correct and a fierce desire for freedom is an aberration, an experimental mutation. Time will tell whether our mutation engenders a new species or a political dead-end.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Want something else scary to contemplate? I make no apolgies for posting this again ... and IIRC it was Dave06 first used it .... read it and think about it ... now that's a way to achieve control?!
Follow on Golgo's succinct postulation .... and add this to it .... emphasis is mine.
Follow on Golgo's succinct postulation .... and add this to it .... emphasis is mine.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Control.
Wow, I thought I was taking a fairly extreme position saying those who would disarm us seek only to remove our ability to resist their will.
Some of you are even more paranoid than me.
I understand the Rand quote, and believe there are some in politics who overtly buy into that notion of making more laws than people can obey, as a means of control..
But I think there are more people in politics who are not smart enough to plan that. They are just scared of people with guns. And they're scared that they can't control us. And they don't think much beyond that.
I could be wrong. And that's kinda scary.
Some of you are even more paranoid than me.
I understand the Rand quote, and believe there are some in politics who overtly buy into that notion of making more laws than people can obey, as a means of control..
But I think there are more people in politics who are not smart enough to plan that. They are just scared of people with guns. And they're scared that they can't control us. And they don't think much beyond that.
I could be wrong. And that's kinda scary.
confed sailor
Member
WOW
This has definatly taken a turn for the Metaphysical.
I see this a fear on the upper levels of a gun grabbers pysche, and as you dig deeper the fear is churned up by the envy deep inside them. At the outermost levels the Fear and Envy turn to hate. A hot irrational hate, a logic defying hate. Because this hate cannot be combated directly, I think we have to get inside and work on the roots of the hate for us (gun owners/liberated people)
as for how, search me, im just a history major.
This has definatly taken a turn for the Metaphysical.
I see this a fear on the upper levels of a gun grabbers pysche, and as you dig deeper the fear is churned up by the envy deep inside them. At the outermost levels the Fear and Envy turn to hate. A hot irrational hate, a logic defying hate. Because this hate cannot be combated directly, I think we have to get inside and work on the roots of the hate for us (gun owners/liberated people)
as for how, search me, im just a history major.
gunsmith
member
maimkaites and hunter gather
"seek counciling"??? according to my pocket webster's
hunter has just told maimkates to seek an "assembly of lawmakers"
did you mean "counseling"??
most social workers I've ever talked to were absoultely against all guns.
"for the children"
I think Maimaktes may be speaking for the hundreds thousands of poorer gun owners who don't have.
A,internet.
B,education.
c,more then 10$ an hour
d,insurance
e,marketable skills
I think Maimaktes is a damm good writer,I have not read his other post so I don't know if I agree with him on anything other then the right to keep and bear.
I do know that I am just keeping my head above water and had to postpone a .357 lever action I wanted to buy for a year because I got sick and had to have an operation.
Just because you're angry or bitter does not qualify you as "needing an assembly of lawmakers"
it may mean you're right.
"seek counciling"??? according to my pocket webster's
hunter has just told maimkates to seek an "assembly of lawmakers"
did you mean "counseling"??
most social workers I've ever talked to were absoultely against all guns.
"for the children"
I think Maimaktes may be speaking for the hundreds thousands of poorer gun owners who don't have.
A,internet.
B,education.
c,more then 10$ an hour
d,insurance
e,marketable skills
I think Maimaktes is a damm good writer,I have not read his other post so I don't know if I agree with him on anything other then the right to keep and bear.
I do know that I am just keeping my head above water and had to postpone a .357 lever action I wanted to buy for a year because I got sick and had to have an operation.
Just because you're angry or bitter does not qualify you as "needing an assembly of lawmakers"
it may mean you're right.
Hand_Rifle_Guy
Member
I always thought envy, hate, and control/dominance came from fear...
Envy of others for their LACK of fear.
Hatred of others for CAUSING fear.
Control/dominance to PREVENT/RELIEVE fear.
Why's the fear of gun-owners generated? I think it's because of empathy. To wit: the only way to attempt to predict what others may do in a given situation is to imagine one's self in that situation and ask: "Now, what would I do?"
Many gun-grabbers are demonstrably a little on the wacked-out, unstable, hyper-emotional side of the table. Lots of liberals spout nonsense like: "If I had a gun, I'd shoot someone for cutting me off in traffic!"
Asking these types of folks to empathize with a law-abiding, stable, safety-oriented gun-owner is to invite cold sweats, nightmares, and ulcers. They cannot control their own impulses enough to trust themselves to own a gun. HOW COULD YOU ASK THEM TO TRUST SOMEONE WHO'S IMPULSES THEY CAN'T EVEN FEEL?
How could they? They can't even begin to COMPREHEND what that level of impulse control entails. It's an entire realm of existence that's completely outside of and beyond their experience.
They can only hazard a guess based on what they know. What they know (Of themselves, which is all they can compare with.) terrifies them. Therefore they seek to control the situation in order to pro-actively defeat/relieve these terrors, the solution of any intelligent phobic who's tired of being afraid. Fear can be a powerful motivator, and a ruthlessly effective one.
I can authenticate this mindset, at least somewhat. I am/can be, on occaision, phobicly shy. Initiating conversations with people I don't know, even over the phone, can be akin to trying force myself to step off a cliff or pick up a burning log, but without any real concrete reason (That I've been able to track down.) to justify a stab of mind-blurring panic. That leaves me with a few unpleasant after-affects:
I am bitterly envious of people to whom ordinary conversational interaction is an easy thing.
I
HATE the telephone.
I am very pro-active in planning around and avoiding those circumstances that might result in being panic-slapped. This results in my being very antisocial, for the most part.
HOWEVER...
I don't have control issues. I recognize that my problem is ENTIRELY PERSONAL.
I may be envious of other folk's ease of communication, but I don't hate them for it, or I'd wind up hating the whole of humanity. (I do, on one level, but it doesn't rule my existence or I'd kill myself.)
It's true I hate the telephone when it rings, (If I had Dangerous Brain Powers, the telephone would be slag.) but I reserve my hate for the machine itself, not the caller, who has no idea that the friggin' bell has just shot a bolt of fear into my brain. (Conversely, I have a hard time calling people I know, because I don't want to disturb them with what disturbs me so much. ) Hating the machine is easily defused, as it can't appreciate it.
And I decided I really don't like social situations, and that I'm ok with that. Lonelyness I can fend off much more easily than adrenaline-reinforced tension.
Basically, I take responsibility for my fear, rather than externalizing or handing it off to outside causes or people. I find that it bothers me a lot less when I do so, as it's easier to change my mind than the world. Liberal ideology of late seems to regard the concept of personal responsibility to be anathema, whereupon to expect gun-owners to excercise such responsibility isn't part of the gun-grabber's worldview, a cicumstance that I agree would be frightening at best.
I really liked Standing Wolf's asessment of the opposition's mindset. It makes a lot of sense to me. I can understand it, and some of the reasons behind it, even if he can't. Mayperhaps I've cleared some of that up with this post, although I can only speak for myself. Far be it from me to presume that the workings of MY twisted mind should be broadly applied to the world at large. (That'd be humility, right? Another element one finds lacking in the left.)
Mind you, understanding a mindset isn't condoning it. I'm of the opinion that people should keep their issues to themselves, where appropriate. Forcing the world to accomodate one's sensitivities strikes me as offensively arrogant, an attitude that seems to run through a lot of neo-utopian, statist, academic-elite nonsense that passes for left-wing ideology these days.
O, and BTW, no-one's put this one up yet. This link clinches the deal, as I see it: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
Envy of others for their LACK of fear.
Hatred of others for CAUSING fear.
Control/dominance to PREVENT/RELIEVE fear.
Why's the fear of gun-owners generated? I think it's because of empathy. To wit: the only way to attempt to predict what others may do in a given situation is to imagine one's self in that situation and ask: "Now, what would I do?"
Many gun-grabbers are demonstrably a little on the wacked-out, unstable, hyper-emotional side of the table. Lots of liberals spout nonsense like: "If I had a gun, I'd shoot someone for cutting me off in traffic!"
Asking these types of folks to empathize with a law-abiding, stable, safety-oriented gun-owner is to invite cold sweats, nightmares, and ulcers. They cannot control their own impulses enough to trust themselves to own a gun. HOW COULD YOU ASK THEM TO TRUST SOMEONE WHO'S IMPULSES THEY CAN'T EVEN FEEL?
How could they? They can't even begin to COMPREHEND what that level of impulse control entails. It's an entire realm of existence that's completely outside of and beyond their experience.
They can only hazard a guess based on what they know. What they know (Of themselves, which is all they can compare with.) terrifies them. Therefore they seek to control the situation in order to pro-actively defeat/relieve these terrors, the solution of any intelligent phobic who's tired of being afraid. Fear can be a powerful motivator, and a ruthlessly effective one.
I can authenticate this mindset, at least somewhat. I am/can be, on occaision, phobicly shy. Initiating conversations with people I don't know, even over the phone, can be akin to trying force myself to step off a cliff or pick up a burning log, but without any real concrete reason (That I've been able to track down.) to justify a stab of mind-blurring panic. That leaves me with a few unpleasant after-affects:
I am bitterly envious of people to whom ordinary conversational interaction is an easy thing.
I
HATE the telephone. I am very pro-active in planning around and avoiding those circumstances that might result in being panic-slapped. This results in my being very antisocial, for the most part.
HOWEVER...
I don't have control issues. I recognize that my problem is ENTIRELY PERSONAL.
I may be envious of other folk's ease of communication, but I don't hate them for it, or I'd wind up hating the whole of humanity. (I do, on one level, but it doesn't rule my existence or I'd kill myself.)
It's true I hate the telephone when it rings, (If I had Dangerous Brain Powers, the telephone would be slag.) but I reserve my hate for the machine itself, not the caller, who has no idea that the friggin' bell has just shot a bolt of fear into my brain. (Conversely, I have a hard time calling people I know, because I don't want to disturb them with what disturbs me so much.
) Hating the machine is easily defused, as it can't appreciate it.And I decided I really don't like social situations, and that I'm ok with that. Lonelyness I can fend off much more easily than adrenaline-reinforced tension.
Basically, I take responsibility for my fear, rather than externalizing or handing it off to outside causes or people. I find that it bothers me a lot less when I do so, as it's easier to change my mind than the world. Liberal ideology of late seems to regard the concept of personal responsibility to be anathema, whereupon to expect gun-owners to excercise such responsibility isn't part of the gun-grabber's worldview, a cicumstance that I agree would be frightening at best.
I really liked Standing Wolf's asessment of the opposition's mindset. It makes a lot of sense to me. I can understand it, and some of the reasons behind it, even if he can't. Mayperhaps I've cleared some of that up with this post, although I can only speak for myself. Far be it from me to presume that the workings of MY twisted mind should be broadly applied to the world at large. (That'd be humility, right? Another element one finds lacking in the left.)
Mind you, understanding a mindset isn't condoning it. I'm of the opinion that people should keep their issues to themselves, where appropriate. Forcing the world to accomodate one's sensitivities strikes me as offensively arrogant, an attitude that seems to run through a lot of neo-utopian, statist, academic-elite nonsense that passes for left-wing ideology these days.
O, and BTW, no-one's put this one up yet. This link clinches the deal, as I see it: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
gunsmith
member
often
I am told by the many anti's I talk to is that they are afraid
of the "wild west" and "blood in the streets"
not realizing that real life is different then what hollywood has taught them.
They fear what they don't know.(Most of them at least)
The Rosie O'Donnel's and DiFi's of the world
are plain knuckle dragging nazi's who call themselves liberals,
much like hitler called himself socialist
I am told by the many anti's I talk to is that they are afraid
of the "wild west" and "blood in the streets"
not realizing that real life is different then what hollywood has taught them.
They fear what they don't know.(Most of them at least)
The Rosie O'Donnel's and DiFi's of the world
are plain knuckle dragging nazi's who call themselves liberals,
much like hitler called himself socialist
Samurai Penguin
Member
HRG...
Wow. Just...wow.
I believe, sir, that you have nailed the whole thing down. I can disagree with nothing you've just said, and I've been there, to some small degree, myself. Kudos! Now the question:
You realize that your phobias are your problem. How do we inculate that realization into the minds of the anti's? Any thoughts?
Wow. Just...wow.
I believe, sir, that you have nailed the whole thing down. I can disagree with nothing you've just said, and I've been there, to some small degree, myself. Kudos! Now the question:
You realize that your phobias are your problem. How do we inculate that realization into the minds of the anti's? Any thoughts?
And the people who pose the most of a threat to those that want control are the gun owners. Just as Bush will sign the AWB if it hits his desk... IN due time, gun owners will be criminals if things keep going the way they're going. This is also why the Patrio Acts were passed... When you actually look at the verbage they use to define a "terrorist" the realiy of all of this becomes even more scary.
J
Black Snowman
Member
The biology of gun control
Understanding why someone is inclined to think a certain way will hopefully help develop arguments to help persuade them. As far as I can tell fear is the defining factor of human action. Knowing people's fears and how to dispel them, or direct them to something they should fear more greatly will hopefully strengthen our cause.
For instance. Telling someone that guns don't kill people, but that people kill people may not be as helpful as making sure that people know that if you have the power to kill someone, you can use it to save the lives of yourself and those around you. That not acting to protect someone if you have the means is nearly as morally destitute as attacking them yourself.
If we play up our fears against theirs, maybe we stand a better chance of winning our arguments.
<Controversial Content Warning> Before you get offended here me out, this isn't meant as an attack, just a study in history and theories on biology and evolution. Most of this is paraphrasing and gross simplification of work by Dr. Dennis Moore and a whole heap of my own observations and assumptions and is just a theory and therefore carries absolutely no weight other than what you prescribe to it, but it makes sense to me.
If you have a problem with the following statements please PM me so as to avoid this degrading into an irrelevant arguments, or just understand that the following may be offensive to some parties and we can agree to disagree ahead of time. Thanks for your co-operation <puts on flame retardant suit>
I think a lot of the changes in the political atmosphere have a lot to do with the introduction of the thought process of women into a system created by men, with men running in it in mind.
Some theories hold that men and women have different prerogatives in their thinking necessitated by survival of the species in our formative years. Certainly I think we can all agree that men and women's though process differ Women, being the bearer of children, are critically important to the survival of the species and more frequently vulnerable. A women has a better chance of reproducing and continuing the species if surrounded by a buffer of other potential targets and additional defenders.
Men, as a gross generalization, being essentially disposable in the grand scheme of species survival develops as protector, combatant, and hunter. Survival for the male is dependent on his prowess in protecting and providing for himself, his mate, and children. These fundamental survival traits manifest themselves in vastly differing perspectives and philosophies.
As a gross generalization, women don't necessarily seek personal protection but a protective environment. Their perceptions tend to be skewed toward removing potential threats to see that the odds of their being put into danger are minimized. Their survival should something actually occur is not forefront in their thought process.
Men on the other hand tend to take a much more individual, personal, and active approach to their safety. This is exemplified in men tending to have a higher acceptable level of risk for things like motorcycling and contact sports.
Recent studies of women deployed in frontline combat also support these theories. Women of various nations deployed in combat disproportionately and rapidly become pregnant. According to the theory this is biologically exactly what they're programmed to do to preserve the species. Get themselves out of harms way and ensure safe reproduction.
Ideology is driven far more by biology than we would like to admit. These theories try to explain the differing perspective on "safety" that the major schools of though on self defense. Obviously it's they're only theories, and since people are involved exceptions are the rule thanks to our potential for higher brain function.
PS and OT: I was wanting to reference Dr. Moore's books and television specials on the relationship of biology, survival, and gender differences but all references to his work seem to have evaporated. Or I'm remember his name completely wrong. Either way, I'm rather annoyed because Discovery.com doesn't show any of the 6 or so specials he did that you used to be able to order from them and I can't find any of his 6 or so books on Amazon.com. He really has some done some extremely insightful and ground breaking work.
Understanding why someone is inclined to think a certain way will hopefully help develop arguments to help persuade them. As far as I can tell fear is the defining factor of human action. Knowing people's fears and how to dispel them, or direct them to something they should fear more greatly will hopefully strengthen our cause.
For instance. Telling someone that guns don't kill people, but that people kill people may not be as helpful as making sure that people know that if you have the power to kill someone, you can use it to save the lives of yourself and those around you. That not acting to protect someone if you have the means is nearly as morally destitute as attacking them yourself.
If we play up our fears against theirs, maybe we stand a better chance of winning our arguments.
<Controversial Content Warning> Before you get offended here me out, this isn't meant as an attack, just a study in history and theories on biology and evolution. Most of this is paraphrasing and gross simplification of work by Dr. Dennis Moore and a whole heap of my own observations and assumptions and is just a theory and therefore carries absolutely no weight other than what you prescribe to it, but it makes sense to me.
If you have a problem with the following statements please PM me so as to avoid this degrading into an irrelevant arguments, or just understand that the following may be offensive to some parties and we can agree to disagree ahead of time. Thanks for your co-operation
<puts on flame retardant suit>I think a lot of the changes in the political atmosphere have a lot to do with the introduction of the thought process of women into a system created by men, with men running in it in mind.
Some theories hold that men and women have different prerogatives in their thinking necessitated by survival of the species in our formative years. Certainly I think we can all agree that men and women's though process differ
Women, being the bearer of children, are critically important to the survival of the species and more frequently vulnerable. A women has a better chance of reproducing and continuing the species if surrounded by a buffer of other potential targets and additional defenders.Men, as a gross generalization, being essentially disposable in the grand scheme of species survival develops as protector, combatant, and hunter. Survival for the male is dependent on his prowess in protecting and providing for himself, his mate, and children. These fundamental survival traits manifest themselves in vastly differing perspectives and philosophies.
As a gross generalization, women don't necessarily seek personal protection but a protective environment. Their perceptions tend to be skewed toward removing potential threats to see that the odds of their being put into danger are minimized. Their survival should something actually occur is not forefront in their thought process.
Men on the other hand tend to take a much more individual, personal, and active approach to their safety. This is exemplified in men tending to have a higher acceptable level of risk for things like motorcycling and contact sports.
Recent studies of women deployed in frontline combat also support these theories. Women of various nations deployed in combat disproportionately and rapidly become pregnant. According to the theory this is biologically exactly what they're programmed to do to preserve the species. Get themselves out of harms way and ensure safe reproduction.
Ideology is driven far more by biology than we would like to admit. These theories try to explain the differing perspective on "safety" that the major schools of though on self defense. Obviously it's they're only theories, and since people are involved exceptions are the rule thanks to our potential for higher brain function.
PS and OT: I was wanting to reference Dr. Moore's books and television specials on the relationship of biology, survival, and gender differences but all references to his work seem to have evaporated. Or I'm remember his name completely wrong. Either way, I'm rather annoyed because Discovery.com doesn't show any of the 6 or so specials he did that you used to be able to order from them and I can't find any of his 6 or so books on Amazon.com. He really has some done some extremely insightful and ground breaking work.
Hand_Rifle_Guy
Member
"Any ideas?"
Hmmm. Not right off. But a few thoughts.
First, I don't think my take on the situation neccessarily nails down the ENTIRE issue. I think I've only touched on one aspect of the issue, which is complicated and has many facets. Black Snowman's theory presents a subtle and far-reaching viewpoint that is very powerful and makes a great deal of sense. Additionaly, like my own asessment, it is non-exclusionary. Both theories can exist simultaneously without discrediting each other.
Second, changing the "non-responsibility for personal fears" attitude is going to be a difficult task. My perception is that the spread of this attitude is a somewhat lately condition, becoming widspread over the past 25 years or so, and is exemplified and reinforced by numerous court cases wherein individuals successfully pass off responsibility for the negative consequences of stupidity to the objects of stupid actions rather than taking their lumps as the perpetrators of stupid actions. How it is that people can raise children to look at themselves as not responsible unless it can be proven is outside my thinking and experience. I see that as a betrayal of personal integrity. Where/when we, as a society, dropped the requirement for personal integrity, or redefined it somehow so as to allow shirking personal responsibility, is somewhat of a mystery to me.
The primary difficulty I see with addressing the fearful aspects of the situation is that convincing a given individual who believes otherwise that their fears are their own problem requires that person to acknowledge that they are a coward in their own eyes. This is what I think makes the irresponsibility attitude so attractive, to wit: "I am not a weak-willed coward, these worries are not my problem." This is a very simplistic, not-personally-challenging worldview that amounts to the lazy-man's way out. The fact that this worldview seems to have become pervasive in our society of late does not speak well of it or it's future.
What's to be done? I'm not sure. I'm no sociologist, and I was aghast when I first started reading about consequence-dodging lawsuits in the late 70's. (I think the first one was a mother who was suing the city when her drunken teenage son killed himself climbing up and falling off of a closed drawbridge. There were barbed-wire fences and "No Tresspassing" signs in abundance, nevertheless the city was found negligent in allowing Mr. Young-drunk-dummy's determination to be an idiot overpower their ideas of what constituted common sense.) While I can understand the motivations of greedy lawyers to promote the idea that the city was negligent in protecting drunk idiots from themselves from a financial standpoint, I do not understand how that could translate into a cultural value that people raise their children with.
Or is it that I simply am severely mis-understanding the power of simple greed over personal integrity in the average citizen? And if that's the case, how come it didn't happen until now? Didn't judges and juries used to throw this kind of thing out as frivolous before? When did society's standards for justice for the individual change on such a fundamental level? I was a teenager when that dummy fell off the bridge, and the suit was idiotic to me then. Apparently it wasn't such to that idiot's mother, nor the judge and jury of the case, which would indicate the sea-change in attitude pre-dates my awareness of such things, which rather limits my understanding of it.
My current understanding suggests that the only solution is to fundamentally up-end the justice system in America, and hope that that trickles down to the level of what people teach their children. Personally, I was going to raise my kids correctly, and make sure that they had the right ideas about personal responsibility, as I was tought by my parents. I haven't got any kids, and I'm not about to tell people how to raise theirs, so I'm open to suggestions at this point.
It seems to indicate a systemic problem, but I am loathe to TELL people how to think, lest someone decide they have the right to dictate my thinking to ME.
A tough one, that.
Hmmm. Not right off. But a few thoughts.
First, I don't think my take on the situation neccessarily nails down the ENTIRE issue. I think I've only touched on one aspect of the issue, which is complicated and has many facets. Black Snowman's theory presents a subtle and far-reaching viewpoint that is very powerful and makes a great deal of sense. Additionaly, like my own asessment, it is non-exclusionary. Both theories can exist simultaneously without discrediting each other.
Second, changing the "non-responsibility for personal fears" attitude is going to be a difficult task. My perception is that the spread of this attitude is a somewhat lately condition, becoming widspread over the past 25 years or so, and is exemplified and reinforced by numerous court cases wherein individuals successfully pass off responsibility for the negative consequences of stupidity to the objects of stupid actions rather than taking their lumps as the perpetrators of stupid actions. How it is that people can raise children to look at themselves as not responsible unless it can be proven is outside my thinking and experience. I see that as a betrayal of personal integrity. Where/when we, as a society, dropped the requirement for personal integrity, or redefined it somehow so as to allow shirking personal responsibility, is somewhat of a mystery to me.
The primary difficulty I see with addressing the fearful aspects of the situation is that convincing a given individual who believes otherwise that their fears are their own problem requires that person to acknowledge that they are a coward in their own eyes. This is what I think makes the irresponsibility attitude so attractive, to wit: "I am not a weak-willed coward, these worries are not my problem." This is a very simplistic, not-personally-challenging worldview that amounts to the lazy-man's way out. The fact that this worldview seems to have become pervasive in our society of late does not speak well of it or it's future.
What's to be done? I'm not sure. I'm no sociologist, and I was aghast when I first started reading about consequence-dodging lawsuits in the late 70's. (I think the first one was a mother who was suing the city when her drunken teenage son killed himself climbing up and falling off of a closed drawbridge. There were barbed-wire fences and "No Tresspassing" signs in abundance, nevertheless the city was found negligent in allowing Mr. Young-drunk-dummy's determination to be an idiot overpower their ideas of what constituted common sense.) While I can understand the motivations of greedy lawyers to promote the idea that the city was negligent in protecting drunk idiots from themselves from a financial standpoint, I do not understand how that could translate into a cultural value that people raise their children with.
Or is it that I simply am severely mis-understanding the power of simple greed over personal integrity in the average citizen? And if that's the case, how come it didn't happen until now? Didn't judges and juries used to throw this kind of thing out as frivolous before? When did society's standards for justice for the individual change on such a fundamental level? I was a teenager when that dummy fell off the bridge, and the suit was idiotic to me then. Apparently it wasn't such to that idiot's mother, nor the judge and jury of the case, which would indicate the sea-change in attitude pre-dates my awareness of such things, which rather limits my understanding of it.
My current understanding suggests that the only solution is to fundamentally up-end the justice system in America, and hope that that trickles down to the level of what people teach their children. Personally, I was going to raise my kids correctly, and make sure that they had the right ideas about personal responsibility, as I was tought by my parents. I haven't got any kids,
and I'm not about to tell people how to raise theirs, so I'm open to suggestions at this point.It seems to indicate a systemic problem, but I am loathe to TELL people how to think, lest someone decide they have the right to dictate my thinking to ME.
A tough one, that.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Another, additive factor, is that of the perception of personal safety and security.
For over forty years, now, this country has been obsessed with removing any sort of risk from life. Seat belts, helmets, social programs, restrictions on all manner of once-common items and actions. Years ago, I coined the term "Naderism" to mean the idea that if we just passed enough laws and wrote enough regulations we would have a nice, warm, soft, fuzzy swaddling-cloth world. "Quite Safe At Any Speed"
Keep in mind that in this country we tend to legislate against things, as much as we do people's behavior. The drug laws illustrate this, along with gun control laws.
Thus those who are ignorant of the "World of Guns" are afraid of something they consider to be dangerous, and in this ignorance support those who would ban guns from other motives, other agendas.
Art
For over forty years, now, this country has been obsessed with removing any sort of risk from life. Seat belts, helmets, social programs, restrictions on all manner of once-common items and actions. Years ago, I coined the term "Naderism" to mean the idea that if we just passed enough laws and wrote enough regulations we would have a nice, warm, soft, fuzzy swaddling-cloth world. "Quite Safe At Any Speed"
Keep in mind that in this country we tend to legislate against things, as much as we do people's behavior. The drug laws illustrate this, along with gun control laws.
Thus those who are ignorant of the "World of Guns" are afraid of something they consider to be dangerous, and in this ignorance support those who would ban guns from other motives, other agendas.
Art
dustind
Member
I was going to say irrational fear of objects and other people, but the first part of my signature says it all.
It always amazes me how many people are afraid that if someone was drunk or angry and there was a knife in the room that someone would end up stabbed. If there are knives in the room, like most rooms, then change the word knife to pistol and the last word to shot in the first sentence. I imagine most gun owners would feel the same way about a hand grenade as other do towards knives or guns.
People always fear other people and society as a whole. They want to gain some type of control over others to feel safe.
It always amazes me how many people are afraid that if someone was drunk or angry and there was a knife in the room that someone would end up stabbed. If there are knives in the room, like most rooms, then change the word knife to pistol and the last word to shot in the first sentence. I imagine most gun owners would feel the same way about a hand grenade as other do towards knives or guns.
People always fear other people and society as a whole. They want to gain some type of control over others to feel safe.
After reading all these posts -and being influenced in no small part by those of Maimaktes- I have been reflecting more on the motives of the people who would ban guns, as well as those who would resist. In the end, I all comes down to the fact that a hell of a lot of us are unhappy because we're lving with the very real possibility of the Second Amendment being turned into a dead letter.
But the key word is "unhappy." What is happiness? Rather than try to answer that question myself, I will have recourse to one of those Dead White Males, those Greeks who had no remote controls, super bowls, nor shopping malls- and yet who managed to get out more truth in fewer words than anyone since. (Perhaps they managed BECAUSE they didn't have those things....)
This is what the big boys write (Aristotle, in this case, from Book I of the Nichomachean Ethics:
"-both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour; they differ, however, from one another- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance, they admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their comprehension."
In short, everyone has different opinions on what it takes to be happy- so NONE of those things can BE happiness. And every other good- health, wealth, friends, family, can be denied us or arbitrarily taken away by sickeness, accident, or violence. (I'll get where I'm going eventually, don't worry, ans specifically back to HERE).
The only good that cannot be taken away, Aristotle says, is the human soul acting with complete virtue, not for a day or a week, but considered over the whole span of a human life. To do this, each man must have a sufficiency (and only that) of the world's goods, as alluded to in the previous paragraph. Yet happiness does not exist in direct proportion to having MORE, as Aristotle says:
"For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other craftsmen. And if this is the case, the happy man can never become miserable-"
.....which, I might add, it sounds like Maimaktes is doing, and doing well: making the best of what little he has.
But where do GUNS come in? Apart from the great pleasure that may be derived from hunting, shooting, reloading, etc., we really defend our gun ownership from the standpoint of preserving our life, liberty, and pursuit of you-know-what from the forces that would remove that happiness, or its elements. And although our immediate concern might be with encountering some serial killer lurking in the bushes outside our house or apartment, we all know what the biggest force is we are ever likely to encounter: government. Those "old guys" knew that. The Roman Senator M. Tullius Cicero said "There never was a government that was not a liar, a thief, and a malefactor." And it doesn't matter whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or a Vegetarian, that's the truth, and a government is only inhibited where it knows the costs of any action it may contemplate will be too high.. Individuals and groups can be picked off by the FBI, ATF, or, if necessary, the military. But when faced with the uncertainty of X million people known to have a rifle over the fireplace, behind the kitchen door, or in the closet, the scope of action of any government, no matter how despotic, is limited.
When the Revolutionary War broke out, a Pennsylvania Tory, in a letter to friends in England, enjoined them as follows: "This province has raised up a thousand riflemen who can put a ball into a man's head at a hundred paces. Therefore tell your officers who shall come out to the colonies hereafter to put their affairs in order before departing." Now THERE is limited government.
But the key word is "unhappy." What is happiness? Rather than try to answer that question myself, I will have recourse to one of those Dead White Males, those Greeks who had no remote controls, super bowls, nor shopping malls- and yet who managed to get out more truth in fewer words than anyone since. (Perhaps they managed BECAUSE they didn't have those things....)
This is what the big boys write (Aristotle, in this case, from Book I of the Nichomachean Ethics:
"-both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour; they differ, however, from one another- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance, they admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their comprehension."
In short, everyone has different opinions on what it takes to be happy- so NONE of those things can BE happiness. And every other good- health, wealth, friends, family, can be denied us or arbitrarily taken away by sickeness, accident, or violence. (I'll get where I'm going eventually, don't worry, ans specifically back to HERE).
The only good that cannot be taken away, Aristotle says, is the human soul acting with complete virtue, not for a day or a week, but considered over the whole span of a human life. To do this, each man must have a sufficiency (and only that) of the world's goods, as alluded to in the previous paragraph. Yet happiness does not exist in direct proportion to having MORE, as Aristotle says:
"For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other craftsmen. And if this is the case, the happy man can never become miserable-"
.....which, I might add, it sounds like Maimaktes is doing, and doing well: making the best of what little he has.
But where do GUNS come in? Apart from the great pleasure that may be derived from hunting, shooting, reloading, etc., we really defend our gun ownership from the standpoint of preserving our life, liberty, and pursuit of you-know-what from the forces that would remove that happiness, or its elements. And although our immediate concern might be with encountering some serial killer lurking in the bushes outside our house or apartment, we all know what the biggest force is we are ever likely to encounter: government. Those "old guys" knew that. The Roman Senator M. Tullius Cicero said "There never was a government that was not a liar, a thief, and a malefactor." And it doesn't matter whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or a Vegetarian, that's the truth, and a government is only inhibited where it knows the costs of any action it may contemplate will be too high.. Individuals and groups can be picked off by the FBI, ATF, or, if necessary, the military. But when faced with the uncertainty of X million people known to have a rifle over the fireplace, behind the kitchen door, or in the closet, the scope of action of any government, no matter how despotic, is limited.
When the Revolutionary War broke out, a Pennsylvania Tory, in a letter to friends in England, enjoined them as follows: "This province has raised up a thousand riflemen who can put a ball into a man's head at a hundred paces. Therefore tell your officers who shall come out to the colonies hereafter to put their affairs in order before departing." Now THERE is limited government.
- Status
