Man hits girlfriend in face
with cooking pot when
she serves macaroni for dinner.
LKBIQ: Little known but interesting quotes.
TILT: Things I learned today.
Wow! I didn’t realize how the mention of guns could set off such a hornet’s nest of responses, most of them rather insulting. So let me go on record to make clear what it is I think about this issue (my opinions, that is). I have no illusions this will persuade any of the true believers.
First, I have owned guns since I was twelve years old. While I no longer hunt, I have hunted fairly extensively in the past. I currently own guns. They are all legal and are either for hunting or for defense of my home. I have never felt that anyone was going to try to take my guns away. I do not believe at the moment anyone is going to try to take them away. If anyone were to try to take them away I would certainly protest vehemently.
Some claim that Barack Obama is anti-gun, even though he has said plainly he is not going to take away anyone’s rifles, shotguns, or handguns. I guess he has said he would be in favor of banning assault weapons, and some controls over guns in some circumstances (as in the inner cities where they are used in gang wars).
As an experienced hunter I know that no one needs an assault rifle or a 50 caliber machine gun for that purpose. Thus the only rationale I can see for wishing to own such weapons, if you are not preparing to attack someone, is for defense. But defense from what? (1) defense of your home and person, (2) to defend your right to own guns if your government wants to take them away, (3) defense from being attacked by another country. or (4) defense in case of a “race war,” or a national collapse so serious as to result in uncontrollable riots over food and such.
If you start from the premise that one or more of these things is about to happen I can see why you would be concerned. But as you clearly do not need assault weapons to defend your home, and as I do not believe there is any justifiable, credible, or realistic fear that any of these conditions are at all likely, I am led to believe that ordinary people do not need to own such high-powered deadly weapons. The problem, as I see it, is that there are people who do believe such things are imminent. I live in a very conservative community where everyone owns guns and many believe there could be a national calamity or a serious effort on the part of the government to take away their guns. Indeed, I have at least two close friends who believe this. I know from personal experience there is no point in trying to reason with such people. However, I believe their fears are completely irrational and represent some form of paranoia or, perhaps merely hysteria. This is what I believe is causing the extraordinary increase in gun sales, including assault rifles. As in my view these fears are completely irrational, I think they might well be considered a form of insanity. Even if assault weapons were banned.it would not mean anyone was in fact taking away your guns. While I do not actively engage in trying to ban such guns I do think they are unnecessary and, in reality, mostly toys for those who are involved in the culture of guns.
And yes, I know there are people armed only with small arms that have and are holding off armies far more heavily armed. I believe most everyone is aware of this, including Barack Obama and others in government. As I know about how many firearms are privately owned in the U.S., and as I also know what Americans attitudes towards their guns are, I know that no one would be foolish enough to try to take them away, thus I do not worry needlessly about it. And yes, I know that in principle every individual whether rural or urban should have the same rights to own a gun, I also believe there are some situations where there should be tighter controls, as in the inner cities, for example, where we know the main purpose for owning handguns is to kill each other in devastating, useless, and out of control gang wars.
To the anonymous individual who seems to think I need a lecture on anthropology let me say I don’t appreciate it. Yes, of course I am familiar with cultural relativity, familiar enough to know that while values and beliefs may be relative to culture, they can also be terribly dysfunctional and not even in the best interest of those who hold them, let alone to others. If you must have facts, footnotes, references and whatever for every statement or opinion you read you should not be reading blogs. Try the Scientific American.
Finally, to the irreverant young moron who addressed me as “irrelevant old Professor,” you had better take some courses in logic. To imply that I might condone atrocities by Muslims or others because I object to our country torturing children is not only completely illogical, but absurd, and even borders on slanderous.
LKBIQ:
We are in the process of creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal.
-Carl Bernstein
TILT:
I find it rather amazing that Professors are apparently held in such low esteem. I guess my opinions would have more credibility had I stuck with ditch-digging and cement-carrying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"I have no illusions this will persuade any of the true believers...."
This is a truism. I can't speak for others, but I am driven solely by facts and logic. It is my specialty.
"I have never felt that anyone was going to try to take my guns away. I do not believe at the moment anyone is going to try to take them away."
What you appear to be saying in a convoluted way is the following: "I do not believe that anyone is going to take my guns because I do not own any of the guns that Obama wants to ban." It is written in a deceptive manner because it appears as if you are trying to lull the reader into thinking that there is no agenda to ban certain classes of guns. If this is not your intent, then your assertion contradicts subsequent assertions that you make, infra.
"If anyone were to try to take them away I would certainly protest vehemently."
Well, if you would protest vehemently if your guns were threatened, are you really surprised that others would protest vehemently when their guns are threatened?
"As an experienced hunter I know that no one needs..."
This statement raises two issues. First, the foundation of the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. The discussion of hunting is totally irrelevant to the issue. That is not to say that the second amendment does not protect hunting in a tangental way, but that is not what it is about. A plain reading of the text will reveal this to be the case. Second, the right to keep and bear arms is not about perceived needs. It is about fundamental human rights. The only way for people to try and sneak their agenda around the right to keep and bear arms is to change the argument from fundamental rights to some other topic like perceived needs or some other diversion.
Let's talk in terms of the real issue. What are our fundamental human rights as American citizens and as human beings? Since you are a retired professor, you might enjoy reading some scholarly works on this topic:
"The Human Right of Self-Defense" (Kopel, http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf)
"Human Rights And Gun Confiscation" (Kopel, http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Human-Rights-and-Gun-Confiscation.pdf)
"Dhimmitude and Disarmament" (Kopel, http://www.law.gmu.edu/gmucrlj/docs/kopel.doc)
"Thus the only rationale I can see for wishing to own such weapons, if you are not preparing to attack someone, is for defense. But defense from what? (1) defense of your home and person, (2) to defend your right to own guns if your government wants to take them away, (3) defense from being attacked by another country..."
"... I do not believe there is any justifiable, credible, or realistic fear that any of these conditions are at all likely...."
As to point 1 and point 3, I think that you have lived a very sheltered life as a professor, and it appears to have made you insensitive and hostile to the dangers that humans face. It is not possible to predict the precise requirements for defending one's home or country. As such, it is wise to plan for the unexpected. Planning for the expected is fine, but it is the so-called six sigma events that prove so dangerous to survival. As they say, "plan for the worst, but expect the best."
As to point 2, in one breath you say that there is no "...justifiable, credible, or realistic..." threat that the government will want to ban any weapons, and in another breath, you say, based on Obama's own words and based on your own words a few sentences above this point, that Obama "...would be in favor of banning assault weapons...." You are contradicting yourself. Since Obama is in favor of banning certain guns, then based on your own argument, that is a reason to own assault weapons. You said it, not me.
"...there are people who do believe such things are imminent....This is what I believe is causing the extraordinary increase in gun sales, including assault rifles. As in my view these fears are completely irrational..."
But, you just admitted the following. First, per point 2, supra, it is proper to own assault weapons "...to defend your right to own guns if your government wants to take them away...." Second, the government does, indeed, want to take away assault weapons based on Obama's own words. These fears ARE NOT IRRATIONAL. These fears are based on the plain meaning of what Obama and others are clearly saying is their agenda. Taking others at face value is proper under the circumstances. It is not a form of insanity, as you improperly alluded.
"Even if assault weapons were banned.(sic)it would not mean anyone was in fact taking away your guns."
This statement needs further clarification.
"...while values and beliefs may be relative to culture, they can also be terribly dysfunctional and not even in the best interest of those who hold them...."
You mean like stereotyping and name-calling? What about demonizing entire classes of people? Demonizing entire classes of people is an abusive behavior and is used as a prelude and justification for subsequent oppression and persecution of the demonized class.
"...if you must have facts, footnotes, references and whatever for every statement or opinion you read you should not be reading blogs."
That is misrepresenting what I said. It is proper to support one's assertions with facts and logic. This is especially true if one is going to use divisive and incendiary terms with reckless abandon. This includes stereotyping entire groups of people as [fill in the blank].
Your most recent posting is dramatically improved compared to the prior one, but it still contains contradictory arguments and misrepresents prior arguments. I would give it a "C+".
I can't improve much upon the previous comment, but i will bring up one point that has seemed to escape those decrying the recent increase in gun sales as irrational.
The argument goes "the government is not going to come take your guns away, so there's no reason to run out and buy one."
That argument is simply, to put it bluntly, stupid.
If I truly believed that the government was going to come confiscate my guns, why on earth would I be spending my hard earned money buying more? If they are going to come take them away, why spend the money?
That doesn't even make sense.
The issue is that the government is going to ban FUTURE PURCHASES of them...just like they did in 1994 and just like Obama, Nancy Pelosi and any number of other Democrat politicians have been promising to do since BEFORE the 1994 ban expired.
THAT'S why people are buying guns now...because we may not be able to in the future.
And that's why the increase in gun sales hasn't included an increase in sales of hunting arms.
If you want to argue that our fears of a future reinstatement of a ban on semi-automatic rifles that look scary are unfounded, then please explain why.
Your argument, as stated...that we fear our guns being taken, is a straw man.
You can argue that we don't need them all you want. Just as I can argue that Blacks don't NEED to ride in the front of the bus and that women don't NEED to be paid the same amount as men.
Fortunately, in a liberty based society, neither you, nor I get to decide what other people "need".
As to the gun issue as with every other issue the morons can think of and then some, the Rethugs are going to accuse Obama of every stale 'Librul' cliche in the book.
They lost and they are just being Whiny Ass Titty Babies. You can't change their feeble little minds. A line I saw in a post today that applies is "Arguing against this crap is like explaining to a meth tweaker that the shadow people aren't real".
Hang in there. We're in for a bumpy ride.
@ Gordon:
We are trying to engage in a discussion of substantive issues. If you would like to make substantive comments to the ongoing dialog, that would be great. I don't see that using insults and name-calling is going to get anywhere. In your short comment, there are an inordinately large number of instances of insults and name-calling:
"morons"
"Rethugs"
"Whiny Ass Titty Babies"
"feeble little minds"
You seem rather angry and judgmental. I hope that you are able to find peace in your life.
"As to the gun issue as with every other issue the morons can think of and then some, the Rethugs are going to accuse Obama of every stale 'Librul' cliche in the book."
Are you alleging that this ongoing discussion involves the use of liberal cliches? I have been arguing solely on the basis of morialekafa's words and Obama's words. I have not left any room for the use of cliches. Perhaps you could clarify to which uses of cliches you are referring.
"They lost and they are just being Whiny Ass Titty Babies. You can't change their feeble little minds."
If you are going to accuse me of having a feeble mind, you need to support such allegations with facts. I do not appreciate this type of baseless personal attack.
Sometimes people use personal attacks to divert from answering substantive issues when they feel like they have a weak position. This mode of attack relies on a psychological limitation of many people in which bystanders presume that someone who is being aggressively accused is guilty without engaging in proper inquiry to determine guilt or innocence. I would hate to think that anyone in the modern age would ever stoop to such a level.
Once again, if you would like to contribute to the ongoing dialog, please feel free to address the substantive issues at hand.
Some people really need to supervise their children better when they're accessing the internet.
Best of luck.
Post a Comment