-
Website
http://riseuprochester.org -
Original page
http://riseuprochester.org/2008/11/10/jesus-jefferson-gandhi-hamilton-and-hitler-on-gun-control/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
"More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now."
This above quote was actually exactly what I was thinking of and wanting to get across to Ryan W earlier. Our founding fathers wanted to protect Americans then and in the future. Tyranny is never a far cry. Ron Paul is a brilliant writer and speaker; it's generally his speechs/writings that come into my mind throughout these various topics, as I'm not sure there is anyone that can get an important mesage across better than him.
Another of his quotes:
"...the Constitution’s Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk."
I agree. If we do not even have the right to protect ourselves, what other rights even matter before that?
1. Quoting our founding fathers for advice about gun control is almost entirely irrelevant. Would you follow a strict interpretation of Henry Ford's ideas on Model T auto safety in the world of the modern automobile? No, technological change requires you to think for yourself, for today. Were our founding fathers that much more brilliant than us and are their ideas more relevant to us today than our own ideas? No, if you take anything from our founding fathers, it should be that these were men who defined themselves and thought for themselves. We can do that today too.
2. Unlike the Nazis, Soviets or any other country that massacred its own people, our country is highly diversified and we have a government that promotes diversity. It would be easier for me to agree with you if our government was openly advocating persecution or hostility to any particular groups in this country. This is an important distinction between us and failed regimes of the past.
3. No one here has offered any practical limits on what they think defines "protecting oneself." I think at one point that daisy yang poster was ranting about legalizing plastic explosives. Would legalizing plastic explosive allow the citizenry to protect themselves in a greater way? Probably, but putting plastic explosives the hands of the common man would probably introduce many more problems than it would solve.
4. I'll bring back up the idea from my other post: Do you really think an uncoordinated American public would stand a chance against an organized US military? Someone posited the idea that military would become demoralized if the citizenry fought back. Wouldn't this give Army people more justification for what they were doing? It seems easier to feel bad about hurting innocent people than it is about people who are shooting at you.
5. If you still feel concerned about the military or government persecuting you, why not join the military? One thing we can learn from the civil rights movement is that it is harder for a government to persecute minorities if minorities have an active place in government.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/p...
2) Ethan answered this in the best way I see possible. Just because we have a diverse nation does not mean that a majority cannot create tyranny. I urge you to educate yourself on tyranny, as it does not appear that you understand that it is a real possibility in the future, especially when we are on the track of taking more and more rights away from the American People.
3) I would put more value into what you say if Daisy Yang’s comments were not what you put value in. You must have missed her comments about Boston Crème Pie and wiping someone’s blood up off the floor, prior to that comment being taken down. Her comments were sick, twisted, and made no sense to any of the discussions we were having. I will not respond to any questions pertaining to Daisy Yang, as, in case you missed this, her response to her comments being taken down was to post the word “penis” on one of the pages. This is a person whose opinion you value?
Your question about plastic explosives is ridiculous. I think it is obvious that I believe that having a gun is the best method of protection.
4) You have said this over and over again, questioning that the “uncoordinated American public would stand a chance against an organized US military.” So your answer to that is to TAKE AWAY any possibility of being able to defend ourselves? It’s simple: If our right to bear arms is taken away from us, then it will be known that we are disarmed and definitely unable to protect ourselves. If we continue to have our right to bear arms, then it will be known that we have the ability to protect ourselves.
5) Joining the military is not the answer. That’s a similar mentality to joining a gang so that the gang does not hurt you. Do not get your panties in a bunch, I am not comparing our military to a gang, I’m just saying that I’m not going to join the military for just the reason of wanting to protect myself. I already have an “active place” in the government and plan on becoming even more involved to try and make sure that we can retain our rights.
I’m just not quite sure where in your list there is an argument that trumps my argument for why we should have a right to bear arms. Your only real argument is that you don’t think that tyranny is a real possibility, and, therefore, not something we need to plan for or protect ourselves against. Other than that, I don’t see any real argument here.
2. Do you not see the active division taking place in this country? Politicians pit young against old, black against white, rich against poor. Strata are being developed to be exploited. The Soviets used class warfare to divide the people. Our diversity makes it that much easier for the powers that would like to be to divide us. Tyranny of the majority is something that needs to be avoided at all costs. Just because we have many ethnic groups in our country does not prevent a majority from creating tyranny.
3. Daisy Yang's comments were purposefully ridiculous. Plastic explosive would not stop someone from doing immediate harm too you. That is my definition of protecting myself, maintaining the ability to stop others from doing immediate harm to me. There is no single better tool for that than protection with a firearm, specifically a hand gun.
4. Again, it does not matter. If you took away guns from the people you would only be guaranteeing their failure to defend themselves. If the people fail to defend themselves from tyrannical government without that handicap then so be it, but to handicap them and never give them the chance strikes of immorality. Besides, the people have won before, and they could do it again.
5. Being a member of the military does not give you privilege to change the policies of the military. The government however, does have control over military policy and it is the government that people should be joining in order to prevent a tyranny of the government administered by the military. And to answer your question, yes, I do plan on taking an active roll in government to prevent the very acts I fear.
Now, a question for you, which I’ve asked before. When the police, store owner, military or anyone else you put on that list of people whom you think it could be okay to have guns, when they are not there to protect you from being robbed or beat or murdered, what would you do? Would you prefer to be defenseless against the attack or would you prefer to be able to defend yourself? Just knowing that you have a gun could be enough to prevent your assailant from attacking you. Would you want to carry that protection or not?
2. Any legitimate references for active division taking place in this country?
3. Yes the were. Now can you please in detail describe what qualities distinguish a handgun from plastic explosives (both destructive devices) in the context of why we should allow ownership of one, but not the other?
4. So you still think a loosely organized militia could take on the Army? Or you don't care that they couldn't and are still clinging onto your point?
5. Government participation is important, however the government can't control the efficiency of the army. It can order it to do demoralizing things, but it won't do them efficiently.
To answer your question, I don't have anyone who is actively seeking to rob, beat or murder me. Maybe that's because I haven't given anyone reason to, or maybe its because the police and military are doing their job well.
2. Any legitimate references for my a diverse society is less likely to be beholden to tyranny?
3. A pistol has the quality of being a precise weapon. I point it and I shoot at the target. Plastic explosives are meant for destruction not stopping power. I never said people could or couldn't have plastic explosives, that is outside of the gun argument. I am asking you why you think we shouldn't have hand guns. Please stick to the topic. But if I want to stop someone from doing me physical harm a gun is the most effective means of stopping them.
4. Yes I do, and yes they have. A loosely formed militia defeated the British. Loosely formed militias keep various governments at bay around the world today. I do care that they could and would defend themselves. Do you not care about handicapping their ability to do so?
5. I never said anything about military efficiency. In this country the government controls the actions of the military. It is through government that we would prevent a situation of oppression of our people. If the military went rogue, joining it would not stop their actions. The only thing to do would be to fight it.
Most people don't have anyone actively seeking to rob, beat or murder them. But then people who least expect it suffer from these fates, don't they? Or are you of the belief that everyone murdered is deserving of their fate? A police officer cannot be following you around all day to protect you. You are your own first line of defense. But you did not answer my question. I asked you if you would want the ability to defend yourself. What would you do when faced with someone ready to do you serious harm?
You have gone off on so many tangents when the core of the argument is wether or not people should be able to defend themselves with guns. I feel I have done a good job of explaining the threats facing the individual and the reasons they should be able to protect themselves. It would be nice if you would do the same for your beliefs instead of changing the arguments to militias can't win anyway, and noone wants to hurt me, and the founding fathers had stupid ideas. We are talking about the ability to protect yourself. What are your views? Do you believe that these threats to ones life are just imaginary and that government will protect you?
2) Well, I can think of diverse societies that leaders used the different groups against each other to consolidate power. It's human history and it's tribalism.
3) Precisely. Not to mention, the founding fathers made no distinction from the start. See Nicole's quote at the top by Ron Paul.
4) Any military would be wise to think twice before turning on a population with a loosely-formed militia. Here I give my caution, this word was so demonized under Clinton that it's probably better to avoid the "M" word, considering that most people have no idea what that word means. Most would seem to connect the idea with that of "White al-CIA-da". What a shame.
If you'd like a modern example of this watch "No End in Sight" on Google Video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6182969...
5) People that have never seen tyranny in their lifetime or have not studied history simply have no idea of the MECHANISMS that allow DESPOTS to rule. If people put themselves in the shoes of a despot, they would understand why kings built castles and dictators disarmed the common people. It's mechanisms of power that allow for domination, technological progress can either work to free or enslave people.
Making the assumption that technology always is used to liberate people and uplift humanity is simply not the case.
I agree Ethan, the threat is not imaginary because the mechanisms of tyranny always exist. Tyranny is only one generation away from the freest of people throughout history.
"I don't have anyone who is actively seeking to rob, beat or murder me. Maybe that's because I haven't given anyone reason to, or maybe its because the police and military are doing their job well."
Or maybe it's because we currently have the right to bear arms. But let's go with your idea and take that right away, and then we'll see what happens.
"Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration." Martin Luther King, Jow Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.r., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 27, Harper & R
http://www.quoteland.com/topic.asp?CATEGORY_ID=70
This site claims that Gandhi never supported the individual right to bear arms, but simply considered the disbanding of the Indian Army as a cause of great suffering.
Feel free to add other quotes to this discussion.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."-- George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutions, 1903
http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm
I spent more years than I care to mention in Catholic school, with many hours devoted to theology. I encourage you to check your chapter:verse again, because you seem to have made a mistake somewhere along the way.
Above, you have written: “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe.” (Matthew 11:21) (Note, the text later states that a stronger or better armed criminal could overpower a weaker or poorly armed victim, so get a magnum!)" Matthew 11:21 actually says ""Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." As you can see, there is no mention of arms, guards or defense in this verse. Only a warning to repent.
I think you were looking for Luke 11:21. Interestingly, the next verse in Luke is "But when a stronger man than he attacks and defeats him, the stronger man[s] strips off that man’s armor in which he trusted and then divides his plunder." Does the logic follow that the man should "get a Magnum," as you have suggested? No. That is, not if you take the time to read Luke 11:14-23 instead of two sentences out of a larger paragraph. When you put the quote back into context, the reader sees quite clearly that this commentary has nothing to do with legitimizing the defense of one's own home, and instead was a symbolic statement (Jesus used these frequently in the bible) made to a crowd who was accusing him of taking his powers from Satan.
Your quote from Luke 22 is right on, but I encourage you again to not take these quotes out of context. If you read Luke 22: 35-38 instead of just the one sentence, you get a much different idea of what Jesus might have been refering to. "Then Jesus asked his disciples, “When I sent you out without a wallet, traveling bag, or sandals, you didn't lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing at all.” Then he said to them, “But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one. Because I tell you, what has been written about me must be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the criminals.’ Indeed, what is written about me must be fulfilled.” So they said, “Lord, look! Here are two swords.” He answered them, “Enough of that!”
The commonly accepted interpretation of this passage is that Jesus was trying to warn the disciples about the trouble that they were about to have; specifically, that he would be crucified and their faith would be tested. In the last sentences, when the disciples take what he has said literally, and excitedly produce two swords, well, our historical figure didn't seem so enthused. Later in the same chapter, when Jesus is being taken away, a sword is used to defend him, cutting off the ear of one of the arresting soldiers. Jesus basically tells his disciples to stop the violence, then he heals the man's ear. (Luke 22: 47-53)
You've also quoted Exodus seemingly to allude to what Jesus might have said, or at least to what Christianity might say. Exodus is in the Old Testament, and was written long before the time of Christ. Incidentally, the Old Testament is also a holy book to the Jewish religion. An important note here is that, from the standpoint of the Christian religions, there is a distinct difference between the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). The OT involved a "God" of which we should be fearful, while the NT promotes God as a loving, cuddly father figure. (I'm not trying to be offensive, merely trying to be succinct.) The quote you've used is pretty typical of OT wisdom, which also would have us beating our wives and children, and eating a strictly Kosher diet. Jesus typically said things that were radically different from many of the OT pearls of wisdom, and for this reason, it is not a good idea to use a quote from Exodus to in any way make a guess at what Jesus would have said about any subject. In general, the Christian dogma is at odds with much of what is contained in the OT. The same argument holds true for the quote you've used from 1Samuel, also an OT book.
My concern about your use of these "quotes" is that , at best, they are misleading when taken out of context. At worst, they weaken an argument, and suggest a lack of understanding of a major religion on the part of the writer. I do not consider myself a practicing Catholic or even a practicing Christian; I question the existence of a god. The fact that the bible can be considered an historical document is arguable, but it can at the very least be considered a literary work. If you are truly interested in what this major religion has to say on the subject of self-defense, I encourage you to further educate yourself. Focus on things such as the difference between the OT and the NT, and on accepted interpretations of this major literary work. Refrain from taking piecesof it , large or small, out of context, as this is not a good analytical strategy for any researcher.
Finally, if you are not particularly interested in the religion's view of what is an important political issue, don't feel obligated to include it in the discussion. Per fortuna, the US supposedly strives to separate church and state, and it may be important for us to separate the two in our discourse as well.
Also, thank you for your perspective on the Bible. I was "quoting Jesus" only to simulate conversation and to that end this post has been a success. I am aware of the differences between the OT and NT, but I guess that I don't see the distinction between the God in them as large as most people. Jesus has been feminized in today's culture (there are some books on the topic) and it's no wonder that there are so few men in the pews each week.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, as most other people focused on the Founding Fathers instead of the quotes you talked about.
You have no argument here.
Banning something ensures that it goes away. Excuse me, my Bathtub Gin needs stirring.....
The fact that there's no epidemic of explosions points more to the notion that people generally (thankfull) don't want to randomly kill people, it's not due to any issues of legality of materials.
So people don't want explosives to protect their property and families. They want guns. Different items with a different purpose and your argument to equate the two is dishonest.