Wetlook World Forum

Message # 48475.1.2.1.3.1.2

Subject: sheepdogs and wolves!

Date: Sun 09/01/11 16:55:53 GMT

Name: NCgreg

Email:

Website:

By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Sun 09/01/11 12:29:44 GMT

Website:

An important point to consider is the perspectives of the authors. A soldier's training changes his perspective from that of an ordinary citizen. The soldier who survives in battle is like the sheepdog - alert for the wolf, ready, willing, and eager for the fight. The soldier understands weaponry - his and his opponent's, and thinks in terms of defeating an opponent by means of violence. Me? I just want to make a living and enjoy the fruits of my labours. I don't want to have to arm myself, and make myself a target because possession of a lethal weapon has made me a threat to somebody.

I'm all for the policeman carrying his gun anywhere and everywhere when he's on or off duty. He's trained in its use, and if he ever has to draw it, chances are, it will not be purely in his own defense.

The warrior is equipped with the tools and training to defend his home country (or apply force to further his nation's political agenda), as the case may be.

The policeman is armed to protect himself and his community.

The hunter/wilderness adventurer is equipped with essential "tools of the trade" and/or defence against the beasts of the wild.

The citizen gun owner is seeking only to protect himself from someone, some day, who might threaten him.

I can see a certain nobility, or at least logic to three out of the above four.

You may have the right to bear arms, but must it be a necessity? Or worse: an obligation?

By Copasetic - Sun 09/01/11 01:02:08 GMT

Website:

By Reckonerrr - Sat 08/01/11 23:38:14 GMT

Website:

Humans are the only species on Earth that make it more "accessible" and "employable" to kill their own kind. Other animals do it, but they test each other's strength. The strongest survive, and their species grows. Humans hide behind a weapon. Now I'm not saying that guns are "evil," but I am saying that those who carry them, no matter what they say, carry them out of fear. Any denying that is nothing more than childish and naive.

PS:

"So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced."

Again, as the OP is saying, he's not saying some should have guns and some shouldn't. He's saying that no citizen should have one. Still equally armed.

By NCgreg - Sat 08/01/11 23:17:52 GMT

Website:

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.  The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.  When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. C audill USM C (Ret)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

By Walter - Sat 08/01/11 17:10:38 GMT

Website:

Not everyone in America has a rifle. You ever been there?

By Sponge14U - Sat 08/01/11 17:02:08 GMT

Website:

ammonition has to be banned from all over the planet-then the rifles are better melted down as well

http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/ondemand100_id-video839136.html

God bless America-without rifles!