The Gun Is Civilization

[DWC]

This is the best statement concerning the personal right and reason to bear arms I have ever read.

http://corneredcat.com/Why_the_Gun_is_Civilization/

Take that you uncivilized antis !!!

Semper Fi,

[Johnny Rico]

1. Or, to put it another way:

God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.

[shadowrider]

2. "With guns we are citizens. Without them we are subjects"

[iverglas]

36. I see you've changed your sig line

By choice? But you're still asserting that firearms control supporters are analogous to the worst specimens of humanity the world has known. You're just a charmer, eh?

So, without guns you are subjects. Of what/whom? I'm just curious, and obviously you're the one to tell me.

I don't have guns. Perhaps I'm a subject of Stephen Harper ...

You've got quotation marks around that statement, so I assume you are quoting somebody. It's found on so many ugly right-wing websites that I'd have a hard time figuring out who is quoting whom, I'm afraid. Can you identify the source for us? Ta.

[shadowrider]

37. Your insinuation is insulting and I can change my sig line again.

Unless you're in some position of authority on this website, you can't stop me.

And for your information, that sig line is VERY VERY personal. Lay off unless you've walked in my shoes.

[iverglas]

40. gosh, you'd almost think I wasn't referring to your previous sig line

The really, really ugly one. The one penned by a right-wing piece of crap you decided to quote.

"Gun Control: The idea that somehow a woman found raped and dead in an alley, strangled with her own hose, is somehow morally superior to the woman who has to explain to the police why her attacker is dead from a gunshot wound."

I have no idea what is "personal" about your current sig line, but you might want not to assume that someone else has not walked in your shoes, or worse.

[iverglas]

41. you don't seem to have answered my question

I almost got diverted by the self-righteous indignation.

"With guns we are citizens. Without them we are subjects"

-- whom are you quoting?

And of whom am I a subject?

[shadowrider]

44. Back off

[iverglas]

47. no

So whaddaya gonna do now?



Who said that stuff you quoted, hm?

Robert Heinlein?

[DWC]

88. D. Michael Wiechman, May 14, 1996 n/t

[iverglas]

89. snork

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/03/the-constitution-doesnt-begin-and-end-with-the-second-amendment/

The worst statement I read about guns was a Facebook post I saw not long ago that made me as angry as I’ve been in years. The words were credited to someone named D. Michael Wiechman, about whom I could find no information besides his frequently referenced quote:

“A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.”

That’s the biggest bunch of crap I’ve ever read in such a short sentence. So Jared Loughner, Byron Williams, and Richard Poplawski are citizens, but I’m not a citizen? Paranoid right-wing militias are full of citizens, but I’m not a citizen? Deadbeat dad Joe Walsh is a citizen, but I’m not a citizen?

Owning guns doesn’t make anybody a citizen. The United States Constitution makes us all citizens. Understanding that the Constitution doesn’t begin and end with Second Amendment is a lesson of citizenship that we all need to learn.

[Doctor_J]

98. Hah. Notice how our gun nuttiness has kept us from becoming subjects over the last 20 years?

oh, wait. not a single one of our gunsters has fired a single shot against tyranny while the rest of the BoR has been shredded, voting rights stripped, elections stolen, and the entire treasury handed over to the MIC and a few corporations.

Save your false bromides for the next NRA/Obama's an alien meeting. Not everyone here is dumb enough to believe it.

[DWC]

99. Over the last 20 years hundreds of thousands of "gunsters"

have used their guns to defend themselves against attack from many sources. I am one of them.

I have absolutely no idea what your post is about and sincerely wonder if you do either.

Semper Fi,

[petronius]

100. It's the rarely seen cousin to the 'your handgun won't do shit against

a B-2 or ICBM' schtick, which is frequently offered in response to suggestions that the 2A is a defense against tyrannical government. Doc J is complaining the opposite: that guns haven't been used to overthrow our current government. As a support for the stricter-control position, the latter is no more valid than the former...

[Doctor_J]

102. Which is excellent

It is a good thing that you had a gun and were able to put it to use for protection.

But my point could not have been more clear. the two main points of this bizarre OP are that

1. A country can't be civilized unless guns are a crucial part of the culture, and
2. The removal of all gun control will somehow protect us from galloping oppression from the government

These assertions are absurd on their face, and your personal experience does nothing to make them less so. Point one is easily disproven by observing the rest of western world. Point two was thoroughly debunked by my previous post, to which you replied.

Part of this is my fault for engaging in a thread that was started by the post of a right-wing chain e-mail. But, here we are. As I have said before, the NRA and gun culture enjoy much more latitude here than anti-choice, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-Obama and other right wing interest groups. If someone made a post agreeing with Limpballs or Beck about one of their insufferable talking points, the post would be deleted and the poster tombstoned. But agreement with right-wing chain mails is OK in this context. It's strange.

Edit: BTW, I do appreciate the service that you and the rest of the marines and soldiers have given. It seems that the sum total of the thanks that vets get these days is to stand and salute on the ice before hockey games. The treatment they receive, their rates of unemployment, illness, and homelessness, is just one more reason I detest our endless wars.

Best,
J

[JackintheGreen]

3. So by this logic we should allow Iran a nuclear weapon?

Because it would remove the threat of force and place Israel and Iran on equal footing, thus necessitating the deployment of reason to solve differences?

You'll tear me apart for being facile, but this would be a big hit at AIPAIC.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. Iran should be allowed to do whatever its people want to do.

If Iran wants a nuclear weapon, that is their business.

[JackintheGreen]

5. I absolutely agree with you there. n/t

[ellisonz]

11. Yes!

Nuclear weapons for everybody! The gunnerhood logic has truly reached MADness.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. I wish there were no nuclear weapons. But it is immoral to say "some for me, none for thee."

I wish there were no nuclear weapons.

But there are.

And if I was a country that did not have the atomic bomb, I would be working on it feverishly so that I was not the next target of imperialistic American "regime change". You'll notice we don't fuck with anyone who has the bomb.

Nations should have the right of self-determination in terms of their internal energy and self-defense goals.

Certainly it is immoral for nations with nuclear weapons to dictate to other nations that they cannot also have them.

Now if the United States wanted to rid itself of all nuclear weapons, then it would have the moral authority to tell other countries not to have them also.

[ellisonz]

15. So we should have given Gaddafi a nuke?

Certainly it is immoral for nations with nuclear weapons to dictate to other nations that they cannot also have them.

How about the Assad regime? Or how about Mugabe? Or how about Sudan? If we have no reason to oppose them having one, we should just sell them a bomb at cut rate prices!

Between the extrajudicial murders and the pro-nuclear proliferation view I'm just not quite sure what your understanding of "moral authority consists of, but I'm pretty sure it's not even remotely close to my views.

Also, if you think Iran is doing this for "internal energy" needs, you are a sucker.

"If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce."
-Sir Winston Churchill

&feature=fvst

[Atypical Liberal]

16. I did not advocate GIVING nuclear weapons to anyone.

You will notice that I never advocated giving nuclear weapons to anyone.

I said that every nation has the right to develop its defense strategies as it sees fit, and it is completely immoral for nations with nuclear weapons to try and dictate to others that they cannot have them.

Also, if you think Iran is doing this for "internal energy" needs, you are a sucker.

Which is why I specifically mentioned nuclear weapons. But whether for energy OR weapons, countries should be free to pursue such endeavors as they see fit and as their people allow.

And nations who use nuclear power for both have no business telling other nations that they cannot do it also.

Between the extrajudicial murders and the pro-nuclear proliferation view I'm just not quite sure what your understanding of "moral authority consists of, but I'm pretty sure it's not even remotely close to my views.

Likewise I'm astonished that you're evidently cool with the hypocrisy of nations with nuclear technology telling nations without it that they can't have it.

[ellisonz]

19. lol - you might as well give'em to them Cowboy...

BTW - No one is telling Iran they can't have nuclear energy, it's just that the odds that this is the case are very very very low.

The NPT is moral, just, and consistent with the ideals of international peace and security. Those that oppose the NPT are fools who view existence through a narrow prism that no self-respecting world leader can afford to be fooled by; the answer is not an arms-race, or proliferation, the answer is as few nuclear weapons as possible.

We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions. - President Barack Obama, 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech.

Educate yourself - you don't seem to understand the awful threat of nuclear weapons and why your supposition of fairness in this regard is supremely ignorant:

[Atypical Liberal]

21. The answer is not more American imperialism.

BTW - No one is telling Iran they can't have nuclear energy, it's just that the odds that this is the case are very very very low.

You keep belaboring this point to no purpose.

Yes, I understand that Iran's goal is nuclear weapons - as it is the goal of just about every nation without nuclear weapons who chooses not to risk being the next victim of forced "regime change" - especially if they have notable oil reserves like Iran does.

A nuclear deterrent is about the only thing that might keep the United States from overt military action against you.

The only reason I mentioned nuclear power is that we would no doubt condemn even that endeavor also.

The NPT is moral, just, and consistent with the ideals of international peace and security. Those that oppose the NPT are fools who view existence through a narrow prism that no self-respecting world leader can afford to be fooled by; the answer is not an arms-race, or proliferation, the answer is as few nuclear weapons as possible.

Educate yourself - you don't seem to understand the awful threat of nuclear weapons and why your supposition of fairness in this regard is supremely ignorant:

I don't know how to put it any more plainly: No nation, especially one with one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world, has the right to dictate to other nations that they can or cannot have nuclear weapons.

Would you endorse other nations tell the United States how it should go about its national defense? Why should other nations tolerate it?

I can't believe you seriously endorse the "some for me, but none for thee" approach to nuclear weapons.

NPT is great - for all those nations that already have the bomb.

[ellisonz]

22. And bombs for the Tamil Liberation Tigers...

...and bombs for the IRA, and bombs for Al-Qaeda, and bombs for FARC, and bombs for the Zetas. After all, who are we to deny nuclear weapons to anybody!

- argument as the basis, and silly argument as the conclusion, but at least we're seeing your pro-proliferation colors in their true shade. MADness.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Again, I am not pro-proliferation.

And once again you are resorting to putting words in my mouth to try and make an argument.

I'm not advocating giving nuclear weapons to anyone.

Nor am I advocating the development or possession of nuclear weapons by non-nation-state entities.

I'm saying that every nation has the right of self-determination. That includes military endeavors for preservation of the state as they see fit.

No nation has the right to dictate to others how they can maintain a military, or military weapons. And certainly no nation with nuclear weapons has the right to dictate to others that they may not have them.

MAD is the only deterrent to such nations.

In retrospect, at least you are consistent in your positions.

You don't believe people should have the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and you don't believe nations should, either.

I ask you again: Do you think the United States would tolerate another nation dictating to them whether or not they could have nuclear weapons? Why do you think other nations can or should?

[ellisonz]

25. I think we already tolerate it as party to the NPT.

"You don't believe people should have the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and you don't believe nations should, either."

And mustard gas for the Kurds, and nerve agents for the Taliban, and bio-weapons for the Chechens...

Here's the thing: as soon as you start supposing that there is no thing such as international law to govern such matters, you might as well give nuclear weapons to everyone. It seems the law you believe in is survival of the fittest, and to that, I must say, really?

Your argument for more guns everywhere immediately falls flat when put into the international context because it is absurd on the face of it.

I'm saying that every nation has the right of self-determination. That includes military endeavors for preservation of the state as they see fit.

So you thought our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was fine and dandy?

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Are you even reading my posts?

And mustard gas for the Kurds, and nerve agents for the Taliban, and bio-weapons for the Chechens...

As I already said, I'm not advocating nuclear weapons for non-nation-state entities.

I'm saying that all nation-states have the right of self-determination, and that includes matters of national defense.

Your argument for more guns everywhere immediately falls flat when put into the international context because it is absurd on the face of it.

Why?

So you thought our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was fine and dandy?

No.

[ellisonz]

30. I'm quoting your post. Why would you think I'm not reading them?

1. Define "nation-states" - by what measure would you determine who has a legitimate claim to a nation state and who has an illegitimate claim to a nation-state.

2. The more nuclear weapons are in a greater variety of hands the increased likelihood that they will actually be used in conflict.

3. I don't see how you can make an argument that self-determination consists of "military endeavors for preservation of the state as they see fit," and make any argument against our foul invasion of Iraq. After all, you are the one saying there are no standards of international law. Do you believe the purpose of international law is to increase global security and enforce humanitarian norms or not?

[Atypical Liberal]

35. You aren't quoting the relevant parts.

1. Define "nation-states"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit.[1] The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation state" implies that the two geographically coincide. Nation state formation took place at different times in different parts of the earth but has become the dominant form of state organization.

by what measure would you determine who has a legitimate claim to a nation state and who has an illegitimate claim to a nation-state.

The development of nuclear weapons is an extremely capital-intensive and research-intensive endeavor. Today and for the foreseeable future, any entity that is capable of independently developing and manufacturing a nuclear weapon is going to be a highly-developed nation state, and not just some terrorist organization.

More importantly, any nation-state that advances economically and technically to the point where they can develop and manufacture nuclear weapons will have enough to lose in retaliation that MAD will be an effective deterrent.

2. The more nuclear weapons are in a greater variety of hands the increased likelihood that they will actually be used in conflict.

This may or may not be true, especially given the consequences for whoever would choose to use one. However, this does not negate nations' right to self-determination.

3. I don't see how you can make an argument that self-determination consists of "military endeavors for preservation of the state as they see fit," and make any argument against our foul invasion of Iraq.

I believe the invasion of Iraq was immoral and the WMD angle was simply a ruse for getting into Iraq to secure access to their oil. Even if it were not, Iraq should have been free to develop whatever weapons they saw fit to develop.

After all, you are the one saying there are no standards of international law. Do you believe the purpose of international law is to increase global security and enforce humanitarian norms or not?

I have no problems with agreed upon international laws. This does not mean that nations can dictate laws to other nations.

Note here that I am not using this argument to shield nation-states that are involved in things like, for example, ethnic cleansing. Obviously if a nation-state engages in genocide or some other heinous act then it is right to intervene.

However, weapons development does not constitute a reason to interfere with a nation-state, and certainly not by nations that themselves possess the weapons that they are trying to prevent others from obtaining.

"Do as I say, not as I do" is not acceptable.

[ellisonz]

45. "You aren't quoting the relevant parts." - Oh I'm sorry...

...I didn't realize there were irrelevant parts to your posts!

1. There are plenty of states and individuals willing to sell nuclear technology, and even potentially the weapons themselves. - "from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit" - so might makes right? Were the Taliban not a sovereign entity over a territorial unit, but yet we did not recognize them. Are you suggesting the United States should have officially recognized the Taliban as sovereign in Afghanistan and allowed them to build/obtain nuclear weaponry?

2. 190 national governments including the 5 members of the U.N. Security Council believe this to be the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_non-proliferation_treaty

3. The WMD case was made and the United States said they were not free to develop whatever weapons the want. Suppose they were developing WMD's and were planning on using them, by your logic of self-defense, Iraq had previously engaged in attacks against the United States, it's allies, and humanity. By your own logic, there is no international law that governs such activities. The problem was not the application of law to Iraq's activities, it was the preemptive rush to a military solution. If a en entity doesn't want to play by the rules of the game, there is no obligation not to bring economic force to bear and military means if not deterrent in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

4. If the U.N. Security Council were to pass a resolution saying that if Iran weaponizes nuclear material and indicates an intent to employ it or to proliferate, would not there be a legitimate reason to deny Iran the supposed "right of self-determination, and that includes matters of national defense," that you maintain exists. "Obviously if a nation-state engages in genocide or some other heinous act then it is right to intervene." - Are you advocating military intervention in Syria?

This is not "Do as I say, not as I do" - this is don't be a belligerent. This is about whether or not we mean what we say and how we put into effect. Your trite equation of this as being some moral double standard is bullshit; this is a question of international security, and I for one would support military action if Iran posed a clear and present danger.

[Atypical Liberal]

58. Selling is not the same thing as developing.

1. There are plenty of states and individuals willing to sell nuclear technology, and even potentially the weapons themselves. - "from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit" - so might makes right?

I have not advocated selling nuclear weapons. Again, I'm advocating nation states having the right of self-determination regarding their own military forces and equipment.

Were the Taliban not a sovereign entity over a territorial unit, but yet we did not recognize them.

Are you suggesting the United States should have officially recognized the Taliban as sovereign in Afghanistan and allowed them to build/obtain nuclear weaponry?

First of all, the Taliban were fighting against the official Afghan government.

Secondly, I think Afghanistan barely even qualifies as a nation state. It certainly is not one capable of developing and manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Note again that I am not advocating "obtaining" nuclear weapons outside of developing and manufacturing them oneself.

3. The WMD case was made and the United States said they were not free to develop whatever weapons the want.

Which of course was simply a ruse to get at the oil. But it was an immoral decision in any case. I could have seen military action against Hussein when he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, but of course we did nothing until he invaded Kuwait, and then the limit of our engagement was to oust them from Kuwait.

Suppose they were developing WMD's and were planning on using them, by your logic of self-defense, Iraq had previously engaged in attacks against the United States, it's allies, and humanity. By your own logic, there is no international law that governs such activities. The problem was not the application of law to Iraq's activities, it was the preemptive rush to a military solution. If a en entity doesn't want to play by the rules of the game, there is no obligation not to bring economic force to bear and military means if not deterrent in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

Yes, this is very convenient for everyone who already has such weapons, isn't it? Again, it is not right that other countries already in possession of the same kinds of weapons can dictate to other countries that they cannot have them.

4. If the U.N. Security Council were to pass a resolution saying that if Iran weaponizes nuclear material and indicates an intent to employ it or to proliferate, would not there be a legitimate reason to deny Iran the supposed "right of self-determination, and that includes matters of national defense," that you maintain exists.

No. Mere development of weapons is not an excuse to intervene. Would the United States tolerate intervention against it for developing and possessing nuclear weapons? Why should any other nation tolerate this? You never answer this question.

"Obviously if a nation-state engages in genocide or some other heinous act then it is right to intervene." - Are you advocating military intervention in Syria?

I am torn on Syria, though I tend to say that no, I do not want to see direct US military involvement in Syria's civil war. I might consider arming the rebels so that they can fight their own fight.

Your trite equation of this as being some moral double standard is bullshit; this is a question of international security, and I for one would support military action if Iran posed a clear and present danger.

Oh, great, well, as long as it's for international security, hey, fuck national sovereignty!

Really this is no surprise. As you've demonstrated before, you are willing to screw over anyone's rights to secure your own safety. As long as it's someone else holding the gun for you, of course.

[Clames]

31. Why read...

...when it is so much easier to assume and misrepresent? Remember, this is a side that advocates banning things because that is the path of least mental exercise.

[iverglas]

50. got something to back that up?

this is a side that advocates banning things because that is the path of least mental exercise.

I gather you're privy to the mental processes of a goodly number of firearms control advocates.

Please do share with the class how you come to know that they support firearms control because they are lazy and stupid.

[iverglas]

29. there's one tiny distinction

that kinda shoots the analogy down, I fear. And of course it isn't really so tiny; it's really quite fundamental.

You don't believe people should have the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and you don't believe nations should, either.

I would first say that you are barking up the wrong analogy, of course. It isn't about what either people or peoples should be permitted to do, it is about what they should be permitted to have.

You could just as easily use the firearm that you have because you "have the right to defend yourself as you see fit" to kill your spouse. Just as Iran could use the nuclear weapon that it has because it "has the right to defend itself as it sees fit" to wipe out a nation that is no threat to it.

Anyway, that fundamental flaw aside: the rules governing what weapons individuals within a nation-state may possess are not imposed by the local thugs.

You are saying (and I am not disagreeing) that the US is the equivalent of the local thug, on the international scene.

So while you can argue on that basis that the US is not in a position of moral or any other authority to tell any other nation-state what weapons it may and may not have, you may not claim that it doing so is analogous to firearms control within a nation-state.

If there were a body that operated internationally the way a government of a democratic nation-state operates -- a body with legitimate authority based on some counterpart to democracy, at the supra-state level -- that decided to impose rules governing weapons nation-states were permitted to possess, that would be the analogy to domestic firearms control. And obviously such a body would require not just the authority to make and implement decisions, but the power to implement them, in order to be analogous.

No such body exists at present, of course. But governments do exist in democratic nation-states, and their firearms control policies are simply not analogous to the US's desire to control what weapons other nation-states have.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. I have no idea why I am seeing this

I have you on full ignore. I should not be seeing this post.

[iverglas]

42. poor you

but -- who the fuck cares? Did you mean to write this in your diary, maybe? ...

[Atypical Liberal]

59. I care.

I can't stand your drivel and don't want to accidentally step in it.

[spin]

13. Would it be logical to allow violent criminals to own firearms?

If you believe our government, Iran sponsors terrorism. If true, Iran could be considered a criminal nation. (To be fair, it could be argued that our own government also sponsors terrorism.)

State-sponsored terrorism

State-sponsored terrorism is a term used to describe terrorism sponsored by nation-states. As with terrorism, the precise definition, and the identification of particular examples, are subjects of heated political dispute. In general state-sponsored terrorism is associated with support of paramilitary organizations.

***snip***

Iran

The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Yemen have accused the Ahmadinejad administration of sponsoring terrorism either in their, or against their, respective countries. Britain and the United States have also accused Iran of backing Shia militias in Iraq, which have at times attacked Coalition troops, Iraqi Sunni militias and civilians, and Anglo-American-supported Iraqi government forces.

Former United States President George W. Bush has called Iran the "world's primary state sponsor of terror."[8][9][10] Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Mahdi army, groups that Iran doesn't view as terrorist.

***snip***

United States

The United States was accused of being a state sponsor of terrorism for their support of Cuban exiles Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch. [91] USA also nurtured and supported Afgan Mujahideen under Reagan Doctrine which would eventually form Al-Qaeda headed by Bin Laden.[92][93] American academic and U.S. foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky has referred to the United States as "a Leading Terrorist State".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Iran

Of course nuclear weapons are far more powerful than firearms as they are considered to be weapons of mass destruction. They can however serve as a very effective deterrent to an attack by another nation.

If you believe the reports on Iran, allowing this nation to develop nuclear weapons could lead to a terrorist attack on another nation. Obviously only a nation with irrational leadership would use such a tactic as the results of such an attack on nations such as Israel, England or the United States would likely be nuclear retaliation.

[JackintheGreen]

17. And thus we reveal the reductio ad absurdum of the OP

We (the US) HAD to give weapons to Saddam Hussein to combat Iran. We HAD to give weapons to the muhajideen in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviets. Our side (the anti-communists, the anti-Iranians) were weak so we had to make them strong. Sort of a level playing field prescribed in the OP except on the global scale. We HAVE to arm ourselves in order to remove the threat of violence from street level evildoers. Nothing bad ever happens when we do that.

[ellisonz]

23. +1000

[spin]

28. There is little that I can do to stop our nation from sending weapons...

to other nations. However the OP wasn't discussing this issue. It didn't suggest that citizens should own weapons of mass destruction or provide weapons to their friends to be used for self defense.

The author of the article made a decision to arm herself in order to have a viable means of self defense. Such a decision involves a lot of serious thought and there is always the possibility that the choice might ultimately lead to a tragedy.

In many states of our nation honest citizens have the right to use firearms for legitimate self defense. There have been many documented incidents in which an armed citizen was able to survive a violent attack. If you have the training and skill, a firearm can enable you to win against a much larger opponent or one armed with weapon such as a gun or a knife.

Of course there is no guarantee that having a firearm on your person will protect you against any attack. Much depends on the situation. You can do everything right and still end up dead.

The fact remains that violent criminals do prey on victims when they sense an advantage. For example, a strong young thug may decide to attack a much smaller female in an isolated area of a parking garage. Even with extensive training in the martial arts his victim will be at a disadvantage, however with training and skill and a concealed handgun she may be able to equalize the odds.

[DWC]

20. Can't refute the OP so try to change the subject.

The OP is about individual self defense and the 2nd amendment right to keep and bare arms.

And you know it.

It is written in simple, direct terms that are understandable to the average US Citizen.

And you know it.

It's logic and conclusions are solid, historically founded, and virtually irrefutable.

And you know it.

Attempting to change the subject to nuclear proliferation is a glaring example of the total failure of gun control fanatics.

Semper Fi,

[JackintheGreen]

26. I didn't change the subject

I expanded it to the logical conclusion of arming not just individuals but groups. If one law-abiding American with a gun increases civility/decreases crime then 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 do it so much better. But what if the crime isn't a mugging but mass oppression, humanitarian violations, or unlawful war? Well, if you arm the other side, by the logic you posted, the aggressor will have to think twice when faced with an equally armed victim.

We didn't give the muhajideen nukes. We didn't give Saddam nukes. We didn't give the Libyan rebels nukes. Or the Sadinistas. But we did arm them for what amounts to the same reason: it's harder to take advantage of your victim when they might shoot back. That was the logic you posted.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti the argument you posted. Wanna convince me? You need a better argument.

[DWC]

32. Actually, you did

By SOP, this group is restricted to guns and gun law in the USA. The subject of International relations and WMD policy may be found else where on DU but definitely not in this group.

Semper Fi,

[JackintheGreen]

38. OK, I see where we are at

I am not a member of this group and typically don't involve myself with threads that deal with guns and gun control (anymore). I clicked on your post and responded because your title, "The Gun in Civilization," intrigued me.

I've now read your group's description, the closest thing a non-member could parse as SOP, and see nothing specific about the USA,except insofar as discussions of the 2nd Amendment pertain only to this country. The remainder of the groups description - "gun control laws...[and] the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence" - doesn't address nation of origin specificity. As a non-member, I am unaware of this group's SOP and, in that regard, I apologize for the unwarranted intrusion. Because your rules of discussion are not posted with each OP yet your topics remain open to public scrutiny, thus allowing for the kinds of unintentional violation of protocol that my response represents, I hope you can forgive me my trespass.

That said, in my view by equating firearms with civilization you open up the discussion for international affairs, unless you assume that the USA is the only civilized country on earth, and you give me no indication to believe that this is true. I mentioned Iran only because it is currently in the news, but all of my other examples - the Iraqis, the muhajideen, the Sandinistas - involved nothing more than traditional/non-nuclear weapons (well, there's been the suggestion of bioweapons to Iraq...). If you feel that individuals have the right to protect themselves by any means, why does this not extend to sovereign nations or groups that imagine themselves be sovereign (see my examples)? By bringing up Civilization with a capital 'C' I think you opened the door for a wider discussion.

You also ended your OP with an attack on antis, calling them (of which I do not number myself) "uncivilized." Yes, you added a smiley and I don't think that this is what you think. In the context of group that is considered a "safe space" for like-minded individuals this is not necessarily unkind, just the kind of ribbing that is acceptable among friends. However, if DU GROUPS (all caps just to distinguish that category) do not wish posts to be hi-jacked away from SOP - and I see how mine violated SOP without admitting that it was wrong-headed or out of place given the public nature of the OP - then they should be locked against non-members. Then this would never have happened and you all could have been very smug together.

I still do not think that your link offers an unassailable argument in favor of more guns, in America or in general, but I do see how my response was out of place. I really didn't mean to be a dick - notwithstanding my comment above about enjoying your smugness together. I only meant to engage with the wider implications of your OP, which again I maintain are valid and am willing to discuss further. Though perhaps it should not be done in this particular venue.

In future perhaps I should take more care in minding the header to a post, lest it be in more strictly controlled Group. I don't mind taking people to task for weak arguments of even offending them on occasion, but a controlled Group is not the place to do that.

[iverglas]

43. here's where you're really at

Don't ever try to argue by analogy in this forum.

You will be accused of calling firearms owners the equals of the Ayatollah, or whatever example person or thing you may have used in constructing an analogy that would point out the absurdity of what you are arguing against.

Inability to understand reasoning by analogy is symptomatic of various things; the pretense of being unable to understand reasoning by analogy can symptomatic of various things as well.

The objection to your analogy had nothing to do with strict adherence to the subject matter of the forum, and everything to do with the inability / pretended inability to follow reasoning by analogy.

[JackintheGreen]

48. Duly noted

but I wanted to play, too.

[iverglas]

49. oh, you can still play!

My advice was purely tongue in cheek.

[rl6214]

60. Pot/Kettle

"The objection to your analogy had nothing to do with strict adherence to the subject matter of the forum, and everything to do with the inability / pretended inability to follow reasoning by analogy"

[ellisonz]

81. "By SOP, this group is restricted to guns and gun law in the USA."

OP's are somewhat restricted, but there's no restriction that it must be discussion about US gun law as comparative analysis is useful. Moreover, there is nothing but the jury in this group that as any say about the content of replies.

[DWC]

86. You are correct. My apologies. n/t

[COLGATE4]

6. Sounds like it was written

by a sixteen year old (" Cornered cat &quot . There's a whole bunch of psycopathology in that choice of username.

[PavePusher]

8. Ah, insinuation and slurs.

Would you care to discuss any of the actual content and its merit?

[shadowrider]

9. Insinuation and slurs are what they use

When they can't argue with content.

[COLGATE4]

18. No insinuation, and no slur

(unless you believe that my opinion is that the article is written at about a 15 year old level) is a slur. It's essentially teenage bravado, trying to cover up a whole lot of insecurity. 'No way, man. You can't force me. I've got a gun'. Good God. We stopped talking like that before we had finished High School.

[ellisonz]

10. Agreed.

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.

And they couldn't take my Attn: American Gun Lovers - The Blessings of Civilization Are Required! post all that seriously. C'mon guys it's the mission, spread civilization at the barrel of a gun!

[Atypical Liberal]

14. Historically, that is the way it's been done, unless people resist...

C'mon guys it's the mission, spread civilization at the barrel of a gun!

Historically, this is the way it has been done, unless people resist...with guns, of course.

[DWC]

92. Thanks for the Heston quote. 2 thumbs up!!!

I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack from those who either can't understand it, don't like the sound of it, or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals: Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails. That's why the Second Amendment is America's first freedom.

I remember a decade ago at my first annual meeting in St. Louis. After my banquet remarks to a packed house, they presented me with a very special gift. It was a splendid hand-crafted musket. I admit I was overcome by the power of its simple symbolism. I looked at that musket and I thought of all of the lives given for that freedom. I thought of all of the lives saved with that freedom. It dawned on me that the doorway to all freedoms is framed by muskets.

- Charlton Heston

Semper Fi,

[spin]

7. This article comes from a web site that has a enormous amount ...

of information for anyone considering owning a firearm for self defense.

While the site is orientated primarily toward women, many of the articles can provide educational information for men.

I high recommend http://corneredcat.com/ to anyone considering owning a firearm or even those who already own such weapons.

Take a minute to check out the contents page at http://corneredcat.com/Contents/.

[iverglas]

46. yes, you touted it here some years ago

and the first reply was from DWC, sending it on to his wimminfolk.

The website owner treats women like fools, plain and simple. And, of course, like tools, of the gun militant brigade of the right wing, just like all the other gun militants do.

Of course, the firearms industry always needs new customers, and the website owner is an editor of a magazine/website that reads like a giant advertisement for firearms ...

[spin]

51. As I pointed out then ...

there is a wealth of excellent advice on owning a firearm at that site.

Usually you will find informative articles on firearms on sites and in magazines that are pro-gun. Obviously the people who write such articles hold views far different form yours.

A few of the articles I find informative and interesting are:

Securing Firearms in the Home http://corneredcat.com/Securing_Firearms_in_the_Home/

Aiming for Lower Lead Exposure http://corneredcat.com/Aiming_for_Lower_Lead_Exposure/

The Four Universal Rules of Firearms Safety http://corneredcat.com/The_Four_Rules/

Keeping Guns Away From Little Hands http://corneredcat.com/Safe_Storage_Around_Children/

Gun Store Miss Adventures http://corneredcat.com/Gun_Store_Miss_Adventures/

Parking Lot Safety http://corneredcat.com/Parking_Lot_Safety/

Pepper Spray http://corneredcat.com/All_About_Pepper_Spray/

Common Myths About Self-Defense http://corneredcat.com/Myths_About_SelfDefense/

Things in the United States are far different than in Canada. The reality is that a significant percentage of our population own and often legally carry firearms. This is either a positive or negative fact depending on an individual's personal views on the subject of gun ownership.

Cornered Cat provides a concise summary of many of the issues involved in owning a firearm. A person who is considering buying a firearm for self defense would find this site a good starting point to gain some understanding about firearms. It's necessary to put a lot of thought into the decision to buy a firearm or to get a license to carry one. It's not a decision to make quickly or foolishly.

Perhaps you might suggest a website that provides similar information written by a person who is opposed to firearm ownership to provide a fair balance.

[iverglas]

53. the website is a commercial site

that promotes the acquisition of firearms and accessories.

http://corneredcat.com/The_Cats_Meow/

The website owner runs a business providing firearms-related training which she uses the site to tout, and is also presumably paid for promoting firearms and accessories at the website/magazine where she is an editor.

The website exists to drum up purchases of guns and the paraphernalia and services associated with guns. That's what it is for, and that is what it does.

Honestly.

Perhaps you might suggest a website that provides similar information written by a person who is opposed to firearm ownership to provide a fair balance.

Perhaps you have a very dry wit.

[spin]

61. Car and Driver is a publication and web site

that promotes the sale of cars and accessories for these vehicles. The magazine often touts the sale of powerful vehicles which can easily go as fast as double the speed limit on the interstate.

For example:

Mercedes C63–Based Brabus Bullit Coupe 800 Burns Rubber and Sanity [Geneva Auto Show]
March 7, 2012 at 12:41pm by Justin Berkowitz



Some automotive tuners do their work by adding wheels and body kits to Ferraris in Photoshop. Brabus shoehorns brutal engines into Mercedes-Benzes and then pumps them up with amphetamines. The latest escapee from the Brabus lab debuted at the Geneva auto show. It’s the Bullit Coupe 800, and it’s a monstrous cousin to the two-door Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG.

***snip***

On the numbers front, here’s what you want to know: Brabus says the Bullit will go from 0 to 62 mph in 3.7 seconds and has a top speed of over 230 mph. The acceleration might seem suspect, since we’ve done 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds with the 3996-pound, 481-hp C63 AMG coupe. But it’s important to remember that ungodly power numbers such as these are often difficult to transfer onto the pavement; once the Bullit hooks up (if it ever hooks up), it’s on, and on, and on, to that super top speed. As for price, the Bullit Coupe 800 starts at €378,000. That’s $495,000 at today’s exchange rates, but as such conversions are usually a little off-target, we suggest asking Brabus for a price in dollars. Or if it will take your helicopter as a trade-in.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/mercedes-c63-based-brabus-bullit-coupe-800-burns-rubber-and-sanity-geneva-auto-show/

[iverglas]

65. I believe you have made my point

[spin]

66. However I see little wrong with a web site or magazine ...

that is orientated to a special interest or hobby having advertisements and articles that promote the sale of items and accessories.

For example you will find advertisements and articles on new golf clubs and golf balls in a golf magazine. Obviously these publications will attempt to get readers interested in golfing or upgrading their equipment. The readers have an interest in golfing and actually want to see such articles and advertisements.

For those interested in concealed carry there is a publication named Concealed Carry Magazine. Inside the Nov/Dec 2011 issue that I am looking at I found reports on holsters and purses designed for carrying a handgun, advice for shooting drills, what to do if you find yourself surrounded by a mob (escape), an article on how to safely clear your house and many other items of interest to me or any person who has a carry permit. Unlike other such magazines I did not find any advertisements from manufacturers of firearms and accessories. I consider that positive as the magazine can publish a negative report on a firearm or accessory without worrying about angering the maker and losing his advertising revenue. I also didn't find any articles or editorials that promoted any political party. I also consider this to be a positive as I don't read a gun magazine to find information on politics.

Could this magazine cause a person to develop an interest in obtaining a carry permit? Possibly. If someone is visiting my home and notices the magazine, it might cause that individual to ask me questions. If someone sees the magazine on a display in a newspaper and book store, he might buy it and gain some interest in concealed carry. I suspect that the magazine has little impact on those who have no interest in concealed carry or firearms. I may glance at a magazine such as Home Design in a doctor's waiting room but that doesn't mean that I will develop a fascination with interior decorating.

[iverglas]

68. and now you are avoiding the point

The corneredcat website is a commercial enterprise. The website owner markets training courses under the same name. The website exists to generate custom for her business.

The website owner has associated herself closely with the right-wing spouse of an ugly, misogynist racist (Connie and Kim du Toit), and of course with the really dumb right-wing views expressed in the article linked to in the actual OP in this thread.

There has never been anything else I needed to know about any of it.

[spin]

71. Is there anything ethically wrong with running a website ...

and also marketing training courses on the same subject?

Website

A website, also written as Web site,[1] web site, or simply site,[2] is a set of related web pages containing content (media), including text, video, music, audio, images, etc. A website is hosted on at least one web server, accessible via a network such as the Internet or a private local area network through an Internet address known as a Uniform Resource Locator. All publicly accessible websites collectively constitute the World Wide Web.

***snip***

Overview

Organized by function, a website may be

a personal website
a commercial website
a government website
a nonprofit organization website.

***snip***

Types of websites

***snip***

Information site ... Most websites could fit in this type of website to some extent many of them are not necessarily for commercial purposes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website

I would consider CorneredCat an informational site with a commercial purpose. Should we outlaw all such sites or even just discount the information that we find on them? As I have pointed out, the site has a large number of very informative articles dealing with the responsibility of owning a firearm and firearm safety.

For some reason I find myself comparing your dislike of the owner of the CorneredCat website because she had a association with a lady who was married to an "ugly, misogynist racist" to the current tactic that the Republicans are using to paint Obama in a bad light because he once associated with college professors whose views conservatives dislike.

I often disagree with the political views of writers who discuss firearms and shooting but I sometimes find the information that they provide about guns, accessories and the shooting sports interesting and valuable. I simply tend to ignore the views of such writers on politics. If I want to read political views and commentary, I go to political web sites.

[iverglas]

74. what are you on about?

"wrong with", "outlaw" ... ???

The question is whether this crud belongs at this website.

For some reason I find myself comparing your dislike of the owner of the CorneredCat website because she had a association with a lady who was married to an "ugly, misogynist racist" to the current tactic that the Republicans are using to paint Obama in a bad light because he once associated with college professors whose views conservatives dislike.

Yeah, and last time the attempted analogy was to that Rev. Wright.

If you think a right-wing woman married to an notorious misogynist racist is somehow analogous to "college professors whose views conservatives dislike", well, all I can say is that I don't suffer such confusion when it comes to my own values.

And if right-wingers don't want those professors' views touted at their websites, that's their choice, eh?

I often disagree with the political views of writers who discuss firearms and shooting but I sometimes find the information that they provide about guns, accessories and the shooting sports interesting and valuable. I simply tend to ignore the views of such writers on politics. If I want to read political views and commentary, I go to political web sites.

The item cited in the OP was "political views and commentary", which is what this website is actually about. Just not right-wing views and commentary, which is what the item cited in the OP is.

Or did you miss what I already posted from Marko's blog? --

I think it's not much of a secret that we'll be voting on the (R) ballot tomorrow, and that our two votes are going to go to the only guy in the race who does more than give lip service to the Constitution, even if that means the majority of the population sorts him in with the handful of nuts. (That would be the Congressman from Texas, Dr. Paul.)

[spin]

78. I refuse to go down the rabbit hole with you ...

I've made my points which in my personal view are valid and you have made yours which you also feel are valid.

So be it.

[oneshooter]

79. If you don't like it, then use your Admin powers to remove it.

[iverglas]

80. thanks all the same

but if I don't like it, I will say so.

[iverglas]

34. it's that cornered kitty again!

Such a charmingly girly site, eh?

Say hello to Mrs. du Toit for me!

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 gangbanger, and a single gay 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.

Yeah. And if reason fails to persuade "you", I'm dead.

Just like all the thousands of women murdered by their rational, gun-owning partners and estranged partners over the years are. Funny how a website for the gals doesn't seem to give a shit about them.

Oh dear, Mrs. du Toit seems to have been dropped from the roster.

http://americanawakening.blogspot.com/2007/11/cornered-cat-word-to-women-open-letter.html

Maybe they decided their association with the wife of that ugly racist wasn't such a good idea ...

Oh dear, Mrs. du T herself seems to have left the building:

http://www.mrsdutoit.com/index.php/main/2002/10/02/

Her screed survives in Google's cache, for the moment:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6ugr9ZuaEWwJ:personalpages.tds.net/~ksteuer/corneredcat.com/Ethics/mrsdutoit.aspx+%22A+Word+to+Women%22+%22toit%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Ah, on looking around elsewhere, it seems she is permanently and seriously disabled somehow.

Connie's husband Kim (and now we can all deny knowledge of who Kim du Toit is) is famous for, among a bunch of other nasty stuff, his screed "The Pussification of the Western Male", which starts out: “We have become a nation of women”. I think the idea is that this is a bad thing.

Well anyhow, his wife just loves him, and the cornered catlady loved Connie. And also loves the foul Oleg Volk (banned from DU, by the way).

And your recommended site is the same pile of crap it was every other time it's been posted here.

The same filth about firearms control supporters ...
http://corneredcat.com/The_Day_I_Discovered_That_HCI_Wants_Me_Dead/

The same exploitation of women (and filth about reproductive choice advocates: "So called women's rights organizations will fight over the right to abort an unborn baby&quot ...
http://corneredcat.com/A_Womans_Right_to_Choose/

The same complete disregard for the real causes and manifestations of sexual and other violence against women ...
http://corneredcat.com/What_About_Rape/

And yes, as feminists at this site well know, there are women who do all these things. You've found some. Congratulations.

[iverglas]

39. more about our source

Kathy Jackson, the owner of the website in the OP, is an editor of Concealed Carry Magazine.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-departments/stuff-we-like/join-the-nra/



Gosh, politically incorrect. I wonder what that means ...

Strikes me that it means that all we have here is yet another in the long, long line of posts in the Guns forum promoting right-wing organizations and ideology.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/about/the-uscca-story/

There Are Two Kinds of People… Which One Are You?

You know, there are really two kinds of people in this world. The first kind is the person that is always looking to someone else to take care of them.

You know what I’m talking about. Nowadays, it’s all we hear on the news. These people want the government to provide from them and they want the police to protect them and provide their safety. (Some call these people sheep or sheeple!)

And then there’s the OTHER kind of person, the person that truly believes in personal responsibility.

Of course, some of us would say that the two kinds of people are the ones who become parents and whose first thought is to run out and buy some guns (that will be that guy) ... and normal, decent people.

Does anybody really think these gun militants are Democrats?

[ellisonz]

54. I found the supposed content source:

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-gun-is-civilization/question-2342099/

Also:

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
With guns, we are "free"! Without them, we are "slaves"! -

Right-wing chain mail shit.

[iverglas]

56. oh duh -- shadowrider's quote, right there

I just wasn't paying attention, was I?

http://corneredcat.com/Why_the_Gun_is_Civilization/

The cornered kitty gal attributes the entire screed differently, though:

By Marko Kloos
By way of Marko's excellent blog, The Munchkin Wrangler, we find this compelling little essay about what it means to carry a gun in a civilized society. Marko's blog is nearly always a thought-provoking and worthwhile morning read (and the "munchkin" of whom he often writes is cuter than a bug's ear too). Worth a look.

And quelle surprise ...

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/search/label/politics.

I think it's not much of a secret that we'll be voting on the (R) ballot tomorrow, and that our two votes are going to go to the only guy in the race who does more than give lip service to the Constitution, even if that means the majority of the population sorts him in with the handful of nuts. (That would be the Congressman from Texas, Dr. Paul.)

Snork. The "Dr. Paul" would have given him away anyhow.

Such a finely spun web it all is ...

[ellisonz]

57. Fuck Ron Paul

Number 3 when you search "Fuck Ron Paul"

[iverglas]

75. heh heh

and when you search for iverglas "ron paul" you find things like this from 2006:

http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=19172

No newbie at "Ron Paul is a piece of right-wing shit", moi.

[DanTex]

63. It'd be kinda interesting to keep a catalog of all the right-wing sources...

...that the pro-gunners here link to. It's quite a collection.

Maybe there should be a sticky thread to keep track of them all. After all, right-wing links are as much a part of the gungeon as are vigilante fantasies, pseudoscience, and misspelled personal insults.

Or maybe a drinking game. Take a shot every time you see FOXNews, WorldNetDaily, or TownHall. Glenn Beck is a double...

[iverglas]

77. as compared to their catalogue of progressive sources ;)

That was the one you tried to put together, and ended up with one of those jokes about the smallest book in the world, I think.

Make it #26 on the list:
http://theatomicmoose.ca/humour/display_story.php?id=10

[ileus]

62. Excellent find my brother...thanks for sharing. +1

[iverglas]

69. "find"? you had lost it???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=304267&mesg_id=304527

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=350769&mesg_id=350779

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=175802&mesg_id=175802

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=356327&mesg_id=358070

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=174189&mesg_id=174294

and I'm sure there are more.

DWC caught it from spin in one of those threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x395176#395236

This cat has been flogged to death in this forum over the years.

This was my opinion in 2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=175802&mesg_id=175963

and it has not changed.

... Dang, I wonder what clever video that was that I'd linked to. I'll bet I remember ... but I'm sure the new DU would pretend it wasn't funny.

[era veteran]

64. I am tired of labels like pro gunner and antis

The big tent Democratic Party has people that own guns.
It has people that hate guns.
It has people that hate.

The haters on DU congregate here often.

Walk a mile in my moccasins.

[spin]

67. It does often seem that those Democrats here who oppose firearm ownership...

or concealed carry believe that it is impossible to be a real Democrat and not have the same views as they do.

It's fortunate for the Democratic Party that they are wrong.

[iverglas]

70. what Democrats oppose firearm ownership?

[DWC]

72. The Right has its extreme anti-abortionists. The Left has

its extreme anti-gunners.

Both groups are anti-killing.

Both have a great deal in common - in a strange sort of way.

Semper Fi,

[spin]

73. Good point. (n/t)

[iverglas]

76. if you don't get nauseous when you find bilge like that in your mouth

well, I'd feel sorry for you, except it's your own choice. And it speaks volumes. Not anything I expect to see spoken at Democratic Underground, but there ya go. I haven't yet managed to lower my expectations adequately, it seems.

[ellisonz]

82. "Both groups are anti-killing."

Not exactly, recently posted on DU:

Personally I think the law ought to be that if you get killed during the commission of an armed robbery it shouldn't matter how you got killed. Shot in the front, shot in the back, or hung from a tree.

-------------

If two armed robbers are shot dead during the commission of their crime or they are hung while caught in the commission of their crime, what, in practical terms, is the difference? Not much.

Would you care to denounce that view which was recently stated by a "gun rights" advocate.

[DWC]

84. I absolutely denounce that view and,

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2012, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

as previously stated, hold that there are extremest "wing-nuts" on both sides. I also denounce the statement from the D.C. mayor's office that the best way to deal with violent criminals is to be a victim.

Using a weapon to stop a crime is totally within our right of self-defense. If the criminal dies in the process, so be it. However, after the criminal has been subdued, killing that criminal by any means is murder.

Playing devil's advocate:

It is legal to abort a viable fetus but killing a new-born is murder.

In both examples, the criminal and baby end up dead. The only question is when in the process that death occurs.

Like I said, both sides have a great deal in common including a total lack of common sense.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

85. fucking disgusting

It is legal to abort a viable fetus but killing a new-born is murder.

In both examples, the criminal and baby end up dead. The only question is when in the process that death occurs.

Just fucking disgusting. Not even honest, since the circumstances in which it is legal in the US to abort a HYPOTHETICALLY viable fetus (no fetus is "viable" until it has survived birth and become a human being, obviously - viability is ALWAYS a post facto determination) are extremely narrow.

To read at Democratic Underground that when a pregnancy is terminated, "the baby ends up dead" ... well, I just keep forgetting to lower my expectations, don't I?

I can't even expect not to find rampant sophistry. Apart from its revolting misogyny, this whole argument is pure equivocation, since there is no equivalency between a fetus and a "criminal". One is a human being, and one is not.

Of course, you were just playing devil's advocate.

For the purpose, of course, of establishing a totally false equivalency of your own between "extreme anti-abortionists" and "extreme anti-gunners". Whatever these "extreme anti-gunners" of your own imagining might be, there is no point of similarity between them and the anti-choice brigade. Whether or not an "extreme anti-gunner" is "anti-killing", the anti-choice brigadeis not.

[DWC]

87. How ever you cut it, DEAD is DEAD. n/t

[TPaine7]

91. There are, of course, lunatics--some of whom probably consider themselves Democrats--

who say "fucking disgusting", revoltingly misogynistic "rampant sophistry" like:

"I'm carrying his baby..."

"They had to do surgery on my baby at 6 months, but she was born healthy..."

"I lost my baby and miscarried due to complications..."

"My baby kicks during the night and wakes me up..."

and the like.

These woman hating right wing extremists don't seem to understand that that's not a baby until the last portion of its body exits the birth canal, at which instant it becomes a human being.

Anyone, anywhere who dares deny that that the pregnancy can be terminated up until the last millimeter of the fetus clears the birth canal and it is transformed into a human being is beyond the pale. Anyone who claims humanity for a fetus whose foot hasn't fully cleared the birth canal is a lunatic.

[iverglas]

93. e - qui - vo - ca - a - shun ...

Whippet Dog of the Day: My Baby Boy...


Owning a Pitbull can be a joy ... I'll admit, I have told some people
off when they made certain comments about my baby, but most
people are willing to just listen.


I believe my baby Sophie is a Maine Coon cat




This is My Baby, My Pride and Joy
There’s nothing I love more than my baby, my pride and joy. I’ve had her
for almost as long as I can remember. We’ve gone through a lot together.
All the road trips, the late night cruising, the hours I’ve spend restoring her.
It’s all been worth it, every single minute. Man I love my baby.





Anyone, anywhere who dares deny that that the pregnancy can be terminated up until the last millimeter of the fetus clears the birth canal and it is transformed into a human being is beyond the pale. Anyone who claims humanity for a fetus whose foot hasn't fully cleared the birth canal is a lunatic.

Well, if you say so, I guess. Looks like a pile of irrelevant nonsense to me, but there we are.

Anyhow who claims that a fetus is a human being is wrong.

Someone who claims there is justification for prohibiting the termination of a pregnancy is welcome to make their case on some other argument, of course, and might even be able to make a good one in respect of certain circumstances.


None of which has the least smidgen of a thing to do with the utter falseness and ugliness of the statement in issue here, of course:

In both examples, the criminal and baby end up dead. The only question is when in the process that death occurs.
Like I said, both sides have a great deal in common including a total lack of common sense.

[petronius]

94. Wait a minute! That fourth picture down:

That's not really you or your real dog, is it? It's not even your leg. Why are you trying to deceive us - again! - with a picture you've surreptitiously obtained from the internets!?1!?

[iverglas]

96. oh nose

Caught again.

I have to admit ... I don't own a dog ... and my last Maine Coon cat is dead ...

Actually, the three current ones do have those genes, from the local feral pool the dead one belonged to. Two of them are in heat. They were going to get spayed last month ... until that other thing happened to use up my time and taxi money. I'll tell ya, though, a nice big cast stuck out in front of the wheelchair makes an excellent makeshift cowcatcher for sprawling cats too braindead to get out of the way ... although one of them does occasionally mistake my fibreglas leg for a potential mate, and just barrel rolls when prodded ...

This is not one of my felines, whom I do not call babies (except for the one who is in fact her baby), but this one seems to play mine on the internet.



Dilute tortoiseshell part Maine Coon. That one has four black legs; mine has only one and has more orange, so she looks like Jane Avril



And yes, that is my leg.

[TPaine7]

95. Indeed, though I think "BULL - SHIT" is an even better description for your sophistry.

When a woman refers to her baby--BEFORE SHE GIVE  BIRTH--she means the exact same thing she means when she refers to her baby--AFTER SHE GIVES BIRTH.

By "my baby" she means her young human descendent. It's quite literal.

That is totally different than when someone refers to her dog, her car, her latest novel or even her lover as her baby. Those are metaphors. In such cases, the woman is indicating that she cares profoundly for something or someone--somewhat like she would for her young human descendent. 

I know that. You know that. Everyone reading this exchange knows that.

But feel free to try to convince readers otherwise, iverglas. I have something to do, and I'm not in the mood for the rabbit hole anyway.

[DWC]

97. Very well stated. Thanks !! n/t

[ileus]

90. Excellent observation...well stated.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

83. interesting philosophy. thanks for the link. n/t