These illustrate *why* gun ownership by the masses is a progressive idea

[friendly_iconoclast]

Just noticed these two threads close together on the "Latest Threads" page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6257205


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6257204


Don't get me wrong, pacifism is entirely honorable. But the American left/progressive movement

has always had to defend itself, sometimes by violent means.


Sadly, we may have to again.

[mrdata]

1. gun ownership by the masses

Totally agree. We should repeal any laws that keep small arms out of the hands of the people. It's our birthright and heritage as Americans.

[DrDan]

2. damned right - forget logic and reason

just let the bullets fly.

("mrdata" - you probably admire other clever right-wing tags as well - "death tax", "compassionate conservative", etc)

[Tejas]

3. typical wishful thinking by a non-gun owner

Nice jerk-off response to a first-time poster there skippy, any substance in your gut or are you just being an ankle-biter for Helmke?

[DrDan]

4. any substance? yeah - the post is ludicrous

[DrDan]

5. oops - meant to say

the post is ludicrous, biff

[raimius]

11. So

The ability to own and carry a firearm will invariably lead to death and destruction. Is that what you are implying?
To me, that sounds like the "blood in the streets" predictions of those against CCW laws.

[DrDan]

14. you have seen the town hall videos - do you thiink we need to introduce some

guns

[raimius]

30. Not exactly

Do we need to introduce guns to town hall meetings? Nope.
I don't think these meetings should have different standards WRT firearms than any other time. If the meeting is in a federal building, the meeting should continue to follow federal law and ban the carry of firearms. If it is at a county fairground, where the carry of firearms is legal, I don't think firearms should be banned for this instance. If the President is attending, the Secret Service may create a security zone. I don't have a problem with that, as it would likely be considered a "sensitive place" during the visit (from Heller).

[iverglas]

15. so

The ability to own and carry a firearm will invariably lead to death and destruction. Is that what you are implying?

You're so entranced by the sight of your own pixels that you'll just spew any old shit?
You're so disrespectful of anyone else who might see your pixels that you don't care whether what you says bears even a passing resemblance to the truth?

How'm I doing?


To me, that sounds like the "blood in the streets" predictions of those against CCW laws.

Me, I think you might want to try listening to your own voice a little less. It seems to lead you astray.

[raimius]

What is your complaint?

Which part of my post do you disagree with?

[iverglas]

33. I thought it was obvious

Which part of my post do you disagree with?

Oh, maybe, the part where you completely misrepresent what you're replying to.

mrdata (1 posts)
Sun Aug-09-09 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. gun ownership by the masses
Totally agree. We should repeal any laws that keep small arms out of the hands of the people. It's our birthright and heritage as Americans.


DrDan
Sun Aug-09-09 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. damned right - forget logic and reason
just let the bullets fly.
("mrdata" - you probably admire other clever right-wing tags as well - "death tax", "compassionate conservative", etc)


raimius
Sun Aug-09-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. So
The ability to own and carry a firearm will invariably lead to death and destruction. Is that what you are implying?
To me, that sounds like the "blood in the streets" predictions of those against CCW laws.

Here, perhaps this will help you.

http://www.scooterbbs.com/archive/anything/5004/0.html (with my emphases)

Let us consider a few examples of the phenomena I am talking about. This message was in response to my essay on the hate mail I've been getting:

so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)

My problem with a passage like this, I repeat, is not exactly that it is nasty, but that it is nasty in a stereotyped and cultivated way. It is part of a technology of nastiness.

Let's consider how it works. Start with the first sentence. In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. This is a matter of routine; it's part of what a linguist would call the "phasal lexicon" of the new jargon. In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

And this is not just any distortion. It's a type that is also very common in the new jargon: someone sends me hate mail that expresses disagreement with my views, and so rather than acknowledge the hateful elements of that mail, my correspondent here pretends that I have associated all disagreement with hate. Underneath, in other words, it's a matter of associationism. Associationism deletes all of logical connections among ideas, and instead works to create certain strategically chosen associations among concepts, and to break others. The first step, very often, is to project the very fact of engaging in associationism into one's opponent: by writing about messages of disagreement that were hateful, it is said, "they" are the ones who associated disagreement with hate.

Notice, too, the rhetorical question ("If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending 'hate mail'?"). This is also common. It's a way of making an obviously false assertion -- in this case, the assertion that I have said that everyone who disagrees with me has ispo facto sent hate mail -- without admitting to it. Then the "my god", etc, which assumes an answer to the rhetorical question, as if the rhetorical question's proffered paraphrase were something that I said.

[raimius]

34. Ok, let me rephrase

DrDan,
Are you asserting that ending restrictions on firearms ownership would lead to random and unprovoked shootings?
Do you believe this would be a predictable and/or common result?

If not, please clarify.

[fedupinhouston]

22. What do you mean...

..."let the bullets fly"? Nobody is discussing random shooting. His comment said, quite clearly, that arms ownership by the people is our right as Americans.

If anyone is dispensing with logic and reason it is those who somehow think mere ownership of a firearm somehow causes bullets to be randomly fired.

[SteveM]

25. Logic and reason is what takes flight in your post (nt)

[Tim01]

6. Yep, and it is a very American idea.

You would be surprised how people in a lot of other countries just take for granted the fact that their govt. rules them and tells them what to do. They are more hopeful about which dictator is in control and how brutal he will be.
Downtrodden is the word I am looking for.
This idea that we as individuals are important and we have the right to protect ourselves is American.


Welcome to the forum.

[libguy9560]

23. Your simplification of the world is laughable

Last time I checked, most of Western Europe, Canada, and Australia have more freedom.

[HALO141]

24. Proof? n/t

[gaspee]

7. Nice Avatar

LOL!

[iverglas]

8. yeah, nice avatar

Private joke?

I'm thinking I get it ...

[Tejas]

9. hint:

rhymes with George Bush.

[iverglas]

10. clue

It may not have been used in order to mock George Bush.

[gaspee]

12. Good inference

From what I implied! Or in other words, exactly.

[iverglas]

13. although it does involve

ascribing a level of wit that might not be warranted ...

;)

[tucsonlib]

16. Kent State University May 4, 1970

Ah, yes, if only guns had been allowed on campus and if only those students had been armed and if only they had returned fire.....

Just imagine all the lives that would have been saved!

And please, don't embarrass yourself by claiming that the Ohio National Guard would have backed down, cowering in fear, had they encountered an armed student body.

But nearly 40 years later, the pertinent question remains unanswered: Just why the FUCK were those guardsmen carrying rifles loaded with LIVE AMMO?


I lived in Kent, Ohio in 1970. Most of the town's natives reacted like this: "It's about TIME! Too bad only 4 of those commie brats were killed!"

Tragic as it was, the deaths of those unarmed students helped swell the ranks of the progressive, anti-war movement. But had those students been armed, liberal ideals would have been left discredited and marginalized for generations.

[GeorgeGist]

17. You mean like exterminating ...

native 'americans' when they stood in the way of christian progress?

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Progress for ordinary folks didn't always come by way of non-violent civil disobedience...

To pretend otherwise is dangerously ahistorical

Of course, this history has been censored in some cases- witness the controversy over a mural depicting (accurately) Harriet Tubman armed with a rifle.

Some links for those who have forgotten (or ignored) history:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x144160#144226

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

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/1999w42/msg00022.htm

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/index.html

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335034

http://www.amazon.com/Radio-Free-Dixie-Robert-Williams/dp/0807825026

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/index-hb.html

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County,_USA

[Euromutt]

19. I take issue with your post on one point...

... namely that there's anything honorable about pacifism.

The phrase (generally, though probably incorrectly, attributed to Edmund Burke) that "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" might have been written about pacifists. Pacifism might have been a forgivable vice prior to 1945, but given how the existence of Nazi concentration camps was confirmed that year, and the extent of the atrocities that took place there, and how those atrocities were--and could only have been--halted by overwhelming violence, from that moment onwards at the very latest it should have been evident that trying to appeal one's opponents' better nature by singing "Kum-ba-ya" doesn't work.

Since then (as, frankly, during the second world war), pacifism has been an affectation of those who have the luxury of not being the immediate targets of aggression; of those who can hide behind the protective screen of "rough men who stand ready to do violence on their behalf" even while deploring the existence of said "rough men." If there were any honesty to the ideology, the motto of pacifism would ultimately be "fuck you, Jack, I'm all right."

[tucsonlib]

20. How Do You Define "Pacifism"?

If you're referring to the dictionary definition; that is, that pacifism is "Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes", then how can you make the claim that pacifism isn't "honorable"? Do you contend that it's more honorable to prefer using war and violence?

But I get the impression that, to you, pacifism means doing nothing in the face of aggression.

"Since then (as, frankly, during the second world war), pacifism has been an affectation of those who have the luxury of not being the immediate targets of aggression...."

As a rebuttal, let me just point to:

Gandhi, and Martin Luther King.

Or do you still claim that pacifism = "fuck you, Jack, I'm all right"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. I can't speak for him, but I meant "non-violent civil disobedience"

Trouble is, it only works when it is used against people who still have some semblance of a conscience, like
the British Empire (Gandhi), or the greater, non-segregationist US as a whole (M. L. King).

Used against the Nazis, it became a high-minded means of suicide (the White Rose group).


The examples I gave in the links I posted were of people up against slaveowners, mineowners with private armies,
and Klansmen.

IOW, folks who were *never* going to play nicely and were damned well capable of killing (and often did).

[SteveM]

27. "It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied...

in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again."

and

"At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in l869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government."
-- George Orwell, Reflections on Gandhi, MODERN ESSAYS, ed. Russel Nye, Scott, Foresman & Co, 1953.

An excellent critical essay on Gandhi's tactics and outlook, and on the whole quite favorable to Gandhi, though Orwell felt "an aesthetic distaste for Gandhi." This might be in part because Orwell, being a fervent anti-fascist who fought in the Spanish Civil War, and a home guard leader in Great Britain during WW II, was a strong supporter of civilian ownership of firearms.

[iverglas]

29. and then there's the fact that Blair was an informer

who collaborated in the blacklisting of people like, oh, Michael Redgrave. What role do you think that sort of thing might have played in his thinking?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jun/28/broadcasting.georgeorwell

[SteveM]

26. You may have forgotten that Gandhi said this:

"Taking life may be a duty... Even man-slaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man."

-- Mahatma Gandhi, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, comp. and ed. by Krishna Kripalani, Navajivan Pub House, Ahmenabad-14, 1971.

Pretty instructive, esp. when events like the Virginia Tech massacre happen. It certainly is a far-cry from the foil-thin pacifism that grew up around the counter culture and equated taking no action with "true" pacifism (Gandhi considered taking no action as cowardice). I do not accuse you of this, but do point out that in some situations most people are "duty"-bound to take life "...in certain cases."

[Euromutt]

28. Same way everybody else does

If you're referring to the dictionary definition; that is, that pacifism is "Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes", then how can you make the claim that pacifism isn't "honorable"?

Because there are situations in which use of violence is the only option other than submitting to an aggressor. To paraphrase George Orwell, when you advocate submission rather than resistance to an aggressor, you are in effect supporting that aggressor. You're telling people it's better to give an bully what he wants than to risk hurting him by resisting, and I don't see what's honorable about that. There's certainly nothing honorable about it when you're not the one who is going to have to suffer then consequences of submission.

Do you contend that it's more honorable to prefer using war and violence?

Don't be obtuse. I favor being willing to use violence as a last resort, when all other avenues have failed.

But I get the impression that, to you, pacifism means doing nothing in the face of aggression.

It means ultimately wimping out when it's become evident that the aggressor will not be stopped by anyone except countervailing force.

As a rebuttal, let me just point to:

Gandhi, and Martin Luther King.

Both Gandhi and MLK regarded non-violence as a tactic, not as a principle. Both considered use of violence to further their agendas, but gauged (almost certainly correctly) that it would cost too much in terms of public relations. Gandhi seems to have conveniently forgotten that later on; King, on the other hand, actually applied for a CCW permit at one point, but given that this is occurred in a "may issue" state where the issuing authority was a redneck sheriff, his application was predictably denied. Fannie Lou Hamer attributed the fact that her house wasn't attacked to the fact that she let it be known that she kept a shotgun "in every corner of her bedroom." The fact that members of the civil rights movement adopted a tactic of non-violence (though still coercive non-violence) to advance their agenda in general doesn't mean they rejected the use of violence to repel direct physical assaults.

I always love it when people invoke the examples of Gandhi and King without knowing more than the most superficial things about them.

[Xenotime]

31. I don't agree with your statement.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Which one? I made several.

If you think all progress by 'progressives' came without at least some of them being armed and ready to
fight, check out the links in reply #18 and get back to me...

[iverglas]

36. and of course

if anyone thinks anyone spewing this shit in the Guns forum (or hey, anywhere) is "progressive", well, is naïveté terminal?

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Ah, the Savonarola of Upper Canada is heard from....

Tell us, what chaps you more?

The rejection of your dogma, or the reposting of inconvenient history?

Face it, you aren't going to be having the Bonfire of The Handguns anytime soon.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. K and R