Calm down, please

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

You didn't understand the point. Civilians owning guns are not the only check and balance on government abuse of power. This is a check and balance of last resort. That was the intent of the Second Amendment.

Of course you want to have criteria, superiors, independent evaluators, objective laws and all other sorts of controls on people who carry guns in the name of a government. Those are checks and balances, too.

But don't you find it kinda funny that the politicians and judges who command the police (and military) and give orders about who to shoot at do not have to undergo the same rigors?

btw - I knew a lot of cops in Brazil. Most were very good people. Moral people.

Michael

[pippi]

Pippi,

I don't think you can ever completely dismantle the government.

Michael

Michael-thanks I should have realized what you were saying and not taken it literally-again I agree. Yes being armed yourself instantly levels the playing field for sure but as you said as a last resort!

Yes, liberals love spending OPM (aka our money) and taking it as well.

Re: gun ownership and other rights being taken away (I used to joke we were all going to get barcoded tattoos someday-doesn't seem as funny anymore), again I ask other than writing our reps-which I won't do because it is futile-what can we do to stop them-any ideas?

Edited January 12, 2011 by pippi

[pippi]

As to governments,mine (local, provincial, federal) have not intruded on my life or harmed me so far, in my own estimation.

And that sums it all up right there.

Shayne

Yes, it does.

I don't understand why Daunce posts here-is she/he an Objectivist ? Or even and Objectivist detractor?

What is his/her motivation here? I don't understand.

Daunce?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am afraid of the armaments industry and the NRA, with their huge resources. If they achieve their aims they will change my culture and force me to consider myself continually at risk of my life, assuming everyone on the street,like me, could be armed.To you that is secure self=reliance; to me it would be intentional paranoia.

As to governments,mine (local, provincial, federal) have not intruded on my life or harmed me so far, in my own estimation.

What can I say, I'm Canadian.

Daunce,

I actually feel your pain. Guns scare the hell out of me, too. And I do not like the image of living in a constant state of paranoia.

You should be careful, though, about the smokescreens they blow at you when you think the bad guys are the NRA and the armaments industry (with testosterone-laden images to sneer at). Media manipulators would have you believe that most of the profits come from civilian gun sales. Those are just a drop in the bucket profits-wise.

The real money is in supplying governments. And if the armaments industry is so powerful, where do you think it got the money from?

I say the best customers is a reasonable guess. In other words, government.

And note, many of the media manipulators are in the government or are in cahoots with it. Does that tell you anything?

The solution to this is not even in restricting the arms industry or whatnot, although I see no reason for civilians to own tanks and machine guns. I believe the solution is in moral education. One of the reasons I am not as much against churches as others on this board is because I see weekly church meetings as a form of moral maintenance for most church-going people.

When people are taught to be good and they are surrounded by good people--non-bully kinds of people, there's no reason to live in fear, even if some of them own guns.

I will say this. If I lived in a neighborhood of fanatics (regardless of what they were fanatical about, but true fanatics who wanted to change the world at all costs), I would not feel safe if I did not agree with them and they had the "right to bear arms." Even if I agreed with them, I wouldn't feel safe. I also don't feel very safe around intercity street gangs with their "right to bear arms."

I'm all for tempering these questions with a good dose of common sense. There's no way to argue with a bullet, regardless of whether it comes from a "government people" or a "civilian people." Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the discussion is over.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

As to governments,mine (local, provincial, federal) have not intruded on my life or harmed me so far, in my own estimation.

And that sums it all up right there.

Shayne

Oh, my god--a "good German."

--Brant

[caroljane]

I will say this. If I lived in a neighborhood of fanatics (regardless of what they were fanatical about, but true fanatics who wanted to change the world at all costs), I would not feel safe if I did not agree with them and they had the "right to bear arms." Even if I agreed with the, I wouldn't feel safe. I also don't feel very safe around intercity street gangs with their "right to bear arms

I'm all for tempering these questions with a good dose of common sense. There's no way to argue with a bullet, regardless of whether it comes from a "government people" or a "civilian people." Once the bullet leaves the barrel, the discussion is over.

Michael

You have provided a superb dose of common sense. You are, of course, right about the armaments industry. Ever read "The Arms of Krupp?" or "The Guns of August"? The Kaiser's government had new toys, everybody else had to have them, WW1 and 20 million die, and onward through the 20th century.

I grew up in utter physical safety in a small town, and have lived for over 30 years in Canada's largest city still with that sense of safety, which I never really thought about till I unwisely commented on this topic!I walk the streets at night alone, etc. Never once have I felt or been threatened, and my experience is not that uncommon. I never want to lose that freedom.

If you don't mind, I'll add a kind of omnibus here to questions I've been asked by Pippi during this skirmish.

Pippi, thanks for helping my tech lameness, I have only sole-owned a computer for a short while.

You've asked: "Do you know how lucky you are"? Yes, absolutely, and I know that it is luck as much as my own abilities.

"Have you even read Rand"? Yes, most of what she wrote up to the mid-70's.

I'm not a now- or ex- or anti-Objectivist. I am deeply interested in the Objectivist movement and the minds it attracts. I have known some Objectivists well, and I have seen Objectivism help them in many ways. I am not attracted to Rand's ideas, but I admire her as a unique and fascinating human being. Her life was an epic of triumphant achievement, great love and tragedy, which like classic tragedy proceeded relentlessly from her own character.

"Why are you here anyway?" Because I want to be.

BTW I teach adults, so the kids in the public school system are safe from me.

Michael,I have been inaccurate -- I have in fact been threatened on the street here. Just last week in fact. I was going home from my nightly devotions at the Shrine of St Jean de Beliveau when I was set upon by a gang of Bobby Orrites. Things could have gotten ugly, but fortunately they opened up the rink for shinny so the crowd dispersed.

[Selene]

Carol:

Now that was funny! Not sure if everyone will quite get the joke.

Here is the shrine!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lesaint008/3111372197/

Watch those checks into the boards! LOL

Orr, tripped while scoring "The Goal", went flying across the ice.

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

I've said this before on another thread dealing the with DC gun case... The problem with gun laws is that it keeps guns out of the wrong hands: law-abiding citizens. Criminals could give 2 shits about the gun law if their intent is to have one. They won't lose sleep over the matter. Once they have a gun, they will certainly impose their will on some poor soul that couldn't protect him/herself because the government told him/her that they couldn't have one. For me, the gun laws make absolutely no sense whatsoever. There should be laws, however, dealing with improper use of guns (other than hunting, target practice, self defense, etc).

~ Shane

[william.scherk]

Oh, my god--a "good German."

Are you sure about this, Brant?

I thought a 'Good German' was someone who rejected any kind of shared 'national' responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust by denying support for the atrocities.

-- 'I didn't vote for the Nazis'

-- 'I never knew about Dachau

-- 'I protested Kristallnacht'

-- 'I had nothing to do with the bad things'

-- 'the Nazi's didn't hurt me. How could I have known?

There is a website called "the Good German Syndrome" that follows this trope to its logical end.

The trope might apply to Carol Jane and me and Joel -- if there were the modern equivalent of Nazi Death Camps in Canada, and if we looked away as our non-Aryan concitoyens were marched off to their doom . . .

Carol Jane hasn't yet had a Nazi Death Machine come for her, whether by Federal, Provincial or Local gauleiteren. But the Nazi Death Machine also hasn't yet come for her neighbours, so she can hardly be expected to ignore something that isn't happening.

Please either reject that appellation or explain it. Otherwise you will sound as fucking nutjob kooky as Shayne does.

Edited January 13, 2011 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Carol:

Now that was funny! Not sure if everyone will quite get the joke.

Here is the shrine!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lesaint008/3111372197/

Watch those checks into the boards! LOL

Orr, tripped while scoring "The Goal", went flying across the ice.

Wonderful, Adam. How on earth do you find this stuff so fast? I thought you

only liked the ball sports.

Now that I have realized that M. Beliveau is never going to leave his wife, however old she gets, I take take comfort in our State Religion. There is turbulence amongst the sects of course, but our Common Faith unites us all.

Adam

[Selene]

Carol:

Now that was funny! Not sure if everyone will quite get the joke.

Here is the shrine!

http://www.flickr.co...008/3111372197/

Watch those checks into the boards! LOL

Orr, tripped while scoring "The Goal", went flying across the ice.

Wonderful, Adam. How on earth do you find this stuff so fast? I thought you

only liked the ball sports.

Now that I have realized that M. Beliveau is never going to leave his wife, however old she gets, I take take comfort in our State Religion. There is turbulence amongst the sects of course, but our Common Faith unites us all.

Adam

Carol:

Lol. Just get used to using that edit button...you should have seen my first posts. I still have trouble with the multiple quotes from different segments and threads.

I love all competitive sports. I see any arena, or field of play structurally. Tennis for example has zones and areas and angles. So does hockey and soccer. Being a NY Ranger fan got me used to decades of disappointment. But I did finally get a Stanley Cup or two!

At first, I thought I missed something about you being religious with that "nightly devotions" statement, but the Bobby Orrites unlocked the cleverness of what you posted.

Also, I started playing chess at about five (5) which is one of the best games, along with backgammon to teach children. Chess is all about structure and space and zones of power.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've said this before on another thread dealing the with DC gun case... The problem with gun laws is that it keeps guns out of the wrong hands: law-abiding citizens. Criminals could give 2 shits about the gun law if their intent is to have one.

Shane,

I agree with this.

In my drug days, I had a very close friend who was an ex-bank-robber. Literally. But rather than me going off to rob banks, I put that dude in a recording studio. He was actually a good song composer.

One day I had a real problem with some people who were threatening me. (I hung around with some pretty nasty people back then.) They claimed they would send the dark arm of the Masonry after me, yada yada yada. (That actually exists in Brazil.) I didn't say anything, but I did talk to my friend about it. He said to get 2 or 3 hundred dollars and go with him to the favela (shanty town section of the city). We would get some young dudes to go resolve this.

They were not permitted to have any guns, but they had plenty.

The only problem, my friend said, was that you had to get out fast. Once those young dudes started shooting, nothing would stop them. They would shoot up everything. including innocent bystanders if any were unlucky enough to be around. It was easy to turn these young dudes on and impossible to turn them back off. So he told me to think well before I decided on anything.

Boy, did that give me pause.

I thought to myself, I used to conduct symphony orchestras, for God's sake. What the hell was I doing?

Fortunately, I backed off. I resolved my hostile issue in another, nonviolent manner (and it gave me another pause at how easy that was), and told my friend his place now was in the recording studio, not the favela.

I would like to say I was an angel, but it wasn't like that. After I knew what I had access to, I used to fantasize about unleashing the power of hell on smart-asses when we fell out. I even yelled in one important politician's face, "I don't have cops, I don't have Masons, but by God I have the favela! So don't mess with me!"

Man, did I used to be a jerk...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, my god--a "good German."

Are you sure about this, Brant?

I thought a 'Good German' was someone who rejected any kind of shared 'national' responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust by denying support for the atrocities.

-- 'I didn't vote for the Nazis'

-- 'I never knew about Dachau

-- 'I protested Kristallnacht'

-- 'I had nothing to do with the bad things'

-- 'the Nazi's didn't hurt me. How could I have known?

There is a website called "the Good German Syndrome" that follows this trope to its logical end.

The trope might apply to Carol Jane and me and Joel -- if there were the modern equivalent of Nazi Death Camps in Canada, and if we looked away as our non-Aryan concitoyens were marched off to their doom . . .

Carol Jane hasn't yet had a Nazi Death Machine come for her, whether by Federal, Provincial or Local gauleiteren. But the Nazi Death Machine also hasn't yet come for her neighbours, so she can hardly be expected to ignore something that isn't happening.

Please either reject that appellation or explain it. Otherwise you will sound as fucking nutjob kooky as Shayne does.

I was thinking of the "good Germans" who supported Hitler before the war by accepting the society they were living in and going about their daily business as if everything was fine by them. I was not thinking of post-war excuse making. Nothing bugs this lady about Canada and its government in so far as it has infringed on her life. Never mind anybody else. Never mind rights, freedom, taxes, regulations, socialized medicine and the enslavement of the medical profession. Never mind about someone who needs a 38 Special to protect herself. She's comfortable. She's set. She's sure no radical for liberty. I'll take Shayne over her any day.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Oh, my god--a "good German."

Are you sure about this, Brant?

I was thinking of the "good Germans" who supported Hitler . . .

Ah, Godwin's Law. Thanks.

[sjw]

Oh, my god--a "good German."

Are you sure about this, Brant?

I was thinking of the "good Germans" who supported Hitler . . .

Ah, Godwin's Law. Thanks.

Godwin's "law" is moronic drivel. It's fitting that you would invoke it.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

Oh, my god--a "good German."

Are you sure about this, Brant?

I was thinking of the "good Germans" who supported Hitler . . .

Ah, Godwin's Law. Thanks.

Godwin's "law" is moronic drivel. It's fitting that you would invoke it.

Ah, Whistler . . . il serait difficile de rendre justice à vous avec une caricature. Dans votre première, la forme sans intermédiaire, vous semblez être un exemple d'autodérision; ce qui semble incompréhensible pour nous, pour vous, c'est la sagesse, et vice versa.

Here's a bit of background from the history section of Wikipedia's relevant page:

Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.

[sjw]

Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.

To a pragmatist, any principled comparison is "hyperbolic." The whole purpose of this "Law" is to shut down principled discussion. We already have a law for proper discussion, it's called "logic". You ought to try using it some time. Perhaps if you tried, you might even be able to produce an actual argument, rather than making inane pop culture references.

Shayne

Edited January 13, 2011 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

Jesus. Unbelievable. Statism exists along a continuum but it's all of a basic kind. While there's a huge difference between Canada today and Germany then (and the US today), all require compliant citizens so the power mongers can feast on the living. Objectivism is radical or it's nothing much at all. What I'm criticizing are people who come here and instruct us to turn down the heat and be compliant too.

--Brant

[Mike11]

I just want to address a myth I'm noticing in this thread. While Canadians may pride themselves on not being "gun toting libertarians" we are in fact the fourth most armed civilian population in developed world with such a high regard for gun rights that the federal attempt at a gun registry was shut down due to massive public disobedience.

While we may not have the adversarial relationship with government many Americans have make no mistake - We love our guns and the police can have them when they are pried from our cold dead hands.

I think what Daunce is reacting to is the cultural differences reflected in how we treat guns and each other. The national mythology of Canada from New France to the RCMP and the CCF 'reminds' us that we are part of a community in which one can hitch hike from Newfoundland to BC in absolute safety with a government that is our helpful friend. We cooperate, hell, often we are encouraged to conform, to keep the peace and spirit of community alive. Our defining moments have been when people separated by bitter hatreds have agreed to work together. Of course our country is just as screwed up as every other country but these are the lies we choose to tell together.

I think Libertarianism in the States has a lot of power because your national struggles have largely been against tyranny. You have learned in 2 horrendous wars that the State is your enemy. We have learned the government (note the different word and capitalization) is our friend. Canadians see our interactions with each other based on trust and cooperation, even when that means wearing a shit eating grin 99% of the time. Americans are direct, willing to sue and even *gasp* open fire to protect their interests. It is that kind of spirit we see embodied in the rhetoric of the NRA and similar groups.

Libertarianism has always been a threat to our national spirit and has often been marginalized because of it. Ontario was literally founded to be an anti-Libertarian's Utopia. This is why a gun toting pro-gun country to the North fears the identical gun toting pro-gun attitudes to the South. Its not the guns per se its the ideas of freedom, autonomy, and comfort with force (especially force against the State, what kind of person would hurt their own Mommy??) that go against the Canadian grain.

Now before everyone jumps down my throat, the national stereotypes I used are wrong and self serving. But the stereotypes we hold I think will explain for the Americans on the forum where our reaction is coming from psychologically.

[Brant Gaede]

That was an interesting post, Joel, and it told me something I didn't know about Canada and it's gunned-up citizens. Too bad they don't stick it to their masters, though, and make them change the laws.

--Brant

[sjw]

Jesus. Unbelievable.

Not really. From http://www.myspace.com/bill_scherk

Psychology, Social Psychology, psychology of cults and sects. Extremist groups, weird beliefs and believers, Skeptical notions, free inquiry. ...

Like an itch, is drawn to read Objectivish websites, including the tirades at SOLOPassion, and ObjectistLiving.com. Not an objectish person, but fascinated by the true believerness of it all. You can find some of his recent screeds there, and be suitably unimpressed. Posting under his 'literary-ish' name of William Scott Scherk.

...

Not much beyond the average. Talented but thwarted. Critical but silent. Smiling but evil. You get the picture -- it has taken him a long long time to figure himself out.

...

Fairly adept with English . . . and fairly surprised by the number of people who like him, having looked deep into his own larcenous, hateful, cynical heart. Single for life -- no need to involve others in his self-absorption; mind you, if someone needed him . . .

He's here to mock, though apparently is honest about himself almost to a fault.

Shayne

[Mike11]

That was an interesting post, Joel, and it told me something I didn't know about Canada and it's gunned-up citizens. Too bad they don't stick it to their masters, though, and make them change the laws.

--Brant

Brant, if you don't mind indulging me for a moment, what did you learn in my post? I'm always curious to know what an American thinks of us. Its kind of a national obsession up here.

[Brant Gaede]

That was an interesting post, Joel, and it told me something I didn't know about Canada and it's gunned-up citizens. Too bad they don't stick it to their masters, though, and make them change the laws.

--Brant

Brant, if you don't mind indulging me for a moment, what did you learn in my post? I'm always curious to know what an American thinks of us. Its kind of a national obsession up here.

What I told you about guns. I pretty well knew the rest of it. You are very nice people. I've been to Ontario and Quebec. It's interesting to run into people who speak only French in North America. Even in Vietnam Americans weren't beaten militarily, but you Canucks did, before and after our Revolution. But don't think you can do it again!

--Brant

[pippi]

Jesus. Unbelievable. Statism exists along a continuum but it's all of a basic kind. While there's a huge difference between Canada today and Germany then (and the US today), all require compliant citizens so the power mongers can feast on the living. Objectivism is radical or it's nothing much at all. What I'm criticizing are people who come here and instruct us to turn down the heat and be compliant too.

--Brant

You are so right! I especially like "Objectivism is radical or it's nothing much at all." Well said - thank you

[caroljane]

That was an interesting post, Joel, and it told me something I didn't know about Canada and it's gunned-up citizens. Too bad they don't stick it to their masters, though, and make them change the laws.

--Brant

Brant, if you don't mind indulging me for a moment, what did you learn in my post? I'm always curious to know what an American thinks of us. Its kind of a national obsession up here.

What I told you about guns. I pretty well knew the rest of it. You are very nice people. I've been to Ontario and Quebec. It's interesting to run into people who speak only French in North America. Even in Vietnam Americans weren't beaten militarily, but you Canucks did, before and after our Revolution. But don't think you can do it again!

--Brant

I could never imagine wanting to. I grew up 5 mins from the US border, half my close relatives are Americans, and your local highschool basketball team always beats ours in friendly crossborder competition. Still we hope, even dare suggest (politely of course!), that you don't think you can do it again.