Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

Ian Flint · 2004-06-09 11:58:01

When I was a kid we ran all over the neighborhood with cap guns, blasting away. Neither I nor any one of them ever shot anyone.

Yes, but do you think it could have made you a little bit more apathetic toward real violence? I mean, look at your posts! Maybe all those Democrats in congress that just caved in to bad intelligence and voted for the war with Iraq played guns as kids too. Ever wonder why America since WWII only attacks countries whose people are of a non-white race? Cowboys and Indians, man!!

Tell me, would you let your kids play rape? It's only a game. They're not really going to rape anyone later in life...right?

If you can tell me why parents won't let their kids play rape then you have the answer to why they shouldn't let them play guns.

I think this whole tradition of teaching kids to get desensitized to violence and war was good during...say the Dark Ages, but it is high time we evolve.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 12:42:43

Yes, but do you think it could have made you a little bit more apathetic toward real violence?

No, because it was accompanied by a very clear understanding of right and wrong and the difference between fantasy and reality. I'm no more apathetic about violence than you, just not as uptight about references to it. Killing is usually wrong, but sometimes pacifism gets you killed.

Ever wonder why America since WWII only attacks countries whose people are of a non-white race? Cowboys and Indians, man!!

Let's be very clear about what you're saying, are you calling the American people, as a whole, racists?

Would you have been happier if we'd just invaded Russia right after World War II, finished it then and there and not had to fight proxy wars through the brown, yellow and black man for the next half century? I know I would, but then I guess I'm just a war monger aren't I?

If you can tell me why parents won't let their kids play rape then you have the answer to why they shouldn't let them play guns.

Alright, here's one. Kids have played some sort of wargames from the dawn of human civilization. American kids have always played with guns, and only recently do we have a problem. It's easy to say "little Tommy played with toy guns and that made him into a serial killer" but it's absurd. Put a bunch of male kids in a field and 9 times out of 10 they'll start playing some kind of wargame of their own accord, even without the benefit of plastic replicas of firearms.

I've never heard of a bunch of little kids wanting to play "rape."

Here's another, sometimes fighting is necessary. Sometimes you have to kill and sometimes you have to go to war. Rape, on the other hand, can't be excused. No one has ever "raped in self defense."

I think this whole tradition of teaching kids to get desensitized to violence and war was good during...say the Dark Ages, but it is high time we evolve.

My experience has been this, the kids who played with guns and had responsible parents who taught them decent values, nothing complex but basic right and wrong sort of stuff; they grow to be perfectly well adjusted citizens.

Those that are sheltered by parents trying to make sure that they don't get 'desensitized' to violence... those kids are the ones who in high school think guns are "cool" and joke about shooting classmates. Because they have no frame of reference, had no guidance. They'd been denied something 'normal' and lied to.

I know you mean well, despite the hostility I'm reading, but you're looking at the wrong details, finding causal relationships where none exist.

clark · 2004-06-09 14:02:25

Clark, c'mon now, you're really not in top form for this discussion.

Well, to be fair, I'm arguing a rather fine point. I'm not calling for banning firearms, as I can see the sense in keeping them. I'm calling for greater strides towards accountability and responsibility among those who do choose to use them, and from society in expecting people to use them approripately.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 14:09:17

Well, to be fair, I'm arguing a rather fine point. I'm not calling for banning firearms, as I can see the sense in keeping them. I'm calling for greater strides towards accountability and responsibility among those who do choose to use them, and from society in expecting people to use them approripately.

And in that we are in agreement. I've known a few too many yahoos myself that wave a gun around like it was... something you wave around... ??? Um, yeah. They're more careful what they point the TV remote at, or rather were until I seriously chewed 'em out.

Some people are for licensing, I'm for mandatory training in school. Either way could work, each has different baggage.

clark · 2004-06-09 14:15:03

So why not both?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 14:20:28

So why not both?

Two primary reasons. First the legal one, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Subjecting an individual right (which was the entire purpose of the document) to government permission for its exercise subverts that right and sets a horrible precedent.

Second, licensing results in government having a centralized collection of records showing who has the licenses in question. Governments in general have a very poor record of holding such information without abusing it. I'd rather not give them the temptation.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-09 14:20:33

Cobra,

It's not hostility. It's just plain old sarcasm.
Boy, I'm getting tired of this one. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree...but I'm still right!

clark,

I'm with you on the resposinbility/education thing. It seems that people think you're all for "gun control" if you mention anything like...gasp...responsibility! I like your analogy to cars. Let's make everyone who wants to own a gun get a six month learners permit and then pass a gun safety test. Then they will be issued a gun license.

clark · 2004-06-09 14:29:38

First the legal one, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Subjecting an individual right (which was the entire purpose of the document) to government permission for its exercise subverts that right and sets a horrible precedent.

That precedent has been set by the first ammendment. I see no difference here why guns should not be subjected to regulation, but speech should.

Second, licensing results in government having a centralized collection of records showing who has the licenses in question. Governments in general have a very poor record of holding such information without abusing it. I'd rather not give them the temptation.

How is your drivers lisence information abused? Them there's the govn'ment. How about your birth certificate? Govn'ment. Death certificate? Govn'ment. Taxes? Govn'ment. Social Security from your work? Govn'ment. What books you've read? Govn'ment (thank you Patriot Act).

The government compiles reams of information on us and nothing ever comes of it. Them knowing that you own *a* gun is not a threat (and your reaction seems little more than knee-jerk fear). So the government knows who owns a gun- it ain't a problem unless they go rounding up gun owners, which I fail to see happening given that owning a gun is a protected right.

Speaking of records, I'm sure, like me, you have informed the draft board every time you have had a change of address. It's a punishible offense if you haven't... :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 14:44:02

That precedent has been set by the first ammendment. I see no difference here why guns should not be subjected to regulation, but speech should.

With certain very obvious exceptions (fire in a theater, etc) speech isn't regulated, only the venue for that speech. You can go talk to people on the street, you can wear a t-shirt saying Bush is a liar, you can hold a nazi rally in your front yard if you want, depending on your community. No one sends you to prison for speaking out, but they will for carrying, or in some places merely possessing the means to defend yourself.

The government compiles reams of information on us and nothing ever comes of it. Them knowing that you own *a* gun is not a threat (and your reaction seems little more than knee-jerk fear).

One of the reasons the right of the people to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our Constitution was to allow the people to defend against tyranny in government. Government, both federal and state, has on a number of occasions used firearms registration and licensing lists to confiscate citizens guns. Your own state of California among them. Historically, here and elsewhere, government compiling a list a firearms owners almost invariably leads to the confiscation of those firearms.

So the government knows who owns a gun- it ain't a problem unless they go rounding up gun owners, which I fail to see happening given that owning a gun is a protected right.

They have! They didn't send them to camps, but they took their property in direct violation of the Constitution of these United States.

clark · 2004-06-09 14:54:18

With certain very obvious exceptions (fire in a theater, etc) speech isn't regulated, only the venue for that speech. You can go talk to people on the street, you can wear a t-shirt saying Bush is a liar, you can hold a nazi rally in your front yard if you want, depending on your community. No one sends you to prison for speaking out, but they will for carrying, or in some places merely possessing the means to defend yourself.

Can you say the word "bomb" in an air terminal? Can you advocate the violent overthrow of the government, even if warranted? Can you make an off-color joke about killing certain leaders? Can you be fined and jailed for yelling obsenities on public airwaves or in the presence of minors? Can you be persecuted if your views espouse the seperation of ethnic groups? Can one speak of things related to national security, even if those things run contrary to the rule of law and decency without fear of being labeled a traitor?

The regulation of speech goes much further than I think you care to admit. I'm not saying that it shouldn't, or even if it's a bad thing in all the cases i listed, however, we accept it. Why are we willing to accept the limitations of words, but not a concrete thing that is nothing more than action waiting to happen?

One of the reasons the right of the people to keep and bear arms was enshrined in our Constitution was to allow the people to defend against tyranny in government.

Here, I will give you the best reason: Iraq. Somalia. Afghanistan. (the list goes on). We must have the right, and the means to protect ourselves and our property when the government fails to do it. When the State disintigrates, all we have is ourselves, and if we are lucky, our neighbors. We must have the ability to protect our life and limb personaly when Big Brother can't do it for us anymore.

Not to keep tyranny away, but to be self reliant when the chips fall where they may. There is the only reason you need.

I will fight with anyone to protect our right to own a gun. I think having that right is worth fighting for. However, (the big but) I am willing to submit to regulations to help ensure a safer community where guns are present.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 15:05:13

I will fight with anyone to protect our right to own a gun. I think having that right is worth fighting for. However, (the big but) I am willing to submit to regulations to help ensure a safer community where guns are present.

Provided those regulations don't endanger the right itself, I agree.

Oh, I just have to:

Can you say the word "bomb" in an air terminal?

Same as "fire in a theater," already covered.

Can you advocate the violent overthrow of the government, even if warranted?

Yep. Done it. Cops were there. No problems.

Can you make an off-color joke about killing certain leaders?

That one's a grey area, depending largely on the venue in which you say it.

Can you be fined and jailed for yelling obsenities on public airwaves or in the presence of minors?

Again, venue rather than speech itself.

Can you be persecuted if your views espouse the seperation of ethnic groups?

Persecuted, of course. That happens sometimes with free speech. Responsibility.

Can one speak of things related to national security, even if those things run contrary to the rule of law and decency without fear of being labeled a traitor?

Depending on the specifics. I hear constant challenges to the Patriot Act, among other specifics. The line there is usually tied to the likelihood that speaking on the matter will get some of our people killed.

Mundaka · 2004-06-09 15:06:11

clark · 2004-06-09 15:10:25

Provided those regulations don't endanger the right itself, I agree.

LOL! Wait a second... it was more fun when you didn't agree.

And Mundaka, I don't think I need yours or Cobra's help in celebrating... [ahem]. But hey, I can tell you where to find some bitchin trees. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 15:11:22

Ouch! Ok, fine then, be that way. Cobra and I are going to Catalina to help Clark celebrate his honeymoon.

???

clark · 2004-06-09 15:12:23

I know Cobra, sorry to break your heart.

Mundaka · 2004-06-09 15:43:18

clark · 2004-06-09 15:57:45

I just don't think the long term effects are any more merciful, in terms of what that much license can do to a society.

That life is more valuable than property? We so easily tend toward the extremes in our examples, such as me wanting to point out that your values would also condem the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family. Not fair, so I refrain from using it.

There is a caluclation difference between those who obey the law, and those who don't. Very simple example: When you speed (assuming you ever do), do you think of how much it will cost you if you get caught, or what your chances are of getting caught are? Law breakers do the mental math for a crime, and invariably, they weight the chances of getting caught, not the penalty associated with it. What the take home here is that laws that say, "hey, go ahead and kill that car jacker" are for the law abiding citizen to feel confident and safe from the law (and one of those bunk counter suits we always hear about from the criminal that gets hurt on your property) in their actions. It has almost zero bearing on reducing actual incident of crime. (this is generally why most civilized nations forgo the death penalty).

This struck me as a *bit* problematic, because I don't agree that violent revolution is a legitimate force for political change unless and until you are in a state of total, lethal, dictatorial tyranny. To use such a risky -- who knows what you will wind up with -- means to effect change is too dangerous, until there is simply no other choice.

A misunderstanding, let's just say we are in near complete agreement.

If someone tried to take my car in the desert though, he's a dead man (that's why the law is there, btw, it started out that you could shoot a man for stealing your horse, and because there was so much desert in Texas, that to have your horse stolen here was practically a death sentance.)

Your life is threatened, so you don't neccessarily need a law that *allows* you to kill the attacker. It is plain self defense. In the middle of Dallas though? The killing is less justified (compared to the desert scenerio). However, the law that we are talking about dosen't make that distinction. It just says, "hey, a guy puts his hands on your car, go ahead and kill him, his life is forfeit." We end up justifying the possibility of homicide by steam rolling over good judgement.

No, you are a very good misanthrope.

If I had a tail, I would be wagging. :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-06-09 15:57:50

As for dinner, thanks. Let me buy some Kevlar first, from what I read, Texas is a free fire zone.
Ouch! Ok, fine then, be that way. Cobra and I are going to Catalina to help Clark celebrate his honeymoon. Congrats clark, I'm sure you can't wait to see us. . . :;):
(Tell us when you get the nerve to ask her...Muhahaha.)

Enough said:

Chorus:
All my ex's live in Texas,
And Texas is a place I'd dearly love to be.
But all my ex's live in Texas
And that's why I hang my hat in Tennessee.

Or this?

all my exes drive a lexus
a lexus is just a perfect car for me
but all my exes drive a lexus
I drive a beat up century

A link with sound:

http://members.tripod.com/~rosemck1/juk … untry.html

clark · 2004-06-09 16:04:17

You fill me with such hope. :laugh:

Mundaka · 2004-06-09 16:04:46

clark · 2004-06-09 16:06:54

I think I'll come back as a cheetah . . .

60 second stamina? You are such a man. :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-06-09 16:11:54

Not gone, just reduced:

WELL, I WAS DRUNK THE DAY MY MOM GOT OUT OF PRISON;
AND I WENT TO PICK HER UP IN THE RAIN;
BUT BEFORE I COULD GET TO THE STATION IN MY PICKUP TRUCK;
SHE GOT RUN NED OVER BY A DAMNED OLD TRAIN

Mundaka · 2004-06-09 16:12:51

clark · 2004-06-09 16:23:43

As long as it counts...

FrankPoole · 2004-06-09 18:25:40

The Hutterites are the most successful people on this planet and they are pacifists. They do not spend their time and money building weapons.
Scott, the example of the Hutterites you mention is really amusing. Fundamentalist Christians who have a noted distain for birth control. No one BUT a people with strong moral values can settle Mars. The Hutterites know that a stable society is based on the family unit, a growing population, and separation of church and state. I hope that my fellow colonists have a higher moral authority than the state structure that you espouse.
Frankly, I agree.
Now, how do we persuade such people to try?

Well, I guess the next best thing are the Mormons. They have the same values and the highest percentage of graduate degree holders out of all religions.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-06-09 11:58:01

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#77 2004-06-09 12:42:43

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#78 2004-06-09 14:02:25

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#79 2004-06-09 14:09:17

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#80 2004-06-09 14:15:03

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#81 2004-06-09 14:20:28

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#82 2004-06-09 14:20:33

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#83 2004-06-09 14:29:38

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#84 2004-06-09 14:44:02

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#85 2004-06-09 14:54:18

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#86 2004-06-09 15:05:13

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#87 2004-06-09 15:06:11

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#88 2004-06-09 15:10:25

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#89 2004-06-09 15:11:22

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#90 2004-06-09 15:12:23

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#91 2004-06-09 15:43:18

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#92 2004-06-09 15:57:45

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#93 2004-06-09 15:57:50

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#94 2004-06-09 16:04:17

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#95 2004-06-09 16:04:46

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#96 2004-06-09 16:06:54

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#97 2004-06-09 16:11:54

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#98 2004-06-09 16:12:51

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#99 2004-06-09 16:23:43

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#100 2004-06-09 18:25:40

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

Board footer