I am a strict constructionist and an unabashed defender of our Bill of Rights. In another thread Jazzabell and I posted about writing and free expression. I'm not as optimistic as I once was on that issue. Many of the folks I associate with refer to our modern American public as "sheeple." In today's local newspaper the Holocaust was featured. In response to the article, I wrote a letter to the editor. Because I am the last living Republican in Dane County, they print a lot of my stuff. This is the letter I submitted: Even as a young boy I never understood the concept that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Clueless and naive, I always figured that if tragedies in the world were documented then everybody would read about it and learn. In the January 28th edition of the Wisconsin State Journal we are once again told about the Holocaust, and vigilance to ensure the past is not repeated. While we know well the suffering, we seem to gloss over the actions in the Warsaw Ghetto where people fought back. In our own time I have come to realize I do not hear the phrase “Minute Men” anymore. It is no longer fashionable to teach about the Jewish ghetto or American civil resistance. In fact, we seem far to comfortable with praising the survivors of the Holocaust and castigating our own people in the same breath. We are undergoing a national debate on disarming ourselves. Perhaps I have a better answer to problem. Those of us who own and enjoy firearms should sew a yellow star on our clothing so that decent citizens can recognize us in public. After all, there is historical precedence for that.
I'm not sure at all that I understand what point you're trying to make here. What did the "sheeple" comment mean? Does it relate to the rest of the post? How does it relate to the Holocaust? And in your letter, there doesn't appear to be much connection between the paragraphs. In four short paragraphs, you go from not understanding that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it, to sewing yellow stars on gun owners' clothing. Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm not following you, and it's probably because I'm not starting from the same place.
You guys need to read the post again, this time carefully. In most cases of Holocaust discussion you hear the phrase "never again." If I'm not mistaken it is the motto of the JDL. If that's the case, how come we point to the Holocaust, but at the same time try to disarm our own citizens? In other words, armed JDL good, armed American citizens bad. Jazzabel and I had discussed doing the right thing amid pressure. I believe that the Bill of Rights in worth defending. It is naive to believe that a hostile fascist state will never happen again. Which begs the question, you do know the history of the Warsaw Ghetto, don't you?
The Tourist: I don't mean to offend you, as you're more than a couple years my senior, but I've just got to repeat what I told you in another thread. You really do jump from idea to idea, without tying them to a single theme. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say, and I have no idea what you're arguing. All I'm gathering here is that you are pro-gun. What does any of this have to do with "living free," "societal pressures," "Minute Men," and the holocaust? I have a feeling you're trying to say that the holocaust was as bad as it was because most of the victims were unarmed, and that we should be ready to defend ourselves with guns and such, like the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. If that was your intent, you fail to mention that the Warsaw-ians were pretty much massacred within hours.
Completely different scenarios. There's certainly an argument to be made here, but I think you're going to extremes to try to make it.
I do not see your logic. If a fascist state puts you to death it's bad, but if a junta of a formerly free society puts you to death it's okay? From my position on the gallows it's just the same. Again, you do know the history of the Warsaw Ghetto, don't you?
Yes, I do know about the Warsaw Ghetto. But are you honestly comparing yourself to victims of the Holocaust because a few pieces of gun legislation are being proposed? Honestly, if the government decided to come for its citizens, there's not much gun owners could do. After all, it's armored vehicles and drones against handguns and semi-autos.
"A few pieces of legislation" is how it always starts. After all, what harm did it do to make Jews sew a little yellow star on their clothes? It's just an innocuous little patch... Feudal Japan. They outlawed the Samurai from carrying katanas in public. Do you see any more Samurai now? It's now illegal to carry a fixed blade knife of more than 5.5 inches in Texas. Did you know that Jim Bowie could now be arrested there? Our Republic has equal justice under the law. I am innocent until proven guilty. I could own an entire warehouse full of semi-automatic rifles (and Class III arms after paying for the Federal Stamp) and I still haven't broken a law. You know who I think is dangeous? Why, everyone knows the pen is mightier than the sword. Before you proffer an opinion you should have to apply for a two-day waiting and cooling off period. After all, the First Amendment isn't without restrictions. What harm could a few restrictions do to free speech?
I did read it carefully. Several times. I am not mentally deficient. Please make your points more carefully - you've confused many of us. How does the Holocaust relate to the current gun control debate in America? Are you suggesting that if Jews in WWII had been armed, they would have fought off the Nazis? I don't know too much about the JDL, but according to Wikipedia, they're a far-right organization that the FBI called a terrorist group in 2001. Is anybody here arguing for an armed JDL? Nobody else here has even mentioned them. Seems to me like "armed JDL good, armed American citizens bad" is you trying to put words in our mouths (or posts). Why bring up the JDL in the first place? Is it part of your argument? I'm really trying to figure out what you're trying to get at here. Sure, it may be naive to believe that, but is that your point? And would arming American citizens somehow prevent it from happening? How do we prevent the "armed American citizens" from BECOMING the hostile fascist state? I see some gerrymandering and other shenanigans going on in some states that's designed to guarantee Republican victories in future elections, and THAT'S pretty scary to me. But I don't think arming me and a bunch of other concerned Americans is going to help. It's a place where the Nazis killed hundreds of thousands of Jews in 1943, if I remember right. Is it relevant to your point? Again, are you saying that if the Jews had been armed, they would have fought off the Nazis?
I think The Tourist is referring more to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, when a large number of the Jewish inhabitants used grenades and small arms to hold off the larger and better equipped German army for a surprising length of time. I'm not sure the relation to that historical event is apt to be honest, but as a Brit who owns and uses guns (and sees them blamed for all sorts of stupidity) I can sympathize with the point being made.
See my point about gerrymandering, etc. above. Outside of movies, no. I don't see any feudal Japan, either. They've moved on over there, and seem to be doing pretty well. Is that a problem? Do you advocate a return to society as it was when Bowie was alive? Wasn't he a slave trader, among other things? Like Japan, we've moved on, and we seem to be doing pretty well. Are you seriously equating stating opinions with owning guns? The pen is mightier than the sword because it has the power to convince, not the power to kill. There's a reason for that "cooling-off period."
Personally, The shooting range to me is what yoga and weed are to others. Outlawing guns isn't going to solve anything, molotov cocktails can still be made and power tools can do some damage. That being said we don't have guns where we are from. Not legally anyway. If we did, I wouldn't have had to dodge two molotov attacks on the road during last year's riots. I always liked the concept of citizen soldiers in ancient Sparta. And then there is also modern day Switzerland. Everyone is packing. Everyone knows everyone is packing. Crime and violence become something you want to think twice about.
They had four or five pistols and a handful of ammunition. They would fire at a Nazi soldier, and then run the guns and ammo to another location and fire at another soldier. They created the image of an entirely armed community. The Nazis were intially reluctant to invade. And so I point out to people in my own country who seek to placate the central government and sell off their enumated rights that the same scenario can happen. The same reaction happens personally. I know guys who get so incensed during a debate that they close distance and try that "finger in the chest" tactic. Then I calmly state, "I have a concealed carry permit." You should see their countenance change. You will not be dominated when your opponent is reluctant to act. In fact, governments do it. It's called "MAD." @Lemex, you're on my ignore list.
I can sympathize with gun ownership, too. I used to own two hunting rifles I inherited from my grandfather when I lived in Canada. I lived in a rural area, and they were good to have around to deal with potentially rabid animals that could have been dangerous to our dogs. I did kill a rabid raccoon once with my .22 rifle. But I see a big difference between a single-shot, small-magazine hunting rifle used for varmint control on a farm and a military weapon that belongs on a battlefield but shows up in a school or a movie theater.
While I'm with you for the most part as to gun control, the statements you're making here do not make a lot of sense - at least not with the near (excuse the expression) bullet style. It does sound more like an off-the-cuff rant than reasoned statements. (Oh, and to those who think rifles and pistols cannot work against the arms the military has - one should research the various European resistance groups and what they accomplished against the Fascists during WWII, just for starters).
Men will always drift toward tyranny over time. There is always a delicate balance between security and freedom. You can't have both. I see a dangerous trend in America. The American government is 'thinking' for the people, and the government is making decisions for the people. The government no longer trusts the people to do the right thing. Now, the government has used the law, to 'force' people to do the right thing, or what it thinks is right. Shouldn't I be smart enough to put on my seatbelt when I drive? Do I need a law to punish me if I don't? As of today, the American government, with its takeover of health care, now has the power to force you to eat 'correct' foods and will punish you if you engage in 'unhealthy' activities like drinking or smoking. All of this has been a slow trend over a long period of time. You do not need to be a government expert to extrapolate where this trend will lead if you follow it to its natural conclusion. ~ J. J.
Until this man could learn to communicate his thoughts in an organized and coherent manner, I'd suggest ya'll just ignore him... I won't even comment on his lack of logic and strange knack for using a variety of examples of which he knows very little of (or so it would seem). But it is interesting that he's ignoring the fact that the armed Jews at Warsaw were totally destroyed in a relatively short amount of time. If he did, he'd have to grapple with the fact that history shows us something he doesn't want to believe (he did say something about history before he changed the topic for the fourth time, right?). Arming everyone would not prevent a hostile fascist army from taking over; there is a difference between armed civilians and a trained army with an organized structure and superior technology. And ff you're only one in a movie theater with a yellow patch to indicate that you're armed, any respectable schizophrenic looking for blood will take you out before proceeding to shoot at everyone else.
@Minstrel , So how do you stop a Molotov from showing up in a school or theatre? Ban flammable liquids? people are hung up on guns when there are so many ways harm can be done. It's the inevitability of wrong place, wrong time. It's far more important the law has the capacity to react to hostile situations, then get into the futility of trying to prevent it from ever happening.
Sure, a group of armed individuals can cause minor damage, but they can't do much against an entire army. Given today's technology, I just don't see an armed revolt being successful.
Yeah, it would have been better to be butchered peacefully and save the Nazis all of that trouble. You have no right to touch me, for any reason. And yet, that's become a very old fashioned concept. We used to respect that. Even John Wayne stated: "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand upon, I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." What I do not understand is why something that simple is so hard to explain. We have kids that burn up tens of thousands of rounds playing Halo. The turn around and belittle self defense.
I have no idea. But it hasn't been Molotovs that have been showing up in schools and theaters, it's been guns. I don't know how to control guns. Or Molotovs. Or fertilizer bombs such as the Oklahoma City bomb. We can't protect ourselves from deadly violence if some crazy person is SERIOUSLY trying to kill us. But the Oklahoma City bomb wouldn't have been stopped by some random citizens around who happened to be carrying guns. I'm not saying that gun-limiting legislation is the answer to violence in our society, but I AM saying that random gun enthusiasts carrying weapons everywhere they go isn't going to make us any safer. We need a shift away from the culture of violence in the USA today. I don't think that can be accomplished with a piece of legislation. There are no political solutions to social problems.
This isn't hard to explain. However, where I live (Southern California), it simply isn't a problem. Nobody touches me, even though I don't go around armed. I respect other people and they seem to respect me. Okay, maybe it isn't really respect, per se, but we do tend to leave each other alone. Do people threaten you every day? Every month? Have you ever had to pull your gun on someone because you really thought your life was in danger? If so, where? I'd like to know where to stay away from.
Do you fear the government? The reason we have the Constitutional right to arms is so that we, the people, can act as a barrier from tyranny. The American government was specifically set up so that we could overthrow the government, and replace it with a new one, if we decided. This isn't about hunting, or shooting, or even personal self defense, really.
