My Blog...

Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
My Blog...

Hey gang...

In order to get people to read my blog, I try to keep it as short as possible, which is difficult since I am a self-important ass... But in doing so I risk clarity ....still,  I was hoping to run this last effort by you to get some feedback...

I do this fully recognizing that this is the most brutally honest, pull no punches, and socially astute messagboard I belong to... If I didn't want criticism, I wouldn't post here... since this is a "left leaning" forum, I don't expect that it will be recieved without contention...

http://richwoodsblog.wordpress.com/

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3702
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
   I just visited your

   I just visited your blog and I liked what I saw.  I am an atheist, own many guns, support equal treatment among socially disparate groups and generally tend too poo poo political correctness.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3729
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually, from what I've

Actually, from what I've seen, many people on this site support gun rights, me included.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
fairly logical, nice grammar

I don't agree with you, however.  The right to bear arms was actually related to simple survival.  The British banned weapons in fear of militias.  The colonists went "up in arms" because those weapons were used to hunt and protect their families from predators human and not human.  There wasn't police or a standing army, so your weapon was truly your survival.

I truly do not believe the founders thought people would or should shoot government officials.  I also don't believe the founders could have predicted the numbers of people who now exist, the technology that now exists, or the sheer size of our society including the government.

When the founders wrote that clause, they didn't have laser scopes or semi-automatic or automatic weapons.  They had muzzle loaders that required some skill to use.  Hitting the broad side of a barn was a learned skill.  Now, you don't need to have any skill at all - if you miss the first round, the next 100 or so should do it.

I don't care if you own a weapon, I don't care if you shoot yourself or any relatives or strangers on the street.  Just don't shoot me, okay?  But I don't think anyone needs to own a weapon specifically designed for killing or maiming as many people as possible in as short of a time as possible.  If you need to defend yourself, 10-20 shots should do it or you should be spending more time at the range.

I grew up with guns.  My grandparents hunted, my mom had some for fun and for defense.  I don't need one, so I don't own one.

I also have never understood why, when people are angry, they start hurting other innocent people.  The people at the IRS building were doing a job, trying to raise a family, and pay their mortgage.  The people at the IRS building were not responsible for the law or for the penalties attached to not obeying the law.  What is the point of being a terrorist?  Why are you sympathetic with home grown terrorists, but not foreign born ones?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I truly do not

cj wrote:
I truly do not believe the founders thought people would or should shoot government officials.

I'm not so sure about that.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
pfffffffftttttttttttttt................

nigelTheBold wrote:

cj wrote:
I truly do not believe the founders thought people would or should shoot government officials.

I'm not so sure about that.

That is not what I meant and you shoulda known it.  In the context of a government official, performing their duty as prescribed by law, no, I don't think the founders believed that person should be shot.  I believe the founders thought if the law was so bad, it should be changed lawfully through the legislature.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:That is not what I

cj wrote:
That is not what I meant and you shoulda known it.  In the context of a government official, performing their duty as prescribed by law, no, I don't think the founders believed that person should be shot.  I believe the founders thought if the law was so bad, it should be changed lawfully through the legislature.

I know. I was just teasing.

Me, coming from Southeast Alaska, am of two minds about firearms. I have used firearms to slay deer for winter food. I have also regularly worn sidearms in the woods, in defense against bears. (Don't shoot the bear -- that'll just piss him off. Shoot in the air to make a loud noise.) Currently, the primary use of firearms in the US is still hunting, though mostly for sport rather than subsistence.

Also, I believe the intent for the right to own firearms was political, as well. Should the US government become as tyrannical as the British government had been, firearms provide a means of rebellion.

That said, the secondary use of firearms in the US is murder. I'm not OK with that.

Still, my ambivalence keeps me from reaching a conclusion on the rightness of firearms.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I know. I

nigelTheBold wrote:

I know. I was just teasing.

Careful who you tease, bub, I'm an old lady and I know how to use it! 

nigelTheBold wrote:

Me, coming from Southeast Alaska, am of two minds about firearms. I have used firearms to slay deer for winter food. I have also regularly worn sidearms in the woods, in defense against bears. (Don't shoot the bear -- that'll just piss him off. Shoot in the air to make a loud noise.) Currently, the primary use of firearms in the US is still hunting, though mostly for sport rather than subsistence.

Also, I believe the intent for the right to own firearms was political, as well. Should the US government become as tyrannical as the British government had been, firearms provide a means of rebellion.

You know, there are people who honestly believe that right now the US government is as - if not more - tyrannical as the British government had been.  Some people have really short fuses.  Is there a cut off point?  Oh, 100 out of 300 million believe, therefore.... Or is it 200, 5000, 30mil before we can justify the use of firearms against our government?  And should we shoot the IRS, SocSec, CIA, NSA, FDA, etc nasty bureaucrats or the politicians who actually make the laws?  What if the politicians who made the original law are all dead?  Do we just start shooting?

nigelTheBold wrote:

That said, the secondary use of firearms in the US is murder. I'm not OK with that.

Still, my ambivalence keeps me from reaching a conclusion on the rightness of firearms.

I am also ambivalent.  Firearms should be legal.  Firearms should be regulated, because people kill using firearms - not because I think people will not kill without firearms.  It is just harder to use a knife to kill 20-odd people than to use a semi-automatic laser-sighted rifle with 100 round magazine.

And the argument that only criminals will have firearms cuts no ice with me.  Not when it has been shown over and over, that criminals have weapons that were stolen from people who had purchased them legally.  If there are fewer legal firearms, then there will be fewer firearms for criminals to steal.

How to word and implement such a regulation is something I don't know.  Maybe if a group of people argue enough about it, someone will hit on wording that at least doesn't piss off 90% of the rest of the people.

edit: or violate the Constitution.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:nigelTheBold

cj wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

cj wrote:
I truly do not believe the founders thought people would or should shoot government officials.

I'm not so sure about that.

That is not what I meant and you shoulda known it.  In the context of a government official, performing their duty as prescribed by law, no, I don't think the founders believed that person should be shot.  I believe the founders thought if the law was so bad, it should be changed lawfully through the legislature.

 

Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as an ambassador to France at the time, refused to be alarmed by Shays' Rebellion. In a letter to a friend, he wrote that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Careful who you

cj wrote:
Careful who you tease, bub, I'm an old lady and I know how to use it! 

Promises, promises.

Quote:

You know, there are people who honestly believe that right now the US government is as - if not more - tyrannical as the British government had been.  Some people have really short fuses.  Is there a cut off point?  Oh, 100 out of 300 million believe, therefore.... Or is it 200, 5000, 30mil before we can justify the use of firearms against our government?  And should we shoot the IRS, SocSec, CIA, NSA, FDA, etc nasty bureaucrats or the politicians who actually make the laws?  What if the politicians who made the original law are all dead?  Do we just start shooting?

These are all very important points. I wasn't so much justifying the present situation, but the thought behind the original intent.

Personally, I'd like to think we're beyond the use of firearms. Not just philosophically, but also practically.

Quote:

And the argument that only criminals will have firearms cuts no ice with me.  Not when it has been shown over and over, that criminals have weapons that were stolen from people who had purchased them legally.  If there are fewer legal firearms, then there will be fewer firearms for criminals to steal.

Yeah. Here in my current town of residence, a cop was recently shot with his own sidearm. He was charged by a naked guy. It seems the cop didn't want to shoot a naked man charging him. The naked guy wrestled away his gun, and shot the cop point-blank.

This was the first on-duty police death in 68 years here.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jefferson

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

cj wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

cj wrote:
I truly do not believe the founders thought people would or should shoot government officials.

I'm not so sure about that.

That is not what I meant and you shoulda known it.  In the context of a government official, performing their duty as prescribed by law, no, I don't think the founders believed that person should be shot.  I believe the founders thought if the law was so bad, it should be changed lawfully through the legislature.

 

Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as an ambassador to France at the time, refused to be alarmed by Shays' Rebellion. In a letter to a friend, he wrote that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

Yeah, I know about Jefferson.  He really did think rebellion was great.  Nut case.  I heard the rest of the founders didn't agree with him most days.  The man was a great man in some ways, but we all get a little weird about some things.  Fortunately, most of us don't act on it or don't have the means to act on our wierdness.

Edit:  Additionally, if you agree with Jefferson, AinGS, how many people need to be upset before rebellion is justified?  One?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I do understand that

Well, I do understand that the founding fathers did not always agree with each other. About lots of stuff actually. Which may have something to do with the first amendment (which I think was written by Jefferson BTW).

 

Certainly Sam Adams expressed publicly that it was out of order to rebel against any government that was not led by a monarch (and therefore the Shays Rebellion was improper). So in his world, you get to resists the king but once that is done, you are stuck with whatever government you get.

 

Boris Yeltsin would probably agree with Sam Adams on that but Mikhail Gorbachev might beg to differ. BTW: I bring this to the table because you raise the issue of the founding fathers not being able to anticipate fully automatic weapons.

 

Obviously, they could not have seen that coming. Nor could they have seen the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. What they did foresee was the idea that governments might become tyrannical and need to be forced out of power.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
that is all fine

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Obviously, they could not have seen that coming. Nor could they have seen the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. What they did foresee was the idea that governments might become tyrannical and need to be forced out of power.

 

Yes, all governments have the potential to become tyrannical.  But at what level?  Someone who is being prosecuted for not paying taxes probably feels tyrannized.  But does that give them the right to fly a small (or large) airplane into offices of people who are just trying to do their job?  When is it okay to use your weapons against your own government?  When is it justified?  How many people have to be angry before an armed citizen's revolt is okay?  When government crosses the line.... What line?

Reminds me of all the discussion here in the north west with the Minute Men.  Oh, this poor rancher was being persecuted - there were FBI and ATF agents surrounding his ranch.  Oh, the poor old man.  Turns out, he had stockpiled weapons and threatened any and all government representatives - even those who had nothing to do with the IRS - in public.  And, he was finally caught when he came into town to pick up his fucking Conservation Reserve Program check!  You know, the nasty awful government program that pays you to put your farmland into meadow grasslands and not farm it?  Yes, he refused to pay taxes but was happy to accept other people's tax dollars to not farm!

Is this rancher allowed to shoot FBI agents in the performance of their duty?  Why or why not?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And a less powerful

And a less powerful government and lots of weapons around opens you up to a scenario of competing warlords like some periods in Afghanistan or Somalia, or medieval Europe.

The will to power and control is not limited to the current crop of politicians.

Your founding fathers recognized this dilemma, and aimed at a moderately powerful government, but restrained from the worst abuses by a system of checks and balances. 

Someone said something about eternal vigilance and the price of liberty I think. Only way to steer a course between dictatorship and chaos, between a society 'controlled' by the power of position and wealth, or the power of the gun.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:   Answers in Gene

cj wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

Obviously, they could not have seen that coming. Nor could they have seen the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. What they did foresee was the idea that governments might become tyrannical and need to be forced out of power.

 

Yes, all governments have the potential to become tyrannical. But at what level? Someone who is being prosecuted for not paying taxes probably feels tyrannized. But does that give them the right to fly a small (or large) airplane into offices of people who are just trying to do their job? When is it okay to use your weapons against your own government? When is it justified? How many people have to be angry before an armed citizen's revolt is okay? When government crosses the line.... What line?/quote]

 

The line shall be judged historically. If you lose then you have done a bad thing. If you win, then you have done a good thing. History is written by the victors and all that stuff. Were the democrats right to shell Fort Sumpter? Were they right because they were democrats? After all, democrats are always and automatically right about everything.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
histerical, not historical

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

The line shall be judged historically. If you lose then you have done a bad thing. If you win, then you have done a good thing. History is written by the victors and all that stuff. Were the democrats right to shell Fort Sumpter? Were they right because they were democrats? After all, democrats are always and automatically right about everything.

 

I had to go review Ft. Sumter.  I am not a big Civil War buff, and I am mostly not interested in the War Between the States.  To attempt to answer your question:

Democrats are not automatically right and in this case, the democratic party was almost opposite in beliefs to what it is today.  It changed during the 60s and the democrats became more progressive than the republicans - but it wasn't over night.  Which is why the south used to vote almost solid democrat and now votes almost solid republican.

If the winner is right, then in this case- according to you - the democrats were wrong as they were on the losing side of the CW.

I think the southern plantation owners were frightened and scared.  From what I have read they felt they had few choices other than to secede.  But they could have switched from slavery to sharecropping on their own terms and saved a lot of money and blood.  Looking back, I would say the CW was a waste of time, money, and people.  All that carnage and the slaves were freed anyway and the south was a mess when the shooting was over.  All that hate and anger and death accomplished darn little.  But I'm not and never have been a southerner.

So, if you think the CW was worth it as there were so many on the side of secession, do you think if that many physical count or the same proportion of people are yelling for rebellion, that it is time again?  What, 40%, 50%?  The Tea Party is running about 21%.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.