A different perspective on why I need my guns:

Because, as elsewhere I am sure, here in rural Missouri, many people will not control their pet dogs. And when freeranging pet dogs pack up, they hunt, normally wildlife which is not acceptable, but they can and will also threaten humans and livestock, and pets , as I have personally experienced. I have fired countless rounds to ward off these sometimes aggressive dogs. Yet I have never shot at one. I have always attempted to find and communicate with the owners and then file complaints with law enforcement when all else fails.

Make no mistake, I will shoot to kill an aggressive dog if I need to.

So! I must have my weapons to protect me from dogs that might aggress me, and my wife on our private fifty acres, and my young niece (she was chased onto her school bus by one bloodied chicken eating dog). Free ranging dogs have repeatedly treed my closely monitored cats even while watching over them. I should not have to monitor my cats' outside time.

For anyone reading this and that allow their dogs to freerange, I say this: Your dogs are not protecting your property from thieves, or bobcats, when they are on my property snarling/barking at me on my own property. You do not pay my mortage, or property taxes, so why do you let your dogs run my property? How can you even let them run free when you know they form hunting/killing packs? Are your brains full?

I should not have to arm myself to enjoy my own property. But still I arm up for every walk, not for protection from humans, only for the extensions of their personna. Out of free ranging (aggressive behavior)pet dog fear, my wife won't even walk with me anymore. I don't hate dogs, but I am so tired of this crap.

Please! Control your pets! Oh yeah, for the endless line of dog and cat dumpers that choose our county road or elsewhere to abandon your responsibility, you suck too, your brains must be full as well!

John

UNCOMMON DREAMS.

thankyou for that reply. i looked at the links. wiserearth is incredible. and everything you say makes sense. and yes, the only thing to fear, is fear itself............

KEM PATRICK

don't take me so literally..................

Sour? Coco,___ no way.

I'll be delighted to shave UCD__ close too.

Raven,

I was stating the thought process of hard line conservatives who are utterly without mercy or compassion for anyone, including their own.

Not my views. Trying to get in the heads of the right wingers there.

I don't think I have misrepresented the thinking of the hard core right wingers. In fact, I might have been a been light. For example, I did not even bring up the common support for Eugenics among these people. They bristle at all comparisons to Hitler, but at the same time they openly endorse policies that are tantamount to Eugenics.

For example, the lack of medical coverage for the poor is a desirable, not an undesirable, aspect of our society.

I suspect some would be happy if all Muslims were summarily exterminated.

Others don't see the lack of vaccinations or the threat of epidemic as a problem, as "we need a population adjustment."

Many will readily endorse the notion that "all the wrong people are having too many babies."

These are not exaggerations. These are the beliefs of hard line conservatives, proudly endorsed with little prompting for those willing to converse with these spooks.

We would still be a colony of England if it were not for armed citizens. Exxon and BP would own Iraq's oil right now if not for armed resistance. Vietnam would still be a colony if not for the defensive use of weapons. Yet, pointless criminal gun violence within Amerika is out of control. But, violence within this nation is very related to historic and expanding inequality. Just where does the violence start and stop ?
Some are of the opinion that the real "gun-control" problem is none other than the military industrial congressional corporate complex. Until it is a perfect world, self defense is the bottom line.

mirf59 said: "Old people are useless because they are out of their minds. That's why John McCain and William Buckley are no longer to be taken seriously. Nor are they to be pitied."

Yikes I am a relatively young guy at 41 but I find that utterly repulsive, and hardly "liberal" but rather more Solyent Greenesque.

Don't write off Buckley just yet BTW he has been coming out more and more against the war recently and believes we shouldn't jail non violent drug offenders which is more than I can say for the pick of the corporate Dimcocrapic party Hilary Clinton who combines all the bad qualities of war mongering pro corporate globalist neo-cons with a strong streak of moralistic rhetoric about censoring music and video games and gun grabbing, yuck.

Awesome post, mirf59.

"Liberal" is so nebulous/amibguous that one can practically go any direction with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

Yet beyond any shred of doubt it remains an ideology for the have's: Adam Smith, free trade, laissez-faire, etc. All of which deny a basic premise: i.e. governments practically universally are expressions of private power, laws and institutions cast by the elite to serve the elite -- people which dominate various economic sectors. To loosen government intervention is a non sequitur.

The laborer gets bit in the end, whatever hat the elite happen to be wearing, or whatever new ideology they promote. But that may be why the Democrats favor the term. Lacking a coherrent party platform themselves, it may be that inconsistencies are the best matches for one another.

mirf59: It may be that many find your posts both comical and pompous as well. I don't ordinarily like to converse any more with people hiding behind aliases, but I bit this time. Let's see liberalism bail us out of this mess. Oops, it had its chance at bat already.

Raven,

Yes, I guess you could argue that Hillary might have an authoritarian style if she gets in. But, we can't be sure.

I guess the politically-motivated bastardization of the term "liberal" should not be take too seriously, in my opinion. We should resurrect the positive and true meaning of the term.

As far as being hard left from the major parties, you are not alone. There is strong evidence that a majority of the population is right there with you.

Most Americans want universal health care, single payer, increased role of the UN in deciding international disputes, end to war for oil, programs against global warming, inrease in minimum wage, curtailment of outsourcing, etc.

If you look at the opinion polls, the majority of the American public agree with a set of stances that is most closely approximated by Dennis Kucinich.

That he is viewed as such a marginal player speaks to the incredible effectiveness of the powers-at-be to create the false impression that the right wing fringe is the Centrist position.

I suppose, if only the opinions of the ownership class are considered, the picture painted by the media which is grotesquely erant for the population as a whole, suddenly is quite accurate when compared against the wealthiest class.

Anyway, I'm getting a little sidetracked there.

One of the funny threads above from the right wing echo chamber concerns the notion of left wing "gatekeepers."

I find this concept to be interesting in a comical sort of way. I believe the suggestion is that a left leaning citizen waits for permission from Noam Chomsky, or his analog, before deciding what to think about anything. Interesting, particularly considering the incredible discipline in mainstream media on locking any of these innovative thinkers off the air waves.

Is that what it means? Is one supposed to think that the Party of bigotry, xenophobia, Social Darwinism, might makes right -- the Party that believes that anyone who presents a dissenting viewpoint is a traitor, that patriotism is blind allegiance -- is that the Party that, by contrast to the amorphous "left," is open-minded and free thinking?

What a joke.

Many conservatives would be happy to see all foreigners ejected from the country (Europeans who displaced Native Americans excluded of course), all poor people starving to death because they are lazy and stupid just by virtue of birth into that social class, all strategic foreign lands under the bomb and the gun no matter the carnage presumably because foreigners are not human, US citizens at the mercy of the Executive Branch with spying and detainment without habeus corpus, etc.

They want everyone to be a cultural Christian -- seeking fame and wealth and pursuing every appetitie without any restraint as proof that the Lord smiles upon them. To accomplish this, all the most basic moral principles laid out by Jesus and as reported in the Gospels are ignored and violated.

Old people are useless because they are out of their minds. That's why John McCain and William Buckley are no longer to be taken seriously. Nor are they to be pitied.

Is that the Party that represents open-mindedness and faith in human potential?

Is it the one that would be happy with a return to slavery, that suppresses democracy at every turn (for example by illegal voter suppression), the one that substitutes bullying for honest debate and presents it as news on its own "fair and balanced" network?

There would be much rejoicing on the right if the US were to regress or remain static forever in terms of its ability to advance human potential.

And -- why not? It's a big cash machine right now.

Anyway, is that the Party that is to be admired for its free exchange of ideas and which can look down upon others as closed from a proven opposing position?

I'm going to create a grand poster for the Grand Party:

"The political right, advancing human potential in a spirit of magnanimity."

This is turning into a circle jerk. Maybe y'all could just compare 'gun sizes' now. C'mon, whip it out...

Political leaders have always been corrupt...

It's not a coincidence that Bush has sent the national guard and reserve units to Iraq...

KEM PATRICK, @ 10:48pm:
"UN-COMMON-DREAMS____ PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR THE MIS-UNDERSTNDING.____ IT NEVER HAPPENED. HOW ABOUT A HUG?"
~ Okay darlin', -so long as you have a shave first!
-LOL :)
___________________

Dear Coco,
You asked, "...but how do you get everyone to do this?"
Yes, it's true we live in a pretty odd world, and too many of our fellow beings seem to have a kinda warped (fearful / unloving) attitude towards their fellow beings. But I see social change a bit like a pan of water: You put warmth under it, and a few molecules begin to jiggle around (- agitating!) and they in turn seem to enliven others, until the whole pan is bubbling with energy...

New ideas, and bright, wholesome changes in consciousness can provide that 'heat' and that's how vivid, innovative ideas stimulate beneficial changes in the world.
That's why my previous post spoke of abandoning the PAST (as in, old *traditions* etc), -coz that deadened / deadly consciousness just drags radical new thinking down into the dust of yesterday.

We cannot 'GET' other people to act as we might wish Coco, but it's perfectly valid to live, (and act and speak) in such a way as to INSPIRE others towards change! We are not totalitarian dictators, - our way is more akin to the great spiritual leaders such as Christ and Buddha / Ghandi etc, who set a good example, rather than ever considered force (-which doesn't work anyway!)

As re 'equality', there will likely never be complete equality (of all things), as human beings are at different stages of evolution, (be that spiritual / Soul evolution, or the more prosaic emotional / I.Q. levels etc), but what we can (and should) do, is to seek to provide and ensure all the other varieties of equality exist, -such as those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, et al.

Yes, there are (as our media loves to revel in!) many sordid, horrible things happening in the world, but what isn't so often discussed and broadcast are the millions of brilliant and inspiring things going on in the world.
You write: " ...so the guns will never disappear, and society will never change. Sad but true."
Well it may be sad m'dear, but is it *actually* true? Part of our job as Progressives is to help form and provide the VISION of a new society, -the sort of world we *actually* want, ~ not that which has been foisted upon us by wilful, greedy, and thoroughly selfish reprobates. And that is a very real challenge to them!

Lennon's song 'Imagine' is still incredibly popular worldwide, because it VISIONS a new world, and the *majority* of humans innately very much want a new and better world, - they truly *hunger* for that outcome!

There is no official 'University of Revolutionary & Inspired Joyous Thought' (as yet!) – so we have to just get on and do that stuff without a cute framed degree in 'Progressive Radicalism & World Change' -- or whatever! ;)
We have to have the *VISION and confidence* that we progressives have an urgent and very necessary task to carry out, and (IMHO) that's exactly why we are here (now), in this present incarnation, -to help lead the way towards fashioning a new world that isn't so blighted by the old barbarities.

And *patience* will be taught in the upcoming 'University of Revolution'! –alongside compassion, tolerance, empathy, and other necessities, coz without them we will never achieve our goals, but only repeat the errors of yesterday.

We here at Common Dreams could usefully real-eyes that we are (actually) part of a very valid and important movement, which, -whilst it has no 'official' name, or funding, or corporate logo and identity, is nonetheless is a genuine, actual and a powerful dynamic in world affairs.

When we make all of that more conscious and are able to work even more consistently towards our common goal (of totally revamping human society, no less!) than we will be even more a force to be reckoned with!

High on my reading list is Paul Hawken's new book, "Blessed Unrest, How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming." In this inspiring tome Hawken helps us to more consciously appraise both our group, - as well as our innate purpose here.

He, "...describes a convergence of the environmental and social justice movements as the largest social movement in history, and the fastest growing movement, comprising over 1 million organizations in every country in the world."
~ How's that for inspirational talk! ;)
Here's a link to one of his other creations: http://www.wiserearth.org/

...and one about the book: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pYIyAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Paul+inauthor:Hawken
Maybe check out the Amazon.com review of Blessed Unrest as well?

"Blessed Unrest is a description of humanity's collective genius and the unstoppable movement to re-imagine our relationship to the environment and one another."

Anyone feeling a little despondent should read that that word 'UNSTOPPABLE' once again!

We are indeed unstoppable. – Fearful emotions (about conspiracies and 'Blackwater' et al) are unworthy of us and not (actually) helpful. Yes, we all know our corrupt leaders are history's writhing junk pile in it's death throes, but we can and ought to act without FEAR, coz it disables and hobbles our progress.

~ And we are fiery *PROGRESSIVES* after all, -not pallid little 'creatures of Hobbit' -- so mustn't let anything at all hobble us!
:)

"What if the people "making you afraid" are holding your friends, family, and political comrades in a concentration camp? Then all your psychobabble doesn't mean squat and it becomes time to derail t"

yeah then the oppressors would love the "let's get rid of guns" people. they could all sit together, shake their heads and go "well we meant well"!!!

people who want to get rid of our right to bear arms are so incredibly naive that it's sad. yeah let's "register", "license", "confiscate". then if we lose all our freedoms. if you don't want a gun, then don't buy one - leave the rest of us alone. How would you like it if we told you what you should own?

So mirf59 I think liberal authoritarian is possible under your second definition of the word liberal, would you agree? As a hard left anti-authoritarian I find pro globalist authoritarian "liberals" like Hilary Clinton to be every bit as dangerous to the downtrodden and the environment as the Bushies. And I think disarming "downs" as Paul would put it when the "ups" are most definitely armed is not sensible. Why would we a-priori give up the tools we need to resist authoritarians? It makes no sense to me at all.

aflurry said: "But political dissent is silent, and government fearing a well-armed militia? That's just a joke. So much for noble intentions. "

Tell that to the Iraqi resistance that is destroying the hierarchical imperialist American military with small arms (eek scary civilian caliber guns) and homemade bombs. You might want to have a gun with you though when you talk to them, smirk. We can fight back and win in the same way the Zaps carved out an autonomous area in Mexico.

Paul B,

Yes. Lots of confusion because "liberal" has many meanings.

It means one thing in epistemology: not tied to convention, open to new information, new ideas. Free thought. This definition belies the term "Liberal Arts."

It means another thing in its cultural usage. In this definition, in American and perhaps elsewhere, it is a derogatory term which encapsulates a character mythology and stereotype. It's a mythology that supposedly aligns with those left of center on the political spectrum or with Democrats. The mythology is something like: unprincipled, weak, emasculated, out to lunch, elitist, Euro-wanna bes, Atheistic, compliant. This definition of "liberal" has to be considered low-brow because it is a calculated political distortion of a common human value (per above).

Finally, there is the economic term "liberal" which applies to those who adhere to the free market theory, and whose champions have dominated US economic policy now for many decades. The thinking of this camp can be seen in The Wall Steet Journal, The Economist, World Bank-IMF, and a lot of the theorizing happens at the London School of Economics and the University of Chicago.

Now, I was referring to the epistemological sense of the term in my original post, not the economic or political version.

Personally, I am definitely a liberal in the first sense, not in the second, and perhaps a skeptical proponent of some of the liberal market principles -- but with a complex set of qualifications.

Finally, I usually take reading recommendations from friends, and not from strangers. And, most of my friends know how to spell the French word for the middle class correctly, so I think I'll pass on your recommendations. Thanks anyway.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Wasn't it Chris Rock who said let them keep their guns-let's outlaw the bullets. Actually, I believe he suggested they should cost $5,000 a piece.

Signmaker: So, did you hear about the huge jump in drive-by knifings and accidental knifings in England? Little kids who accidentally got a hold of their parents' knives and knifed their heads off? All those homeowners who were convicted of murder for knifing a burglar in the back as he was running away? The huge jump in teen suicides by knifing oneself to death? The girl who was hit and killed by a knife in her backyard that was stabbed into the air 3 blocks away?

As for the statistics, I believe my brother alone has about 300 guns in his basement. I'm not kidding. He is an avid gun collector and hunter. With handguns and uzis apparently. Spent thousands of dollars to fly across the world so he could kill beautiful African animals minding their own business and hang them on the walls of his house. He did this for "fun". I'll let you guess his political affiliation (and religion). Now why do you suppose that jumped into your head?

UN-COMMON-DREAMS____ PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR THE MIS-UNDERSTNDING.____ IT NEVER HAPPENED. HOW ABOUT A HUG?

"Gun violence is a symptom, not a disease. It is connected to fear. Fear is very limiting & destructive."

You got that right, Rayberth.

Interesting - in 165 posts, just 13 contained the word fear, one of which was mine. Of the remaining 12 posts, fear was used in a different context in about half of those.

Fear is a normal part of life, when the time is right. Living in such fear that you feel the need to have a gun to ward off that fear, is not normal. Neither is avoiding the fact that we are afraid.

Gun ownership is not the problem - gun violence, is. When you mix fear with gun ownership, you get gun violence, and the U.S. ranks very high in all three.

If we are so afraid, wouldn't it be better to address what is making us so fearful? The only way to get past our fears is to go toward them and address them...without a gun.

UCD great post. I could afford to look into non-violent communication myself. We all need a big group hug here. :) I'm serious about that.

Btw, regarding unarmed combat, I have read and heard about NOI guys taking down armed drug dealers and gangbangers without a gun. It is possible.

I need to be bitten by a radioactive spider or spend a few years in some temple in Tibet. :) I know, too many funnybooks for me.

"COMPASSION is a trait seldom seen nowadays in people."

I would disagree with that coco.

"what would your liberal authoritarians say if they started seeing rural NRA people, returning mideast vets, and left-wing progressives sitting down and talking politics together?"

Paul B. that needs to happen like yesterday.

My buddy lpenek says...

"People who picture themselves Bruce Willis-like in post apocalyptic America are really, really fooling themselves."

Aw man. :( You mean it won't be like The Dark Knight Returns? Darn.

Too many funnybooks.

KEM PATRICK

you bet your sweet n sour ass i'm a girl...........without a gun, but with bravery.

OOOopps!!

Dear Kem,
Regarding your posting at August 29th, 2007 12:39pm,

Eeerrrr, I am afraid I must have misphrased something. I do apologise that I have given a wrong impression there, and led you to believe that I was somehow calling you a name like 'scum'.

That really *isn't* anything I would do, -honest! :)

Please *DO* be assured that I am much too LOYAL to go round doing such silly things as that.
~ Daft I may be, but not disloyal to a respected senior co-worker such as your goodself!!

As someone else very usefully points out above, I was merely quoting Io Q Lellity, and only using *his* words, -(not my own).

And I only quoted Io Q Lellity to point up how, -in his post, he both ascribed himself as 'non-violent' but then used what (in my humble opinion) might be considered the 'violent' language of calling someone "scum" etc.

I hope you will forgive me for accidently causing you alarm, and thinking you were being insulted?

[And thank goodness that we are able to resolve this little glitch without either of us pulling a gun on the other over a simple misunderstanding!]

:)

________________

Thankyou Coco for yr comments on my previous post, Due to work pressures I am very pushed for time, but if able, will try to come back to answer your question.
xx

Paul you hit the nail on the head. There are a lot of so called "left gatekeepers". We need to be careful of these people, check who they are really connected with, and note that they too have "power" and are funded by "powerful interests". Its not smart to blindly follow anyone but I must say a lot of people do.

It may well be that "the left" is just waking up from a 3/4 century-long hiatus, its consciousness put into deep storage by mass media and those who it selects as the leaders and representatives of "the left".

We saw this with the false flagging of Jane Fonda as a representative of "the left" during Vietnam, or the corporate media's worshiping of Hilary today.

We may need to dispense with left vs. right, and just talk up vs. down. The "up", obviously, would want its lowest classes to be disarmed. Was there any slave owner in the deep south who'd have rested easily each night if his slaves were fully armed? Disarming is an important means of authoritarian control, and it may well be that the leaders on the so-called "left" who've advocated for it are more "up" than "left" if you take my meaning.

we fight over our first amendment rights to say profanity and our second amendment rights to defend ourselves from criminals. But political dissent is silent, and government fearing a well-armed militia? That's just a joke. So much for noble intentions.

The most irritation thing is the self-righteous family man who thinks the second amendment was created to allow him to defend his family.

All the benefits of arming civilians disappeared when we relinquished our country to the military-industrial complex. The futility of the boring pro/anti gun argument is a direct result of that failure.

"The US has a screwed up, violent society, for many reasons, but partly because of so many guns. People buy more guns in response, responding to media hyping of violence, or to selective attention on their personal acquaintances who have suffered at the hands of criminals (the conclusion is always because they didn't have a gun). Then we have more guns floating around, more gun mentality, more hair-trigger paranoia, more violence."

yeah right more guns in legal gun owners hand's are going to cause our crime rate to go up.

"I think that the US should strictly regulate and curtail gun ownership for the same reason that the US shouldn't have a draft (even as a measure to drive public support to end the war): we're not Switzerland. Switzerland requires service in their military, but Switzerland is not an aggressive, imperial country, and very unlikely to actually use their military. Likewise, Switzerland may have a high rate of gun ownership, but apparently its citizens are less likely to use them on each other (statistics?). The background facts of the character of a society should determine what that society is mature enough to handle, and what policies should therefore be formed."

yeah sure, and you will be there to protect us if there is a crime? the only "dead-brainer" is the opinons based on nothing but personal bias. of course that doesn't stop the lefties from blathering the same BS over and over again. How about working to reduce the amount of violent media and films coming out of hollywood?

This is a double edged sword. Our founding fathers must have been futurists. They saw that ultimate power corrupts with their knowledge that all governments long for power.

A well armed citizenry is both a nuisance and a necessity in these unfortunate times. Our government is acting in a manner contrary to our constitution, this will either be corrected with diplomacy or by force. The republic will outnumber the administration if they ever find unity.

Gun violence is a symptom, not a disease. It is connected to fear. Fear is very limiting & destructive. I am one of 3 whites in a black neighborhood & have never locked my doors the 12 years I've lived here. I am not afraid. I am a 76 year old male living alone with no guard dog.

I love you Coco________ You are a girl???

Anyway, someday when this horrible Bush mess is hopefully history, we could all meet and enjoy one anothers company and not be packing a lousy gun. ___ we mght be wearing hi-tech gas masks until the DU is cleaned up. Glad you clarified that Coco, thank you.

Ipenek, U-C-D quoted him/her, with a BIG YES first, and then thanked him/her for the comment about me that I was ignorant scum. I didn't start the name calling, nor did I call anyone names after. I just told the blogger what I thought of him/her. If any read my blogs, it would be apparent, I don't favor any types of confrotations, verbal or otherwise. I wish we could all get along and have stated that on munerous occasions on this string and others. Don't start calling others names for writing opinions is my message and opinion and this type of blog woudn't be necesary.

Kem Patrick -
U-C-D was quoting Io Q Lellity so direct your scorn there. U-C-D actually offered a very eloquent plea for non-violent writings.

KEM PATRICK

sorry. i didn't mean to hurt you. i was referring to the bit that started 'violence begins in people's heads' and the continuation. i wasn't paying any attention to the name calling. it's too childish and time wasting. sticks and stones may break my bones, but calling names won't hurt me. we are friends and i would love to have that chat with you. and then i can say 'hey kem, is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?'. ha ha.
coco

Gun ownership because of fear is a race to the bottom.

The US has a screwed up, violent society, for many reasons, but partly because of so many guns. People buy more guns in response, responding to media hyping of violence, or to selective attention on their personal acquaintances who have suffered at the hands of criminals (the conclusion is always because they didn't have a gun). Then we have more guns floating around, more gun mentality, more hair-trigger paranoia, more violence.

I think that the US should strictly regulate and curtail gun ownership for the same reason that the US shouldn't have a draft (even as a measure to drive public support to end the war): we're not Switzerland. Switzerland requires service in their military, but Switzerland is not an aggressive, imperial country, and very unlikely to actually use their military. Likewise, Switzerland may have a high rate of gun ownership, but apparently its citizens are less likely to use them on each other (statistics?). The background facts of the character of a society should determine what that society is mature enough to handle, and what policies should therefore be formed.

The old argument that "guns don't kill people, people do" is a dead-brainer. Putting the tools for killing so plentifully in the hands of so many people in such a violent society assuredly is a causal factor for more violence. You can't neatly separate the agent from the tool.

Similarly, 2nd amendment, keepin' away the guvmint, circling the wagons arguments are equally silly. The government has much more powerful weapons than 99.XX% of our sadly armed citizenry. Of course that's another race to the bottom - obtain more powerful weapons!!

While the US clearly has an abundance of privately-owned firearms as well as high gun homocide rates, the statistics nonetheless bear out that the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

Too bad we can't say the same for Bush & Co's approach to the US military -- as a tool for illegal wars, the oil industry, and the "disappearing money" trick.

I strongly believe in disarmament and the settling of disputes through legal/peaceful/non-violent means. Let's start at the top.

"It is plain that those gun owners that are writing on here do not even want to try for peace and harmony amoung all Americans"

no it is not "plain". what a load of BS. thanks for telling of that story, pvt . The gun haters on here will completely ignore that story and go back to their delusional belief in a world free of means to defend oneself

People are naming Ghandi, so here's one more quote:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

Gun laws that would reduce gun ownership in America to zero are impossible. Laws are only relevent to those that obey them. There will always be criminal minds at work, and they will have guns. You, the law abiding citizen, would turn in your guns if the laws decreed it. But would the rapist, the murderer? It has been said that, "God created all men, Sam Colt made them equal."
Recently I read an article in People magazine about a middle aged doctor, his wife, and two daughters. Two convicts on parole (noticing his white Mercedes at a gas station) followed him home and raped his wife and two young daughters, having beaten him bloody and left him unconscious in his basement. Then they burned his house down - killing his wife and two daughters in the blaze but leaving him alive. Being parolees they did not have guns (evidence of an important gun law being enforced) but they had knives, and were bigger, and stronger than the man or his wife and children. If only he and his family owned and knew how to use firearms - all this tragedy could have been prevented. I ask you to research all the lives that have been saved because of gun ownership, versus the defaming TV scandals you know. And on a larger scale - guns are necessary in order for the people to have real power over their government. Look at every genocide in history, the race being exterminated did not have any weapons, and therefore no power.
Those who believe that gun laws are necessary to eliminate crime are kidding themselves. Crime will always exist. And those who believe that our government will always protect and serve us, that we don't need guns - that is an even more powerful delusion.

great quotes, rjhuntington, thanks for posting them

>>>>When the people fear their government,__ there is tyranny.

>>>>When the government fears the people,__ there is liberty.

~Thomas Jefferson~

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
-- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On
The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982)

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.
-- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

Starting to get the idea? You don't have to use your gun (although you should know how), you just need to keep it around. Just in case.

"Paul B. Brilliant post, I have wondered for a while myself who is pushing this agenda of disarming the left? I think it's a combination of sincere followers of Ghandi and Dr. King combined with DCL-Dimocrap/Neo-Cons think tanks who don't want to see the population armed. Don't people on the left read history anymore? Do they think the Chicago anarchists in the 1890s fighting for the 40 hour work week and others things we now take for granted were disarmed? Do then think the old wobblies were disarmed and just took being shot by Pinkerton cops laying down? Do they know Hugo Chavez is forming citizen militias to fight back against a probable U.S. invasion?"

that's true. but today's progressives have a dreamy utopian vision of society that isn't based on reality. Sure let's throw all our guns away and play all peaceful like and then everything will be ok, right? WRONG! All you gun haters, how exactly do you propose to keep people safe from crime exactly? Are you going to compensate victims?

And can't you ever read any history at all? every time there was a "registration", there was confiscation. Try having lived behind the Iron Curtain for a while, or in a communist nation. Much of today's Left is reviled for being out of touch with reality.

It all boils down to this.

If you don't favor guns, don't have any. I don't have a bit of a problem with that and neither should any.

If you do own any gun, even a pellet gun, you should be well trained on how to safely handle them, have gun locks, well train your children gun safety and never, ever, point any gun at anyone,___ unless you intend to fire it. Guns are deadly dangerous when being handled by anyone.__ Just ask Cheney.

Exeflyer, I hope you know I was joking about bathtubs and chicks, this string could use a little touch of humor. As I posted previously, this string should be about people and how to change our gun society where we could all get along and guns could be a moot issue.

"I have to admit to being a little tired of the "dumb,violent, Americans" thread on these posts. For you smug Europeans out there, your continent has not been historically exactly a place of sweetness and light. Same goes for other areas of this planet. Tarring 300 million people with one hateful brush is not helpful, and not true."

so true. i am tired of it as well. as much as i love europe and europeans, they haven't been the bastion of peacefulness they like to think they are.
Black and Tan squads? The colonizing? so on and so on. I am also sickened by the smug attitudes of europeans towards us. We are not perfect, but we're not all cut out of the same cloth as the right wing war nuts.

I dunno... I look at the trick-or-treater, shot by the homeowner sitting on his couch. Or the numerous incidents of gun play amongst kids whose parents have firearms 'for protection.' And all I have to say is what I always say: There need to be conditions met before you do anything involving another's life or death. That involves driving, parenting, contracting, cooking, as well as bearing arms. You need to know what the fvck you're doing and all the consequences of said action before starting it up, picking it up or putting it out there.

We've become a highly irresponsible society. I think it goes hand in hand with the entitlement garbage that most every American displays when issues of property and rights come to the fore. It's only your gun when you 'own' it, and I don't mean sheer right of possession. There are a lot of people with kids who should have no right to them, as well. Perhaps if we focused more on basic life skills, solid education and keeping our society healthy = happy, we'd have no need for this discussion.

An issue as divisive as guns lends itself to manipulation by agent provocateurs and conservatives of right and left. A gun is a tool all right. But if you won't let a kid play with a powersaw, how can you let a kid like the Virginia Tech murderer play with handguns?

Most gun crime is caused by handguns, so they at least, should be licensed, like cars, so their owners will be instructed in their proper use. I am also against concealed weapons. Just wearing guns in plain view would be a deterrent.

Hot chicks, bathtubs and skateboards are not nearly as dangerous to others as guns and cars are, Kem.

"Here's the demise of your status quo: what would your liberal authoritarians say if they started seeing rural NRA people, returning mideast vets, and left-wing progressives sitting down and talking politics together?"

mirf is correct. a liberal authoritarian is an oxymoron. I think Paul here means that "turn the other cheek liberals" would not like it. And I think he also means rural NRA people, mideast vets and left wing conservatives who happen to be progressive on other issues.

Guns are poor weapons without ammunition. I don't know if many are aware, but police forces across the country are currently on a one year waiting list for the type ammo used by them. The military still gets all they currently need. There is a severe shortage of copper in America.

I never intended to fight an army with my guns, I have them for home protection only. If we ever get to the stage where we have to fight our government with force, I don't know exactly what I'd do, but War-Hater, a few comment up is most likely correct.

Paul B slipped in with another brilliant post. I believe like him that Green decentralists who believe in fighting back against authoritarians may be our only hope. I would also like him encourage people to read broadly from Anarchy , State and Utopia by Robert Nozick, to Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. Only by having the broadest view possible will we be able to out smart the globalist corporate war mongers from both parties.

Well well, UNCOMMON DREAMS says I'm an ignorant SCUM because I wrote that I may at times agree with a Republican and then I blasted back at another blogger for writing: Kem is an ignorant scum if he agrees with a republican.___ I am scum for writng that? ___And these people profess to be progressive.

U-C-D Then ends his or her comments with the ususal phrase: (with love, understanding and compassion for all who are here___ and then a cute little smiley face.)

Well, UCD, I do believe now that you are a charlaton and I wish it were not so, however you have proven otherwise with that comment and it has been suspect to many for a long time.___ Shame on you.

And COCO, I thought you and I were friends. I had hoped that someday we may meet face to face and have a fun discussion.___You hurt me.

Mirf59 by your definition of "liberal" the U.S. probable has about 10 liberal thinkers total, of whom Naom Chomsky (for whom I have great respect) would be the best example. I'm guessing that Paul B is going with the common usage of "liberal" to mean me too war mongering corporate Dimocraps like Hilary Clinton who I no more trust to not deploy Blackwater troops against U.S. citizens than George Bush. I'm guessing he fears their pro gun control stance because he like I does not trust them with that much power against unarmed citizens.

mirf59,

You should probably read up on your Marx, come to understand the historical basis of liberalism as another bourgois party, explore the bi-axis spectrum at places like politicalcompass.org, and then come to your own conclusions. Among modern western democracies, only in America has "liberal" been a catch-all for anything "left" of the far-right. In an ordinary political spectrum you'd find labor, social democrat, marxist, communist, socialist, green, progressive populist and other expressions as well.

Liberalism is the liberalized approach to the system (capitalism) predicated fundamentally on perpetual exploitation and maintained land-displacement of the laboring classes. Indeed, Liberalism is the best thing that Bush has going -- it keeps grassroots democratic and populist movements at bay, deflected, or at a dysfunctional and hopeless relationship with their spineless "champions".

Indeed, democracy may ultimately prove to be incompatible with freedom. There's a wealth of literature out there (I'd suggest Kropotkin, Bakunin, the Green Ten Key Values, many anthropological sources, philosophical writings, etc.) which suggest that democracy is always at risk of becoming a dictatorship of the masses.

Some of the best philosophical writings I've seen to date on concepts of government are those which emphasize decentralization, very small districts in which no single leader or group of leaders has much authority over any large number of people, and the promotion of a consensus-style decision system (impossible in large-scale/abstract so-called democracies) in which people proxy as little of the decision-making authority as possible to so-called representatives.

Keep in mind that democracy is like a glass half-full. True, you get a certain amount of representation. But there is also a certain amount from which you are prohibited from representing yourself directly.

Broaden your readings.

Paul B. Brilliant post, I have wondered for a while myself who is pushing this agenda of disarming the left? I think it's a combination of sincere followers of Ghandi and Dr. King combined with DCL-Dimocrap/Neo-Cons think tanks who don't want to see the population armed. Don't people on the left read history anymore? Do they think the Chicago anarchists in the 1890s fighting for the 40 hour work week and others things we now take for granted were disarmed? Do then think the old wobblies were disarmed and just took being shot by Pinkerton cops laying down? Do they know Hugo Chavez is forming citizen militias to fight back against a probable U.S. invasion?

Paul you might be interested to know that on the Pacific Coast that the survivalists do hang out with lefty back to the landers and some very fruitful political conversations happen indeed. Back to the landers show survivalists how to set up off the grid solar systems and survivalists show back to the landers how to shoot. And everyone hates the globalist bankers. :) Not everyone is naively going just lay down and die for the fascists

Whatfools some of us want both health care for all and our constitutionally given right to use arms to fight back against fascists, go figure.

Once the economy falls into another Great Depression, we will be victims of those 270 million firearms, too.

Paul B,

By status quo, I meant that's what I believe we have now, it's not a hypothetical that will come about with unwanted changes. So, here's how I balance your equation:

An untrustworthy government + complete state monopoly on firepower = STATUS QUO

Effectively, this is what we have.

Anyway, I believe the whole discussion of taking up arms against the government is wildly kooky. If it becomes necessary, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment is going to make a lick of difference -- before or after.

But, brother, I don't want to spend mental reps on outlandish scenarios.

What is a "liberal authoritarian?" Seems to me this is a sort of oxymoron.

Liberal means open-minded. Anyone who has had enough education to understand that the world is complex, and so is open to new information and ideas -- is a liberal.

In fact, one of the dictionary definitions of liberal is -- "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms."

So, it is not possible to be a liberal authoritarian. They are mutually exclusive.

Just as authoritarianism and democracy are mutually exclusive. But, let's not upset the Executive Branch with all that.

Io Q. Lellity how dare you suggest I'm a right winger for supporting gun right, how dare you!
Hint I spent a year on a cold wet mountain living under a tarp to yes non violently defend some Redwood trees from evil corporate loggers. I followed North Coast Earth First!'s non violence and non property destruction policies to the letter. And I sincerely hope that we can continue to resist non violently to the end. However if push comes to shove and the U.S. government sends out S.S. type goon squads to round up Muslims, gays, people of color, dissidents, and environmental activists you bet I am going to resist with a gun. I'll even round up a posse with gasp eeek scary guns (perhaps supplied by Hugo Chavez) to rescue misguided nicey, nice vegans from the concentration camps.

Final question to Io Q. Lellity do you think the French resistance of the Spanish anarchists of 1936 just sang Kumbaya? No they shot back with 50 caliber machine guns, and if it comes to that so will I.

Guns keep the government in check... or they should.

Hey! With a president like ours you'd have a gun too! I dont see him yet....

We will probably keep the guns but be forced to give up free speech, or something like we will give up our rights to our own bodies to government experiments (in the haliburton jail). Our current group of repugs will figure our a way to enslave the masses and keep them thinking "we are free" on the way to the work camps.

As for guns, if we trained everybody in the correct handling of a weapon, knife gun stick whatever we would have far fewer guns and crime. Weapons are like flowers, they grow on trees.

mirf59:

Let's continue this conversation. A couple points to consider:

1) Proliferation of small-arms by a battle-hardened resistance is what made Vietnam and Iraq unwinnable -- even against everything a so-called superpower could throw at it, short of nuclear/chemical/biological. In any case, modern armies are extraordinarily expensive to operate. An entrenched small-arms resistance can -- and has -- *financially* and logistically outlasted the behemoths.
2) Status quo. I have no idea what you're getting at there, but as others have indicated in these forums there has historically been radicalism among the US' own returning GI's (WWI). It's clear to me that some people DESPERATELY WANT the "left" to be disarmed and ever-fearful of the armed establishment and the NRA people. That's your status quo -- keep the people divided, keep the radicals disarmed -- or even wanting to be disarmed. The liberal authoritarian counter-balance to right-wing authoritarianism?

It's clear that demographic shifts are occuring. Large swaths of America don't trust its own government: whether rural, urban, black, white, right-wing, left-wing, college educated or no.

Here's the demise of your status quo: what would your liberal authoritarians say if they started seeing rural NRA people, returning mideast vets, and left-wing progressives sitting down and talking politics together?

And, as far as guns being anb effective tactic against a tyranical government. Please consider and compare the relative successes, semi-successes, and failures of armed versus nonviolent direct action tactics in places like India, South Africa, Palestine, the US South, the Irish republic, northern Ireland, Poland, Roamnia, former Yugoslavia, Basque-land or Sri Lanka.

I seems to be that while both tactics require a willingness to give one's life for the cause, the use of arms gives the opressor a powerful to justify deligitimizing the movement, results in the agressor killing far more of thise those resisting nonviolently, and where armed rebellions are successful, often entail far more bloodshed, tail-end civil wars (like Ireland) had, which lead to far more bloodshed than if NV resistance was used.

iammyself said: "If we are so afraid, wouldn't it be better to address what is making us so fearful? The only way to get past our fears is to go toward them and address them…without a gun."

What if the people "making you afraid" are holding your friends, family, and political comrades in a concentration camp? Then all your psychobabble doesn't mean squat and it becomes time to derail the fascists trains and shoot back with machine guns like the French resistance did. And if you don't think the people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis for oil aren't very capable of turning us you are very naive. They already did a test run of putting Blackwater private paramilitary troops on the ground while seizing citizens guns during Katrina. Wake up people.

We are armed because we can't run, we are too fat to run.

Some of the respondents have rightly noted that our right to own and posses guns in this country is a freedom, one that some of us value very highly. Affirming the comment by Paul Bramscher, it would be delusional to willingly give up this right to protect ourselves with the expectation that our government (Military, police, public/private sectors) have our best interest in mind. Why would we relinquish this freedom to a power we know to be corrupt and amoral.

I believe many who condemn freedom in the name of perceived security and peace to be delusional, believing in a world without amoral facsist actors. No matter how fervent you may be in your own reality it will never change what really is, a world wrought with dominion.

Am I the only US resident who is amazed by the breathtaking paranoia evident in this whole discussion?

Reading this, one would think that an average US citizen living in a city gets confronted by a senseless murderer on a monthly basis!

Please people, get a sense of perspective! Statistics show, that if any of you are keeping loaded guns in your homes or vehicles that are much more likely to end up killing someone in an accident or suicide or misjudgement than saving anyone's life.

And please, none of this all-to american, "statistics apply to other people not me".

Paul B,

The other side of your equation is the status quo. It's patently ludicrous to consider an armed citizenry as a check against overreaching government.

The federal government has an entire Defense Department at tis disposal, with all the bells and whistles all those hundreds of millions per year can buy. It can concentrate forces in any jurisdiction and so can mount a numberical advantage of boots wherever and whenever.

I mean, c'mon. Even outlining this stuff seems totally off the chain.

But the short answer to your question is status quo, where the government is at the service of those who have wealth and have optimized the system to generate more for themselves.

Domestically, the military has been used throughout our brief history to crush worker protests and anyone else who started to gain some traction in revolting for social justice.

I'm quite sure this practice would continue today if we hadn't been so spooked into compliance. I guess the 60s saw some action for the military against the citizens.

Awyway, the answer is that's status quo. But, if you honestly view guns as a check on this, I think you might need some help in some way. You might be on the verge of an Owen Wilson deal.

I find it worrisome that we have hundreds/thousands of CD news syndications and user comments about how untrustworthy, corrupt, fascistic-tending etc. our government is on the one hand -- and the advocating of disarmament and abandonment of the Second Ammendment on the other.

An untrustworthy government + complete state monopoly on firepower = ?

You balance the equation.

I have to admit to being a little tired of the "dumb,violent, Americans" thread on these posts. For you smug Europeans out there, your continent has not been historically exactly a place of sweetness and light. Same goes for other areas of this planet. Tarring 300 million people with one hateful brush is not helpful, and not true.

Guns don't kill people, but they sure do help.

America, what a country. There are far more people without health insurance than there are people without guns. When our lawmeakers understand that fact they might just do something rational, like a common payer, to reverse those numbers.

if you own a gun, and someone breaks down your door, unless it is strapped to your hip, your ass is still grass.

Here is a 'coincidence'.Here in New Hampshire,we have very few gun laws,as does our neighbor Vermont.Both states have the lowest crime rates in the country.How could this be?So many guns and so little crime.My wife and I both own and carry pistols.I find it ironic that in N.H. we are allowed to carry guns,but we are one of the few states where you dont need one.Our neighbor to the south(Massachussetts)has a plethora of gun laws,yet we hear of massive crime and violence there on a daily basis.Thank you all for your concern,however,I think I will keep my guns...just in case.

U-C-D.

What a lovely posting there. you are so right but how do you get everyone to do this? people are entrenched in a greedy society. that will never change until everyone is equal. and then we are talking communism. ha ha. the very thing that most armericans are afraid of. (or were, at least, until extremism took over.) so till then, there will be guns, murder, rape, robbery, and all the other nasty violent crimes associated with greed, revenge and jealousy. and until everyone is happy/satisfied within him/her self, and the things they have, these crimes will be perpetuated time and time again. so the guns will never disappear. and society will never change. sad but true. COMPASSION is a trait seldom seen nowadays in people.

The Wild West has never left America. Folk there seem to be caught in a time warp.

Why don't Americans carry holsters and twin six guns like they used to, stop all the the pretense that they belong to the year 2007? High Noon could happen on every street corner each afternoon and there could be hanging parties and a posse and Wyatt Earp could ride again and Billy the Kid...

America was founded on violence and killing. It has never deviated one bit!

I have to go work soon, but a quick note regarding Io Q. Lellity's remarks:
"Yes, people like Kem Patrick are ignorant scum, ... I am a vegan social democrat who practices nonviolence, doesn't believe in the military..."

Thankyou Io Q Lellity, for exemplifying very well a certain kind of attitude. Have you ever heard of NVC I wonder? (Non Violent Communication)
When a person who says they 'practice non-violence' and then uses violent language towards a fellow human being (and one ostensibly 'on the same side') - is that still being non-violent?
Being part-trained in NVC, I might suggest not.

[ See http://www.cnvc.org/ for more info ]

Violence **begins in people's heads**, does it not? It arises where people do not *love and respect* each other, does it not?
People are 'scripted' in some cultures more than others, with *violent* talk: all that old swearing, bitterness, blame and nastiness directed at one another. Out of this grows the violent actions we say we abhor.

If we were less violent in our *thoughts*, we'd then be less violent in our actions, ~ is that not a factual statement?

One culture might have little or nothing to do with gore and macho posturing, whilst another may feast mightily upon it: Which one of those two is likely to have more violent incidents among it's populace? which one has thoroughly polluted it's kid's minds and hearts with the notion that violence is the NORM, and totally acceptable?

As has been shown in some more enlightened cultures, when we bring up our children to have a fitting respect and reverence for all *LIFE* (and thus all the people around them) we lessen the wish to do harm to others. This is practical and do-able!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I like the phrase: "If you always do, as you've always done, nothing will change" ~ and this applies as much to me, as well as everyone else on the planet.

Ergo: We need to CHANGE the way we think and feel, we need to EDUCATE ourselves into new ways of living, being, talking and relating to each other.

We need to let go of the PAST! -- and embrace a vision of the future wherein we are not still acting like ravening, rapacious, predatory 'beasties' !
If we attempt this subjective change, we can then see a lessening of violence and aggression in our societies, - and EVERYONE will benefit.

And we can do this by beginning with ourselves (and not waste time fatuously, hypocritically) always pointing the finger of blame at *others* for all our social ills!) ;)

"BE the change you want to see in the world" said Mr Ghandi.
I took that emblematic aphorism to heart.

When younger I was more inclined towards violent thoughts, then realised my error in this approach to life, and knew that I was acting as part of the *problem*, not the solution, so I did a lot of work on myself, -realising that if I changed me, I then changed one tiny part of the world, and that seemed like a very good place to start.

I didn't stop either, I'm still changing me, (-and God knows I need to!) :)

Whether a gun owner or not, we can each commit to personal change, and in doing that we change our world. Let's not carry on all this senseless, barbaric violence into the year 3007?

Let's commit to PEACE for a change?

With love, understanding, and compassion for all who read and write here,

U-C-D.

Corporations rule the world and gun geeks rule the USA.

If the bowling alley is closed and NASCAR ain't racin' go out and buy another gun.

Guns again. You know if we spent as much time trying to treat all our fellow Americans as we wish to be treated then maybe this country wpold be the lowest proporsion gun owning society in this world.

It is plain that those gun owners that are writing on here do not even want to try for peace and harmony amoung all Americans,

This business of not getting caught without a gun in traffic jams in cities. Methinks we are talking here of road rage? Road Rage happens to many many people that do not have criminal records.

And also we seemed to be talking about differants in skin and cultures. Just putting a negative twist on those two proved the originator thinks he is bettter then them.

Do I or have I ever owned a firearm?
Nope , I have been a law bidding citizen all but for one half hour of my 60 years.
That one half hour caused me to become punished for life. No I never spent a single minute in prison. I stood up and pleaded guilty for my infraction.

Luckily I can at least vote in my state.but I cannot serve on a jury I cannot hold certain jobs or even be an owner of a barroom.
When did that half hour happen? 42 years ago.

So my friend that wants to tack more time onto those who use a firearm. i didn't use any type of weapon or threaten anyone and I am serving life in this country with no chance of being anything more then a second class citizen.

You know what else is funny? most likely many of these same gun owners sometime in their lives done something even worse then I ,but never were caught or admitted to it.

Americans owning all those firearms then saying look at Finland or Switzerland haven't a clue that those peoples aren't as distrusting of their neighbors. I doubt they practice as much racism either.

Yes guns do kill but someone also has to pull the trigger.And once that bullet leaves the barrel it will and iis made to destroy something WHATEVER IT HITS

I'm sitting on the fence with iWarrior on this. One thing I know is that you're not going to defend yourself with a Remington against a steel and depleted uranium armored mercenary Blackwater carrier with mini-guns attached. People who picture themselves Bruce Willis-like in post apocalyptic America are really, really fooling themselves.

let's hope that day never comes but if it does that's absolutely true! as much as pacifism is a great ideal, not all, hell not much of mankind ascribes to it yet!

The day when law and order situation breaks down and that day may never come the only thing that will save you and your family will be your own arsenal.

hi iwarrior yes the Left puts off many people - me being one of them.

i happen to agree with many progressive issues, yet i'm constantly turned off by the 2nd amendment issue. Suddenly firearm owners are all fascist, crazed, redneck thugs. shame on you who label us as such! Are you any better than the right wingers? In your zeal for your progressive issues you do alienate those who might have agreed with your stances. Sometimes it seems that the far left and the far right are just about in common with their tactics and their thinking. I can't call myself liberal because of this.

"Where did 5 gang bangers accost you godlessrant? I'm just curious. Was this in your own neighborhood or did you just find yourself in a bad part of town?"

It was on the job believe it or not, in uptown chicago around montrose and broadway in the parking lot of the college there. They pulled out their guns. Not an experience i'd like to repeat - ever. Criminals like that would just laugh at the thought of unarmed people.

For those who do not believe in guns, i hope you are never harmed or accosted, really. But the scathing insults aimed at gun owners won't bring you any respect either. Martial arts is fine, and i have trained in Jeet Kun Do, but it doesn't stop all situations. There's many reasons the 2nd amendment exists.

Wouild it be great if all guns went away? everywhere? it would be great if all weapons went away and we had peace. but this is not reality. until mankind can put away it's hate, there will always be weapons. A stabbing is no more moral than a shooting.

I didn't have any problems with your opinions either Iwarrior. In fact, I beleive you are correct in all you just wrote. If someone ever does point a gun at me and I have one, I'm going to attempt to fire first. First is best in a gun fight. If I didn't have one, I'd run too. The problem there is, I'm 71 years old now. Sometimes you feel danger, the skin on your neck prickels up. When that happens,___ be very wary. Cops and those who work in dangeous conditions, like pilots, firemen, hookers, they learn to use their sixth senses.

No problem godlessrant. As liberal as I am, I think the Left puts off too many people. The Right demonizes certain people for sure. That's why I get so mad when people on The Left do it. We can't afford to alienate people. I expect better from people on our side. We need to look at where people are coming from. We're all ordinary people here, and the same elites are all spitting on us from above.

thanks iwarrior, calling people "Scum" without even knowing a person? gimme a break. i don't mind if people don't want to own a gun, and that's fine to me, but to call gun owners "scum" or redneck or fascist is disgusting. I'd really wonder how people would react if they had a dangerous situation to face without being armed and see if they still felt the same way afterwards. it's easy to type here from the comfort of a keyboard, another to face streets in our major cities.

We gun owners are not some knuckledragging redneck goons drooling over 200 guns every night. I happen to take it very seriously.

"Yes, people like kem patrick are ignorant scum, people who "agree with republicans," have no international scope, and are offended when the holy american empire is not capitalized in name."

I think that's a gross generalization. I don't completely toe the line either on all things liberal. Does that make me "scum"?

I don't totally agree with KEM either. I can see how someone would be put off by the remark "than those wild eyed, rapid firing up in the air idiots, in the mid-east, much of Africa and areas of Indonesia."

But I think KEM has been shaped by his experiences. I can see how someone affected directly by violent crime would want to carry a gun.

"The same goes for the people here who support guns. There is a difference between people who live in america and identify as internationalists, who don't buy into right wing politics, who have some scope about their principals, and those who are simply nationalist, regionalist, uneducated reactionaries. I am a vegan social democrat who practices nonviolence, doesn't believe in the military, and truly believes in zero guns, not "my guns" (which don't exist.)"

Hey man, good for you. There's nothing wrong with that. But I think calling people like KEM "scum" is unfair too.

Ok KEM I just read your other post. I got mad at the "scum" remark too. I for one don't think you or godless rant are scum. :)

Ok, :) I never said that I myself was Shang Chi or anything like that. I box and know some self-defense tactics. I've watched some of Paul Vunak's Street Safe videos, and he clearly demonstrates how one can disarm an assailant with a gun. It's not just movie/tv/comic book BS.

Guys, my thing about martial arts was merely a suggestion. Again I'm not totally sure whether I'm pro-gun or anti-gun. Godlessrant, I too can sympathize with KEM PATRICK. I'm not bashing him. He's a perfect example of what violent crime can do to people. Based on his experience, I can see why he stakes thr stance that he does. There was a guy on another thread (can't remember his username) about gun control that claimed he saw a gang of teens harassing an old woman at a subway station. He said he wished he had a gun to scare them all off. He also IIRC said that he himself had been mugged.

Hey, if I had a gun, and someone was pointing a gun at me, you're damn right I'd pull the trigger.

And don't for a minute suggest that I am not sympathetic towards victims of violent crime. I think I have stated before that I have a great deal of animosity towards violent criminals. I myself have admitted that I have a violent streak, that I at time want to jakk some people up. I'm conflicted by it all the time.

Read my posts guys. I just got done saying that I'm not sure banning guns outright will fully solve the problem of violence in this country.

But at the same time, I can also see what the anti-gun people are getting at. I wish all the guns would disappear. I wish all the cocaine would get thrown into the sun also. I wish people didn't feel the need to see hookers. Banning guns might help curb violent crime but it could also create more crime.

That's why I think that we should (and I know, broken record time) try to kill the virus with socialist programs. We might not need to ban guns if we solve the problems that lead people towards violence.

If a gun were pointed at me, and I was unarmed, I really don't know what I would do to be totally honest with you. If the guy wanted my wallet, I'd likely throw it somewhere and run. I mean, it's not real streetwise to fight someone who is armed when you are not. Cops will tell you to just give the person what they want. The people you see on those police video shows fighting back over 50 dollars are rather foolish.

Plus I'm not one to frequent places where there is gang activity. Not that people deserve to be accosted by a bunch of gangbangers, but part of being streetwise means staying out of areas where you might be a target. But it also could be said that you're not really safe anywhere.

Where did 5 gang bangers accost you godlessrant? I'm just curious. Was this in your own neighborhood or did you just find yourself in a bad part of town? And before people bash me for saying that, there are parts of every city where you need to mind your P's and Q's more than you would in others. It's a sad reality. Yes, the media blows it out of proportion most of the time, and people can be needlessly paranoid about it all, and yes there are racial undertones to it at times, but still. If a place is a high crime area, I'm gonna stay out of there, and if I find myself there, I'm gonna watch myself.

I won't apologize for sounding off in anger. This entire strng has been very civil until now. If any disagree with me, they may chide and even be sarcastic or rude to a point. But don't call me names or tell me I'm scum for expressing my opinions in an honest manner. Ignorant is fine, I'm often ignorant on a subject. I try not to display it though. I can disagree with the Goat and he with me, we often do, but I'd mever call him scum or other such, as long as he is halfway polite to me, and he is. I only used Goat's name as an example of fair debating. No offense intended there Goat.

well said mjolnir! for those who don't like guns...don't buy one. i'm glad to see that commondreams posters don't just consist of mindless anti-gun people spewing the same old arguments against gun ownership. i know i had problems in chicago with crime. it's easy for armchair pundits to sit and whine about guns and how scary they are and how much they hate them and how noone but the police should have them. ever had 5 gang members walk up to you and want to blow you away? no? have that happen and then come back with your "opinons". i can sympathize with Kem Patrick. The karate/non armed option is just plain STUPID and realistic.

maybe it works in some BS hollywood movie. in real life, it gets you KILLED.

do people who hate guns even care about victims who could have been saved had they been armed?

IWARRIOR, tell ya what, for just a few moments, close your eyes and pretend that you own a service station. You are alone after eleven at night, it's cold and raining and you finish your daily books and lock the safe, and as you leave the office a man runs out of the darkness at you pointing a hand gun. You are aware, that another such incident occurred last week and another dealer was killed as he left his staion.

Okay, now close your eyes and picture it, it's not a movie,____ it's for real.
You don't believe in guns but your an expert at karate. So you scream out "Yaaaaaaa" and leap up and kick the murderer in the head. Yeah, sure____ that would work.

Well, silly me, I shot the guy in the face and then chased down his two buddies and held them until the police arrived. Two of them later admitted to killing the other dealer. The guy who was seriously wounded was the shooter. They were all only young guys who needed money for crack. Wish I'd not needed a gun though____ but I did. The other attempted robbery a year later was similar.
You try the kickin and I'll calmly fire off two rounds thank you, it's more effective in real life.

lo Q. Lellity. You call me an ignorant scum because I wrote I sometimes agree with some Republicans. You fu@@cking piece of s##t, you can go straight to h##l. I guarantee you, would not tell me that to my face.

Yes, people like kem patrick are ignorant scum, people who "agree with republicans," have no international scope, and are offended when the holy american empire is not capitalized in name. The same goes for the people here who support guns. There is a difference between people who live in america and identify as internationalists, who don't buy into right wing politics, who have some scope about their principals, and those who are simply nationalist, regionalist, uneducated reactionaries. I am a vegan social democrat who practices nonviolence, doesn't believe in the military, and truly believes in zero guns, not "my guns" (which don't exist.)

Maybe if we all learned martial arts? It is possible to learn how to defend yourself against an armed assailant when you are unarmed.

I learned how to box from my father, not so I could be a tough guy, but to protect myself. There are times I feel a need to prepare to defend myself even if nothing happens.

A lot of people imo think that if they let their guard down, that's when they'll be attacked be it by some thug with a heroin jones to feed or Blackwater uniform as some theorize could happen.

But again, root problems need to be addressed. Good, take all the guns and melt them down to make a statue. I honestly would not have a problem with that. But if we don't end the war on drugs, young guys in the inner cities are going to keep killing each other. If we don't provide universal free health care while we're at it, you'll still see people getting robbed for Vicodan or Prozac. If we don't provide free univeral education, we're going to continue to see so many young people feel that crime is their only route towards self-sufficiency. If we start taking care of our own people, we'll imo see the anger, resentment, and desperation end, and with that the violence.

Getting rid of guns might make it easier to combat and prevent violent crime, but it will still be a big part of our society if we don't institute socialism in the right places alongside that. And will we really get rid of the guns? We could stop them from getting into the country and shut down the manufacturers. But again, an illegal market could just crop up. People make heroin right under our noses. What's to stop people from making guns despite a total ban?

I don't love guns. I'm afraid to hold one. I don't love drugs either. I avoid people who use them. But part of me thinks that it might be better to try and cure violence instead of merely treating the symptoms and manifestations. I have a sinking feeling that if guns are banned, people will use alternatives or they'll still use guns they get illegally, and then people will be killing each other over the illegal guns. You'll have illegal gunmakers and gundealers trying to take each other out.

Am I just paranoid?

Goat, I don't label myself anything. I agree with some of the Repugs sometimes, and the Demos sometimes, I'm registered to vote as a Independent. If I am ever tagged as a liberal because I respect the Earth, care very much about the enviroment, love people and wish we would all get along, then I'll wear the liberal tag with pride. I wish I could be proud to be an American, especially so as a disabled vet, but I cannot do so now. If people wish to own a legal gun and never abuse the privelage, learn how to use it safely and teach their children the same. ___ that's fine with me.