Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Houghton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens

    (C) 2000, William A. Levinson. Permission is granted to print, copy, and distribute hard (non-electronic) copies of this page freely and without royalties of any kind, provided that it is not altered in any manner.
    Robert A. Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society. The common perception is that armed societies were polite because an act of rudeness might evolve into a duel, as portrayed in Dumas' The Three Musketeers. The real reason, though, is the mindset and psychology that come with responsible weapon ownership. The knight's sword was a symbol of his duty to protect weaker members of society and behave chivalrously, e.g. with respect and courtesy to women, elderly people, and so on. The sword was the soul of the Japanese samurai, a constant reminder of the samurai's duty and code of behavior. The sword was a symbol of taking responsibility, not only for one's self, but usually for others.

    If you don't like cops (or armed citizens), the next time you're in danger-- call a hippie! (Or a Million Mom Marcher)

    The modern American who buys a firearm for self-protection is saying, "I recognize that life involves danger, and by owning a weapon I accept my responsibility to protect myself and those who are entitled to my protection-- my wife/husband, children, parents, and perhaps friends and neighbors." An American who shoots at targets for recreation is practicing a form of self-discipline similar to kyudo (Japanese archery). If you are attacked by a criminal, it is the person with the armed-citizen mindset who is more likely to call the police. If you're in a car accident, this is the person who is more likely to stop and give first aid if possible, or else call an ambulance for you. The antigun activist is likely to look the other way, like the New Yorkers did when Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death. They didn't want to get involved, not even to the extent of picking up a telephone. More recently, a cab driver was attacked and robbed in the presence of dozens of New Yorkers, of whom not one called the police. You could probably bleed to death on a New York sidewalk while dozens of people walked past; these are the same people who parade in the Million Mom March and elect mayors and governors who enact handgun bans.
    Many antigun activists are saying, "I do not want to recognize that life involves danger. I deserve to live in a protected environment, and I should not have to think about protecting myself, my spouse, my parents, my children, or my neighbors. This is the 21st century, and violence simply should not happen." It's the same mindset that went with the "ban the Bomb" movements of the 1970s and 1980s; they wanted to legislate the Bomb out of existence and pretend that nuclear war couldn't (and can't) happen. The mice voted to put a bell on the cat so they'd be safe. It all goes with dodging and avoiding responsibility, and the moral (and often physical) cowardice that goes with this mindset. Placing responsibility for violence on the inanimate object (the gun or the Bomb) instead of on people goes with it.

    Consider Rosie O'Donnell, who has a bodyguard to protect her and her family. Maybe she wants to delegate the physical risks to an employee, or maybe she doesn't want to endanger her nail polish with a steel trigger guard. Ted Kennedy has, or had, an armed bodyguard. I'm sure this rich man's rich boy who never did a lick of honest work in his entire worthless life would not want to touch anything made of steel, whether it be a household tool or a weapon; that is what servants are for. Chinese mandarins grew their fingernails long as proof that they did not have to fight or do any work; that is probably why there are no mandarins today. Here's the problem with all those bodyguards and rent-a-cops that are so popular with our "beautiful people"/ celebrity/ limousine liberal aristocrat class. Machiavelli's The Prince says that you cannot pay a man enough to make him willing to die for you. That security person is not going to put his life in serious danger to protect you, your spouse, or your child-- and if you're unwilling to do that, why should he?

    Why the pro-Second Amendment side will win: Xenophon
    Heinlein also defined a gentleman as one who would rather be a dead lion than a live louse (or rabbit). It is really easier, though, to be a live lion than a live rabbit. Xenophon's The Persian Expedition says, "...the people whose one aim is to keep alive usually find a wretched and dishonorable death, while the people who, realizing that death is the common lot of all men, make it their endeavor to die with honor, somehow seem more often to reach old age and to have a happier life when they are alive." So it is with antigun activists and gun rights supporters. The former seek safety in ineffective laws and "this is how the world ought to be," and they find no safety; the latter look to themselves for security, and they are secure. Xenophon's Ten Thousand heeded his advice and most came safely home to Greece. Ronald Reagan and George Bush won the Cold War, not by trying to ban the Bomb, but by looking it in the face.. We, the supporters of the Second Amendment, are Xenophon's disciples, and that is why we will win; the lions will beat the rabbits every time.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    "Hello! Operator! I've just been robbed! Please, send the Hippies!!!

    It definitely is ironic that all the anti-gunners want their armed guards, even the average anti-gunner wants armed law enforcement officers. And they want to stick their head in the sand and not think about the fact that it takes time for the LEO to respond _after_ a crime has commenced!

  3. #3
    Regular Member dukenukum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    peace and love from a .45 baby ! cast wad cutters and shoot bullseye the 2nd amendment is my homeland security :celebrate

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cadillac Area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    Just as much as every person who eats meat is a hunter by proxy, an anti-gunner (is there a better word for persons who oppose the private ownership of firearms?) is a firearm owner/user by proxy by the virtue of being proected by an armed police force and an armed standing army (which we all pay for).

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Houghton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    What I don't get is why so many Americans see gun ownership as a right that is completely separate from all others. Freedom of speech, religion, the fifth amendment, the fourth amendment, etc. disappear next after we lose our right to protect ourselves from the government.

    -Rob

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens
    Whenever I read a title like this it always makes mewonder "What percentage of armed robberies are committed by Armed Citizens"?


  7. #7
    Regular Member quarter horseman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Allegan co Michigan, USA
    Posts
    345

    Post imported post

    Well I guess if the robber is an american citizen and is armed then I guess about 90% of the robberies would be done by an armed citizen. I'm just giving you a hard time I know what your getting at.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    quarter horseman wrote:
    Well I guess if the robber is an american citizen and is armed then I guess about 90% of the robberies would be done by an armed citizen. I'm just giving you a hard time I know what your getting at.
    I understand the point of the OP and agree with the thought, it's just that how does one determine who the BG's and GG's are. Both carry guns so to say Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens is a little misleading. Most BG's were at one time GG's or at least didn't have a rap sheet and would have been eligible to carry a gun legally.

    The one thing I do notice is that on here some people immediately take the side of the person with a gun no matter what and tend to ignore the facts. We all tend to make blanket statements that just don't hold up when confronted by the facts. Most either try to explain the difference but some still insist that their blanket statement is correct.

    One point that it often made but not really in the OP is that people with carry permits tend to be more law abiding than those without permits. If someone is going to the trouble to get a permit then they have immediately demonstrated that they want to obey the law. If they weren't planning to obey the law then they wouldn't worry about a permit.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Houghton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    Carrying a gun is like any other freedom. If you use your liberty to hurt someone, you lose that liberty. We can't prevent criminals from carrying guns, but we can put them away for life if they kill some with them. The same applies to law-abiding citizens. The second they stop abiding the law, they are risking their liberty. I don't care if everyone is armed, because that means when someone decides to abuse their liberty they will be stopped promptly. Closed-loop feedback on society.

    -Rob

  10. #10
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I understand the point of the OP and agree with the thought, it's just that how does one determine who the BG's and GG's are. Both carry guns so to say Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens is a little misleading.Most BG's were at one time GG's or at least didn't have a rap sheet and would have been eligible to carry a gun legally.
    I think, actually, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the OP. The OP, in its context, is not talking of "responsibility" with regard to being law-abiding, but with regard to providing one's own defense or defense of others (versus reliance on others to provide defense). Now, certainly, the responsibility to be law-abiding is important, but it is separate from the responsibility of providing for your own defense or the defense of others and is not the subject of the OP. To illustrate:

    A subject line of "Armed Citizens are citizens who abide by the law" clearly makes a statement that is not true.

    A subject line of "Armed citizens are citizens who provide for their own defense or the defense of others rather than relying on others for defense" clearly makes a statement that is at least arguably true, and the OP sets forth the argument. Whether or not armed citizens are law-abiding or not (GG's or BG's) isn't what the author is arguing about.

    Clearly, the point you are making, which would be a good point against the first subject line, is completely moot versus the second subject line, which is the implied subject of the OP, according to its context.

    Now, do you have counterpoints to the author's argument that armed citizens are citizens who provide for their own defense or the defense of others rather than relying on others for defense?


    PT111 wrote:
    The one thing I do notice is that on here some people immediately take the side of the person with a gun no matter what and tend to ignore the facts. We all tend to make blanket statements that just don't hold up when confronted by the facts. Most either try to explain the difference but some still insist that their blanket statement is correct.
    This is true, but the proportion and magnitude of the problem comes nowhwere near close to the problem on the anti-gun side. On the pro-gun side, it's a minor problem. On the anti-gun side, it's a huge problem. Ignoring facts and making blanket statements is always inversely proportional to the availability of supporting facts and logic to one's opinion, and we know how much supporting fact and logic is available to the anti-gun opinion.

    PT111 wrote:

    One point that it often made but not really in the OP is that people with carry permits tend to be more law abiding than those without permits. If someone is going to the trouble to get a permit then they have immediately demonstrated that they want to obey the law. If they weren't planning to obey the law then they wouldn't worry about a permit.
    Again, the responsibility of abiding by the law isn't the subject of the OP, but I do agree with your point even though it's moot for this thread.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  11. #11
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    A flip side view of the OP:

    One might also say that an armed crook has demonstrated responsibility by pre-planning their crime and swaying the odds to his/her favorof getting the cash.
    United we STAND!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •