Hi, I'm back. Everyone can celebrate
.
Thank you all for caring enough to continue to post. It is good to see people who actually think about issues.
I'm going to structure this with one post to answer specific questions and any misunderstandings then one post to talk about general issues and ideas (that means the discussion about methods of resistance & pacifism and some other stuff).
First, RAE is correct that "gun violence" is a shortcut term which doesn't make sense literally. It's easier to say than "violence in which a gun is used" but from you alls perspective it is probably worth fighting over since choice of words is very important in shaping a debate or discussion.
I use the word toys to refer to the pentagon's advanced weaponry partly as a way to make what is a very serious discussion a little less so but also because that is, in my not so humble opinion, what they essentially are. We have a lot of "weapons systems" which even the pentagon says we don't need but which private corporations make a lot of money selling to uncle sam. Funny how it is always the congresspeople's districts where the weapons are built who push the bills. They are very expensive fancy toys because they are not needed. They do, however, look very nice on those VNRs that the companies send out.
JHS said:
Folkbabe, you beleive that there is God in everyone. How can God rape God? How can God murder God? How can God stab God? How can God do drugs? How could God allow these thing to happen to Him?
Let's just say I have a different definition/view of god than you do. This isn't the place for that discussion but I'll just say that the "god" (or inner light or holy spirit etc) that I see in every person is most certainly not a "Him".
USP - It's nice to be here.
[with regards to Zimbabwe]
This, in my humble opinion, is a clear example where the government enforcement and judiciary forces are no longer working for the benefit of the people and could be considered the enemy.
The people are not allowed to own the proper tools to defend themselves from the rioters and the government will not act sufficiently to protect life.
You seem to be reffering to the white farmers (the large landholders) as "the people". Don't get me wrong, the way the land takeovers are happening is very wrong and should be condemned. Mugabe is
very bad news (deliberately inciting racial violence as well as urging the killing of gays as a way to rally support for himself). However, the land reform is, in principle, the right thing. The large landowners are NOT "the people". That land belongs to those who work it and used to control it before the British stole it. It is because I am a pacifist that I don't support the people using violence in order to seize the land back.
My reference to the "moral high ground" was more a reference to public perceptions than to internal beliefs. The reason the public was outraged when they saw people in Mississippi or Alabama getting beat up by sherrifs or the kids in Tianeman(sp) Square standing up against tanks is because they weren't fighting back with violence. These are examples of highly successful historic protests because they turned the tide of public opinion.
sgtar15 - What happened to your wife is terrible. I'm sorry you and she had to go through that. It sounds like your local judges don't take rapes, attempted rapes, and stalkings as seriously as they should.
On the question of having my life in danger (from deliberate violence not my brother driving too fast
) I think that's a very subjective question. I've been robbed at gun point (in my parents' "nice" neighborhood) by someone who was highly agitated because he was in withdraw (he was undoubtedly robbing me to get money for more drugs). At the time it was pretty scary but at no point did I think I was going to be killed. When I've told other people though they seem to flip out. At another point I was with a friend I grew up with (who doesn't share my beliefs) and he got in a fight with some people who then pulled guns on us. I got my friend to cool off and tell the other people he didn't mean what he said. The time I've felt in the most danger was when I was down in the bar district with some friends and some guys decided it would be fun to pick on us. It was pretty deserted where we were and the guys were very drunk and aggressive. One of my friends got shoved into the wall hard enough to have a concussion and we were all roughed up a bit. We eventually used humor to diffuse the situation and get them to let us past.
On the issue of GOD being in everyone, I agree. But if you believe in GOD then you know that the devil also consumes, entirely, the human soul. So if I kill someone in self defense, I am not killing the GOD inside but the devil in human form.
Not everyone who believes in something believes in your definition of evil (the devil). I strongly disagree with it for a number of reasons.
Jeff Thomas said:
I'm only curious about whether you insist that others adopt your pacifistic views? If so, and if, therefore, you would cooperate in disarming those who would defend themselves and their families, then you are my sworn enemy. You would be what I call an 'aggressive pacifist' ... a dangerous human being, in my view.
That's a very complicated question and a good one IMHO. I certainly don't insist that others have the same
beliefs or
views as me as I think there are a variety of belief systems/religions which all hold value. However, I do work to make the world into a better place. Pacifism is an active word which means "making peace". This means building a society which is more just and where violence has no place. (note that this is NOT about your guns) I also work very hard against my government doing things in my name which I don't agree with. Among other things, this means working against the state-sponsered killings in my name using my money. The lessons of Nuremberg is that when we can know and see wrong, especially if it is being done by our own government, we must resist and work against it. Otherwise we are culpable. On the specific question of disarming people, I've said that I'm not here to talk about gun control. I don't neccessarily support it and I think there are much more important issues for me to be working on. (such as getting rid of the root causes of violence)
CassandraComplex - You seem to think I am arguing for gun control. I am not.
Anyway,
As to "why do I need a gun", I refuse to answer that question. It opens up a slew of question leading to dilemma. Are we all subject to qualifiying what we own and how we wish to live?
I don't think asking a question as to why someone does something so you can understand better is such a terrible thing. You have the right not to answer the question if you don't want to. I can understand that if you are
constantly asked the same question can get annoying but I try to use it as a chance to educate. I am very frequently asked why I live where I do and why I have certain beliefs. Sometimes the questions seem to imply judgement but I take a deep breath and figure maybe they'll learn something. (Although I have on occasion not done this... there's a certain question which I consistantly turn around so people can see how absurd it is. This is also a way to educate people.) On the issue of SUVs, I think asking why people own them is an excellent idea. People don't like admitting that they only bought them to look good (that's the only reason the people I know have them) and maybe they'll think twice before buying them again.
Same for the other things. Our "American lifestyle" is completely unsustainable and we're all eventually going to pay the cost of those SUVs.
I'm confused as to where I pushed any government policy or people "coming into your home". Asking questions can be a way of pushing a result (the SUV thing) but it can also just be a way to stimulate thought and discussion. They don't mean telling other people how to live their lives. (And yes, I do live with major organizations and people saying that how I live my life and what goes on in my home is somehow wrong so I know what it feels like.)
jdthaddeus said:
Lastly, Folkbabe, if you know people who are criminals, engaged in criminal activity, using illegal guns, then you need to do something about that. I am appaled that you would support a community group that would want to take MY guns away when I am a good citizen, but you allow your friends to run around commiting crimes with illegal guns. Seems a bit hypocritical to me, as well as focusing on the wrong group of people.
I may not have been clear in what I wrote. To my knowledge, nobody I know has used a weapon in the commission of a crime. I know some people who engage in low-level "criminal activity" (ie, selling drugs and sometimes shoplifting). I make it clear to them that I think that these are pretty stupid activities to do and that dealing, especially anything harder than pot, is pretty morally questionable. They also are well aware I don't approve of their having guns. Again, I'm not trying to take away your guns.
Colombe:
You seem to be looking more for answers to violence in our communities than for reasons for owning a gun. That is an excellent place to start. There is too much bitterness on both sides. What we all want is to have our children grow up to be healthy and happy and decent human beings. We disagree on how, but the goal is the important thing.
Exactly
I'm curious what your thoughts on the subject are? Are they really so different from ours?
No, they're not. People have kicked around a lot of good ideas many of which I agree with. I suspect you can guess which ones I disagree with
. Anyway, I have a lot of different thoughts on solutions and the ranking of importance varies from week to week depending on which outrage bothers me more at that moment.
As an overall philosophy, I think we need a world where everyone is cared for and included, where peace and justice are living concepts we strive for daily, where community actually means something, where diversity is treasured, and where oppression and injustice are fought. I don't think there is one "right path" for getting there but fighting poverty and its effect is obviously an important step. The concept which feminism gave us that "the personal is the political" and we need to live our beliefs in our own lives is also important. (although this belief also can cause a lot of hurt when used to judge other people's lives) There are a lot of people working for change who I really respect. This ranges from my local catholic workers to musicians and artists. I don't believe that one group can have a monopoly on truth or good ideas.
C.R.Sam said:
Keiller...we are not in disagreement re respect for the Amish beliefs, or Amish bravery.
However, for around 400 years they have bounced around the planet, starting in Switzerland with objection to state church and suffering persecution in several countries untill finding relative peace in America. America where others were willing to die in order that they may worship as they wished.
Though the several sects differ, one thread in common is their belief in nonresistance and refusal to bear arms. Therefore, their freedom is protected by others.
I'm gonna address war, resistance, and pacifism in a different post but I will just say that Mennonites are a different religion from the Amish not just different sects. For one thing, Mennonites are much more involved in the outside world in terms of working for social justice. And no, Quakers are not Amish nor are they Mennonites just because the guy on the Quaker Oats box is wearing a funny hat.
(sorry, but you hit a sore point.
)
Ok, that's all for now. I'll post more later. <g>
