[geeks] [rescue] Guns - what are they good for? - was Re: TME and Apple II and other Drive emulator questions.

[Edward Mitchell]

On May 20, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Rick Hamell <hamellr at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/20/14, 2:51 PM, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>> I think it's more concern that the conversation MAY spiral out of
>> control, not that it has...
>>
>> That's my take on it, anyway,
>>
>
> Which is exactly why it's so hard to have a rational discussion on these
types of subjects anymore. People throw out words like Liberal and
Conservative as insults, instead of a description of a political leaning. Add
in the "It's my way, or not at all" mentality and we wonder why nothing gets
done about these issues.

Ive chewed my tongue since this discussion thread began, uncertain if I
wanted (or cared) to chime in.  My political leanings and ideological
foundations are generally irrelevant to my position on guns and gun control.
Why?  I view the gun control debate (which in popular culture means
shouting war) as moot.  The right of defense and the right to the most
logical means of defense are civil rights.  Last time I looked, the biggest
recent debate over civil rights last took place in 1950s and 1960s America.
Prior to that, the debate turned into a bloody war of secession.  In both
instances, those socio-political conflicts had the outcome of protecting the
inherent rights of men and women, not in attempting to limit or abolish them.
Also in both cases, short-term outcomes involved much death, destruction,
unrest, turmoil and human pain.

Todays debate seeks, on one side, to impose common sense limits on a
different (and unliked, by some) civil right.  To wit, I have not yet heard
the proponents of common sense regulation elaborate on what they would
consider a nonsensical or draconian limit.  That failure leads me to deeply
suspect the motivations of the gun control proponent groups are not
forthright.  The other side of the debate, at its core, argues for increased
liberty and self-reliance, two objectives which any modern American power
structure absolutely detests.  What is the difference between, say, voting
rights and firearms rights?  Frankly, votes can be manipulated, results rigged
and outcomes forced (a la Bush v Gore, 2000) to their unnatural conclusion.  A
bullet, once loosed, is the ultimate projection of power.  They can be
deflected, but they cannot be called back, hauled into court, recounted ad
nauseum or subject to legislative fiat.  Power fears power in opposition.
Parity is an uncomfortable concept to the modern American politician.  It is
an affront to his malformed notions of right and wrong, duty and obligation,
mandate and order.

Ultimately, the debate is one of More Oligarchy or More Liberty.  Those who
would enact controls champion More Oligarchy, under the (likely) false
assumption that government will protect, always.  Those who would see controls
abolished or greatly reduced prefer More Liberty.  Both camps foot soldiers
are unaware of these unintended consequences of their positions.  Liberty
rides the horse named Price.  For those with children, I analogize this to the
first time you let your child walk to school alone.  Your price was worry,
concern, and uncertainty.  The past shows us freedoms cost is messy,
sometimes brutish.  On the other hand, with oligarchy comes an uncomfortable
trust, expecting that power will remain benevolent and gentle for all time.
History has shown that both outcomes often enough veer towards reprehensible
conduct - genocide, war, famine, destruction of societies and cultures.  The
vacuum created by destruction is usually filled with decades, or more, of
unrest, uncertainty and human misery.

So I suspect the debate distills to the basic question: Do you believe you can
vote yourself out of the gulag as easily as you vote yourself in, or do you
abstain from that vote by threat of self-preserving violence?

I choose the latter.   I respect the right of any one person to vote himself
into the gulag.  You do not, however, have the right to drag me, or my family,
into that cell with you.  Attemping such is done at your own great peril.

Fortunately, I do not think this choice is ultimately necessary.  As the
president of a local shooting club, I am active in recruiting new shooters to
at least come and try guns, first and foremost by taking safety and
orientation classes.  As an instructor of these classes (unpaid, mind you), I
have the obligation to present guns and shooting sports in an apolitical
fashion.  Guns are neither good nor bad, just like the SUV that killed a bike
rider in town a few days ago was neither good nor bad.  In the past two years,
more and more men and women, often considering themselves in the
progressive-liberal political camp, have been not just taking the classes,
but becoming gun owners.  One theme constanty resounds - my fear was based on
ignorance and misconception.  That is the most powerful admission any person
can make about any subject.

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]