Redneck shoots up Pensacola with AK-47

[Gallstones]

And one more thing, yes we watched the westerns on TV and country western music was always on the radio, but we didn't get the "frontier culture" from the media--we lived it. My grandfather was a bar owner, brought Charlie Pride to Montana, he was a poker dealer and always had horses and hunted, as did my father and my uncles. One uncle rodeoed. My grandparents had a (replica) covered wagon--he built--that they traveled in during the summer, pulled by a team of mules. We live in "the frontier" it is where I grew up. It is my culture, not wanna be, it is.

[laklak]

My grandfather plowed with horses, because he claimed only "niggers and tenant farmers" plowed with mules. They grew their own food, raised and slaughtered their own livestock, and were generally as self-sufficient as possible. The frontier spirit, rugged individualism and self-sufficiency aren't so far removed from us. Just go to the Appalachian mountains, you'll see all three in spades.

[mistermack]

My grandfather plowed with horses, because he claimed only "niggers and tenant farmers" plowed with mules. They grew their own food, raised and slaughtered their own livestock, and were generally as self-sufficient as possible. The frontier spirit, rugged individualism and self-sufficiency aren't so far removed from us. Just go to the Appalachian mountains, you'll see all three in spades.

My grandfather did the same, and so did my uncle, till he got his first tractor, in about 1960. That was in the wild west. ( of Ireland ).
They didn't just raise their own food, they made their own clothes. It's nothing to do with frontier spirit. Those days, that was done right around the world. They had to.
.

[Seth]

Old piece of bullshit you mean. If you read those figures, it's perfectly clear that more than half of the American population, the more vulnerable half, survive, and live perfectly safe lives, without owning a gun. If you are arguing that a gun is necessary for personal safety, you are in denial of reality.

I haven't heard the argument that a gun is "necessary" for personal safety. A gun, however, is an excellent adjunct and tool to enhance personal safety. Also, any claim that the "more vulnerable half survive and live perfectly safe lives" is simply false. Crime statistics disprove that canard.

The reality is that any particular individual's chance of encountering a violent criminal may be quite small, and it may depend largely upon where one lives and how one goes about one's life, but the important question is whether the individual is to be permitted to decide what their individual risk is and how they will arm themselves against those risks, whatever they may be. Even if one lives in the most secure and safe place on the planet, where one's chances of encountering a violent crime necessitating the use of a gun for defense are so vanishingly small as to closely approach zero, being prepared against that eventuality is, or ought to be a choice for the individual to make, not the individual's government.

The bogus statistical argument that you present is a commonplace canard that is actually a diversion from the true issues involved, which are about public policy, personal liberty, and societal freedom, not one's statistical risks of being victimized.

As I've said before, self-defense is the primary reason for the RKBA, but the most important component of that right is not self-defense against criminals, it's self-defense against a tyrannical government and despotism because it is tyrannical governments and despots that have caused the most deaths to innocents in the shortest time throughout history, and which pose the greatest risk to any particular individual. Not being prepared against such despotism means becoming the victim of it. Therefore eternal vigilance and constant preparation is required to keep the citizenry armed and capable of putting down a tyrant, because if the citizenry are disarmed, they will be unable to do so at need. That, in fact, is why tyrants and despots always disarm the citizenry as their first priority...which makes it easy to detect potential tyrants: they are those who seek to disarm the citizenry.

Self-defense against criminality is next in importance, but the reason for allowing an armed citizenry for such defensive purposes is closely aligned with the primary purpose of an armed citizenry elucidated above.

No government that disarms its own citizens is a just or legitimate government, and all such governments must be destroyed and replaced with one that respects individual rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms in defense of the individual and society.

For a government to disarm its own people on the premise that society will be made safer is the same thing as disrespecting the individual rights of crime victims and turning them into acceptable casualties in the social experiment. Disarming the populace says that the individual who WILL BE victimized by an armed, violent criminal has no right to defend himself against that attack, and that the social policy needs of the collective outweigh the rights of the individual to effective tools of self-defense...against both criminals on the street and criminals within his own government who would enslave and oppress him. This says to the citizen "you are merely a statistic to the government. You have no intrinsic value to society, and if you are killed by a criminal, it is better that you be killed than that we allow everyone to be armed against such events, because your life is not worth the risks that society faces from having an armed citizenry."

That is tyranny and despotism made manifest.

The hallmark of a free society is the right to keep and bear arms, and wherever that right is taken away, tyranny and despotism follows, sooner or later...usually sooner.

So it's utterly irrelevant what the individual's particularized risk of being victimized by a criminal, whether self-employed or employed by the government, actually is. The only important consideration is that the individual have the freedom to make the choice for him or herself whether he or she wishes to be armed against such an eventuality, however remote it might be. It's no different than being allowed to make the decision whether or not to buy a fire extinguisher or homeowner's insurance. We allow people to assess their own risks and decide how they will respond to those risks as a component of fundamental liberty.

And when it comes to an armed citizenry, the risks of a despotic and tyrannical government enslaving them is the greatest risk they collectively face, and is why it is essential that a large body of the public be well-armed and well-trained in the use of those arms, so as to provide deterrence to potential tyrants.

You may choose to be so delusional as to trust your government so completely that you are willing to become its slave whenever it decides to slap on the chains, but we in America have seen that too many times to place that much trust in any government comprised of men.

Therefore, we rigorously protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and we accept whatever unfortunate consequences flow from that decision because whatever they may be, they are less dangerous and harmful in the long run and to the majority of citizens than allowing tyranny, or crime, to proceed unopposed.

Not that I expect you to be able to understand these concepts. After all, sheeple such as those in the UK are slaves already, and they are comfortable in their chains, so they stand around munching on the largess of government baaing and waiting for their masters to slaughter them whenever it pleases the tyrants to do so. That's their choice and I won't pity them in their slavish obedience to their masters.

For myself, I'll live with the wolves and decline to be a sheeple, and I'll ignore the baaing of the sheeple over my decision to live free or die.

Bollocks

Now there's an erudite and sophisticated rebuttal from a towering intellect with superior skills of reasoning...not.

[Seth]

Seth wins the prize!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSE0ff8j ... re=related[/youtube]

Careful, you'll be Branded as a Gunsmoke loving right-wing criminal, have to go hideout in the Big Valley, wearing Rawhide clothes and dodging Young Riders after the Bonanza of cash promised in your Wanted Dead or Alive posters.

Hey, I've got TWO Marlin lever actions. A Model 1895 Classic in .45-70 and a stainless Model 1895 Guide Gun in the same caliber. I recently sold my Cowboy Action Uberti "Yellowboy" in .45 Long Colt.

Lever actions make fine defensive firearms. I'd love to have Steve McQueen's shorty Winchester from "Wanted, Dead or Alive" (Dog, eat your heart out, Steve did it right) that recently made a cameo appearance in "Zombieland," but it's a Class III "short rifle" which makes it a pain to own.

I substitute a Sig 556 pistol in .223, which is identical to the Sig .556 rifle except with a short barrel and no stock. At need, I can slap on a folding stock and have a dandy SBR for personal defense. I had a shoulder rig made for it so I can conceal it under a long jacket. It's legal for concealed carry since it's legally a "handgun."

[MarkS]

The thing is Seth, I'm skeptical that the citizenry would have the will, the organization or the capability to oppose this putative tyrannical gov. My guess is it would be cheaper and easier to manipulate the democratic process anyway. That way the "sheeple" get to keep their toy guns and sense of autonomy and the ruling class get what they want with the willing support of their wage slaves.

[Svartalf]

Your guess having precisely nothing to do with actual events of the last century or so, of course...

[MarkS]

I'm sorry which events are you referring to?

[Seth]

The thing is Seth, I'm skeptical that the citizenry would have the will, the organization or the capability to oppose this putative tyrannical gov.

This is a valid concern, but I point out the efficacy of an armed insurgent force and what it's cost us to fight a very, very small contingent of Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Given the fact that one third to one half of America's 300 million citizens are armed, it doesn't take that large a percentage of patriots willing to die for liberty to put down a tyrant. Heck, in most cases all it takes is one person who is sufficiently dedicated and willing to die to do so, as the Secret Service freely acknowledges.

The purpose of an armed citizenry is, of course, to dissuade wannabe tyrants from trying to take over in the first place by making sure that our elected representatives know that the ballot box is not the ultimate recourse of the citizenry.

My guess is it would be cheaper and easier to manipulate the democratic process anyway.

hat
Of course it is, as the election of Obama demonstrates. But even Obama is afraid to step too far out of line in his quest to impose Progressive tyranny on us. Even as we speak he's capitulating to the realities of American politics and, I believe, has discovered that he badly overreached and has to pull back or face the wrath of the public. We'll see how it shakes out in the near future.

That way the "sheeple" get to keep their toy guns and sense of autonomy and the ruling class get what they want with the willing support of their wage slaves.

So long as the quid pro quo satisfies the People, that's exactly what will happen. Most people don't begrudge the "ruling class" their wealth or privilege, so long as they don't use it to try to impose tyrannical despotism. They know that this putative "ruling class" are actually merely those who have wealth and power because they have worked to obtain wealth and power, and in the end, they support everyone else through their work. For most people, "trickle-down economics" works just fine and they are satisfied with their position in life.

But let some wannabe despot try to take away what keeps them satisfied and the People will turn and put the despot down in a heartbeat.

We are generally slow to anger and use force only as a last resort, but the salient point is that we have the capability to use force, and overwhelming force at that, should the situation require it.

So far none of our leaders has tried to seize or hold on to power outside of the democratic processes we use. But I suspect that on the day that Obama or any other President or Congressperson refuses to step down after being unelected, that's when the knives and guns will come out, and rather quickly.

I could be wrong, but I'd rather have an armed citizenry that is reluctant to use their arms than live in a disarmed society that yearns for freedom from despotism but cannot attempt it because it has no capacity to resist its own government.

[pErvinalia]

The thing is Seth, I'm skeptical that the citizenry would have the will, the organization or the capability to oppose this putative tyrannical gov. My guess is it would be cheaper and easier to manipulate the democratic process anyway. That way the "sheeple" get to keep their toy guns and sense of autonomy and the ruling class get what they want with the willing support of their wage slaves.

I think that's a pretty good assessment.

[FBM]

Looks pretty good to me, but I'm thinking that the unarmed masses would make better sheeple. They have no "teeth", after all.

[Gallstones]

Toy guns?
WTF is that supposed to be referring to?

[FBM]

Anything smaller bore than a 9mm?

[Geoff]

Given the fact that one third to one half of America's 300 million citizens are armed, it doesn't take that large a percentage of patriots willing to die for liberty to put down a tyrant. Heck, in most cases all it takes is one person who is sufficiently dedicated and willing to die to do so, as the Secret Service freely acknowledges.

The purpose of an armed citizenry is, of course, to dissuade wannabe tyrants from trying to take over in the first place by making sure that our elected representatives know that the ballot box is not the ultimate recourse of the citizenry.

Indeed so. As many tyrants like JFK & Lincoln have found out to their cost.

[JimC]

Given the fact that one third to one half of America's 300 million citizens are armed, it doesn't take that large a percentage of patriots willing to die for liberty to put down a tyrant. Heck, in most cases all it takes is one person who is sufficiently dedicated and willing to die to do so, as the Secret Service freely acknowledges.

The purpose of an armed citizenry is, of course, to dissuade wannabe tyrants from trying to take over in the first place by making sure that our elected representatives know that the ballot box is not the ultimate recourse of the citizenry.

Indeed so. As many tyrants like JFK & Lincoln have found out to their cost.

A worthy riposte. I wonder what part of the "democracy" concept Seth hasn't quite got yet...

Could it be the part that is about counting votes, finding majorities, and accepting results? (grumbling allowed, but not massed gunfire...)