Avi, I posted the numbers you requested :)
Guns and JWs
by VM44 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Oroborus21
Avishai,
your examples are faulty. Neither of these conflicts/wars was the (US) government versus "private armed citizenry".
In Vietnam the opposing side were very well trained Viet Cong armed forces BACKED and supplied with arms from China not just Joe Chus with hunting rifles and handguns. These armed forces had very good leadership and utilized superior guerilla tactics that were perfect for the environment. In contrast the American leadership was stupid and arrogant and thought that firepower would be enough but lacked the balls (or had the wisdom) not to use nuclear arms. Additionally TIMES HAVE CHANGED. In Vietnam the biggest technical innovation was the introduction of the armed helicopter. It is very arguable whether if that war were fought again today if the US wouldn't indeed simply "squash" the northern Viet Cong forces the way it has done to even battled hardened troops like Iraq's during the Persian Gulf War. (Simiilarly in North Korea we had similar issues and I hope we won't find out.)
With regard to Somalia, the movie Black Hawk Down is a fairly faithful representation of what occurred there. It is clear that Somalia was not a situation where the US forces were trying to take over the country or engage in any kind of large scale invasion. No, what occurred there is that again some well trained militia forces managed to shoot down the helicopter and then very poor actions taken by the military leadership led to those caught in the middle being simply overwhelmed with citizenry that many of whom were not armed with GUNS but had nothing more than knives and clubs. However, the Somalian situation was a problem only because of the political aspects and the lack of will or freedom on the part of the military to use its full force.
NO again the best illustration of what happens when the Government wants to take over a Country is the current wars in IRAQ and Afganistan.
In both situations both the armed forces and more germane to this discussion the armed citizenry were COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE from PREVENTING THE GOVERNMENT from taking over. Notice that in both countries the previous governments have been supplanted by new US backed governments.
AS I stated, sure an "armed citizenry" could sustain an insurrection. I am afraid that the insurrection in Iraq is going to be sustained against the US led coalition forces until these pull out and then afterwards against the Iraq government itself indefinitely.
So I am not asserting that such "rebellion" is not possible. I am stating that the popular Pro-Gun argument that it is the armed citizenry that PREVENTS such a situation from happening is obviously false. Sure if it were to happen in the U.S. say, alien invaders with superior fire power came down and subdued the U.S., hey maybe the armed citizenry would be able to engage in sporadic "terrorism" and "insurrection" against the Alien Tyrants BUT we would not be able to PREVENT it from happening.
The only way that could occur would be to have an equal playing field and I for one don't want Tanks, F-16s, and Nuclear Weapons to be also in the hands of private individuals.
-Eduardo
-
POs Son
In reply to Eduardo and the others that feel that the individual right to bear arms in the United States is not what the founding fathers had in mind, I propose several thoughts for your consideration.
If the founding fathers indeed did not intend for modern day citizens to bear the arms of the modern day (that is revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, rifles and shotguns) but rather single shot musket-loaded black-powder guns (as you have previously postulated), then how would those fine men feel about the following blanket statements? Note: I have italicized these invented blanket statements.
Regarding the First Ammendment - granting the people freedom of speech and that of the press: The freedom of speech is only granted to those speaking to groups without electronic amplifiers, without electronic media (such as the internet you are currently viewing), without mass production, without immediate translations, without worldwide or nationwide communications abilities. This is because in the 1700's these technologies were not available. Also, press shall be defined as "an old man with a printing press in his attic or sleeping chamber who does distribute a printed paper to at least twenty-five and not more than two-hundred fifty persons on a given day".
Regarding the First Ammendment - preventing the Congress from establishing laws regarding "an establishment of religion": The freedom of religion is reserved exclusively who worship God in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and who follow Christian teachings. This freedom is only available to these believers, because in the 1700's, many of the currently practiced religions were not common in the colonial region of the newly formed US. Further, religious freedom shall not be extended to newly formed faiths (including JW's) as there was no anticipation by the Constitutional authors that new faiths would develop.
Regarding the First Ammendment - preventing the Congress from making any law respecting the right of the people to assemble peaceably: The people may assemble, on street-corners, in the town grange, in the city market place and in meeting houses, however, they may not have electric lighting, nor signage, neither sound amplification, nor computer generated graphics. Tickets to such events must be produced on paper by printing presses as listed above and credit cards may not be accepted. These technoligies were not available at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
Regarding the First Ammendment - preventing the Congress from making a law restricting the person's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances: The citizen may only petition the government by means of a letter written on parchment paper with a quill pen and ink, sealed in wax, and delivered by the Pony Express. Such a grievance shall be read by candle light in the chambers of the congress during the next session (which may be months away since congressmen travel by covered wagon). These rights are so regulated as the modern postal service, telegraph, telephone, internet, automobile, train, airplane and other modern luxuries had not yet been invented at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
Do these statements outrage you? They should, in just the same way that assuming that out American founding fathers were so myopic as to think that the freedom to bear arms is restricted to a single-shot pistol. If this were true, we would also only be able to speak freely without TV, radio, internet or other modern media, petition congress by quill pen, worship only in a Christian way and publish newspapers locally.
POs Son
-
Dan-O
"I'm sure most Dub's aren't advocating to the elders that they would shoot someone dead if they broke into the house, but I'm sure some feel this way. "
My dad always said he would NOT shoot to kill if there was an intruder in the house. His philosohphy was "shoot to maim. Aim for the kneecap so they walk with a limp for the rest of their life." -
EvilForce
PO's Son,
I believe you are spot on with that post. The constitution is "a guideline". IMHO you have to look at the document and then the historical events around it to see what we think the founding fathers were trying to imbue and then create more freedoms and protections not less. Slavery was ok with the original document, so as society changes so does the meaning of the constitution. It's a "living" document. This is why I go crazy when the fundie's start talking about "an activist" juriprudence system trying to determine what the constitution means today. Um, hello all the founding fathers are dead so it's all just a guess anyway. Just like guessing at the bible. No one seems to be ruling from upon high letting us know which part of the bible are out of date and which one's are to be followed. It's a fricking guide. Do you honestly thing the founding fathers thought beyond the document beyond about 100 years.... this was the first modern day democracy, an experiment. The document has been with us for almost 230 years.
Dan-O
I think your father was probably right in his desire to maim. However I have a couple of police friends who have related their first live "shooting" experience with the gun. They both said the first time they fired thier weapons was not what they thought it was going to be like. Their "training" took over. While I would like to think if there was an intruder in my house I could be calm enough to think that though, until we are faced with that situation, none of know how we will truly handle it. I do not keep any guns in my house at all anymore, since I have nieces and friends children in my house.... I would feel horrific if something happened. -
Dan-O
I understand, Evil Force. Your concern is something I hear from time to time about having guns in the house with kids around. Personally, I think it's an opportunity to teach the kids about responsible behavior.
-
EvilForce
Very true. If I had a son I would probably get him a bb gun to start with and work up from there around age 12 or 13. This is when I started learning about guns. But I think telling a 7 or 8 year old about a gun and how it's a no no, would only stoke their curiousity and possibly lead to an accident.
As part of my education I spent a fair amount of time in the ER. You would not believe the amount of GSW's we would see EVERY night. Drugs and alcohol usually played a part in all of them. Also, I can't tell you how many people I have worked on that failed in their attempt to blow their brains out w/ a gun to kill themselves. Alcohol, depression, and handgun in the house are deadly mixes. I also saw 2 different kids die because of playing with daddy's guns. Makes me physically sick still to remember those 2 events. I only spent a couple of years in the ER and saw this. A good friend of mine in Winston-Salem sees this stuff all the time. He's been in ER practice for 10 years. -
Dan-O
"But I think telling a 7 or 8 year old about a gun and how it's a no no, would only stoke their curiousity and possibly lead to an accident. "
That's why you don't tell them that a gun is a no-no. You teach them to handle one responsibly and to shoot accurately. -
EvilForce
You would teach your child how to handle a gun at 7 or 8?
-
carla
I have found out that the chief of police in Dousman, WI has begun studying with the jw's. This worries me greatly due to the jw policy on pedophiles. I have tried to find an email for the police dept. but can't (online anyway). Maybe he is not aware of just how this will all affect him. ie-not carrying a gun, not turning in jw pedophiles etc.. How long do you think the hall will allow him to keep his job? Should someone send him something? from Silentlambs? C of C book? Any thoughts, thanks carla