|
|
Post by nodog on Jan 24, 2007 19:11:13 GMT -5
Heard this guy speak this morning on the radio and as I listened I thought, holy crap someone who gets it. Seldom do I hear anyone who can from a historical perspective speak with such enthusiasm and authority combined with a tremendous amount of common sense. This guy has it down!
Guys name is Clayton Cramer and the book they were speaking of was Armed America. Some of his books are in our library but this one is not.
I was amazed that it was on the radio. Some years ago I call and talked to some talk radio guy and expressed my displeasure with their lack of using history when speaking of political issues. The guy blew me off and said talk radio was issue driven. I believed then as I do know that a historical understanding of how today's events have come about is a huge issue. Maybe they have seen the light.
This guy is locked and loaded with very useful, very relevant information.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Jan 24, 2007 19:22:30 GMT -5
Even as strongly as I believe against abortion, I will say that NOTHING matters more in this country than Second Amendment issues, because if we ever lose those rights, everything else is gone as well.
It`s great that someone was speaking intelligently to gun rights, as all of us need to be able to do when the need arises. We need to be able to write thoughtful, reasonable letters to the editor of our papers, and clear and firm e-mails and letters to our elected officials insisting that they represent our interests by strongly standing for our Second Amendment rights. We need to continue to demand that the media in all forms present fair and factual depictions when they report the news, for example, civilians don`t own assault rifles, but only semi-automatic rifles that LOOK like their military cousins.
Join NRA, and even more than simply paying dues, get involved at the grassroots level-help is always needed to recruit new members, keep current membership informed of local election reports on candidates, etc.
Every one of us need to be as passionate, or even more so, about Second Amendment issues than we are about our favorite hunting method, or game. There is nothing more precious to us than our right to be armed.
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Jan 25, 2007 7:08:59 GMT -5
Good post nodog.
|
|
|
|
Post by nodog on Jan 25, 2007 8:32:09 GMT -5
Even as strongly as I believe against abortion, I will say that NOTHING matters more in this country than Second Amendment issues, because if we ever lose those rights, everything else is gone as well. I would say it all falls under one heading, Freedom. Most, and I say this because if they did know they would not support the things they do, do not understand it. This guy pointed out gun controls roots and it is just how freedom is given away. People enacted laws to keep guns out of the hands of slaves. They voted to restrict freedom and now those laws have come full circle to bite their children's children in the butt. Abortion is taking freedom away from people, classifying some as not people, this too will be used to classify more than just the unborn not real people and our children's children will pay the bill. None of these issues are new and all of them have a long history found in past civilizations. I would much rather let history be the great legislator instead of the current arbitrator, emotion. It only cares about feeling good now. I blame the education system for willfully and deliberately hiding the truth for their own personal gain. Also nothing new. Forcing people to support that system is a mistake. This guy also proves that, simply because what he says is not taught, and should be! |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 25, 2007 13:17:43 GMT -5
I agree with your opinions on gun control, wholeheartedly.
On some of the other opinions, I might take a different view.
Abortion questions seem to get down to defining when a person becomes a person. Some think it's at birth; some think it's when the fetus reaches a point of development where it could reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb; some say it's at conception; and there are still those who think that the eggs and the sperm are also human and alive and should not be wasted without making every effort to create another person. So "the truth" depends on which definition of "person" you agree with.
It's when the freedom of the "unborn person" to live bumps up against the freedom of the actual, walking around person to control her reproductive activity against unwanted invasion by what she considers to be a mere zygote, no more a "person" than an acorn is a mighty oak, that those definitions come into play.
Somewhat the same questions arise on the other end of life. As medical science progresses, we see more and more cases where the person is beyond the capability of rational thought, incapable of communicating or of living without considerable aid from medical devices, and so forth. Where do we draw the line and say it's OK to disconnect that person and let death happen, and how do we differentiate between that person and the elderly patient needing dialysis or an implantable defibrillator, or a pacemaker?
We tend to divide into factions on these questions, along lines based on absolute, black-and-white opinion of right and wrong. Sound-byte morality. The whole truth in fifteen seconds or less. But in reality, most of us are somewhere on that "slippery slope", living in the "gray areas".
Life is really like that. It's lived on that slippery slope, grasping for some solid moral ground on which to base your life decisions and your opinions of the decisions of others.
Is it wrong to kill? How about hunting? Wrong to kill other humans? How about war, police action shootings, self defense, and/or legal executions under the death penalty?
Is it wrong to steal? If your children were crying with hunger on your rooftop as they awaited rescue from the floodwaters, and you could wade through chest deep waters at some risk to reach the grocery store, would you watch them starve or become a thief? Or if the drug dealer down the block gets hit in a drive-by, and you know there's a stash of cash in his house that would let you take your kids out of that neighborhood and raise them somewhere safer, would that be better than it being retrieved by his partners or passed on to his family who worked with him in the enterprise?
Many think they've found the answers in a book, but when you take a good look around, many others who found their answers in the same book are standing at lots of different levels on the same slippery slope, and there are a number of other books to choose from, all claiming to contain the answers.
I think that's enough serious thought for one day. The sun's out, and I bet the squirrels are, too. Time for this squirrel to go out and fetch home a couple others.
|
|
|
|
Post by nodog on Jan 25, 2007 17:03:41 GMT -5
I agree with your opinions on gun control, wholeheartedly. Is it wrong to steal? If your children were crying with hunger on your rooftop as they awaited rescue from the floodwaters, and you could wade through chest deep waters at some risk to reach the grocery store, would you watch them starve or become a thief? Or if the drug dealer down the block gets hit in a drive-by, and you know there's a stash of cash in his house that would let you take your kids out of that neighborhood and raise them somewhere safer, would that be better than it being retrieved by his partners or passed on to his family who worked with him in the enterprise?. Emotions used to justify a wrong. Stealing is wrong, living with it is something a person has to decide if it's worth it. Doesn't make it right, nor should it be sanctioned as right. That's the issue. You would make it legal and in so doing give up freedom. Sobriety check points are a prime example. Giving the government the right to detain law abiding citizens just to check and see if they maybe breaking the law should never happen. It does happen because of the emotions generated by those who want to be safe now. As far as I'm concerned the issue is a huge step in the wrong direction. Once again fear is used to take away freedom. The gun control issue was over slave owners being "afraid" of a slave up rising. Abortion is pathetic to say the least. However, who are the ones doing it? The opposition to those who believe it is pathetic. For this I should find comfort, and would if I didn't see it as just a step to the next level in the lose of freedom. There is hope though and history bears it out. I don't really care if you agree with me or not. If you have history to back something up it's worth talking about, otherwise it's just feel good ism and more of the same problem that drives today's ills, just make my life as easy as possible and to hell with the children. After all that is the philosophy of abortion with the only thought to tomorrow being, will I be able to do what I want. The answer, if history is a guide is no, you gave it up. |
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Jan 25, 2007 19:10:34 GMT -5
Russ-I know full well that you and I disagree on the abortion issue, and I am one that, as you stated, have found the answers in “a book”, actually THE Book-written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.
I do respect your opinions however, and in most things I believe you and I agree-as well as I find you, along with Old Ironsides, to be very well read and articulate.
Don`t think I`ve ever told you this Russ, but I do include you in my prayers when I remember it-I pray for God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, to touch your heart and turn it towards Him-I do this because every person is a treasure to God, and He doesn`t want even one to perish-but then, free will comes in.
Anyway, back on track-I`m glad that you are an ally on Second Amendment rights-the Second Amendment is the Amendment that protects all the others, and I`ll say it again, NOTHING in this country is more important than the Second Amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 25, 2007 22:05:56 GMT -5
nodog, I think you are seeing something in my post that wasn't really there. I don't advocate making theft legal. I was just saying that there are circumstances when nearly anything that we normally consider to be wrong, may be the right thing to do in that very limited situation.
I think that's often dismissed as being "situational ethics", but to me it's just being realistic in the recognizing that life doesn't always fit into the neat pigeonholes that we try to assign it to.
I agree on the traffic checks for DUI.
Also we probably agree on the regulations that are based on the suspicion that we would be likely to do something illegal if we were free to have or use the item being regulated. This not only applies to guns, but to specific types of guns. When I used to fish a lot more, I often thought how neat it would be to carry a sawed-off .410 break-action single shot in the tackle box for the occasional opportunity that came up to take something legally with it, or for protection of self and family. Unfortunately, since that type of gun was made illegal by the 1935 Forearms Act in order to deny it to criminals, I and the other couple hundred million non-criminals were also denied any possible legal use of the weapon. I sometimes thought of how handy that little gun might be when rabbit hunting in thick brush and briers, too. Some violations of our freedoms such as that one might be justified if they actually worked as intended, but last I heard, the criminal element is still making short guns out of long ones with a saw and a few minutes of effort.....only difference is they now can use a stolen cordless jigsaw and do the job quicker and easier than when I was a kid.
I was very glad to see the emergency rule that Kyle Hupfer put in place, allowing properly licensed bowhunters to carry concealed while bowhunting. I always did think it was a direct slap in the face for the state to assume that if we were carrying a pistol, we'd be likely to use it to take our deer illegally. We got a tiny bit of our freedom back there. Hope the new guy who now sits in Kyle's chair supports keeping the rule. It still needs to be made permanent when they meet on the rules this spring.
I didn't mean to imply that I would disagree with you on everything else, just some selected areas 8^).
I'm all for freedom, and agree with you that we've traded way too many of ours already for safety, or the illusion of safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 25, 2007 22:22:05 GMT -5
Hunter480, Thank you for the kind thoughts. I suspect also that we'd agree on more issues than we disagree on. We might be on the same side of some issues for very different reasons, though.
I always enjoy reading your posts. Even when I disagree with your conclusion on a particular matter, I respect your thoughtful approach and your clear expression of your position. I look forward to continuing our discussions on many topics, and I hope you understand that if it seems like we're arguing more often than agreeing, it's only because it's so much more interesting to debate than to simply say "Ditto".
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Jan 25, 2007 23:00:26 GMT -5
Hunter480, Thank you for the kind thoughts. I suspect also that we'd agree on more issues than we disagree on. We might be on the same side of some issues for very different reasons, though. I always enjoy reading your posts. Even when I disagree with your conclusion on a particular matter, I respect your thoughtful approach and your clear expression of your position. I look forward to continuing our discussions on many topics, and I hope you understand that if it seems like we're arguing more often than agreeing, it's only because it's so much more interesting to debate than to simply say "Ditto". Ditto. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by nodog on Jan 26, 2007 8:06:20 GMT -5
nodog, I think you are seeing something in my post that wasn't really there. I don't advocate making theft legal. I was just saying that there are circumstances when nearly anything that we normally consider to be wrong, may be the right thing to do in that very limited situation. I think that's often dismissed as being "situational ethics", but to me it's just being realistic in the recognizing that life doesn't always fit into the neat pigeonholes that we try to assign it to.. No one said the punishment shouldn't fit the crime, but to take a crime and make it OK based on the fear of something, is just what is happening. I'm not necessarily speaking of crimes, but the use of fear, an emotion, to pass legislation. Fear of this or that is used these days by the boat loads by those in power to move the masses to do and give up all kinds of things. This mans views, Clayton Cramer, spell it out better than anyone I've ever read or heard. One of my favorite books, (not historical per say, but could be a great deal one, I've just never checked it out), deals with a man who stole food to feed kids. Great book! Les Miserable by Victor Hugo. (spelling?) I also think your missing one of the main points, and that is, use the history of something to understand it's application and secondary applications, not pigeonholing something. One of the historical points Cramer points out is that the government has the right to call out all it's citizens for service and it expects them to come armed. In the not so distant past there were laws mandating people to be armed in this country, not only for their own scalpes, but for their neighbors saftey as well. I agree on the traffic checks for DUI. Also we probably agree on the regulations that are based on the suspicion that we would be likely to do something illegal if we were free to have or use the item being regulated. This not only applies to guns, but to specific types of guns. When I used to fish a lot more, I often thought how neat it would be to carry a sawed-off .410 break-action single shot in the tackle box for the occasional opportunity that came up to take something legally with it, or for protection of self and family. Unfortunately, since that type of gun was made illegal by the 1935 Forearms Act in order to deny it to criminals, I and the other couple hundred million non-criminals were also denied any possible legal use of the weapon. I sometimes thought of how handy that little gun might be when rabbit hunting in thick brush and briers, too. Some violations of our freedoms such as that one might be justified if they actually worked as intended, but last I heard, the criminal element is still making short guns out of long ones with a saw and a few minutes of effort.....only difference is they now can use a stolen cordless jigsaw and do the job quicker and easier than when I was a kid. I was very glad to see the emergency rule that Kyle Hupfer put in place, allowing properly licensed bowhunters to carry concealed while bowhunting. I always did think it was a direct slap in the face for the state to assume that if we were carrying a pistol, we'd be likely to use it to take our deer illegally. We got a tiny bit of our freedom back there. Hope the new guy who now sits in Kyle's chair supports keeping the rule. It still needs to be made permanent when they meet on the rules this spring. I didn't mean to imply that I would disagree with you on everything else, just some selected areas 8^). I'm all for freedom, and agree with you that we've traded way too many of ours already for safety, or the illusion of safety. Were talking now. ;D Crazy way to make laws. I wish we could pass some of our own laws just to make it fair. These people who make laws have all kinds of baggage associated with thier occupations. If we could pass some of our own laws based on the fear of what they might do... Someday maybe. |
|
