His latest straight talk is in regards to the 2nd Amendment in the United States' Bill of Rights and its importance today when considering the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Paul often refers to the September 11th attacks as a prime example of where, if the government didn't impose laws preventing private air travel companies from having their pilots carry a firearm, the planes may not have been hijacked using box cutters. He uses the same logic in reference to the attacks on Mumbai.
From what I can gather from some quick googling, India allows private ownership of fire-arms as long as it is permitted by "Licensing Authorities". Lenin once said "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie," but that's neither here nor there. Not only does the Indian government control the ownership of arms, they own the industry as well. Private manufacturers are limited on the quantity and type of fire-arms they can produce. In the 1980s, the Indian government also banned all fire-arm imports. The Indian government has subsequently been artificially pushing the prices of fire-arms and related materials very high, to a point where individuals cannot afford to buy a decent firearm.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk, "Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots":
Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.
Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?
India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.
Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.
The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.
History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.
In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.
11 comments:
It haven't said much around here in a while, but this one is tough to pass up.
I really don't know where to start, so I'll just pick one or two thoughts that jump out at me...
"If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools?"
I would like to see a statistic that says this. I, myself, woudl assume that the worst shootings occur in war zones. War zones which, in fact, function under a Convention that states guns are okay, cus everybody on that field is expected to have one.
"aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows"
My instinct says these people come together with a common cause for a short period of time, while focusing their attention on this shared interest.
"Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children."
Does he REALLY have to mention the children? Hitler wasn't dramatic enough?
"........."
I would assume Dr. Paul's examples of this working are to be read between the lines?
"Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be."
Oh... yeah... that may be the reason none of what I am about to say will work out if ever implemented, says Paul.
I was actually thinking you might have something to say about my prorogue post...anyhow...
"I would like to see a statistic that says this."
"Worst" is subjective so no statistic can support his statement. You either agree that Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Dawson College represent the worst private abuse of gun ownership in our current society, or you don't. Its a fair observation though that these incidents exist in gun-free locations.
"I, myself, would assume that the worst shootings occur in war zones."
Yes. Couldn't agree with you more that the worst abuse of fire-arms is taken by the government. Thank you for pointing this out.
"My instinct says these people come together with a common cause for a short period of time, while focusing their attention on this shared interest."
Ok...that's typically the point of most conventions...
"Does he REALLY have to mention the children? Hitler wasn't dramatic enough?"
Is Hitler not a fair allusion? Does the government not use protection of children as a reason to legislate anti-gun laws?
" 'Worst' is subjective so no statistic can support his statement."
I am sorry for assuming his 'worst' may be subjective. I just tend to find there is little reason and emotion in what he says.
"You either agree that Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Dawson College represent the worst private abuse of gun ownership in our current society, or you don't."
There is a big difference between private abuse of gun ownership and the worst shootings, period.
"Couldn't agree with you more that the worst abuse of fire-arms is taken by the government."
Whether or not this is the case, my focus is on the notion that there are aged documents which give governments the right to fight with one another with machines. May he who is able to support himself with a)the most bodies or b)the most destructive of weapons win. Period.
"Ok...that's typically the point of most conventions..."
Completely debasing Paul's comparisons of gun shows to schools.
"Does the government not use protection of children as a reason to legislate anti-gun laws?"
Of course. And pro-gun supporters, as is the case in this article, use children as lures as well. Paul is implying in his statement that those who support gun regulations are NOT concerned about children and that this should worry those defenders of the 2nd who really do worry about our young. "...under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children." Can you not admit that following up a comment on Hitler with this is a tad melodramatic?
P.S.- Still wondering which case he has presented where his theories work?
Also, I will post on the proroque post... once I figure it out in my head... Cus I am stumped..
"I just tend to find there is little reason and emotion in what he says."
Paul is full of reason and emotion, he just doesn't feel emotion has a role in guiding government policies.
"There is a big difference between private abuse of gun ownership and the worst shootings, period."
Whats an example of private abuse of gun ownership and why wouldn't a public shooting qualify as such?
"my focus is on the notion that there are aged documents which give governments the right to fight with one another with machines."
These aged documents have obviously brought so much good to the world it makes me want to put them through my shredder. Rights aren't derived from documents.
"May he who is able to support himself with a)the most bodies or b)the most destructive of weapons win."
Win what? And what happens to the loser? I'm surprised such a statement would come from an individual who seems to be completely against the use of fire-arms for personal protection. So, the government has rights to use weapons for murder given to them by "aged" documents, and government also should have the right to take guns away from individuals...I assume this right also comes from an "aged document" which therefore makes it right. . .and Paul lacks reason. . .The simple fact is that my life is my most valuable asset as is yours. Who am I to tell you you cannot protect all that is your existence by any means you deem necessary? You and I are rather lucky in that we've lived our lives without fear. But some do live with fear and I cannot blame someone for using all that is necessary to protect him/herself.
"Paul is implying in his statement that those who support gun regulations are NOT concerned about children"
He is not implying that and he does not believe that. He understands that those who are not in line with his philosophy do care greatly. He just believes they take the wrong action. For example, health care. He would say the same thing about people who are for nationalized health care, ". . .under the guise of providing quality health care to everyone". He doesn't think the individuals behind promotion these policies are evil, he just thinks they don't understand the causes of government intervention.
"Still wondering which case he has presented where his theories work?"
All of his theories? Well the US got to be a super power somehow...and its the closest you would ever get...its massive government intervention that's been ruining it.
"Whats an example of private abuse of gun ownership and why wouldn't a public shooting qualify as such?"
I was refering to your defense of Paul's comments by changing his words. He said worst shooting, you said worst private shooting.
"Rights aren't derived from documents."
Then stop citing the second amendment.
"I'm surprised such a statement would come from an individual who seems to be completely against the use of fire-arms for personal protection."
It is the absurdity of believing this system would work that I look to show. Were pilots allowed to carry guns, hijackers would not use box cutters. They would simply understand more men or more sophisticated weaponery is necessary.
If there were no control over the posession of guns and other machines it would be a constant circle of upsizing and out-doing.
"Well the US got to be a super power somehow..."
Generations of slavery didn't have naything to do with this, did it? If we want to use Hitler as a reason to avoid control of guns maybe we should use the plight of blacks in America as the downside of leaving people to control their own situations by violence and fear. If I am not mistaken, it was the use of ideas, moral pressure and peaceful conviction that righted the ship (at least to a more tolerable degree than was once found.) Even Malcolm X, the civil rights leader who agreed that being allowed to carry guns was the only way to improve his people's situation eventually saw the absurdity in this logic.
"These aged documents have obviously brought so much good to the world it makes me want to put them through my shredder. Rights aren't derived from documents."
I guess that's why history is the history of the stronger trampling all over the rights of others! Rights are not derived from anywhere other than action.
"Even Malcolm X, the civil rights leader who agreed that being allowed to carry guns was the only way to improve his people's situation eventually saw the absurdity in this logic."
I wholeheartedly disagree with this conclusion, and wholeheartedly any libertarian's right to use George Orwell's words to protect their ideology. George Orwell was far left. Look it up; it's true.
That said, Orwell was right; an armed populace is one of the wellsprings of democracy and any future revolutions. If you are pro-revolution, you need to be pro-gun. There's no room for argument on this point.
"I was refering to your defense of Paul's comments by changing his words. He said worst shooting, you said worst private shooting."
And yet we were referring to the same thing.
"If we want to use Hitler as a reason to avoid control of guns maybe we should use the plight of blacks in America as the downside of leaving people to control their own situations by violence and fear."
Noone here is supporting slavery. It can be said though that today we live off of the backs of the third world, which is just as morally reprehensible as slavery on our main land. We can probably look at most economic prosperity in the history of the world and associate it somehow with slave labour.
I think using Hitler as a reference to current day events is becoming more applicable than ever. As the economic conditions of the world worsen, governments become more unstable. Look what is happening in Canada. Do you not think if the world heads into a depression, it would be a time like this another Hitler could come to power? History is full of dictators that have brought misery to the world. Shall we be so arrogant to believe our government could never take such a turn? Of course not.
"an armed populace is one of the wellsprings of democracy and any future revolutions."
Fully aware that I may sound naive I am willing to defend that an armed populace is not the best solution to power falling into the wrong hands and being misdirected.
In his "Wretched of the Earth", psychiatrist Franz Fanon wrote of the struggle of his contemporaries in colonial Algeria and saw their only escape as violent, purging uprising. He saw such action as serving two purposes: 1) the overturning of power, as one can only fight fire with fire. 2) In the colonial setting (or any setting in which one is intimidating or scared into following a doctrine from a ruler) violence is necessary to let oneself free from the inferiority complex that sets in. (i.e. They are big, I am small, what do I know about right and wrong, helpful and harmful?)
In his later years, however, Fanon got more and more involved with the Negritude movement-a French school or poetry that celebrated the beauty of Black Africa. He came to see that it is in sharing and celebrating one's strengths and views outside of armed struggle that true emancipation could be had. His reasoning was based on the study of ongoing cycles of violence that plagued much of the world. Sure, one group was able to revolt and rise through the use of arms but, once gaining entry to the powerful ranks, were forced to defend their position with the same violent tendencies they used to arrive to that point. If anyone were to rise up against their will, it was in a violent way, as it was felt that to defeat a government ruling by intimidation and force, once must fight fire with fire. This new class of rulers will then rule through the same intimidation and force used to attain power... It continues.
A look at the African continent today shows that he was right in predicting, even before the first countries were freed from colonialism, that independence through violence would only lead to more of the same.
This is a circle that has continued for ages and continues today. Violence only invokes more violence. A doctrine truly worth guarding and protecting is not one that must be forced through killing and bleeding but one that is based on such reason that people are willing to live in it.
If we look at the civil rights struggle in the US, for example, non-violent means were used to overturn the ways in which people saw their fellow countrymen. Life is still not perfect, but the story shows how using the proper avenues-emerging technologies like television and an increase in distribution of newspapers, etc-minds were changed by the sheer power of a message being sent. It was revolution and it was, in immeasurable ways, successful. Many lives were lost along the way, but ingrained mentalities were shifted and a people who suffered a massive inferiority complex was, in many ways, freed of their own imprisonment.
I do not have the answer as to how we are to create this monumental shift in mentality, but I cannot be convinced that approving of a mass circulation of lethal weapons in the name of self-defense is the way.
"If we look at the civil rights struggle in the US, for example, non-violent means were used to overturn the ways in which people saw their fellow countrymen."
Which specific non-violent action was taken alone which significantly altered the way in which people view their fellow countrymen?
"I cannot be convinced that approving of a mass circulation of lethal weapons in the name of self-defense is the way."
No one is suggesting a mass circulation of "lethal" weapons. I love the adjective "lethal" by the way. Otherwise I wouldn't know a weapon is used to kill. You should honestly just call them fire arms because we know you're not talking about knives or anything else that doesn't propel an object a speeds so high it will penetrate the skin.
I'm suggesting individuals should be free to defend themselves at any means necessary. I'm not a gun lover. I'm the last person that should own a gun. I would be overly fascinated with it and I'm sure, being the klutz I am, would put those around me at risk of harm. However, I am not arrogant enough to suggest another individual shouldn't take the means they deem necessary for protection.
I don't discount the points you've made. But you're right, there's no visible answer as to how we create this monumental shift mentality. Most monumental shifts in the history of humanity have come from violence.
As long as government claims the right to bear arms, so should individuals. If its illegal for the populace, it should be illegal for the government as the government is simply an extension of the populace and lives on no higher playing field. No individual is above the law, and any law should exist equal for all individuals (as much as I hate laws).
While its a worthy goal to work toward abolishing all firearms, the reality is that in our life time this will most likely not happen. Humanity lives through a continual power struggle that cannot be ignored or willed away. Its either a power struggled between governments, or political parties, or individuals, or businesses, or religions or social classes. And all of these groups have a history of using physical force to get what they want. Ghandi, MLK, and Jesus are very admirable individuals, unfortunately they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
There's a differnce between a vanguard or organized leadership being armed and the populace being armed. If a revolution is truly a revolution, then the people will want revolution. This is the first wave was called the "Red Tide". People wanted revolution, but didnt have the weapons. Only a small vanguard did. They took over many states and at least half of those states became dictatorships. When the people are armed, and significant majority of them want revolution, then an armed populace is a virtue. The American revolution is an example of this. The French revolution is more complex, but let's just say that the fact that the populace was not fully armed played a key role in the transition of revolutionary France to Napoleanic France. The American revolutionaries all had muskets. The French fought with muskets, pistols, and knives alongside the French army. And since the French army retained power after the first French constitution of 1791, and then 1793, more conservative, tyrannical elements of that army were able to pass a constitution in 1795 that recinded the rights to free association and rebellion. How were these rights so easily recinded? The French army was well-armed and the populace was not. This led to Napolean and 14 years of empire.
Post a Comment